FCC deregulates the media.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 10:55 am

http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/06/03/ ... index.html

What do you think? Does this give media too much power or does it allow more freedom of the press?

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 6/18/2003, 11:46 am

The word deregulate makes me cringe. Whenever I hear it, I think of how Ronald Reagan deregulated the airlines and the economy went to hell. I can't see any good coming out of this.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/18/2003, 1:10 pm

well the FCC won't let me be won't let me be me so let me see

heh.

what this means, essentially, is that there will be fewer people owning more media sources. i find it ironic that people are frightened that the media will now become a voice box for the agenda's of certain high-pro amerikans. as if the media today is anything more then a voice box for your government.

what's going to change? zippo. just fewer people for the feds to bribe/strong-arm.

sandsleeper · Post by **sandsleeper** » 6/18/2003, 2:02 pm

i actually just read a Safire article on this in the times the other day. it's ridiculous. now the big media moguls, who currently were able to reach and control about 35% of the audience, are going to be able to reach almost half the audience. this is gonna squash out all the little independent corperations that may just have given us a different perspective. the whole thing is a monopoly of sorts.

hopefully tomorrow congress will pass the bill that proposes to roll the percentage back to 35, but who the hell knows. so many of those congress men and women are already lost deep within those media moguls' pockets.

but yeah it's not like it will make a difference anyway, the only news sources i actually bother with are the new york times and bbc. and they're not going anywhere.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/18/2003, 2:03 pm

the independent media will not be quashed. i give you...

THE INTERNET. 100% of the audience can be reached, and for considerably less money.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 2:17 pm

For Your Lungs Only wrote:The word deregulate makes me cringe. Whenever I hear it, I think of how Ronald Reagan deregulated the airlines and the economy went to hell. I can't see any good coming out of this.

actually Raegan pulled the economy out of the shitbox

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 2:18 pm

I personally support this action. Why limit the amount of business a company can achieve? Also, with companies allowed to expand, that creates more jobs. Call me crazy, but that is how I feel.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/18/2003, 2:37 pm

Ronnie did a lot of things. :freak:

i'm all about deregulation myself.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 2:40 pm

Doug,

all seriousness... is the husband who punched his pregnant wife in the stomach a murderer?

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/18/2003, 2:42 pm

mosaik wrote:well the FCC won't let me be won't let me be me so let me see

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/18/2003, 2:52 pm

Corey

EDIT:

I say he IS a murderer, because the fetus is more or less alive. however, my stance on abortion remains pro life. here's why:

the relationship between a mother and a fetus is much like that of a parasite and a host. therefore, the mother retains all the rights of the baby. the baby is there by the mothers permission and not by right.

therefore, she retains the right to choose whether or not to give birth. BUUUUTTT... the husband did not allow her to make this choice. so he's a bad guy

i know i know i'm treading on thin ice here... anybody else got an opinion?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 3:29 pm

I don't mean to pick on you Doug... but isn't that a contradiction?

sandsleeper · Post by **sandsleeper** » 6/18/2003, 3:30 pm

whoa... thread overlappage.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/18/2003, 3:31 pm

sort of. to quote neo, the problem here is choice.

the mother has a choice. i'm all about defending choices. but the husband didn't allow her to make the choice. he took the choice away. he's definatley guilty of that much.

i need to think this one over.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 3:35 pm

The same goes to if the wife decides to have an abortion and the husband doesn't want her to... she takes away his choice too, huh?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 3:35 pm

sandsleeper wrote:whoa... thread overlappage.

oops... my bad :oops:

sandsleeper · Post by **sandsleeper** » 6/18/2003, 3:43 pm

heh, no biggie, i just thought i went crazy for a second and had to take a double take at the thread title :lol:

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/18/2003, 3:48 pm

Corey wrote:The same goes to if the wife decides to have an abortion and the husband doesn't want her to... she takes away his choice too, huh?

so she does. good point.

now the issue is not so much about the rights of the unborn, but the rights of the father...

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/18/2003, 8:20 pm

What rights should the father have? They certainly don't have the right to dictate what the mother does with her body, so... insist that the unwanted (by the mother) fetus be transferred to a surrogate mother and brought to term? I doubt it. Face it: biology has rigged it so the father has virtually no rights in the matter. In order for him to have any rights, we'd have to legislate biology. But you're against legislation. So where does that leave the situation?

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 6/18/2003, 8:30 pm

Is the father not supposed to want his unborn child if the mother wants an abortion, or is he supposed to let it go and wait for the mother to decide when she wants children?

Is the father supposed to want the child just like the mother does, even if the mother and father don't get along anymore?

Please answer.

ClumsyMonkey.net

ClumsyMonkey.net

FCC deregulates the media.

FCC deregulates the media.