i dont understand this thread.
i mean, it is not as though the fcc under bush has not been a problematic organization--but i really am not sure that i understand how the op illustrates that, or even begins to speak to it.
this part of the article (thanks uber) DOES point to one of the problems with the retro-fcc: the ludicrous "faith in the private sector" and belief that "less regulation is better" in a context of accelerated concentration of ownership of mass media:
Quote:
The penalty is part of a consent decree that would pave the way for Univision Communications Inc. to complete its $12.3 billion sale to private investors.
The decree awaits approval by a majority of the agency's five commissioners. The chairman, Kevin J. Martin, told The New York Times he supported it.
"I generally believe that consumers benefit from less regulation, not more," he said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. "However, I take broadcasters' responsibilities to serve the public very seriously, especially regarding their children's programming obligations."
|
if you are interested in checking out a website full of information about how and why the conservative confusion of "free markets" in media with concentration of ownership (when they look at a reality dominated by concentration, they see "market forces at work") is really not good for any of us, go here:
http://www.prometheusradio.org/
caveat (a) i have friends who work for this group
caveat (b): the site is organization chronologically and so is a little confusing to navigate if you are looking for their major position papers, etc.---check out the main links on your left as you look at the page--ownership, spectrum reform.
prometheus is a group geared around low-powered community radio--what would now still be called pirate radio as a function of the fcc's ridiculous rules for licensing etc. their main claim is that concentration of ownership is resulting in a flattening of perspectives--pro-corporate, pseudo-local infotainment is squeezing out space for a diversity of perspectives and orientations relative to communities. they have had considerable success.
from this viewpoint, the thread is wholly misdirected: what it seems to be motivated by is objection to the fcc's curious kiddie-kontent rules, which can only come from a position that views all state regulation as a bad thing: the problem is much more the absence of regulation, the abandonment of anything like a sense that, in a democracy (even a shallow one) diversity of information is fundamental in favor of a "free-market" ideology that, in the end, is just an enabliong condition for concentration.
beneath this is a more general problem of whether conservative "free market" ideology as made operational in the real world and not in econ 101 diagrams results in anything beyond more concentration of ownership...and what are the effects of concentration? do you want them? well to answer that, you'd have to think about these relations.