Big Media

Fox News Contributor Karl Rove Becomes The Story

Posted by on February 22, 2008 at 1:07 am. NO Comments :

This coming Sunday 60 Minutes will broadcast a report on Alabama’s former governor Don Siegleman. Siegleman is presently serving a seven year jail term for a bribery conviction that is considered suspicious by Democrats and Republicans alike. Many believe that the case was politically engineered by some familiar names in the Dirty Tricks business:

“A Republican operative in Alabama says Karl Rove asked her to try to prove the state’s Democratic governor was unfaithful to his wife in an effort to thwart the highly successful politician’s re-election.”

While the ethical underhandedness of a manufactured prosecution that lands an innocent man in prison is disgusting on its own, there are other questions raised that will likely not be answered by this scandal’s principal player. Karl Rove, Fox News’ newest contributor, has refused requests by 60 Minutes to comment, but he will continue to appear as an election analyst on the Fox News Channel.

What I want to know is: How can this guy appear on Fox air, with reporters questioning him about the presidential campaign, without being made to answer questions about the political controversies swirling around his own life? How can Fox anchors sit next to him, pretending these issues don’t exist, and still be called journalists? Yeah, I know…no one calls them journalists now, but this would be like hiring O.J. Simpson as a crime reporter without ever mentioning Nicole and Ron.

I probably shouldn’t be giving Fox any ideas. After all…

Karl Rove & OJ Simpson…it was the Murdoch- owned ReganBooks that published Simpson’s “If I Did It” and tried to air a shlockumentary based on it on Fox, before they were shamed into ditching the program. Judith Regan was subsequently fired as a sacrifice to protect Murdoch and others who had greenlighted the projects.

Microsoft, News Corp, and Yahoo, Oh My

Posted by on February 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm. NO Comments :

The armies of consolidation are on the march. Last week, Microsoft made a surprise $44 billion bid for Yahoo. Microsoft is desperately trying to shore up its exposed Internet flank, which Google is battering brutally. Snatching up Yahoo would go a long way toward putting Microsoft back in the online game.

Enter News Corporation. Rupert Murdoch is now reportedly offering a deal that allows Yahoo to remain mostly independent. He would trade Fox Interactive Media for a 20% stake in the new and improved Yahoo. FIM is significant property. It includes Myspace, Photobucket, games giants IGN and GameSpy, AmericanIdol.com, and the MyFox internet platform for the News Corp-owned television station group.

I’m not sure which of these is better (or worse, to put a negative spin on it). Murdoch is, of course, pure evil. But his proposal would leave Yahoo independent and in control of some of the biggest destinations on the web. And all it would cost them is a 20% chunk of the company. Microsoft is a serial monopolist in its own right, and their deal would consume Yahoo whole. On the other hand, they aren’t Murdoch.

Ultimately the problem’s roots go back to the hyper-consolidation that has created an environment where all parties believe that they have to become gargantuan just to be able to compete and survive. In this matter, there don’t seem to be any good options.

Today’s The Day John Edwards Grabs The Gold

Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1:01 am. 10 Comments :

A little less than a week ago, it occurred to me that something was wrong. Something was wrong with the veneration of pundits best known for their failure to deduce anything correctly. Something was wrong with the media deciding who is a viable candidate and when an election is over. Something was wrong with voters being treated like afterthoughts whose participation was merely incidental. And consequent to these observations, it also occurred to me that there was something wrong with the fact that Ron Paul held the record for the most money raised in one day.

I concluded that one way to stuff the spin of the know-nothing punditocracy back down their arrogant throats was to demonstrate the narrowness of their vision. They needed to be knocked down a peg or two by circumstances over which they had no control. I knew that if the people stepped up to thumb their noses at the press, the press would have to pay attention. And since their noses were already so firmly planted in the back end of the horse race schema, a competition for cash was just the ticket. I thought that if Ron Paul could raise six million dollars in one day, John Edwards ought to be able to raise seven.

Despite his relative success and obvious contributions, John Edwards was being edited out of the electoral picture by a pack of myopic politicos. He had beaten Hillary Clinton in Iowa and finished in double digits in New Hampshire. The popularity of his platform was forcing his opponents to adjust their own positions to be more in line with his. With a base of support from progressive Democrats that went back to his campaign in 2004, Edwards had a realistic opportunity to compete in the upper tier of candidates. But the media wouldn’t let him. Edwards himself has taken note this orchestrated media blackout. They marginalized him; they disparaged him; they mocked him. And through it all, he continued to garner support and respect. So they had to resort to ignoring him.

nullThe Project for Excellence in Journalism recently completed a study of the amount of time the media allotted to the presidential candidates. Edwards came in last amongst the Democrats, and next to last amongst all major candidates. The survey was conducted in the days following the Iowa primary in which he finished a surprise second. But that apparently wasn’t enough to persuade editors that Edwards deserved to be covered.

