Big Media

FCC Bends Over Backwards For Big Media

Posted by on December 7, 2007 at 2:22 am. NO Comments :

The Federal Communications Commission has granted the Tribune Company the waiver it sought to continue operating the newspapers and television stations it owns in the same market. The waiver is required due to a regulation that forbids such cross-ownership. But the decision that produced the waiver was Machiavellian in the extreme.

Rather than grant the waiver outright, FCC chair Kevin Martin and his Republican colleagues actually denied Tribune’s request for an indefinite waiver, while granting a permanent waiver for Tribune’s properties in Chicago. This scheme allows Tribune to move forward with its acquisition by Chicago real estate mogul Sam Zell without jeopardizing its present newspaper and TV operations. It also allows Tribune to challenge the indefinite waiver denial in court, which itself triggers a two year waiver for all of Tribune’s properties in five markets nationwide. Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps dissented from this opinion saying:

“If this order were a newspaper, the banner headline would read ‘FCC majority uses legal subterfuge to push for total elimination of cross-ownership ban.’ I have to admit, part of me admires the clever legal maneuvering […] Tribune gets at least a two-year waiver, plus the ability to go to court immediately and see if they can get the entire rule thrown out.”

Tribune filed court papers objecting to the FCC decision within days of its issuance, almost as if they were prepared in advance of the decision. What a surprise. And all of this is occurring as Martin is being scrutinized by Congress for alleged abuse of power. Energy and Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell expressed concern that the FCC had not made drafts of proposed rules available to the public before they were voted on, and that Martin routinely withheld details of proposals from other commissioners until it was too late for them to be fully analyzed. In addition, Martin has favored data from outside firms that support his biases even when that data was contradicted by the agency’s own statistics.

Martin is as corrupt in his role as his predecessor, Michael Powell. In case after case he has advocated for the interests of Big Media over the public interest. And he now shows that he is unconcerned with maintaining even the perception of propriety.

The Media Will Win In 2008

Posted by on December 6, 2007 at 1:38 pm. NO Comments :

A little over a year ago I wrote this article wrapping up the 2006 campaign season and showing how, no matter who wins electoral campaigns, the media is the ultimate winner:

“When all is said and done, The Media will have banked over $2 Billion […] If a campaign can be analogized to a war, then the media are the war profiteers. Fox is the Halliburton of the press corps – GE (owner of NBC/Universal) is the…well, the GE. They benefit no matter who wins or loses. In fact, it is in their interest to incite division and to escalate the conflict.”

At the time, the money raked in by media was a new record, but one that was destined to be short-lived. A new study by PQ Media is predicting that spending for 2008 will dwarf the record set in 2006:

“Political campaign spending on advertising media and marketing services is expected to rocket to an all-time high of $4.50 billion in the 2008 election cycle, as an acrimonious political environment, record fundraising and the high number of presidential candidates are driving an unprecedented media spending splurge…”

There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight for the profligate spending on political ads and events. These expenditures are sponsored, for the most part, by mega-corporations with interests in the outcome of the elections. The Center for Responsive Politics just completed a detailed study of lobbyist contributions in the current campaign cycle. It’s an eye opening expose of the incestuous relationships between candidates and contributors. For instance, Hillary Clinton claimed in a recent debate that she accepts lobbyist funds because they represent “real Americans” like nurses and social workers. But her financial disclosures reveal a different story:

“Lobbyists who represent health professionals, including the nurses Clinton singled out, account for $82,805 in contributions to her, while those representing the pharmaceutical industry paid out $562,900.”

Barack Obama looks a little better having received only $34,500 from 29 registered lobbyists. And John Edwards does even better than that with just $4,500 from seven lobbyists that he has promised to return.

The irony is that many of the large corporate givers are the media companies themselves. Unlike other donors, they will get much of that money back from candidates buying air time. In effect, the candidates are subsidizing the media companies’ budget for campaign contributions. Then, after the election, the media lobbyists still get to call on the officeholders to collect their reward in the form of favorable legislation and regulations.

As I said last year, the media is the only guaranteed winner and the people (and democracy) suffer for it:

“So long as we have corporate media monopolies married to political powerbrokers in government and on K Street, we will never have truly free elections. They just feed off of each other and enrich each other at the expense of democracy. The media needs to be corralled into a role wherein it educates and informs citizens. And public financing of campaigns is imperative if we want to remove the influence of corporations from politics.”

