You have a non-partisan read on what happened here, then? I mean, sorry: this is an inherently political news story and discussing it without reference to politics just isn't going to be productive.
The FCC's mandate is to regulate communication, how is radio communication ownership outside of its jurisdiction?
Radio and television are extremely relevant to most Americans. It's only those of us in our Bay Area-Chicago-New York bubbles that think they aren't. Decreasing market share does not mean irrelevance.
Radio alone is extremely influential for political opinions. Many politicians owe their careers to Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz.
> The FCC's mandate is to regulate communication, how is radio communication ownership outside of its jurisdiction?
In the same way consolidation among trucking companies is outside the NTSB's jurisdition. The FCC's legitimate purpose is to prevent interference among radio and TV stations. It's not to regulate content (which isn't a legitimate area of regulation at all). And it's not to enforce antitrust laws (which are enforced by a different government agency, with specific expertise in antitrust).
The fact that radio is influential in politics among a certain segment of the population is even more reason for the FCC to steer clear, not a reason for the FCC to intervene.
>In the same way consolidation among trucking companies is outside the NTSB's jurisdition.
If the NTSB licensed trucks, and there was only enough road space to license 100 trucks per city, I'd be perfectly fine if they decided that 50/100 trucks had to be locally owned.
Usable radio frequencies are a limited resource, we have a vested interest in allocating those resources efficiently and fairly. The argument is what constitutes efficiently and fairly.
Is it fair to award licenses to the highest bidder? How about the tallest station owner?
Regardless of how they allocate licenses, they are still making a choice that determines who gets access and what viewpoints are represented.
I see no intrinsic reason that "highest bidder" is any more fair than "lives within 100 miles of the radio station."
How is changing existing regulations in the favor of a specific partisan group "steering clear" of that group? That's downright Orwellian phrasing there.
Regulating an area (ownership of TV and radio stations), because the FCC worried about how the ownership will affect viewpoints expressed by those radio and TV stations, is not a legitimate exercise of the FCC’s authority (or, for that matter, any government agency’s authority). Getting rid of those regulations is “steering clear” of the problem created by exercising the FCC’s licensing authority as a means for influencing viewpoints expressed in the media.
The fact that getting rid of hose regulations might help any particular group is besides the point. To the extent that those regulations were based on an attempt to influence viewpoints, they were not legitimate to begin with.
How are radio stations irrelevant? Nearly everyone I know with a 9 to 5 job listens to talk radio on the way to work. Either WSB for conservatives, or NPR for liberals.
Conservative talk radio in particular plays a huge part in conservative political culture.
Do what? Note that this is an accurate description of the media landscape in other English-speaking countries which have chosen to relax cross-ownership rules.
Back in March, 265 members of congress voted to reverse an FCC privacy rule [0] in exchange for bribes (whoops, it's called lobbying). I'll leave it to you to figure out whether they had a "D" or an "R" next to their name. Then after that, tell me with a straight face that this isn't a partisan issue or that both sides are just the same.