DOWNLOADS: (157)

PLAYS: (630)

Embed

You've just got to love the right wing propagandists over at Fox, like Bill O'Reilly, having the nerve to be screeching about Al Gore and his business partners' decision to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera. Here's more from Mediaite on Bill-O's rant during the opening of his show this Thursday evening: Bill O’Reilly Tears Into ‘Hypocrite’ Al Gore For Trying To Settle Current TV Sale Before Taxes Went Up:

Bill O’Reilly had some harsh words for Al Gore tonight over his sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. O’Reilly took issue with Gore’s hypocrisy in trying to finalize the sale before the fiscal cliff deadline this past Monday night to avoid paying higher taxes, as well as doing a deal with “anti-Americans” at Al Jazeera. O’Reilly declared that Gore has “shamed himself” with the deal.

O’Reilly highlighted Gore’s hypocrisy on taxes by bringing up video of Gore saying two months ago that he believes rich people such as himself need to “do our fair share.”

O’Reilly then set his sights on Al Jazeera, a network he declared to be run by “anti-Americans” and even sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. By making a deal with Al Jazeera, O’Reilly said, Gore has “shamed himself.” O’Reilly made it clear he would not want Al Jazeera to be censored, but said the whole deal is “sleazy” and “disgraceful.”

I'm not going to defend Gore on the tax hypocrisy, if the anonymous sources O'Reilly quoted here, that it was Gore along with his business partners who were pushing to get this through before taxes went up this year are correct. But as the article noted, Gore owns 20 percent of the company, so it wasn't just him pushing for the time table if the source is accurate. And if the source is not accurate, as O'Reilly admitted is possible, Gore may very well have not been the one pushing for the deal to go through before the end of the year to avoid the higher tax rate.

Of course, O'Reilly's solution for this is for Gore to come on his show and explain himself, which we all know would be a completely "fair and balanced" and cordial interview... or maybe not. The likely outcome would be O'Reilly screaming over Gore and calling him every name in the book and accusing him of sympathizing with terrorists, just as he did here.

Which brings us to O'Reilly's attack of Al Jazeera as some anti-American propaganda outfit. I just have to say, that's pretty rich coming from someone from the right wing propaganda outfit, Fox, which has an ownership stake by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. I guess O'Reilly doesn't have any problems with Uncle Rupert palling around with someone from the country where 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from.

And as to the quality of Al Jazeera's programming, from what I've watched of it, they've done a hell of a lot better job than Fox or many of their American counterparts with just delivering straight news from around the world. The reason people like O'Reilly hate them is for the real reporting they were attempting to do when the United States decided to invade Iraq under false pretenses and reporters from that network along with others paid the price for that with their lives.

Fox and O'Reilly were too busy playing cheerleader for the Bush administration at the time instead of telling Americans the truth about what we were doing there.

There are legitimate concerns to be had about foreign ownership of our news media here in the United States, but I think they pale in comparison to the problem we have with media consolidation, which is far more dangerous. The quality and honesty of what's presented to the American public matters and having five or so huge media companies controlling everything we watch, read, listen to and the mixture of entertainment and news has been far more corrosive than any addition of news channels with foreign ownership will ever be.

DOWNLOADS: (210)

PLAYS: (1684)

Embed

On CNN's Reliable Sources this Sunday, Howard Kurtz did a segment focusing on whether the pundits out there in the media who were telling everyone it would be a Romney blowout, should pay a price for being continually wrong with their predictions. I think Kurtz misses the forest for the trees with his criticism, primarily because any real analysis about just how bad most of the corporate media's election coverage was, would require him taking a look at his own network and not just Fox News.

First and foremost, if we're ever going to do anything about getting the money out of politics, we're not going to get much help, if any, out of the industries primarily profiting from it, which is all of the television stations and radio stations across the country. You're not going to see the pundits out there saying much about all of those advertising dollars when their companies and everyone they work with is thriving because of it.

And then there's the issue of Rove and his ilk on Fox, who was not just that he was misleading viewers with overly optimistic predictions about the election results, but also running a PAC. Fox continually failed to disclose Rove's involvement in the election. They also made a regular habit of bringing on Romney campaign advisers as pundits and failing to disclose their roles as well..

If Kurtz wants to give an honest assessment of the coverage of this presidential election, there's a lot more wrong with it than just pundits getting predictions wrong. And what I noted here is just the tip of the iceberg. Endless focus on polls and the horse race, rather than substance, the issue of media consolidation, fake balance where there is none and a host of other issues are a lot bigger problem than talking heads being rewarded for failure.

