FCC plan would let more monopoly stink up the airwaves

Now I'm mad.

I honestly didn't think America's weak ownership caps that govern how many radio and TV stations a company can own could be loosened any further. In the Contract With America's rogue 1996 Telecommunications Act, ownership caps were nearly gutted, and there's always loopholes to let companies defy the few limits that remain.

The booger-eater contingent actually calls that shit free speech. Yet they support raiding unlicensed stations that don't interfere with any other stations. (They call these raids free speech too, I guess.)

But right-wing FCC chairman Kevin Martin has opened a new vista for expanded coprorate (sic) control of the media. Martin - a Bush appointee who had previously assisted the current Chickenhawk-in-Chief in the Florida recount scandal - wants to abolish the rule that forbids a company from owning both a radio or TV station and a newspaper in the same market.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of Martin's proposal would be Sam Zell, a Republican multibillionaire who wants to complete his buyout of the Tribune Company. Another would be Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which wants to continue owning both the right-wing New York Post and that city's Fox station. The reason News Corporation is allowed to own both right now, even though it's usually illegal to own both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market, is that it obtained a waiver that lets it ignore this rule. In other words, the rule against TV/newspaper cross-ownership is almost worthless already, because powerful media moguls like Rupert Murdoch can get a waiver almost just by asking for one.

Just as bad, the FCC is also considering loosening - yet again - how many radio and TV stations a company may own in the same market. I didn't know there were really any limits now, thanks to the nation killers who passed the 1996 law. After 1996, the rules were loosened so much that Clear Channel was able to buy all 6 commercial radio stations in Minot, North Dakota, which controlled almost all of the area's audience. In 2002, a train derailed in Minot, releasing a toxic cloud of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer. Because Clear Channel piped the programming on all its Minot stations from out of town, police couldn't reach anyone at the stations to notify of the emergency. Thus, no listeners heard about it. As a result, one person died from breathing the poisonous fumes.

This happened despite the fact that one of the Clear Channel stations the police tried to contact was the region's officially designated emergency broadcaster. Naturally, Clear Channel blamed everyone except itself for the difficulty in getting through to the stations. The company also tried to justify its Minot monopoly by claiming that out-of-town stations can be heard in the city. Um??? Are you aware of how far Minot is from any other market??? Even if folks in Minot could somehow pick up another city's stations, those aren't Minot stations and don't have as much resources to cover Minot events.

Even more incredibly, the FCC - which is supposed to use a method that tightens the ownership caps if a market has fewer stations - inexplicably combined the Minot and Bismarck markets, even though these cities are 100 miles apart. This let Clear Channel claim Minot had 45 commercial stations even though it only had 6. In the immortal words of the Church Lady of 'Saturday Night Live': How conveeeeenient!

One of few people in Washington who wants to fight the FCC's extremism is Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. He says that if Kevin Martin tries to weaken the regulations, "there will be a firestorm of protest and I'm going to be carrying the wood." But few other federal lawmakers have the gumption to take a strong stand.

Since the passage of the right-wing 1996 telcom law, not only have I considered it void under the Spittle Doctrine, but I've also suggested that states pass their own laws to reinstate the ownership caps that were weakened by this law. State action is long, long, long overdue. And yes, that's legal. (I know some armchair congresscritter is going to try to insist otherwise.)

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/business/media/18broadcast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin;
http://faculty.msb.edu/homak/HomaHelpSite/WebHelp/Clear_Channel_-_Single_Voice_in_Minot.htm)