So I wrote a little diary that I posted at DailyKos proposing a grassroots effort to help Edwards set a new fundraising record. In all truth, it was more of an academic suggestion to ponder the possibilities of such an endeavor. Possibilities, being what they are, exceeded my wildest expectations.

The proposal picked up steam at DailyKos getting elevated to its “Recommended List.” This was followed by a steady stream of follow-up diaries by other authors acting on their own initiative. Then it began to spread to other blogs. At the Democratic Underground I found multiple instances of the proposal. Some added creative touches to expand on the theme. One member pledged to donate an amount equal to the number of recommendations the posting received (it was over 300 last I checked). I saw postings on the Edwards Blog site. I saw comments at various news sites, including one at Fox News.

I have no idea what will happen today. I have no clue how much the campaign will raise. If they break the record the media will have to take notice. But no matter the final tally, this has been an exhilarating experience. I have had so many well wishers and expressions of support. Literally hundreds of blog commenters pledged to contribute. And that is only those in the small bloggerhood in which I reside.

People are also becoming more aware of the toxic influence of a media that seeks to shape the news rather than report it. When Edwards talks about the harm being done to our country by greedy corporations he knows that chief amongst the members of that club are the giant media conglomerates. So regardless of how this unfolds, we must continue to fight for reform. Because if we don’t succeed in reining in the power of these monopolies they will forever dictate to us how we should feel, what we should buy, who we should hate, and what our choices are in our formerly free democracy.

Fox Business Network Limps Out Of The Gate

Posted by on January 5, 2008 at 6:11 pm. NO Comments :

The new Fox Business Network may not be living up to the hype.

Although Nielsen ratings are not being officially released, numbers have leaked that don’t auger well for Murdoch’s new baby:

“After less than three months on the air, Fox Business Network is averaging a mere 6,000 viewers in daytime and 15,000 in primetime”

Putting that in perspective, FBN’s main competition is CNBC which averages 284,000 viewers in total day and 238,000 in primetime. And CNBC passes 90 million homes, about three times as many as FBN. Of course, it is still too early to gloat, but the network’s honchos led us to believe that they had much higher expectations. Roger Ailes told us that he would not settle for “anything short of a revolution.” And Murdoch gave this comment a few days after the launch:

“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,”

It appears that the FBN revolution is having a little trouble taking on their half-dead competition. Time will deliver a fuller picture, but clearly FBN has work to do. However, rather than getting down to business, FBN’s executive vice president, Kevin Magee, is just sniping at CNBC, whom he accuses of having leaked these numbers:

“They spent dearly to get [FBN ratings], which is pretty crazy […] I think it shows how uber-concerned they are about us.”

Actually, it’s pretty much routine to get competitive ratings from Nielsen. And when you consider that Murdoch is well known for deficit financing his ventures indefinitely, it is a fairly hollow complaint that CNBC is investing in itself. This sort of griping just makes one wonder who is uber-concerned about whom?

William Kristol Fails Upward

Posted by on December 30, 2007 at 1:19 pm. 1 Comments :

Another member of the PEP Squad (Perpetually Erroneous Pundits) has been promoted despite his consistent failures as an observer and analyst. The New York Times just announced that William Kristol, Fox News personality and editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, has been hired as an opinion columnist.

Attempting to speculate as to the Times’ justification for this is bewildering, to say the least. In their own announcement they point out Kristol’s disdain for the paper and that he believes that “The Times is irredeemable.” They also note his statement that the Times should have been prosecuted for disclosing government programs to spy on the international banking transactions of American citizens. On that score he seems to agree with Ann Coulter who went so far as to advocate a firing squad for the Times’ treasonous editors. The very same editors who just hired Kristol.

The Times’ editorial page chief, Andy Rosenthal, is defending his new personnel move by calling his critics (i.e. readers) “intolerant” for not accepting Kristol as a “serious, respected conservative intellectual.” But why someone who has been so consistently wrong deserves to be regarded as serious, respected, or even intellectual, is not addressed in the defense. Rosenthal furthers his dissembled argument saying…

“We have views on our op-ed page that are as hawkish or more so than Bill. The whole point of the op-ed page is to air a variety of opinions.”

Precisely! If you already have views that are as hawkish or more so than Bill, then what does his hiring do to promote a variety of opinions?

Kristol, who is also a founder of the neo-conservative think tank, Project for a New American Century, has an abundance of pride for the influence of the Weekly Standard. Despite losing a million dollars a year, Kristol brags that “Dick Cheney does send over someone to pick up 30 copies of the magazine every Monday.”

