More from the people who brought you

[wa8rti]

Ensuring that no one company controlled all the news outlets in a single market has worked for a long time. It has helped provide some guarantee that there was a diversity of opinion and news views available to the public. Now the FCC wants to end that and allow more monopolistic type control of the news. If the media were truly as liberal as the neocons claim, do you think they would allow 'liberal media' to gain such power in any one market? More of the Bu####e's bowing to the corporate will over what has been in the #best interests of the people.
"Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners
# # # # # # # By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 18, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city." #
The rest of the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/business/media/18broadcast.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

[w3bny]

The company that brought you no-code ham radio would be the IARU. If you remember correctly it was there reccomendantion that started this all.

P.S.

Ya lost so get over it dit-dit-dit-dah-dit-dah.

[wa8rti]

The FCC was not obligate to eliminate code just because the IARU no longer required it. #So yes it was brought to you by the FCC. And the point of the post was not a complaint over no code- just a way of saying the same people were at it again. You've missed the point- twice!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[w3bny]

but you still lost. so please get over this code no code crap. Thankeees!

[KB1KIX]

When they relaxed the rules the first time around, we ended up with nothing but left leaning reporting.

TV news does have an extreme left leaning slant.

If it wasn't for organizations like Fox leaning the other direction, it would still be as bad as it was.

At least part of them want to maintaine some viewership at CNN.

The rules need to be in place and they need to include all media (papers, radio and TV). One company here (Tribune) owns a good shair of the papers and TV.

Jonathan

[W4INF]

Not this agn...

[KD6NIG]

"I don't need drugs. I just bang my head against a brick wall about 5 or 6 times and catch a massive buzz."
-Andrew "Dice" Clay

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (wa8rti @ Oct. 18 2007,06:23)]Ensuring that no one company controlled all the news outlets in a single market has worked for a long time. It has helped provide some guarantee that there was a diversity of opinion and news views available to the public. Now the FCC wants to end that and allow more monopolistic type control of the news. If the media were truly as liberal as the neocons claim, do you think they would allow 'liberal media' to gain such power in any one market? More of the Bu####e's bowing to the corporate will over what has been in the #best interests of the people.
"Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners
# # # # # # # By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 18, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city." #
The rest of the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/business/media/18broadcast.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
The long-standing duopoly rules were trashed when Clear Channel communications bought out the FCC Mass Media Bureau. Clear Channel has hoisted their Jolly Roger over every small market to the point where local radio no longer exists. This is one of the main reasons I left the broadcasting business.

eric

[KB9YCO]

First of all, to belabor this endless topic just a bit, no code had been in the works for quite sometime and was suggested to the FCC by the ARRL, the VEC group (I forget the name) and the fact that the IARU no longer wanted it and most countries no longer required it. It was bound to happen sooner or later, and happen it did whether we all liked it or not, it's over. I personally never cared whether I had to take a code test to be licensed, I would have if required, but I do know a large number of people that put absolutely no stock in code but that are quite proficient operators both technically and in on-air demeanor. Code alone would not change that fact.

Secondly:

Quote[/b] ]TV news does have an extreme left leaning slant.

If it wasn't for organizations like Fox leaning the other direction, it would still be as bad as it was. KB1KIX

I don't know that I completely agree that the large media conglomerates are all 'left leaning', most are controlled, sometimes directly, by large corporate interests whose main agenda is money and kowtowing to whoever is 'popular for the moment.

I also don't know that it is a good thing that one lean left and the other lean right, etc.; whatever happened to objective news reporting that reported the facts without creative editing or omission? Doesn't it bother you, regardless of whether or not you agree with the network in question, that they are attempting to slant the news towards whatever angle they seem to think their audience wants or what their agenda appears to be? That's not solid news reporting and is primarily part of the reason that internet news and other sources of information are gaining in strength. People are no longer trustful of the major networks, as well they shouldn't be, and most people tend to look at as many news sources as possible (including internet and international or foreign news sources) for their information in order to draw their own conclusions; something that is actually very beneficial to free speech and the flow of information.

