Fair Media Ownership Bill (Failed)

[MasterJedi]

Fair Media Ownership Bill

Section 1: Television Ownership

1. No limit shall be placed on the amount of television stations one entity may own nationally, however these stations must not reach more than 35% of Atlasian television-owning households.

2. No merger shall take place between any television stations where the combined national audience reach would be larger than 35%.

3. No entity may own more than a one television station in any Designated Market Area (DMA) if this entity already owns a television station with over 20% market share. No entity may own more than two television stations in a single DMA.

Section 2: Radio Ownership

1. In a radio market with 45 or more stations, an entity may own up to seven radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.

2. In a radio market with between 30 and 44 radio stations, an entity may own up to six radio stations, no more than three of which are in the same service.

3. In a radio market with between 15 and 29 radio stations, an entity may own up to five radio stations, no more than three of which are in the same service.

4. In a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, an entity may own up to three radio stations, no more than two of which are in the same service, as long as the entity does not own more than 40% market share.

Section 3: Newspaper Ownership

1. No entity may own more than one daily newspaper publication in any DMA.

2. No entity may own more than two weekly newspaper publications in any DMA.

3. No entity may own more than one daily and weekly newspaper publication in any DMA at the same time.

Section 4: Cross-Ownership Limits

1. No limit shall be placed on cross-market ownership, however, individual ownership and market-share limitations still apply.
Sponsor: Sen. Marokai Blue

[Franzl]

I'm not comfortable with regulating something like this.

[HappyWarrior]

I'm not comfortable with regulating something like this.

Nor am I

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm not comfortable with regulating something like this.

Nor am I

     Me neither.

[afleitch]

No, no, no.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I didn't think it would be that popular, but it should be said that this is just slightly altered existing US policy. It's not healthy for any market to have the audience heavily dominated by one man or one station.

[Devilman88]

I don't support this at all, the government shouldn't be able to say who can own what.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't support this at all, the government shouldn't be able to say who can own what.

That would allow incredibly unfair advantages to strong and already established media businesses. There's "free market competition" and then there's "setting the stage for bullies to dominate smaller corporations."

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't support this at all, the government shouldn't be able to say who can own what.

That would allow incredibly unfair advantages to strong and already established media businesses. There's "free market competition" and then there's "setting the stage for bullies to dominate smaller corporations."

     Well if that happens then we can do something. Somehow I fail to see the wisdom there is in setting forth rules saying how much of anything someone is allowed to own.

[Purple State]

I support the premise of this legislation. Otherwise, we leave media wide open to monopolization; we must not condone sweeping ownership of the dissemination of information, lest we fall victim to private media control and censorship.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't support this at all, the government shouldn't be able to say who can own what.

That would allow incredibly unfair advantages to strong and already established media businesses. There's "free market competition" and then there's "setting the stage for bullies to dominate smaller corporations."

     Well if that happens then we can do something. Somehow I fail to see the wisdom there is in setting forth rules saying how much of anything someone is allowed to own.

We're talking about ownership rules of large media organizations that people rely on for their information & news as well as other things such as entertainment of course. The US has these restrictions, and we already have a problem with certain corporations having a stranglehold on channels.

I'm fine with people complaining that the rules were too strict, but to assert that we should have no rules about how many television stations a single person can own and to have no problem with how much market share someone manages to build up with multiple or single stations is downright lunacy. We should have rules like this so the Rupert Murdoch's of the world can't control everything. I think waiting until serious problems happen rather than implementing modest rules so those things cannot happen is a dangerous and naive approach to governing.

And Purple State of course brings up an excellent point. You oppose censorship (and I stress this bill has nothing to do with content regulation if anyone was concerned about that) but apparently have no problem with private media having a stranglehold on the national audience and private-censorship. There is no difference between government or private censorship, it's censorship of the news and of other things all the same.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't support this at all, the government shouldn't be able to say who can own what.

That would allow incredibly unfair advantages to strong and already established media businesses. There's "free market competition" and then there's "setting the stage for bullies to dominate smaller corporations."

     Well if that happens then we can do something. Somehow I fail to see the wisdom there is in setting forth rules saying how much of anything someone is allowed to own.

We're talking about ownership rules of large media organizations that people rely on for their information & news as well as other things such as entertainment of course. The US has these restrictions, and we already have a problem with certain corporations having a stranglehold on channels.

I'm fine with people complaining that the rules were too strict, but to assert that we should have no rules about how many television stations a single person can own and to have no problem with how much market share someone manages to build up with multiple or single stations is downright lunacy. We should have rules like this so the Rupert Murdoch's of the world can't control everything. I think waiting until serious problems happen rather than implementing modest rules so those things cannot happen is a dangerous and naive approach to governing.

