Obama Names Copps as Acting FCC Chief

[WhiteTara]

Source: fox news

President Barack Obama has appointed Commissioner Michael Copps as acting chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, filling the seat emptied by former Chairman Kevin Martin's departure on Tuesday.

Obama has not yet named a permanent successor to Martin, who had been appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2005. Each incoming president appoints the head of the five-member commission, though commissioners serve staggered terms and Martin could have remained on the panel. The FCC is required to have at least two members from outside the president's party. Also on the commission are Democrat Jonathan Adelstein and Republican Robert McDowell.

Copps, a Democrat, began his first FCC term in 2001 and was sworn in for a second five-year term in 2006. Before joining the commission, Copps was an assistant secretary of commerce. He came to Washington in 1970 on the staff of Senator Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, after being a professor of U.S. history at Loyola University of the South.

Copps does not need to be confirmed by Congress as acting chairman. According to published reports, Obama's intended pick for the permanent job is Julius Genachowski, a Harvard classmate and a technology adviser to his campaign and transition team.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481647,00.html

---

this is great news. I like Copps a whole lot.

[islandmkl]

1. isn't Copps the one who would call bullshit on every move the bushFCC made...

to 'engineer' the airwaves??

[LSparkle]

3. He is indeed ... He and his Democratic colleague were the ones holding townhalls

during the FCC fights several years ago. Can't remember the
other commissioner's name (but I'm sure it'll come back to
me just as I finish this post).

[onenote]

55. On certain issues, like ownership, yes; but on other issues, no

Copps challenged Martin on some things, and supported Martin on others.

And Copps is totally wrong when it comes to regulation of content (i.e. "indecency") on television.

[RoccoR5955]

2. That is GREAT news...

...perhaps there is hope for the new Fairness Doctrine, aka. the Media Ownership Reform Act, proposed by MY congressman from the great 22nd District of NY, Maurice Hinchey.
Hinchey has been trying to get this through for six years or more now. I hope it stands a chance. Here's a link to the synopsis of the bill: http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

[Peace Patriot]

7. Thanks for this info! Didn't know the Fairness Doctrine had been re-introduced.

Kudos and laurel wreaths to Rep. Hinchey for hanging in there so long on this much-needed legislation!

[depakid]

15. The FCC can reinstate the Fairness Doctrine(s) themselves, through adminstrative rulemaking

which Congress would have to repeal with a veto-proof majority.

Oddly, this is the same way Reagan got rid of it (through bogus evidence) -and Congress was just barely unable to override he and Bush I's veto in the late 1980's.

One thing for sure- to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine would be in keeping with Obama's theme of responsibility and acountability- and it could be applied to political and especially initiatibve campaigns- where the one side with all the (corporate or fundamentalist) money is able to lie with impunity and the other side cannot get its message out over the public airwaves.

Countless bad and dysfunctional public policy choices have resulted from this imbalance over the past 20 years....

[defendandprotect]

31. We should be pressuring to have this happen --- keep at it, folks!!

[slipslidingaway]

37. No reason this cannot be done under an Obama administration

thanks for the info.

[scytherius]

43. Better than the Fairness Doctirne

Go back to limiting media ownership in markets. You have 99% of media owned by 6 corporations. THAT is how you make the change, not with the FD which has some First Amendment issues.

[onenote]

57. can you elaborate on the 99 percent of media owned by six corporations

That claim is thrown around a lot, but its really just a made up number. First, it depends on what you are defining as "media"? Do you include newspapers? Websites? Radio and TV? Just radio? Just TV? Cable and satellite? The internet? In any event, under any metric you want to propose, I'd like to see you get to the 99 percent figure, or something reasonably close.

Second, for those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s, I can guarantee that there are a lot more choices today, than there were in some mythic "golden era".

