Big Media

John McCain’s Fear Of The Internets

Posted by on August 13, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

Cable MonstersLast month John McCain said that Americans are tired of the Internet. It’s highly unlikely that he was actually speaking for all Americans, or even anything more than a small brood of Luddites. It is more likely that he himself is tired of the Internet, or perhaps just tired, period. He has never been particularly fond of it, even as he chaired the Senate committee responsible for regulating it.

Amanda Terkel has authored a pretty comprehensive review of McCain’s tech resume. Her article reveals a man who is both uncomfortable with technological progress and beholden to the big corporate interests who seek to dominate the industry. McCain’s pronouncements on the subject, like the one last month, are laughable. He has confessed that he is “an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get,” and that he “never felt the particular need to e-mail.”

Terkel points out that the United States has fallen behind most of the world with regard to broadband policy. Our failure to be competitive in this arena will cost us the loss of millions of potential new jobs. It will hamstring our children. And it will insure that we run with the back of the pack in opportunities for business growth.

McCain has led the way to the rear by opposing legislation that would keep the Internet open (Network Neutrality). Plus he has promoted the sort of deregulation that has permitted media companies to consolidate so extensively that there are now only a handful of giant players left. McCain advanced this anti-competitive agenda while claiming to be free of conflicts or personal motive. Unfortunately, Terkel proves that that isn’t the truth:

“In 1998 and 1999, McCain wrote at least 15 letters to the FCC, urging members to take action on issues that had potentially major consequences for his campaign donors. For example, McCain wrote two letters in April and May 1999, asking the commission to make a decision on a $62 billion pending merger between telephone companies Ameritech and SBC Communications. The merger went through later that year. A few weeks before the April letter, Richard Notebaert, the head of Ameritech, co-hosted a fundraiser for McCain. He took in approximately $50,000. Just before the May letter, SBC and Ameritech officials contributed or solicited about $120,000 in donations for McCain’s campaign.”

“The current campaign cycle is also shaping up to be lucrative. U.S. Telecom Association president and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr., Sprint CEO Daniel R. Hesse, and Verizon chairman and CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg have each raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for McCain’s campaign. AT&T executive vice president for federal relations Timothy McKone has raised at least $500,000.”

Maverick McCainMcCain’s association with lobbyists is well documented, if not well reported by the media. He was embroiled in his own scandal some years ago surrounding the corrupt banker Charles Keating. Next week he is attending a fundraiser hosted by Ralph Reed, a prolific lobbyist and an associate of convicted scammer Jack Abramoff. And in this week of tabloid revelations about John Edwards and his mistress, it should be noted that McCain also had speculation swirling about his relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Unlike the bulldogging National Enquirer, the New York Times dropped the Iseman story after getting yapped at by angry Republicans. But the more salacious elements of the Iseman affair are not really that important. What is most relevant is that she is another lobbyist for closing off the Internet to everyone but her wealthy multinational clients, and that she was indisputably chummy with McCain. Curiously, she has since vanished from the face of earth. She has been so well hidden that even milk cartons don’t have a picture of her. Has the McCain camp shuttled her off to Dick Cheney’s fabled “Undisclosed Location?”

Terkel’s article, along with the other evidence cited here, should cause anyone who values the Internet to be suspicious of McCain’s plans. He is not merely ignorant, he is aggressively antagonistic toward an open, accessible, World Wide Web. He must not be given an authority over it.

Starve The Beast: Appetite For Distortion

Posted by on August 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm. 16 Comments :

Media Blindness

Almost exactly one year ago I published a comprehensive examination of the futility of appearances on Fox News by Democrats and progressives: Starve The Beast. The thrust of the article argued that…

“Every time one of our representatives appears on Fox, they are setting back our agenda. They are not just wasting a little time trying to confront the enemy in its lair. They are literally causing harm to the efforts of the rest of us who are fervently struggling to repair and improve our country.”

The case was supported by studies that showed that Fox News audiences supported Republicans by overwhelming margins and that they were significantly more likely to have misperceptions about current news events. I also provided evidence that the centerpiece in Rupert Murdoch’s empire was a far less ominous presence in the mediasphere than they liked to imagine themselves.

It’s all still true. Rasmussen conducted a new study that affirms the previous studies. Their survey shows that Fox News viewers are still a species apart from the rest of the television population.

