Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Giving Up on the regular media, Where do you get your NEWS? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (123)	5/13/2003 4:39:42 PM
From: Ron	Respond to of 150

Delay sought in FCC media vote By Jeffry Bartash, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 4:25 PM ET May 13, 2003 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - Several U.S. senators and federal regulators on Tuesday asked for a delay in a pending vote to ease decades-old rules that restrict the size and reach of big media outlets. The lawmakers, who issued their plea at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership, were joined by two senior officials at the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC reportedly is set to endorse a series of proposals that would, among other things, let companies buy television stations and newspapers in the same city and lift national caps on how many TV stations that one company can own. The FCC is slated to vote June 2. On Monday, FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican, circulated an internal draft that proposes far-reaching changes. He is said to have the support of the other two Republicans on the five-member FCC board. The panel's two Democrats, however, fought a rear-guard action, all but demanding that the June 2 vote be put off. "Under long-standing commission practices, such requests from commissioners are traditionally honored," they said in a pointed news release. Powell could not be immediately reached for comment. As the vote draws into view, Senate lawmakers also questioned whether the FCC was going too far. Many Republicans, including Ted Stevens, Olympia Snowe, Conrad Burns and Trent Lott, weighed in against the proposed changes. "I think we should leave them as they are," said Lott, R-Miss., of the current ownership rules during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. The FCC, however, cannot simply stand pat. A federal appeals court last year overturned broadcast-ownership rules and ordered the agency to rewrite them. In addition, the FCC is bumping up against a mandate by Congress to review its media rules every two years. While the FCC has held only one public meeting, Powell noted that the agency has received more than 20,000 comments from the public. He also pointed out that review of media ownership laws extend back several years. Nonetheless, Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who oppose most of the proposed changes, say that at least one more public hearing is necessary. Frustrated by the Republican majority, the Democrats have held several informal "town meetings" around the country to drum up publicity and sound the alarm on the controversial issue. Breaking the limits Under the old rules, media companies were limited in terms of how many TV stations they could own to 35 percent of the national audience. They were also barred from owning TV or radio stations as well as newspapers in the same market. Under the FCC proposal, the national cap would be lifted to at least 45 percent and companies would be allowed to own TV, radio and newspaper properties in all but the smallest markets. Consumer groups and owners of network affiliates have opposed weakening the ownership rules, arguing that consolidation by big media companies would narrow the number of editorial voices in individual communities. Media concentration "has turned the watchdog into the lapdog," said Frank Blethen, publisher of the Seattle Times. Media giants have argued that the rules are a throwback to the days when just a few big networks dominated the broadcast landscape. By allowing more cross ownership, they argue, bigger media outlets will have more resources to boost coverage or offer more programming, especially in smaller, less profitable markets. In addition, concerns about concentration are belied by an exploding number of channels and information delivered via cable, satellite and Internet outlets, they contend. Years ago, there was "three networks, no cable, no satellite," said Mel Karmazin, president of Viacom (VIAB: news, chart, profile) (VIA: news, chart, profile), which owns CBS. (Viacom owns a significant stake in MarketWatch.com, publisher of this report.) Capitol Broadcasting President Jim Goodmon, whose company operates a CBS affiliate, took issue with Karmazin. He argued that letting national networks own a greater number of local stations would give them excessive leverage and even greater power to dictate what airs on local broadcasts. "If you allow the national networks to own the local stations, there is no balance," said Goodmon, who called the prospect "scary." cbs.marketwatch.com{7757C47D-71B6-4517-ACF1-719F03FC094B}&siteid=mktw

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (123)	5/26/2003 10:04:53 AM
From: Ron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 150