And it’s more true now than ever.

Poor Rupert: Nobody Listens To Him

Posted by on November 26, 2007 at 5:22 pm. 2 Comments :

As if any further evidence was required, we now have it straight from Rupert Murdoch’s own pursed lips that the fingers of his bony hand are pulling the strings at his media properties and setting editorial policy. Murdoch was interviewed by the British House of Lords’ Communications Committee as part of its inquiry into media ownership. The committee released these comments from the interview:

“For The Sun and News of the World, he explained that he is a ‘traditional proprietor.’ He exercises editorial control on major issues – like which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe.”

“He distinguishes between The Times and The Sunday Times and The Sun and the News of the World (and makes the same distinction between the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal).”

The way that Murdoch distinguishes between his various properties is that those for which he has legal or contractual barriers to direct manipulation he doesn’t tell them what to do, he merely asks them what they are doing. Is there any employee that would not know what his boss means to convey under such an arrangement? It also goes without saying that Murdoch doesn’t have to give much guidance to managers he selected precisely because of their fealty to his interests. In fact, he has already tapped his long-time editor at the London Times to be the new publisher at the Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch also expressed his opinion that his Sky News “could be more popular if it emulated his Fox News Channel.” He said that the reason it isn’t already doing that is because “nobody at Sky listens to me.” That’s especially funny when you consider that Sky News is run by James Murdoch, Rupert’s son.

Here in the U.S., Murdoch took a glancing blow from his beneficiary, Hillary Clinton. At a campaign stop in Iowa, Clinton was asked about media consolidation and the risk of having one man like Murdoch with so much control. Clinton responded that…

“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling. The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people – and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”

That’s a good answer and Clinton is commendably a co-sponsor of the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Too bad she had to dilute the impact of her response by letting Murdoch off the hook:

“I’m not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.”

Murdoch, his son James, and several other executives at News Corp have contributed to Clinton’s senatorial and presidential campaigns. I would sure hate to think that those contributions might affect her decision making with regard to Big Media.

Falling For The Myth Of The Liberal Media

Posted by on November 19, 2007 at 6:14 pm. 3 Comments :

Tim Rutten is the media columnist for the Los Angeles Times. He is rare bright light in a dark media sky. I have written approvingly of his insight on several occasions.

That’s why I’m somewhat surprised at an article he published this weekend. Much of it accurately portrayed some of the media’s obtuse gyrations to mold itself into whatever they think the audience wants, but on one point he was so far off the mark that the mark became a microscopic speck in a distant universe. Here is Rutten attempting to describe the current cable news landscape:

“…we now have a situation in which the three all-news cable networks each have aligned themselves with a point on the political compass: Fox went first and consciously became the Republican network; MSNBC, which would have sold its soul to the devil for six ratings points, instead found a less-demanding buyer in the Democrats. Now, CNN has decided to reinvent itself as the independent, populist network cursing both sides of the conventional political aisle — along with immigrants and free trade, of course.”

Indeed, Fox was first, but it didn’t become the Republican network. It was conceived and hatched as such. There was never any intention for the network to be anything other than a voice for rightist rhetoric and a counter balance to what their delusions told them was a “liberal media.” Their air is dominated by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Bill Krystal, Geraldo Rivera, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, etc. Even their managing editor for news, Brit Hume, is overtly dismissive of Democrats and liberal points of view.

But Rutten stumbled when he wrote that MSNBC has assumed a Democratic posture. The only support he gives for that view is the presence of Keith Olbermann. It doesn’t take much observation, however, to erase the image that Rutten is painting. Countdown is a one hour daily program. Conversely, Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman, hosts three hours every morning. Tucker Carlson, the conservative son of the director of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund has his own hour. Chris Matthews, although he was an aide to Tip O’Niell, has become a reliable basher of progressive policy. And the guests on all of these programs run the gamut from neo-caveman Pat Buchanan to Pat Buchanan (seriously, is he the only number in their Rolodex?). And there is nothing notably liberal in their handling of straight news.

Rutten similarly tags CNN as reaching for a “populist” stance based solely on the blathering of Lou Dobbs. Beyond that the only identity CNN achieves is as a boot-licker for any symbol of political power. And if you extend the CNN profile to include it’s little sister, Headline News, you’ll find law and order priestess Nancy Grace, and the stupidest man on television, Glenn Beck.