[ab1ga]

Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ Oct. 18 2007,10:25)]The long-standing duopoly rules were trashed when Clear Channel communications bought out the FCC Mass Media Bureau. #Clear Channel has hoisted their Jolly Roger over every small market to the point where local radio no longer exists. #This is one of the main reasons I left the broadcasting business.

eric
And let's not forget Rupert Murdoch, who, among others, enjoys ownership of print and transmitted media in Britain.

[wa8rti]

Would responders PLEASE get over the use of no code in the title of the post. It WAS NOT the point of the thread but simply a way of introducing the idea of the FCC 'at it again' with changes I find unwelcome. You have been over sensitized to the no code issue and are giving reflex (knee jerk) responses. That said-now what do you think about the potential for media mogals to gobble up a town's radio, TV and print outlets and leave the public with 'take what I give you #like it or not!' What one poster said about Clear Channel is true. Locally they control 5 or 6 AM and FM outlets. #They eliminated jobs by computerizing station control and on the midnight shift one guy controls all the stations from a computer consol. From there he can run all the commercials and pre-recorded shows and never leave his seat. There is a real engineer on call if needed. My ex son in law was the midnight guy in charge and I got a tour of the operation while he was still my son-in-law.

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (wa8rti @ Oct. 18 2007,16:21)]Would responders PLEASE get over the use of no code in the title of the post. It WAS NOT the point of the thread but simply a way of introducing the idea of the FCC 'at it again' with changes I find unwelcome. You have been over sensitized to the no code issue and are giving reflex (knee jerk) responses. That said-now what do you think about the potential for media mogals to gobble up a town's radio, TV and print outlets and leave the public with 'take what I give you like it or not!' What one poster said about Clear Channel is true. Locally they control 5 or 6 AM and FM outlets. They eliminated jobs by computerizing station control and on the midnight shift one guy controls all the stations from a computer consol. From there he can run all the commercials and pre-recorded shows and never leave his seat. There is a real engineer on call if needed. My ex son in law was the midnight guy in charge and I got a tour of the operation while he was still my son-in-law.
...he started it... he started it... nah nah...

Come on, don't you know that you can't even mention code without starting a s**t storm. Granted, I did mention it too, but only in response to the other poster. Like I said "he started it"!!

All joking aside this will not be a good thing, diversity in the market is a good thing and good for free speech and variety. Hopefully this won't happen, but I don't have much faith in the FCC these days since they seem to have gotten extremely political and agenda driven.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (wa8rti @ Oct. 18 2007,15:21)]Would responders PLEASE get over the use of no code in the title of the post. It WAS NOT the point of the thread but simply a way of introducing the idea of the FCC 'at it again' with changes I find unwelcome. You have been over sensitized to the no code issue and are giving reflex (knee jerk) responses. That said-now what do you think about the potential for media mogals to gobble up a town's radio, TV and print outlets and leave the public with 'take what I give you #like it or not!' What one poster said about Clear Channel is true. Locally they control 5 or 6 AM and FM outlets. #They eliminated jobs by computerizing station control and on the midnight shift one guy controls all the stations from a computer consol. From there he can run all the commercials and pre-recorded shows and never leave his seat. There is a real engineer on call if needed. My ex son in law was the midnight guy in charge and I got a tour of the operation while he was still my son-in-law.
NO.

You just wanted to stir up some more scat. Enough. Put a sock in it. We don't give a rat's butt that's you're still upset about the code issue. Really, we don't.

I was one of the posters that commented about the consolidation of media ownership. Cumulus put me out of work when they added another dish to the dish farm and downlinked a mid-day show from the ether. That after they went from a live show to voice tracking, cutting my pay to nearly nothing.

But Cumulus, Clear Channel, and the other media moguls are making money hand over fist. Too bad the programming sounds like the sour pabulum that it is. Since one station sounds very much like another now, I just tune into Sirius and I get my favorite music without twenty minutes of commercials an hour. Knowing I'm not supporting the bastages that bought the station with my listenership is a bit of sweet revenge.

As for your ex son-in-law's job, he's next to get the pink slip. They can control an entire network with automation, and all they have to do is download the spot announcements and daily program format from network headquarters to the local station where all the elements of the show are stored on a hard drive. Even the 'local weather' that the local station offers is done via Internet download by a meteorologist in Tampa who has contracts with stations all over the South. Most small stations don't have a soul in the building after dark, and only administration and the occasional sales weasel during the day.

Local radio is dead.