I think it's time to start pushing for RE-Regulation of Television Broadcasting!

[Up2Late]

And before I get a bunch of LOLs, I know "...it ain't gonna be easy..." and it will probably take 10 to 15 years, but we should start now.

Otherwise, we are stuck with the mess we have now with such great institutions as "Fox "news", "Shock Jocks," and 24/7 Anna Nicole/Duke Lacrosse scandals, and Television "news" that delivers almost ZERO actual News.

For those who forgot what "DEREGULATION" was, or are too young to remember what we lost, here's something I found last night at "The Museum of Broadcast Communications."

<http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/deregulation/deregulation.htm>

DEREGULATION

When applied in the United States this general concept describes most American electronic media policy in the past two decades. Largely a bi-partisan effort, this fundamental shift in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) approach to radio and television regulation began in the mid-1970s as a search for relatively minor "regulatory underbrush" which could be cleared away for more efficient and cost-effective administration of the important rules that would remain. Congress largely went along with this trend, and initiated a few deregulatory moves of its own. The arrival of the Reagan Administration and FCC Chairman Mark Fowler in 1981 marked a further shift to a fundamental and ideologically-driven reappraisal of regulations long held central to national broadcasting policy. Ensuing years saw removal of many long-standing rules resulting in an overall reduction in FCC oversight of station and network operations. Congress grew increasingly wary of the pace of deregulation, however, and began to slow the FCC's deregulatory pace by the late 1980s.

Specific deregulatory moves--some by Congress, others by the FCC--included (a) extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981; (b) expanding the number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985 (a situation under consideration for further change in 1995); (c) abolishing guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming in 1985; (d) elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987; (e) dropping, in 1985, FCC license guidelines for how much advertising could be carried; (f) leaving technical standards increasingly in the hands of licensees rather than FCC mandates; and (g) deregulation of television's competition (especially cable which went through several regulatory changes in the decade after 1983).

Deregulatory proponents do not perceive station licensees as "public trustees" of the public airwaves required to provide a wide variety of services to many different listening groups. Instead, broadcasting has been increasingly seen as just another business operating in a commercial marketplace which did not need its management decisions questioned by government overseers. Opponents argue that deregulation violates key parts of The Communications Act of 1934--especially the requirement to operate in the public interest--and allows broadcasters to seek profits with little public service programming required in return.

American deregulation has been widely emulated in other countries in spirit if not detail. Developed and developing countries have introduced local stations to supplement national services, begun to allow (if not encourage) competing media such as cable, satellite services, and videocassettes, and have sometimes loosened regulations on traditional radio and television. Advertising support along lines of the American model has become more widely accepted, especially as television's operating costs rise. But the American example of relying more on competition than regulation also threatens traditional public service broadcasting which must meet increasing competition for viewers by offering more commercially-appealing programs, usually entertainment--rather than culture-based.

-C. H. Sterling

"Further Reading" Suggestions at the link below.

<http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/deregulation/deregulation.htm>

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I'll say this

it was the advent of cable TV in my little town that changed the vocabulary of the elementary students for the worse. This was around 1981. I also noted an increase of violence and bullying at that time. Don't know if all were caused by TV, but I do think TV was a factor--I did a survey and found that those who were cussing all had cable.

[Up2Late]

2. Another good post with more info at this link...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=657570&mesg_id=657570>

Give 'em both a kick if you agree. :kick:

[Ron Green]

3. If we can regulate food and consumer products in the interest of public health and safety,

we ought to be able to regulate the content of what is delivered into homes and public places through electronic means.

[tavalon]

15. Ouch

Slippery slope there. I'm not too keen on having the content that comes into my home through electronic means being regulated. It sounds too much like censorship. I don't personally have cable or even turn on the TV for anything other than DVDs but the internet is my life line to the world.

I'm afraid I have to side with the Rude Pundit on this one. Must err on the side of less censorship. A little fairness to all sides, OTOH, sounds pretty okay. The reichtwing is getting a bit too strident and overshadowing for my taste.

[Ron Green]

17. I know what you mean, but I'm imagining a way to differentiate between the Internet

and cable/satellite/broadcast feeds that are centrally controlled. The idea that the "free market" should determine what is sent out over these public channels reinforces the race to the bottom. If the "free market" is left absolutely alone, we end up mostly with drugs, gambling and prostitution. Corporate decision-makers have NO interest in quality, only the bottom line. I mean, Imus was not fired because he said something offensive, he was fired because he's too old and unhip to pull off his smartass remarks any more.