Rutten cites a PEW study on the partisan make-up of viewers for the three cable news nets as proof that they are being divided by ideology:

“Republicans outnumber Democrats by two-to-one (43% to 21%) among the core Fox News Channel audience, while there are far more Democrats than Republicans among CNN’s viewers (43% Democrat, 22% Republican) and network news viewers (41% Democrat, 24% Republican).”

But all this really proves is that Fox News is wildly out of touch with mainstream America by attracting such an imbalance of Republicans. The viewership of CNN and the other networks actually are closer to representing the nation’s political mood as revealed in another survey by PEW:

“Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.”

Therefore, the fact that more Democrats than Republicans watch CNN and MSNBC is simply because there are more Democrats than Republicans. The fact that the numbers are reversed for Fox News is because Fox blatantly solicits Republican viewers via the conservative agenda planted in their reporting.

Rutten does make some good points including that CNN has become a “traveling wreck of a journalistic carnival” (Good one, Tim). But he closes his column by tying together Olbermann, O’Reilly and Dobbs as “the three points of what amounts to an ethical Bermuda Triangle.” The problem with that analysis is that there are many O’Reillys and Dobbs’ across the TV dial, but there is only one Olbermann. Nowhere on any of the news channels is there a such a reliably left-of-center voice – even on MSNBC which Rutten characterizes as the liberal point in the triangle.

The big question then is…Why not? Since we know that Democrats outnumber Republicans; we know that a majority of Americans rate Democrats higher on every major issue including Iraq, health care, the environment, the economy; we know that the Republican president’s approval rating has sunk to historic lows; knowing all of this, why is there only one program that serves the majority of the viewing audience? Some media critics claim that the partisan slant of the media is due solely to the marketplace and that if the public wanted more liberal views, the media would supply them.

Oh yeah? By any objective standard, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Fox News Porn: For The Kids

Posted by on November 16, 2007 at 2:43 am. NO Comments :

Brave New Films has launched a new site that features the best of Fox News’ lascivious sexploits. FoxNewsPorn has accumulated an impressive collection of all-real and uncut footage of soft-core segments exactly as they were broadcast on Fox air.

Murdoch watchers should not be surprised by this demonstration of prurient excess. Just last month I posted an article on the launch of the Fox Business Network entitled “Porn and Patriotism.” A few days before that I noted that on the first day of the new network they featured an interview with the Naked Cowboy. London is, of course, familiar with Murdoch’s famous Page 3 Girls who appear half naked in his Sun Newspaper.

Apparently the content of FoxNewsPorn is so hot that Digg can’t tolerate it. They removed links to it and banned Brave New Film’s account. I can’t say for sure that Murdoch had anything to do with that, but Digg has been rumored to be an acquisition target of News Corp. as well as other big media players.

What’s really funny though, is that some right-wingnuts are floating allegations, completely unsupported, that FoxNewsPorn got itself banned. What won’t they lie about? The only reference they make to the content of the site is a defense that Fox is merely “running stories about the Girls Gone Wild aspect of todays troubled kids.” See? They have to show this smut to help save America’s youth.

Update: Digg retreats. The video has now been UN-banned.

Judith Regan’s Latest Blockbuster Busts News Corp

Posted by on November 14, 2007 at 2:23 am. 2 Comments :

With a cast of characters that includes Rudy Giuliani, Rupert Murdoch, and Judith Regan, a tale is being woven that starts off better than any novel by Melville, Hemingway or Steinbeck – put together!

“This action arises from a deliberate smear campaign orchestrated by one of the largest media conglomerates for the sole purpose of destroying one woman’s credibility and reputation. This smear campaign was necessary to advance News Corp.’s political agenda, which has long centered on Giuliani’s presidential ambitions.”

This is the Introduction to a lawsuit filed (pdf) by Judith Regan against publisher HarperCollins and its parent, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The lawsuit was filed by Regan in response to her having been fired in the wake of the aborted publication of O. J. Simpson’s imagined confessional “If I Did It.” The ripples from this wave are certain to roil the waters around both News Corp and the presidential ambitions of Giuliani.