Just a few weeks ago, that other bastion of liberalism, the Washington Post, hired Karl Rove to pontificate at their Newsweek subsidiary. So now, while the Times’ editor complains that his critics are intolerant, and conservatives continue to whine about the so-called liberal media, Bill Kristol, one of the most profound failures of punditry assumes his new perch at America’s Paper of Record. And don’t forget that Rupert Murdoch just completed his purchase of the Wall Street Journal with which he has vowed to bury the Times. Now he has his own man on the inside.

John Edwards Not Playing Rupert Murdoch’s Monopoly

Posted by on December 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm. NO Comments :

John Edwards isn’t shy about letting Rupert Murdoch know how he feels. When asked a question about media consolidation at a recent campaign stop, Edwards said:

“I am not particularly interested in seeing Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper in America.”

Nicely done, John. This answer responds directly to the heart of the question and points an incriminating finger at the industry’s worst offender.

Edwards continues to solidify his position as the candidate most committed to media reform and supportive of efforts to rollback consolidation. He has spoken out on many occasions on the need for independence and diversity in the press and he has been a leading voice of opposition to the FCC’s policy of weakening regulations on ownership caps. He was also the first candidate to refuse to participate in Fox News-sponsored primary debates.

But every time Edwards takes a principled stand, the pundidiots can’t help but crack-wise at Edwards expense. In the item linked above, James Pindell of the Boston Globe follows the Edwards quote with this bit of irrelevancy:

“It should be noted that Edwards received nearly $800,000 in a book contract from one of Murdoch’s companies, HarperCollins.”

Why, pray tell, should that be noted? It is not a political contribution or evidence of electoral support. It is a payment for publishing rights to an author from a book publisher. It is the free market at work. And if anything is notable about it, it is that Edwards will act on his principles even if it is contrary to the interests of corporations who lay out big bucks to do business with him. In other words, they can’t buy him.

This isn’t the first time this canard has been raised. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post felt it necessary to note the same book deal after Edwards called on his opponents to refuse donations from Murdoch. Never mind that he was not admonishing them to refrain from doing business with News Corp., just from accepting the sort political funding that can be seen as buying influence. And lest anyone think that the book advance in itself has purchased any slice of Edwards’ soul, just look to these statements for proof that his independence and integrity is in tact:

“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.”

“It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

“The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media – all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp.”

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s qualifying remarks following a rather commendable statement against media consolidation:

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

While Clinton takes pains to soften the blow against her Foxic benefactor, Edwards comes right out and says what he thinks. For this he is often tagged in the press as a phony. That is the same characterization they make of him when he advocates for the poor – something the media apparently believes rich folks should never do. And for his trouble he is ganged up on by sanctimonious pundits that would rather point a finger at targets of their imagined hypocrisy than left a finger to help those less fortunate.

If you’re paying attention it’s easy to see who the phonies really are.

L. A. Times Promotes Tim Rutten

Posted by on December 26, 2007 at 2:09 pm. 1 Comments :

The Los Angeles Times is moving Tim Rutten from the Calendar section to the Op-Ed pages beginning in the new year. This is a promotion that is long overdue for one of the paper’s best columnists. While I’ve had a disagreement of two with Rutten, he is the most consistently honest and insightful writer the paper employs – particularly since they traded the brilliant Robert Scheer for the brain-dead Jonah Goldberg.

Rutten is unafraid of taking on the powerful, even if that means his own bosses. His last “Regarding Media” column for Calendar is a good example of this. While he has a much more optimistic view of the Times’ future under new owner Sam Zell than I do, he is also unambiguous in his contempt for corporate media:

“The era of corporate accumulation has been an unmitigated disaster for American journalism. Money has flowed like a fiscal Mississippi into the pockets of investors and fund managers, draining one newspaper and TV station after another of the resources necessary to serve their communities’ common good.”

There are a couple of unanswered questions surrounding Rutten’s promotion. Is some other progressive opinion columnist being let go to make room for Rutten’s op-eds? Will a less courageous writer, or a worse, a Big Media apologist, replace Rutten as author of “Regarding Media”? Time will tell. But all in all, I will be looking forward to Rutten’s work in the section of the paper where it really belongs. Two years ago I wrote an article praising Rutten’s criticism of a speech by Dick Cheney. I closed by noting the difference between Rutten’s substantive analysis and the relative intellectual vacancy of the Times’ Opinion writers:

“Perhaps I should turn first to the Calendar for insight into the news, then pick up the opinion pages for entertainment, where their newest columnist, Jonah Goldberg, is best known for his fiction.”

Beginning next year, it may be safe to read the Opinion section again.

The FCC’s Big Media Welfare Act Of 2007

Posted by on December 18, 2007 at 3:54 pm. NO Comments :

Tell the FCC: Stop Big MediaAs expected, the Politburo, oops, I mean the FCC voted today to loosen ownership regulations, providing Big Media the opportunity to get even bigger. They split 3 to 2 along party lines with Republicans following their Chairman, Kevin Martin.

Prior to the vote, 26 senators signed a letter to Martin asking that he delay the vote until more research had been done to ascertain the impact of the proposed regs on local media and diversity. They advised the Commission that if the regs were passed that Congress would “immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule.” Amongst the signers were conservative Republicans like Trent Lott and Ted Stevens.

Despite the warning, the FCC’s Republican majority rammed through the regs showing overt contempt for Congress and the thousands of citizens who attended public hearings to object to Martin’s give-away to the giant media monopolies. Now we must send an unambiguous response to Martin and his cronies. We must reinforce the support we’ve received so far from Congress. It is safe to assume that, even if Congress passes a bill to revoke these rules, the President will not sign it. So we must make sure that we have a veto-proof vote.

This all starts by communicating with our representatives to let them know that we are paying attention and that we will not retreat from this battle. Go to FreePress and sign their “Open Letter to Congress” and then tell your friends to do the same. We beat them before and we can do it again, but it will take the participation of every one of us.

A Steady Diet Of Junk News

Posted by on December 15, 2007 at 12:52 pm. NO Comments :

Are you happy with the menu of calorie-free entrees dished up Big Media? Do you find endless stories about drunken heiresses and celebrities satisfying? Is being kept uninformed about major issues that actually have an impact on your life acceptable?

If so, you are probably thrilled with state of modern media. Forty-six years ago Newton Minow, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, referred to the media as a “vast wasteland.” Were he here today he might consider the contamination so irreversibly toxic that it would qualify as a Superfund site (bet you didn’t know that the EPA has a program for Contaminated Media).

In the same speech, Minow decried the parade of poor programming that littered the television landscape:

“You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom.”

Aside from the decline of westerns in TV’s civilization, nothing has changed. Some marketers argue that the networks are just giving the people what they want and that the ratings for their low-brow fare are proof of their success. But ratings only measure which of the programs that were provided were watched. They do not measure what might have been watched if something better were provided. What’s more, ratings are not an indicator of quality. If they were, McDonald’s would have to be considered the highest quality food in the country. In fact, this is an area where TV and McDonald’s have something in common. As I wrote in Starve The Beast, they both have…

“…the cheapest crap that is loaded with filler and seasoning to appeal to the largest number of consumers with the least sophisticated taste.”

Kevin Martin, the current Chairman of the FCC isn’t fit to sniff Minow’s shoes (as much as he might like to). He is an unapologetic representative of the mega-corporations that presently dominate the media. He has consistently placed corporate interests above the public interest and now he is trying to rush through a vote on industry-friendly media ownership regulations that are opposed by a majority of the Senate Commerce Committee as well as the public.

Stop Big Media, an affiliate of FreePress, has produced a hilarious and frightening video that illustrates just how low journalistic standards in media have fallen in an era that has been defined by rapid consolidation. If Martin gets his way it will only get worse.

We, the people need to be heard about this – NOW. Martin has made it clear that he doesn’t care what the public wants, so it is now up to our representatives in Congress. FreePress has a simple form you can use to contact your senators. USE IT! And do so quickly because the FCC is voting December 18, which is this coming Tuesday.

Hypocritical Standards Practiced At NBC

Posted by on December 9, 2007 at 1:34 pm. NO Comments :

A few days ago NBC rejected an ad from Freedom’s Watch, a pro-war conservative front group for Republican interests. This was the second time that FW submitted an ad that exceeded the standards for broadcast due to its overt political content. In the previous ad they asked viewers to call their representatives and voice their support for the President and the war, but the phone number went to an operator who asks if you agree with the ad. If you do, your call is patched through. If you do not, they hang up on you.

Now NBC has reversed itself and approved the new ad for broadcast. I don’t particularly have a problem with that since I have long been troubled by the way networks make judgments regarding political content. But I do wonder why NBC caved in to the former White House operatives at FW when they never did so with ads from progressive groups. For instance, in November of 2004, NBC rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ simply because they expressed an inclusive philosophy that welcomed all people, including gays. In October of 2006, they refused to air an ad for the Dixie Chicks documentary, “Shut Up & Sing,” because it was disparaging to the President.

Hypocrisy in the media is rampant, and this is just more evidence of it.