Big Media

The Fox News Conservative Book Promotion Channel

Posted by on February 3, 2009 at 2:42 am. 3 Comments :

Anyone who watches Fox News with any frequency is painfully aware that it is little more than a marketplace for rightist propaganda and rancor. But lately, I noticed another kind of hucksterism that is rampant on the network. Several of their regular anchors and contributors are identified as authors in the graphics at the bottom of the screen. This happens often enough that I began to wonder just how widespread this practice of co-promotion of TV and publishing was. As it turns out, it is pretty damn widespread. If you were to populate your library with books by Fox News personalities, you would have to purchase all of these – to start:

Bill O’Reilly
A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity
Culture Warrior
The O’Reilly Factor
Kids Are Americans Too
The O’Reilly Factor for Kids
Who’s Looking Out for You?
The No Spin Zone

Dick Morris
Fleeced
Outrage
Rewriting History
Power Plays: Win or Lose
Because He Could
Off with Their Heads
Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race

Michele Malkin
Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
In Defense of Internment
Invasion

Mike Straka
Grrr! Celebrities Are Ruining Our Country

Sean Hannity
Deliver Us from Evil
Let Freedom Ring

Glenn Beck
The Christmas Sweater
An Inconvenient Book
The Real America

John Gibson
The War on Christmas
Hating America
In Defense of Religion

Laura Ingraham
Power to the People
Shut Up and Sing
The Hillary Trap

Major Garrett
The Enduring Revolution: The Inside Story of the Republican Ascendancy and Why It Will Continue
The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics

Ann Coulter
Guilty
Slander
Godless
Treason
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Bernie Goldberg
A Slobbering Love Affair
Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right
110 People Who Are Screwing Up America
Bias
Arrogance

James Rosen
The Strong Man

Greta Van Susteren
My Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Updated to add:
Fox News Washington, D.C., deputy managing editor, Bill Sammon
At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election
Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House
Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters
Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.
The Evangelical President: George Bush’s Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World

This a wholly unprecedented marketing partnership between a so-called news organization and a right-wing political crusade. The books being plugged by the Fox spokesmodels are hardcore partisan tracts that all reflect the same regressive ideology. They have implemented a campaign that blankets their airwaves with pitches for published opinion pieces that are mostly dishonest, manipulative, and overtly hostile.

So where is the other side in this debate? Of course there are no anchors or hosts that lean even modestly left on the “fair and balanced” network. But even amongst their pseudo-liberal commentators like Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, or the recently departed Alan Colmes, you would be hard pressed to turn up a handful of literary works. Even so, I have never seen any of their limited line advertised on the air. Conversely, grousers like O’Reilly hawk their books on every broadcast. And you’ll find that appearances from the Coulters and Goldbergs increase coincident with the release of each new product. As for the other networks, there are a few authors scattered about, like Lou Dobbs, but the shelf space they would consume would be a mere fraction of the Fox Book Club.

The truly astonishing thing about all of this is that anyone would want to read (or watch) any of these pathetic characters to begin with. They represent a collection of the world’s most ill informed, logic deprived, truth averse losers in modern media. Bernie Goldberg, the fired CBS alum, is an unrepentant propagandist who writes books about media bias. Well, I guess he should know. Major Garrett, Fox’s White House correspondent, presciently penned a tome with the subtitle of “The Inside Story of the Republican Ascendancy and Why It Will Continue.” That was published just prior to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006, followed up in 2008 with additional congressional gains and an historic White House victory. Good call, Major

But my favorite is the Clown Prince of Fox, Dick Morris. His 2006 book, “Condi vs. Hillary,” predicts the prospects for the commencing presidential election. Here is a sample of his astute analysis from the introduction to the book:

[T]here is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party […]

The stakes are high. In 2008, no ordinary white male Republican candidate will do. Forget Bill Frist, George Allen, and George Pataki. Hillary would easily beat any of them. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? Either of them could probably win, but neither will ever be nominated by the Republican Party.

So Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong. He got the Republican nominee wrong. And the Republican who Morris said could win if he were nominated actually lost. It is on the strength of this sort of analysis that Morris gets asked back to provide additional insights.