Enter Bernie Kerik, Giuliani’s Police Commissioner whom Giuliani recommended to President Bush to be the first Director of Homeland Security. That appointment was scuttled due to Kerik being waist high in the sort of corruption that just got him indicted for multiple felonies. It seems that Regan and Kerik were sparking a little heat of their own. That revelation has made some folks nervous.

“Defendants were well aware that Regan had a personal relationship with Kerik. In fact, a senior executive in the News Corp. organization told Regan that he believed that she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani’s presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik”

This story has blockbuster written all over it. There is drama, intrigue, betrayal, corruption, money and sex. If Fox were not so inextricably intertwined in it, this would be a perfect subject for them. The News Corp executive (whom Regan does not name) that directed Regan to lie to Secret Service agents gathering data on a prospective cabinet member is potentially guilty of unlawful intimidation and deception. If true, what’s left of Fox News’ credibility is irredeemably lost (admittedly not a big loss for them).

It remains to seen how this will impact Giuliani who has been all but anointed by Fox as the Republican nominee. The New York Times reported earlier this year on the close relationship between Giuliani, Fox News and News Corp honcho, Roger Ailes. Giuliani has been a frequent guest on Fox, particularly the Hannity and Colmes program. His appearances far outstrip his Republican rivals:

“Mr. Giuliani’s on-air time on Fox [115 minutes] was 25 percent greater than that of his Republican competitor Mitt Romney, and nearly double that of Senator John McCain of Arizona. Fred D. Thompson, who has yet to formally announce his candidacy, came in second to Mr. Giuliani with 101 minutes of Fox interviews.”

Besides the valuable airtime Hannity contributes, he also headlined a $250.00 a plate fund raiser for Giuliani. Then there is Rudy’s personal relationship with Ailes, the Chairman of Fox News:

“Mr. Ailes was the media consultant to Mr. Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989. Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, officiated at Mr. Ailes’s wedding and intervened on his behalf when Mr. Ailes’s company, Fox News Channel, was blocked from securing a cable station in the city.”

It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds. Kerik is already facing serious charges for his unscrupulous misadventures. Giuliani’s house of cards is only just beginning to wobble. But the real cliffhanger is News Corp and Fox News. How will they fare after being accused of threatening Regan to secure her silence regarding Kerik and Giuliani? Will regulators take any of this under consideration with regards to the Dow Jones acquisition? How will the media report the details of this lurid scandal that marries elements of the media (Fox News) and the government (Giuliani, Kerik) with the tabloid exploits of the “Golden Vagina” as Regan was known to her critics at News Corp.

The good news is that Fox’s reputation for honest and impartial journalism is not in jeopardy because, of course, they have no such reputation. Thus, it may not surprise many that they have suborned perjury, intimidated witnesses and clandestinely supported a presidential candidate who was a friend and benefactor. I just wonder when the conservative population in this country, who have prided themselves on the virtues of law and order, will finally surrender to the fact that Murdoch and Co. are a criminal syndicate that simply cannot be trusted.

Update: Giuliani’s non-denial denial: “I don’t respond to the story at all. I don’t know anything about it, and it sounds to me like kind of a gossip column story more than a real story.”

Plus, Regan reportedly has “juicy” tapes that bolster her account of the events detailed in her lawsuit.

Stop Big Media – Support Dorgan/Lott

Posted by on November 10, 2007 at 2:03 am. 1 Comments :

The FCC’s proposed new rules aimed at advancing the interests of Big Media conglomerates, and permitting them to get even bigger and more powerful, now face a legislative hurdle courtesy of Senators Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott. The bill will force the FCC to move forward with localism and diversity initiatives and to give the public at least 90 days to review the new rules that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to adopt.

The legislation is being introduced to keep Martin from rushing through regulations favorable to his corporate benefactors. Dorgan and Lott deserve credit for serving the interests of the public. A new poll illustrates precisely where the public stands on the matter of media consolidation.

“The survey found 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper and TV station in the same market. That level of support was roughly the same among the political liberals, moderates and conservatives surveyed […] The survey also showed 70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem.”

This fight is a replay of one that the people thought they had won in 2003, when 3 million citizens forced the Congress to rollback regs rammed through by then FCC Chair Michael Powell. They were backed up by the courts who ordered the regs to be withdrawn and revised. Now we have to assert our will again as the same powerful interests attempt to write their own ticket.

And once again FreePress.net is leading the fight for media reform, independence and diversity. Visit their site to add your voice to those already speaking out against this power grab by Martin and the Corporate Media. Your message will be forwarded to the FCC and your representatives in Congress. And you can send your friends and family links to this vital information so that they can do the same.

The contact page is at Stop Big Media.

Don’t put it off. Martin and his masters are trying to push there agenda through before Christmas.

John Edwards’ Letter To The FCC

Posted by on October 20, 2007 at 1:33 am. 1 Comments :

Responding to the FCC’s proposed new rules for media ownership, John Edwards has written a letter addressed to Commission chairman Kevin Martin. Like his predecessor Michael Powell (Colin’s boy), Martin has drafted a set of rules aimed at advancing the interests of Big Media conglomerates and permitting them to get even bigger and more powerful. Powell’s initiative was halted by over three million Americans rising up to oppose the media’s power play and now we have to do it all over again.

The letter Edwards sent is a great way to reignite this fire. Edwards is showing the sort of leadership that is in short supply in Washington. He is the only candidate of either party to speak so forcefully on behalf of a diverse and independent media.

Some excerpts:

“I urge you to cease your efforts to radically rewrite the rules preventing excessive media consolidation. You and your fellow commissioners have the responsibility to ensure that our nation’s media is open, democratic and as diverse as the American people, and not – like too much of our economy and our political system today – dominated by the wealthiest Americans, large corporations and their lobbyists.”

“The result of all this over-concentration, Mr. Chairman, is a poorer democracy, with a few loud corporate voices drowning out independent perspectives and local participation.”

“High levels of media consolidation threaten free speech, they tilt the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and they make it increasingly difficult for women and people of color to own meaningful stakes in our nation’s media.”

This is the kind of courageous and principled action that we ought to be getting from all of our candidates and representatives. Who do they think they are representing anyway? It certainly is not the people if they continue to act on behalf of giant multinational corporations that are only interested in their own wealth and power.

John Edwards deserves a lot of credit for getting in front of this train. The media is quite capable of ruining the reputation and electoral prospects of candidates they oppose or fear – just ask Howard Dean. I urge everyone to reward Edwards with support, donations, or just a few kind words of appreciation. But it is just as important to let the other primary candidates and current members of Congress hear from us about this. We must flood their email boxes and jam their phones. Visit Stop Big Media for more information and assistance with contacting your representatives.

Fox Business Network: Porn And Patriotism

Posted by on October 19, 2007 at 1:34 am. NO Comments :

The new Fox Business Network has launched and is rapidly proving itself to be faithful to the Murdochian Doctrine of Porn & Patriotism. It’s a business model that aims directly at America’s horny nationalists.Now they are narrowing their target to horny nationalistic investors. Is there really an audience for “America’s Next Top Business Models?” While I admit to taking some liberties with the ad at the left (here is the original ad), the slogan at the top (Your second opinion arrives today) is unadulterated and is an admission that Fox traffics in opinion, not news. And I wonder why they chose to include the World Trade Center Towers in the background.

Well, the early reviews are in and they are affirming the net’s vapid approach to journalism as pioneered by the Fox News Channel. First at the gate to critique the new net is its godfather, Rupert Murdoch:

“It’s two and a half to three days old and looks just terrific. Everybody, even in the industry, (recognizes) how different it is to CNBC, which is half-dead,”

You might wonder why Murdoch is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enter a business whose top performer is “half dead.” And if CNBC, with a potential audience of 90 million households is half dead, than what’s so terrific about FBN which passes only 30 million homes?

[Speaking of terrific: FBN launched on Monday. The Dow was down every day this week. Total loss for the week was 517.06. Coincidence?]

Brian Lowry at Variety has the most humorous take on FBN. And it’s funny because it’s true. Lowry highlights one of FBN’s strengths pointing out that they “trump CNBC’s ‘money honey’ with a veritable money hive.” He mocks the network’s reliance on Stepford anchors in short skirts interviewing patrons of Myfreeimplants.com. But he hits his stride describing the network’s patented political prejudice:

“…the channel has enjoyed solid initial access to CEOs and Republican officials, and Neil Cavuto – the signature primetime voice – practically crawled into GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s lap to be read a no-new-taxes bedtime story.”

