House Members Want Vote On Media Rule Rollback

Rep. Maurice Hinchey has gathered signatures from 190 members of the House of Representatives who are urging House Speaker Dennis Hastert to proceed with a vote on a Senate-approved resolution that would roll back the FCC's new media-ownership regulations. Hinchey has received bipartisan support for a House vote, which Republican leaders have opposed. President Bush has also warned that he will veto any Congressional effort to restore the commission's old ownership rules. Hinchey still needs the support of 28 additional House members in order to ensure a majority vote in the lower body of Congress, and Republican leaders can therefore ignore the request from the New York Democrat.

http://www.rronline.com/Subscribers/TodaysNews/homepage.htm

A recap for those ... :

House first voted to roll back the TV network ownership portion.
Senate then voted to roll back everything.

Now it's back to the House and languishing.

and he's my congressman!

The way the GOP leadership is running the House is nothing short of totalitarian. Imagine what they'd say if some leftist party used these tactics in some other country...

But of course I think the current GOP leaders learned everything the know from the actions of totalitarian and authoritarian leaders and movements. This is a real scary bunch

And they cannot have dissent!!

Let's hope Hinchey gets the required number of sigs...

Screw Delay. They should be targeting Republicans that are unsure of whether to oppose Bush or not.

Guest Post by Howard Dean

The post below is from Governor Howard Dean. You can check out the crossposting and commentary at www.blogforamerica.com and read more about Howard Dean at www.deanforamerica.com. Thanks!-- Matt, Zephyr and Nicco, Dean Internet Team

posted by { Zephyr Teachout } on { Jul 14 03 at 3:58 PM } to { presidential politics } { 31 comments }

It’s been a busy day, but it’s great to blog here on Larry Lessig’s blog.

I’ll be writing all week, but if there’s a day I can’t make it, Joe Trippi, my campaign manager, will fill in for me. Thank you Professor Lessig for inviting me.

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.

posted by { Howard Dean } on { Jul 14 03 at 3:26 PM } to { } { 198 comments }
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/2003_07.shtml

I got on Lamar Alexander's email list some time ago when I commented on a different issue. It looks like he is having to defend his FCC stance:

There has been much discussion and debate about the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rules for media ownership. I'd like to tell you how I voted on the issue and why.

(snip)

Many myths have arisen during this debate, and I hope to clear up some misconceptions about the impact of my vote.

Some have said that this resolution would reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that was abandoned by the FCC in 1987. This is not accurate. I do not support the "Fairness Doctrine," which was in effect from 1949 to 1987. During that time the FCC mandated that broadcast licensees provide forums for opposing viewpoints on their stations.

I disagree with him on the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but posted that so people could see what the opposition to the roll back is saying.

> The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services.
> This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access.
> The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

WHAT? When did they do this? That is really big, really bad, and really ugly!
They will be allowed to simply banish all things Democratic from the net!

<clips>

...Real power is now in the hands of a few global economic groupings and conglomerates that appear to wield more power in world politics than most governments. These are the new masters of the world who gather annually at the World Economic Forum in Davos and lay the groundwork for policy decisions by the globalising trinity of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and World Trade Organisation.

Within this geo-economic framework there has been a decisive transformation in the mass media, striking at the heart of their structure as industries. The mass communications media (radio, newspapers, television, internet) are being realigned to create media groups with a world vocation. Giant enterprises such as NewsCorp, Viacom, AOL Time Warner, General Electric, Microsoft, Bertelsmann, UnitedGlobalCom, Disney, Telefónica, RTL Group and France Telecom have realised that the revolution in new technology has greatly increased the possibilities for expansion. The digital revolution shattered the divisions that previously separated the three traditional forms of communication (sound, text and images) and allowed the creation and growth of the internet. This has now become a fourth form of communication, a means of self-expression, information-access and entertainment.

Subsequently the media companies began a further stage of group restructuring by bringing into a single frame not only the classic media (press, radio and television) but also all activities in mass culture, communication and information. Previously these three spheres were independent: mass culture with its commercial logic, its emphasis on popular programming and its basically commercial objectives; communications, as advertising, marketing and propaganda; and news and information, represented by agencies, radio and television news, press, 24-hour news channels - the many-sided world of journalism.

These three spheres, previously separate, have gradually become integrated into a single sphere in which it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the elements of mass culture, communication and news (1). And these giant enterprises, which are assembly-line producers of symbols, now distribute their messages through a wide variety of outlets, including television, animation, film, video games, CDs, DVDs, publishing, Disneyland-type theme parks and sporting events.


http://mondediplo.com/2003/10/01media