The FCC should be mostly and/or completely banished (although completely may not be feasible).

In the mean time, less regulation is good.

Imagine every tv station, radio station and newspaper in your area owned by Fox or MSNBC. I can see why these rules are in place.

Me too. This is one of the areas where I think a free market is great for a bit but then leads to terrible things.

Free markets support and encourage competition. Laws that tell people and companies what they can and cannot own are inherently anti-competitive. Imagine a city where every tv station and newspaper was owned by either Fox or MSNBC. Most likely (and what I think you are arguing) you and I would be dissatisfied with the media coverage we received, right?

Lets say that in such a world, a small-guy popped up, without a lot of resources, but nonetheless had the ability to produce a watchable television product. You would most-likely start tuning in to this upstart channel, because it filled the demand for bullshit-less content that you want. Over time the upstart would cause one of a few things to happen: 1) Upstart will grow big and strong, filling your demand for bullshitless media, you benefit from a vaster array of such media, 2) Upstart will force the big conglomerates to recognize the under-served market for bullshitless media, and serve that market in a bullshitless style, 3) Expose a chink in the bigmedia armor and cause other upstarts to flood into the market.

In an FCC-regulated world, however, the two big companies are more likely than not going to forgo some degree of autonomy because they will be able to get into the candidate's pockets and get regulations approved that will limit the ability the upstart media company to get into the marketplace. There will be a mountain of paperwork and regulations to comply with, red tape to be cut, and it will cost tons of money and many lawyers fees to get anything approved without hitting some fatal snag along the way.

Fox and MSNBC are billion-dollar companies and can afford to hire hundreds of lawyers to manage this bureaucratic mess, but an upstart cannot. If the upstart decides to throw caution to the wind, and enter the market regardless, he will likely have his business and investment seized for failing to comply with these regulations -- ones that he could not afford to comply with in the first place. In a regulated world, the large conglomerate has the government to protect it's monopoly. In an unregulated world, only the conglomerate's ability to meet market demand will allow it to survive.

As for the case in hand, it is ultimately a meaningless decision.

The broadcasters have been using loopholes for decades to get around these rules. Why do you think the networks have 'affiliates' in various cities? The networks don't actually broadcast much of anything. Most of the stations are owned by companies that specialize in broadcasting. Their content, however comes from the network source.

So, News Corp. can own a newspaper in New York City, and there will still be a Fox TV station broadcasting the news in New York. Get it? It's all bullshit anyway. The content comes from News Corp whether you see it on TV or read it in the NY Post (and now Wall Street Journal), but now we can stop playing pretend.

free market arguments are the stupidest

yes i hate fox, therefore i don't watch it and it goes away

Perhaps your anti-free-market argument is too self-centered.

Someone (multiple people, outnumbering you) doesn't hate Fox, therefore they watch it, and Fox doesn't go away. Should those people be denied having their preference served because you prefer a different method of presentation?

While i hear what you say, there may be other ideas that you may want to consider that are not *pretend*.

Real life scenario: Upstart goes somewhat successful, then is bought by Murdoch and slowly changed into the same grist dyed a different color. As far as the news, you ought to get out and read other sources. Maybe try BBC and Al Jezeera if you want to move the weights as far out on the balance beam from the center and then process it yourself. This is about personal choice and competitive information to come back to topic, in my opinion and the thought of that much data being controlled at a single corporate level does not sit well with me. Just as I would not empower the government to do that either. Line one of the US constitution is there for a very fundamental reason. A monopoly in that area could be considered a violation of that in spirit.

HankReardon: Free markets support and encourage competition. Laws that tell people and companies what they can and cannot own are inherently anti-competitive.

I don't know if I buy this idea of an absolute free market being a silver bullet that levels all playing fields. Money is still money. Some people who have a ton of it want to, and can, use it to bring to bear influence I think doesn't benefit us.



Lets say that in such a world, a small-guy popped up, without a lot of resources, but nonetheless had the ability to produce a watchable television product. You would most-likely start tuning in to this upstart channel, because it filled the demand for bullshit-less content that you want. Over time the upstart would cause one of a few things to happen:

Well, maybe. I don't know. What I don't get is how people formulate these hypothetical scenarios with any real degree of knowledge. How can you reasonably predict what will happen in a system we don't currently have?

HankRearDon: Should those people be denied having their preference served because you prefer a different method of presentation?

At a certain point? Yes. The ability of the state to dumb itself down to something like 'Idiocracy' should terrify you.

Expecting the masses to employ critical faculty is clearly asking too much for many. There's a point after which I think that tendency should be punished, not rewarded.