I grew up in one of the ten largest television/radio markets in the country. As a kid, radio was essentially limited to AM radio stations, most of which featured top 40 music formats and did not do any independent newsgathering or reporting (their news content was generally "rip and read" from wire services or syndicated news sources). There was one all news station which was owned by one of the city's newspapers, a couple of classical stations, and that was about it. Today, in this same market,there are dozens of radio stations, AM and FM, with various formats. The all news station is no longer owned by the newspaper. The number of newspapers has dropped from three to two, but there is ready access to an almost limitless supply of newspapers daily on the internet. As a kid, my tv choices were limited to an ABC station, an NBC station, a CBS station, an independent station (that featured mostly re-runs) and a PBS station. A few years later, a couple of UHF stations came along that also featured no news, mostly re-runs and were hard to pick up over the air. It wasn't until the 80s that cable arrived and the number of choice expanded, as did the number of television stations.

I keep hearing about the good old days -- my only problem is that I was around for them, and they weren't all that terrific when it came to choices for news, information and entertainment.

on edit: I should add that I think that there is room for some reinstatement of horizontal and vertical ownership limits -- such as limits on the cross-ownership of a newspaper and radio or tv station in the same city. But given the current economic climate, a lot of radio stations will simply go off the air if they have to be divested.

[Peace Patriot]

11. I just went to Rep. Hinchey's web site (your link) and tried to send a thank you

but his site won't accept comments from my zip code. I think he needs to remedy this antiquated, provincial attitude (on his web site, at least), if he wants to rally national support for this legislation. I feel rebuffed as to offering my help--for letters, petitions, whatever. The bill has an uphill battle, given what will surely be united corporate media hostility to it. How to get it publicized? It's not good that citizens outside of his district, who also have a vital interest in media fairness, can't send him an email. Kudos to him anyway, for sponsoring the bill! I do appreciate his long hard work on this vital matter. I just read the summary of it, and it looks excellent to me. If you have a zip code in his district (which I guess you obviously do), please tell him to re-do his web site, if only for THIS bill. Have a special email address (or special web page link) for it. His web site also has no information about what we can do--no petition to sign, nothing. There is a list of co-sponsors, that's all. I understand the burden on office staff of many emails, and how it can get out of control, with spam and all. But he DOES need to make it easy for outsiders to contact him about this bill, and he needs to provide actions, or links to action groups, to maximize public support.

I notice that my neighboring Rep, Lynn Woolsey (CA-6), is a sponsor. But my own Rep, Mike Thompson (CA-1), is not. That's something I can do--write to Thompson. What else? Hinchey's site should give some instruction.

[Left Coast2020]

22. A FAX SOMETIMES GETS THEIR ATTENTION.

:bounce:

[RoccoR5955]

51. I'll try to get in touch with his people here...

...it also seems that other parts of the website are broken as well.
Send me a personal message, and I'll get you that e-mail address as soon as I get it.

[Peace Patriot]

16. MEDIA OWNERSHIP REFORM ACT (MORA)

MEDIA OWNERSHIP REFORM ACT (MORA)
(Congressman Maurice Hinchey, NY-22)

THE PROBLEM

The American media is becoming increasingly dominated by large telecommunications companies that are pressuring smaller companies out of the market and shrinking the diversity of voices in our media environment.

* Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have repeatedly altered our nation's media ownership rules by increasing media ownership caps that limit the number of media outlets one company is permitted to own in a single market. The result has been greater consolidation in the media industry, with telecommunications giants buying up more and more television and radio stations, newspapers, and other media outlets, forcing local and independent media owners to be bought up or go out of business, and denying public access to a wide array of information.

* As part of a large deregulation process in 1987, the Reagan administration dissolved the Fairness Docrine, an important piece of legislation that required broadcast news programs to cover controversial topics in a fair and balanced manner. First introduced in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine's suspension was a massive blow to journalistic integrity, forcing the general public to lose trust in media outlets from which they receive news and information each day.

THE SOLUTION

* Congressman Hinchey introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act, which seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by significantly lowering media ownership caps. These caps will keep the power and influence of large telecommunications companies under control and encourage smaller businesses to participate and compete, bringing a greater diversity of viewpoints into media programming.

