New York Times columnist Bill Safire has a nasty habit of hitting the nail on the head - nasty from the point of view of various administrations, that is. And he's done it again.

In Bush's Four Horsemen, he says president Bush is backing into a buzz saw with 'media giantism' as the issue.

People are beginning to grasp and resent the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the Four Horsemen of Big Media — Viacom (CBS, UPN), Disney (ABC), Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox) and G.E. (NBC) — to gobble up every independent station in sight, Safire writes.

Now read on >>>>>>>>>

"Couch potatoes throughout the land see plenty wrong in concentrating the power to produce the content we see and hear in the same hands that transmit those broadcasts. This is especially true when the same Four Horsemen own many satellite and cable providers and already influence key sites on the Internet.

"Reflecting that widespread worry, the Senate Commerce Committee voted last month to send to the floor Ted Stevens's bill rolling back the F.C.C.'s anything-goes ruling. It would reinstate current limits and also deny newspaper chains the domination of local TV and radio.

"The Four Horsemen were confident they could get Bush to suppress a similar revolt in the House, where G.O.P. discipline is stricter. When liberals and conservatives of both parties in the House surprised them by passing a rollback amendment to an Appropriations Committee bill, the Bush administration issued what bureaucrats call a SAP — a written Statement of Administration Policy.

"It was the sappiest SAP of the Bush era. "If this amendment were contained in the final legislation presented to the President," warned the administration letter, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

"The SAP was signed by the brand-new director of the Office of Management and Budget, Joshua Bolten, but the hand was the hand of Stephen Friedman, the former investment banker now heading the president's National Economic Council.

"Reached late yesterday, Friedman forthrightly made his case that the F.C.C. was an independent agency that had followed the rules laid down by the courts. He told me that Bush's senior advisers had focused on the question "Can you eliminate excessive regulation and have diversity and competition?" and found the answer to be yes. He added with candor: "The politics I'm still getting an education on."

"The Bush veto threat would deny funding to the Commerce, State and Justice Departments, not to mention the federal judiciary. It would discombobulate Congress and disserve the public for months.

"And to what end? To turn what we used to call "public airwaves" into private fiefs, to undermine diversity of opinion and — in its anti-federalist homogenization of our varied culture — to sweep aside local interests and community standards of taste.

"This would be Bush's first veto. Is this the misbegotten principle on which he wants to take a stand? At one of the White House meetings that decided on the SAP approach, someone delicately suggested that such a veto of the giants' power grab might pose "a communications issue" for the president (no play on words intended). Friedman blew that objection away. The SAP threat was delivered.

"In the House this week, allies of the Four Horsemen distributed a point sheet drawn from Viacom and Murdoch arguments and asked colleagues to sign a cover letter reading, "The undersigned members . . . will vote to sustain a Presidential veto of legislation overturning or delaying . . . the decision of the FCC . . . regarding media ownership."

"But they couldn't obtain the signatures of anywhere near one-third of the House members — the portion needed to stop an override. Yesterday afternoon, the comprehensive bill — including an F.C.C. rollback — passed by a vote of 400 to 21.

"If Bush wishes to carry out the veto threat, he'll pick up a bunch of diehards (now called "dead-enders"), but he will risk suffering an unnecessary humiliation.

"What next? Much depends on who is chosen to go into the Senate-House conference. If the White House can't stop the rollback there, will Bush carry out the ill-considered threat?

"Sometimes you put the veto gun back in the holster. The way out: a president can always decide to turn down the recommendation of his senior advisers."

Here's an article from the Capital Times that provides some more info on this issue:

http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/52926.php


Here is what the FCC actally did (from the Capital Times):
"On June 2, the FCC increased the number of media outlets a company can own. Specifically, the new rules allow one company to own a television station, newspaper and radio stations in the same market. In the largest cities, a company could own as many as three television stations. Under the old rules, companies could not own both a newspaper and television station in the same market, except for those that already had existing ownership deals - such as the Tribune Company - which were exempt from the restrictions."

Also, (from the Guardian) "The ruling by the GOP-dominated FCC would broaden to 45 percent - from the current 35 percent - the portion of American households served by TV stations that can be owned by a single company."