Someone (multiple people, outnumbering you) doesn't hate Fox, therefore they watch it, and Fox doesn't go away. Should those people be denied having their preference served because you prefer a different method of presentation?

oh i get it, you believe in mob rule

Well, maybe. I don't know. What I don't get is how people formulate these hypothetical scenarios with any real degree of knowledge. How can you reasonably predict what will happen in a system we don't currently have?

How do the politicians/pundits/etc. reasonably predict what will happen as a result of new regulations?

At a certain point? Yes. The ability of the state to dumb itself down to something like 'Idiocracy' should terrify you.

I am seeing a clearly defined line between the state and private property. It seems that you do not. As a private citizen, it is your right to be as dumb as you want to be. Hence why we have not yet banned the X-Games, or the guys from 'Jackass.'

Of course, I agree that the general intelligence of the masses is concerning. Ultimately that is the drawback of democracy... However, any undemocratic system of government presents far worse disadvantages, in my opinion. This, however is why limiting the power of government is of benefit to the populace in a democracy. When the government controls everything, we are at the mercy of the average.

As regarding the media, I understand your concerns. The media is important for any democratic system to keep the population informed of the events that ought to weigh in on their decisions. However, I will present you with this hypothetical to support my point in regards to the deregulation at hand:

Suppose in City A, there are three major daily newspapers. Two are tabloids (like the NY Post), and one broadsheet (NY Times, WSJ). They are all run by different publishers. There are also three major television channels. Now, of the three newspapers, one is slanted to the right, one to the left, and the third (lets assume this is the broadsheet) includes largely impartial reporting of news and an editorial section that will always run equal numbers of conservative and liberal columns, side-by-side, usually addressing the same issues. The TV stations are similarly situated.

You prefer the third newspaper and corresponding TV station. However, the newspaper has hit hard times. There is reason to believe that a market for that paper still exists, and it is well respected in the community, but due to a few mistakes on the business side of the operation, the newspaper has been forced into bankruptcy.

There are two bidders who would buy the newspaper out of bankruptcy and attempt to revive it. The TV station that ultimately serves the same market, and one of the slanted tabloids. Now, if the slanted tabloid purchases this paper, they will run it side-by-side with their tabloid and market it to the 'elite' in the market (businessmen, politicians, educators, people who generally prefer to read a broadsheet rather than a tabloid).

The TV station is told that in order to purchase the newspaper, they have to divulge themselves of their primary business, the TV station, because the regulators have deemed such dual-ownership anti-competitive. The TV Station's operators would lose editorial control of the station, and it is unlikely that the new owners would be interesting to serve the market for balanced news. Because of this, they drop their bid for the newspaper, which is then snapped up by the biased tabloid, and becomes biased itself.

Had the TV station been able to purchase it, the market for unbiased news would have remained filled.

Now, you can rearrange that however you want, and change it so that the unfilled market is for liberally or conservatively biased news. Either way, someone is going to be disappointed. Whether you hate Fox News' style of presentation or not, you have to respect that it exists, and is a force in the cable news business because there was a pre-existing market for conservatively-biased news that pre-existed it's formation. The market existed before Fox filled it -- the people who tuned in were not converted to some way of thinking, they already thought that way, Fox just found someone else to say it.

When you read an article or hear a speaker you agree with, you tend to pay attention. This is what Fox News did, and why it exists. It's the free market at work. Demand will be filled. If you ban it on the TV, it will be filled on the internet. If it doesn't exist on broadcast, it will be on cable.

LET'S ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

LARRY THE CABLE GUY FOR PRESIDENT. DALE JR FOR VICE PRESIDENT.

The FCC should not exist. There should be no mandated censorship or penalties for offensive content. Natural selection will take care of programming that can't sell advertising.

American journalism goes thro cycles in a predictable pattern. At first, objectivity was meaningless and laughable; newspapers were full of hyperbole, rumor and opinion, supporting candidates openly. Over time, investigative pieces like 'The Jungle,' and the Standard Oil reports brought a watchdog mentality to the discipline. But, since then, it has swung back and forth. It will be full of objectivity and pursuit of the truth for a while, then it will go back to entertainment and polemics for a while.

We are in the entertainment/polemics phase, and it will swing back the other way in a decade or so.

I despise Fox News, but you must remember how young and new the concept of journalism is. Journalists aren't considered true professionals by our society.

The judicial system favors doctors, lawyers and the clergy with special rights. Journalists get no special rights above that of a normal citizen.

So, there is no way to out Fox News as propaganda or entertainment. There is no certification or legal recourse to guarantee good journalism. Lots of people like 'Stargate: Atlantis' even though is sucks ass. But, no one loses their mind over it because it is obviously entertainment. Well, so is Fox News, but we get itchy because so many people think it is a viable news source. But, there's nothing we can do about that because journalism is just an 'ism' and not and 'ology.' Each era and culture defines it as whatever it means to them at the time. There was a time when a news source without credibility would wither and die. But, we aren't on that side of the pendulum swing right now.

