Waxman: Gov't Will Need to Help Shape U.S. Media

[PocketProtector]

The Libtards are pulling out all the stops to stay in perpetual power. They will stop at nothing. I call it the 4th Reich.


http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...5B14H320091202

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman
Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:11pm EST


Thursday, 29 Oct 2009 04:52pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms.

Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.

"Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues," Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity.

Waxman's "indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference.

At the Federal Communications Commission, officials are embarking on a quadrennial review of the state of U.S. media. The study, which is mandated by Congress, seeks to determine whether current rules should be changed to allow for a more vibrant media industry serving a diverse audience.

As advertising sales shrink and more people get information and entertainment online, media companies want more freedom to merge and own multiple outlets in particular locations.

Sentiment also is growing that the Internet and other technological advances have rendered media regulation debates obsolete, industry observers say.

The FCC rules have come up for review before, but the stakes are higher now, with broadcasters and publishers like Tribune Co in bankruptcy.

U.S. media ownership rules generally prohibit a company from owning a television broadcaster and a newspaper in the same market but exemptions have been granted over the years.

Waxman was wary of such cross-media ownership structures.

"Even greater consolidation of the business has not helped," Waxman said.

[buster2209]

The BBC (British Brainwashing Company) is funded via a fee that is imposed on the citizens of Britain by law.

It's called a TV licence and costs £xx amount per year.

The only way to avoid paying the state imposed mandatory TV licence fee is for you to prove to the TV licensing authority that your TV is incapable of tuning to the correct frequency that the BBC channels are on.

Proving a negative is rather difficult......

Needless to say, BBC journalism, for the most part, is a load of liberal, state funded, bollocks. The BBC is merely a propaganda arm for whichever corrupt party is in power.

[velkly]

This is as much an afront to the first amendment as anything could be. It's Congressmen like this that need to be taken out back and beaten with reeds.

[adymond]

The BBC (British Brainwashing Company) is funded via a fee that is imposed on the citizens of Britain by law.

It's called a TV licence and costs £xx amount per year.

The only way to avoid paying the state imposed mandatory TV licence fee is for you to prove to the TV licensing authority that your TV is incapable of tuning to the correct frequency that the BBC channels are on.

Proving a negative is rather difficult......

Needless to say, BBC journalism, for the most part, is a load of liberal, state funded, bollocks. The BBC is merely a propaganda arm for whichever corrupt party is in power.

It pains my heart to think we struggled all those long years to throw off the chains of tyranny only to be in lock step with that which we revolted against.

[buster2209]

It pains my heart to think we struggled all those long years to throw off the chains of tyranny only to be in lock step with that which we revolted against.

Ironically, IMHO, American News Media are the WORST I have ever seen. They make the BBC seem unbiased which is a feat in itself!

However, capitalism is kicking in with the ANM and they are sinking because they have an inferior product to what is out there, namely the internet.

The bailouts wont go on forever, the printing press will eventually break and then we can begin to rebuild America.

[velkly]

Ironically, IMHO, American News Media are the WORST I have ever seen. They make the BBC seem unbiased which is a feat in itself!

However, capitalism is kicking in with the ANM and they are sinking because they have an inferior product to what is out there, namely the internet.

The bailouts wont go on forever, the printing press will eventually break and then we can begin to rebuild America.

It's all a matter of time and money, and we are short on both.

[R.Thompson]

The BBC (British Brainwashing Company) is funded via a fee that is imposed on the citizens of Britain by law.

It's called a TV licence and costs £xx amount per year.

Not just citizens - non-citizens get to pay it too.

And its on each household that has a TV. There used to be a seperate Radio licence but you don't need that now. And you only need the licence if you have equipment that is capable of receiving live broadcasts (so that includes TV's, VCR's and computers). Last I checked its about £130 a year. Or less than the cost of a newspaper a day. For 5 national radio stations, lots of local ones, 2 terrestrial TV and 5 (i think) digital TV stations, plus the website. without adverts. (unless you visit the website from outside the UK, in which case you get ads).