Full transcript of Kurtz and his panel's remarks below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (1059)

Embed

While I'd be more than happy to see the electoral college go by the wayside and candidates have to campaign in all fifty states instead of only focusing on a few swing states, I'm already really tired of hearing the talking heads in the media talk about what a tragedy a split between the two would be this time around, when there was no concern whatsoever when Bush did the same when the Supreme Court handed him his first presidential election back in 2000.

Here's more on that from Kathleen Geier at The Washington Monthly -- Election 2012: the G.O.P. whining begins:

So it’s not surprisingly that some Republican leaders are already switching gears; in anticipation of a Romney loss, they are already looking for ways to discredit an Obama victory. Here are some of the most popular excuses you’ll be hearing: [...]

— Another popular argument to try to discredit the president: hey, Obama may be “the choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites,” but that’s not Amurka, buddy! Everyone knows that Amurka is white people. ‘Specially white people who are dudes. Oh, and of course, rich people! The notion non-whites, the poor, urban dwellers, and unmarried women are second-class citizens whose votes shouldn’t count is straight-up racism and sexism of the most despicable kind. Obama’s detractors will use prettied up phrases — they’ll say he didn’t win over “middle America” or (as per Atrios) “the heartland,” but what they mean is that the votes of those who don’t have white skin or possess a penis, or a piece of paper that legally connects them to a penis-holder, should not count. This argument is of course shameful and beneath contempt. and anyone who makes it should immediately be called on it.

— Another excuse they are cooking up seems to be the argument that if Obama doesn’t win the popular vote by a large margin, it doesn’t count. Funny, but when one of their own lost the popular vote in 2000 yet was appointed to the presidency by the Supreme Court, they had the chutzpah not only to treat his victory as 100% kosher, but to try to brand it as a mandate to boot! Clearly, though, we’re supposed to flush that recent example down the memory hole.

Here's Bob Schieffer and David Gergen doing just that on this Sunday's Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: Let me just say, David Gergen, I think the worst of all worlds would be if one of the candidates won the popular vote and other won the electoral college.

GERGEN: I agree. I agree. That's what's happened very rarely in our history

SCHIEFFER: But do you see any possibility that could happen this time?

GERGEN: Theoretically, absolutely. We're in a situation now, where Romney, in several polls is either tied or ahead in the national vote, yet he's behind in the electoral college. So yes, Charlie Cook thinks there's a one in three chance of doing that.

But I think it goes to this question of governing. To me the question no longer has been not who is going to the win, but can the winner govern? Can the winner get us out of this mess that we're in and get the grand bargain and do the other kind of things that need to ignite this country.

And the fact is, as it's narrowed down, it's gotten so close, I think governing becomes harder. I thought at one point Obama could break out of this thing and win a big victory, in which case he'd have a lot of leverage. And I thought at one point Romney could potentially break out.

Now I think neither person is going -- I don't think the winner is going to have a mandate. I don't think winner is going to have a clear mandate. We're really going to have a country that remains bitterly and closely divided and it's tough to govern.

The reason we've had a country that's "tough to govern" is because of the unprecedented amount of obstruction from Republicans who cared more about making President Obama a one term president than whether they were doing harm to our country and to our economy. We're not going to hear that out of the beltway Villagers who have to pretend that all things and all sides are equal at all times though. The "worst of all worlds" is that we have a media that allows it to continue and lies about how they're conducting their business in order to help dumb down the electorate that doesn't pay enough attention to politics. Sadly, I don't see any hope of that changing in the near future. These media companies need to be broken up yesterday.

DOWNLOADS: (638)

PLAYS: (7271)

Embed

This topic came up for some brief discussion on Real Time With Bill Maher that ought to be part of a larger one, and that is just how sorry the state of our corporate media is with misinforming the public. Everything that is supposed to be "news" is either, as they described it here, "disaster porn" where you're making a buck chasing one ambulance after the other in order to increase your ratings, meanwhile, informing the public about nothing, or if you're not doing that you're putting up two people supposedly on different sides of an issue and at least one or both of them are lying to the viewers in the name of being "fair and balanced."

What's really pitiful about this ambulance chasing is the fact that they do it, and get the public worked up over an issue, and then ignore it. How many reports have we seen about what's going on in Egypt now that things are constantly turning there? What happened to the reporting on Haiti that they were so breathlessly reporting right after the disaster there? And we all watched them cover the gusher of oil BP had pouring into the Gulf until they got tired of that story as well.