As far as the tightening circle of ownership, yeah that sucks, but I don't see any way around it that doesn't make my skin crawl.

How do the politicians/pundits/etc. reasonably predict what will happen as a result of new regulations?

Not particularly well, mostly, and that's discussing single regulations -- a single lever into a mostly-known system. You're acting as though it's possible to determine what happens in an entirely different machine. What are you using as your model?



The market existed before Fox filled it -- the people who tuned in were not converted to some way of thinking, they already thought that way, Fox just found someone else to say it.

I'd hesitate to consider this a fact. You're ignoring the tendency of humans, even careful ones, to adopt the opinions of those they admire, then attempt to justify them once they already own them. This, I think, is the otherwise natural mechanism cynically perverted by the Fox News phenomenon, and is probably similar to the way the label 'liberal' has become so demonized.

Lownotes: The FCC should not exist. There should be no mandated censorship or penalties for offensive content. Natural selection will take care of programming that can't sell advertising.

The FCC does play a crucial role in managing the RF spectrum and ensuring compliance to technical standards that are ever evolving. As far as managing content, I don't believe they have anything to do with that. The regulation of ownership of media is a federal mandate passed in the late 40's/ early 50's if I remember correctly .

'Well, maybe. I don't know. What I don't get is how people formulate these hypothetical scenarios with any real degree of knowledge. How can you reasonably predict what will happen in a system we don't currently have?

How do the politicians/pundits/etc. reasonably predict what will happen as a result of new regulations?

At a certain point? Yes. The ability of the state to dumb itself down to something like 'Idiocracy' should terrify you.

I am seeing a clearly defined line between the state and private property. It seems that you do not. As a private citizen, it is your right to be as dumb as you want to be. Hence why we have not yet banned the X-Games, or the guys from 'Jackass.'

Of course, I agree that the general intelligence of the masses is concerning. Ultimately that is the drawback of democracy... However, any undemocratic system of government presents far worse disadvantages, in my opinion. This, however is why limiting the power of government is of benefit to the populace in a democracy. When the government controls everything, we are at the mercy of the average.

As regarding the media, I understand your concerns. The media is important for any democratic system to keep the population informed of the events that ought to weigh in on their decisions. However, I will present you with this hypothetical to support my point in regards to the deregulation at hand:

Suppose in City A, there are three major daily newspapers. Two are tabloids (like the NY Post), and one broadsheet (NY Times, WSJ). They are all run by different publishers. There are also three major television channels. Now, of the three newspapers, one is slanted to the right, one to the left, and the third (lets assume this is the broadsheet) includes largely impartial reporting of news and an editorial section that will always run equal numbers of conservative and liberal columns, side-by-side, usually addressing the same issues. The TV stations are similarly situated.

You prefer the third newspaper and corresponding TV station. However, the newspaper has hit hard times. There is reason to believe that a market for that paper still exists, and it is well respected in the community, but due to a few mistakes on the business side of the operation, the newspaper has been forced into bankruptcy.

There are two bidders who would buy the newspaper out of bankruptcy and attempt to revive it. The TV station that ultimately serves the same market, and one of the slanted tabloids. Now, if the slanted tabloid purchases this paper, they will run it side-by-side with their tabloid and market it to the 'elite' in the market (businessmen, politicians, educators, people who generally prefer to read a broadsheet rather than a tabloid).

The TV station is told that in order to purchase the newspaper, they have to divulge themselves of their primary business, the TV station, because the regulators have deemed such dual-ownership anti-competitive. The TV Station's operators would lose editorial control of the station, and it is unlikely that the new owners would be interesting to serve the market for balanced news. Because of this, they drop their bid for the newspaper, which is then snapped up by the biased tabloid, and becomes biased itself.

Had the TV station been able to purchase it, the market for unbiased news would have remained filled.

Now, you can rearrange that however you want, and change it so that the unfilled market is for liberally or conservatively biased news. Either way, someone is going to be disappointed. Whether you hate Fox News' style of presentation or not, you have to respect that it exists, and is a force in the cable news business because there was a pre-existing market for conservatively-biased news that pre-existed it's formation. The market existed before Fox filled it -- the people who tuned in were not converted to some way of thinking, they already thought that way, Fox just found someone else to say it.

When you read an article or hear a speaker you agree with, you tend to pay attention. This is what Fox News did, and why it exists. It's the free market at work. Demand will be filled. If you ban it on the TV, it will be filled on the internet. If it doesn't exist on broadcast, it will be on cable.'

LONGPOST DUDE MAKES LONG POST!