So, the most controversial aspect of the decision concerns a 10% difference in the number of households that a company is allowed to broadcast to. Note that it has nothing to do with cable television.

Television stations and newspapers have been losing market share against cable TV and and the internet steadily for years now. Companies that would be allowed to control more of the local markets for TV stations and newspapers would still have plenty of competition from other technologies.

There will probably be a compromise in conference between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The most likely result is that the 35% cap will remain in place but some of the other provisions of the FCC ruling will stand. It probably won't be as big of a deal as people think. And the idea that Bush is in serious trouble over this issue is pretty silly. He will use the threat of a veto as leverage in order to get a better compromise in conference. If it looks like any veto would be overriden, then he won't veto. The only thing he has to worry about is if the veto actually sticks, and conservative Christian groups are angered because their local stations are bought out by Disney.

so what does this all mean?

Talk about a monopoly... let the small time players continue to broadcast... alright, ok, lets also say dictatorshit... i want local news from diffenent perspectives... one company will more then likely simalcast a newscast or what not on more then one station... i want a choice, not a BIG BROTHER feeding me this on all my local channels... (cable not included in this article)

here's what it means.

Any of you listen to the radio anymore? Probably not, or the reason of lack of variety of playlists. Well, the reason why is that 1) the RIAA sucks donkey cock and 2) much of the radio market is owned ClearChannel radio. Now, in this country, for a free market to exists there must be free competition. There's no free competition if the corporations employ a monopolistic competition in the market place, meaning music on the radio will be shitty and practically government controlled on the count that the head of ClearChannel gives W. handjobs every other week. Also if Rupert Murdoch, the head of Fox and Bush's ball-cradler gets to have 45% control of the market place, then you could pretty much dupe people by printing whatever you want to say, making information very unbiased (like it isn't now) They say it's all a liberally controlled media. If it was, why would they want the Liberals to have more control?

I don't hate America. I hate what a soulless, gold-digging place it has become.

Good Luck!

okay, let's talk about news.
Newspapers.

ANOTHER BLOW TO LIBERTY
The Daily Oklahoman 'Respectfully Declines'
see the ad
WASHINGTON, March 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The Liberty Project has received word that The Daily Oklahoman (write to the editors) has rejected an advertisement (see the ad) that was designed to raise awareness about the erosion of American's constitutional rights. (Read the ad text) The ad is part of the Liberty Project's recently announced campaign designed to educate people throughout the United States and encourage them to take action in this fight to protect our fundamental liberties.

This is the link to the banned ad.

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/donscott.htm

they admitted there were terrorists hiding in this country. now our choices for newscasts are getting pretty similiar to our iraqi friends given that they had two major ones and we have what.. 4? (oooh!!) corporations are raping our freedom and the government will be happy let them for the right price. i love it.

i'm going to try to vote out the members of our current regime (oooh damn, i said regime.. daaaamn!)

=)

but seriously folks, fuck this.
it's a load of shit, and if our elected administration isn't evil, then they are completely and utterly stupid beyond anything the human race has seen in the past.

has anyone actually figured out yet who exactly *our* officials are representing? because i voted for bush, and it's just not working out the way george washington and john adams said it was supposed to. something got lost along the way.. i think it was freedom.

If I could vote(15) I would've voted Gore(sp?). I knew from the start that Bush was completly untrustworthy. Even though Gore wasn't exactly trustworthy himself, he was still much better then Bush.

Has anyone noticed that its always the Republicans who get caught doing illegal things(Watergate, Florida, etc?)

Also, how could you vote Bush? He's almost the complete opposite of what this site is for.

it doesn't matter who you vote for...they are all politicians and they are pretty much all evil...
not saying all...pretty much all

Only vote for the candidates that stand for issues YOU support and don't pay too much attention to DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN... both are about equally corrupt as a party.

>>Has anyone noticed that its always the Republicans who get caught doing illegal things(Watergate, Florida, etc?)

