Media ownership study ordered destroyed

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
Where is Micheal Powell when you need him?


Article


The Federal Communications Commission ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study that suggested greater concentration of media ownership would hurt local TV news coverage, a former lawyer at the agency says.

The report, written in 2004, came to light during the Senate confirmation hearing for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. received a copy of the report "indirectly from someone within the FCC who believed the information should be made public," according to Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz.


(Note: In June of 2006, the FCC announced the start of a new review of media ownership, including a "series of public hearings on media ownership issues at diverse locations across the nation". That review is still ongoing.)

'Every last piece' destroyed
Adam Candeub, now a law professor at Michigan State University, said senior managers at the agency ordered that "every last piece" of the report be destroyed. "The whole project was just stopped - end of discussion," he said. Candeub was a lawyer in the FCC's Media Bureau at the time the report was written and communicated frequently with its authors, he said.

In a letter sent to Martin Wednesday, Boxer said she was "dismayed that this report, which was done at taxpayer expense more than two years ago, and which concluded that localism is beneficial to the public, was shoved in a drawer."

Martin said he was not aware of the existence of the report, nor was his staff. His office indicated it had not received Boxer's letter as of midafternoon Thursday.

Local ownership benefits
In the letter, Boxer asked whether any other commissioners "past or present" knew of the report's existence and why it was never made public. She also asked whether it was "shelved because the outcome was not to the liking of some of the commissioners and/or any outside powerful interests?"

The report, written by two economists in the FCC's Media Bureau, analyzed a database of 4,078 individual news stories broadcast in 1998. The broadcasts were obtained from Danilo Yanich, a professor and researcher at the University of Delaware, and were originally gathered by the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The analysis showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of "on-location" news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. It was part of a broader decision liberalizing ownership rules.

Community responsiveness
At that time, the agency pointed to evidence that "commonly owned television stations are more likely to carry local news than other stations."

When considering whether to loosen rules on media ownership, the agency is required to examine the impact on localism, competition and diversity. The FCC generally defines localism as the level of responsiveness of a station to the needs of its community.

The 2003 action sparked a backlash among the public and within Congress. In June 2004, a federal appeals court rejected the agency's reasoning on most of the rules and ordered it to try again. The debate has since been reopened, and the FCC has scheduled a public hearing on the matter in Los Angeles on Oct. 3.

The report was begun after then-Chairman Michael Powell ordered the creation of a task force to study localism in broadcasting in August of 2003. Powell stepped down from the commission and was replaced by Martin in March 2005. Powell did not return a call seeking comment.

The authors of the report, Keith Brown and Peter Alexander, both declined to comment. Brown has left public service while Alexander is still at the FCC. Yanich confirmed the two men were the authors. Both have written extensively on media and telecommunications policy.

Yanich said the report was "extremely well done. It should have helped to inform policy."

Boxer's office said if she does not receive adequate answers to her questions, she will push for an investigation by the FCC inspector general.



Article


What a surprise FCC draft suggested fewer owners would hurt local TV coverage - I guess this way it will not inflance any policy changes
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Anything paid for with our tax dollars should never be allowed to be destroyed
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Studies trashed, scientific data discarded, intel ignored..................if it does not fit the agenda, it cannot be acknowleged. Only traitors and the "morally confused" would make reference to it.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
The sad thing is suppressingly this report has absolutely nothing to do with a conservative agenda/philosophy, and everything to do with money and power. Rather damning evidence that the FCC has been throughly corrupted at the top under the Powell leadership and since.

Further evidence (is if it was needed) that one party rule inevitably leads to abuses and corruption, regardless of the original intent.
 

straightalker

Senior member
Dec 21, 2005
515
0
0
Everything everywhere is slowly edging towards the "1984" scenario. Where we have just one media source with a big screen nearly everywhere filling our heads with ultra sophisticated psyops.

I have a chart somewhere that shows the incredible decline in the number of Media Companies that own one or more radio or television stations in the USA. At the peak in the 60's and 70's there were thousands. Then throughout the 90's, a few Media giants emerged who had a voracious appetite for consuming smaller Media companies. That went on and on. With a constant friction against the Regulators. Chief among them being the FCC. Then the FCC itself was taken over by Michael Powell. Son of Colin Powell. And so the scam to cram all our information sources into a final few Mega Coporations you could count on one hand began.

So it's not too Orwellian to imagine say 8 being widdled down to 4 then 2 and then 1. It could happen during a nationwide declaration of Martial Law for instance.

The control of all information is a dangerous thing for any 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 Media Giants to have. There should at least be hundreds of independent Media Companies. If one of them get's too big they should be split. The Media's role is to safeguard the truth and expose lies.

Seeing that now the Media Ownership study has been destroyed, we have a dangerous situation that already exists in America. One that's creeping towards Fascism in the opinion of a great many people. I share that view.
 

newmachineoverlord

Senior member
Jan 22, 2006
484
0
0
Reading this thread constitutes disturbing the peace and conspiracy. You must now proceed to your nearest processing center for renewal. Dissent is treason, resistance is futile. Your civilization will be made to serve us.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Anything paid for with our tax dollars should never be allowed to be destroyed

and Republicans cringe when they are compared to 1930's Germany, if the shoe fits....

Remember this:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

Did you compare that to 1930s Germany? Or is it only Republicans who get that treatment?

I find myself in agreement with dahunan :shudder:
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Anything paid for with our tax dollars should never be allowed to be destroyed

and Republicans cringe when they are compared to 1930's Germany, if the shoe fits....

Remember this:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

Did you compare that to 1930s Germany? Or is it only Republicans who get that treatment?

I find myself in agreement with dahunan :shudder:

I think the key word in that quote of yours is copies. Nothing was trying to be hidden.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Berger violated the law, was charged with a crime and convicted. His conduct was an individual act, and given what I have read about him, an abberation of his normal behavior (conspiracists may disagree with me, but any lawyer could easily recall at least a half dozen clients who did something just as stupid-like a doctor who shoplifts a candy bar).

On the other hand, what appears to have happened at the FCC was institutionally sanctioned suppression of information that the controlling group does not want to become known.

Yes, to answer your question ProfJohn, I see a huge difference between the Sandy Berger and the FCC report situation. Is it 1930s Germany level yet? I don't think so, but you are the only one who made that analogy.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Guys it was Dave who made the Germany analogy, not me.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Anything paid for with our tax dollars should never be allowed to be destroyed

and Republicans cringe when they are compared to 1930's Germany, if the shoe fits....

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dahunan
Anything paid for with our tax dollars should never be allowed to be destroyed

and Republicans cringe when they are compared to 1930's Germany, if the shoe fits....

Remember this:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

Did you compare that to 1930s Germany? Or is it only Republicans who get that treatment?

I find myself in agreement with dahunan :shudder:

I think the key word in that quote of yours is copies. Nothing was trying to be hidden.

In his short entry into P&N he has a storied history of comparing apples and oranges.

O'liely he is not.