Free Press Threatens Suit If FCC Proceeds With Ownership Vote Various groups tell FCC to back off and complete diversity studies first
Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, said Wednesday that his group will sue the FCC once again if the commissioners vote to approve a draft media ownership rule order without completing court-ordered diversity studies.
"If they don't follow the court instructions and do the studies they were supposed to do before moving forward, and if they move forward without public input, then I believe we will have no choice but to take them to court again -- Free Press was among those suing the Kevin Martin-led FCC when it attempted similar changes in 2007.
That came in a press conference held by a number of groups opposed to a draft order circulated by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski that would loosen the newspaper/TV cross-ownership rules, lift limits on newspaper/radio cross-ownership and allow radio/TV cross-ownership, while counting some joint sales agreements toward local ownership caps that are being left in place.
Those groups did not go as far as to commit to a suit as well, but said they had "grave" concerns.
On the conference call with reporters, Wade Henderson, president and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, led some harsh criticisms of the commission, suggesting that it was allowing conglomerates to gobble up outlets and homogenize programming. He argued the FCC proposal would continue to keep licenses out of the hands of diverse owners.
Also on the call were Jesse Jackson, founder and president, Rainbow PUSH Coalition; Bernie Lunzer, president, of the Newspaper Guild-CWA; Mee Moua, president, Asian American Justice Center; Alex Nogales, president and CEO, National Hispanic Media Coalition; Rashad Robinson, executive director, ColorOfChange.org.
They urged the FCC to table the vote until it has thoroughly studied the impact of its rules on diversity. "Too few controlling too much media undermines democracy," said Jackson. "Count Rainbow/PUSH in on this."
Lunzer said that people in the heartland care about the diversity issue. What we need more than anything, he said, is time to have a discussion, including public hearings.
The FCC is expected to vote ownership changes as part of its quadrennial review of its ownership rules mandated by Congress, and currently two years behind schedule, and address in another proceeding associated diversity issues.
But Aaron says that would not cut it. "They cannot be separated. They need to consider everything together. Diversity is not something that we can deal with later, after changing the rules after allowing more concentration. Diversity needs to come first." He says the court has been clear that these are not separate things, but are intertwined. Some FCC staffers have pondered whether the FCC will be able to convince the court it could loosen cross-ownership without having completed its diversity studies.
"We have been waiting and waiting for these studies on the impact of diversity, and the idea that we would push those off is absolutely not the way to go."
Henderson agreed. "There is a bit of an Alice in Wonderland quality of the FCC's decision-making. Sentence first, verdict after." He said the underlying problem is the need to diversify ownership to ensure there is diversity in hiring and management and policy. He said that is something that has to be taken seriously, "and it starts with the FCC."
Aaron pointed out that back when the Martin FCC voted the rules, senators who voted to undo them included Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. "The Federal courts have rejected the FCC's attempts to gut ownership rules," he said, "first in 2004, then again last summer, for failing to share their plans with the public and for failing to judge the impact on ownership diversity."
The groups suggested the FCC was failing on both counts once again.
"The Commission's draft media ownership order includes a comprehensive analysis of viewpoint diversity based on an extensive record developed over the last three years," said an FCC official who asked not to be identified. "Including six public hearings held across the country; two rounds of public comment; and eleven economic studies that were competitively bid, subject to peer review, and publicly released. In addition, all of the 323 [ownership survey] report data has been fully considered by Commission staff, and much of the data was publicly available a year ago, with all of it publicly available for weeks now, enabling stakeholders to review and comment on it." http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/490568-Free_Press_Threatens_Suit_If_FCC_Proceeds_With_Ownership_Vote.php
the Murdoch CREEP, eh .. :( .. t'was only a matter of time ..
Press Freedom Index .. 2011-12 .. [smaller = more freedom ]
1 Finland - 10 Canada - 20 Namibia - 22 Japan - 28 United Kingdom - 29 Niger - 30 Australia - 35 Papua New Guinea - 36 Slovenia - 37 El Salvador - 42 South Africa - 42 Botswana - 44 South Korea - 45 Comoros - 45 Republic of China (Taiwan) - 47 United States - 47 Argentina - 175 Iran - 176 Syria - 177 Turkmenistan - 178 North Korea - 179 Eritrea .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
I was surprised the USA is under Australia in the list above .. thought you had more freedom of the press .. ok, i went for a comparison of media freedom rules Australia vs USA .. ooi, so far only this one ..
Media ownership Fact Sheet [ Australia ] .. one bit ..
Statutory Control Rules
The statutory control rules are contained in Part 5 of the BSA. Many of the rules contain the term ‘licence area’. Under the BSA ‘licence areas’ are determined by ACMA using ‘licence area plans’, which are available on their website.
