Maurice Hinchey takes on media consolidation.
With the election of the new Democratic Congress, we have gained the opportunity for us to roll back the failed corporate welfare policies of previous Republican administrations. Congressman Maurice Hinchey has introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act, which he says would take control of the broadcast media out of the hands of the giant corporations and restore it back into the hands of the communities.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine, which required radio stations to discuss both sides of the issues. Hinchey's bill would restore the doctrine and would implement other safeguards to restore local control of radio.
Here are the key points of the bill:
- It would restore provisions in which one broadcast company cannot own stations that reach more than 35% of American households. This would directly target such outlets such as Clear Channel.
- It would limit the number of stations a company could own to 5% of all AM or FM stations or less.
- A single company could not own more than a certain number of radio stations in a single market, depending on the size of the community.
- Companies could not own a cable company and a broadcast station in the same market.
- Companies would be given one year to comply with the new regulations; it would not be grandfathered in.
- It would invalidate FCC rules made in 2003 that deregulated broadcast media.
- MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.
- It would require radio stations to file reports every two years on how they are serving the community and hold at least two public hearings every year to determine the needs of their audience.
Questions for discussion:
- Does the Fairness Doctrine violate Free Speech? Or is there a compelling governmental interest that would overrule it? Could Congress still regulate this under the Commerce Clause?
- This would affect our outlets as much it would affect right-wing radio. Would the effect on AAR, Pacifica Radio, etc. be worth it? Would it be OK if AAR were to have right-wing voices on the radio in order to balance things out?
- Does this bill go too far, about right, or not far enough in regulating radio?
- Why should the Fairness Doctrine apply to radio and not to print media? What about the Equal Protection Clause?
- What do you think of the quality of programming in your area? Is the quality of programming in your area poor enough to make these changes necessary?
The following legislators (All Democrats) have co-sponsored this bill:
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4]
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9]
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11]
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28]
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35]
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]
A return to draconian media ownership rules isn't needed and would severely
cripple the ability of local broadcasters to survive. I work with the NAB
on this issue and believe critics are vastly overstating the impact of
media consolidation.
That's not always the case. This is not a matter of opposing small local
outlets merging; this is a matter of huge outfits like Clear Channel and
others swallowing up small stations and then providing homogenized
programming that is not always in tune with what local people want.
Nate:
Nate:
You do know who will be deciding what topics are controversial and which
topics/stations etc. need to have "equal time?" Someone in the government!
Obamathon