Oh, and Top Gear

The only way to avoid paying the state imposed mandatory TV licence fee is for you to prove to the TV licensing authority that your TV is incapable of tuning to the correct frequency that the BBC channels are on.

Proving a negative is rather difficult......

Actually it happens on a regular basis.

Needless to say, BBC journalism, for the most part, is a load of liberal, state funded, bollocks. The BBC is merely a propaganda arm for whichever corrupt party is in power.

That's a load of bollocks right there. If you look at the history of the BBC (especially in the past 30 years) you'll see that successive governments (of both parties) have disliked the BBC, tried to break it or tried to bring it 'under control'. All have failed. The BBC does not toe the government line (of either party). Unlike some news outlets, it does try to be impartial - and it is open to far more scrutiny than any other news network in the world simply because it is publicly funded. Most of the people that work there (and not just the journos) want to be fair, impartial and accurate - because they know that what they do is going to be under scrutiny from every quarter (unlike other broadcasters who have no scrutinity at all), and because they are publicly funded and they work for the public in the publics trust. I would say that most in the BBC understand this last bit even better than politicians - who seem to have forgotten who they work for.

[buster2209]

That's a load of bollocks right there. If you look at the history of the BBC (especially in the past 30 years) you'll see that successive governments (of both parties) have disliked the BBC, tried to break it or tried to bring it 'under control'. All have failed. The BBC does not toe the government line (of either party). Unlike some news outlets, it does try to be impartial - and it is open to far more scrutiny than any other news network in the world simply because it is publicly funded. Most of the people that work there (and not just the journos) want to be fair, impartial and accurate - because they know that what they do is going to be under scrutiny from every quarter (unlike other broadcasters who have no scrutinity at all), and because they are publicly funded and they work for the public in the publics trust. I would say that most in the BBC understand this last bit even better than politicians - who seem to have forgotten who they work for.

I did say for the most part. IMHO, after growing up with the BBC ALL my life, I think the parties disliking the BBC is just PR spin.

As I explained in my previous post, it is publicly funded in name only. The BBC tries to hide behind this whopping lie to as the reason to why it is impartial.

I have no idea where you think that the BBC cares about public opinion, they only care about the bottom line. The BBC would have been extinct if it wasn't the tax, I mean fee, the British citizens have to pay. If there was an opt out of this fee rather the burden of proof placed on the TV owner to NOT be able to tune in to BBC programs, then it would be an independent company. But seeing as this is almost impossible to prove, the BBC tax/fee rolls on regardless.

One case in question is that Panorama, a hard hitting factual show, was cut from an hour long show to half an hour years ago and the money was funnelled into reality shows which the BBC have been relentlessly making.

At present, the BBC has a love affair with Obama which shows no sign of diminishing.

The BBC is a dinosaur and needs to be put down.

EDIT: This article from 2006 is worth a read (and the associated comments) as well as a peruse around this forum.

[R.Thompson]

I did say for the most part. IMHO, after growing up with the BBC ALL my life, I think the parties disliking the BBC is just PR spin.

As I explained in my previous post, it is publicly funded in name only. The BBC tries to hide behind this whopping lie to as the reason to why it is impartial.

How can it be publicly funded in "name only" when its funds come from the public? Either it's publicly funded or it isn't. Make your mind up. Last I checked, it was - and subject to far greater scrutiny than any other publicly funded project or organisation. The licence fee money is collected and ring-fenced. It can only be used for the funding of public service broadcasting (what the BBC does). The majority goes to the BBC, I believe (although I may be wrong) that some still goes to Channel 4 to fund its public service remit.

I have no idea where you think that the BBC cares about public opinion,

Must have something to do with having worked there for 6 years. At least in my department (in New Media Audience Research) we worked very hard to ensure that what we did was accurate and took into account the feedback we got from the public. And I worked closely with other teams and divisions to help them achieve the same. Everyone I worked with worked hard to achieve that.

