tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post4082887943160918534..comments2023-12-27T11:23:38.346-05:00Comments on Vanguard Church - Bob Robinson: FCC Changes Broadcast-Newspaper Owner BanBob Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-60968074855562908402007-12-27T14:44:00.000-05:002007-12-27T14:44:00.000-05:00A-ha! Just changed my Blogger profile. So now, I...A-ha! Just changed my Blogger profile. So now, I'm...me!Byron Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11908643905553334277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-36483500059332239002007-12-27T14:41:00.000-05:002007-12-27T14:41:00.000-05:00OK, trying that...nope, couldn't get it to work. ...OK, trying that...nope, couldn't get it to work. Put in my blog name, my URL (what's "any open ID" mean?). See what I mean about it being confusing? It doesn't let me do what I want to intuitively. It ain't worth fooling with, IMHO. I guess I'll just be fanuv24.Byron Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11908643905553334277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-73429582608022608622007-12-27T14:01:00.000-05:002007-12-27T14:01:00.000-05:00Byron,Blogger has expanded the way you can sign in...Byron,<BR/>Blogger has expanded the way you can sign in. <BR/>You can use sign in with any of the following:<BR/>blogger/google sign in name and password, <BR/>AOL/AIM member screen name, <BR/>LiveJournal username,<BR/>TypeKey member name,<BR/>WordPress blog name, or<BR/>"Open ID" where you can type in your web address.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-39247313268841027872007-12-27T13:39:00.000-05:002007-12-27T13:39:00.000-05:00Oh, and by the way, I use "fanuv24" because I can'...Oh, and by the way, I use "fanuv24" because I can't figure out why Blogger seems to keep changing things, and I got myself signed in using that, and I don't want to mess it up, because Blogger confuses the heck out of me.Byron Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11908643905553334277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-13024420120899945422007-12-27T13:37:00.000-05:002007-12-27T13:37:00.000-05:00Guess I just have a different definition of the wo...Guess I just have a different definition of the word "tragic", and it seems like a stretch to me to call it a "justice issue", but hey, you're passionate about it, so go for it. I'm not saying you're wrong on this one; I just don't see it as warranting such terminology. I did note that folks from across the political spectrum had concerns about this (Brent Bozell and Wayne LaPierre, in addition to Bill Moyers and Danny Glover), so I guess it is at least a non-partisan thing. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps one of the reasons that there isn't the uproar, the absence of which shocks you, is that I doubt many folks really grasp the issues involved. My own grasp is tenuous at best, I do confess. I might benefit from a "from square one" big-picture kind of thing. And if I would, so probably would some others. It's sort of abstract for me right now. Heck, maybe you'll even convince me that it's the big deal you think it is!Byron Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11908643905553334277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-58769158404846931182007-12-27T12:13:00.000-05:002007-12-27T12:13:00.000-05:00From "The Devil is in the Details" from stopbigmed...From "The Devil is in the Details" from <A HREF="http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/devil_in_the_details.pdf" REL="nofollow">stopbigmedia.com</A>: <BR/><BR/><B>FACT #1:</B> Martin’s ‘modest’ proposal is corporate welfare for Big Media. Martin’s plan would unleash a buying spree in the top 20 markets, making it easier for companies like Belo, News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT #2:</B> Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market. Under Martin’s loose standards, cross-ownership waivers could be approved in hundreds of smaller cities and towns.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT #3:</B> Loopholes allow newspapers to own TV stations of any size. The same technicalities could permit top-rated stations in any market to combine with major<BR/>newspapers.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT #4:</B> FCC history shows weak standards won’t protect the public. The current rules forbid cross-ownership, but the FCC hasn’t denied any temporary waiver request<BR/>in years.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT #5:</B> Cross-ownership doesn’t create more local news. The latest studies — using the FCC’s own data — show that markets with cross-ownership produce less total local news, as one dominant company crowds out the competition.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT #6:</B> Cross-ownership won’t solve newspapers’ financial woes. Claims that the newspaper industry is about to “wither and die” are greatly exaggerated, and no evidence shows that cross-ownership would make things better.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT # 7:</B> The Internet is an opportunity, not a death sentence. Mergers and consolidation are not the answer to the financial problems of the traditional media.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT #8:</B> Martin’s plan would harm minority media owners. Nearly half of the nation’s minority-owned TV stations are lower-rated outlets in the top 20 markets, making them a target for Big Media takeovers.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT # 9:</B> A broken and corrupt process creates bad policies. The FCC’s lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetable have tossed aside basic fairness and accountability in the rush to change media ownership rules.<BR/><BR/><B>FACT # 10:</B> The public doesn’t want more media consolidation. Martin’s actions ignore the millions of Americans — and 99 percent of the comments in the FCC docket — who oppose letting a few media giants swallow up more local media.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-77288244743019963532007-12-27T12:04:00.000-05:002007-12-27T12:04:00.000-05:00Byron (fanuv24),Yes, it IS tragic. In America, the...Byron (fanuv24),<BR/><BR/>Yes, it IS tragic. In America, the mass media is of utmost importance in our society's struggle for justice. Local media outlets are still the key to this. The internet has national left- or right-wing blogs and websites, but the most visited sites are owned by huge conglomerates that also own the newspapers and broadcast news outlets. And these internet sites have very little news and variety of opinion from local vantage points. <BR/><BR/>Christians should see this as a justice issue because we should be fighting for many diversified voices and true competition so that our society's freedom is protected.<BR/><BR/>I've been studying mass media for over 25 years, and I am shocked that not more people are in an uproar about this. When did we stop needing to debate issues locally? When did we allow money to determine who owns free broadcast rights of local media? What happened to the notion that broadcasters and newspapers should not be owned by the few, the elite, the powerful and the rich? What happened to our concern about conflict of interest laws? What happened to the FCC's mandate to regulate the public airways for the sake of the public? When did we allow the FCC to capitulate to corporate money instead of fulfilling their mandate?<BR/><BR/>A free and just society must have mass media that is free to report the news unencumbered by the eye of corporate big money and free from a homogenized view of just a few conglomerates.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-9392713134868936832007-12-26T21:05:00.000-05:002007-12-26T21:05:00.000-05:00This is a tragic day for American society, and a j...<I>This is a tragic day for American society, and a justice issue for Christians to pray about and to act on.</I><BR/><BR/>Aw, c'mon, Bob, are you serious? A "tragic" day? A "justice" issue? I don't know that this is even a particularly bad decision. We live in a different world. There are a zillion more news outlets now than ever before. People can go online and get their news from whatever source they like, from the far left to the far right and everything in-between. <BR/><BR/>I mean, have an opinion on this issue; fine. It might be a bad idea; it might be a good one. But it strikes me as a stretch, to say the least, to describe it in the terms you have. <BR/><BR/>And I wouldn't trust Bill Moyers to give me the straight skinny on the weather if we were both standing in a blizzard. Whatever you think of Bill O'Reilly, I think the same of Mr. Moyers, dude...<BR/><BR/>But I love you in Christ anyway...Byron Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11908643905553334277noreply@blogger.com