Calls For FCC Ownership Changes

[Rusty Muck]

It actually doesn't require an act of congress. All it needs is for the FCC to follow the law as written. The intent is clear.

This has been a multi-administration problem at this point and solely because of the polarization between the commissioners. At a certain point the FCC needs to be replaced outright with an nonpartisan agency not connected to either branch of government (I wish!) or the division will get worse.

 

[Mark Roberts]

In reading their latest ownership rules decision, it was obvious that its not a consideration at all.

I'm thinking that the 1940 Sanders Brothers decision from the Supreme Court is being interpreted to prevent it from being a consideration.

Yeah, I know, Wikipedia, but the article appears consistent with a quick review of contemporaneous Broadcasting articles. FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station - Wikipedia

 

[Rusty Muck]

I'm thinking that the 1940 Sanders Brothers decision from the Supreme Court is being interpreted to prevent it from being a consideration.

Yeah, I know, Wikipedia, but the article appears consistent with a quick review of contemporaneous Broadcasting articles. FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station - Wikipedia

So in effect, the FCC's stance will likely be that they are merely following SCOTUS precedent? 🤔

 

[TheBigA]

I'm thinking that the 1940 Sanders Brothers decision from the Supreme Court is being interpreted to prevent it from being a consideration.

So in effect, the FCC's stance will likely be that they are merely following SCOTUS precedent? 🤔

If so, that precedent predates the current law, amended by congress in 1996. It is the current law they should be following, not the one that was cited in 1940. An agency can't pick & choose which version of the law it prefers.

 

[Rusty Muck]

If so, that precedent predates the current law, amended by congress in 1996. It is the current law they should be following, not the one that was cited in 1940. An agency can't pick & choose which version of the law it prefers.

Facts and reason are the first things to go out the window in a partisan fight.

 

[TheBigA]

Facts and reason are the first things to go out the window in a partisan fight.

That's why you go to court. You hope someone is impartial.

 

[Mark Roberts]

If so, that precedent predates the current law, amended by congress in 1996. It is the current law they should be following, not the one that was cited in 1940. An agency can't pick & choose which version of the law it prefers.

It depends on whether the 1996 act superseded all provisions of the 1934 act as amended. There may have been provisions that the 1996 act didn't address. I am not a lawyer, so that's as far as I'm going with this. It is clear that the commission has, for decades, been hesitant to wade into issues of economic viability.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not a lawyer, so that's as far as I'm going with this. It is clear that the commission has, for decades, been hesitant to wade into issues of economic viability.

And yet the commission loosened ownership limits in the early 1990s, from the original 5-5-5 to 7-7-7, and then even more, until the 1996 act loosened them to their current numbers. After that, all of a sudden, everything stops.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

After that, all of a sudden, everything stops.

Probably because the public had enough and demanded a stop to it.

 

[TheBigA]

Probably because the public had enough and demanded a stop to it.

The public has no role in the matter. It's up to the FCC.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

The FCC is a government agency. Between election outcomes and public pressure, of course the public has a role in the matter.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC is a government agency. Between election outcomes and public pressure, of course the public has a role in the matter.

So after Congress passed the bi-partisan Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the very next election, the people voted in George W. Bush. He appointed Michael Powell as Chairman of the FCC, who continued to deregulate radio, and approved the expansion of Clear Channel to almost 1000 radio stations. Then they re-elected Bush to 4 more years.

The public hates government regulations. That's why they keep electing republicans.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

The public hates government regulations. That's why they keep electing republicans.

Wow. You mean the Republicans who hate regulations so much they keep coming up with ways to restrict reproductive health, keep trans kids out of sports, ban books, ban mention of gender identity and sexual orientation? I could go on but yeah, people vote for Republicans because they obviously hate government regulations.

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed we have a Democratic President and Senate right now, and a the House that has just a razor-thin, totally dysfunctional Republican majority. So no, your blanket statement that "the public" keeps electing Republicans is a lie. Typically less than half do, and those ones benefit from gerrymandering and an electoral college slanted in their favor.

 

[Rusty Muck]

That's why you go to court. You hope someone is impartial.

In theory, yes. But the composition of this appeals court throws that right out the window as any critical ruling will be labeled "judicial activism" from a "rogue court".

If SCOTUS rules unanimously, then that's that. If it's a party-line ruling, though....

 

[TheBigA]

Wow. You mean the Republicans who hate regulations so much they keep coming up with ways to restrict reproductive health,

They're hypocrites. They're also the party of law & order. But when it comes to radio, they hate regulations.

So no, your blanket statement that "the public" keeps electing Republicans is a lie.

What matters in this particular case is 10 of the 11 judges were appointed by repubs. That's why the plaintiffs are expecting to win.

 

[Rusty Muck]

They're hypocrites. They're also the party of law & order. But when it comes to radio, they hate regulations.

Because the remaining broadcast chains—radio and television—will be sympathetic to them. It's why Sinclair engages in editorial interference from the top down in local newscasts to benefit Republicans and conservative ideology. Control the message.

What matters in this particular case is 10 of the 11 judges were appointed by repubs. That's why the plaintiffs are expecting to win.

And it's why hopes of any resolution in this matter got thrown out the window. The Dems will assail whatever ruling is made.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

What matters in this particular case is 10 of the 11 judges were appointed by repubs. That's why the plaintiffs are expecting to win.

I was replying to your statement that the commission loosened ownership limits in the early 1990s and then all of a sudden, everything stopped.

On the matter of the court, I can't argue with you about that. As usual there's always a partisan venue that will get things done for their buddies that most people don't want.

 

[Rusty Muck]

I was replying to your statement that the commission loosened ownership limits in the early 1990s and then all of a sudden, everything stopped.

On the matter of the court, I can't argue with you about that. As usual there's always a partisan venue that will get things done for their buddies that most people don't want.

There is a major crisis in broadcast media in general, and for the viability for local news operations in particular. Unfettered deregulation (which seems to be what everyone but iHeartMedia wants) would merely be the final nudge over the edge.

 

[TheBigA]

There is a major crisis in broadcast media in general, and for the viability for local news operations in particular. Unfettered deregulation (which seems to be what everyone but iHeartMedia wants) would merely be the final nudge over the edge.

The problem isn't deregulation. It's finding someone to pay for news. You can't regulate that.

 

[TheBigA]

I was replying to your statement that the commission loosened ownership limits in the early 1990s and then all of a sudden, everything stopped.

You left out the 1996 act, and the fact that Michael Powell continued other deregulations into the 2000s.

Then there was the merger of Sirius and XM, forming a satellite radio monopoly.