1. Here's one to get the arguement started. Let's get the government out of the business of deciding who can own a media outlet. If you don't like the ones you get, start your own.

Posted by: Calvin A on November 9, 2007 04:35 PM

2. I meant, of course, argument.

Posted by: Calvin A on November 9, 2007 04:38 PM

3. Just to be fair, maybe we should also get the media out of the business of deciding who can be in the government. After all, the people should be deciding on their representation and if the media chooses to limit or skew information so as to swing the decision making in a particualr direction why should they be regarded any higher than the government?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 9, 2007 04:52 PM

4. Calvin, great post! Ron Paul and I agree!

Media consolidation is not a big problem, as long as we have the internet, cable, broadcast TV, radio, satelite radio, print media, etc.

The FCC, if anything, INCREASES media concentration by charging above market rates for broadcast licenses.

The left is off-base on the media consolidation issue.

But why do we really need the FCC anyway?

On the internet, URL's and internet addresses are coordinated and managed by a non-profit organization. Couldn't the broadcast spectrum be handled the same way?

It is VERY dangerous to give the government the power to censor speech. I say we delete the FCC, right along with the IRS.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2007 05:00 PM

5. The government has no right to own our airwaves. The entire spectrum should be auctioned off to private ownership.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 9, 2007 06:21 PM

6. You're right Calvin. Let's get rid of all regulation. Let's have FAA controllers that are paid minimum wage. Hell, let's just get rid of the FAA completely and let the pilots navigate themselves. After all, there's lots of air up there. There probably won't be too many crashes. Just give 'em a Tom-Tom to navigate with.

Here's a great story on CNN:
Report: China halts export of bead toys tainted with toxic drug

From the story:

The CPSC said a boy nearly 2 years old "swallowed several dozen beads. He became dizzy and vomited several times before slipping into a comatose state for a period of time."

So if your 2-year old kid gets sick and almost dies by eating beads that turn into the date rape drug, oh well. It's the free market at work.

And those people who died when the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis? Free market baby. They should have inspected the bridge themselves right?

Posted by: Richard Borkowski on November 9, 2007 10:07 PM

7. From the P-I article on the hearing:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/339144_fcc10.html

"King County Commissioner Reagan Dunn said media ownership is a bipartisan issue. "I'm a Republican. I'm a capitalist. But some areas of our economy need to be regulated," he said.

State Attorney General Rob McKenna said media consolidation could hurt small businesses by blocking them from buying advertisements at affordable prices."

Yes, those are some crazy lefties there. Sorry folks, but I'm with Dunn and McKenna on this one. Promoting business but not promoting monopolies is the key.

Posted by: kb on November 9, 2007 10:25 PM

8. Crazy lefties are not at work. Just idots. Consolidation is and always has been bad for radio. Its a top reason why we have the same Happy Meal station major market to major market. Liberal media proliferates on consolidation. So does unemployment. You allow a TV station to consolidate with a newspaper and you'll see the newsroom be cut in half to take care of the costs of owning a station and a paper.

I'm sure there are many out there that know a few newspapers that will be "saved" if a media outlet were to gain cross-ownership.

Consolidation was definitely one of the nails in the coffin to the mighty local newsrooms. I know of at least a few TV and Radio stations that have a but a handful of people delivering the days news everyday.

Frankly, allowing this is not good for anyone but those adding to their ownership. Its bad for the public. You want bigger newsrooms? Reduce consolidation, allow local ownership, and thus dust off the cob webs in the newsroom and fill it with new and old journalists. All I am wondering at the end of this is if the local talent and representatives voiced anything like this.

Posted by: AJ on November 9, 2007 11:41 PM

9. The bridge collapsed not because of the "free market." It collapsed because politicians didn't fund the repairs they knew about.

As for RP, you should know he supports the PLO. That's not the kind of guy I'd want to have supporting me.

Posted by: steve miller on November 10, 2007 07:00 AM

10. Richard @ 6: The CPSC can not prevent these kinds of accidents, no matter how much it inspects or regulates.

Air traffic control could be privatized, just as the internet is privatized. In fact, I'll bet a privatized system would provide better air safety. The FAA still uses 20 year old computers running 25 year old software. It is too bureaucratic to innovate.

AJ @8, consolidation provides lower costs to advertisers, most of whom are small businesses. If news organizations skimp on editorial staff, other news competitors take viewership away from them.

I like your idea of "allowing local ownership" but this is done via deregulation of broadcast licenses, not by breaking up big stations.

More government is what got us in to the situation we are in. When regulation is most heavy, big companies have an advantage, because they have the staff and the resources to manipulate the system. Big media wants MORE regulation, because it has the effect of hurting competition from small, upstart competitors.

Steve Miller @9: are you crazy? Ron Paul does not support the PLO! I have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 10, 2007 09:34 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?