" Senate Defies Bush, Overturns FCC Ruling"

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
952
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Old news, but some on this board keep using the "main stream media, left wing media" tags, when it's clear the republicans get more favor from the media. Here's one reason why:


Senate Defies Bush, Overturns FCC Ruling
Reuters

Tuesday 16 September 2003

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate on Tuesday defied Bush administration opposition and voted to rescind new regulations allowing large media companies to grow even bigger.

The Senate approved, 55-40, a resolution that would roll back the Federal Communications Commission rules allowing television networks to own more local stations and permitting conglomerates to own a newspaper, television stations and radio outlets in a single market.

The measure faces a tougher battle in the U.S. House of Representatives and a threat of a veto by President Bush if it reaches his desk.

The Republican-led FCC narrowly adopted the new rules in June, which would allow television networks to own local stations that collectively reach 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.

The new rules permit one company to own a newspaper, a television station and several radio stations in a single market, lifting a decades-old ban on cross-ownership. A company would also be permitted to own two local television stations in more local markets.

The regulations were drawn up under the leadership of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who argued the relaxed limits were necessary to reflect the proliferation of cable, satellite television and the Internet offerings as well as preserve over-the-air broadcast television.

Television networks like Viacom Inc.'s [VIAb.N] CBS and News Corp.'s [NCP.AX][NWS.N] Fox contended they need to acquire more local stations to better compete against cable and satellite television services.

Critics, ranging from the National Rifle Association to Consumers Union as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress, charged that the rules would narrow the choices of viewpoints and cut local news coverage.
 
Some of the relevance is in the following article:

THE MAN WHO RULES THE WORLD

The Most Powerful Man In America ? And The World ? Is One That You Never Get To Vote For, But Who Controls Who Gets Elected Or Not And What Laws Pass All Over The Globe

by Ben F. Terton


February 16, 2004 ? Some Americans know the name Rupert Murdoch ? far from all, but a number know the name and its association with at least one of this man?s media outlets, such as FOX News or The New York Post.

An even smaller number of people know that this man ? whose full name is Keith Rupert Murdoch ? has media holdings overseas as well.

But very few people are aware that this Australian-born political activist controls more of the world?s media than anyone else ? most of it, perhaps ? and, on a daily basis, plays out a combination of lowball tabloid propagandizing combined with political hardball that has let him ? and lets him at this very moment ? shape the business, social, and political realities of most of the nations of this planet.

To begin to get an idea of the span of Murdoch?s reach, here is a simple listing of his current holdings:

Adalaide News, Australia

News America Publishing, Inc.

Times Newspaper Holdings, vice president

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp, co-owner and chairperson

William Collins PLC, Scottland

News Corp, Ltd., Australia

Fox Entertainment Group, CEO

British Sky Broadcasting, UK, chairman (the BBC?s top competitor)

City Post Publishing Corp, chairperson

Cruden Investments, co-owner

News Ltd, Group and Assoc. Companies, Austrailia

Bemrose Publishing, owner

Bay Books, owner

United Technologies, director

And a few other companies. Each of these companies has many holdings within its overall umbrella. So, for example, media outlets controlled by this one Australian-born political activist include:

Fox Broadcasting Co. (Fox News, Fox Network, Fox Family, Fox Sports)

Twentieth Century-Fox TV

Fox Filmed Entertainment movie studio

over twenty Fox-owned TV stations

FX Cable TV Network

An additional 20+ regional sports outlets

Channel 10 in Sydney, Australia

Channel 10 in Melbourne, Australia

News Group Productions and Skyband in the US

Satellite Television PLC in England

BSkyB, UK (cable and satellite station that reaches all of Britain)

Star TV, Asia

JSkyB, Japan

SkyLatin America, Telepiu

London Weekend Television (part-owner)

Before you even get into the details, this seems like a whole lot of the press from a single man ? never mind a foreign-born man ? to own in America, and around the world.

When you get into the details ? like that Star TV Asia alone, "reach(es) more than 300 million viewers in 53 countries across Asia (and) STAR is watched by over 173 million people every week." (source: startv.com) ? you begin to get the true picture of just how vast, powerful, and completely dominating all across the globe Mr. Murdoch?s control of the media is ? and each and every piece of it he actively ? making no pretense not to ? uses to push his personal political agenda through flat out propaganda-type tabloid reporting.

But wait, let?s not leave out at least a partial list of his newspaper holdings, just so you know what his reach and control is even on that level:

New York Post

Village Voice (yep, that?s him, too)

Boston Herald

Chicago Sun-Times (some pretty big ones all over the country, huh?)