The truth is, it doesn’t matter on Fox (or almost any of the TV news nets) if you’re wrong. The only thing that matters is that you faithfully regurgitate the conservative dogma and talking points. If you do, then you will have a job for life, and your books, web sites, and other media spew will become part of the marketing machine that props up conservatism. It’s an elegantly parasitic relationship. TV exposure begets propaganda which begets book deals which begets TV exposure which begets propaganda, ad infinitum.

And at the center of it all is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., a vertically integrated media empire that channels disinformation throughout it’s layers of television, radio, newspapers, magazine and book publishers, and the Internet. This complex web of entanglements insures multimedia distribution of the right wing’s political philosophy. Each props up the other to produce an architecture of lies in support of their lust for power and their Utopian dream for social Darwinism. Goebbels would have been proud.

Changing Channels: Fox News In the Age Of Obama

Posted by on January 20, 2009 at 4:24 pm. 3 Comments :

In 1996 Rupert Murdoch hired Roger Ailes, a Republican media consultant, to build a new 24 hour cable news network. Fox News immediately went to work to disparage Democrats and liberals. They spent their early years mired in debt, losing $80-90 million annually. It was only Murdoch’s deep pockets that kept them out of bankruptcy. Still, they had some strategic success as they badgered Bill Clinton with Whitewater and Lewinsky, and they corralled Republican and evangelical voters so that George Bush and Karl Rove could reach them more easily.

However, it was during the Bush years that Fox News began to outperform the cable competition. CNN, HLN, and the launch of MSNBC diluted the non-rightist audience giving Fox a plurality of viewers and bragging rights for ratings victories. Fox enjoyed first shots at interviews and scoops from the administration and Congressional Republicans. That brought them greater influence and gratitude from the halls of power. In addition, the White House kept its TVs tuned to Fox, as well as those at Camp David, the Crawford ranch, and even on Air Force One. Vice-President Dick Cheney even had a travel directive that required that “all televisions [be] tuned to Fox News.” Woe to those staffers who failed in that duty.

There may never have been (and hopefully never again will be) such a close relationship between a news organization and a presidential administration. In the end, they were even trading places as if they were merely different departments of the same enterprise: When presidential advisor Karl Rove moved out of the White House to become a Fox News contributor, Fox anchor Tony Snow moved in to become Bush’s press secretary.

Going forward, Fox will find themselves on a new frontier. It is highly improbable that they will be the exclusive broadcaster in the White House of Barack Obama. Although, I certainly hope that the new administration will pay close attention to the spew emanating from Fox, I don’t expect them to be in cahoots. Murdoch and company are definitely going to lose some of their clout. There will be a new Chairman at the FCC, and a new position for a White House Technology advisor. These will be knowledgeable and independent people who will serve the public interest – for a change. Here is a sampling of the views of Fox News, and Big Media in general, from some senior members of the new administration:

President Obama: “In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented consolidation in our traditional media outlets. Large mergers and corporate deals have reduced the number of voices and viewpoints in the media marketplace.”

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Designate: “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.”

Eric Holder, Attorney General Designate: “With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”

More President Obama: “I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

This can’t be good news for Fox News. But the network seems to be aware of the shifting landscape and has been preparing for battle. They signed new long-term contracts with Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. They axed Hannity’s foil, Alan Colmes. They hired reinforcements like Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, and Judith Miller. Clearly they see trouble ahead and are responding by stocking their armory with ever more weapons of mass deception.

Unfortunately for Fox, forecasts are not rosy for the disinformation station. They are consistently the slowest growing cable news network, particularly in the all-important 25-54 demographic. They have the oldest skewing cable news audience. They are facing stiffer competition than ever, with the surging Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow’s record-breaking debut. The Fox News ratings crown was once unassailable. Today, while still maintaining their first place average, they often come in second and occasionally third. That was unthinkable two short years ago.

As for their future prospects, it is difficult to make a case for Fox to be optimistic. In addition to their recent ratings woes, they are entering a period wherein the American public may not appreciate a network that is hostile to a new president who is held in high regard. Obama is beginning his term with an 80% approval rating. Of course, that won’t last, and Fox will surely seek to shorten Obama’s honeymoon. But contrary to some media analysts who suggest that an adversarial relationship with Washington will benefit Fox, the truth is that Fox experienced its strongest growth amidst the friendliness of Bush years. This suggests that it is not simply drama and controversy that propelled Fox (although that is their preferred programming model), but that having powerful political allies helped them to succeed. When looked at objectively, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. When has having powerful political allies ever been a disadvantage?

Nevertheless, Fox is pursuing the path of most hostility, as evidenced by their new schedule. For further evidence note the response by Fox News commentators following Obama’s inaugural speech. Brit Hume’s first comments were to find passages that might please the right. Chris Wallace actually speculated that the flubbed oath of office (due to Chief Justice Roberts mangling the text) might mean that Obama isn’t really president (Let the conspiracy emails begin). Glenn Beck spent the whole hour of his second show on Fox heaping scorn on Obama. And while Rush Limbaugh isn’t technically on Fox, he is a charter member of the same ideological fraternity, and he has published a long dissertation on why he hopes Obama fails. These guys aren’t wasting any time.

This is just a preview of what we have to look forward to. The influence of Fox News is bound to decline. The Obama camp would be justified in giving Fox a cold shoulder. Fox deserves it for their brazen partisanship and for failing the test of responsible journalism. Other networks should now get some exclusives and scoops. And the more that this historic administration ignores Fox, the less relevant they will be.

We will now see Fox revert to the behavior of an injured wild beast that becomes even more ornery and more dangerous. We see it already. It’s important that we keep an eye on this threat, as it is not retreating to its lair. But it is retreating in the hearts and minds of the American people, and for that we should feel some sense of relief.

Even More Right-Wing Stupidity On The Fairness Doctrine

Posted by on January 18, 2009 at 12:13 am. NO Comments :

I’m getting a little tired of writing these responses to the paranoid rightist Chicken Littles who persistently pretend to be aghast at the prospect of the return of the Fairness Doctrine. I mean, how many ways can you say that it isn’t going to happen? There is no legislation being drafted. There are no hearings being held. There are no advocates speechifying on it. There are no agencies studying it. And yet every conservative blowhard with a pen or a microphone is fretting about it and attempting to incite panic (and donations) amongst their followers.

Now Jed Babbin and Rowan Scarborough at Human Events have aggregated what may be the most comprehensive collection of inane and fallacious griping related to the matter. Here I will respond point by point in the hopes of settling the issue once and for all (yeah, right).

1) “Conservative talk radio is the most potent political weapon in America.”
That’s why it was so successful in turning back Barack Obama and the wave of Democrats cresting over Congress. That’s why President Bush will leave office with such a high approval rating. That’s why Americans overwhelmingly prefer the Republican agenda over the Democrats’. Oh, wait…..reverse that. Contrary to being a “potent political weapon,” conservative talk radio is more like soggy, day-old pasta.

2) “Liberal talk radio has been a huge failure.”
Don’t tell that to Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Rachel Maddow, etc. They are top performers in many of the markets in which they play. The rightist mantra about radio’s alleged rejection of liberals is based on the tale of Air America’s financial woes. What they don’t tell you is that Fox News lost $80-90 million a year for its first five years. They were fortunate to have Rupert Murdoch’s deep pockets to keep them out of bankruptcy. Air America is still not five years old. And they won’t talk about failures either, including John Gibson, Michael Reagan, and Bill O’Reilly who just ditched his struggling radio show.

3) “[T]he liberal control of both sides of Capitol Hill, along with a compliant Obama Administration, may bring [the Fairness Doctrine] back…”
As noted above, no side of Congress is planning any such thing. And on what basis are they alleging that Obama’s administration will be “compliant” toward Congress?

4) “The Censorship Doctrine would require conservative talk radio to spend a large part of its time praising liberals and their ideas […] Can you imagine what talk radio would sound like if every time a host talked about the newest liberal outrage, he then had to give the liberals equal time?”
Now they’re just making stuff up. There has never been a provision of the Fairness Doctrine that mandated any party “praise” any other party. And “equal time” was never a part of the Fairness Doctrine. Do these guys have even an inkling of understanding of the subjects about which they’re writing?

5) “Liberals now control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, providing the political left its most absolute hold on power since the 1960s.”
Or the 1990’s, when Democrats held all three branches. Babbin and company were only 30 years off.

6) “Other than the Supreme Court, there’s nothing to prevent them from trying to attach the same rules to other media, including cable television and the Internet.”
That’s like saying that other than gravity there is nothing preventing you floating off into space. Plus, the Fairness Doctrine has never applied to anything but publicly owned and scarce assets like broadcast spectrum. Thus, cable and the Internet would never have been subject to its jurisdiction. Later in this article they claim that the FCC will expand the Doctrine to include Network Neutrality. That doesn’t even make sense since Network Neutrality is about open access to the Internet and has nothing to do with content. This is the right’s way of paying off the big Telecom corporations who benefit from closed systems from which they can gouge both web businesses and consumers.

7) “What left-wing blogger would not like to see Rush Limbaugh led await [sic] in handcuffs from his Palm Beach, Fla., estate for failing to present balanced programming?”
Wasn’t Rush Limbaugh already led away in handcuffs from his Palm Beach, Fla., estate for drug possession and forcing his housekeeper to purchase his contraband? I must admit, that was great to see. However, Babbin and Scarborough are once again showing their ignorance by suggesting that violations of the Fairness Doctrine were ever criminal offenses that would lead to arrest. In fact, the Doctrine was never codified into law at all. It was a regulatory statute and the worst that could happen to a violator was a fine or license review.

8) “The problem is that Limbaugh has a sense of humor. Liberals don’t.”
That’s why Jon Stewart is so reviled and Dennis Miller is so adored. Seriously, did any of these dolts ever see the abominable Half-Hour News Hour on Fox News? The problem is that conservatives actually regard Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as comedians, but everyone else considers them clowns.

The lies scattered throughout this column are typical of the ethical vacuum from which the right operates. They have no shame when it comes to propagating falsehoods for their greedy self-interest. In one particularly abhorrent instance they claim that former Sen. Tom Daschle got overheated because Limbaugh called him an “obstructionist.” That truth, ignored by these authors, is that Limbaugh also called him a traitor and routinely referred to him as the devil. Dashchle’s alleged anger was actually just an admonition that that sort of shrill rhetoric has the potential to incite people to act out violently. And on this issue Dashcle can speak with authority. He was, you may recall, the target of a terrorist Anthrax attack in the days following 9/11. But Babbin and Scarborough can’t be bothered with insignificant facts like that. Just as they can’t be bothered to display some sensitivity to a victim of an attack that infected 22 people and killed five.

As much as I would like for this to be the last time I have to shoot down fraudulent fulminations such as this, I expect that there will be more forthcoming. The Babbins and Scarboroughs of the world have so little upon which to base their ranting, they will cling to non-issues like these until their readers eyes have nothing left to bleed. And they will lie with abandon because they regard the truth as just an impediment to their propagandizing.

Dan Rather’s Suit Against CBS Will Be Fun

Posted by on December 31, 2008 at 12:52 pm. 2 Comments :

Dan Rather is suing CBS for breach of contract related to his firing in 2004. The suit revolves around the reporting of George Bush’s evasion of service in the Texas Air National Guard. As the case gets closer to a trial date, new stirrings are emerging from Rather’s camp that offer a tantalizing preview of what may be revealed in court. The Guardian reports that Rather contends that his reporting was true and that…

“…CBS succumbed to political pressure from conservatives to get the report discredited and to have him fired. He also claims that a panel set up by CBS to investigate the story was packed with conservatives in an effort to placate the White House.

The claim as to the panel was in fact documented and showed that CBS actually considered the likes of Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Matt Drudge, William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, to sit in judgment of Rather. Talk about a hangin’ jury…..

Rather goes on to be fairly specific about CBS’ motivations and he asserts that they were attempting to mollify the Bush administration in order to get more favorable regulatory treatment. In addition to his claims about Bush’s military non-service, Rather reveals that CBS also tried to bury a story on the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib. He contends that the network refused permission to air the story for weeks and, when it did air, they crippled it by denying it any promotion and took other measures to suppress viewership. This was also at the request of government overseers.

Rather is a little late to this party. Many industry observers have known for years that the big media conglomerates were shaping their reporting in order to please their benefactors in government agencies as well as in Congress. But it’s still better to have Rather arrive late than not at all. When this case makes its way to court there may be even more revelations. I can’t wait. It’s just too bad that it took a lawsuit by an embittered former anchor for these allegations to surface. You have to wonder how many similar acts of journalistic malpractice and government collusion with media have occurred but remain the secrets of people who are still protecting their jobs and their associates in Washington.

Labor Secretary Designee Hilda Solis On The Media

Posted by on December 19, 2008 at 1:53 am. NO Comments :

President-elect Barack Obama announced today that he will nominate Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) to be his Secretary of Labor. Solis has a solid record of advocacy for workers and unions. She has fought for the protection of minimum wage laws and for workplace health and safety. She has creatively combined her interests in the working class and the environment to produce legislation that promotes the creation of “green” jobs. She appears to have precisely the sort of experience and commitment to undue the damage of the Bush Labor Department and set the nation on a more productive and compassionate course. But wait, there’s more…

Solis also serves on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which gives her a firm background in matters of the media. In that regard she has been a vocal proponent of increasing diversity in the media and for creating more opportunities for women and minorities.

Solis endorsed the Free Press study that exposed how consolidation in the radio industry narrowed the range of expression on the air and in the management suites. She also challenged the FCC and its Bush appointed chairman, Kevin Martin, to look into media ownership issues. She worked with Media Matters on a project that identified how right-wing broadcasters like Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck were propagating racist myths about immigration.

In short, were it not for her exemplary credentials in the field of Labor, Solis would have made a great FCC commissioner. But even as Labor Secretary there are areas that overlap with the media, and Solis has already proven herself to be a leader in that regard. And it certainly won’t hurt to have her voice in Cabinet meetings when the subject of the media comes up.

Media Reform Alliance Presses Obama To Keep His Word

Posted by on December 18, 2008 at 1:07 pm. NO Comments :

Free Press has assembled over 100 media reform organizations and activists to sign a letter to President-elect Barack Obama that asks, in essence, for him to implement the media agenda that he articulated in his campaign. What follows is from the press release issued by Free Press:

We congratulate you for putting crucial media and technology issues in the public spotlight. Not only did your campaign embrace new technology and innovative media, you have embraced these values in your policy agenda. Your commitment and detailed plan represent a fundamental shift toward communications policy in the public interest. We happily offer our support and service in pursuit of our common goals.

We look forward to working with the leaders you will appoint to the White House, such as the Chief Technology Officer, the positions on the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, Corporation of Public Broadcasting and in the Commerce, Education, Justice and Agriculture departments. We urge you to select strong proponents of the public interest who will embrace and enact the policy proposals you made on the campaign trail to shape the future of the media, the Internet, the economy — and our democracy.

Together, we have a unique opportunity to break with the past, lift the stranglehold industry lobbyists have had on communications policy, and put the public’s priorities first. In your own words, you pledged:

  • Protect an Open Internet: To “take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality” and “protect the Internet’s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.”
  • Promote Universal, Affordable Broadband: To see that “in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online” by bringing “true broadband to every community in America.”
  • Diversify Media Ownership: To create “the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves.”
  • Renew Public Media: To foster “the next generation of public media,” and “support the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world.”
  • Spur Economic Growth: To “strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world” and leverage technology “to grow the economy, create jobs, and solve our country’s most pressing problems.”
  • Ensure Open Government: To reverse “policies that favor the few against the public interest,” close” the revolving door between government and industry,” and achieve “a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America’s citizens.”

The more than one hundred people who signed onto this letter — and the millions more we represent in our organizations, workplaces and communities — join your call to create a more vibrant and diverse media system and to deliver the benefits of the open Internet and new technology to all Americans.

That is an ambitious and commendable agenda, and one that we all must work hard to pursue. It is very easy for a new administration to get bogged down in competing priorities, particularly in challenging times such as we are enduring today. And it is easy for politicians to abandon principles in the face of opposition or in the name of compromise. That is a pattern that both Obama and the Democratic Party has displayed far too often.

However, despite the obvious severity of our nation’s present condition – economic turmoil, multiple wars, environmental calamity, legal and Constitutional decay, etc. – media reform must remain at the top of the priority list. The solutions to every problem that threatens America’s well being relies on the participation of the people in the process. The media provides the only channel to communicate and educate on a mass scale, and without it there can be no progress. It is, therefore, critical that we shape the media in a fashion that promotes independence, diversity, and respect for openness and honesty.

The Obama agenda, as articulated by him, is a good model for how to proceed. Now he (and we) need to follow through.

The Wall Street Journal And Network Neutrality

Posted by on December 16, 2008 at 2:18 am. NO Comments :

An article in the Wall Street Journal is reporting that prominent advocates of Network Neutrality are reversing or softening their positions on the concept of treating all Internet traffic equally. The authors go into some depth in support of their contention that the movement is losing steam. And they name names.

“Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content…”

“Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality.”

“In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.”

“Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service.”

Unfortunately for the WSJ, almost everyone they cite denies the conclusions the article draws and affirms their commitment to Network Neutrality.

Google: Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday’s Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

Barack Obama: The Obama transition team is reaffirming his complete commitment to net neutrality and is disputing a much-discussed report today claiming that the President-elect is softening his support for it or shifting his position on it.

Lawrence Lessig: I don’t know what Google is doing, though if they are trying to negotiate exclusive deals for privileged access, that shows exactly why we need network neutrality regulation […] I’ve not seen anything during the Obama campaign or from the transition to indicate it has shifted its view about network neutrality at all.

Perhaps the only position correctly reported in the WSJ story is that Yahoo and Microsoft have strayed from the pro-Network Neutrality crowd. However, that separation occurred two years ago when they tightened their relationships with Telecom companies and was therefore, not a new development as the Journal implied.

So why would the Journal so badly mangle this story? They obviously didn’t bother to seek comments from the people or companies they quoted. Reporting the accurate positions of these parties would not have been difficult to do. Instead, the misquoted parties had to find other forums to set the record straight after the Journal had already hit the streets.

It would be easy to blame this shoddy work on the new Wall Street Journal as envisioned by its new owner, tabloid merchant Rupert Murdoch. But it goes deeper than that. The main companies that oppose Network Neutrality are the big Telecom and Cable businesses. Murdoch’s News Corp is heavily dependent on them for distribution of his television networks. He launched his Fox Business Network one year ago and it is still struggling for carriage. It presently passes less than half the homes of its primary competitor, CNBC. Do you think that Murdoch might be interested in getting AT & T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc., to put FBN on all of their systems? Do you think that he might like to get favored treatment and channel space for Fox News, FX, Fox Sports, National Geographic, and the rest of his cable properties?

And the big question: Do you think that Murdoch would use his Wall Street Journal to lobby for the interests of his other business assets? Of course he would – he’s Rupert Murdoch.

The Wall Street Journal After A Year With Murdoch

Posted by on December 13, 2008 at 2:30 pm. NO Comments :

It was one year ago today that the Dow Jones Company, parent of the Wall Street Journal, agreed to be acquired by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. That transaction marked another step in the shrinking universe of media ownership. Specifically, it was the consumption of a revered publishing institution by a voracious international megalopoly. So what did the Bancroft family and other shareholders get for their greedy acquiescence to the power-mad mogul?

One year ago, the $60.00 per share offer from News Corp was about a 67% premium over Dow Jones’ then current price. Anyone who immediately liquidated their holdings following the transaction (which no one did) would have made a nice profit. Everyone else just watched as their fortunes shriveled up. The parent of Fox News has declined 60% in the past year. That means that the $5 billion dollars spent on Dow Jones has a current value of $2 billion. That’s not a particularly impressive performance.

As for Murdoch’s financial fate, rather than adding a $5 billion asset to his empire, his company’s market cap declined $32 billion – that’s more than six times what he spent on Dow Jones.

Now it would be easy to blame this all on the economic collapse, and certainly that plays a significant part. The only problem is that News Corp fell further than any of its competitors.

Company % Decline
News Corp 60
New York Times 55
Washington Post 50
Time Warner 44
Dow Jones Index 35
Disney 29

From a financial perspective, it doesn’t appear that the folks at Dow Jones made a particularly sound decision. While it’s impossible to say where these investments would be had News Corp not come along, it seems that they would have done no worse than the rest of the field. The difference is that they would still have their independence. They would not have had their publisher replaced by a Murdoch loyalist from England. And they would not have been ordered to shorten their stories and shift their focus from business to general news so that Murdoch could taunt his enemies at the New York Times (which he is also now rumored to fancy).

Murdoch’s business prowess is widely exaggerated. His New York Post has lost money for the past decade – the whole time he has owned it. And his celebrated purchase of MySpace when it was the unchallenged leader in social networking, hasn’t really worked out so well. MySpace is now second to a surging Facebook. Fox News itself is consistently the slowest growing news network on cable TV.

The biggest advantage for a Dow Jones tie in with News Corp was the potential for a television platform. The Wall Street Journal badly missed out by allowing CNBC and Bloomberg to run away with that market. Murdoch of course has his new Fox Business Network, but due to contractual commitments with CNBC, he is not permitted to use the DJ assets. And by the time those contracts expire, the dismally low-rated FBN may be history.

So…all in all, Dow Jones probably would have been better off if they had left well enough alone. They lost some prominent and experienced talent when Murdoch took over. And although he is moving slowly, so as not to spook his staff and subscribers, we can still expect him to put his personal stamp on the enterprise by dumbing down the content to reach a broader market. That’s been his M.O. throughout his entire career and there are no signs that he is abandoning his affection for tabloid sensationalism and rightist propaganda.

Government Bailouts: The Media Is In It For Themselves

Posted by on November 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm. 6 Comments :

In the past few weeks there has been a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill to dump truckloads of cash on ailing industries. Insurance companies, banks and financial services, mortgage lenders, and auto makers are all heading for Washington with their hands out.

But who is the real beneficiary? Keep this in mind when you see news reports in the media discussing the benefits of multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded disbursements to the nation’s biggest corporations:

2007 Advertising Expenditures By Bailout Targets
Company Amount (000’s)
General Motors 3,010
Ford 2,525
Toyota 1,758
Chrysler 1,739
Bank of America 1,491
Nissan Motor 1,407
Honda 1,326
Citigroup 1,135
JPMorgan Chase 1,074
American Express 1,050
Capital One 757
Hyundai 651
Visa 581
Allstate 537
Fidelity 499
MasterCard 489
Progressive 460
Washington Mutual 445
State Farm Mutual 431
Wells Fargo 356
Total: 21,751

That’s right. That’s almost $22 Billion in advertising that would be at risk if these companies were to fail. And this is only from the list of the top 100 advertisers. All told, the total would come to more than $36 billion. That does not include ancillary businesses like home furnishings, hardware, gas and oil, auto parts, accounting services, etc., all of whom are significant advertisers.

Do you think that the media might be somewhat concerned about losing these sources of revenue? Do you think that they might adjust their coverage to make the bailouts more palatable to the public to insure their passage? Do you think the businesses might pressure the media to put on a positive spin under the threat of cutting back on ad budgets?

When you consider how much of the money doled out to the banks, automakers, etc., would eventually end up in the pockets of Big Media, you would think that someone would question whether or not they can fairly present coverage of these issues. At the very least, they ought to disclose their interest so that news consumers can factor that into their conclusions.

The media also has its tentacles around the legislators in Congress who are debating and deciding these matters. So our representatives in Washington are susceptible to pressure from the media if they want to continue to receive favorable coverage. No congressman wants the press battering them every day about how they are responsible for this economic debacle.

Because of the ascendancy of multi-national media monopolies, whose only allegiance is to their bottom line, it is almost impossible to separate the interests of media companies from the corporate culture they promote and the public discourse they control. And they can hardly be depended on to represent the interests of their readers and viewers. Certainly not at the expense of their own interests. So when an issue of public concern is raised, the public has to very careful about who to trust.

Once again, the irrepressible anthem of conspiracy theorists everywhere is the key to assessing these mysteries. Cui Bono – Who Benefits. In this case, clearly the media will enjoy a windfall if American taxpayers bailout our failing industries. That doesn’t mean that the bailouts are bad policy. It just means that if we get our information about this from Big Media, we may not have all the facts with which to make the right call. And if we ever hope to have confidence in what we learn from the press, these media conglomerates will have to be broken up and regulated to insure independence and diversity.

Does Rupert Murdoch Despise Bill O’Reilly?

Posted by on November 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm. 6 Comments :

The question of Rupert Murdoch’s relationship with his top-rated TV blowhard, Bill O’Reilly, has come up before. Now, courtesy of Michael Calderone at Politico, an excerpt from Michael Wolff’s upcoming biography of Murdoch is asserting that:

“It is not just Murdoch (and everybody else at News Corp.’s highest levels) who absolutely despises Bill O’Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited, and hugely successful evening commentator, but Roger Ailes himself who loathes him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other.”

If Murdoch and Ailes “absolutely despise” O’Reilly, I can only hope they come to despise me as much. The apparent reward for such hatred is endless fawning, copious perks, and a brand new multimillion dollar contract renewal. But I wouldn’t get too excited. Wolff provides very little support for his conclusion, and what he does provide is weak and contradicted by past comments and behavior.

Wolff suggests that Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, was in part to distance himself from the tenor of Fox News. Though why he thinks that the famously conservative newspaper is a departure from the obvious partiality of Fox is a mystery. Wolff seems to think that Murdoch finds the more sedate bias of the Journal preferable to the loudmouth variety at Fox. However, he doesn’t consider the more likely scenario that Murdoch will turn up the volume at the Journal. He has already said publicly that wants the Journal to publish shorter, punchier stories, with less business and more general news. And Wolff, at least in this excerpt, doesn’t consider that a major factor in purchasing the Journal was to beef up resources for Murdoch’s recently launched Fox Business Network.

Politico’s Calderone curiously opines that Murdoch’s political views are “difficult to pin down.” In support of this he cites Murdoch’s backing for Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Koch, and McCain. That seems pretty easy to pin down to me. They are all notable conservatives with the exception of Tony Blair, who started out as a progressive Labour Party leader, but ended up as a Bush lapdog. And rumors have it that Murdoch and Blair made a pact early on that if Blair did not interfere with Murdoch’s business aspirations, Murdoch would see to it that News Corp. enterprises (including the London Times, the Sun, and the Sky News satellite network) would stand behind Blair.

As further evidence of Murdoch’s squishy liberalism, the article cites the New York Post’s endorsement of Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. But the endorsement from the Post reads like an outright condemnation. Here are some highlights from the Post’s column endorsing Obama:

  • “…an untried candidate, to be sure…”
  • “Obama is not without flaws.”
  • “For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning…”
  • “Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive…”
  • “His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence”
  • “…he is not Team Clinton…That counts for a very great deal.”
  • “…we don’t agree much with Obama on substantive issues.”

With friends like that, who needs enemas? The Post eventually endorsed McCain in the general election. And unlike the Obama endorsement, it was enthusiastic and complimentary.

I don’t for minute believe that Murdoch has become disenchanted with O’Reilly or Fox News. His views are as consistent as ever. In September he lashed out at Obama saying that he is a naive, 60’s style Socialist, and that his administration would worsen inflation, ruin America’s relationships with other nations, and drive companies to leave the country. All achievements for which George W. Bush can already claim credit.

Shallow analysis like that of Wolff and Politico has been asserted before. In the end, Murdoch is who he has always been: an irredeemably conservative corporatist, consumed with lust for money and power. As long as O’Reilly contributes to those goals, Murdoch’s love for him will endure.

Hilarious Update: Kara Swisher at All Things Digital has dredged up a laughably appropriate example of Michael Wolff’s deficiency of insight. In 1998 Wolff said:

“I think the myth of the Internet is that it is going to come into everybody’s home.”

Good call, Mikey.