Thread: Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive" attack on talk radio

Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio

The Left wants increased regulation to address the lack of ideological diversity in talk radio. What do they have to say about the lack of ideological diversity in America’s newsrooms? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties…The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms — at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.

“Appears” to confirm? Snort.


Well, we know that Trent Lott ain’t gonna come to the defense of conservative talk radio. Remember: He thinks it’s a “problem” that he has “to deal with” because of many right-leaning talkers’ opposition to the Bush-Kennedy shamnesty bill. Lott will probably cheer this new report from the nutroots-pandering Center for American Progress trashing talk radio. Instead of blaming the lousy, incompetent performance of liberal talk radio and acknowledging the market triumph of conservative talk radio, CAP blames nefarious owners who aren’t “diverse” enough:



http://hotair.cachefly.net/michellem.../capreport.jpg


Yep, it looks like they’ll be playing the race card on top of their Fairness Doctrine card to try and topple conservative dominance of the medium. And the likes of Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers will be at their disposal to help them, no doubt.

Here’s the far Left’s Big Government regulatory agenda, laid out in handy, bullet-point form:



http://hotair.cachefly.net/michellem...preport002.jpg

More details on their Hugo Chavez approach to the radio airwaves:



http://hotair.cachefly.net/michellem...preport003.jpg

Who will come to the defense of the Loud Folks on talk radio? Don’t bother asking Sen. Lott or Sen. Graham or any of the fair-weather Republicans whom conservative talk radio hosts have gone to bat for so many times over the years.

Will President Bush stand up for conservative talk radio hosts?

Sad to say: Don’t count on it.

What is the Center for American Progress and why are they proposing this Government Talk Radio Grab? It’s a left-wing think tank headed by Clintonite John Podesta. It manages a radio studio used daily by left-winger Bill Press’s syndicated radio show. http://www.billpress.com/radio.html The syndicator is the nutroots Jones Radio Networks. CAP officials appeared frequently on Al Franken’s show and Air America’s airwaves. Seed money for the think tank came from–where else–George Soros, among others, according to the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Unless I missed it, none of that information is disclosed in CAP’s report. http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...talk_radio.pdf



On a related note, the same ilk that are gunning for conservative talk radio are gunning for Fox News Channel. CNS reports on the plotting at the Take Back America conference:

Liberal activists who claim Fox News Channel is not a legitimate news source said that cooperation by several groups was key in preventing the network from hosting debates by Democratic presidential candidates.

Robert Greenwald, a producer/director who hosted a panel discussion Tuesday at the liberal Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C., called collaboration “the C word” — the element without which their “victory” would have been “totally, completely impossible.”

Greenwald’s earlier film “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” accused Fox News Channel of a right-wing bias. He began Tuesday’s discussion by showing a video posted at his FoxAttacks.com website…

…The video shows Adam Green, civic communications director for the liberal group MoveOn.org, saying that his organization learned of the proposed debate from online bloggers. “We immediately issued a call to action” and started a petition drive for Nevadans to tell the state party not to allow FNC to host the debate.

On his website, Greenwald then posted video clips of what he calls “erroneous and slanted stories Fox ran” about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a candidate for his party’s 2008 presidential nomination.

“We decided to bring these campaigns together,” Green says on the video. MoveOn.org joined local and national bloggers in distributing Greenwald’s videos - an example of what Green called “mutually reinforcing activism.”

The first candidate to withdraw from the planned debate was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who cited “a scheduling conflict.” Other candidates, including Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), soon pulled out as well.

When the debate was canceled, Greenwald said his reaction was “joy, screaming out loud.”

---

Green from MoveOn.org told the audience Tuesday his next campaign would be to try convince the owners of the Wall Street Journal not to sell the newspaper to FNC founder Rupert Murdoch. He accused Murdoch of wanting to buy the WSJ “to legitimize Fox” and to get “a seat at the gentlemen’s table.”

From the New York Times :

Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

About six (6) months ago there were rumblings that Democrats were gearing up to bring The Fairness Doctrine back into being. Liberals hate the fact that Conservatives listen to the outstanding talk radio hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Neal Boortz (sometimes), and a new find for me, Monica Crowley to name just a few.

Conservatives tune-in and listen to hosts who research endlessly and actually get their interests out in a civilized manner. Listeners appreciate it! We don't march to any drum but our own - it's the gold standard for a Conservative. When we like what we hear, we support the position. When we don't like it, we call the host and hold their feet to the fire. We do not genuflect to the host. We participate in the discussion, we call, we blog, we write, we fax. We're coherent. Liberals hate it!

