Bravo Hugh Atkin at Australia’s ABC network. This video says all you need to know about Bill O’Reilly, Nazis, and the KKK: Bill O’Reilly v. Godwin’s Law
Australian’s know O’Reilly, and his Godfather, Rupert Murdoch, better than anyone. (h/t Crooks and Liars)
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.
Dow Jones announced today that it will be adjusting the components of its Dow 30 stock index. This is the first change since Dow Jones, parent of the Wall Street Journal, was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, parent of Fox News and the recently launched Fox Business Network. The index will be replacing the Altria Group and Honeywell with Bank of America and Chevron. The result will be an increase in the weighting of financials and energy in the index.
It will be interesting to see the effect over time of these trades, but given the propensity of Murdoch to attempt to manipulate outcomes to his liking, one must wonder if there is a hidden purpose to these events. He has previously confessed to trying to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. He also promised to make the FBN a business friendly network.
Murdoch’s machinations of late have not met with the success to which he is normally accustomed. Fox News is presently the slowest growing cable news network. FBN got off to a pathetic crawl. And I wonder if anyone else has noticed this sign of the Apocalypse: When the Fox Business Network launched on October 15, 2007, the Dow Jones had just hit its all-time high. Since then the markets have collapsed, diving 15% in the four months since FBN’s debut.
Coincidence?
Fox News is reporting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has accepted an invitation to participate in a debate on Fox News.
Oh Great! Hasn’t she read Starve The Beast yet?
It’s a little difficult to comprehend why Clinton would commit such a flagrant foul. Sure, she has had a relatively cozy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, she has accepted contributions from him and appeared at fundraisers that he sponsored on her behalf. Sure, her husband signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened the door for unprecedented corporate consolidation in the media business, which Fox exploited to its fullest.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s not that difficult to comprehend, after all. But on the other hand, Murdoch’s network is maligning her 24/7. His New York Post endorsed Obama and in the editorial said that she was “opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled, infinitely self-indulgent, self-centered, and [reeking] of cynicism and opportunism.” The same article slams Obama just as hard, even though he is the endorsee. And Clinton’s response to that is to reward Fox with her presence at their party?
Barack Obama could blow this wide open by declining to accept the Fox debate. This would demonstrate greater courage on his part by not buckling under to the media titan. It would honor the values of Democrats who don’t want Fox treated as if they were a neutral and viable news source. And it would hang Clinton out to dry with her pals at Fox because she couldn’t very well do the debate alone. However, at present there has been no conclusive statement from the Obama camp as to whether he will play along. His spokesman said:
“As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all. We’ll figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon.”
The embargo of Fox News must continue, and having supposed allies like Clinton betray us on this is disappointing, to say the least. The effort to sequester the pseudo-news network has been measurably effective. Their ratings are virtually stagnant, while their competitors are soaring. They are noticeably perturbed and are showing their frustrations on the air. And you know that you’ve had an impact when Fox has to report about itself that…
“Liberal activists in moveon.org and the blogosphere, as well as former candidate John Edwards, scuttled a Democratic debate on Fox earlier this year. Asked by one of those liberal bloggers, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, whether accepting the FNC invitation would ‘legitimize’ Fox News, Wolfson pointed out that both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton have appeared multiple times on Fox”
I must admit that I get a bit of a thrill seeing that Fox has to address its own legitimacy in their reporting. Notice how Wolfson uses previous appearances to justify those in the future, That is precisely why EVERY appearance should be refused. And as if to substantiate their spurious status, the previous debate was not scuttled earlier this year. It was scuttled early last year. But who really expects Fox News to get the facts straight?
It’s Super Tuesday and there will be a lot of news flowing in a couple of hours. But this is a bad day for the Clinton campaign regardless of what happens with the election results. She is hurting her party and her cause, and she should reconsider her participation, or should I say collaboration, with Fox News and revoke her acceptance.
The New York Post has given its endorsement for the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama. However, after reading the article you’d have to ask yourself, “With friends like that, who needs enemas?” Some examples of what the Post considers an endorsement:
That’s what they say about the candidate they like! Here’s what they say about Hillary and Bill:
Let’s face it, this endorsement from Rupert Murdoch’s NY mouthpiece was really just an excuse to bash both of the remaining Democrats in the race. It’s conclusion is that Clinton is so awful, that we have to go with her almost equally as bad opponent.
