Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)There Are Days... When You Wonder Why We Even Bother... [View all]
Obama Administration Seeks to Strengthen Rupert MurdochMatt Stoller - NakedCapitalism
12/27/12
Earlier this year, Obama Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed relaxing media ownership rules to allow Rupert Murdoch to buy the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. Its not something youll see discussed much, because Republicans like the fact that Murdoch is going to get more power, while Democrats dont want to admit that Obama is helping the person framed as their arch-nemesis. This is part of a larger pattern media consolidation is one of the many structural problems that Obama promised to deal with. And indeed, this is the real arena where the battle over free speech is being fought. Corporate control over our communications infrastructure is the free speech question of our time.
<And>
On a more fundamental level, media consolidation and free speech are indistinguishable problems, and liberals have avoided the intellectual conundrum this presents. For while there are periodic flare-ups of the debate free speech rights, very rarely does anyone take the time to analyze the economics of speech. The controversy about Eric Loomis, a professor who spoke out obnoxiously and aggressively against the NRA and then had his academic career threatened as a result, is the latest round in kicking up a free speech debate. But this controversy is far less consequential than questions of how the corporate sector uses free speech rights. The first amendment is not actually an affirmative right to speak. It is written as the governments inability to make any laws restricting the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, or to petition ones government. Obviously the government makes rules all the time on the first amendment thats what a permit for a march, parade, or protest is. And it makes rules on speech on a regular basis, it just so happens that these are rules about who owns and runs the telecommunications and cable industries.
<And...>
Corporate control over our communications infrastructure is the free speech question of our time. When Obamas Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to investigate Rupert Murdochs company for bribery in the phone hacking scandal, and Obamas FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski works to help Rupert Murdochs company buy more media assets, and the number of broadcast media outlets owned by minorities continues to decline, its clear we have a free speech problem. But it has nothing to do with a comment on twitter or burning flags.
More: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/obama-administration-seeks-to-strengthen-rupert-murdoch.html
***************************************************************************************
And from 11/29/12...
Obama's FCC Set to Give Rupert Murdoch a Media Monopoly
Thursday, 29 November 2012 14:35
By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, The Daily Take
<snip>
Unsatisfied with his media empire in the UK and Australia and his several media holdings in the United States like TheWall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch wants more. He wants a media monopoly.
Murdoch is currently jockeying to buy the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, which just so happen to be the largest newspapers in the nations second and third largest cities. That will add to his current media empire in the United States, which includes the most watched cable news network in the nation, Fox so-called News, and the most circulated newspaper in the nation, The Wall Street Journal.
The only thing standing in Murdochs way of full-spectrum media domination in America are Federal Communication Commission rules that forbid one company from owning both a newspaper and a television station in one community. Murdoch already owns local television stations in both Chicago and Los Angeles.
But according to sources within the FCC, Chairman Julius Genachowski is quietly planning to scrap those rules. Under pressure from major media moguls like Murdoch, who see big bucks and huge political power in a consolidated national and local media, Genachowski circulated a new order to other FCC Commissioners that would allow for cross-ownership of TV and newspapers in the nations twenty biggest media markets.
A similar effort was made in 2007 by George W. Bushs FCC, but it was shot down after the Senate voted to repeal it and a federal court blocked it. Not to mention, 99% of the public comments the FCC received opposed that media consolidation effort.
But, undeterred, Murdoch and other media moguls kept lobbying, and now President Obamas FCC is expected to consider these rule changes again in December. And if Americans dont get involved in this issue and pressure the FCC to say no, then Murdoch and his billionaire buddies will likely get what they want, which is complete domination of our news media.
<snip>
More: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13051-obamas-fcc-set-to-give-rupert-murdoch-a-media-monopoly
92 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's what's so sad, Jackpine -- they occupy the role that liberal-leaning Repubs did in the 70's
villager
Dec 2012
#4
WTF does that have to do with the fact that Thom Hartmann has gone all CTish?
RomneyLies
Dec 2012
#81
Well... When You Have An Un-abiding Respect For A Politician... This Is A Possible Outcome...
WillyT
Dec 2012
#83
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head
RomneyLies
Dec 2012
#84
Funny how suddenly Matt Stoller, who used to be such a blind partisan, is now
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#88
I wish more people understood the immense harm that was caused by media consolidation!
bluethruandthru
Dec 2012
#11
Please tell me that there are still true liberals out there in politicsland somewhere.
jillan
Dec 2012
#16
Yep, exactly, and they already have. The internet will succumb to this too, it's just a matter
RKP5637
Dec 2012
#42
Sometimes it seems that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans
AZ Progressive
Dec 2012
#26
Yes. The two-party system is a scam now, a "good cop"/"bad cop" game,
woo me with science
Dec 2012
#30
Change? Yep, change is happening all of the time, but not the change many of us envisioned. n/t
RKP5637
Dec 2012
#45
I heard today that increasing taxes on incomes over $250K will be enough for one week.
merrily
Dec 2012
#51
Sadly, the SCOTUS took away the one leverage that the feds had to persuade states
merrily
Dec 2012
#54
Absolutely. That poster will defend anything this administration does,
woo me with science
Dec 2012
#41
Shhhhh! Don't tell people about the ACA deductable ...that they can't afford to pay.
L0oniX
Dec 2012
#50
This report is a month old. In fairness, you could have had included the FCC response.
pnwmom
Dec 2012
#24
Including that wouldn't allow for the appropriate amount of anti-Obama outrage to be generated...nt
SidDithers
Dec 2012
#62
well that ought to make the media completely obsolete, i mean who really listens to them now?
No Compromise
Dec 2012
#25
President Obama was never in a postition to reject DOMA. Only Clinton was, and he signed it. DOMA
merrily
Dec 2012
#56
NOT an excuse. An explanation: When so many people from across the full political spectrum are soooo
patrice
Dec 2012
#32
updare this old IWW poster with some media/FCC icons @ the We Fool You level hmmm?
lunasun
Dec 2012
#58