That was a very different time. That was a bi-partisan bill that passed overwhelmingly. They don't do that much anymore.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
This is terrible news for the future of on-air talent
- Thread starter MarkW
- Start date
That was a very different time. That was a bi-partisan bill that passed overwhelmingly. They don't do that much anymore.
Still, they were politicians, by definition.
But keep in mind that a driving force of that act was the fear by those same politicians that "Big Radio" could be potentially a greater influence on politics than newspapers. They imagined Pulitzer, Hearst, Scripps and others forming large groups of high power stations with immense coverage and influence.
So owners were restricted to 7 stations and power was limited to 50 kw on just a few stations. Take that, you media barons!
Dude, my monocle just fell out!
Dude, may I suggest a place to reinsert your monocle?
I'm afraid to ask where...
And yet the telecom act passed overwhelmingly: 414 to 16 in the house, and 95 to 5 in the Senate. Try doing that today.
And that is my point. No matter the party, politicians of all flavors wanted regulations that would not let radio companies and their stations be "too big".
As a result, they made it possible for more consolidation in telecom than in radio. We now basically have only three phone companies that each do a lot more than just own phone lines. Those phone companies have more power over what we do than any single media company.
And those same telecom companies now have control of the Internet, because it rides on their backbone.
Big thread derail here, but as I came into this thread late and read it backwards, Petrillo's name jumped out at me. Looney Tunes cartoons were full of references only adults would get, and here's one: At the end of "Hurdy-Gurdy Hare", Bugs Bunny exclaims "I sure hope Petrillo doesn't hear about this!" Almost 60 years after I first saw this cartoon, I get it.
The problem is it's even more difficult to regulate things like you mentioned in a political climate where foreign actors trying to sew chaos are in play.
Be glad it's not Canada where the three phone companies also own most radio and TV stations, TV networks, cable news, sports and entertainment channels, the cable and satellite systems that distribute them, streaming services and the internet service providers needed to access them, the sports teams carried by them, the production companies responsible for making the shows, the podcast networks, the advertising agencies, the outdoor advertising business.... and more. Oh, and the most expensive cell phone service in the civilized world.
Sorry, but I have to be pedantic here: I think you meant "sow chaos". Though the image of someone sewing chaos seems reflective of an attempt to constrain it and make it less chaotic through the strategic application of thread.
I noticed that immediately, but I didn't want to be "that guy."Sorry, but I have to be pedantic here: I think you meant "sow chaos". Though the image of someone sewing chaos seems reflective of an attempt to constrain it and make it less chaotic through the strategic application of thread.
Wasn't paying attention to what auto-correct does before hitting send.Sorry, but I have to be pedantic here: I think you meant "sow chaos". Though the image of someone sewing chaos seems reflective of an attempt to constrain it and make it less chaotic through the strategic application of thread.
- Status