This might sting Clinton a bit because she has been cozying up to Murdoch – attending fundraisers, appearing on Fox News, refraining from criticism, etc. And this is how he repays her. Do you think she’ll learn her lesson?
In the end, the Post’s opinion will probably have negligible effect on this race. It may even have a contrary effect because New Yorkers know exactly where the Post stands. Consequently, an endorsement of Obama may send them running to Clinton. Still, it is pretty pathetic when one of the city’s major newspapers uses the occasion of an endorsement to brazenly insult both candidates. Let’s see how they handle the Republican endorsement.
Update 2/18/09: New York Post publishes racist and violent cartoon.
With this morning’s announcement that John Edwards would be suspending his quest for the Democratic nomination for president, the media reform movement has also dropped out of the campaign.
Edwards was the only candidate to have directly addressed the problem of the media in this country. He recognized the danger of unregulated corporations controlling access to the media megaphone that all candidates and initiatives rely on if they harbor any hope of success. His own candidacy was a victim of the exclusionary predilections of Big Media.
Here are some memorable moments from Edwards’ campaign:
“I am not particularly interested in seeing Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper in America.”
“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 [ascribe] to Fox News and News Corp.”
Contrast that with this watered-down criticism by Hillary Clinton. It started off as a rejection of media consolidation, but ended up letting her contributer Rupert Murdoch off the hook:
“I’m not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.”
On a positive note, both Clinton and Barack Obama are co-sponsors of the Media Ownership Act of 2007. And they have made statements in support of reform. Last year Clinton told supporters at a campaign rally that…
“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling. The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people – and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”
That was right before she handed Murdoch the reprieve above. Obama co-authored an editorial with John Kerry that said in part…
“…to engage in the debates that have always made America stronger, it takes a stage and a platform for discussion – and never before have these platforms been more endangered.”
“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.”
But neither Clinton nor Obama have been nearly as aggressive as Edwards in this battle. Both have appeared on Fox News despite the dreadful treatment to which they are subjected. [Note to Dems: NEVER appear on Fox News! Starve The Beast!] And neither has made a point of making the media, the FCC, Rupert Murdoch, etc., a significant part of their campaign. Clinton has an arguably greater moral obligation to address these issues given that it was her husband who saddled us with the abhorrent Communications Act of 1996 that opened the floodgates of consolidation.
The remaining candidates in the race had better wise up. The media that has purposefully marginalized and/or disparaged candidacies that are now defunct, is now free to shift its aim to you. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that you can weather their assault or bat your eyes demurely and hope that they will leave you alone. They will turn on you and, when they do, you will have little recourse but to whither and disappear or submit to their will. Both of those options will likely lead to a loss of the election, not to mention your soul.
As for the rest of us, we must take affirmative steps to see to it that our candidates understand how important this is – to them and to us. Be sure to write them and demand that they make media reform a plank in their platforms. Ask them about it at rallies and debates. It is up to us to remind them that the fate of EVERY issue we hold dear is dependent on the ability to educate and inform the public. For this we need a fair, diverse, and independent media. No matter what issue motivates you, if you don’t spend at least some of your time reforming the media you are allowing an obstacle to remain in your path that will lead to unnecessary hardship and, perhaps, failure.
If you need more proof that greedy, nationless, corporations and the parasitical appendages that analyze and enable them are detrimental to our country, look no further than this study of Wall Street’s investment professionals.
When asked what their “single greatest economic worry is for 2008,” did they choose recession, or sub-prime loans, or the national debt, or oil prices, or the trade deficit, or the falling value of the dollar? Of course not. The thing these elitist moneychangers fear the most is a Democrat in the White House. They are so consumed with their own partisan, selfish greed that 22% of them consider a president elected by the American people to be worse than even a terrorist attack, which was only chosen by 13%. To compound the extremism of their blind self-interest, 81% of them also cited a capital gains tax increase as their greatest tax concern. That shouldn’t really come as a surprise to the vast majority of Americans who pay only income taxes. The ruling class is always angling for the tax burden to be further shifted to ordinary citizens.
