|
Edited on Thu Nov-09-06 10:54 PM by snot
1. BIG-time rollback of regulations easing restrictions on consolidation of media ownership. 2. Protect and make "net neutrality" PERMANENT. First, here's some info about a bill that was pending a while ago, don't know if it's still around, but pls contact your govl reps asking them to pass it! MEDIA REFORM: Democrats Move to Re-Regulate Media <snip> Two liberal House members who recently have been critical of what they view as attempts by conservative Republicans to take over Americas mass media and public broadcasting have now introduced a sweeping bill that would re-regulate radio and TV back to the days before the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (MORA) is co-sponsored by Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. and Diane Watson, D-Calif. In a written announcement, MORA is described as legislation that seeks to undo the massive consolidation of the media that has been ongoing for nearly 20 years. The measure would restore the Fairness doctrine, reinstate a national cap on radio ownership and lower the number of radio stations a company can own in a local market. It also reinstates a 25% national television ownership cap and requires stations to submit regular public interest reports to the Federal Communications Commission. <end of snip> link http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/189
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/102005/sshinchey.html
Addressing the need for media ownership reform
By Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.)
While much of our nations attention has understandably turned to recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, the war in Iraq, homeland security and other timely issues, a topic at the heart of these matters, media ownership, has largely gone ignored.
How and from where Americans receive their news on these and other issues are of critical importance. Yet this countrys media ownership rules have limited our sources of information, resulting in inadequate and biased news reporting the opposite of what our public needs. It is essential that Congress act to reassess our telecommunications policies and regulations to uphold fairness and democracy in our society.
The number of media companies in the United States is rapidly diminishing. As telecommunications mergers continue to take place, fierce competition is forcing more and more businesses to be gobbled up by media giants or driven out of the market. As a result, fewer than two dozen media giants control the American media today.
For instance, America Online, CNN, Warner Bros. and Time magazine are just a few of the news outlets that Time Warner owns. Another media conglomerate, Viacom, owns Infinity Radio, with 106 radio stations, CBS, UPN and Paramount Pictures, among other assets. Clear Channel Communications massive portfolio of 1,200 radio stations is yet another egregious example of the growing consolidation of American media.
Beginning in the 1940s, several laws were enacted to broaden television- and radio-station ownership. During the Reagan administration, however, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made abrupt and rapid changes to embark on a fierce deregulatory agenda. Since that time, our government has continually favored business-friendly media-policy decisions, enabling passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which lifted the previous station ownership cap and allowed for unprecedented business consolidation in all areas of telecommunications.
The number of television and radio stations dramatically increased in the 1970s and 1980s. However, after the FCC decided in 1987 to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine and promote media consolidation, the diversity of ownership and the wide array of perspectives that came with it dramatically declined.
The American public is largely unaware that the information it receives from the media almost always originates from the same few sources.This phenomenon shrinks the marketplace of ideas and prevents new and independent voices from entering the mainstream. A handful of companies are permitted to decide what the American public can or cannot see and hear in media and are under little obligation to meet demands for informative, quality programming.
To address Congresss sluggish and inadequate response to Americas telecommunications crisis, I have founded the nonpartisan Future of American Media Caucus, with the goal of educating members of Congress on the pressing media issues of the day. Weve made a concerted effort to offer different points of view on media topics, and I encourage my colleagues to join the caucus or at least attend a briefing.
To further those efforts, in July I introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (MORA), a bill that seeks to repair the damage that has been done by media consolidation. The bill reduces the number of radio stations one company can own in a given market and caps national ownership at 5 percent of stations.
It also reinstates national television-station ownership limits, preventing one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 25 percent of American households. Current law allows for 39 percent national audience reach.
MORA also reestablishes the Fairness Doctrine, a provision requiring media coverage of controversial issues on broadcast stations to be open to alternative points of view, and establishes public-interest obligations compelling broadcast programs to meet the needs of communities around the nation.
