REPEAL The Telecommunications Act of 1996 OR accept living with Faux and all other corporate media.

[Union Yes]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton and shoved down our throats by a Rethug controlled congress and senate.(The Contract With America class)

The stated objective of said act was to open up markets to competition by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to entry.

The result of said act..

The Birth of Faux News.

National media syndication run amuck.

Corporate media like Clear Channel radio monopolizing.

Killing NOT fostering competition.

Corporate media got an injection of steroids.

Local news channels that have been left struggling to stay afloat, crushed by corporate national media titans like Faux, MSNBC, CNN.

Repeal this disgraceful law.

Time for a new Act. One that will re-regulate media nationwide.

Why should a media company owned and operating in California be able to broadcast news and/or political opinion in Minnesota? Why should a news/political talk radio program owned, operated, and produced in Florida be broadcast in Ohio?

Instead, all media companies should only be allowed to broadcast in the state they are owned and operated in. A media company in Florida should only be allowed to broadcast in Florida.

This new re-regulation would govern TV and radio and these companies would also be governed under federal anti-trust laws.

We can start making hard choices or we can continue to live in a nation that is brainwashed and propagandized by corporate media titans who cling to nasty and evil intentions.

I'm tired of being propagandized by wealthy, middle class killin, warpigs.

I've made the hard choice. For me it was actually quite easy.

:patriot:

[aSpeckofDust]

1. I agree. We've seen it unregulated and it isn't pretty. N/t

[Union Yes]

2. Not much else needs to be said than what you replied.

:fistbump:

edit: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[aSpeckofDust]

3. Thanks.

Been wandering around on most news sites and DU seems to be the most sane, if a bit volatile at times. (:

[TexasProgresive]

4. I agree with you that we need to heavily revise the Act

But your first point hangs me up, what did the Telcom Act of 1996 have to do with Faux Snooze?

[Union Yes]

5. Faux launched Oct 7 1996 with their newfound freedom to enter any media market. nt

[onenote]

9. nearness in time doesn't equal cause and effect -- the act had nothing to do with fox news

Fox News is a cable channel. The 1996 Act loosened broadcast ownership limits. Fox News could have, and would have, been launched whether or not the 1996 Act.

Two things -- neither related to the 1996 Act helped Fox News get going. First, in 1995, Time Warner and Turner Broadcasting agreed to merge. The FTC imposed, as a condition of approving the merger, a requirement that Time Warner carry a second 24 hour news channel on its cable systems. At that point in time, Fox News was just getting going. MSNBC also had recently been created, using channel space previously occupied by a channel called "America's Talking". Originally, Time Warner took the position that its carriage of MSNBC satisfied its obligations under the consent decree. This led to several lawsuits. Ultimately, Time Warner and Fox settled those suits. The terms of the settlement required Time Warner to add Fox News to most of its systems over a five year period starting in 1997.

The second thing that allowed Fox News to get a toehold -- again unrelated to anything in the 1996 Act -- was Murdoch's willingness to offer substantial cash "launch" fees to cable systems that agreed to add Fox News.

[TexasProgresive]

18. Thank you for the explanation

I knew that the Telcom act did nothing to make Faux possible since it is cable only. I think that the act did something to deregulate cable fees and that's about it.

[RadicalGeek]

6. Throw in a requirment

That there be at least ONE non-commerical station in each market, and NPR doesn't count for this purpose, or allow for low-power radio (a la Prometheus) and you may have something.

We do need a new "Fairness Doctrine"--but it doesn't concern opinions as much as access.

[corpseratemedia]

7. and no more dlcers to sign bills like these that destroyed so much

nafta
Glass-Steagall
Telecommunications Act 1996

[Union Yes]

13. Agree. Clinton signed some atrocious legislation. nt

[soverywendy]

8. Completely agree

Of course, this flaccid ex-nation cannot make the simplest of "hard choices."

[onenote]

10. "why should a media company from CA be able to broadcast news/opinion in MN"

And should satellite, newspapers and the internet also be "local only"?

I think the 1996 Act was a bad act (although not everything in it was bad) and a number of its provisions have been abused and need serious reform. But the suggestion that media has to be locally owned is absurd. It never has been that way. And even if there was a requirement that the stations be owned locally, are you saying that there could be no networks to supply those stations with programming, including national news programming? I'm pretty sure that people in Florida like watching Nightline, or Meet the Press, or Face the Nation, etc.

Many many communities have for decades demanded that their cable systems offer public access channels that are purely in local in nature. They are among the least watched (and least watchable) channels around.

In a world in which the Internet allows someone in Dubuque access to news and opinions from Bangladesh (and vice versa) and in which cable and satellite services provide more of the programming that people watch than broadcast, your proposal is quaint but otherwise not particularly useful.

[Union Yes]

12. "And should satellite, newspapers and the internet also be local only?"

I stated in my OP that this law should only regulate TV and radio.

[onenote]

14. what is the basis for drawing that distinction?

If its okay for the public to get access to points for view from some media outlets not owned locally, why should broadcast tv and radio be different?
And I'm still curious how national network programming fits into your concept.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Then it would not affect satellite based media outlets such as cnn and fox.

Perhaps you have confused fox news, the cable channel distributed over satellite, with fox tv, the broadcast tv network?

[Vidar]

11. K&R

[JTFrog]

15. K&R

[Laelth]

17. Good idea. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[lpbk2713]

19. You make some good points. I wish we could make it happen.

I would love to see a world free of any vile assholes like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck just to name a few.

They have gotten very wealthy off of spreading lies and hate. It's time for it to end.