* MORA also reinstates Cable/Broadcast Cross-Ownership rules, which forbid any company from owning and operating a broadcast station and a cable station in the same market, limiting the influence of that company on the various media outlets.

* The bill also restores the Fairness Doctrine, compelling broadcast news outlets to investigate issues thoroughly and present their findings in an unbiased way.

--------------

More details (bill summary)
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

[jeff30997]

24. Thanks for the infos.

I had no idea what the Fairness Doctrine was.If the Media Ownership Reform Act pass it would

be fantastic.Just imagine Rupert Murdoch's reaction.(I truly hate that guy).

[defendandprotect]

29. Didn't the GOP last week try to pass legislation that would prevent reintroduction of the

Fairness Act -- ???

We desperately need it back --- it stood for 60 years or more!!

[Tansy_Gold]

4. I read the headline and laughed with delight

Great choice!

[otohara]

5. Yeah

thumbs up

[KoKo]

6. THANK GAWD AHMIGHTY! PRAYERS ARE ANSWERED...Michael Copps!

THE BEST PICK EVER! THANK YOU, OBAMA...I Now Know...your heart and legislation is truly coming from what you have HEARD FROM US ON THE LEFT! BLESS YOU! :loveya: :applause: Eric Alterman, Michael Boehlert and all those who found since the EARLY 90's AGAINST MEDIA DEREG...FAUX NEWS/LIMPBALLS..and all the REST...SALUTE YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA! YOU HEARD US ....YOU LISTENED!

WHO WHO.......

[navarth]

32. WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE

This is the best news YET from the Obama presidency. Michael Copps, I love that guy!

FINALLY!! This is how it feels when GOOD things are happening! Thank you Barack!!

[Jefferson23]

8. I am more than pleased President Obama!

[NashVegas]

9. Wonderful News

[slipslidingaway]

10. As Acting Chair...maybe for a couple of months???

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/BC_DC_Eggerton_on_Washington/10618-FCC_Fast_Track_.php

"...Julius Genachowski remains at the top of many lists and is looking more and more like the man to beat. He is a former FCC staffer who also has experience with Internet start-ups, and he chaired the group that drew up Obama’s tech policy plan for the campaign. While he has been talked up for the White House tech czar (not to be confused with a chief technology officer post for the federal government, which already exists) that Obama plans to appoint, the FCC post may wind up being the more attractive.

The Genachowski-led plan includes network neutrality, ownership diversity, and tech-driven media content control, which sounds like the agenda of a Democratic FCC chair from here.

Michael Copps could well be named acting chairman in the interim, an interim that would start whenever FCC Chairman Kevin Martin decides to leave. He can stick around as a commissioners if he wants, but almost nobody expects him to do that..."

[DCKit]

12. Copps and Genochowski sound like a formidable team.

The MSM and Republics, in general, are going to lose their minds.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Maybe... but read the last sentence

Michael Copps could well be named acting chairman in the interim, an interim that would start whenever FCC Chairman Kevin Martin decides to leave. He can stick around as a commissioners if he wants, but almost nobody expects him to do that..."

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

34. Sticky . . .

[slipslidingaway]

36. Hopefully he will stick around once Obama makes a permanent

appointment.

[defendandprotect]

38. Did you mean to put a "NOT" in there somewhere . . ????

[slipslidingaway]

39. No, do you want him to leave after the appointment? I do hope

he sticks around for awhile, this is only acting chair.

[defendandprotect]

40. I'm talking about Martin going . . .

Michael Copps could well be named acting chairman in the interim, an interim that would start whenever FCC Chairman Kevin Martin decides to leave. He can stick around as a commissioners if he wants, but almost nobody expects him to do that..."

[slipslidingaway]

42. Looks like I read that wrong :)) it happens...

glad you pointed it out!

