I was also at the hearing, and like you, I didn't stay to listen to all the public testimony, once it became obvious that it was going to be a chorus of people objecting to the FCC's proposed change.
Net neutrality is a hugely important issue. However, at this time, it is still only vaguely related to the issue that was the specific topic of the hearing: media ownership.
Despite the rapidly growing influence of blogs in generating opinion and discussion, overall they don't generate much original news reporting. A vast majority of original reporting is still done by traditional media (either TV or Newspaper). Most of the "news" available on the internet still originates from those sources. CNN.com, MSNBC.com, etc, are just regurgitating what they are putting on TV. Most of the news stories on Yahoo and Google news are just recycled wire stories. SLOG's morning news is mostly either snarks or calls attention to wire stories. Despite the growing influence of political blogs, most original reporting was originated from traditional media sources, and all the polling that was done was paid for either by candidates campaigns or traditional news sources.
You are implying that that may change. Maybe yes. Maybe no. It may over time, but I'm not convince that it will. Or at least not as rapidly as you think. It costs a lot of money to send a reporter and crew to Iraq, or to Washington DC, or Sudan, or Colorado Springs, or wherever, or to pay for unbiased public opinion polling. There is already a business model in place for paying that overhead in the newspaper and TV world. There is not yet an effective business model for paying for that overhead exclusively on the internet. Salon tried a pay service, which bombed. So far, nobody has succeeded in convincing a large enough segment of the population to pay for an online subscription service for news to make it financially viable. The news available online is pretty much all free content, supported in part by advertising (like the Stranger and Slog sites). Your model works fine on a local level. You have a relatively small staff that pretty much sticks to local reporting (with the occasional road trip). Savage does some stuff that is syndicated, but that seems to be separate from the Stranger. And I'm guessing that most of your ad revenue comes from the print Stranger. Could you afford to completely drop the print Stranger, and survive solely as an online entity? And, more relevantly, could CNN? The New York Times? Reuters? AP?
Personally, I suspect it will be like Newspapers after TV was invented. Lots of people thought TV would completely supplant newspapers. Sure, radio, and later TV, cut severely into newspaper sales, but it didn't eliminate newspapers entirely. There are still lots of people who either prefer newspapers, or who want a variety of sources for their news, in print and on TV and on the radio. I think the internet will over time step in and we'll see more original reporting solely from internet sources, but I'm not convinced it will completely replace older methods of news reporting.
So, yes, Net Neutrality is important. But I think the regulation of tradition media, and the effects of consolidation of mega media companies, is still the more important issue, and will be for at least the next decade.
Even when the Stranger agrees with someone who is lefty, it always has to qualify it with an insult, just to show, you know, that the Stranger is cool. If they don't show up to the hearing, they're idiots. If they do, they're right but not right enough, and anyway redundant and archaic. They're still behind the cool curve. You heard it at the Stranger (TM) first.
Oh, go hang.
I was bringing up what I think are legit criticisms and concerns.
If you disagree with my take on the hearing please post about it like Comment #1.
This stuff about how writers for the Stranger think they're "so cool" is just dumb.
Net neutrality is the only issue here worth discussing. Cross ownership of papers and TV stations? Who cares? TV is migrating to the web. The big media companies have said they are no longer interested in the cross-ownership rule. They are migrating their video content to the web.
Someday, your video will come via the Internet from the same big media companies who provide it now. The great freedom of the web cuts two ways. Makes it easier for average folks to reach an audience but also makes it easier for big media companies to broaden their audience.
Arguing about media companies owning a paper and a TV station or two in the same town is a 20th century argument. And it's now totally irrelevant. These hearings are just a chance for a bunch of lefties to score points with their political base and for Frank Blethen (a media dinosaur if ever there was one) to whine about how the world owes him a living.
Get over it!
Newspapers have the only true newsrooms. Most others are simply parasites.
I am very concerned about what is going on with these proposed changes. I am from the Baby Boomer era and my idea of country, is George Jones, and new artist like Gary Bennett, but they don't have a chance with the current payolla. I like Keith Urban but he is not country to me and will never give me the FEELINGS and mind set I get from true country. We know these artist struggle and everyone that loves true country knows that struggle and that why their is a fit. Why don't they do a survey of the Baby boomers. They are reaching those retirement years and want to relax with true country. We have earned it!
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).