One Wisconsin Now has come out with a petition drive directed to the head of the FCC, Kevin Martin. The goal of this drive is to prevent Martin, a hand-picked Bush loyalist, is trying to ramrod through some rules that would allow the Big Media to become even bigger. If you don't understand what this means, please watch this video (it even contains some of our local squawkers, including Belling and the infamous comment that got him suspended):
Now that if that disturbs you as much as it did to me, please click on this link and fill out their online petition to Mr. Martin.
If that video wasn't enough to scare the bejeebers out of you, Milwaukee Rising has another video to show what this means. You can also sign the petition for that site as well.
Signing this petition might be the only thing that prevents even more of Sykes, Belling, et al. and even the return of McBride to the airwaves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is your answer? End free speech simply because you don't agree with it? Then again, at least you admit it, rather than hide behind words like "fairness" like the rest of your anti-free speech buddies.
ReplyDeleteSure, your buddies at One Wisconsin Now have picked out some ugly nuggets from conservative talk radio/TV. But does that justify such great intervention by the government into speech? I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince the Supreme Court today . . .
Aren't you from the party of individual rights? Or is it the party of individual rights (so long as you don't exercise them in a manner that might offend liberals)?
I'd rather the FCC just went away and people were allowed to do or say or buy whatever they want. I'm against restrictions on things.
ReplyDeleteBut does that justify such great intervention by the government into speech?
ReplyDeleteEr, isn't that what this petition is all about?
My understanding is that the peitition in question would bring further government intervention into the speech arena. Signing the petition would signal your advocacy of less free speech.
ReplyDeleteRight, Capper?
The petition states:
ReplyDeleteConsolidation has helped a handful of corporate media chains to flood our radio waves with the angry and objectionable tirades that are a hallmark of right wing talk radio.
This says to me that that the objection here is to the type of speech, not the principle of consolidated ownership.
Nobody wants to end free speech, so in the words of Hedley Lamarr, "Gentleman, rest your sphincters."
ReplyDeleteThe point is that laws exist (allegedly) to prevent monopolies, which throughout history have been proven to be disastrous to the public in every single instance.
In this case, a "loyal Bushie" is doing the bidding of the ginormous media conglomerates and changing the law to move us closer to an even tighter media monopoly.
Government + Big Media = Bad News
That said, my "favorite" part of our video has to be the Glenn Beck quote on hating 9/11 families.
Well, that and the offensive but irrelevant, Belling.
Dave, you excluded a few points from the petition:
ReplyDeleteAs big media takes over more and more of the media, there will be fewer local voices and less local programming and accountability for the people making decisions about our news.
Tell me this has not been happening? And this:
Consolidation has decreased diversity in opinion and diversity in ownership.
I'm surprised you would be against this, Dave. Is it not better to have a free and competitive marketplace rather than have the choices dictated to us?
I do think the petition would be more effective if the part about right-wing talk radio were removed, making the petition truly a universal call for less government interference.
However, I don't see this happening because of the interesting way the two sides look at this. Liberals look at talk radio as nudging out all other avenues for debate. Conservatives see any attempts at halting this takeover as free speech issues.
So, trying to blunt a Pravda-like takeover of our radio waves is somehow a free speech issue?
Just my two cents, Dave. Hope you have been well.
Redirect. Actually, trying to blunt a Pravda-like takeover of our radio waves is a free speech issue. But not for Pravda.
ReplyDeleteI have seen no decrease in diversity of opinion. Especially if you take the media as a whole (which you should). Even crackpots have an expanded voice these days (thank god).
ReplyDeleteMonopolies rarely occur without government backing. It is very likely that the current FCC is the cause of any lack of diversity that does exist. Giving it more veto power over who is allowed to express an opinion is not a good idea.
Actually, the FCC is a bad idea. Now that property rights have been established in the broadcast spectrum, they are no longer needed.
Crikey, am I the only one that had to work and then shovel snow today?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, on with the show...
Hot Fuzz-Get real. No one wants to shut down squawk radio. Heck, without Sykes, McBride, et al., there's be no Whallah!
Dave, welcome to Whallah! While I do find most talk radio offensive, there is the thing about free speech, so let them have it. But I would also like a bit of variety and choice, more than male conservative vs. female conservative or white conservative vs. black conservative. In market terms, how 'bout giving the customer what he wants.
Paul, what the current FCC wants to do is give the current media conglomerates more of a trust, and thus more control over what is put on the radio and the TV. What the petition is doing is trying to promote the freedom of speech, and prevent an Orwellian situation.
And as for not noticing a decline in variety, how many liberal talk radio stations are there in Milwaukee? I know of one. As far as TV, you have the ultraconservative FOX. You also would see a shift to the right of CNN and MSNBC.
