The FCC's website states that, "along with competition and diversity, promoting localism is a key goal of the Commission's media ownership rules." This vital goal should not be minimized or ignored in the rush to produce a ruling. Accordingly, I ask the FCC to, at a minimum, complete the separate localism proceeding prior to making decisions on the current media ownership rules. This proceeding should provide ample opportunity for the public to comment on any conclusions or proposed rule changes.
While the Commission has commissioned some reports and held some hearings on media ownership, there is no completed localism proceeding to inform the consideration of proposals in this area. In addition, the selective burying of reports raises questions about the objectivity of the FCC reports that were allowed to be published. Moreover, the limited hearings that have been held have confirmed that other issues of public importance, including the lack of women-owned and minority-owned broadcast stations, deserve more careful attention from the Commission. Keeping in mind the contentious media ownership proposal in 2003, I respectfully suggest the need for additional information gathering and opportunities for public comment before the Commission acts on this matter again. I look forward to your response.
The Senate, in fact, held a hearing on February 1, 2007, to scrutinize the FCC harshly for its practices on telephone, television, radio, Internet and other services that people use daily.
Indeed, it would seem if Americans can commend the Democrats for doing one thing since gaining control of Congress, it should be for their actions in defense of the public airwaves. While they have been largely inadequate, there is at least proof that actions have been taken when in most other areas of American policy domestic and foreign you can barely tell that Democrats have been in control of Congress for almost a year now or taken steps towards changing the path America is on. Had we a Republican Congress right now, you can bet Martin would have already changed the rules. You can bet Martin would not be pretending to be interested in the least bit in what people have to say as local proceedings have gone on in the past months all over the country.
So, at this juncture in history, we are faced with a choice.
Think of what would happen. Think of all the advertisements. Think of the lack of news and the lack of openness and control of thought that would go on. Think of what would happen if the lack of news on television seeped into the Internet because Big Media controlled it. Think about what would happen if Tribune Co. said it controlled OpEdNews.
We must realize this plan for changes to rules by Kevin J. Martin is not just an end. It’s a means that will get Martin’s FCC baby to its end.
There will be more rule changes to come if we allow this one. And if that next one is allowed, more rule changes will come. And Martin and the FCC won’t stop until they’ve given power to all the corporations that desire it and until he has homogenized, saturated, and controlled all the outlets of media that reach the public---until he has set up media to serve the government forever.
Dorgan’s Media Ownership Act will not fix the problem that the FCC poses for America. In fact, the bill calls for Americans to have their voices heard and to speak up on how this move will affect them or why they do not want the rules to be changed. Specifically, if this act is passed, it pushes the FCC to take into account the local proceedings fully and in fact, maybe hold another round of local proceedings where the American people can give their testimony on the issue. Therefore, the members of Congress and the Senate are putting the future of media in our hands and in fact trying to convince the FCC to allow us to have the power to decide what happens with America’s airwaves.
We all should graciously accept this power and responsibly use it to spur reform. and should not expect the Senate or the House to be successful in challenging the FCC if we fail to back them up. If their argument against the FCC's plans is that we disagree with further media consolidation, than they need us to prove that what they are saying to the FCC is true. The Senate and House need us to keep them from backing down.
Having witnessed our senators and congressmen planting the seeds of change or laying a foundation for Americans to step up and demand media reform, let’s ask for more action from our senators and congressmen.
Let's ask them for more reform that goes beyond just getting the FCC to listen to us. Let’s ask for more reform from our presidential candidates on this issue, Republican and Democrat. Let’s ask for more reform from people who will be running for election in local, state, and federal elections in 2008.
Let’s go to local proceedings and make them go on into the wee hours of the night so that the FCC, our government, and our elected officials know the American people disagree with the FCC’s plans for media “reform.” Let’s dictate the reform that we want and detail what we want the media to be.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