I could go on and on but won't since it's not necessary to make the point I wanted to here. If our media wants to chase ambulances and pretend like they're not just doing "disaster porn", is it too much to expect them to do some follow up on the people and those countries that they feigned so much concern for in their previous breathless coverage we watched just a few months before?

Apparently it is too much to ask for them to chase more than one ambulance at a time. And that's exactly what Maher described here. It's disaster porn feeding off of the latest ambulance of the day to chase while ignoring most of what's going on around the world and calling yourself "news." And it's a damned shame that media consolidation in America has assured us we won't get much better until these companies are broken up.

DOWNLOADS: (229)

PLAYS: (405)

Embed

After just previously discussing the sale of the Huffington Post to AOL and how Arianna Huffington apparently is no longer concerned about the dangers of media consolidation, the panel on Fox News Watch moved onto the topic of Keith Olbermann's new position at Current TV. They had plenty to say about whether or not Olbermann might bring a "liberal bias" to Current's news department, what time his show will air and how it will affect Current's ratings.

What they completely ignored, and I'd expect as much from anyone on any of the cable networks, is how being freed of any sort of corporate interference is going to potentially affect his newscast. Lynn Sweet sort of hinted at it, but didn't come straight out and say it.

Here is Keith's statement at Current TV regarding his new position there.

Nothing is more vital to a free America than a free media, and nothing is more vital to my concept of a free media than news produced independently of corporate interference. In Current Media, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have created the model truth-seeking entity. The opportunity to partner with Al, Joel and Mark Rosenthal makes this the most exciting venture in my career.

I'm looking forward to seeing what his broadcast is like free of that interference. I would imagine once he is on the air, Fox's joke of a supposed "media watchdog" show like this one will do their best to ignore him.

DOWNLOADS: (538)

PLAYS: (4218)

Embed

Phil Donahue joined Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker to discuss his long career as a talk show host, the dangers of media consolidation and his ouster from MSNBC during the run up to the invasion of Iraq for daring to speak out opposing it. You generally don't find too many conversations like this one on cable news since I'm sure their bosses wouldn't want to shine a light too brightly on the need to bust these companies up. Every once in a while one slips through like this one though.

PARKER: If you think Oprah has the longest running syndicated talk show in history, think again. That particular honor belongs to our next guest.

SPITZER: Phil Donahue invented the daytime confessional format, aiming both high brow and low in his 29-year long career. We spoke to him earlier.

SPITZER: Thank you for joining us. It's an honor to have you here.

PARKER: I'm thrilled. I watched your show for years and years. I think my entire life.

DONAHUE: Well, I thank you. You turned out anyway, didn't you, watching me?

PARKER: Do you sometimes think maybe you created a monster?

DONAHUE: Well, I have said they are all my illegitimate children and I love them equally. But it is true that the game has changed, really quite something. In many ways it's changed from when I went often the off the air which was '96 with my daytime show.

And even the cable, nighttime, your arena, since 2002, when I was on MSNBC, it's totally different now, totally.

Continue reading »

From Democracy Now--A Look at the Future of TV: Media Consolidation Opponent Byron Dorgan to Retire, Comcast Takeover of NBC Under Review:

Sen. Byron Dorgan’s decision to retire from the Senate stunned many in Washington. Dorgan has been a leading opponent of media consolidation and US trade policy. We speak with the Center for Digital Democracy’s Jeff Chester about Dorgan’s retirement, as well as what the future holds for the digital media landscape with Comcast’s deal to acquire a controlling interest in NBC Universal under review, and the dispute resolved between Time Warner Cable and News Corp.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to another guest in Washington, particularly on Byron Dorgan. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: We’re joined by Washington—by Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

Jeff, talk about Byron Dorgan’s role as an opponent of media consolidation and a supporter of net neutrality.

JEFF CHESTER: Well, Senator Dorgan’s departure is going to be missed. He has really been consistently, over the last dozen years, the leading Senate critic of media consolidation, promoting policies for the FCC that would rein in the media giants and try to restore some accountability that the public should have over the cable and broadcasting and online giants. He has been a voice of conscience. He has been an effective legislator. He led the effort to overturn in the Senate the rules that Bush FCC chairman Michael Powell pushed through that would have deregulated almost everything in the US electronic media system. So we are going to need someone to fill his very large and important shoes, especially at this critical moment with the US media system.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Jeff, specifically with the Obama administration, the issue of net neutrality is increasingly a big topic at the FCC. What’s your sense how the administration has begun dealing with the issue of net neutrality?