I detest the idea of censorship, but I embrace the idea of forcing those who control the PEOPLE'S electromagnetic spectrum (and the cables and the satellites) to respond to questions of civic value, not just shareholder value.

[onenote]

20. sorry, but I'd rather not have the government deciding what content should be broadcast

A bad bad idea.

[Wednesdays]

22. Is that what was occuring before 1981?

nm

[onenote]

24. in a mild sense, yes

it was more of a chilling effect than directly dictating content. Of course, I'm not sure that a return to the situation in 1981 would satisfy some who want active government involvement in overseeing what is broadcast.

There was more "self-regulation" in 1981 == but there also was less competition from cable (and no competition from the Internet). A "self-regulating" broadcast media would still be compelled to compete with Fox News, with violence and sex on pay tv, etc. And with stronger government input, you can bet that they'd go after the latter than after the content of news and opinion programming.

[ClintonTyree]

4. I agree wholeheartedly....

there's too much power over what's shown on TV in too few hands. That and the demise of the fairness doctrine have given us what we now call, "News" on the 24 hour cable channels. They're all controlled by people that have an agenda of their own with definite slant toward the right. The "myth of the liberal media" was introduced by these very same people to cover their own asses. There are a LOT of things in this country that need to be regulated again, but what Americans hear as "news" is probably THE most important. Fair, honest, investigative journalism is a must in this day and age. And just because you say you are "fair and balanced" doesn't mean a damned thing. There needs to be someone watching over these hucksters because they surely aren't policing themselves.

[CK_John]

5. You can only regulate public airways, cable is not public. You pay

to bring cable programming into your home. I'm sick of the save me from myself crowd. Turn off your TV set or stop paying for your cable.

[Up2Late]

6. I guess that's going on the list then of the NEW Regulations that should be added.

I guess you're not quite getting this, but the Congress and a willing President could regulate just about everything if things get bad enough that the public started demanding such regulations. They just have to pass the new laws.

If the Federal Government wanted to, it could declare ALL of the Cable infrastructure Public if it wanted to, but hopefully it won't come to that.

Hopefully, once the Broadcast News is regulated, people will begin to respect it and the News it contains again and will stop watching the Bogus "news" on Cable.

Then "the Market" will force Cable "news" to make a choice: change or die.

[CK_John]

8. You don't seem to believe in the 1st amendment. Why not censure

the internet or newspapers or libraries or schools or cell phone usage? Where does it stop.

[Up2Late]

11. Believe it or not, The First Amendment Does have it's limits today.

You can blame it on "activist Judges" if you want to, but some of the limits are things like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or giving a speech meant to cause a riot or speech that the Government deems dangerous to the public at large.

Yes I do believe in the First Amendment, just not it's abuse by tyrants and bullies.

[Spiffarino]

13. The 1st Amendment does not cover regulation of the commons

...except that it ensures everyone has a right to use them to practice free speech, religion, and thought.

Nowhere is this more necessary than in mass media, where information that is favored by a corporate owner gets aired while information that isn't is not allowed airtime when both are willing and able pay for airtime.

Example: Remember the anti-Bush ads during the Super Bowl? You don't? That's because the network would not allow them because they were "too controversial." But exploding horse farts? No problem!

[Spiffarino]

12. Cable is part of the commons.

Not only does cable cross public rights-of-way, it is also allowed regional monopolies. It is a public utility run by a private enterprise. We receive news, entertainment and information from cable TV the same way we receive electricity from the power utility to warm a home or run a video game console. Cable TV companies make huge sums of money because they have little competition. In exchange for this virtually guaranteed profit, they provide a benefit to the public. If they monopolize the content they provide in order to further enrich themselves at the expense of the public good, they must be held to account.

[onenote]

21. cable is allowed "regional monopolies"

Says who? Last time I looked, Verizon and ATT were out getting franchises to provide cable service in hundreds of communities and virtually everyone in the country has the choice of two DBS companies if they don't want cable. Cable is far different from a 'public utility' since it was built with private capital without a guaranteed rate of return.

What content is cable monopolizing and who should be dictating to cable what content it carries?

