Reclaim the media
June 28, 2004 9:46 AM   Subscribe

Court throws out FCC media ownership rules The appeals court in Philadelphia said the methods the FCC used to craft their new media ownership rules were bunk. Major media outlets aren't devoting much to this setback, but activist groups have reacted by calling for hearings across the country. No one seems to know what's next.
posted by drywall (9 comments total)
Oh look! Another FPP to Common Dreams!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:59 PM on June 28, 2004

Steve - take it to MeTa and stop pissing in the threads
posted by bshort at 1:09 PM on June 28, 2004

Somebody can't read.
"Published on Thursday, June 24, 2004 by Bloomberg News"

Damn Bloomberg, and their anarcho-leftist leanings!
posted by owillis at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2004

I tried to find something about it on NewsMax, Steve, but wouldn't you just know it, they haven't covered this story.
posted by RylandDotNet at 2:42 PM on June 28, 2004

And hell, wouldn't you know it, another pinko commie rag (Forbes) is on the story too:

"The court recognized that debate and democratic values are more important than letting big media corporations grow bigger," Schwartzman said. "It's especially important that the court has told the FCC to remove its deregulatory thumb from the scales."

Get ready to watch the unraveling right-wing howl even louder because they can't buy more air time for their increasingly discredited, disbelieved ideas:

An appeals court in the US has overturned new media ownership rules that would have allowed further concentration of television, radio and newspaper assets in the hands of a few companies.

The decision frustrates the expansion plans of the conglomerates that dominate the American media market, including Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Viacom and Gannett, publisher of USA Today.

And speaking of unraveling....oh look! Steve@Linnwood in yet another pink panty-wad, unable (as usual) to refute or rebut or even make a coherent comment on the story, instead reduced to ineffectually whining (as usual) about the sources of the story.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:39 PM on June 28, 2004

steve@L seems not to like Commondreams. steve not exersizing his right not to look at link, steve miffed, steve feels need to share miffness at his not exersizing his right, we all suffer from steve miffness, and so it goes...
as for me, Cheetos.. yumm.........
posted by Elim at 3:53 PM on June 28, 2004

If a story's on commondreams, it's a better link target than one to the original for purely pragmatic reasons: links don't expire (or go into a paid archive) after some period of time; no big-assed display ads, flash or popups; no registration, no wack blend of CSS and nonstandard HTML hacks that only render properly on one particular browser, no cookies and of course, no registration. What's not to love?
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:15 PM on June 28, 2004

Shoot the messenger, it seems,

In other news, BUSH SUX
posted by Elim at 4:52 PM on June 28, 2004

George -- you got it, exactly why I chose the commondreams link. The Bloomberg one went bad very quickly.
posted by drywall at 4:48 AM on June 29, 2004

« Older Bender in 2005   |   Earthquake Rattles Midwest Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments