Last night, the Senate voted nearly unanimously to nullify the FCC’s recent pro-media-consolidation initiative. As reported by the Associated Press, "the unusual ‘resolution of disapproval,’ sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and 26 other senators, was approved by a voice vote."

It’s an encouraging move, a bulwark against an FCC rule that would have allowed one company to own both a newspaper and TV station in 20 metropolitan areas. Last fall, the FCC held a number of town hall discussions that were over-run with citizens and activists decrying the rule, which all but guarantees further consolidation of media outlets and continues the process of erosion of a pluralism of voices.

The rule was passed through–as they often are–late at night on December 18th, quietly overturning a 30-year-old ban prohibiting a single company from owning both the local newspaper and a television station in the same community, despite loud public opposition.

In light of this, the Senate’s repudiation is encouraging and refreshing, in a system that is all but guaranteed to give preferential treatment to corporate interests over community service, in sharp contrast to the FCC’s stated purpose to preserve the public airwaves.

It’s almost a foregone conclusion that big media does not represent its audience, which creates a certain amount of ennui among the public. It’s been so long since a true plurality of voices have been heard through media outlets. The move from community radio to conglomerate-owned radio broadcasting the same 10 songs and arch-conservative claptrap nationwide has been long and gradual. Most people have come to simply expect that media outlets will never represent their concerns and voices.

We’ve forgotten, by extension, that we own the broadcast airwaves.

Of course, large corporations point to that handy media bogeyman, The Internet. Last fall, I wrote about The Tribune Corporation’s argument that competition from such unlikely sources as Chicago events blog Gapers Block justified the relaxation of ownership prohibitions, which is patently ridiculous. Great online resources do not replace or even serve the same purpose as newspapers broadcast community media.

In response to the Senate’s actions, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez once again raised the spectre of the Internet-bogeyman, saying "The FCC’s approach modernizes a 30-year-old rule in a way that improves the financial viability of the newspaper industry, which faces an increasingly competitive media market."

Well, no shit. It’s a bad time for newspapers, but enabling monopoly isn’t the way to save an industry, and it’s certainly no way to encourage and ensure democracy.

Unsurprisingly, President Bush has made overtures that he’ll veto the bill, though considering his predilection for anti-constitutional signing statements, he’ll likely pull his typical bait and switch. Instead of vetoing the bill, he’ll sign it into law but adding a legal footnote that negates its very purpose, clearing the path for the FCC to go forward.

It’s enough to make you want to scream. If Democracy is undermined with no way to broadcast it, does it make a sound?