What is surprising is that these supposed financial wizards are so ill informed about their own business and history. A little research would enlighten them to the fact that Wall Street traditionally performs better during Democratic administrations:
“…the Dow Jones industrial average has returned an average of 6.4% under Republican presidents and 9.1% under Democrats since 1901.”
This study underscores the reasons why the Wall Street constituency deserves to be ignored with regard to public policy. They are so thoroughly removed from the mainstream of society as to be irrelevant and even harmful. This is also an affirmation of the candidacy of John Edwards who has made challenging these powerful special interests an integral theme of his campaign. If nothing else, he needs to be there representing a point of view that the other candidates dismiss.
The study should also serve as a wake up call to politicians and activists who are concerned about the undue influence of these Capitalists Gone Wild. We must be much more aggressive in advancing lobby reform and public financing of elections. As long as these jackals use their wealth and connections to shape Washington to their liking, the people’s voice will be drowned out and disregarded.
The people’s voice is already being lost in the din of propagandists like Rupert Murdoch who now owns the daily Bible of these market mavens, the Wall Street Journal, as well as his own disinformation vehicle on cable TV, the Fox Business Network. FBN was launched with the promise that it would a more “business friendly business network.” And that’s on top of the already prominent friendly coverage that is broadcast on the Fox News Channel. Note this graphic evidence that last October Fox News was already laying the groundwork for Wall Street’s fear of Democrats.
The graphic of the survey results above was also featured on Fox News. If people aren’t already anxious about the economy, jobs, mortgages, health care, and terrorism, Fox is devoted to manufacturing anxiety in every way they can. They are fully committed to the use of dire threats of catastrophe in order to advance their agenda. And isn’t that the definition of terrorism?
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?
Chris Wallace has proven once again why John Edwards (and any other Democrat) is thoroughly justified in declining to appear on Rupert Murdoch’s Foxic airwaves.
In a segment that was only three and a half minutes long (video below), Wallace wasted half of it badgering Edwards’ spokesman, Chris Kofinis, about why Edwards wouldn’t come out and play with Wallace. This already too brief interview, on the day of the Iowa caucus, was halved because Wallace was determined to make a self-serving point that could only have been of interest to Fox News insiders. Wallace asked a total of five questions, three of which concerned Edwards’ non-appearance on the network. Here’s the first question:
“Before we get to the caucuses, let me ask you a question. When is Senator Edwards going to stop boycotting the voters who watch Fox News?”
First of all, let’s be clear about who the voters who watch Fox News really are:
“…research revealed that Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.”
Secondly, despite Wallace’s dishonest phrasing, Edwards is not boycotting viewers at all. He is sending a clear message to Murdoch and Fox that they cannot repeatedly disparage a party, its members, supporters and ideals, and expect to be received with gracious hospitality.
This exchange is proof that a concerted effort by Democrats to embargo Fox News (see Starve the Beast for more) is both warranted and working. It is warranted because, as you can see in this interview, Fox is more interested in its own affairs than in providing fair access to information. It is working because, as is also apparent, Wallace is obsessed with Edwards’ cold shoulder. If the strategy wasn’t hurting Fox, Wallace would not have spent half his time whining about it. He even came back to his lament at the close of the segment saying:
“Chris Kofinis it’s a pleasure talking to you. It would be even more of a pleasure to talk to your boss, but thank you so much.”
Wallace couldn’t let it go, and there is a reason for that. He knows that this strategy could result in delegitimizing Fox News on a broad scale (yeah I know, delegitimizing Fox News is like dehydrating the Sahara). A reputable news agency is not sustainable if half of its subjects refuse to respect its validity. Wallace knows this and that is why he is so fixated on it and fearful of it. Just last month he resorted to insulting the very constituency he is now pretending to covet:
“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News.”
If that’s an example of how Wallace intends to cajole Democrats into his lair, he may encounter some resistance. However, it is a good example, along with this interview, of why Fox should be considered off-limits by reasonable Democrats and progressives.
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.