[blogslut]

48. Martin is retiring

And (shock!) going to work for the Aspen Institute:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to join Aspen Institute
AP
Posted: 2009-01-15 15:39:14

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is leaving the agency Tuesday to do what comes naturally for FCC chairmen: He is heading to the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

Martin, a Republican, will be joining the institute as a senior fellow with its Communications and Society Program. His three predecessors - Democrats Reed Hundt and William Kennard and Republican Michael Powell - all took the Aspen Institute fellowship after stepping down as FCC chair.

Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press he expects to spend several months at the Washington office of the think tank, working on communications issues and reflecting on what to do next.

"I think it's time for me to move on to new opportunities and new challenges," he said.

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/fcc-chairman-kevin-martin-to-join-aspen/n20090115153909990033">link

[annabanana]

52. Ah.. He's joined at the root and part of the leaves turning together...

where have I heard that before?

[WhiteTara]

49. Marti is gone

"filling the seat emptied by former Chairman Kevin Martin's departure on Tuesday"

[pleah]

13. K&R Great!

[Gregorian]

17. Thanks to everyone posting here. This is why I love DU.

I had no idea who Copps is. But by reading your posts I am able to see just how good this is.

And one of the very most important roles. Yeah!

[elleng]

19. Copps interview with Moyers:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_copps.html

[Gregorian]

20. Great. It looks like he's fully up on internet issues as well.

Wow, we made it.

Thanks.

[WhiteTara]

45. I feel easier tonight

knowing that people are thinking of how to move our lives forward into a new age.

[KoKo]

18. kick...Media Disenfranchisement is why so many DU'ers have stayed here, working...

I'm so glad to see Obama appoint Copps who worked so hard against Bushies...in so many ways. Remember the "Party in Power" get's the Majority on FCC and they can ram through what the Party in Power wants. Michael Copps and Adelstein were the only Dems left on there. They worked so hard to push back on Bush's Propaganda...Fox/Limbaugh and the rest. I won't go into what they did and how we supported them to try to help...it's out there in the
"DU Archives" and few would be interested. But a Kudo to those who worked hard and did care! :applause:

[Left Coast2020]

21. Excellent Choice, However,

I would have really hopped that the president would have made him Chairman. Yes, Mr. Copps has been outspoken on a number of broadcast issues. As a former broadcaster myself in both radio and TV, one of the most important matters I want to see change (next to the SC pick) is Media Reform. And as I noted in a post earlier (see Clear Channel job cuts-news) Clear Channel announced over 1500 people losing their jobs. I have no love for CC. They are a mega-media corporation that could give a damn about a particular markets interests (programming is all off satellite. No local programming). Therefore, it would be good, in my opinion if CC sold off some of the, "low-performing" stations to an independent owner--hopefully to someone who could add/run progressive programming like AA. Where I live here in Calif, we had at one time 2 progressive stations. Now we have 0--zilch--nada. But the thing to keep in mind is "duel-ownership, or Monopoly of a given market. At present, one company--like Clear Channel--can own as many stations in a market as they desire. This is not diversity in a given market. It is a pure monopoly. And it must change. Mr. Copps has consistently spoken out against duel-ownership rules during the last administration. During the Clinton Administration, I believe the rule was 12/12/12; meaning an owner could own no more than 12AM, 12FM, and 12 television stations..Period. And not all in the same market. At one time before Clinton, it was 7/7/7. And yes, we had a Fairness Doctrine. It is my sincere hope that we can get back to where we used to be. After all, they are the "public" airwaves. Rules should apply to cable too. Cable has no rules at present. And from looking at Patroit's(#16) post, a cord has been rung. Another tid-bit I would like to see in MORA is a requirment that stations engaging in "news" content oriented programming is "Investigative Journalism". When was the last time you heard of a local radio or TV station do a story on corruption in county/city government? Its all money-driven. A station will claim they don't have the money/staff to do investigative journalism. Well, thats because they wern't reuqired to do so. And you acheive this by making it a requirment in their license--to be renewed every 3-years--not 7 which is what former FCC Chair Powell did; so stations could have a bit more cover from public scrunity. I was a reporter and was forbidden to spend time researching county records. This is how you run a broadcast facility: to serve the "public intrest, conveince, and necessity" (Communications Act of 1934).