San Antonio Express-News (where it all began for him in the US in 1973, sold to Hearst Corp. in the 1990's)

Times, Sunday Times (and associated publications) in London, England

The News Of The World And Today, UK

Australian, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Daily Mirror, Sunday Sun, News and Sunday Mail, and Sunday Times in Australia

He also owns TV Guide, TV week, and the Star Trader, among other magazines. Yes, your TV Guide is one of his tools as well.

Hmm, funny that the three nations he dominates most in the West, America, Great Britain, and Australia, led the charge into Iraq, being on a completely different page than the rest of the world, huh?

Oh yeah, he owns a network in Italy as well ? Sky Italia. Wait, they, not so coincidentally, came along into Iraq, didn?t they, bucking the European trend.

Odd. It almost seems like the Iraq war was launched by support drummed up by an Axis of Murdoch media holdings if you stop to think about it, doesn?t it?

The above listings are in no way complete. We left out things like The Sun, a UK tabloid with a circulation of over 4,000,000.

What sort of stories does The Sun run?

Well, as luck would have it, tabloid-level smear stories like this one (see article: John Kerry Girl Tells All):

"THE beauty said to have had a fling with presidential hopeful John Kerry has recorded a bombshell tell-all interview.

"Journalist Alex Polier taped a talk with a US TV network at Christmas.

"The former Washington intern, 27, told all about an alleged fling with the 60-year-old super-rich senator in spring 2001."

Yes, a day before the actual woman actually spoke to say there was no affair and she wasn?t even an intern (see AP News article: Woman Denies Affair With Kerry), Murdoch?s paper not only made the above claim, but went further on to push his right-wing political agenda by asserting against all reality:

"Kerry was front-runner for the Democratic nomination to take on George Bush in November. His hopes were hit as hints of a scandal emerged."

Hmm, odd statement to make when, in fact, this "scandal" has not emerged as anything but rumor and has not "hit" Kerry at all, as he continues to roll on.

But what The Sun is really reporting is that Murdoch is planning a "hit" on Kerry, and, as you see clearly here, he will use his vast holdings worldwide to carry out his agenda.

Murdoch?s agenda in the past has included union-busting in the UK, pushing first capitalism in China (i.e. his right to make money) than a reversal to a soft stance on communism in return for the right to own media there. In the UK currently, he is doing everything possible to undo the BBC ? and the situation regarding the death of David Kelly is bringing him nearer to his goal, as currently, "Leaked Whitehall documents revealed the (British) government has considered breaking up the (BBC) corporation into "separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland". (see Scotsman article: Ministers Urged to Rule Out BBC's National Break-up)

As reported in a July 21, 1995 New York Times article titled, "Murdoch and Laborite: Britain?s New Odd Couple":

"Rupert Murdoch is Britain?s most powerful non-Briton. His media outlets? are so influential that critics charge him with single-handedly destabilizing the monarchy and snatching the elections."

The article details how then-Labor Party leader Tony Blair had moved "far ahead in the public opinion polls" to replace Thatcher's succesor, Conservative then-Prime Minister John Major, with the help of a new ally for Labor, Rupert Murdoch. Back then, the article reports, Murdoch owned 37 percent of the UK newspaper market, in addition to his B Sky B network that "blankets Britain."

Well, did Murdoch leaving his usually ultra-conservative alliances and siding against his once staunch ally Thatcher show that he was indeed an unbiased, fair-minded man not allied to any party?

Indeed, it did show his true allegiance, as the NY Times reported. The issue that caused him to ditch Thatcher's Conservatives and push Blair was none other than the one that is his central concern in America today, and why he sides with the Republicans here: media regulation. As reported back in the UK in 1995:

"The 63-year old media tycoon is known to be furious at the ruling Conservatives for proposals released in May that could effectively block him from expanding further in television here unless he was willing to scale back his newspaper holdings."

So Blair went before Murdoch and said that he was "concerned about the role of a powerful "media regulator" in the Government plan," the Times reported.

And so Murdoch dropped the Conservatives and adopted Blair. And so, not coincidentally, Britain shortly thereafter voted out the Conservatives and in Blair.

See any possible seeds of Blair being brought into the Axis of Murdoch?

Not coincidentally, when both Republicans and Democrats got together last year to vote to restrict how much media one person can own in America, President Bush opposed the legislation. (see Washington Post article: Lawmakers Defy Bush on Media Rules)

You see, Mr. Murdoch?s agenda is not right-wing or left-wing after all ? it is simply Murdoch-wing. He uses and manipulates entire nations for the sake of his own personal business interests. In Britain he was granted "privilege allowed to no other newspaper proprietor," as the NY Times reported, which allowed him to buy up 5 national newspapers while also combining Sky and British Satellite Broadcasting into what is now the all powerful B Sky B. Again and again he was allowed to go around the Monopolies Commission thanks to special status granted to him by ? you guessed it ? candidates he had helped get elected, including Thatcher herself.

It is astounding to think that a foreign-born man could so openly come into the UK, then into America, and manipulate their very governments and electoral processes and still fly under the radar for most of the nation. Ted Turner was a household name, Murdoch still is not in America.

Murdoch?s central game to maintain his hold on power consists of a two-pronged attack: 1) base-level tabloid style news that puts entertainment value far above integrity, and 2) a claim to be the true patriotic station for whatever country he happens to own a network in.

For example, as we have reported previously, while Murdoch?s Fox News Network is flying the American flag on the corner of its screen 24 hours a day and telling us it speaks for true American patriots, he is using his British holdings to preach anti-Americanism in a "patriotic" pitch to Britain. (see story: Rupert Murdoch on a Rampage)

Murdoch is not just a force for change today in the UK and America, he has been for decades all over the world. He was at the top of Michael Gorbachev?s list of favorite people at the time of the coup that led to the end of the former Soviet Union. In fact, as reported in an October 4, 1991 New York Times article titled, "The Media Business; The Deal Is Already Done For Gorbachev?s Coup Book," Gorbachev had the Soviet Embassy contact Murdoch personally when he wanted to write his memoirs.

"HarperCollins received a telephone call from the Soviet Embassy in Washington last week, asking that Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, the publisher?s parent company, fly to Moscow to meet with Mr. Gorbachev about publishing his book?"

Not that Rupert was involved over there or anything, right? And, another oh yeah, we didn?t mention exactly what all Murdoch?s News Corp. owns, such as the massive publisher HarperCollins ? yes, that on top of everything else is controlled by this one Australian-born man. In case you weren?t aware, HarperCollins is the company that just took over, "William Morrow & Company, Avon Books, Amistad Press, and Fourth Estate," which has, "made HarperCollins one of the largest and most dynamic trade publishers in the world." (source: News Corp website - spend some time looking around at all the things this company owns, and notice he owns even more newspapers than we listed above, but remember, this is only one of the media companies he has ? it is not everything, but only one part of his total holdings.)

Yes, he dominates the book presses, too. HarperCollins operates in the US, UK, Australia, and Canada, among other places.

Just for kicks, Murdoch even owns the National Geographic channel, both the US and Worldwide versions.

Oh yeah ? again ? he also owns DirectTV. You know, the satellite TV that is taking over what used to be the cable TV market and controls what stations are available in millions of American homes.

He owns a UK record company called Mushroom Records, the National Rugby League in Australia, and ? oh yeah part 4 or 5 I guess ? "the leading OOH advertising company in Emerging Europe," a News Corp subsidiary called News Outdoor

And let?s not forget The Weekly Standard, a ridiculous right-wing US magazine. Yep, that?s him, too.

And Broadsystem, "the UK's leading provider of outsourced marketing communications."

One man. From Australia. A political activist. Who does his best to aid himself by "single-handedly destabilizing," the governments of nations he has a business interest in, "and snatching the elections."

So look at those American flags waving on the Fox News Network, but don?t tell me they represent America. The flag on the Fox News screen flies only so that Australian-born Rupert Murdoch can pretend he is looking out for you, when, in the simple reality of things, he is playing you against the rest of the world and the rest of the world against you, toppling governments and installing his personal political choice for the sake of increasing his already unfathomable fortune and hold on world power.

Rupert Murdoch?s Axis of Murdoch nations launch wars that the rest of the world deems insane, elects the candidates of his choosing, and hate each other as he plays them against each other.

Who ever imagined a single, non-office holding man could grow so powerful? Who ever imagined nations would let a single man ? who is not even from their land ? dominate them so?

There is one man alive today who is the most powerful person on planet Earth, and no, it is not the man who lives in the little white house on Pennsylvania Avenue ? indeed, it is a man who has the power ? and uses it ? to determine who lives in that White House, as well as in capitol houses all over the globe.
 
