FCC Acting Chairman To Act Boldly On Media Diversity

[Purveyor]

Source: DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Federal Communications Commission Acting Chairman Michael Copps said Wednesday he intends to act boldly to help improve the diversity of broadcasters in the U.S.

"Today we commit to getting independent and credible information to gird what I intend to be meaningful action to right the injustice" of the lack minority- and women-owned broadcasters in the U.S., Copps said at an FCC meeting.

The FCC approved a proposal to improve data collection about broadcasting entities owned by women and minorities. The FCC voted to expand the number of broadcast entities that must file data to the commission about the ethnicity of their owners.

The Internet advocacy group Free Press said the FCC's 2007 data collection process missed over half of the radio stations owned by women and minorities and over two-thirds of the television stations. Still, Free Press says women and minorities own less than 10% of the full-power radio and TV stations in the country.

Media diversity has been a priority Copps, who is serving as interim FCC Chairman until President Barack Obama's pick for the job, Julius Genachowski, is installed. Genachowski has yet to be confirmed.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/dmtfrv

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Call Obama, and make Copps the FCC chairman.

No need for "Acting"...

Hawkeye-X

[cascadiance]

9. I wonder what approach the newer faces on the FCC will take on various issues...

Adelstein is also being "moved" out of the FCC too.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/fccs-adelstein-to-oversee-rural-broadband-buildout.ars

I wonder if Copps is at least trying to get movement on this issue before the new head and Adelstein's replacement comes on board to ensure that this is on the public agenda list so that it would be harder to ignore if he hadn't...

I'm really hoping that these replacements don't have the DLC taints that other appointments of Obama's have had.

[Thrill]

19. Obama has already appointed Genachowski to be Chair

[Gregorian]

2. Please!

The fourth estate is crucial to the functioning of this country.

[county worker]

3. This is not intended to be racial though some may take it that way.

When I push the buttons on my FM car radio I get a handful of various types of music stations, a few talk stations (all right wing), a few religious stations, a handful of Hispanic stations (I don't know what they are saying or singing), one "liberal" station, public radio and no black stations.

I think that creating more minority and women owned stations will not improve the mix I hear one bit.

Ownership does not dictate content. Maybe content doesn't matter I don't know. For This change if it comes won't do much in my opinion.

[Tempest]

7. Actually, ownership does dictate content

When Clear Channel started buying up radio stations in the early and mid 1990s, the vast majority of the stations changed from music oriented to rightwing talk.

It happened on the two radio stations in my area Clear Channel purchased. And once Clear Channel sold the stations they reverted back to music oriented.

The same was true of Murdoch when he started buying up radio stations.

There's several in-depth reporting from different sources on how consolidation in the radio media changed the landscape to rightwing talk shows, and it was led by Clear Channel and Murdoch.

[tomreedtoon]

4. Plain and simple, a fraud.

I know a black newscaster who, upon retiring, obtained a broadcast license based on exactly these kind of "diversity" programs. After two weeks of "ownership" of the station, she sold it to her former employer, a largely white corporation, and took her money and ran.

You can pass laws for ethnic diversity in ownership, but you can't stop human greed.

[Brooklyndodger]

5. Minorities should own more media outlets

This would be as effective as the Fairness Doctrine in the fight against conservative misinformation.

[Igel]

17. Ah, yes.

Race = culture and politics, not in the sense of correlation, but in the sense of causation.

Gobineau would be very proud.

[No Elephants]

24. Disagree, but neither of us can know for certain, since only 10% are owned by women and minorities

combined. Therefore, predicting is hard.

BTW, Michael Steele is a member of a minority group. So was Sessue Hayakawa.

[DumpDavisHogg]

6. The FCC needs to stop rubber-stamping station purchases

The FCC needs to stop rubber-stamping every station purchase by Clear Channel and other clueless corporations. It needs to bring back the ownership caps that existed before the 1990s.

[bertman]

8. Personally, I'd like to see more licenses issued to my minority--white liberals. I'd be

plenty happy to see women and blacks get more licenses too, but having more Laura Ingrahams on the air isn't my idea of improvement.

[No Elephants]

11. Prithee, why does the skin color (or genitalia) of a liberal station owner matter to you?

[Romulox]

15. That's a question that cuts both ways, no? nt

[No Elephants]

27. Not sure what you mean?

[Romulox]

31. The OP is about gender/racial quotas.

You wrote: "Prithee, why does the skin color (or genitalia) of a liberal station owner matter to you?", apparently in attempt to argue that it doesn't matter if "white liberals" are represented in the media (so long as "liberals" are represented in the media, presumably.)

That is a point that cuts as wide as it does deep, as they say. If genitalia and skin color don't matter, then why should the FCC push for "diversity"? :shrug:

[No Elephants]

39. I was not responding to the OP, though. I was responding to a poster who said that

he wanted more white liberals to own stations. Most people have just said that they want more diversity of opinion (meaning, I assume, fewer right wingers).