Now we have Trent Lott warning that he "may" reign-in any voice that refuses to accept his betrayal of Republicans, Conservatives and America. Can't you just see him saying this? I can. Here's the Republican Minority Whip supporting the Democrat desire to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and shut-up conservative talk radio.

http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/...alk-radio.html

See Also : http://demediacraticnation.blogspot....ir-enough.html

The Media Cornucopia
Adam D. Thierer

It’s a Golden Age of media—but not for long, if the Left has its way.

Throughout most of history, humans lived in a state of extreme information poverty. News traveled slowly, field to field, village to village. Even with the printing press’s advent, information spread at a snail’s pace. Few knew how to find printed materials, assuming that they even knew how to read. Today, by contrast, we live in a world of unprecedented media abundance that once would have been the stuff of science-fiction novels. We can increasingly obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the bewildering variety of material available on the Internet.

This media cornucopia is a wonderful development for a free society—or so you’d think. But today’s media universe has fierce detractors, and nowhere more vehemently than on the left. Their criticisms seem contradictory. Some, such as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, contend that real media choices, information sources included, remain scarce, hindering citizens from fully participating in a deliberative democracy. Others argue that we have too many media choices, making it hard to share common thoughts or feelings; democracy, community itself, again loses out. Both liberal views get the story disastrously wrong. If either prevails, what’s shaping up to be America’s Golden Age of media could be over soon.

Back in 2003, a somewhat free-market-minded Federal Communications Commission, chaired by Republican Michael Powell, proposed to revise the arcane policies governing media ownership, which, among other things, limit how many newspapers, television stations, or radio stations a single entity can own in each community. “Americans today have more media choices, more sources of news and information, and more varied entertainment programming available to them than ever before,” the FCC observed. Allowing slightly more cross-ownership, it reasoned, would simply clear out the regulatory deadwood that artificially limited the ability of older media operators (broadcasters and newspapers) to compete with all the new media alternatives. Such a measure would do nothing to harm media multiplicity.

Despite the moderate nature of the FCC’s proposal, all hell broke loose on the left, and things haven’t really died down since. In congressional debates, Democratic lawmakers warned apocalyptically of the horrors that the FCC’s proposed reform would unleash. Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts—mentioning Citizen Kane but clearly thinking of Rupert Murdoch, whose FOX News and other media outlets have won a big audience for conservative views—implied that a few all-powerful media tycoons could soon run the world. California congresswoman Lynn Woolsey accused the FCC of trying to impose a centralized “Saddam-style information system in the United States.” Not to be outdone, New York’s Maurice Hinchey saw the new rules as a GOP-led “mind control” project. “It’s a well-thought-out and planned effort to control the political process,” he said. “It will wipe out our democracy.” Then–Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said that he’d break up Murdoch’s media empire “on ideological grounds.”

The circus-like “town hall meetings” that followed proved even more overheated. Pushed by Democratic FCC commissioners and organized by MoveOn.org, Free Press, and other leftist advocacy groups, these sessions gave anyone with a gripe against a media company a chance to vent. Some grumbled that TV and radio featured too much religious programming; others argued that there wasn’t enough. Everyone said that local radio broadcast nothing but garbage—but everyone defined garbage differently. And many aired long lists of complaints about the multiple radio stations, television channels, and newspapers in their areas, only to conclude that their local media markets were insufficiently competitive!

The critics did agree on one thing: government had to take steps to reverse our current media predicament—whatever it was. A variety of advocacy groups then took the FCC to court and got the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to put the whole media ownership revision on hold.

Most participants in the meetings fell into the scarcity-obsessed camp. On the face of it, the scarcity critics have a tough case to make. According to FCC data and various private reports, America boasts close to 14,000 radio stations today, double the number that existed in 1970. Satellite radio—an industry that didn’t even exist before 2001—claimed roughly 13 million subscribers nationwide by 2007. Eighty-six percent of households subscribe to cable or satellite TV today, receiving an average of 102 channels of the more than 500 available to them. There were 18,267 magazines produced in 2005, up from 14,302 in 1993. The only declining media sector is the newspaper business, which has seen circulation erode for many years now. But that’s largely a result of the competition that it faces from other outlets.

