Senate Votes to Reverse FCC Decision Allowing Media Consolidation

Thursday night, the Senate cast a near-unanimous vote to reverse the Federal Communication Commission's December 2007 decision to let media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who introduced the rarely used "resolution of disapproval," said last night that "the FCC is supposed to be a referee for the media industry, but instead they've been cheerleaders in favor of more consolidation. ... We already have too much concentration in the media."

Senator Barack Obama added his support to the resolution saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."

The Senate vote is good news for everyone who is fed up with a media system, that, in the words of Jon Stewart, is "hurting America" with propaganda pundits, embedded journalists, horse-race election coverage, and celebrity gossip posing as news. It reflects growing awareness -- in Congress and with average Americans -- of the perils of concentrated media ownership. Namely, insatiable profit pressures that gut newsrooms, replace labor-intensive investigative news with salacious, cheap-to-cover stories, and encourage the dumbing-down of the most pressing issues into 30-second sound bites and partisan shout-fests.

Media concentration is also central to the rise of extremists like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who overwhelm the dial on conglomerates owned and run by businessmen with far-right politics.

Back in 2003, Senator Dorgan and then-Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) passed a similar resolution of disapproval to overturn the last effort by the Bush FCC to loosen ownership limits after 3 million Americans - both liberal and conservative - decried the FCC's handout to the largest media companies. That resolution languished in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, and the proposed rules were later rejected by a federal court.

The "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban" that the FCC is trying to get rid of has been in place since 1975. It keeps media outlets from merging already stripped-down local newsrooms in the name of "synergy" and protects diversity of viewpoints in the local press, something the Supreme Court has recognized is critical to the health of our democracy. Thursday's vote sends a clear message to media executives and the FCC that further media consolidation will not be tolerated.

The resolution of disapproval now moves to the House, where it already has bipartisan support. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) is ready to push his companion bill in the House, or alternately simply adopt the Senate resolution if it will speed it to a floor vote and passage. Rep. Inslee says he will likely talk with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House leadership next week about the fastest way to get the bill passed

President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. A statement from the White House yesterday called the FCC's new rules the product of "extensive public comment and consultation" but failed to mention that only 1 percent of the public that testified at public hearings or sent letters to the FCC supported the administration's position.

Typical of most Bush appointees, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disregarded the will of the American people and granted another handout to the largest companies. A veto-proof majority in Congress supporting the resolution would stop Bush from doing the same.

The fight is far from over. But last night's vote is a historic victory for the public interest over one of Washington's most powerful lobbies.

Comments

[loki]

But can it stop the signing statement. Sure they are not really legal to begin with, but that has never stopped Bush before and to date, that I know of, no one has legally challenged Bush's signing statements, thus allowing him to do what he does.

[Tommygun264]

Has anyone bothered to notify Rupert Murdoch? If I understand things correctly, he has already proceeded as if his puppets in the FCC had been successful and violated existing regulations in anticipation of these new regulations on media consolidation passing. But I have yet to hear of Mr. Murdoch being brought to account for his actions.

[mellene]

For once the Senate did the right thing and stopped these insane merchants of greed and power from wiping out yet others like Murdoch did with WSJ.

[gcallaghan]

The intent behind the Senate's move is both laudable and glaringly obvious. Media consolidation benefits only those corporations who have shown they'll use their considerable powers to shape public perception for their own ends. The GOP enabled this and championed their cause in return for their graces.

The same propaganda machine that refused to publicize this administration's crimes will do an abrupt u-turn in policy the minute the Dems take over. Expect to see sudden and around-the-clock coverage of Iraq, the economy and every other festering problem Bush leaves behind if further consolidation is allowed.

The Dems will break up those media markets in which consolidation occurred, not simply for fairness but also as a way to wrest control of public opinion from Rupert Murdoch's hands.

[donaldw6]

Pinch me, I must be dreaming! It's almost as if we had a democracy. We let FISA expire, we elected Democrats in the Republican South, and now this. What happened to the America I used to know?

[Honza]

If the republicans try to stall this vote so we dont get a veto overturned, and this goes down the tube again, those republicans should be voted out of office. We the people want the airwaves back, and the fairness doctrain to be once again in the media and in the news print.

[ThomH]

One thing obvious to all is that the big media have a vested interest in....the big media.

So how come they were allowed to take over the primary presidential debates? Why were paid employees of big media companies charged with asking the questions?

Isn't this like having an electric chair manufacturer "moderate" a debate on capital punishment?

GE is a media conglomerate (GE/NBC) and in the health insurance business, among other businesses that would be unfavorably affected by positions held by Dennis Kucinich. Is it surprising that GE employee Tim Russert asked him no substantive questions, instead one whose obvious purpose was ridicule?

No questions on media consolidation were EVER asked in any of the debates, as far as I know. And there were many other questions burning to be asked that never were.

And is this what we have to look forward to in the general election---media conglomerate employees "moderating" the debates of the candidates?

[verhaftik]

"And is this what we have to look forward to in the general election---media conglomerate employees 'moderating' the debates of the candidates?"

I agree, ThomH. A nauseating and frivolous prospect such "moderating" will be. Laughable, really.

The majority of MSM doesn't even realize they have become a source of entertainment and mockery among viewers. (Excep for types like Keith Olbermann, IMO.)

Nevermind, MSM will go the way of the dinosaur if they don't wake up soon. The internet generation is cynical and smart. And they've shown their parents and grandparents site's like the HuffPo. MSM should face it. The audience has evolved, and their growing disdain for MSM will be reflected in MSMs profits if the media continues such insults on basic intelligence and logic.

[chronic5]

I think the damage done is so severe it will take a decade to repair. I am still mourning for this once country.

[BigRube]

Damn this is really really good news. Do you think that a big Change is coming early? I hope so.

[robbor]

Finally!!! the experiment is over. now it's time to break up the monopolies. that's what they used to do in the old days, break up corporations that got too big for their britches, like Rupert Murdoch.

[mamacat]

If both the Congressional Democrats and Republicans are and have been in favor of this measure, then why has the White House been fighting against it for so long?

[plainsman]

Ahem. For a reason akin to the need for "message force multipliers." They needed to get their mess...propaganda out.

[castlerider]

I've noticed CNN has been taking a lot more clips and pieces from Huffingtonpost, where in the past that was the last piece of information they would want to bother with. Looks like they might be starting to wake up, but man, they have a long way to go.

[Pippilin]

Oh, they're waking up, all right. Waking up to the handwriting on the wall that says it's time to start kissing the bottoms of the Democrats in preparation for the November elections. No noble enlightenment on the part of the MSM here-- just a new roadmap to pursue for self-interest. Still, it doe feel good to be partially acknowledged by the networks.

[Irons]

This is the best frickin' news I've read in long time!

[continental]

Great article. This is such good news. Now, hopefully, we'll get some real news and analysis from the MSM.

[DRaymond]

Industry has often cited that this consolidation was somehow necessary for efficiency and competitiveness, but speaking to folks who were on the inside of both KTLA and the LATimes both being owned by the Tribune company that there was zero synergy in the newsroom because thier whole approach to stories was different. (That is not meant as a knock on TV news. It isn't evil that TV news is interested in stories with visual punch that can be told quickly and print journalism isn't)