WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate on Tuesday defied Bush administration opposition and voted to rescind new regulations allowing large media companies to grow even bigger. The Senate approved, 55-40, a resolution that would roll back the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) rules allowing television networks to own more local stations and permitting conglomerates to own a newspaper, television stations and radio outlets in a single market. The measure faces a tougher battle in the U.S. House of Representatives and a threat of a veto by President Bush (news - web sites) if it reaches his desk. The Republican-led FCC (news - web sites) narrowly adopted the new rules in June, which would allow television networks to own local stations that collectively reach 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent. The new rules permit one company to own a newspaper, a television station and several radio stations in a single market, lifting a decades-old ban on cross-ownership. A company would also be permitted to own two local television stations in more local markets. The regulations were drawn up under the leadership of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who argued the relaxed limits were necessary to reflect the proliferation of cable, satellite television and the Internet offerings as well as preserve over-the-air broadcast television. Television networks like Viacom Inc.'s (NYSE:VIAB - news) CBS and News Corp.'s (NCP.AX)(NYSE:NWS - news) Fox contended they need to acquire more local stations to better compete against cable and satellite television services. Critics, ranging from the National Rifle Association to Consumers Union as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress, charged that the rules would narrow the choices of viewpoints and cut local news coverage. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030916/ts_nm/media_congress_dc_4
It's not over yet. It's great to see some Republicans taking a true conservative view, instead of the Bush Administration's... "The bar is open! Help yourself!" approach to governing... reward your contributors and call it "conservative", even if it's not. "Hey, who's gonna notice?? Rush will call them all 'leftist wackos' anyway. That's all the base listens to." Bush and friends count on Republicans buying into that BS. I know several who are getting really angry at the Administration. Bush and his backers are getting so greedy it's starting to sink in to their own party just how outrageous they are.
Green, I don't understand you. In the Ashcroft thread, you quote Jefferson and Franklin and their views of a small, representative government; yet here you are applauding government control and restrictions on what should be a private industry?? With deregulation, there is usually some short-term monopolies, but eventually it will become a competetive landscape as all deregulated businesses eventually do.
Bush has to be pissed, but in a way it is a good fundraising gig for him. I predict that Rhove is now on the phones hitting up big media for some more payola and donations as he will promise to try to deliver the goods to Clear Channel and his contributors.
Yeah.. if they are dumb enough to pay up. Even if it gets a majority in the house.. its going to get Vetoed. Last time I checked 55-40 isnt a 2/3rds majority.
GV, there is a big difference between moderate and conservative Republicans and those who have captured the Republican leadship and are behind Bush. (and Perry, etc.)
I never said I wanted a "small" government. I want a *representative* government, and I think it's their responsibility to control what should be a sacred public trust. Independent news and un-restricted information are the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. The more companies that own media outlets, the better. It's the same with buying a car -- if there are more choices locally, you can find the right product at the right price. If there's only one dealership, how many choices do you have? And how good does the product have to be? And let's not fool ourselves. These giant media conglomerates *already* own 80 percent of the market. This resolution just keeps them from owning 90 percent.
The problem is, though, that removing the limits on media ownership would not deregulate the industry. We're still left with the limited broadcast spectrum, and starting a new television or radio station is still extremely difficult, if not impossible, in many markets, especially since any station allocation goes up for auction. Remove the barriers and the big media companies could simply outbid whoever else was interested in starting an alternative television or radio station when the license (or construction permit) came up for FCC auction. Even newspapers are a different medium. I can go start a newspaper tomorrow if I want to, and there's no limit (beyond economics) to how many newspapers a market can have. There are legal limits on who can own a television station and how many stations there can be.
