I will just make a couple of comments in opposition to the resolution because I think the resolution is sort of a broad-brush approach that takes down everything the FCC has recommended, things that make sense that are good and also things about which some people may have questions. It really is a resolution that assumes, in my opinion, that if things are small, they are necessarily good; if things are big, they are necessarily bad. I think particularly as this is clearly spelled out with regard to part of the FCC's rule that deals with the question of television ownership, the rule from the FCC basically allowed the television stations to move up to a 45-percent-of-viewer cap before they would be prohibited from owning additional television stations. It seems to me that if you look at media concentration now, you have 1,721 television stations in the United States and the networks only own a very small percentage of those stations. If you consider the people who watch the stations, you will find also that the viewership of these network-owned stations, indeed, is very small. It is not as if a couple of networks have all the viewers and are therefore monopolizing what people see and there is no diversity. That is simply not the fact at all.
John B. Breaux: “I will just make a couple of comments in opposition to the resolution because I think the resolution is sort of a…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a resolution related to FCC recommendations on television ownership.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
I start off by commending the authors of the amendment for a real serious effort to try to improve the bill. But I rise in opposition because there is not any segment of the senior population that you could not isolate and target and say…
it is interesting that the authors, the Senators who oppose the amendment, say the bill is going to create 660,000 jobs. If it is going to create 660,000 jobs, there is no problem. The people would be able to bring the money back and pay 5…
if we are going to look in the MARAD program for huge amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse compared to everything else, I would suggest that we're going to be spending a lot of time, with little results.
Suppose you have somebody who may not do that. Is there any provision in the bill that says what will happen to the company that does not abide by the plan? I believe in trust but verify. If you don't do what you say you are going to do…