And Purple State of course brings up an excellent point. You oppose censorship (and I stress this bill has nothing to do with content regulation if anyone was concerned about that) but apparently have no problem with private media having a stranglehold on the national audience and private-censorship. There is no difference between government or private censorship, it's censorship of the news and of other things all the same.

     Well I happen to think that the rules as outlined are too strict. People can figure out if a particular television news program or newspaper has a particular bias, so as long as one person does not monopolize (or come close to it) any DMA, I am not too frightened about the possibility of private censorship. As long as an alternative exists, people can get their news from there.

[Purple State]

I don't support this at all, the government shouldn't be able to say who can own what.

That would allow incredibly unfair advantages to strong and already established media businesses. There's "free market competition" and then there's "setting the stage for bullies to dominate smaller corporations."

     Well if that happens then we can do something. Somehow I fail to see the wisdom there is in setting forth rules saying how much of anything someone is allowed to own.

We're talking about ownership rules of large media organizations that people rely on for their information & news as well as other things such as entertainment of course. The US has these restrictions, and we already have a problem with certain corporations having a stranglehold on channels.

I'm fine with people complaining that the rules were too strict, but to assert that we should have no rules about how many television stations a single person can own and to have no problem with how much market share someone manages to build up with multiple or single stations is downright lunacy. We should have rules like this so the Rupert Murdoch's of the world can't control everything. I think waiting until serious problems happen rather than implementing modest rules so those things cannot happen is a dangerous and naive approach to governing.

And Purple State of course brings up an excellent point. You oppose censorship (and I stress this bill has nothing to do with content regulation if anyone was concerned about that) but apparently have no problem with private media having a stranglehold on the national audience and private-censorship. There is no difference between government or private censorship, it's censorship of the news and of other things all the same.

     Well I happen to think that the rules as outlined are too strict. People can figure out if a particular television news program or newspaper has a particular bias, so as long as one person does not monopolize (or come close to it) any DMA, I am not too frightened about the possibility of private censorship. As long as an alternative exists, people can get their news from there.

The problem is that bias is not limited to expressing opinion through media. It can also be withholding information. To imagine that such a scenario is impossible is asking for trouble. I would not mind amendments to the legislation, but the premise is a very basic and important one for any free society.

[Bacon King]

Guys, this is basically already Atlasian policy grandfathered in from the United States.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Guys, this is basically already Atlasian policy grandfathered in from the United States.

     Darn, now they know. We can't make the standards weaker now.

[Purple State]

Guys, this is basically already Atlasian policy grandfathered in from the United States.

We really should pass a law to such effect. Otherwise, we can't simply base these things on assumptions.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Guys, this is basically already Atlasian policy grandfathered in from the United States.

Well, so is a school lunch program, yet we're legislating on that right now. It's hard to make decisions on pre-existing policy if we don't precisely know what policy we're carrying over, and what policy we're not carrying over. It's kind of arbitrary and bothersome.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     All policies are carried over. Our law is basically US law as of early 2004, plus any alterations made by the Senate since then.

[Purple State]

If the Senate will allow me the liberty, we need a fucking GM.

[Marokai Backbeat]

     All policies are carried over. Our law is basically US law as of early 2004, plus any alterations made by the Senate since then.

Yet we've sort of legislated existing things (such as a school lunch program) in the past. As I said, it sort of seems arbitrary what we target as redundant and what we don't.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the Senate will allow me the liberty, we need a fucking GM.

Indeed..

[Associate Justice PiT]

     All policies are carried over. Our law is basically US law as of early 2004, plus any alterations made by the Senate since then.

Yet we've sort of legislated existing things (such as a school lunch program) in the past. As I said, it sort of seems arbitrary what we target as redundant and what we don't.

     It depends on how often someone remembers that American law was grandfathered into Atlasia.

[Ebowed]

If the Senate will allow me the liberty, we need a fucking GM.

Maybe if you hadn't been so gung-ho to remove the fucking GM.

Good wisdom there, champ!

[HappyWarrior]

If the Senate will allow me the liberty, we need a fucking GM.

Maybe if you hadn't been so gung-ho to remove the fucking GM.

Good wisdom there, champ!

An inactive GM and no GM at all are pretty much the same exact thing.

[Purple State]

If the Senate will allow me the liberty, we need a fucking GM.

Maybe if you hadn't been so gung-ho to remove the fucking GM.

Good wisdom there, champ!

An inactive GM and no GM at all are pretty much the same exact thing.

Indeed.

Honestly, Ebowed, had you maintained that random spurt of activity when this whole kerfuffle first occurred, I wouldn't have pressed to remove you a second time. But you quickly let it slip (despite the fact that I addressed each posting with a bill) and didn't provide follow ups or new info.