When nine out of ten Fox viewers say that they will vote for John McCain, you have an audience that may be more accurately described as a cult (as I described it in The Cult Of Foxonality). And while viewers at both CNN and MSNBC express a solid two to one majority for Barack Obama, that is a far cry from the near unanimous, block mentality of Fox viewers. The fact that the CNN and MSNBC audience compositions agree with one another suggests that they may be a better reflection of the population as a whole. They certainly come much closer to public opinion polling on the presidential race. Another indication of the disparity between Fox and its competitors is that 43% of CNN viewers and 38% of MSNBC viewers have a favorable opinion of McCain. However, only 14% of Fox viewers have a favorable opinion of Obama.

This corroborating evidence of how decidedly unfriendly the Fox News audience is to Democrats ought to be enough to persuade them to stay away from the network. Unfortunately, the past few weeks has seen wayward souls like Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson lured into the Fox lair. To make matters worse, both Hillary Clinton and Obama have recently granted interviews to Fox flacks Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, respectively. Obviously more persuasion is required. So let’s go to the numbers – the Nielsen numbers.

In the first half of 2008, CNN and MSNBC both improved their ratings over the same period the year before by more than 50% in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Fox News squeaked through with a measly 4% gain. In the second quarter Fox actually sunk 2%. And Fox continues to draw the oldest audience in cable news. MSNBC beats Fox with about 35% more viewers in the 18-34 demo. So Fox’s audience is not only growing slower than its competitors, it is failing to attract the next generation of news viewers. The only reason for the size of the audience they presently have is that they have cornered the market for conservative couch jockeys who congregate at their cable water cooler. Hence their dramatic overweighting of McCainiacs. The rest of the news consuming audience is splintered throughout the dial in a manner that disguises the fact that they are in the majority. There are far more non-Fox viewers than Fox viewers, but they are dispersed over a half dozen channels or more. Conservatives are all gathering together, glassy-eyed in the Fox clubhouse.

Democrats and progressives need to be reminded that a network that is overtly hostile to their interests holds no attraction for them. There is no reason to grace their airwaves. There is no benefit to doing so. They will not change the minds of the Foxpods watching programs like Brit Hume’s Special Report or the O’Reilly Factor. Their appearances will only be used to humiliate them and then to lay claim to being “fair and balanced.” It simply makes no sense to ally with a organization that is working openly and vigorously for your defeat. Can it be any clearer that people like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Neil Cavuto, and Sean Hannity are the enemy?

Starve The BeastAnd if it isn’t enough that Fox News is avowedly opposed to the goals of Democrats and progressives, then the fact that viewers are turning away from Fox while the market is growing should convince them of what the rest of the country has already decided – that Fox is not a news network, it is a tool for right-wing propaganda and disinformation. That’s why their audience share is shrinking. And that’s why we must not grant them the credibility our association implies. Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

This beast has a ravenous appetite and we should not be throwing it chum. Leave it to whither and parish and cease to threaten our land and well-being. We are better rid of it. Starve The Beast!

The Wall Street Journal: Rupert Murdoch’s Bitch

Posted by on July 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm. NO Comments :

Today’s Wall Street Journal published an editorial castigating FCC chairman Kevin Martin. Normally, that would be an unexpected and pleasant surprise. Martin’s tenure at the FCC has been a gift to Big Media, allowing them to consolidate at will and presiding over a deregulation fest that has benefited everyone but consumers.

However, the reasons for the Journal’s pique are more typical of their reputation for greed and self-interest. The FCC is reportedly prepared to rule against Comcast for blocking legal access to the Internet. At Save the Internet, Craig Aaron has nicely documented Comcast’s violations and laid out the myths versus the realities of Network Neutrality. But that’s not the end of the story.

For the Journal to take up this issue now, they are treading deeply into some serious conflict of interest. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased the Journal last year. The center of News Corp’s universe is Fox News – a cable network. Cable networks depend on carriage from cable operators like Comcast. Murdoch also owns a new cable operation, the Fox Business Network, which is gasping for viewers largely because they lack carriage on enough cable systems to stay afloat.

Now the Journal is coming to the rescue of Comcast. Is Murdoch attempting to curry favor with Comcast, and the cable industry in general, in order to secure more channel space? Does a pimp want to get paid? The ferocity of the Journal’s attack on an otherwise uber-loyal Republican appointee tells the story. The column starts out swinging:

“Bad personnel decisions have haunted the Bush Administration, and one of the bigger disappointments is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin. In his last months as Master of the Media Universe, he seems poised to expand government regulation of the Internet.”

That’s the sort of rancid rhetoric that the Journal usually saves for Democrats. On that measure, the Journal doesn’t disappoint. Delivering what must be the ultimate insult to a right-wing toady, the Journal suggests that Martin is “greasing the skids for a potential Barack Obama Administration.” Remember, we’re talking about a man so devoted to the rightist agenda that he was over-ruled twice by Congress. He never saw a merger he didn’t like. He got his job as a reward for helping Bush steal the Florida election in 2000.