A lot of hostility to the first amendment on this thread, it seems.

[Spiffarino]

25. Why do you insist on framing this as a FA issue?

Radio and TV stations weren't all built by the government, either. The "light" that the signal rides on belongs to everyone. Cable uses limited under-and above-ground rights of way throughout the country, just like roads and rails. Satellite transmissions do the same thing through space.

DBS may be the wave of the future, but in most places cable companies get a regional contract to provide their service without competition from other cable providers. Until on-demand media is widely available and affordable, the choices are limited for most of us.
And spouting "turn off your TV if you don't like it" may be the favorite canard of media moguls, but I'm not buying it. Television, radio and the Internet have supplanted the newspaper, magazines and even gossip as the means we use to learn about and discuss the wider world. If these means are perverted by a small number of agenda-driven owners, then we have a responsibility as citizens of this democracy to do something about it.

I'll do you one better. If you're really concerned about the First Amendment, start with Net Neutrality. The fact is that the Internet as we know it wouldn't exist except that the government (by way of the military) funded it. It must remain open and intact with as few restrictions as possible, up to and including amending the Constitution to guarantee us these rights, if necessary.

[onenote]

26. You are completely wrong about most cable companies getting exclusive franchises

Your statement that "in most places cable companies get a regional contract to provide their service without competition from other cable providers" is simply wrong. The award of exclusive franchises to provide cable service has been illegal since 1992. (47 US Code Sec. 541: "a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise").

And as far as DBS abeing the "wave of the future" -- its more of the "wave of the present" -- Currently almost 30 million homes get their pay tv from either DirecTV or Dish TV -- roughly 1/3 of the total pay tv universe. And DirecTV and Dish each have more subscribers than any of the cable companies in the country except Comcast and TIme Warner (and, actually, Time Warner has fewer subscribers than DirecTV).

And yes, cable uses rights of way, and it makes perfect sense for the government to regulate the use of those rights of way by controlling when the streets are dug up and to levy fees on those who use them. But that doesn't translate into a justification for regulating content just as the fact that newspapers place newsboxes on public street corners doesn't justify regulating content of newspapers.

[MADem]

7. There's nothing ON the public airwaves, hardlly, anymore.

They got Imus off the public radio (the TV simulcast was cable, thus does not count) so all that's left is Limpballs and his smart ass Barack the Magic Negro remarks off the air--think that will happen? I don't. At least not as long as we have a Republican in the White House.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200703230002

And of course, gotta unload Rosie for her Asian insults! That might work--she doesn't support the war, either, so she has gotta go. Whip up the outrage, because people are just too fucking stupid to NOT WATCH if they don't like what she says.

Never mind listeners/viewers turning the dial or using the remote if they don't appreciate the crap they see or hear. That's too hard. Censorship is the easiest solution... spoon feed people.

Nothing should ever offend anyone, ever. No reruns of Julia Child cooking Peking Duck, it offends vegetarians. No milk commercials, they offend vegans.

That's the ticket!

[Up2Late]

9. I have an info request: Does anyone know if any new HD Radio Laws have been passed yet?

Because, HD Radio IS Already here, even if most people don't know it yet.

I did a little checking last night and HD Radio has quietly added 39 NEW Radio channels to my Metro area of Atlanta alone!

Here's a few links if you want to check your area too: <http://www.hdradio.com/>

<http://www.hdradio.com/find_an_hd_digital_radio_station.php>

There are 23 stations in Atlanta, GA broadcasting 39 HD Radio channels, 1 more coming soon*