Throw the Internet into the mix and you get dizzy. The Internet Systems Consortium reports that the number of Internet host computers—computers or servers that allow people to post content on the Web—has grown from just 235 in 1982 to 1.3 million in 1993 to roughly 400 million in 2006. At the beginning of 2007, the blog-tracking service Technorati counted over 66 million blogs, with more than 175,000 new ones created daily. Bloggers update their sites “to the tune of over 1.6 million posts per day, or over 18 updates a second,” according to Technorati.

But the scarcity critics have a rejoinder: the apparent diversity isn’t real, because a handful of media barons—hell-bent on force-feeding us their politically reactionary pabulum and commercial messages—control most of it (even before any FCC ownership rule changes). “You can literally say you actually have more voices, but they are the same voices increasingly,” says New Yorker media writer Ken Auletta. Even the Internet isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. The Consumer Federation of America’s Mark Cooper, author of Media Ownership and Democracy in the Digital Information Age, lambastes the Internet for failing to serve “the public interest,” for being too commercial, for not helping local communities, for hurting deliberative democracy, and for failing to enhance citizens’ ability “to define themselves and their place in everyday life.” Who knew that the Internet was so harmful to modern society?

( there's more .... click the link http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html )

People asking what they can do to stop this. The answers are simple:

VOTE. Vote for people that don’t support this state-sponsored censorship.

INFORM OTHERS. Tell your family and friends exactly what the “(Un)Fairness Doctrine” intends to do, and why that’s a bad thing. It’s not hard to do - look at the info Michelle provides, and the Constiution. You don’t need a degree in Constitutional law to figure out the “(Un)Fairness Doctrine” violates the First Amendment. Don’t let the liberals hoodwink the uninformed public into thinking the “(Un)Fairness Doctrine” is a good thing.

WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS. Let them know you oppose this, and will show your displeasure if they vote for it with your wallet and your votes. Keep in mind that proper grammar and spelling are very important in making a clear, respectable argument heard. If you contact “Think Progress”, do the same. Be polite and civil. Just because they’re trying to silence us doesn’t mean we have to stoop to their immature level.

BE PREPARED FOR A LEGAL BATTLE. As I said above, this SCOTUS would rule the “(Un)Fairness Doctrine” un-Constitutional, but remember that a Democratic president with a Democratic congress can appoint liberal, activist judges who would rule in favor of the “(Un)Fairness Doctrine”. Don’t be afraid to fight.

The problem, as pointed out, is consumers don’t want to listen to liberal talk radio (and who can blame them when 99.9% of television, newspapers, and other media is liberal?). No listeners means no sponsorship means no money. It’s a market-driven commodity. And people are fed up with the liberal tripe and are saying so with their remotes and tuners.

So we cannot let our choices be taken away because the liberal establishment doesn’t like Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Sykes, and other conservative figures.

We cannot be the “silent majority” any longer, otherwise we’ll just be silent!

The libbies are just mad because Air America is going down in HUGH flames. Even after they steal money from kids to try to keep it afloat. Radio is a free market and the market has spoken.

Plan to Restore Fairness Doctrine Still on Track, Analyst Says
By Randy Hall -- CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
July 05, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Liberal efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine are "completely on track," and Democrats intend to push for the measure by linking talk radio to "hate crimes," according to a conservative media analyst.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has proposed an amendment to appropriations legislation to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from spending any money in 2008 to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

The regulation that required broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue was enforced from 1949 to 1987, when the Reagan administration allowed it to lapse.

The House voted 309 to 115 to approve the Pence amendment, but Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative group Accuracy in Media, said even if the Senate passes the measure, "it would do absolutely nothing to stop a Democratic president and Congress from reinstating" the regulation.

Beyond that, he said in a release, the amendment has caused confusion and provided the opportunity for "several dozen liberals [in Congress] to claim they are not interested in re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine."

Kincaid argued that if Democrats gain control of both the White House and Congress, those same liberals would simply let the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. "This may be what is planned."

To prevent that from happening, Kincaid urged Congress to pass the Broadcasters Freedom Act. The measure, also introduced by Pence, would legally prohibit the FCC or any future president from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Noting that this far-reaching bill had 111 co-sponsors compared to the 309 votes that Pence's earlier amendment attracted, Kincaid said this was because the amendment was largely symbolic, while the bill is "critical."

He said he doubted even a handful of Democrats in the House would back the bill, and even if it got through the House, Democrats will likely block it in the Senate.

