Media

FCC Bends Over Backwards For Big Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Media Will Win In 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it’s more true now than ever.