As far as what I allegedly attempted to argue and what the FCC should or should not do, you are making assumptions. All I did was ask a question of a poster who expressed a desire for more white station ownership--a question the poster has yet to answer. Most people on the thread when I posted the question had expressed a desire for more owners (as opposed to monopolies) or fewer right wingers (which, presumably means more Democrats).

Bertman was the first to express a desire for more white ownership, when that factor is already 90%. He referred not only to ideology, but to skin color, when white ownership is already 90%. And then, he went on to mention women as well. I think it very logical to ask someone who posts something like that why skin color or gender is, for him, an issue in station ownership, especially when white males already own 90% of the stations.

As for the FCC pushing for diversity in color and gender, I never said either that it should or it shouldn't. That is another assumption on your part. Before I took a position on that either way, I'd have to know more than I do. Another post of mine on this thread, in fact, asked if anyone knew why minorities and women held such a small percentage of the stations.

[Romulox]

40. The OP is about "diversity" as in skin color and genitalia, not POV.

"As far as what I allegedly attempted to argue and what the FCC should or should not do, you are making assumptions."

I assumed that your comment was to be taken in context of the OP and the developing conversation. That's all.

"think it very logical to ask someone who posts something like that why skin color or gender is, for him, an issue in station ownership"

That's the subject of the OP. That's why it's an issue on this thread.

"As for the FCC pushing for diversity in color and gender, I never said either that it should or it shouldn't. That is another assumption on your part."

No, the only assumption I've made is that you've read and understood the OP, and therefore could understand how your comments interact with the OP in the context of the ongoing discussion.

My mistake. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

42. Again, I was not responding to the OP, but to a specific post on this thread. I understand what the

OP says. The OP, however, does not explain why Bertman posted that he wants more white station owners. So I asked him why that was an issue for him. That is all that I did--ask a specific poster a question about what he posted. He has not yet answered. b

My post to Bertman started a sub thread about his post. (That is what the indentation at the left of the thread indicate.) You butt in on the sub-thread and assumed that I was making an argument instead of simply asking Bertman a question, and you also assumed which argument I was allegedly making. I replied to you factually. THAT appears to have been my mistake.

Your mistake to be not understanding the difference between a reply to the OP and a reply to a specific post, which starts a sub thread about that specific post. From your post count, it seems you would know that. Besides, I pointed out in my prior post that I was asking Bertman a question about his post, not replying to the OP. You, however, went into a condescending snark about my alleged lack of reading or understanding of the OP, another assumption for which you have less than no basis Those are your mistakes.

Maybe we'll both learn from our mistakes in this SUB thread and do better next time.

[Romulox]

43. My goodness, what an idiotic reply!

"The OP, however, does not explain why Bertman posted that he wants more white station owners. So I asked him why that was an issue for him"

It's an issue because the FCC has made it an issue (again, please read the OP.)

"You butt in on the sub-thread and assumed that I was making an argument "

Neither this message board, nor the sub-thread belong to you. Take any conversation you want to keep private to PMs, k?

"Your mistake to be not understanding the difference between a reply to the OP and a reply to a specific post"

Now you are being both smarmy and stupid. I understand quite well that your post was in response to someone else. What you don't understand is that any response to the OP (including a subthread) will always be read and understood in the context of the original post. Start a new thread if you want to have a conversation that is not wedded to the context of the OP.


"You, however, went into a condescending snark about my alleged lack of reading or understanding of the OP, another assumption for which you have less than no basis Those are your mistakes. "

In fairness, you still seem to be struggling with the concept of how a discussion thread, centered on the original post, on a public discussion forum works. :hi:

[bertman]

21. Prithee?? Please to define. As Romulox said, you are the one who seems focused on

genitalia.

Why, pray tell??


:rofl:

[No Elephants]

28. And your basis for that claim is what exactly? And why did you dodge my question? BTW,

Romulux never "said" what you claim.

I mentioned skin color and genitalia only because you did, although you stressed skin color more than gender. (At least, for most of us, gender bears a relation to genitalia.)

[Wednesdays]

10. So, instead of 20 cable channels of rightwing talking heads

we can now get 40 cable channels of rightwing talking heads? :shrug:

[No Elephants]

12. WHY do women and minorities own less than 10% of the full power radio and TV stations? The govt

is the one that hands out the licenses, right? Has it been discriminating?

I don't much care who owns the stations, as long as a few corporations/affiliates are not controlling all the media in the country and all the media are not slanted toward the GOP.

Break up the monopolies and bring back the Fairness Doctrine. One is no good without the other.

[w4rma]

13. Returning the Fairness Doctrine is a better solution, imho. (nt)

[Thrill]

20. No its not. Breaking them up is better. Thats the real problem. Conservatives getting blanket

coverage in markets

[No Elephants]

23. So lots of little RW haters can own them? We need both--the Fairness Doctrine AND

breaking them up.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine tend to break down into two groups. One is Republicans. The other is Democrats too young to remember the years the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

[Thrill]

25. The Fairness Doctrine is useless

All it basically does is require you to have a different opinion at some point of a show. Even the Progressive Talk show host say its useless.