"The bottom line is that, without a massive public outpouring in favor of the first amendment comparable to the opposition to the immigration bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act will die," he stated.

Kincaid asserted that the Democrats were in the meantime paving the way for the return of the Fairness Doctrine by requesting a federal study of how licensed broadcasting facilities have been used to "convey messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes."

Rather than argue that conservative talk shows are one-sided, he said, Democrats in Congress will assert "that talk radio is hateful and causing injury and death to people."

Kincaid pointed to 1995, when President Clinton, he said, "tried to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk radio." The analyst also cited the case of talk show host Don Imus, who was fired for denigrating a women's basketball team on the air.

'Entirely unnecessary'

Kincaid said one of those seeking a return of the Fairness Doctrine is Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who has been quoted as saying that broadcasters should have no objection.

Invited to comment, Dingell's staff sent Cybercast News Service a copy of the statement the congressman made when voting against Pence's amendment.

"The Fairness Doctrine is an important, complex issue. It concerns many of the core policy values that Congress assigns to local broadcasters," Dingell said. "It concerns the first amendment and localism in the media. It is, in short, an issue that should first be considered by the authorizing committee.

"Even if the amendment were not procedurally defective, the amendment is entirely unnecessary," Dingell continued. "Tonight, my staff was informed by the FCC chairman's office that the FCC has no plans to even debate the issue, much less take action."

Kincaid said Dingell was right to say the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't be resurrected under Bush - "but the situation will change under a Democratic president and a Democratic-controlled FCC."

Derek Turner, research director of the media reform group Free Press, told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday that "stoking the fears of a return of the Fairness Doctrine may fire up the base, but there is no serious movement to resurrect these regulations."

"No one who is serious about media policy believes that the Fairness Doctrine is the right path to reform," he said.

Turner's organization recently released a study, in conjunction with the liberal Center for American Progress, critical of conservative domination of talk radio.

The groups recommended increased government regulation and greater diversity of radio station ownership, but did not call for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

"The hysteria about the Fairness Doctrine shutting down talk radio is simply a distraction from the real issues we should be discussing," Turner said. "Both the left and the right widely agree that the corporate media is too concentrated and ignores the needs of local communities. That's the issue our policymakers should be dealing with now."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070705a.html


It’s a tactic resurrected from the Clinton era. They never go away.
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

Follow the Liberal Money

Well, well ... the author of the Center for American Progress report attacking conservative talk radio — Paul "Woody" Woodhull — just happens to be financially and professionally involved with two liberal talk radio programs — Ed Schultz and Bill Press.

(10/9/2006 )
Search for the Progressive Talk Radio Star
San Antonio, TX & Washington, DC & Centennial, CO, USA, October 9, 2006 (XTVWorld.Com)

Clear Channel Radio, The Center for American Progress Action Fund, Jones Radio Networks, and MSS, Inc, announced a collaboration to launch a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star. The groups announced the contest will begin on Monday, October 9 with local promotions at participating stations and culminate in a final broadcast in front of a live studio audience in Washington, DC on Thursday, November 16. Entries will be judged by an expert panel including one of the highest-rated progressive talk hosts on the airwaves, Ed Schultz.

A national at-large contest will be held at the same time as the local promotions at TalkProgress.com, a website designed by Nakea LLC. "TalkProgress.com will combine the topical heat of top blogs like Think Progress with the cool media richness of YouTube. TalkProgress promises to be one of the most dynamic interactive communities for the online user," said Chris Nakea, President and CEO of Nakea, LLC. In addition to holding the At Large contest, the site will follow contestants' progress and provide behind-the-scenes interviews, candid moments, and other elements of a contest that's sure to enhance the experience of the audience.

The Progressive Talk Format was born in March 2004 in Portland, OR, when Clear Channel Radio's 50,000 watt AM radio station changed its call letters to KPOJ and became the first major market talk radio station to program all Progressive Talk. To demonstrate the popularity and scope of the Progressive talk format, KPOJ skyrocketed up the charts from #23 to #1 (Adults 25-54) based on the first full ratings evaluation period, according to Arbitron. Since that time, nearly 100 radio stations nationwide (including 8 out of the top 10 markets) have programmed Ed Schultz and other progressive talkers.

Center for American Progress Action Fund President John Podesta said, "Talk radio has emerged as a potent force for driving the national debate. We're working towards a return to a balance in the airwaves by supporting this initiative to bring more progressive voices to the microphone."