Our government must dedicate great attention and consideration to the improvement of Americas malfunctioning news-distribution system. In an age when possibilities for national and global communication are virtually endless, we must not allow a small number of corporations to control the flow of information. Rather, Congress must ensure that our citizens are provided access to diverse and educational programming from a variety of sources and presented with ways to express their opinions regarding media policy decisions.
My legislation would bring our public policy one step closer to this goal. The survival of our democratic republic depends on it.
Hinchey is founder of the Future of American Media Caucus and sponsor of the Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005.
ACTION NEEDED: Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (H.R.3302)
by KingOneEye
Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 04:39:36 PM PDT
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), has long been a leader in the fight for media reform. He is a founder of the Future of American Media caucus in the House, and he is a sponsor of the Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (MORA). In an article for The Hill last week, he reiterated the need for media ownership reform.
"How and from where Americans receive their news on these and other issues are of critical importance. Yet this country's media ownership rules have limited our sources of information, resulting in inadequate and biased news reporting..."
Cross-posted at:
KingOneEye's diary :: ::
If enacted, MORA will be a significant step forward in establishing a more diverse and informative media environment. Among its provisions:
Reduces the number of radio stations one company can own in a given market and caps national ownership at 5 percent of stations.
Reinstates national television-station ownership limits, preventing one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 25 percent of American households. Current law allows for 39 percent national audience reach.
Reestablishes the Fairness Doctrine that the Reagan administration abolished in 1987
These measures are necessary and sensible. But they are only a beginning. Ultimately, the corporate media monopolies must be broken up the same way telecom, oil, and railroad monopolies were. The stark imbalance of power that monopolies wield, and their cozy fraternization with their political benefactors, make it impossible to settle for anything less than total divestment.
Contact your representatives and tell them you want them to sign on to MORA. This may be the most valuable political act you make this year.
Second, here's a letter I wrote to my Congressperson a little while ago about 'net neutrality; pls feel free to copy it, modify it, whatever, and send to your own:
Dear ________:
I am writing as one of your constituents to express my shock and profound disappointment that you did not vote to protect internet neutrality.
Perhaps you are unaware of the many thousands of Democratic supporters out there who not only rely on the internet as a major source of the real news but who also use the internet to communicate with one another and to work for progressive causes.
In my own case, for example, following the 2004 elections, I started getting much of my most important news through www.democraticunderground.com <http://www.democraticunderground.com> . It is there that I find out about most of the stories I consider to be of greatest importance but that are either ignored or misinterpreted by the corporate media. Indeed, I fear many stories wouldn't make it into the corporate media at all were it not for people like me who are actively using the internet to track and even investigate these stories.
I'm talking about stories like the Downing Street Memo, the outing of Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings, Abu Ghraib, rendition, NSA spying, government propaganda pieces presented as "news", the vast sums disappearing into the pockets of private contractors in connection with the Iraq war and otherwise, etc. etc.
After Katrina, I personally invested hundreds of hours researching, preserving, and cataloguing reports relating to the bungling of relief efforts, collecting information from all sources available on the internet and helping to make a website where these reports could be preserved and made freely available, since many of them were potentially embarrassing to FEMA or other authorities and, as we've learned, even official governmental reports have a way of "disappearing" soon after their significance is discovered.
I shudder to think how much more difficult and/or expensive that work might have been had AT&T been allowed to interfere with or charge me extra for the access I needed.
I understand Bob Kerry of the New York Times is now stating in the Times that Kerry would have won Ohio in 2004 but for the election fraud that took place there. Do you suppose for one moment that that story would be making it into the Times now were it not for literally hundreds of thousands of hours of effort by volunteers not only on the ground but also working via the internet?
Through websites and in response to other internet efforts, I, who gave barely a dime to any political campaign or cause in my previous 30-odd adult years, have during the past year given nearly $_____ in support of progressive causes and candidates (including your colleague, Representative Conyers).
Allowing big telecoms or others to discriminate financially or to otherwise control or interfere in any way with the currently free uses of the internet by users or providers can only damage these and other important activities among citizens, including but not limited to your Democratic base.
I hope you will reconsider your position on this matter, in case another opportunity to take action arises.
Sincerely, |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