As for me personally, I would rather have someone give me the news in an unbiased way, and let me come to my own conclusions, rather than tell me how I should think of the news they are selectively sharing.
What the petition is doing is trying to promote the freedom of speech, and prevent an Orwellian situation.
ReplyDeleteLet's please get our dystopian literature straight. Orwellian would refer to excessive government control. What you're looking for is a good corporate Dystopia. I have Snow Crash on the tip of my tongue, but I'm sure there is a good classic you could have used.
The situation ehre is that a company (a group of people) wish to buy stations with their own money, and there are people willing to sell to them of their own free will. What you want is for government to stop this transaction through their coercive powers. In the name of freedom.
See, now that's some Orwellian doublethink right there. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
And as for not noticing a decline in variety, how many liberal talk radio stations are there in Milwaukee? I know of one.
There used to be none. I remember when TMJ was a music station. I would recommend starting a competing media company that people actually want to hear. There is nothing currently preventing you or anyone else from doing this.
As far as TV, you have the ultraconservative FOX. You also would see a shift to the right of CNN and MSNBC.
Why would CNN and MSNBC shift to the right? Because it sells? If that is the case, then that would be smart business. I suspect, however, that adding a watered down Fox News clone to the airwaves would be poor business.
As for me personally, I would rather have someone give me the news in an unbiased way,
There is no one on earth capable of this.
and let me come to my own conclusions, rather than tell me how I should think of the news they are selectively sharing.
Maybe you should move to Candyland.
No, Paul, I would rather see a balance between government and Big Business. I don't want a totalitarian government. I also don't want a plutarchy. That is why there are anti-trust laws on the books. The petition is trying to keep these anti-trust laws from being hamstrung.
ReplyDeleteThe major TV stations have a long history of doing things to death, i.e. CSI, Law and Order, and all their offshoots.
And it may not be realistic to expect the news to be delivered in an unbiased fashion, but it is still a goal worth working for, rather than throwing our hands up in the air and giving up. I'd rather work towards that than to be told what to think.
I like being told what to think. Then I know to do the opposite.
ReplyDeleteMost anti-trust laws are on the books to allow the government to protect certain industries. Rarely is the Sherman Act actually used to benefit consumers, because the government is lousy at deciding what is anti-competitive and what is not. The immediate example that springs to mind is Sirius and XM.
Sirius and XM compete with broadcast as well as with MP3 players, CD companies, HD radio, and internet radio. They have a ton of competitors.
But some government officials view their market as "sattelite radio" which, if it stands, will almost certainly lead to the demise of both. They did essentially the same thing in the 80s with Pabst and Heileman, killing both companies:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E6DB173BF935A25755C0A964948260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/B/Beer/Beer%20Industry
There is no evidence that the government has any idea what it is doing in scenarios like this. Generally, consolidation is a response to greater competition. You would expect to see consolidation in an industry threatened by Ipods, internet radio, podcasts, sirius/xm, and, of course, TV. Sometimes it is the only way to stay profitable.
Is there any liberal issue that isn't tinged with anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist rhetoric? Let's see . . . global warming - check. Environmentalism - check. General taxation and redistributionist policies - big check. Iraq - check. "Free" speech - check.
ReplyDeleteAnd I invite you to actually understand anti-trust law (and the definition of a "monopoly") before commenting. Claiming that our media would be overrun by a monopoly (by definition, one entity in control) is nice rhetoric, but it ignores reality. Heck, considering how you commenters use the word "monopoly" here, I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart would have a monopoly on the retail industry.
Good point, Noonan. But let's talk in terms they'd better understand -- how about the FTC fighting Whole Foods' proposed takeover of Wild Oats? The FTC has been lambasted by both sides for claiming that the companies are in the narrow liberal . . . er . . . natural and organic grocery business.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good example as well, Mr. Fuzz.
ReplyDeletePaul and Hot Fuzz-
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the oil companies are doing a free market thing, or do you believe that there is some level of collusion between them?
To me, it is the same with the media conglomerates. I would rather have a diverse collection of news sources. And not to listen to just on viewpoint, but to all sides as I can, and make my own concusions from what I learn.
Even now, I'll flip around between TMJ, WISN, NPR and CPT for information. I take none of them as gospel truth, but glean what is probably the truth from what they all say.
If that is too much independence for you, there is nothing I can do for you then. But it is surprising to me that you would not value comptetition or independence.
Oil companies most certainly do not collude. Even OPEC, which overtly claims to collude to raise prices, can't successfully pull it off. There is too much money to be had by not colluding.
ReplyDeleteIndependence only truly exists absent government intrusion. What you're really asking for here is protectionism your viewpoint. That is neither free nor independent.