The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines today to approve the relaxation of media ownership rules that will allow large corporations to further control our nation's media. Despite outspoken opposition from the FCC's two Democratic commissioners and overwhelming criticism from the public, the FCC voted to approve changes championed by FCC Chairman Michael Powell.
"The proposed changes are such a threat to First Amendment freedoms that even some Republicans on Capitol Hill have been brave enough to oppose them," wrote Washington Post Columnist Tom Shales. "And yet, a fat lot of good it does. [Powell] wants to plow ahead with his deregulation scheme no matter what. It appears he is trying to do more damage than any other chairman in FCC history."
The specifics of Powell’s changes include a change in the media ownership cap to allow a single company to own TV stations that reach 45 percent of households in the US; and the rewriting of two existing "cross-ownership" rules that would lift current restrictions that keep companies from owning a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market or radio and TV stations in the same market.
"The goal is homogenization in order to contain costs," Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a group that has fought the changes, told the New York Times. "But that homogenization creates a kind of cookie-cutter blandness."
This deregulation will now likely face court challenges. In addition, a bipartisan bill has been drafted in the US Senate to keep the TV audience cap at 35 percent. However, it is unclear whether the Senate's Republican leadership in supports the bill, Reuters reported. A similar bill in the House of Representatives has been opposed by Rep. Bill Tauzin (R-LA), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees the FCC, according to Reuters.
Media Resources: Washington Post 6/2/03; New York Times 6/2/03; Reuters 6/1/03; Feminist Daily News 5/30/03
10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost.
The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot.
SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy."
"We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event.
SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .