Comments on: Obama fills FCC seats

President Obama has nominated the final commissioner to sit on the Federal Communications Commission.

[laremiller]

How unfortunate that the author didn't bother to tell us anything abut the nominees' policy positions. We might as well just read a list of names from the phone book, for all this article informs us.

[jaguar717]

I don't think it takes much imagination. All those nominated can be expected to hold as pro-omnipotent government, anti-individual, pro-legislation and tax as possible, the same as everyone else in every other position so far.

[mbenedict]

Uhm, no, Baker very much opposes increased tax and legislation.

This year the battle is going to be regulation of the media market. Unfortunately it'll be a battle fought along party lines... the three Democrats will seek new legislation to prevent media consolidation, while Baker and McDowell will favor a "hands-off"policy and let the market prevail.

[jaguar717]

I would be highly surprised if she didn't turn out to be another RINO. Consider that her last job was the make-someone-else-pay-to-convert-your-TV-which-you're-Entitled-to handout program.

It's not the consolidation thing that'll be the focus--it's "Fairness" Doctrine, content restrictions in the name of "localism", and those shorter license renewal requirements to let Fedzilla favor what it likes and punish what it doesn't.

Ahh...its so refreshing to hear those voices from the wilderness whinning in anguish (jaaguat717) after 8 years of government incompentence. Thank you Loard, thank you!

[mbenedict]

The so called "fairness doctrine" is only a proxy for consolidation. I.e., today those who are pushing for the "fairness doctrine" are doing so because consolidation is seen to strengthen certain media groups whose content include the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc. ("conservative radio".)

Under the Bush administration, with media consolidation taking place, many Democrats favored legislating "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to counter the effects of consolidation. But now if the Democrats can prevent consolidation from happening in the first place, that's where the battle will be ultimately fought.

That's because the first thing that will happen if the Commission re-institutes the "fairness doctrine" will be the numerous First Amendment lawsuits which follow. Any new doctrine will not stand UNLESS the it is severely limited in scope (per Supreme Court decision, e.g., only to remote areas with difficult access to information -- not many places in today's internet-connected world.)

Not to say it wont happen, but any "fairness doctrine" movement will get bogged down in courts for years.

The anti-consolidation route, though, is much more straightforward, can be easily "sold" to the ignorant public, and achieves much of the same goals.

[Dr_Zinj]

Oh spit!

I forgot to submit my resume for that position.

[midnightride]

Phonebook read INDEED!! Come on Maggie, where IS the beef? I believe that the consolidation problem is, next to removing all technology from the voting process (no I am not a Luddite, I won an iPhone 16gig), the most important issue on the table today. With such tight corporate control of information, WE THE PEOPLE are rendered deaf to all but Budweiser/sports, pharmaceuticals, celebrity worship and various prurient, blood pays minutia. Folks, please remember that an educated populace is the ONLY antidote to that previously mentioned dumbing down. Power has been consolidated into far too few hands, and the American populace is not being duly informed, but instead led to believe that OUR VOTE COUNTS!

Doubt Nothing Question Everything for nothing is simple and little is true.