JEFF CHESTER: Well, this is a very critical moment for the future of US and, of course, global digital communications. I mean, the reason you’re seeing Comcast buying NBC, this fight between Time Warner and Fox, the battle over network neutrality, is that our media system is in this fundamental transition, how we consume media and how we distribute media. And the big media giants want to have as much control over the new system as they’ve been able to do over the old system of broadcasting and cable. I think the FCC under the Obama administration is on a course to enshrine rules around network neutrality, but whether or not they will truly be effective, given these new mergers that are emerging and other powerful interests shaping the future of media, remains to be seen.

I think the Comcast-NBC potential merger is a real test case for the Obama administration, Juan, and I hope you don’t mind me moving to that beyond network neutrality, because we’re going to see whether or not the Obama administration is willing to take a proactive media democracy stand on the future of media, because if you allow that merger to occur, Comcast taking over one of the largest broadcasting and cable networks, and if you don’t have some limits on their power, then even rules on network neutrality won’t be able to dent the very powerful control that a very tiny handful of big companies are able to leverage throughout broadcast, cable, and potentially online.

Continue reading...

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (354)

Embed

From The Cafferty File:

The news media are fighting to survive — and Dan Rather thinks the government should help rescue them. The former CBS anchorman is calling on President Obama to create a White House commission to help save the press.

Rather says such a commission could make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to help the industry survive. He says there are precedents for this kind of national commission — which have helped other failing industries.

Rather says the stakes couldn’t be any higher. He told the Aspen Daily News: “A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom.” And he says it’s not just journalists who should worry about the fate of the press; but rather every citizen.

He also talked about “the dumbing down and sleazing up” of what we see on the news; and blames that on the blurry line between news and entertainment — along with corporate and political influence on newsrooms. He claims about 80-percent of the media is controlled by a handful of corporations.

Rather also talks about the decline in investigative and international reporting; and says the loss of reporters covering the two ongoing wars hurts our nation.

The bottom line as he sees it: If somebody doesn’t step in and take action… the nation will lose its independent media.

Here’s my question to you: Should the federal government be involved in saving the news media?

Jack misses the mark here. It's not a matter of opinion whether 80 percent of the media is controlled by a handful of corporations. It's simply a fact. A better question would have been should these companies be broken up, but of course Jack would never be allowed to ask that question. His responses below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (53)

PLAY (194)

From Bill Moyers Journal:

BILL MOYERS: Finally, the other big story out of Chicago this week was news that that city's Tribune Company, owner of the "Chicago Trib" and "Los Angeles Times", as well as other newspapers, 24 TV stations and the Chicago Cubs, had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Its owner, Sam Zell, blamed the economy and $13 billion worth of debt.

When Zell took the company private last year he received a waiver of the Federal Communications Commission rule barring ownership of both a newspaper and television station in the same local market, saying it was the only way he could make the deal work. He was supported in his effort by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Regular viewers of the JOURNAL know that media consolidation has been always been an important issue for us. We've been critical of Chairman Martin and his predecessor Michael Powell's attempts to give the big media multinationals free rein to take control of more and more TV and radio stations, drastically hurting local news coverage, independence and diversity.

That's what the Commission heard last year in public hearings across the country.

CHICAGO PUBLIC HEARING PARTICIPANT: If the FCC is here wanting to know if Chicago's residents are being well served. The answer is no. If local talent is being covered? The answer is no. If community issues are being handled sensitively? The answer is no. If minority groups getting the coverage and input that they need? The answer is no, the answer is no.

SEATTLE PUBLIC HEARING PARTICIPANT: We told you a year ago when you came to Seattle that more media consolidation is a patently bad idea. No ifs ands or buts about it. So with all due respect, I ask you, what part about that did you not understand?

BILL MOYERS: This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a scathing report attacking Martin's tenure at the FCC. The title? "Deception and Distrust." It chronicles what the authors call "egregious abuses of power" by Kevin Martin, who "...manipulated, withheld, or suppressed [agency] data, reports and information" to support his agenda.

President-elect Obama will soon appoint a new FCC chairman and is solidly on the record against media consolidation. Kevin Martin has hinted to some a willingness to stay on a bit to ease the transition. Thanks, but no thanks.

You can check out our continuing coverage of the FCC and media consolidation by clicking on our Web site at pbs.org.

That's it for the JOURNAL. I'm Bill Moyers. We'll see you next week.