More stench, pass the RED kool-aid please!

no-more.jpg
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
More stench, pass the RED kool-aid please!
No, that would be BLUE as you corrected me earlier, especially if you believe Rupert Murdoch controls the world and the main stream media is actually right wing, LOL!! What a joke and utter nonsense.
 
"He SWINGS! And he................ MISSES!" (on the sarcasm, that is)

No, you see, I'm asking for the RED kool-aid so that I start thinking more like a republican and can filter out the "stench" about GW. I'm already being accused of drinking too much BLUE kool-aid and thinking like a Democrat. Get it?

Funny thing is....... all my voting life I've leaned towards the RED/GOP side of thinking. I cast my 1st vote for Regan in '80. But over the years I've come to realize that the brainwashing given to me during my upbringing was the influence resulting in my RED/GOP leaning. I took off my rose colored glasses and returned towards the middle, and continue to claim to be an "independent" voter. I didn't vote in '00 because, as many have echoed in these threads, I didn't feel either candidate was worthy of my vote. On election night '00, I found myself actually rooting for GW, only because I felt Gore was too much of a tree-hugger. I initially discounted the FL recount as the Dem's desparate attempt to inject Gore into the white house. I remained passive until 9/11/01, and stood behind GW's initial moves to go after Bin-Ladin. However, when he took his eyes off the ball and set his sights on Iraq and Hussein, I began to have serious doubts about GW and his real motives. Yet I trusted him to do the right thing. Since then, I remained skeptical of the Iraq war, never really buying into the WMD thing. Something smelled awfully fishy. Now, after months of watching the real facts come out about 9/11, al-Quida, Hussein, Bin-Ladin, WMDs, the Saudis and the Iraq war, my worst fears are being realized, and not just by me, but by the masses. I feel betrayed by GW. Then after watching months of the GOP distortions and twisting of truths that have transpired during this presidential campaign, I am outright OFFENDED that the GOP expects me to buy into their lies. I can read, I've done my own research, I don't need BLUE kool-aid to see the reality of this situation. I'm a friggin' engineer, it's in my blood to be able to separate the facts from the spin. My kool-aid, and glasses, are crystal clear.
:soapbox:
 
The stench of this thread is squarely on the left, but that was a nice bio that I will respect.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
"He SWINGS! And he................ MISSES!" (on the sarcasm, that is)
I thought it was pretty good if I say so myself.


I'll make a deal with you.

I can provide all the quotes from Kerry and Edwards, from Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, to most of the free world that ALL said that Saddam had weapons and that he was a 'grave threat' to us and the world.

Convince me that all these people were lying instead of stating what they beieved to be true: ie; that Saddam did have the weapons - convince me that they are all liars and I'll change my vote.
 
MonsterMark said:
I thought it was pretty good if I say so myself.


I'll make a deal with you.

I can provide all the quotes from Kerry and Edwards, from Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, to most of the free world that ALL said that Saddam had weapons and that he was a 'grave threat' to us and the world.

Convince me that all these people were lying instead of stating what they beieved to be true: ie; that Saddam did have the weapons - convince me that they are all liars and I'll change my vote.

Tempting, but the fly in that ointment is that all those people were either:

A) Relying on the same (in retrospect, flawed) "intelligence" that GW was relying on, or
B) Trusting that what GW and his cohorts in crime were saying was true.
C) A mix of both A) and B)

I firmly believe everyone fell victim to C). Remember in those days, it was politically incorrect, "un-patriotic", "un-American" and "siding w/ the terrorist" to NOT back the President.

On the surface, you may think that I should give GW the same "pass", or "benefit of the doubt" that I would give those others (for relying on "flawed intelligence"). However, I don't, because:

1) GW, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfield et al spent considerable camera time re-iterating the "story line" about how POSITIVE they all were that WMDs were in Iraq, and saying nothing about the lack of absolute proof that this was the case. This was very misleading, and I have to hold GW ultimately responsible for that spin.
2) THEY are NOT the President of the USA. In that position, there is no room for error, especially when it comes to going to war. If ANY possibility existed that the intelligence was in error, GW should have given the Iraqi people and our troops the benefit of the doubt. But HE didn't.

Yeah, I'm glad Saddam was ousted. But I wholeheartedly agree w/ Kerry that this was the wrong war at the wrong time because GW did not engage it as a last resort. Additionally he poorly planned it, some of which I blame the commanders & generals to whom he delegated this authority. Sloppy management. Besides, he should have finished the job he started in Afghanistan and hunted Osama down FIRST. If that would have happened, you'd hear me singing a completely different tune.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top