"Progressive Talk has grown so big, so fast, that all of us in the industry are searching high and low for more great Progressive Talk radio talent," observed MSS president and radio entrepreneur Paul "Woody" Woodhull. "Great talkers like Ed Schultz, Bill Press, and Al Franken are hard to find."

"Clear Channel has championed Progressive Talk by committing 23 great radio stations to the format," commented Clear Channel VP of AM programming Gabe Hobbs. "We need to follow that commitment with finding and training the next generation of great talkers."

Amy Bolton, 2005 and 2006 Talk Radio Industry Executive of the Year and Vice President/General Manager of the Talk Radio division of Jones Radio Networks, predicted, "This national talent search will be the ideal training ground for many local talkers to break into the national arena," and added, "From the beginning, Jones Radio Networks has pioneered the discovery and syndication of new Progressive Talk talent and we've only just begun!"

The local winners and an at-large winner, who will each receive a $1,000 cash prize, will proceed to the next phase of the competition when a panel of judges announces the final eight participants on Saturday, November 4 during the inaugural broadcast of the network program, Progressive Talk Radio Star. The contestants will be narrowed down through quarterfinal and semifinal broadcasts, with two finalists winning an all-expense paid trip to Washington, DC to participate in the final broadcast on Thursday, November 16. These final two contestants, competing for a nationally syndicated radio show, will perform live before the judges, the media, and a studio audience at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

About Clear Channel Radio: Clear Channel Radio is a leading radio company focused on serving local communities across the U.S. with more than 110 million listeners choosing Clear Channel Radio programming each week. The company's content can be heard on AM/FM stations, HD digital radio channels, on the Internet, via iPods, through Motorola's iRadio cell-phone service, and via mobile-navigation devices from Cobra, Garmin, Kenwood, and others. The company's operations include radio broadcasting, syndication, and independent media representation. Clear Channel Radio is a division of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (NYSE:CCU), a leading global media and entertainment company. More information on the company can be found at www.clearchannel.com.

About the Center for American Progress Action Fund:
The Center for American Progress Action Fund is the sister advocacy organization of the Center for American Progress. The Action Fund transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. The Action Fund is also the home of the Progress Report

http://www.wegoted.com/EdInTheNews/more.asp?ID=91


See also http://talkprogress.com/judges/PaulWoodhull/



Nothing in this report discloses Woodhull's conflict of interest. You're led to believe that the findings were unbiased and untainted. It now turns out that the author has a direct financial interest in using the government to dismantle conservative talk radio.

http://levin.nationalreview.com/post...cyNTAzNjhhNDY=

Is Media Privatization The New Trend?

The title of this article is somewhat rhetorical. With Clear Channel and the Tribune Company each entering into multi-billion dollar leveraged buyouts (LBO), there are two main reasons for what some are seeing as this emerging trend. One is economic and the other is political.

The first is often spoken of freely in public discourse while the other lies largely hidden beneath the water line. As audience shares decline and future economic performance appear unstable, mainstream media assets must get higher marginal advertising rates to compensate for the new realities. How long is this sustainable? The LA Times recently said,

[quote]"Shares of major newspaper publishers have been declining in recent months over deepening concerns about an ongoing migration of readers and advertisers to the Internet."
--LA Times, Oct.18, 2007 [quote]

"Going private" is one strategy media outlets are considering. Even the venerable Sumner Redstone, Chairman of CBS responded to the LBO trend,

"...would we consider [going private] at some time in the future? We consider all alternatives. And if we did decide to take one of these companies private...there would be more money offered than we could possibly handle."
--Sumner Redstone, Chairman of CBS

Speculation abounds that the NY Times and Virgin Media will also follow the privatization trend. But the astute reader will instantly recognize that "going private" will not solve the fundamental economic dilemma facing traditional media. Going private is no magical elixir for solving the audience shift that is afoot. But what going private does offer is a shield for companies from prying, public eyes. Traditional media has an enormous "responsibility" that is rarely spoken about. That is to promote the prevailing worldview of the government.

What?

Let me say this in another way. Traditional media exists to promote acquiescence to a political agenda. Let me use two examples to clarify. The number one selling album in the nation last week was the new Bruce Springsteen album, Magic. Clear Channel, the largest radio network has ordered that its stations not play a single track from the album. They are publicly saying Springsteen is too old, yet they play his older tracks liberally.* * Bruce: Magic Refused Radio Play http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306164,00.html#2

It makes no sense until you understand that Magic is intensely antiwar and Clear Channel, which is being purchased by Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, has the unfortunate habit of exercising its political agenda. It is obvious that people will gravitate toward alternative media outlets to find "The Boss". Clear Channel seems to be acting against its economic interests. This situation only makes sense when you understand that it is being loyal to its political agenda.