I will continue to monitor broadcast/FCC matters and share them here. Likely not on the top of the list for the Obama Administration, but nonetheless, a matter that needs attention in the coming months--hopefully weeks after economic matters can be settled.

[KoKo]

50. Well said. I'm hoping that it will give Copps time to make appointments

that will be more favorable to the deregulation Copps has supported.

[mntleo2]

23. OMG! OMG! That is SO awesome!

...if you don't know about this man you can know he is a man of integrity. As one of the commissioners and in the minority at the time as far as caring for the country's stake, Mr Copps stood up against all odds and went around the country trying to raise awareness of what Michael Powell (yes THAT POwell's son) was doing to give away the Internet rights to the highest bidder. Thanks to Mr Copps (as well as the Electronic Frontier people), the FCC got more than 1 MILLION letters of protest as to what Powell was trying to do. It was Michael Copps who cared and few others in the governemnt. I am SO thrilled to see him at the helm! He will be fair and you can trust he will look out for our interests not just big media.

Wow ...President Obama, you are awesome!

Cat In Seattle

[jeff30997]

26. Thanks for the infos mntleo2.

Maybe now the U.S have a chance to have MSM that doesn't sound like the Pravda in the days of

the Soviet Union.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. At last!

:fistbump:

[DissedByBush]

27. Martin being gone is great

But I hope Copps doesn't stay too long. My only reason is that he worked for Hollings for so long and Hollings was owned by the big media companies. He did their bidding regardless of the effect on the people. At the behest of the industry he tried to force any hardware that stores media and any software that processes media to have copyright enforcement built-in.

[xxqqqzme]

44. well, there is always one in the crowd,

In case you haven't been paying attention the last EIGHT years, Copps has been a warrior for those of us concerned about the lack of diversity in the public airwaves and the corporate control of way too many of those airwaves. The link, earlier in this thread, to the Moyers conversation, is a great place to start. Copps has been our strongest, and frequently our only, voice. For that alone he deserves our respect. Hollings may have been in the whorporate media pocket but I think Copp keeps his own counsel.

[DissedByBush]

53. I'm hoping you're right n/t

[jeff30997]

28. I hope that...

all the nuts like Limbaugh,O'Reilly and Hannity are wetting their pants.

[defendandprotect]

30. Great news -- provides for a much more hopeful outlook --!!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. Heard him at the Media Reform Conference

He's wonderful. This is GREAT news.

[vanlassie]

35. WoooHoooo!!!!!!! Fantastic!

[certainot]

41. talk radio talk radio talk radio

we would not be in this bush disaster if reagan had not killed the fairness doctrine 20 years ago.
considering the time we've lost dealing honestly with global warming, progressives ignoring talk radio may be the biggest political blunder in history.

talk radio monopoly is a pressing problem. TV and print, as corporatized as they are, still have to at least pretend, within acceptable framing, to put on two sides and it is often talk radio that decides what is and what isn't acceptable when the limbaughs and hannitys can threaten for weeks without contest and put enormous coordinated pressure on management to enable and give cover to republican owners. for firing dan rather for instance.

while print and TV are most anti-democratic in what they omit, only the talk radio monopoly, through coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition, can create and establish its own reality of myths, distortions, lies, and exaggerations that the rest of the lazy celebrity talking heads as well as GOP and blue dog (limbaugh) democratic politicians can count on by the end of the day or week.

by ignoring the talk radio monopoly democrats have been playing politics without a front line. rove and co have been beating them with an invisible political 2x4. they've been feeling it but have been turning the dial and analyzing their beatings as if the GOP has mass public appeal instead of the biggest bullhorn and uncontested soapbox in the country, mostly in large expanses of those red states with a disproportionate number of senators and a lot of people who's only choice for politics may be an AM radio while they're working or driving. and don't give me any crap about waiting around for satellite radios in every car- that will be the next GOP legislation.

there are three choices that i see for progressives (yeah yeah plenty of others).
1) congress can pass some new kind of Fairness Doctrine or very fast acting demonopolization,

2) progressives and unions can boycott and picket their local RW radio stations and their local sponsors until they stop filling the community airwaves with lies about their candidates and causes and really support them.