And what you said about being unable to prove a negative? It's really hard when those throwing the accusations of bias at you are themselves biassed against you and have no interest in whether you are trying to be unbiased or not. They will cherry pick to prove their point. A bit like the Brady Bunch - doesn't matter what you do, you'll never convince them.

Am I biased? Maybe. But I did (and still do) believe in and worked towards the ideals of working to the best of my abilities in public service, on behalf of the public trust, and being fair and impartial when my work needed it.

they only care about the bottom line.

In that case how are they any different to any other broadcaster out there?

The BBC would have been extinct if it wasn't the tax, I mean fee, the British citizens have to pay. If there was an opt out of this fee rather the burden of proof placed on the TV owner to NOT be able to tune in to BBC programs, then it would be an independent company. But seeing as this is almost impossible to prove, the BBC tax/fee rolls on regardless.

One case in question is that Panorama, a hard hitting factual show, was cut from an hour long show to half an hour years ago and the money was funnelled into reality shows which the BBC have been relentlessly making.

What about the Hutton Inquiry which crucified the BBC but exonerated the Government? Even the Daily Mail - not exactly a bastion of pro-BBC feeling - said that the report was unfair at finding almost total fault with the BBC. Especially as it later became very clear that the WMD dossier had been sexed up.

Do I agree with Panorama being taken off air? No. And neither did a number of journalists within the BBC.

The BBC is between a rock and a hard place. It has to fulfil a public service which means making things available that would not be fulfiled by a commercial service. But at the same time it has to justify the existence of those things with ratings. But then again, it can't have anything too popular otherwise it is getting in the way of commercial operators. Services (especially on the web) have been turned off where they interfere in the market, or where it has been shown they have no viewers.

But I agree that there is too much 'reality' tv. Everywhere.

At present, the BBC has a love affair with Obama which shows no sign of diminishing.

Maybe. But again, so do a lot of commercial news operators, so whats the difference?

Or is it ok for commercial operators to be biased but not the BBC? Funny how it is held to a higher standard...

The BBC is a dinosaur and needs to be put down.

Sorry, but don't agree. Is the BBC perfect? Hell no. But I think its important to have a news organisation that tries (even imperfectly) to be unbiased and impartial rather than one that is definately the mouthpiece of the government (as happens in other countries) or chairmen/CEO's or does/does not air stories based on the whims of advertisers.

For people in some of those countries, the World Service provides the only way that they can hear news from outside.

Are there things the BBC could do to improve it's news service? Absolutely. Bring back hard news programmes like Panorama, and hard science programmes like QED. Make Horizon a regular programme again and not just an occasional one.

Do I think that the BBC will one day need to become a commercial provider? Yes. Mainly because as peoples modes of access become more diverse it becomes harder to justify the current licencing system. But being commercially driven is different to being a public service and the type of service will change. It may happen as soon as the next charter renewal in 2012, although I suspect it will happen after that date.

EDIT: This article from 2006 is worth a read (and the associated comments) as well as a peruse around this forum.

Umm yeah... like the Daily Mail is unbiased... but I don't see any forums about that.

Fact: Journalists at all news agencies get things wrong
Fact: Journalists at all news agencies cut corners, fail to check facts, and get things wrong
Fact: Only the BBC as a whole gets vilified for it.

I think there is a wider problem with all journalism with less fact checking and more "dramatics" in reporting - there's a rush to be first with the story in a 24 hour news environment which helps to drive that. This is a problem across the board.

Plus, I have to be honest, I'd struggle to take anybody who calls themself 'teddy bear' seriously...

As an aside - its not all bad at the BBC. When I was there they had (IIRC) 2 or 3 shooting clubs covering everything from air rifle through pistol to rifle. There used to be (might still be) an indoor air rifle range within BBC Woodlands.

[buster2209]

Good points, cant really argue with much that I haven't written about already.

The medium by which to gain information is changing and institutions like the BBC will eventually fall by the wayside unless they adapt.

Getting rid of the COMPULSORY licence fee is a a monumental leap in the right direction.

As a side note, I don't think ITV, C4 or C5 are any better than the BBC but I etleast wasn't forced to pay for the privilege of watching them.