Justices won't reinstate liberal media ownership rules

[Judi Lynn]

Posted 6/13/2005 10:30 AM Updated 6/13/2005 10:35 AM

Justices won't reinstate liberal media ownership rules
By Hope Yen, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from broadcast and newspaper groups that sought to restore government rules that would have eased restrictions on media ownership.

Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that threw out the Federal Communications Commission regulations as unjustified.

The commission now must take a second shot at revising its older ownership rules, which media groups say are inadequate to address the burgeoning cable television, satellite broadcasting and Internet markets.

The proposed changes would have allowed a single company to own TV stations and a newspaper in the same area, and to own more TV and radio stations in a single market. But critics, including many in Congress, said that would stifle diversity in news and entertainment by encouraging mergers.
(snip/...)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-06-13-ownership-rules_x.htm

[merwin]

1. Isn't that what they're trying to accomplish though?

[AuntiBush]

2. This is unreal. We're already stifled by single-owned TV/Papers

Unreal. At a loss for words.

[rodeodance]

3. so, who wins?

.....The appeals were filed by the Newspaper Association of America, Tribune Co., National Association of Broadcasters and Media General. Joining the appeals were Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper publisher and owner of USA TODAY and USATODAY.com; Belo; Morris Communications, CBS, Fox and NBC.

The media groups argued that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia should have upheld the new, more liberal FCC ownership rules in deference to the agency's expertise.

Restoring the looser restrictions would ensure that newspapers and broadcasters deliver high-quality news and "remain competitive in today's increasingly challenging multimedia environment," the filing from the Newspaper Association said.

The FCC, which chose not to pursue its own appeal after the 3rd Circuit decision, urged justices to turn away the media groups' request. The FCC said it first should be given a chance to come up with new rules that could pass judicial muster. ,,,,,,,,,

[Rose Siding]

4. I think we do

Media consolidation was slowed (desired by the big guys who had appealed the lower court's decision), if I'm understanding this correctly.

[janx]

5. It looks that way. But how could it get any worse?

?

[Bridget Burke]

7. Yes: the "Liberal" Media Ownership Rules are not Liberal....

Except to the Owners of Media.

[TahitiNut]

10. Exactly. It's "free-for-all" or "winner-takes-all" ownership rules.

This is where the Political Compass comes in handy. The proposed rules are an abdication of public control, ceding control over the public airwaves and access to a market monopolized by collaborative global corporatists in league with "might makes right" politicians. The Political Compass makes this clearer, distinguising between social/individual regulation on the vertical axis and economic regulation on the horizontal axis.

[NVMojo]

8. We are already screwed. They are already over-merged into huge

media monopolies. So what if they stop the merging and morphing. It's already bad. They need to be broken up.

[icymist]

16. Here! here! Kick!

:kick:

[Roland99]

9. That's how I was reading this.

But, it's up to Federal regulators. Just who might *they* be, eh?

[Judi Lynn]

6. Same subject, different source:

Media Industry Rejected by Top U.S. Court on Station Ownership
June 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, rejecting bids from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and other media businesses, refused to question federal limits on the number of broadcast stations and newspapers that companies can own.

The justices made no comment today in turning away five industry appeals that said the Federal Communications Commission isn't allowing enough consolidation in the media business. The Bush administration urged the court not to grant a hearing.

The rejection is a victory for consumer groups, which say the ownership limits help ensure diversity of local news and programming. It's a setback for News Corp., Viacom Inc., Gannett Co., Clear Channel Communications Inc. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal Inc. in their bid for more freedom to acquire new radio and television stations and newspapers.

For media companies, the high court appeal was ``the one way out of the box that they're in right now on ownership,'' said Stanford Washington Research analyst Paul Gallant. ``The chances of the FCC significantly relaxing the ownership rules are fairly low.''
(snip/...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=abgsaV4QV41c&refer=top_world_news

[Kolesar]

11. This is good news, but

I cannot understand why the Bush administration urged the court not to grant a hearing. I would expect them to be behind the consolidation of the propaganda outlets.

[Judi Lynn]

12. That throws me, too. It's probably just for show, considering the grip

they have on the "news" industry already.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Nice headline.

Liberal and "judges won't" .... nice little subtle way to trash the word liberal.

How about "Justices won't reinstate pro-business media rules"

How about "Justice won't reinstate media monopoloy rules"

USATODAY makes me ill. Its just about the print version of Fox news,IMHO.

[Judi Lynn]

15. It's truly underhanded. You start expecting it from them. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

14. WP: Supreme Court Upholds Media Ownership Limits

Supreme Court Upholds Media Ownership Limits

By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 13, 2005; 1:24 PM

The Supreme Court today declined to hear appeals by big media companies that had sought to implement controversial new government rules easing restrictions on media ownership.

Without comment, the nation's highest court let stand a lower court ruling that threw out the Federal Communications Commission regulations, which were adopted in a hotly contested vote two years ago but had never taken effect.

The FCC regulations would have allowed television networks such as CBS and Fox to buy a few more television stations nationally and let one company own both the biggest newspaper and highest-rated television station in most cities, thus allowing big media companies to become even bigger -- and more influential -- in their marketplaces.

Critics argued that the regulations would have encouraged mergers and squashed competition in news and entertainment. Some media organizations, on the other hand, lobbied heavily in support of the rules. The White House, the Republican congressional leadership and the Republican-dominated FCC had all backed the new ownership rules.

more at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061300740.html

[Guaranteed]

17. OUTSTANDING NEWS.

Made my FREAKING day! :)

[Rainscents]

18. This is great NEWS and for Americans!!!

[Lochloosa]

19. Supreme Court puts media rules back in FCC's lap

In case anyone missed this one....:sarcasm:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002335095_fccmedia14.html

By Jube Shiver Jr

Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court yesterday put the incendiary issue of expanded media ownership back in the lap of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), forcing officials to take another crack at revamping their controversial rules.

Yesterday's action means FCC commissioners will have to rewrite policies they moved to loosen in 2003 governing how many TV and radio stations companies can own. They also must better justify the rationale for easing restrictions on companies owning TV stations and newspapers in the same market.

<snip>

"This is another huge victory for the American public and for democracy," said Frank Blethen, publisher of The Seattle Times and an outspoken supporter of limits on media ownership.

"If they had taken it and if they had overturned it, this would unleash the next great wave of media consolidation" with consequent loss of voices and investment in high-quality journalism, Blethen said.

[Clark2008]

20. So, basically, the Supreme Court doesn't mind picking the president,

but won't lift a finger to support democracy as aided by a free press.

:eyes:

[Lochloosa]

21. By sending it back to the FCC, it left the 1975 rules intack

I know it only delays the new rules from taking place, but any delay till '06 is a good thing.

<snip>

The media-ownership rules, adopted in 2003 by a 3-2 vote along commissioners' party lines, lifted a 1975 ban on owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market. The revised rules also would have allowed a company to own two TV stations in more than 90 percent of local markets, and up to three in the biggest markets.

Yesterday's court action means the 1975 ownership limits will continue.

[truthisfreedom]

22. the solution is obvious. we have to make it more profitable for the media

to support Dems. no matter how unstomachable it seems.