CNN's Howard Kurtz chastised the big media companies who have failed to disclose their conflict of interest and their support of the controversial Internet privacy bills, SOPA and PIPA which they finally covered when there was a blackout by a large number of Internet companies in protest of the legislation.
I'm glad Kurtz at least decided to mention that they should have been more open about their conflict of interest, but less than one minute with no mention of the names of the bills at the end of his show hardly qualifies as anything that really informed his viewers of what those conflicts are. It's a step in the right direction, but a pretty lame one at best.
Now if we could get them to disclose their conflict of interest with the Citizens United ruling that allows corporations to pour unlimited amounts of money into campaigns anonymously and the fact that the big media companies don't want to fix the mess since they're the ones benefiting from all that money flowing into the advertising on their networks.
I expect that to happen about the time hell freezes over. They only covered this blackout because they were forced to because too many people who use the Internet were wondering what was going on or were about to and they would have looked like incompetent buffoons to have completely ignored the story. And Kurtz's complaints here ring pretty hollow when there was a virtual blackout on the story for months while Congress hoped to get it passed with no one noticing.
KURTZ: A strange thing happened this week that transformed the complicated Congressional debate into something that, if you own a computer, was impossible to miss.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: Gone blank. Tonight, the big fight behind what happened to some big names on the Web today and why they went away.
DIANE SAWYER, ABC ANCHOR: You may have noticed today if you happened to go to Google or Wikipedia, the popular Web sites were blacked out in protest over proposed new crackdown on the Internet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: These and other opponents say the heavy hand of government regulation could ruin the Internet. They are taking the fight to the big media companies and the Motion Picture Association, which say new restrictions are needed to crack down on online piracy.
And it worked. Public pressure forced congressional leaders to put the bill on hold. But here's the thing - when "Good Morning America," "CBS This Morning" and the "Today" show first covered the blackout, they didn't mention that ABC, CBS and NBC have lobbied hard for the restrictive legislation, although the "Today" show did take note of it during a subsequent interview.
No initial disclosure as well on CNBC. The "New York Times" says that CNN has been, quote, "relatively diligent" in disclosing that parent company, Time Warner, supports the legislation.
This is an important story about online freedom and thievery. And it's just plain embarrassing that the networks didn't fess about the very clear financial interests of the companies that own them.
conflict of interest on for-profit healthcare and the pharma commercials, the war profiteering industry, tax policy, free trade agreements, failure to investigate and report war crimes and treason, The Dow Jones, Citizen's United, Pay to Play Elections, The Fossil Fuel industry.......
"When you're president -- as opposed the head of a private equity firm -- your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot." - President Barack Obama
99.999% of the time, he sucks "elephant" dong.
So people learned more from the absence of news. That says a lot about the worth of TV news and newspapers.
I'm in favor of laws that forbid murder. I suppose it would be unethical of me if I were not to disclose that I am also a human who does not want to be murdered.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
not to disclose how much you stand to gain financially by continuing to suck resuorces off this planet.
Or how your country stands to gain by fouling ours with your lousy tar sands so you can turn that frozen popsicle of a nation into some tropical resort we have to repopulate while pledging loyalty to Queen and official religion.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
if you were against murder, but only selectively reported murders that benefitted your business directly, this would represent a conflict of interest.
For example, if you failed to report the murder of innocent civilians but promoted and reported the murder of a terrorist leader only, because your viewership is interested in kicking ass but not accidently, one might say you have a conflict of interest, because you are packaging and sensationalizing the news to increase ratings instead of trying to be accurate.
Another example would be to falsely report materialized intelligence as fact in order to garner public support for an invasion of a sovereign nation.
"When you're president -- as opposed the head of a private equity firm -- your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot." - President Barack Obama
because I wouldn't actually be in a position to know whether some crime had been committed against someone else. With regard to copyright I'd only be in a legal position to confirm a crime against myself.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
you Sceptoontarian.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
He only did this story so he could do some TeaNN ass licking. If TeaNN had instead been called out the the NYT for failing to disclose, he would have ignored this topic all together.
Way to go Howie, still got your giant nose stuck up TeaNN's ass. Do you ever take it out and wash away the Santorum?
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Slapping BIG EVIL MSM around seems to be fun and fair for both sides of the spectrum. Gets those inner conspiracy juices flowing to lubricate the bile ducts for a day's worth of vituperation.
Yes, Heather, SOPA and its cousin PIPA are bad pieces of legislation.
And yes, Heather, On January 9 you covered Media Matter's report on what you call a virtual blackout on this story. But one has to ask, how many times did you, or C&L cover SOPA/PIPA prior to that date?
karoli did a pretty informative post on it in November. After that there has been very little if any coverage of the substance of the legislation and even precious little additional coverage mostly focused on the "evils" of the supporters of this bill until the January 9th post of yours chastising Big Media. Susie, for example, did two posts in December, one on software development to get around SOPA and one on Movie industry profits. Neither really addressed the substance of the bills. Other than that it has been relegated to secondary references or satire pieces like scarce's and bluegal's.
These are bad pieces of legislation and it would be have been helpful to have had substantive discussion of exactly why they are bad instead of the continuing coverage of the bad motives of the supporters.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
Do you hear any serious debate about secret, unlimited campaign spending on these networks who carry the super pac ads?
Where does all the goddamn money go? To the fucking TV stations. Do you think they're going to be honest brokers in any debate here?
It's all pay-to-play. It's all about money and profits. It has nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech. In fact, our freedoms just continue to be sold to the highest bidder. Both of these parties won't lift a finger, except to stuff the money in their pockets.
Meet ACTA; It’s SOPA and PIPA on steroids, the Global Edition
Want to see who the dominionists are? Click! Copy! Paste! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9k3iDVvyJU
Howard Kurtz is a walking conflict of interest.
Just 'Cos You Got the Power...THAT DON'T MEAN YOU GOT THE RIGHT!
Comments are closed on this entry