FCC Receives Many Trips From Lobbyists By DAVID HO The Associated Press WASHINGTON - Federal Communications Commission officials have taken more than 2,500 trips in the last eight years, most of them paid for by the telecommunications and broadcasting industries the agency regulates, a watchdog group said. The Center for Public Integrity report, based on records from the federal Office of Government Ethics, details trips worth more than $250 taken by agency commissioners and staff between May 1995 and February 2003. The total cost of the trips was $2.8 million. Most trips were paid by industry sponsors so officials could attend conventions, conferences and trade shows. Others were paid for by universities and technical associations. The report being released Thursday said all the trips appear to be legal under government guidelines. Other agencies also routinely accept travel and entertainment gifts. "It reveals more than ever before just how incestuous the relationship is between the FCC and the broadcasting and cable industries it is supposed to regulate," said Charles Lewis, director of the center. FCC spokesman David Fiske said the trips are meant to be educational and are reviewed internally to make sure they are ethical. Fiske said the shows and conferences help officials stay current on technology they regulate. "Commissioners and the staff feel it is important to be able to get outside the Beltway and get lots of information from a wide variety of groups with a wide variety of viewpoints," he said. The report said the top destination for FCC officials - with 330 trips - was Las Vegas, the site of many industry conventions, including the annual meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters. NAB was the largest industry sponsor of FCC trips, spending $191,472 to bring 206 agency officials to its events, the report said. "It is only reasonable that Washington policy-makers would want to attend NAB conventions to learn everything they can about the businesses they regulate," NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said. The FCC is scheduled to vote June 2 on a plan to make broad changes to the rules governing ownership of newspapers and TV and radio stations. FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the two other Republicans on the commission favor loosening regulations, an outcome sought by many large media companies that say the rules are outdated. The NAB has been lobbying to keep existing media ownership rules, particularly one that prevents a single company from owning TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. households. The Center for Public Integrity takes no position on the ownership review. Other top destinations for FCC officials were New Orleans, New York and London. On some occasions officials stayed at high-priced hotels such as the Bellagio in Las Vegas, said Bob Williams, senior writer at the center. Of the traveling FCC officials, Powell ranked No. 5 with 44 trips - 30 as a commissioner and 14 as chairman. The value of those trips was about $85,000. His most expensive was a weeklong seminar in Aspen, Colo., costing $6,200 and paid for by the Aspen Institute, a think tank. The other four commissioners took far fewer trips. Powell has been on the commission since 1997, while the others joined more recently. The top trip-taker at the agency is Roy Stewart, chief of the FCC's Office of Broadcast License Policy and former chief of the FCC's media bureau, which makes recommendations to the commissioners on the media ownership rules. Stewart took 107 trips worth about $76,000. Most were sponsored by state broadcaster associations. The Center for Public Integrity has created a 65,000-record, searchable database with information on ownership of virtually every radio and TV station, cable network and phone company.--- On the Net: mediareform.net Center for Public Integrity: openairwaves.org

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (123)	6/26/2003 10:33:49 AM
From: Ron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 150

June 26, 2003 Big Media's Silence By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON Over the protests of 750,000 viewers and readers, three appointees to the Federal Communications Commission last month voted to permit the takeover of America's local press, television and radio by a handful of mega-corporations. If allowed to stand, this surrender to media giantism would concentrate the power to decide what we read and see — in both entertainment and news — in the hands of an ever-shrinking establishment elite. To the F.C.C.'s amazement, the Senate Commerce Committee said no. A bill put forward by Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, president pro tem of the Senate and defender of local control, would reinstate the limit of 35 percent of market penetration by any one company. A Democratic amendment reasserted the limitation on "cross-ownership" by stations and newspapers. The rollback bill, with bipartisan support, is likely to pass the full Senate this summer. This first step toward stopping the takeover of both content and distribution of information was taken because enough of the audience got sore and made it an issue. I'm proud of the part played by The New York Times, which not only ran my diatribes but front-paged the illuminating coverage by Stephen Labaton, including his note that the Times Company was lobbying for cross-ownership. No thanks go to the biggest media, where CBS's "60 Minutes," NBC's "Dateline" and ABC's "20/20" found the rip-off of the public interest by their parent companies too hot to handle. Most network newscasts dutifully covered the scandalous story as briefly and coolly as possible, failing to disclose how much it meant to their parent companies, which were lobbying furiously for gobble-up rights. Unencumbered by such a conflict of interest, public television's liberal Bill Moyers inveighed for months against the power grab, and Consumers Union is on the job. The conservative Joe Scarborough blew the whistle on media giantism on cable's MSNBC, which included an interview with the New York Daily News publisher (and mini-mogul) Mort Zuckerman, outspoken foe of the conglomeration crowd. Much of the credit for the public reaction goes to such right-wing outfits as the National Rifle Association, concerned about getting its voice squelched by homogenized media; by the Family Research Council; and by the Parents Television Council, whose Brent Bozell slammed the F.C.C. for "blatantly pandering to a few rich TV moguls" and "opening a Pandora's box of indecency and violence on the airwaves." (Rightie Grover Norquist is too close to Rupert Murdoch, but Phyllis Schlafly and Beverly LaHaye — where are you?) The F.C.C. chairman, Michael Powell, mocked his opponents' efforts yesterday by saying they had used a wide variety of media "to get out their message that media consolidation doesn't allow them to get out their message." But our message is getting through to Congress only because his media consolidation has not yet taken effect to muffle debate. Media moguls profess not to worry about the Senate's threatened rollback because they think they own Billy Tauzin, chairman of the relevant committee in the House. But Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, has introduced a rollback bill similar to Stevens's in the Senate, and already has a majority of co-sponsors on Tauzin's committee. An old G.O.P. hand tells me Tauzin has "no interest" in stopping media mergers anywhere, but "always leaves himself wiggle room if there's heat from home." No heat is coming from the White House, where Karl Rove has not awakened to this "sleeper issue." Burr should be of considerable interest to the G.O.P., however. He will be the challenger to Senator John Edwards next year unless Edwards resigns to run for president. National exposure as the congressman who stopped the power grab would help Burr pick up a Senate seat for the G.O.P., central to Bush hopes for a successful second term. That prospect should get White House attention. In the House, co-sponsorship by half the members gets Tom DeLay's attention, and the bill already has 146 of the 218, one-third Republican. "There has to be a clear perception of public outrage," says Burr. And to move Bush and DeLay, that expression of snail mail and e-mail outrage must come from the right — from believers in strong local say about the means and content of communication, acting while there is still time.