Atlanta, GA 105.3 WBZY-HD1 FM Mexican Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 105.3-2 WBZY-HD2 FM Tejano Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 96.1 WKLS-HD1 FM Rock Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 96.1-2 WKLS-HD2 FM Alternative Rock Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 94.9 WUBL-HD1 FM Country Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 94.9-2 WUBL-HD2 FM New Country Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 99.7 WNNX-HD1 FM Altve/NwRck Cumulus Media Partners
Atlanta, GA 99.7-2 WNNX-HD2 FM Adult Alternative Cumulus Media Partners
Atlanta, GA 103.3 WVEE-HD1 FM Urban CBS Radio
Atlanta, GA 103.3-2 WVEE-HD2 FM Neo-Soul / Urban AC CBS Radio
Atlanta, GA 96.7 WLTM-HD1 FM Soft AC Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 96.7-2 WLTM-HD2 FM Smooth Jazz Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 105.7 WWVA-HD1 FM Span/CHR Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 105.7-2 WWVA-HD2 FM La Bomba Clear Channel Radio
Atlanta, GA 100.5 WWWQ-HD1 FM CHR Cumulus Media Partners
Atlanta, GA 100.5-2
(coming soon) WWWQ-HD2 FM All 90s Cumulus Media Partners
Atlanta, GA 92.9 WZGC-HD1 FM Rock CBS Radio
Atlanta, GA 92.9-2 WZGC-HD2 FM Deep Classic Hits CBS Radio
Atlanta, GA 90.1 WABE-HD1 FM Nws/Tlk/Cls Atlanta Board of Education
Atlanta, GA 90.1-2 WABE-HD2 FM Arts & Culture Atlanta Board of Education
Atlanta, GA 90.1-3 WABE-HD3 FM News & Information Atlanta Board of Education
Atlanta, GA 860 WAEC-HD AM Christian Beasley Broadcast Group
Atlanta, GA 104.1 WALR-HD1 FM R&B Oldies Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 104.1-2 WALR-HD2 FM Adult Hip Hop Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 102.5 WAMJ-HD1 FM R&B Oldies Radio One Inc.
Atlanta, GA 95.5 WBTS-HD1 FM CHR/Rhymc Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 95.5-2 WBTS-HD2 FM Top 40 Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 91.9 WCLK-HD1 FM Jazz Clark College
Atlanta, GA 107.9 WHTA-HD1 FM Urban AC Radio One Inc.
Atlanta, GA 107.5 WJZZ-HD1 FM Smooth Jazz Radio One Inc.
Atlanta, GA 101.5 WKHX-HD1 FM Country ABC Radio
Atlanta, GA 101.5-2 WKHX-HD2 FM Country/Southern Rock ABC Radio
Atlanta, GA 98.5 WSB-HD1 FM Soft AC Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 98.5-2 WSB-HD2 FM Soft Standards Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 97.1 WSRV-HD1 FM Clsc Hits Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 97.1-2 WSRV-HD2 FM News/Talk - WSB-AM Cox Radio, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 94.1 WSTR-HD1 FM Top 40 Lincoln Financial Media
Atlanta, GA 1100 WWWE-HD AM Span/Chrst Beasley Broadcast Group
Atlanta, GA 106.7 WYAY-HD1 FM Country ABC Radio
Atlanta, GA 106.7-2 WYAY-HD2 FM Country / Souther Rock ABC Radio

Market FrequencySorted by StnFreq Call Sign Band Format Owner

<http://www.hdradio.com/find_an_hd_digital_radio_station.php>

[yurbud]

10. at least require some degree of factual accuracy

[LeFleur1]

14. Factual Accuracy

Factual Accuracy. THAT is the basic problem. Requesting accuracy is what should be done, but how do we go about doing that? If there is a punishment for not broadcasting accuracy, who is to say the Republicans, when in power won't punish those who do broadcast accurate statements? Why wouldn't they go after those who ARE broadcasting accurate statements and dole out punishment,and say they aren't broadcasting the truth?
Corrupt people will do anything, as has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by this administration.

News shows should absolutely be truth. No deceiving FOX news shows, or others, should go without punishment. Who can we trust to be the watch dog?

As far as shows that are not news shows, I don't know how to deal with them. People believe that anything on television talk/news shows is true. Maybe we should be trying to educate the public to look for the truth, and doubt everything that comes over the airwaves.

[GuvWurld]

16. Deregulation/Re-regulation is the wrong frame

If you are calling for re-regulation you are saying this government should take more control. Will you look at that. I didn't think there was anything left for them to take more control over. Why would we want this when the airwaves belong to the people? They should be kept out of the hands of government and corporations. This is where we need to be coming from if we're going to get any kind of media reform and/or a voice in the future.

Peace.

[Ron Green]

18. So who represents the people? The corporations? Or the government?

Or the church? That's all there is, really: Church, State and Market. In matters of public interest, I gotta go with the ones you can vote for.

[GuvWurld]

19. Clearly, none of the above. Clearly.

Those have all become one and the same, or at least parts of a single fascist entity that has to be seen as a domestic enemy. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!

[Vidar]

23. Amen to that.