Briefly, the main restrictions imposed by the statutory rules are:
1. A person cannot be in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area populations exceed 75% of the population of Australia;
2. A person cannot be in a position to exercise control of more than one commercial television broadcasting licence or 2 commercial radio broadcasting licences in the same licence area
3. In respect of commmercial television licences a person cannot: ........ 1. be a director of a company or companies that are, between them, in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area populations exceed 75% of the population of Australia; ........ 2. be a director of two companies that are both in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcast licences in the same licence area; ........ 3. be a in a position to exercise control of a commercial television broadcasting licence and a director of a company that is in a position to exercise control of another commercial television broadcasting licence, where the licences are in the same licence area;
4. In respect of commercial radio broadcasting licences a person cannot be: ........ 1. a director of a company that is, or of 2 or more companies that are, between them, in a position to exercise control of more than 2 commercial radio broadcasting licences in the same licence area; ........ 2. a director of a company that is, or of 2 or more companies that are, between them, in a position to exercise control of 2 commercial radio broadcasting licences in a licence area and in a position to exercise control of another commercial radio broadcasting licence in the same licence area; or ........ 3, in a position to exercise control of 2 commercial radio broadcasting licences in a licence area and a director of a company that is in a position to exercise control of another commercial radio broadcasting licence in the same licence area.
======== .. this is better .. hmm, for Australia i mean .. sorry 'bout that .. :)
Rupert Murdoch, American Citizen?
By tombuckner Jul 23
There’s been little talk here at ScruHoo about the News Corp. phone hacking scandal, but we should shine a light on it. In brief, let me quote Carl Bernstein from Newsweek .. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/murdoch-s-watergate.html :
“The facts of the case are astonishing in their scope. Thousands of private phone messages hacked, presumably by people affiliated with the Murdoch-owned News of the World newspaper, with the violated parties ranging from Prince William and actor Hugh Grant to murder victims and families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arrest of Andy Coulson, former press chief to Prime Minister David Cameron, for his role in the scandal during his tenure as the paper’s editor. The arrest (for the second time) of Clive Goodman, the paper’s former royals editor. The shocking July 7 announcement that the paper would cease publication three days later, putting hundreds of employees out of work. Murdoch’s bid to acquire full control of cable-news company BSkyB placed in jeopardy. Allegations of bribery, wiretapping, and other forms of lawbreaking—not to mention the charge that emails were deleted by the millions in order to thwart Scotland Yard’s investigation.”
Fox’s activities would appear to fall under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act .. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/11/us.hacking.fcpa/ . And I’d argue that Fox is even more foreign and corrupt than most of its “patriotic” fans realize. After Murdoch, the largest shareholder in News Corp. is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal .. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584557 .. at 7% stake. The Saudi aristocracy are not our friends: they want to keep the US addicted to their petroleum as long as it lasts; David Brin is on point on this issue:
…the main “news” outlets pushing the [Global Warming] Denier Movement are largely owned by those same petro-moguls. (Just one Saudi prince holds 7% of Fox, while other princes own smaller shares, plus a lot of Rupert Murdoch’s debt, stock and commercial paper. Russian oligarchs and international oil companies own more.) Because of this, the Skeptic has moved away from getting any of his news or sense of “reality” from propagandists who are paid to keep America divided, weak, passively addicted to dependence, respectful of aristocracy, and mired in “culture war.” .. http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/11/distinguishing_climate_deniers_from_skeptics
Australian-born Murdoch became a US citizen in 1985 just so he could own more media here .. http://www.suite101.com/content/rupert-murdoch-what-makes-him-tick-a380474 . [ YUP, FOR SURE ] The Reagan administration appears to have fast-tracked his citizenship, and Reagan started the relaxation of ownership rules, allowing a few media giants to own more and more stations and newspapers. In return the corporate media, Fox being a major culprit, conducted a long-running and ongoing campaign to make this very bad president into Saint Ronald. Later on, News Corp. told the IRS that it was foreign-owned (to save on taxes) while telling the FCC that it was true-blue American (since it couldn’t own all its stations if it were otherwise). The GOP success in the 1994 elections derailed a possible congressional investigation.
Since then, Fox News (though not Fox News alone) has given the United States such gifts as the Clinton impeachment, the illegitimate president George W. Bush, two illegal wars, a general rot in the role of journalism and civil discourse, a divided nation, lies about global warming, and so much more. If I were President, I’d have long ago issued an executive order stripping King Rupert of his citizenship and deported him back to Australia, simultaneously throwing News Corp.’s US ownership of many stations and papers into chaos. “Unconstitutional!” would be the cry of Faux News supporters. Maybe. Maybe not. This I can say: if he were a Communist they’d have done that long ago. If he were some stripe of Muslim radical, they might have Gitmo’d him. How obvious is it nowadays that only the rich and powerful receive every benefit of Constitutional protections, every jot and tittle of procedure. Some US citizens can be ground up at the government’s whim .. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/04400713852/over-250-top-us-legal-scholars-condemn-treatment-bradley-manning.shtml .. while others, well, just seem to stand far above the law http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/07/1789905/forget-anonymous-evidence-suggests-gop-hacked-stole-2004-election#ixzz1Ssy99Dmv .
In any event, this much is clear to me: the United States of America is like a club devoted to upholding certain principles of democracy, government of, by and for the People, inalienable rights for all, and not rule by aristocrats and crooks. Its doors are open, at least in theory, to anyone who agrees with these principles. Murdoch, however, only wanted to join the club so he could fuck it up for the rest of us.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
