IP: Darn editors

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> To: "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
>
> [Note:  This item comes from reader Janos Gereben.  I posted the original 
> version of Janos's story to the list.  I thought that my readers would 
> enjoy this reminder that behind the stories that you read in the news 
> stands a process that involves a number of players besides the original 
> reporter or journalist.  DLH]
>
> At 12:44 -0700 9/17/01, Janos Gereben wrote:
> > From: "Janos Gereben" <janos451 () earthlink net>
> > Subject: Let's also bomb editors
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:44:04 -0700
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> > An idiotic 451 editor not only changed the meaning of my very simple
> > FCC story, but "languaged" it beyond endurance. Just for fun, look at
> > No. 2 (his) did with No. 1 (mine) -
> >
> > 2/Rewrite
> > San Francisco - The new, Republican-dominated Federal Communications
> > Commission opened up a long-anticipated review of regulations that
> > place limits on cross ownership of television stations and newspapers
> > in the same market, as well as regulations which limit how large cable
> > network operators can get. Most observers expect the FCC to relax
> > these regulations in light of recent court rulings, a move which could
> > give rise to further consolidation in the media industry.
> >
> > The Commission gave notice last Thursday that Chairman Michael K.
> > Powell and the commissioners unanimously voted it will open up
> > proceedings in the face of a court ruling striking down the FCC's
> > attempt earlier this year to limit ownership. In March the Court of
> > Appeals raised the possibility of cable companies' free-speech rights
> > being violated if the FCC placed limits on what they can own; the
> > three-judge panel sent the proposed rules back to the Commission for
> > revisions or elimination. Because the rules were drafted when the
> > agency had a majority of Democrats, and now Powell and a Republican
> > majority were in charge, analysts expect the government to severely
> > curtail attempta to prevent big-corporation dominance of both content
> > and distribution pipelines.
> >
> > The challenge came in form of initiating a proceeding to consider the
> > "proper horizontal and vertical ownership limits" for cable companies,
> > in an effort to develop "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny." The
> > language is a direct response to the US Court of Appeals for the
> > District of Columbia Circuit, which denied FCC jurisdiction because it
> > found adequate support for prior limits. By initiating the proceeding,
> > the Commission has served notice that it will still attempt to
> > maintain jurisdiction in the murky - and highly significant - matter
> > of media concentration in the video programming market.
> >
> > Once evidence is gathered and the FCC complies with the court mandate
> > for "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny," a new attempt is
> > expected by the regulatory body to establish rules for a subscriber
> > cap or the "safe-harbor" approach by which the Commission could avoid
> > caps as long as a certain level of competition is achieved without
> > regulation.
> >
> > The National Cable Television Association - led by such prominent
> > members as AOL Time Warner and AT&T - has lobbied against the
> > regulations, claiming that existing antitrust laws are better suited
> > to deal with anti-competitive behavior than new rules handed down and
> > enforced by the FCC. The regulations voided (for the time) by the
> > court prohibited individual companies from serving more than 30% of US
> > cable subscribers or controlling more than 40% of programming. Another
> > rule coming under scrutiny is one that bars companies from
> > distributing content from affiliated companies on more than 40% of
> > their first 75 channels. Additionally, many companies are looking to
> > own both newspapers and broadcast properties in the same market, a
> > practice which is currently banned but may be repealed. AOL Time
> > Warner and AT&T would be the most likely companies to be impacted by
> > changes in these rules, but Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are also challenging
> > Commission rule-making because of the prohibition against any one
> > company owning stations reaching more than 35% of homes in the US.
> >
> > If the rules are significantly relaxed, companies like AOL may seek to
> > expand their holdings even further. AOL has reportedly signaled an
> > interest earlier this month in buying AT&T Broadband, which is already
> > the largest cable operator in the US.
> >
> > No. 1/mine
> >
> > FCC persists in setting cable ownership limits
> >
> > [An unexpected new move is seen as a Commission attempt to prevent
> > domination by AOL Time Warner, AT&T, and the TV networks.]
> >
> > Against previous indications that the new, Republican-dominated
> > Federal Communications Commission may allow new monopolies to
> > consolidate their power in the content space, the commissioners last
> > week moved in the opposite direction over cable ownership.
> >
> > In face of a court ruling striking down the FCC's attempt earlier this
> > year to limit ownership, the Commission gave notice last Thursday that
> > it will continue to seek ways to establish rules and claim
> > jurisdiction.
> >
> > The challenge came in form of initiating a proceeding to consider the
> > "proper horizontal and vertical ownership limits" for cable companies,
> > in an effort to develop "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny." The
> > language is a direct response to the US Court of Appeals for the
> > District of Columbia Circuit, which denied FCC jurisdiction because it
> > found adequate support for prior limits. By initiating the proceeding,
> > the Commission has served notice that it will attempt to regain
> > jurisdiction in the murky - and highly significant - matter of media
> > concentration in the video programming market.
> >
> > Once evidence is gathered and the FCC complies with the court mandate
> > for "evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny," a new attempt is
> > expected by the regulatory body to establish rules for a subscriber
> > cap or the "safe-harbor" approach by which the Commission could avoid
> > caps as long as a certain level of competition is achieved without
> > regulation.
> >
> > When in March the Court of Appeals raised the possibility of cable
> > companies' free-speech rights being violated if the FCC decides what
> > they can own, the three-judge panel sent the proposed rules back to
> > the Commission for revisions or elimination. Because the rules were
> > drafted when the agency had a majority of Democrats, and now Michael
> > K. Powell and a Republican majority were in charge, analysts expected
> > an end to the US attempt to prevent big-corporation dominance of both
> > content and distribution pipelines. Apparently, however, this is not
> > what happened.
> >
> > The National Cable Television Association - led by such prominent
> > members as AOL Time Warner and AT&T - lobbies on behalf of the status
> > quo, claiming that existing antitrust laws are better suited to deal
> > with anti-competitive behavior than new rules handed down and enforced
> > by the FCC. The regulations voided (for the time) by the court
> > prohibited individual companies from serving more than 30% of US cable
> > subscribers or controlling more than 40% of programming. AOL Time
> > Warner and AT&T would be the most likely companies to be impacted by
> > those rules, but Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are also challenging Commission
> > rule-making because of the prohibition against any one company owning
> > stations reaching more than 35% of homes in the US.
> >
> > Public-interest groups, including the Media Access Project, say that
> > the FCC has an obligation to balance the free-speech rights of big
> > companies against concerns that too much media consolidation could
> > limit public access to information from diverse sources.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/