Spiked Study Leads to New FCC Query

[Purveyor]

By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, January 25, 2007

When the government decided to take a hard look at how well broadcasters were serving their communities, two economists at the Federal Communications Commission got a research idea: They would look at whether locally owned TV stations produced more local news than stations owned by companies based outside the area.


They found that local ownership resulted in more local news coverage. They also realized they had turned up what one of the researchers, economist Keith Brown, called "inconvenient facts." The findings were at odds with what their agency, under heavy lobbying from the broadcast industry, had endorsed.


The months-long study was spiked by the agency with "no plausible explanation," Brown says. He suspects it was because the conclusions were at odds with the shared position of the FCC and the broadcast industry: that media ownership rules were too restrictive and should be loosened.


Three years after Brown and Alexander did their work, a copy of the study surfaced, sparking controversy. Its apparent suppression, and the alleged deep-sixing of a second research study, have prompted an investigation by the FCC's inspector general.

---snip---

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/25/national/w111805S57.DTL

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. In other words, the FCC is owned by the conglomerates

and lobbying takes precidence over localization and diversity.

[Robbien]

2. I believe there was someone at the FCC who tried to

bring this report to the FCC board's attention a couple of years ago. The guy got transferred or fired IIRC.

The FCC board is such a tool of bigMedia.

[WHAT]

3. What position does corporate media occupy, politically...

that's what I keep wondering?.

We have the Democrats, and the Republicans, and the Media: and all the rest is fringe. When I think about political issues, I think of CP as a political faction that nobody voted for., in fact, we aren't allowed to acknowledge it as a political faction. Is it like the House of Lords or sumthin? Maybe because it modulates issues on both sides of the fence it is not seen as a participant when it should be.

I'm looking for a philosophical grasp. I wish I could "name" it. It's something more than a reality interface...

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Which reminds me, what is Michael Powell doing these days?