FD Khan, your platitudes about markets and competition break down in the field of regulated industries and natural monopolies; that's not a contention, that's econ 101. In any event, there are other more compelling reasons in this instance to reject this ill planned deregulation/giveaway. I'd like to express appreciation for those Republicans in the senate, with trent lott probably foremost among them, for actually growing some balls for a change and voting their conscience, not Karl Rove's marching orders. Same goes for Safire. I don't understand why McCain is so in favor of this. He's Mr. Populist when it comes to campaign finance, but he's in Clear Channel's pocket on this one. Disappointing. September 17, 2003 The Senate Says No By WILLIAM SAFIRE ow are a majority of Americans, standing with a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress, going to stop the Federal Communications Commission from making the biggest mistake in its existence? A handful of media giants want to further concentrate their power by gobbling up more local TV and radio stations, beyond the 35-percent-of-penetration limit. The F.C.C. chairman has called arguments for local diversity "garbage" and this week branded the proposed Senate resolution disapproving of his anything-goes ruling as "bordering on the absurd." The Senate answered this arrogance yesterday by voting, 55 to 40, for Senator Byron Dorgan's resolution to disapprove the F.C.C.'s green light for power-grabbing. Though a House majority would agree, the G.O.P. leadership there declared the Senate bill "dead on arrival" and will block a vote. Therefore, the Senate's expression becomes a dramatic gesture, but not law. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has put a hold on the F.C.C.'s ruling. When administration lawyers tried to yank the case over to a D.C. appeals court — more likely to rubber-stamp the order — the Philadelphia judges said nothing doing. That gives Congress time to pass legislation directing the F.C.C. to hold the line against the Disney-G.E.-Fox-Viacom takeovers. The F.C.C. chairman, Michael Powell, sensing that not even his friendship with Senator John McCain nor his backing by Big Media is stopping the popular groundswell, has resorted to a fear appeal: that stopping more gobbling up of local stations by the broadcast networks will be the ruination of "free TV." That's the ludicrous party line being peddled by G.E., which owns NBC. But four-fifths of broadcast network TV is now delivered to homes by cable or satellite — not free — and NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox are making money hand over fist. "Powell's Last Stand" on this false argument has become an embarrassment to the Bush White House, which has been foolishly threatening to veto any disapproval of the F.C.C.'s abdication of the public interest. (The G.O.P. leader Tom DeLay still can't get 148 signatures on a letter promising to sustain what would be Bush's first veto.) How do we break out of this impasse, with the mediopoly and its political trained seals on the merger side, and with the most diverse coalition of lefties and righties ever assembled on the other? Senator Trent Lott, a Republican, knows how these things work; I crosshatched his analysis with that of a savvy Democratic mole in the House. Yesterday's Senate expression of disapproval was a good sign, but will die in the House. The bill already passed by McCain's Senate Commerce Committee detailing what the F.C.C. must do to protect diversity in TV as well as radio, and to restrict new cross-ownership of TV and newspapers, will not soon get a floor vote as the majority leader, Bill Frist, goes along with White House wishes. But thanks to the canny Alaskan Ted Stevens, the rollback of the Powell abomination will appear in the Senate appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice and State Departments. It is already in the House bill funding those departments, and Democrats will not let it be stripped out behind closed doors in conference. Thus even restraint of cross-ownership of newspapers and TV — which those of us in diversity's ranks thought a lost cause — may be carried along in the wave of resentment against the 45-percent-of-TV-audience penetrators. "Today's victory — and don't kid yourself, it stunned 'em — is just one step in the process," says Lott. "The final step will be even harder for the president or the leadership to stop. An appropriations bill for Commerce-Justice-State — that would be hard to veto over the issue of a regulatory review." Why would the president want to bring the financing of the war on terror to a grinding halt to rescue an appointee aching to resign? Or to curry favor with a tight bunch of media biggies who might use their ever-greater power to turn on him when he least expects it? The first Bush veto should advance a principle, not be wasted on a bow to a muscular Mickey Mouse. Libertarians of the left and right are resisting the concentration of power and insisting on the preservation of competition. This strange bedfellowship will not equivocate, and we will be heard. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company