Ronald Grover at Business Week delivers a column that is mostly complimentary, although the features that Grover praises might be considered flaws by most discerning viewers. For example, he is enthralled by a segment wherein anchor David Asman attacks Democrats. Even though he concedes that Asman’s analysis is faulty, Grover says, “Who cares?” because he was entertained by it. I’m not certain that other viewers will be so forgiving. Grover himself engages in some faulty analysis describing why he thinks that FBN will succeed:

“Murdoch clearly wants to bring business to Main Street, NASCAR, and younger folks who like to mix stock chatter with their after-hour cocktails.”

Does Grover really believe there is a huge under-served audience of young NASCAR fans hankering to yak about the stock market? Does Murdoch? If that’s their target demo they might be better off actually launching a patriotic pornography channel. Oh, wait a minute…That would be the Fox News Network.

Other news outlets offered up dueling headlines. Reuters declares that “Fox Business launches to lukewarm review.” Analyst Andrew Tyndall found the network “hard to watch” and observed that…

“They appear to have a rooting interest in prices going up. It’s normally not a good sign of journalism when you’re rooting for an outcome.”

However, the devoutly conservative WebProNews blares, “Fox Business Channel Getting Positve Reviews.” Despite using the plural “Reviews,” the WebPro article only cited one from AP, and that review was hardly a vote of confidence:

“They went on the air, played it straight and people were giving information whenever I tuned in – that’s about as successful as you can be on your first day,”

Further diluting the WebPro case is the fact that the Syracuse University professor quoted above, Robert Thompson, was also quoted in the Reuters article saying:

“I don’t think this will change the entire landscape of American TV as we know it. So far, this morning, it’s not been terribly exciting.”

Not an auspicious week for the fledgling network. But one thing we know about Murdoch is that he is more than willing to wait out tough spots and to deficit finance operations pretty much indefinitely. FNC was in the red for the majority of its short lifespan, and the New York Post has lost money for as long as Murdoch has owned it. If it costs him money to spread his propaganda, he’s got it, and he’ll spend it.

That’s why the monopolistic media environment in this country is so dangerous. We have billionaire moguls who concentrate power and exploit it to advance their agenda. In Murdoch’s case, he will even use soft-core titillation and America’s pride to manipulate public opinion. And that’s why it is so important to Stop Big Media from gaining even more power courtesy of the FCC’s proposed new ownership rules.

FCC Still Shilling For Big Media

Posted by on October 18, 2007 at 11:18 am. NO Comments :

From the New York Times:

“The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.”

“Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months – a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.”

The New York Times, a big media conglomerate, is severely understating the impact of these proposed rules. By relaxing ownership caps, the FCC will be exacerbating a problem that is already destroying free and diverse media in this country. In the past 25 years, the number of companies that controlled the majority of media output plunged from 50 to 5. The FCC thinks that that is a positive trend and is doing its best to sustain and advance it.

This is not the first time the FCC has taken such steps. The previous chairman, Michael Powell, tried to ram through similar rules but was beat back by the public and reversed by the courts. Martin is pretending to rectify Powell’s errors by staging events ostensibly to collect public opinion. However, he is now brazenly ignoring that opinion.

A year ago the FCC held hearings in Los Angeles that demonstrated a passionate opposition to further consolidation. The audience was probably 90+ percent opposed to relaxing ownership caps. That story was repeated in seven more cities where the FCC brought its show. Now Martin is justifying his proposed new rules by claiming that they were drafted with input from the public. The only problem is that nowhere in his proposal are the public’s views represented. It’s as if they never existed.


Tell the FCC: Stop Big MediaThe FCC’s genuflection to Big Media was blocked last time because Americans in unprecedented numbers demanded fairness and independence. We must do so again. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan has long been a leader in this fight. Let him know that you appreciate his courage in taking on the media, an institution that could do him much harm. Also, visit FreePress and its affiliate Stop Big Media. Their site is stocked with information and tools to help you be an effective advocate for media reform.

This is a serious matter and demands a commitment to fight. Chairman Martin is determined to reward his Big Media patrons. No matter what other issue you are involved with, it is this issue that shapes the outcome. You cannot end the war in Iraq, or pass universal health care, or advance environmental protections, or [fill in the blank] without access to media that is responsible and accountable to citizens. It’s time to get to work…again.