[Lorien]

33. Too young to remember it.

obviously. :eyes:

[Thrill]

34. YAWN. Even the Progessive Radio Host say its useless

Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, etc.... all agree. The real problem is their ability to blanket entire markets. Clear Channel pretty much owns everything. Thats the problem.

[No Elephants]

38. It was far from useless. And that remains true, no matter how many times you repeat that

it was useless. Break up the ownership AND bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[No Elephants]

36. Yes, I noticed immediately how incredibly young you look.

;-) :hi:

[No Elephants]

35. Sorry. Wrong spot.

[Lorien]

32. Nonsense. Break them up and the the weathy will STILL own them and the

media will still push their agenda. Things didn't start rolling downhill until REAGAN killed the Fairness Doctrine. He knew what he was doing; he was killing real democracy and paving the way for a Fascist State.

[No Elephants]

26. You need both.

[Romulox]

14. Er, minorities and women can be corporatists too (there is more to "diversity" than skin color

and gender).

[No Elephants]

29. Exactly. And they can even be RW neo theo corporatists.

[lib2DaBone]

16. Will one Corporation be allowed to own EVERY radio station in America?

9 out of 10 Repukes think it's a good idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications

News talk stations owned by Clear Channel usually have a standard slate of hosts. The morning show is usually local, with other timeslots filled by local and syndicated hosts. Programs that appear on many Clear Channel talk stations include Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, Dr. Laura, and Coast to Coast AM, all of which are affiliated with Premiere Radio Networks in some fashion. The Savage Nation, The Mark Levin Show and Dave Ramsey are non-Premiere shows that air on many (if not most) Clear Channel stations. Limbaugh is almost universally carried on Clear Channel stations in markets where the company has a news talk station, with the exception of markets such as Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA, where ABC Radio (which previously was Limbaugh's home network) has a news talk station in the market.

Clear Cut Censorship

Clear Channel has been criticized for censoring opinions critical of George W. Bush and other Republicans. After the singer of the Dixie Chicks told a London audience "we're ashamed the president of the United States in Texas," the band's radio airplay dropped precipitously. At the time Clear Channel was accused of orchestrating the radio blacklist by such critics as Paul Krugman, however review of radio airplay logs shows that although many Clear Channel stations did stop playing the Dixie Chicks, as a whole the company's stations continued to play the band longer than stations owned by other companies.<24> Clear Channel-owned KTVX was the only local television station which refused to air the paid political message of Cindy Sheehan against the war in Iraq.<25> Many consider this to be another act of censorship of grass-roots free speech, a charge which appears to be countered by the fact that Clear Channel changed many of its AM talk/music stations to the progressive talk format (featuring the Air America Radio network) which is highly critical of President Bush. However, Clear Channel has begun flipping some of their progressive stations to other formats.

[Igel]

18. Interestingly, I'd be interested in corporate ownership numbers.

This can include Clear Channel, but there are more corporations than for-profit ones.

I mean, 10% minority/women ownership is a meaningless thing to point out. The natural thing when you hear that is to infer "90% white ownership", but that's obviously a false inference. Why? Because that entails that all the church stations, public stations, college and high-school stations, in addition to entities like Clear Channel and KROQ add up to 0% ownership.

The latter assertion is false, so we know that the "90% white" inference is false. But if that's false, and the relevant comparison is women:men ownership and minority:white ownership, we're left with nothing, it's like trying to compare an apple with something you don't know anything about. Or do we automatically say "corporate" is "white" because, well, everything that's not minority or female must be white male?

We need to know % ownership corporate/private, and then we need to have the corporate and private ownership broken down in meaningful ways. I'm left with a sense of unfounded outrage bolstered by suspicion. After all, Copps says this is an injustice, even as he says he doesn't know how much of an injustice it is, and doesn't clue us in on what he *does* know.

[LiberalFighter]

22. It will be difficult to have diversity when there are so few owners.

They need to break up the monopolies.

[No Elephants]

30. Yes. And revive the Fairness Doctrine. Please see Post #23.

[Vidar]

37. Good idea if it involves breaking up media monopolies. I'm only dreaming.

[ShareTheWoods]

41. How on earth do you force minorities to buy radio stations?

Seems like anyone wanting to buy a station can just buy one if they have the gumption and money.
Who is being refused the right to become a station owner?

[philly_bob]

44. Race & gender not central issue. Concentration of ownership is.

"Media diversity" is vague. I'd rather see FCC concentrate on unwinding big corporate mergers that have ended up with a few corporations owning more stations and controlling more content. It's closer to an antitrust issue than an issue of equitable distribution. There used to be rules limiting corporate ownership of broadcast outlets in local markets.

After you break up these gigantic corporations, then race & gender (as well as diversity of viewpoint and local community involvement) should be taken into account in redistributing the pieces.

But simple-minded distribution by race & gender no guarantee of improvement: consider Ann Coulter, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas.