Localism's Last Stand (Safire Op-Ed)

[Ivory_Tower]

I hadn't seen this posted, so I apologize if it's a dupe.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/17/nyt.safire/index.html

I missed the story behind this, but it looks like Congress is trying to limit the scope of Mike Powell's recent FCC ruling?

From the article:

"But to everyone's amazement, the networks' power play was foiled. Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia urged his GOP colleagues to vote their consciences, and an amendment to hold the cap on a huge conglomerate's ownership to 35 percent of the national TV audience was passed by a vote of 40 to 25."

As Safire points out, though, there's still a long way to go (Hastert could scuttle it, the Senate could resist it, etc.), but he does identify the growing resentment over Powell's ruling: "But public opinion is on the march. Some in-house pollster should awaken President Bush to a bipartisan sleeper issue that could blindside him next year."

[Ivory_Tower]

1. Okay, either nobody really cares about this, or

it's already been discussed elsewhere and I didn't know it.

It looks like this is becoming Safire's pet story, though. He wrote another column on this yesterday (7/24):

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/24/nyt.safire/index.html

"WASHINGTON -- On the domestic front, President Bush is backing into a buzz saw.
The sleeper issue is media giantism. People are beginning to grasp and resent the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the Four Horsemen of Big Media — Viacom (CBS, UPN), Disney (ABC), Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox) and G.E. (NBC) — to gobble up every independent station in sight.
Couch potatoes throughout the land see plenty wrong in concentrating the power to produce the content we see and hear in the same hands that transmit those broadcasts...."

<snip>

If I understand what's going on, Congress is considering an amendment to an appropriations bill that would limit the scope of the FCC ruling regarding corporate ownership of the media. And the White House is threatening to veto the bill if the amendment is inserted. (Shrub has to issue a veto.) From the article:

"The Bush veto threat would deny funding to the Commerce, State and Justice Departments, not to mention the federal judiciary. It would discombobulate Congress and disserve the public for months....This would be Bush's first veto. Is this the misbegotten principle on which he wants to take a stand?"

<snip>

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this has the makings of being a big deal.