Martin is not the typical target of the Journal’s scorn. But if it means consolidating more power, and making more money, Murdoch will use his house organ to achieve whatever ends he desires. Even if it means beating up one of his prized whores. It’s hard out here for a pimp.

The Myth Of The Liberal Media II

Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 8:01 am. 2 Comments :

One of the most persistent fallacies in media culture is that there is a leftward bias in the “Mainstream” Conventional Media. That mantra is sung from every sector ranging from the expected misinformers like Bill O’Reilly to the button down suites of CNN. It has never been true, and is even unreasonable on its face. Why are so many people ready to accept the nonsense that giant, conservative corporations like Time Warner (CNN) or General Electric (NBC) are thick with liberals?

The Los Angeles Times has now published a story on a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University that confirms that the liberal bias myth is just that. The CMPA conducted a study that was more than the shallow query as to the quantity of coverage or whether viewers and reporters were considered to be liberal or conservative. They did a content analysis to assess what was actually being broadcast. They found that…

“…ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.”

The content breakdown revealed that 28% of the on-air statements about Obama were positive and 72% were negative. Compare that to McCain for whom 43% of the statements were positive and only 57% negative.

This is consistent with previous studies that measure content. The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a study that showed that, while there was more time spent on Democrats, it was time spent mostly disparaging them:

“…nearly two-thirds of the election coverage (61%) was specifically about candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. This was nearly three times those that focused on Republican candidates (24%). Another 13% dealt with both parties. […] conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage were the most Democratic focused of all – 75% of their time … and only 13% focused mainly on Republicans.”

So while there was more “coverage” of Democrats, that extra focus really only translates into more time bashing them. It was conservative programs that were the most heavily weighted toward coverage of Democratic candidates, and they weren’t saying nice things.

It’s good to see some authoritative reporting on the disparity of ideologies in the news, but the Times author, James Rainey, found himself unable to resist propagating another myth about the media propensity for bias:

“Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond.”

Indeed there are more sources for news than in the past, but most of them are still owned by, or otherwise affiliated with, the Monolithic Media Rainey says no longer exists. The truth is that most Americans still get the majority of their news from five multinational coprorations with conflicts of interest bulging from their seams. Until that issue is examined and resolved, the remaining myths will continue to be spread and believed.

The Fox News War On News

Posted by on July 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm. 3 Comments :

David Carr of the New York Times seems to finally have noticed what has been obvious for years to any objective news analyst. Fox News has a long-standing scorched Earth policy when reacting to other media who dare to report on Fox News.

In his column titled, “When Fox News Is the Story,” Carr confesses that just the thought of having to deal with Fox News as a subject in a story makes him and his peers nervous:

“Once the public relations apparatus at Fox News is engaged, there will be the calls to my editors, keening (and sometimes threatening) e-mail messages, and my requests for interviews will quickly turn into depositions about my intent or who else I am talking to.”

The key tactic in Fox’s PR strategy is to intimidate reporters and editors, and by Carr’s own admission, it’s working. Carr goes on to profile the Fox news PR machine as an operation modeled on political warfare, as directed by CEO Roger Ailes, a veteran of campaigns going back to Richard Nixon. He describes it as “a kind of rolling opposition research” effort intended to cause material harm to their perceived enemies. Carr cites the recent example of the hosts of Fox & Friends taking out their revenge on two Times reporters who wrote about how the competition is gaining on Fox. Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy displayed altered photographs of the reporters that were at best unflattering, at worst anti-Semitic.

While Carr’s revelations are interesting, they don’t go nearly far enough to provide an historical context for Fox’s behavior. This is not a recent phenomena. Three years ago David Folkenflik wrote about how Fox bears its fangs when it doesn’t like what’s being said. And the AP’s David Bauder documented what has become known as Fox’s “Wishing Well,” a back-handed slap at anyone who says anything about Fox News that isn’t complimentary:

  • Because of his personal demons, Keith [Olbermann] has imploded everywhere he’s worked. From lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O’Reilly and all things Fox, it’s obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith’s recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion.
  • Ted [Turner] is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well.
  • Tim [Russert]’s sour grapes are obvious here, but at least he’s not using his father as a prop to sell books this time around. That said, we wish him well on his latest self-promotion tour.
  • We are disappointed that George [Clooney] has chosen to hurt Mr. O’Reilly’s family in order to promote his movie. But it’s obvious he needs publicity considering his recent string of failures. We wish him well in his struggle to regain relevancy.
  • We wish CNN well in their annual executive shuffle. We wish Jon [Klein] well in his battle for second place with MSNBC.
  • We can understand David [Shuster]’s disappointment in being let go by Fox News Channel, but he’s too young to be so bitter. We wish him well in getting his career back on track.

