Sometimes The Good Guys Win

Not one, but TWO wins yesterday:

1. You almost certainly heard or read that California overturned its ban on same-sex marriage yesterday, becoming the second state in the country to permit legal marriage for gay couples (along with Massachusetts, of course). The decision is somewhat notable because the state’s Supreme Court is predominantly Republican, and you know how those Republicans hate The Gay.

It almost goes without saying that this breathes new life into the anti-gay activist crowd, but the L.A. Times said it anyway, and you can bet your bippy that Karl Rove is sitting in his underworld lair somewhere getting it all down on paper to use as a wedge issue for the fall campaign.

Meanwhile, I though Louis Bayard’s piece at Salon this morning was a nice bit from the point of view of a gay man who has always known what the Supreme Court of California apparently just discovered: that gay people live normal lives, raise normal families, and that most of them aren’t any different from most of us. It’s good that the law is on their side now, but it’s time to stop making such a big deal out of it.

I also liked this post at Beacon Broadside by author Patricia Gozember, which points out that same-sex marriage has been legal here in Massachusetts for more than four years now (wow!) and, contrary to the wild ravings of the right-wing fundie freakshow crowd, absolutely nothing bad has happened to any heterosexual marriage as a result, nor have people been marrying dogs or sheep or any of the other ridiculous claims made by those awful people.

I genuinely believe that eventually same-sex marriage will be legal in most states, even though it may take a long time to achieve.

2. You probably did NOT hear or read that the United States Senate voted yesterday to overturn the FCC’s ruling that would have allowed greater concentration of media ownership in individual markets.

Late last year, the FCC made a ruling that allowed for cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same media market. This situation, traditionally known as “duopoly” in broadcast regulation lingo, was a strict no-no for decades. Despite the fact that 99% of the public response received by the FCC during their open comment period was opposed to rescinding duopoly, and despite a stern admonishment from Congress not to do it, the FCC did it anyway. After all, why listen to Congress when the media industry is paying you off on a regular basis, right? John Kerry (remember him, the guy who was too dull to be President…) marshalled the bill through the Senate, where it was passed by voice vote. The bill must still make it through the House, which shouldn’t be too much of a challenge, but will almost certainly be vetoed by George Bush. So it’s not a clean win, but it’s a very good start and shows that occasionally Washington listens to its constituents.

2 Responses to “Sometimes The Good Guys Win”

  1. Mark Van Patten Says:

    Hi,
    Re: #2

    Cross-ownership rules only applied to the top 20 markets. (Orlando is #20) There are 1700 daily newspapers in the U.S. who are all forbidden from owing any other news outlet.

    “the media industry” is the least cooperative of any “industry” Newspapers and Broadcast hate each other. So there was no pay-off. No industry is as despised by politicians than newspapers. (That pesky First Amendment)
    There was no pay-off, the newspaper lobbyists are paupers compared to other industries.

    There are many cities and small towns where there is cross-ownership that was grandfathered in. The newspaper I work for owns a radio station - only one out of four that still has local news.

    Another newspaper in the state has the only TV station in the market.
    There have never been more ways to get the news than now.
    For Congress to not see the real marketplace shows their true disdain for “the media.”

    In our market, the ABC/Fox channels and CBS/NBC channels are owned by the same companies. Only ABC carries local news.

    These TV companies were allowed to carry these channels, but the newspaper could not.

    Newspapers should not be hand-cuffed by federal regulations when it comes to delivering the news in a variety of formats.

  2. Brian Says:

    The relaxation of the cross-ownership rules was less about the newspaper industry (or what’s left of it) than the growing consolidation of ALL media industries.

    To be sure, when the duopoly regs were first put in place eons ago, the idea was to stop the then-ascendant newspaper barons like Hearst and Robert McCormick from having too much control over radio stations, but the power in the media industry shifted away from the newspapers long ago. Today, virtually all media in the U.S. is controlled by FIVE corporations, including the newspapers in every major city.

    Small and independent newspapers do get tarred with the same brush in the process.

    They should never have relaxed the rule that let broadcast corporations own more stations in a single market in the first place. In Boston, for example, the two major independent stations, which had been around for decades, were swallowed up in a flash by CBS and a big operator from Florida who owns the NBC affiliate here. Now both former independents run their bigger affils’ newscasts.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Comments?

 Spokes & Hub  An Obstructed View  Inside Looking Out  Treading Water  Bucky  Looking Up