Mm hm. And Bill Clinton was a ... Republican?

tasadar24, I realize this now. It was mostly that lesser of two evils thing. Frankly, I think Al Gore was a blithering idiot with all of the personality of a piece of wood.

Ever notice how everybody claims to have their own agenda, but in the end they're all just a couple hundred lying, scheming, rich, white, 50+ year old men? I don't go much for the whole socialist liberal thing. So I choose whatever it is most republicans are. Crap, I guess. I choose crap.

Basically the only reason I want to vote in 2004 is to vote for everybody who isn't in there now. Kind of sad.

to Coldwind,

Bill was a honest Democrat, beaten down by a republican spy cunt.

Gee, this topic has really prompted some brilliant political commentary (sarcasm).

And I still add lets change what is "legal" in this country. I'm trying to get that "lunch" with my local congressperson", as he has been oblivious to the threat of freedom on the internet posed by so many "Democrats", (Rohden spys and defeaters of basic human rights).
I look now, and HR1066, "the B.A.L.A.N.C.E" act has only 6 of 429 signatures attached. And this is only the smallest decible of the P2P networks cause. We can only win back our rights one inch at a time, and yes, I'm probably going to get shot by the FBI for my rights to expression.

The problem with Al Gore wasn't Al Gore - it was his WIFE!

People have utterly NOT forgotten the PMRC, and just imagine Tipper as first lady, hand-in-glove with the RIAA ?

We'd not only have the problems we do now, we'd also have artists not ALLOWED to use 'unapproved' lyrics beyond that.

Not that Bush isn't evil and psychotic, not that Gore wasn't a blockhead... it was the fact that folks KNEW Gore's wife was a rabid pyscho, that got Bush the votes.

I think folks figured better a *chance* of something better, than a sure-thing turn for the worst.

Just goes to show, people can be wrong more than half the time, eh?

But no worries, unless B43 throws down Exec Order #11921 and it's cohorts (look it up, you want to..), he's most certainly NOT going to have that comfy seat for another four years, no way in hell, not when your average american thinks he's mad as a hatter, nope.

-user

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 sound to me like something that will give the US government "Communist" authority.

greatscottpr... :

I could be mistaken- these types of horrors have happened more tha once- but didn't the police have the wrong home when the man was shot? I don't have the reference handy but there was a situation where police stormed a suspected drug dealers home, shot the husband, and realized they had the wrong home- left and proceeded to storm the proper dealer- and never apologized to the widow. Anyhow, I think the article fails to bridge the connection that the man was innocent, albiet it does mention that he was just a husband.

---

Very FUBAR state of affairs today ay? Not like they were ever better in the past! Look to the mid-east and once again human stupidity has constructed yet another great wall.

Anti-Bush peoplr listen up. If Gore was President Tipper would had "talked" him into supported Liberman for Congress or something else high up. NOW let me tell U all what would happen. They would go after videogames(yes videogames). Now what does this has to do with RIAA? They would have passed a BS law and, think, media sure would help right? After they were done with that,they would have come after P2P faster than lighting with little less space for this boycott,right?

there is very little difference between the democrats and the republicans. for example, democrats believe in throwing money at a problem, the republicans are doing the same thing ie 15 billion for aids in africa. the dems believe in increased gov't, bush just increased the size of gov't with the prescription drug plan which btw gore was for and bush was against. bush fucked us on socialized medicine. i personally believe in laissez-faire(sp?) i do not like gov't increase with that said i don't believe in total anarchy or no involvement by the gov't. there are far greater threats in this country than p2p users. we have open an open border policy that is allowing millions of illegals in to the country, which is the hidden reason many states like California are going bankrupt. where i want to see the gov't focus there resources is on terrorists that want to do us harm. p2p users are not a threat, terrorists are. i know its the riaa going after people but they have a little help from there friends in the us gov't and plants in the media and spin machines. also, the bush is wanting to send troops to liberia which i totally oppose, finish iraq then deal with liberia. well this will cost us money and troops. where does he plan on getting the money and troops. were ina budget crisis as it is. and on the p2p users, what happens when they nail a person of color especially an arab? why the person they nabbed could claim racism *insert aclu here*