Bush's FCC makes it easy to control viewpoints

This legislation, at worst, will see a few more communications majors out of a job - which isn't a good thing, of course, but on the other hand you could make the point that they were on the way out anyway, what with declining revenues across the board in the news industry.

Also, given the up-and-coming digital spectrum (which will accomodate a much larger variety of media) you could say that a lot of those folks, if they play their cards right, will have more secure (though not necessarily as inflated/lucrative) jobs available to them in just a few years.

As expected, the FCC voted MONDAY morning (6/2) to ease media ownership rules, but most of the changes are on the TV side- the main changes to radio ownership rules involved the redefinition of markets along ARBITRON metro lines and the allowing of newspaper owners to own TV and radio stations in the same market. The Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve the revisions, which also allowed grandfathered clusters to be sold intact to qualified minority or female buyers.

Internet-will-take up-the-slack canard/smokescreen put to rest here

If you're not living in some cosmopolitan area and have little or no internet access (like my parents), how the hell are you supposed to evaluate the news you're getting? What sources are you supposed to use to judge what you're getting? You really can't. The best you can do is either watch it with cynicism or not watch it at all ("it's all lies").

The really sad thing is the situation with radio. Radio used to have a lot more local talk programming, and now much of it is syndicated.

radio is an even scarrier monster. lets face it – their only out to make their sponsers happy. anything that may interfer with that will never make the airwaves. radio is slowly evolving towards an elaborate 24 hour advertizing medium. if it isn't already.

the idea that companies wil soon be able to monopolize more control over information is a terrible thing. who in the the u.s. thinks this is a good idea¿ really. outside of the wealthy élite – name me 1.

seriously, who's idea was this¿

durring the invasion of iraq i was reading about daily events at a russian site and their information & opinions were just out there. interesting none the less (some of it did turn out to be accurate aswell). but you have to take all e-info with a giant grain of salt. or perhaps a chunk of salt - like the sideway salt you get in the winter.

I'm on your side, I just think your standards here are narrowly parochial and it bugged me a bit.

i'm not not even disagreeing (yet), just curious.

Maybe it's just me (again), but Noodles you seem a bit too comfortable making that statement. If and when the government (any government) blocks publication of an event, I want to know about it, and why, and I'd hope that the reporters involved would get all uppity about their press freedoms, victims' rights or not.

The blackouts were news here a few months ago because the Canadian government asked the Seattle papers not to run stories on the Vancouver serial killer's trial, since they have a wide circulation up there. The papers capitulated, which was their fault obviously, but it was still galling to hear.

AFAIK this is unsubstantiated, but a Canadian journalist on NPR said that government officials have used all sorts of intimidation in enforcing these blackouts. The issue may be victim's rights, but the means should be a part of the discussion as well.

and without a doubt media blackouts are fishy, but when it's a case of the govt prosecuting a serial killer – i don't really have a problem with it. that's the only time it does really happen here.

and if you've never seen canukistan news before how about the bbc¿ – almost as dull.

ie - you don't know what the govt is up to vs. you didn't know weather a psychopath raped his victims before or after he killed them.

Didn't they violate a court gag order and then hide behind the border? I suppose its all how you look at it. In the two most glaring cases I can think of its not the government blocking publication, its the judical system.

'victim's right' as an excuse for censorship sounds as dodgy as 'national security'

I wouldn't go that far. I wouldn't even go near half that far.

this diatribe appearing on the NYT website (registration please!) is patently ridiculous from a number of perspectives. Pass the Google news, thanks.

Maybe Hanle y and Dyson could teach a series of critical thinking and journalistic bias-evaluation seminars to the American general public. In return, we could offer them equally pedantic and condescending typing lessons.

(sorry)

Former Iraqi Info Minister: "We prefere to unleash evil fleshy headed mutants on American reporters who come to Iraq and then break publication bans once back in the saftey of their land."

Hitler: "We prefere to unleash evil fleshy headed mutants on American reporters who come to Der Fatherland and then break publication bans once back in the saftey of their land."

Noodles, do you like SADDAM HUSSEIN and HITLER??

(btw, what's-his-name Iraqi Info Minister was obv an attentive student of SCTV)

(also Hitler is alive and baking cakes in Rochester)

American journalists go into Canada = of course, how else are they supposed to get the story?

American journalists publish story in American newspapers = they are in America, not Canada

Canada disapproves = too bad, American newspapers are not under Canadian jurisdiction.

Do you find it odd that we can read stories about Pakistan in American newspapers filed by American journalists in Pakistan that could not be legally printed in Pakistan?

The "Foreigners: Obey Our Laws, Even In Your Own Land" attitude here is revealing. I guess some countries are just better (more intent, more brutal) at enforcing it than others.

Maybe I am being too condescending. I hope so.

Its closer to foreigners please don't come to our country with the intent of breaking our laws and spitting into our diplomatic faces. Otherwise I guess we could pull the American solution and just stop them at the border and not anyone we remotely feel weary about it.

American reporters aren't "breaking [your] laws". They are - as I have repeated 234985798234890578934 times already - AMERICAN REPORTERS, PUBLISHING STORIES IN AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, IN AMERICA, WHERE AMERICAN LAWS ARE THE ONLY LAWS. The laws of the country where they obtain their story don't matter; ONLY THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY PUBLISH THEIR STORY MATTERS; if it was the other way around foreign news bureaus would cease to be.

As for "spitting in [your] diplomatic faces", once again, see above: the BC government asked the Seattle Times, through diplomatic channels, to not publish the story. The ST willingly complied. No spit was involved.