Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> wrote:

> To restate your argument, "What's good for American business is good for
> the American people".

That is a complete misstatement of my argument. My argument is that "the public
interest" is defined by the democratic process in accordance with our
Constitutional principles. If in some cases the result agrees with the above,
then so be it. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I often disagree
with policies, but I'm not willing to call them illigitimate just because I
disagree. 

To the extent that the process is biased in favor of special interests, then I
certainly agree the process needs to be recalibrated, but the way to do this is
to work within the system. Most Americans reject the "All corporations are
evil" stance that you seem to advance, and rightfully so. I don't think this
position has any inconsistancy at all with the belief that the policitical
process needs reform so that representatives are more responsive to their
consitutents. 

> I guess Article I Section 8 needs both the copyright AND the commerce
> clause removed.

I don't follow your point. I am advocating that democratic government follow
the Constitution.

> However, Congress has consistently denied the FCC the right to hold public
> hearings on any of these subjects.

Congress could abolish the FCC altogether if it so chose. Frankly, with the
"must carry" laws for cable TV and the advent of internet streaming, the
"scarcity principle" that justifies their existance is eroding. I blame the FCC
for the homogeneity of thought on broadcast radio and TV. The easiest way to
get a monopoly is to have government help. 

> McCain continued to oppose the Telecommunications Act [...]

What exactly was the legislative change made by this Act?

> These bad policies show that our government is NOT acting in the best
> public interest.  Rightly, such a government should be replaced.

When you say "government" and not "representatives", I recoil. If you are
really advocating the overthrow of the US government, then about all I can say
is that you will be opposed by the very public whose interest you claim to
advocate, which makes you entirely illegitimate.

> > I certainly agree Congress is often influenced by special interests.
> > Only when this crosses the line of violating rights do I agree that
> > the results are illegitimate.
> 
> How about not being in the public interest?

My belief is that the public is interested in their own freedom, liberty,
trade, and in keeping only the minimal amount of democratic government needed
to acheive those things.
 
> How would you feel if Congress voted to give half of all of our tax
> dollars to Microsoft and send the army to Colombia to fight on behalf of
> agribusiness or to the Middle East to fight for subsidies for our oil
> industry?  (Oh, wait... the US DOES send its military overseas to fight
> for big business interests.)

I strongly supported the war on Iraq, as did most of the public. It's funny --
you seem to advocate a "public interest" that is something different than what
the public is interested in. 

Your other hypotheticals are too far fetched to reply to. 
 
> > People, including those labeled as "special interests" have a
> > Constitutional right to advocate their policy beliefs to Congress. To
> > the extent that this results in a divergance from what people think is
> > the public interest, they should advocate the changing of the
> > policital process to reduce the influence of special intersts.
> 
> This is a Catch-22 and you know it.

No, I think most people are apathetic and cynical and that is why they fail.

> Every attempt to remove the influence of big money from politics is
> resoundingly squashed by the big money.  Broadcasters mock it in the news
> or give creedence to absurd rebuttal and loads of corporate money floods
> the opposition.

I wouldn't know, I don't listen to them.
 
> It can easily be shown that, overwhelmingly, the campaign with the most
> money wins.  A campaign to remove money from the process will be defeated
> by all the money that flows into the opposition.

I suppose this is why Ross Perot is president.

> To simply say that the process is RIGHT because it is Constitutional is to
> reject the most important feature of the Constitution: its malleability.

The most important feature of the constitution is that it enumerates narrow
powers given to the Federal government and establishes division and separation
of power to minimize the ability of tyrants to take over.

Your whole argument seems to be that US should adopt your particular view of
"public interest" even when it isn't what the public wants. You've just gave an
example where the public was overwhelming against your position. The
Constitution was designed to minimize the power that people who want to mandate
that it be done their way could obtain. While sometimes the government makes
bad policy and even chips away at rights on occasion, I believe that even with
all its flaws, the US governement "as is" maximizes my personal rights compared
to any other system I've seen. It certainly isn't perfect and can be improved,
but it sounds a lot better to me than rule by "Jeme's notion of public
interest".

> Usually this is phrased such as "to improve shareholder value" or the
> like.  And it's at the end of MOST mission statements written these days.

That phrase is not in my current company's mission statement or the one of my
last company. But, for those that do, while I find such a mission boring and
unimaginative, I certainly am tolerant enough to belief that it is their right
to do persue that objective if it makes them happy. 

> Broadcast companies do not even view the public as their customers, but as
> potential customers for their advertisers.  In other words, they're not in
> the public service business AT ALL.

I guess I don't really expect them to be. All I really want from them is to
offer some programming, which I will watch if it makes me happy. Frankly, I
don't really have an idea of what you want them to show to qualify for their
public service ribbon, but I probably wouldn't watch that either.

> > Are you prepared to argue that if you wanted to form a radio station
> > to play only the Clear Channel banned songs that Clear Channel would
> > stop you?
> 
> Absolutely.  Clear Channel and their dogs in Congress would make sure that
> no dissenting voice is heard.

Gee, I know lots of people that have been successful at starting small
businesses. My only worry would be that you couldn't do it profitably because
no one would listen.

> And now, since Congress has given the President authority as judge, jury,
> and executioner, we might have the National Guard to tangle with as well.

Especially since you are basically advocating the overthrow of the US
government in the supposed name of the "public interest". Hey, it's your right
to rebel. Good luck and may you get the result you deserve.
 
> Why is it you argue that we cannot question Congress because they have a
> right to set these policies, however bad, and then blame the FCC for the
> state of things?  The FCC was created by an act of Congress... and the FCC
> is kept in line by constant threat of disbanding by Congress.

You are certainly free to state that you disagree and think they have made bad
policy. I personally think their policy is representative of what people want.
If you think you are violating your rights, then you need to make this argument
more directly. I haven't heard anything yet that sustains such a claim, IMHO.
 
> If you believe, as you say, in supporting the rule of law, then you
> support the limitations on small broadcasters set forth by the FCC.

No, because I believe they violate small broadcasters rights to free speech.

> You're also EXTREMELY naive (as if your statement that broadcast rights
> were "owned" and not subject to public service requirements didn't prove
> that already) if you think that small broadcasters would exist for
> long.  As soon as they became popular, they would be gobbled up by the
> largest media conglomerates and slowly pulled back in line with the
> corporate business model.

I know several people who are into HAM radio. Small broadcasters exist in every
city. It's just because of FCC policies that they can't get onto the AM/FM bands.

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/