7 ms·

If this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule

If this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule. > The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004. 1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communications-commission-rescinds-tv-ownership-rule-limiting-mergers/ https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...

warkdarrior 1mo ago
And what is this Congress going to do about it? Nothing.
- jibal 1mo ago
  Congress already did something -- it wrote the law. It's the courts that rule against lawbreakers. However, it's the executive branch that takes action against lawbreakers, and that branch is currently utterly corrupt.
  - throwaway27448 1mo ago
    First, all three branches are obviously quite corrupt. Second, congress can obviously still avt to speak on behalf of us and they refuse to do so.
    - jibal 1mo ago
      I explained the roles of the branches. This throwaway comment doesn't refute what I wrote. And the way Congress "speaks" on our behalf (that is, they are supposed to represent us) is through legislation. No way am I giving the GOP-controlled Congress a pass on its numerous failures to oppose corrupt appointments or to impeach corrupt officials--including of course Carr--but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how the government works is, and clearly many people lack that. Also, while the GOP is corrupt through and through, including the GOP-dominated SCOTUS, saying that the "branches" are is inaccurate -- the lower courts are still a bulwark against corruption. This simplistic throwaway handwaving in no way invalidates my entirely accurate comment about the roles of the branches. I won't waste more time commenting on this.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
  - fnordpiglet 1mo ago
    The key is who has standing in such a case. Likely broadcasters are the ones most likely to be impacted. Also depending on how the statute is written markets with total monopoly could have standing, individuals to cities. It’s not just the executive branch who is able to sue in court. Everyone and every company can. But you have to demonstrate you suffered harm and are a legitimate plaintiff. For changes like this I suspect there’s a lot of people and companies with standing.
rainsford 1mo ago
That article seems pretty ironic considering the Baltimore Sun is controlled by the head of Sinclair, a group pursuing (partisan) media consolidation.
- Wowfunhappy 1mo ago
  ...are you criticizing them for having editorial independence?
  - Supermancho 1mo ago
    How does this story demonstrate independence? It's covering an announcement.
  - gopher_space 1mo ago
    And being good-looking? Are you criticizing them for being fit and handsome?
- stonogo 1mo ago
  This article is syndicated from The Epoch Times, a hard-right Falun Gong mouthpiece pretty well known for spreading conspiracy theories and extremely partisan reporting.

warkdarrior 1mo ago

And what is this Congress going to do about it? Nothing.

jibal 1mo ago
Congress already did something -- it wrote the law. It's the courts that rule against lawbreakers. However, it's the executive branch that takes action against lawbreakers, and that branch is currently utterly corrupt.
- throwaway27448 1mo ago
  First, all three branches are obviously quite corrupt. Second, congress can obviously still avt to speak on behalf of us and they refuse to do so.
  - jibal 1mo ago
    I explained the roles of the branches. This throwaway comment doesn't refute what I wrote. And the way Congress "speaks" on our behalf (that is, they are supposed to represent us) is through legislation. No way am I giving the GOP-controlled Congress a pass on its numerous failures to oppose corrupt appointments or to impeach corrupt officials--including of course Carr--but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how the government works is, and clearly many people lack that. Also, while the GOP is corrupt through and through, including the GOP-dominated SCOTUS, saying that the "branches" are is inaccurate -- the lower courts are still a bulwark against corruption. This simplistic throwaway handwaving in no way invalidates my entirely accurate comment about the roles of the branches. I won't waste more time commenting on this.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
- fnordpiglet 1mo ago
  The key is who has standing in such a case. Likely broadcasters are the ones most likely to be impacted. Also depending on how the statute is written markets with total monopoly could have standing, individuals to cities. It’s not just the executive branch who is able to sue in court. Everyone and every company can. But you have to demonstrate you suffered harm and are a legitimate plaintiff. For changes like this I suspect there’s a lot of people and companies with standing.

rainsford 1mo ago

That article seems pretty ironic considering the Baltimore Sun is controlled by the head of Sinclair, a group pursuing (partisan) media consolidation.

Wowfunhappy 1mo ago
...are you criticizing them for having editorial independence?
- Supermancho 1mo ago
  How does this story demonstrate independence? It's covering an announcement.
- gopher_space 1mo ago
  And being good-looking? Are you criticizing them for being fit and handsome?
stonogo 1mo ago
This article is syndicated from The Epoch Times, a hard-right Falun Gong mouthpiece pretty well known for spreading conspiracy theories and extremely partisan reporting.