Obama's Courage Is Why He Ultimately Is The Underdog - Media Ownership

[Median Democrat]

This is the simple story about Barack Obama's courage to stand up to corporate interests that you will never hear, because Rupert Murdoch and company are going to tell you what to think. Look at google news, and you will find that the major networks are not covering Obama's efforts to fight the growth of media monopolies and the FCC's media ownership rule change:

* * *

1. Big Media, Including Rupert Murdoch Want To Expand Their Control:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23ownership.html

WASHINGTON — As he nears completion of a deal to acquire Newsday from the Tribune Company, Rupert Murdoch appears likely to pose the first significant challenge to the media ownership rule that the Federal Communications Commission recently adopted.

Rupert Murdoch has a tentative deal to buy his third New York-based paper, Newsday.
Even without Newsday, Mr. Murdoch was in the process of seeking waivers to continue to control two newspapers (The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post) and two television stations (WNYW and WWOR) in the New York area.

With those waiver requests pending at the F.C.C., the Newsday deal means that Mr. Murdoch must now apply for a waiver to own the two television stations and three newspapers in the same market.

* * *

2. Obama will not let them:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071022-obama_fcc_polic/

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6561535.html

Obama, Bush at Odds Over Media-Ownership Vote
Democratic Presidential Candidate Urges House of Representatives to Follow Senate's Lead, Scrap FCC's Media-Ownership-Rule Change
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 5/16/2008 9:50:00 AM
The fight over the Federal Communications Commission's Dec. 18 media-ownership vote set up a potential battle between the current president and a senator who wants to be the next one.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Thursday urged the House to follow the Senate's lead and pass a resolution of disapproval, an unusual legislative maneuver that would invalidate the FCC's decision to allow TV and radio stations and newspapers to be co-owned in the top 20 markets, subject to some conditions.

After the Senate approved the measure, Obama, a co-sponsor of the bill, released a statement saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."

He framed the vote, as he has before, as standing up to "Washington special interests," a campaign theme. "Our nation’s media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership," he said.

At almost the same time, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez was releasing his own statement decrying the vote. “Overturning the FCC’s approach will actually discourage a diversity of media voices and will hinder efforts to enhance local content by preventing some ownership arrangements that could provide additional financing to sustain local newspapers," he said.

Gutierrez also reiterated his plan to advise the president to veto the bill if it passes in the House. The administration Thursday also weighed in against the resolution and told the Senate that other top advisers were counseling the president to veto it.

* * *

The easy route for Obama would have been to back off, and let someone else take the lead on fighting expanded media ownership, because if you take on Big Media, you will lose. Indeed, we have seen numerous examples of the MSM spinning Obama into a flip flopper while giving John McCain a free pass on his real, 180 degree flip flops on a wide range of issues including abortion, tax cuts, and immigration. However, rather than ducking the issue, in the heat of the primaries no less, Obama has continued to press the FCC to scrap its Media-Ownership-Rule Change.

However, you probably did not know that. Why? Because do you expect Big Media to tell you about its efforts to expand?

This is why Democrats will need to work twice as hard and give twice as hard to have a chance to win in November. Rupert Murdoch has a direct financial stake in the election. Do you think Murdoch will allow Obama to win?

[AndyTiedye]

1. That Does Mean that Obama Will get Swift-Boated 10 Times Worse Than Kerry Was

The networks will give this year's Swift Boaters even more free airtime.

They have already said they are cutting coverage of the Democratic convention way back,
can't let the people hear Obama speak, can we? Only let their pundits bash him.

They will do EVERYTHING in their power to keep Obama out of the White House.

[Egnever]

2. Deans downfall came after he appeared on hardballand said he would break up the media

One week later we got the scream.

I am sure Obama is well aware of this and yet he still goes after them. Love this guy.

[depakid]

3. "still goes after them"

Actually, no- his campaign tossed the fairness doctrine under the bus a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory

[Egnever]

4. que the concern posts from you

I think he is right. From your link....

He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

[Median Democrat]

5. I Think A Lof Of LIberals On This Board Are Not Crazy About The Fairness Doctrine

I also don't think you really need the fairness doctrine if you have diversity in the media. Indeed, I would shudder to think how the Bush administration would apply the Fairness doctrine given its heavy handed efforts to censor its own agency staff members on issues like global warming. The last thing I want to see is more federal control on the contest of media. Rather, fight the media monopolies, which will allow more diverse views. We could debate the fairness doctrine, but I think a lot of liberals and progressives will split on the issue.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. I wouldn't trust the Fairness Doctine, as applied by today's corporatist media

Every mention of climate damage would have to be "balanced" by fairy tales from global warming skeptics. IOW, what we currently have now, only worse.

Furthermore, fledgling liberal networks like Air America and NovaM would be required to include RW commentary while the Clear Channels would balance Rush with Alan Colmes and call it "fair".

I'm with you, break up the monopolies and then we might see some real fairness.

[Median Democrat]

8. Agree - Fox News Is A Prime Example Of The Possible Misuse of the Fairness Doctrine

Fox frequently featured Geraldine Ferraro and Dick Morris, who are often captioned as Democrats. So, you either get a person who is a Democrat in name only such as Zell Miller or a weak quasi-liberal like Combs who is paid to get shouted at and over. The fairness doctrine would provide no impediment to Fox News.

[nc4bo]

7. I wish this would go viral. It's very important and O will be battling up hill...

with one hand tied behind his back while trying to do battle with these bastards.

Go O!!