Another example of the media dutifully acting as a quasi-governmental arm can be seen by examining how the media en masse reacted to the September air strike on a Syrian facility. When President Bush was asked about it he curtly said, "I will not comment on that." The press corps tried one more run at the issue and the President grew more irritated. The press corps got the message and let the issue slide into obscurity. But just a few weeks after the attack, Israel's Jerusalem Post published a report that it was not Israel who attacked Syria, but it was the US Air Force that carried out the air strike and Israel only provided air cover.** ** USAF Struck Syrian Nuclear Site http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...icle%2FPrinter

The truth or falsity of who attacked is beyond me to personally know, but the point is that when a government official can determine what is news or what is not news by dismissing important questions, then we in fact have a subservient media that is complicit with the government agenda. It should be clear to anyone with any sense of journalism that an air strike on Syria is news, whichever nation carried out the attack. The case has been made that mainstream media audience share will continue its decline if media outlets do not break their allegiance to an overall political agenda. I have read in at least four or five alternative online media sources about our air strike on Syria, and of course have listened to Springsteen's Magic tracks on outlets other than Clear Channel. Millions have found alternatives to traditional media and will continue to do so.

What I am suggesting is that there is a connection between the economic dynamic of audience shrinkage and the overall political agenda. All media must be subsidized from advertising or other sources. In dictatorships, media is subsidized directly by the government. In democracies, media is subsidized by corporations.

The Private Equity firms leading the LBO charge have a political agenda as well as economic agenda.

"Private-equity firms …largely unknown outside Wall Street now possess more than $2 trillion in buying power. In addition to Kohlberg Kravis, the new brand names of finance are Bain Capital, Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group and Texas Pacific Group."
--NY Times July 25th, 2006

If you doubt the political agenda of some of these Private Equity firms, one only needs to look at the board of directors of just one of the movers and shakers in this space:

Carlyle Group
George H. Bush: Former President
James Baker: Former Sec. of State
Frank Carlucci: Former Dir. of CIA
John Majors : Former PM of England

So the trend to privatize will continue precisely because audience shares will certainly continue to decline. The more that CNN, Fox, NY Times, Washington Post and other media outlets appear to become subservient to and act as a quasi-propaganda arm of Washington politicians, people will "exit". Privatization will allow mainstream media outlets to follow a political agenda without the public quarterly report card. Ultimately, privatization is not a long term answer to the problem. At best it is like sweeping back the tide with the proverbial broom.


-----

The more that CNN, Fox, NY Times, Washington Post and other media outlets appear to become subservient to and act as a quasi-propaganda arm of Washington politicians, people will "exit".

The idea that the NYT, Wp & CNN are "subserviant" or a quasi-propaganda arm of Washington politicians ( unless you mean the ABB crowd or Liberal Democrat fanatics ) is a clear indication of which side of the table this arguement is coming from. JMHO

Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Dems Already Announce Plans to Silence Conservatives

It's all part of the Hope and Change...

After the election Democrats plan to continue their attacks on conservative Americans. The votes haven't even been counted yet and they're already calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

That was nice- Schumer just compared conservative talk to pornography.
Senator Charles Schumer announced today that there will be a return of the Fairness Doctrine:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

Of course... This only applies to conservative news organizations.

As far as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc... They will not be touched.

Say hello to your new overlords.

If only they hated Al-Qaeda as much as their fellow conservative Americans- We wouldn't have to worry about being attacked again.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...o-silence.html

The problem is WHO gets to decide what is fair and balanced. How can you trust people who believe they should be the one's to decide for the country what is fair and balanced, and yet people are still suppose to believe they will have their freedoms of speech. How can freedom of speech be legislated? You lose the freedom in freedom of speech then....

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905), which would bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR. 2905)

http://www.mrcaction.org/512/petition.asp?pid=16837381

Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine
http://www.cultureandmedia.com/speci...ne_ExecSum.htm

Appearently not ... the Free Market Scenerio does not apply here; if the advertisers don't pay for airtime then the goverment will give them our tax dollars to pay their rent.

And more from The Hill:

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

I guess since they can't keep their radio stations afloat, they want to come in a crash conservative talk radio, too.