Senate Votes to Reverse New Media Rules

[JonSlice]

Senate Votes to Reverse New Media Rules
1 hour, 45 minutes ago


By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Tuesday defied opposition from the Bush administration and voted 55-40 to rescind new regulations allowing large media companies to grow even bigger.



Fearing fewer viewpoints and decreasing local news coverage, 12 Republicans joined most of the Democrats to back a resolution that would undo rules narrowly adopted by the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission in June.


Those rules would allow television networks to own more local stations and permitting a company to own a newspaper, television stations and radio outlets in a single market.


The FCC rules do "not protect the localism and the diversity, particularly in the newspaper-television market," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record), Republican from Texas.


The resolution of disapproval faces a tougher battle in the U.S. House of Representatives and a threat of a veto by President Bush if it reaches his desk. It would take 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.


"I know of no plans to bring it up," House Speaker Dennis Hastert's spokesman John Feehery said of the resolution.


The House has already passed a bill that would prevent the FCC from spending money to enforce its new national television cap for a year, and the Senate is expected to follow. The White House has threatened to also veto that measure.


After ordered by an appeals court to better justify its media ownership rules, the three FCC Republican commissioners approved the new regulations, 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 would also 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.


"That disapproval resolution absolutely muddies the media regulatory waters," Powell said in a telephone interview ahead of the vote. He added that if Congress did not like the new rules, it should give the agency better guidance "and not these odd anti-votes that only cloud the picture."


Television networks like Viacom Inc.'s CBS and News Corp.'s Fox contended they need to acquire more local stations to compete against cable and satellite television services.


But the changes have drawn fire from a slew of critics ranging from the National Rifle Association to Consumers Union as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress.


"If we allow the limited broadcast spectrum to be controlled by a handful of companies, how can we maintain the free marketplace of ideas?" said Sen. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader.


A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has already put the new FCC rules on hold, pending judicial review. The judges plan to hear arguments in early November.

[hepkatmama]

did anyone watch the flashpoint on pbs last nite about this?

the interview with Powell was interesting. he doesn't have horns if u were wondering.

on one side of his mouth he talked about how big media is necessary for free tv to compete with pay for tv like cable & satellite.

out of the other side of this mouth he talked about how there have been cases of the emergency broadcast system FAILING as a direct result of big media being so detached from the local communities they serve. u know how it goes

*BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*
if this had been an actual emergency this signal would be followed by information from state & local authorities, bla bla bla

basically if there is a serious emergency we should listen to the radio & watch tv (just like night of the living dead) to know what is going on & how to deal.

a train derailed in ND recently, the explosion caused a toxic cloud of some ammonia based gas to settle over the town. CLEARCHANNEL owned all 6 radio stations & none of them had any information for over 1 1/2 hours. cause they pipe in the music from outside the area that it serves.

300 ppl were treated for respiratory problems, skin burns & there was one death as a result of this tragedy.

perhaps the number would have been smaller if the emergency broadcasting system worked.

if the fcc doesn't force these corporations to deal with these kind of situations, the government must. shouldn't homeland security deal with all this?

how can they SUGGEST letting media conglomo's get bigger when they are already slacking with what they have?

[JonSlice]

Originally posted by WarLord
But the "resolution of dispproval" is seen having little chance in House. President Bush has vowed to veto any congressional move overruling the FCC policy changes. Yesterday's vote suggested the Senate would be at least six votes short of overriding a Bush veto.

Even if it doesn't pass at least this story shows the republican controlled senate doing something right. Come to think of it though they probably knew it would never pass the house or the bush so they're probably just putting on a show for the public to make them come off as caring about our best interests.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by hepkatmama

a train derailed in ND recently, the explosion caused a toxic cloud of some ammonia based gas to settle over the town. CLEARCHANNEL owned all 6 radio stations & none of them had any information for over 1 1/2 hours. cause they pipe in the music from outside the area that it serves.

300 ppl were treated for respiratory problems, skin burns & there was one death as a result of this tragedy.

perhaps the number would have been smaller if the emergency broadcasting system worked.

if the fcc doesn't force these corporations to deal with these kind of situations, the government must. shouldn't homeland security deal with all this?

how can they SUGGEST letting media conglomo's get bigger when they are already slacking with what they have?

That's a great point, I wonder if they even considered this scenario. Probably not because it doesn't have to do with stealing our money or stealing our liberties.