3) or they ignore talk radio, continue to cede it to the GOP, and continue to work twice as hard and pass twice as many concessions to get even the most watered down progressive legislation past more talk radio enabled filibustering and blue dog (limbaugh) democratic bullshit.

[Left Coast2020]

46. UPDATE

It would be a win-win situation for our President, and new FCC Chair to make these rule changes because it would also add JOBS!!! Yes, all those news Writers, Producers, Engineers, News Directors, Camera-Operators, Sound-Techs, Reporters, Office Staff, Traffic Managers, Assistant Sales Managers, Sales Managers, General Managers, Promotion Directors, Editors, and of course Interns who lost their jobs would have a change to work again. I also read that a station in Colorado said to hell with computerized radio, they have live air-talent--not some bozo in NY or L.A going live over a satellite. It was a story about a station that was reviving 70's radio (if you remember what 70's radio sounded like) with live D.J's like we used to. Its live and local.

[BanTheGOP]

47. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL

It would effectively silence the hate spewed vitriol by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other right wingers, for they would not be allowed to broadcast without balance from our side. That's something I can live with. We don't have to dilute one ounce of Air America and other progressive voices, but we effectively kill the careers of idiots who made millions of dollars off of the vast poverty created from the crap they spewed.

THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE, people. Frankly, it is not US that will be silencing the radio hosts; rather, it will be the lack of profiteering media whores like murdoch who will be silencing them, as they would rather do that then pay the same money to COMPETENT, INCLUSIVE radio hosts like Ed Schulz and Randi Rhodes. SO DON'T EVEN GO THERE WITH ME.

[Synicus Maximus]

54. Air America will die to.

When we kill RW talk radio they will use the same Fairness Doctrine to kill Air America and other progressive talk radio. I just hope it is worth it.

[onenote]

56. Could a fairness doctrine proponent explain how it would actually work in practice?

I've been a communications attorney for nearly three decades. I saw the fairness doctrine in operation and frankly, I don't think it did nearly as much as folks here think, other than possibly chill discussion of controversial issues. Anyway, I'm curious how supporters think it would operate.

For example, let's say limbaugh or hannity offer up a rant against Kirsten Gillibrand's selection as NY Senator, focusing on her opposition to the war or her newly stated support of same sex marriage. Who gets time to present the "other side"? And what is the other side? Is it someone who likes Gillibrand because of her posiition on the war? Someone who likes her because of her position on same sex marriage? Someone who doesn't like her position on same sex marriage because she only came to it lately? Someone who likes or doesn't like her because of her position on other issues? How many responsive points of view get on the air and when does the daisy chain of responding to someone who responds to someone end? And who decides who gets to give the response?

[Synicus Maximus]

58. Someone states a position.

It doesn't really matter the subject and a group files a complaint with the FCC, typically a private individual would not have standing.
If the FCC agrees that equal time is appropriate the radio station would be required to provide time for the spokesperson for the complaining group to provide a rebuttal. This sounds good on the surface. But say Limbaugh says he opposes Gillibrand being a senator and a couple hours later says he supports expanding the war in Afghanistan. One group demands time to respond to his statements on Gillibrand and another demands time to oppose war in Afghanistan. So now the radio station must schedule two time slots for the rebuttals. In a short time the trouble of trying to arrange for rebuttal time is more trouble than it is worth, not to mention lost revenues and in no time all the talk stations turn to country music.

[onenote]

59. thank you -- my point exactly

The likely outcome of the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine would be a chilling of speech and, ultimately, the rejection of the doctrine by the courts on constitutional grounds.