It’s not just PR flacks volleying in this debate. The big dogs at News Corp. are fully engaged. Rupert Murdoch’s spokesperson delivered an ultimatum to GE, saying that if they reined in Keith Olbermann, Fox would call off Bill O’Reilly. Roger Ailes stepped into the fray personally, threatening…

“…that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

In the weeks that followed, Ailes made good on his threat. Bill O’Reilly, Steve Doocy, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Gretchen Carlson, and others at Fox News all laid into NBC/GE with renewed vigor. O’reilly even has his own Media Hall of Shame. The New York Post’s gossips on Page Six initiated a week-long assault on Olbermann’s personal life, alleging tax evasion, calling him unstable, and even publishing his home address – a vile act whose only purpose could be to cause him harm.

The risks faced by reporters who merely want to do their jobs is very real. Fox News will throw whatever they can at you to derail your reporting and/or tarnish your reputation. Carr relates horror stories from his colleagues who have dared to cross Fox News:

“…they have received e-mail messages from Fox News public relations staff that contained doctored photos, anonymous quotes and nasty items about competitors. And two former Fox employees said that they had participated in precisely those kinds of activities but had signed confidentiality agreements and could not say so on the record.”

~

“…few were willing to be quoted. In the last several years, reporters from The Associated Press, several large newspapers and various trade publications have said they were shut out from getting their calls returned because of stories they had written. Editors do not want to hear why your calls are not being returned, they just want you to fix the problem, or perhaps they will fix it by finding someone else to do your job.”

That’s an old tactic practiced by political operatives and office holders. They know that if they deny you access, your editor is going to have to get someone else who doesn’t have that problem. In effect, they get you fired. It is unprecedented, however, for a media company to employ such hardball tactics against other media companies. But that is the way Fox does business, and their peers had better develop strong stomachs if they hope to endure.

The impression left by Carr is that many in the media have already given up fighting. They will either decline to report on anything having to do with Fox News (if it’s critical), or they will simply adjust their reporting to be more positive. That is the danger of letting bullies get away with their bad behavior. Once again, it will be up to the people to insist that they get honest, responsible journalism from the Conventional Media. It is up to us to force them to do their jobs. If we succeed then it won’t matter what Fox’s attack dogs do. Their vacant yelping will disperse like a fading echo. We wish them well as they collapse from the fatigue of chasing their own tails.

Gawker has more on Fox News PR Priestess, Irena Briganti.

Facebook Catches Up With MySpace

Posted by on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm. NO Comments :

In a market share race that is mirroring the cable news ratings battle, Facebook has caught up with its once much bigger rival MySpace:

“Facebook hit the mark in April 2008 by posting 115 million unique monthly visitors. Myspace has maintained similar traffic numbers for the past year, but Facebook has grown from less than 40,000 unique monthly visitors in April 2007 to the 115 million that it is today.”

This is exactly what has happened to News Corporation’s other former media powerhouse, Fox News, which has remained stagnant over time while MSNBC has more than doubled its audience.

Rupert Murdoch’s empire is crumbling beneath his feet.

Barack Obama Is Serious About Anti-Trust

Posted by on May 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm. 8 Comments :

In a statement Sunday at a campaign stop, Barack Obama made it clear that he does not want to continue the Bush policy of ignoring, or advancing, corporate collusion, consolidation, and other anti-competitive activity.

Obama: “We’re going to have an antitrust division in the Justice Department that actually believes in antitrust law. We haven’t had that for the last seven, eight years.”

Obama specifically cited the media as an example of an area that warranted scrutiny with regard to anti-trust behavior, although the scope of his comment was much broader. He has previously addressed media consolidation via his support of the Media Ownership Act of 2007, and an op-ed he co-authored with Sen. John Kerry:

“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.”

Taking a hard-line on matters that impact the media’s ambition to grow unrestricted has historically proven to be fraught with risk. Ask Howard Dean. If Obama intends to pursue this issue in the campaign, and in the White House, he better be prepared for the battle. Liebling’s lament that, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” has evolved in the electronic era into, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own a massive, vertically integrated, publishing, broadcasting, and Internet monopoly.”

The media can be a dangerous enemy, and any effort to take it on must be approached with an awareness of what’s at the other end of the tail you’re hanging onto.

Murdoch Stalking Newsday

Posted by on April 23, 2008 at 2:48 pm. 1 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch is on the prowl again and the editors, employees and readers of Long Island’s Newsday had better pay attention. The News Corp. chief has announced that his ravenous appetite for world media dominance is far from satisfied.

“Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been calling key state and local officials to say he is close to a deal to buy Newsday and that he looks forward to working with them.”

Murdoch already owns the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and two TV stations in the New York market, along with the Fox News Channel, and the Fox Business Network. The $580 million acquisition of Newsday would allow him to further tighten his grip on the biggest media market in the country. Murdoch hopes that by adding Newsday to his empire he might be able to reduce the debt he takes on from the Post, which has lost money for as long as he’s owned it. This would sharpen his aim at his real target, the New York Times, which he has previously vowed to bury.

As for the Newsday staff and customers, they need to be aware of what lay in store if Murdoch is successful. Despite having promised not to meddle in the editorial affairs of the Wall Street Journal as a condition for his purchasing it, his will cannot be denied.

“Marcus W. Brauchli will step down as the top-ranking editor of The Wall Street Journal after less than a year in the job, four people briefed on the matter said on Monday, just four months after Rupert Murdoch took control of the paper.”

As with most of the rest of Murdoch’s properties, Newsday would likely take on his world view. However, Newsday’s fate is not a foregone conclusion. Mort Zuckerman, who owns the New York Daily News, is reportedly preparing his own bid. This may be less because of his desire to own Newsday than his need to keep Murdoch from owning it. Whatever the reason, it may be time to start rooting for Zuckerman.

John McCain’s Opposition To Fair And Balanced Media

Posted by on March 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

The past several months have seen the rise of a variety of public discussions centered on the media. The Media Ownership Act of 2007 was introduced in the Senate. The FCC held their dog and pony hearings on consolidation, complete with the mischief of Comcast paying seat-fillers to prevent critics from attending the event. Byron Dorgan authored a resolution to nullify the FCC’s gift to Big Media. And the battle over network neutrality continued as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T endeavored to violate it.

Despite this activity, media reform has not assumed a particularly visible role in the current election season. None of the remaining candidates have gone out of their way to highlight their positions on media issues. So we should be grateful that Ars Technica has done it for them. Here a few excerpts from the article:

“Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have both co-sponsored the [Dorgan] declaration along with seven other Democrats and four Republicans. None of those Republicans include the GOP’s choice for the White House, Senator John McCain.”

~~~

“…on the big-ticket broadcasting/telecom issues, McCain plays to big media and the telcos. Along with 33 Senate Republicans and no Democrats, he’s a co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently bar the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. As for net neutrality, he calls for minimal government regulation of broadband.” [News Corpse translation: Let Big Media do whatever the hell they want]

~~~

“McCain declined late last year to co-sponsor a Senate bill that would have put the brakes on FCC Chair Martin’s rush to change the Commission’s newspaper/TV cross-ownership rule. Martin got the change enacted after barely two weeks of public comment by a narrow 3 to 2 partisan majority.”

It should also be noted that the lobbyist identified in a recent New York Times article as having had a “relationship” with John McCain, was a telecom lobbyist.

To be sure, the Democrats haven’t had a reliable advocate of media reform since John Edwards was driven out of the race by the media. Barack Obama co-authored an article with Sen. John Kerry that struck the right tone, but he has not given the issue much priority. Hillary Clinton, who counts Rupert Murdoch as a supporter, drifted even further from the pack when she agreed to break ranks and appear on a Fox News-sponsored debate.

There’s still time to get the candidates to refine and promote their positions on media reform, but it will be up to the people to press the matter. That means YOU! You have your assignment.

Update: SaveThe Internet just released a video of members of OK Go testifying (and playing) at a House committee hearing on net neutrality.

The Internet vs. Traditional Journalism

Posted by on March 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm. NO Comments :

There is a new Zogby poll on the nation’s attitudes toward Internet vs. traditional journalism. Some highlights:

  • 67% believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
  • 32% said Internet sites are their most trusted source for news and information, followed by newspapers (22%), television (21%) and radio (15%).
  • 75% believe the Internet has had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism.
  • 69% believe media companies are becoming too large and powerful to allow for competition.
  • Republicans (79%) and political independents (75%) are most likely to feel disenchanted with conventional journalism, but the online survey found 50% of Democrats also expressed similar concerns.

I still don’t understand that last item. A Gallup poll last October found similarly that 66% Democrats trust the media. I wrote at the time that it made no sense to do so and itemized the reasons why. If Democrats were paying attention, they would be far more disenchanted with the media status quo than this survey suggests. However, it is heartening to see that 69% recognize the threat that Big Media represents. If there were a more concerted effort on the part of our elected officials to address the issue, they would find a grateful constituency.