Have Rove, Libby, Gonzales and Kevin Martin Been Serving the Best Interests of our Country?

Do those who govern primarily look after the well being of the governed? Are their decisions made on behalf of society in general, or have they been made on behalf of "industry?"

It was about 25 years ago that I had an informal meeting in Washington with a couple of FCC commissioners and several of their senior staff members concerning a Television issue.
One of the Commissioners repeatedly referred to "our industry spokesman" and when I inquired as to whom that might be the reply was "why Jack Valenti of course." I pointed out that Jack brilliantly represented the MPAA and not all of the television industry, and all in attendance were somehow surprised.

I told them that it was a little known secret that in fact Lew Wasserman was a ventriloquist and that when Jack came before the commission and moved his lips, that the words spoken were those of Wasserman the MCA Chairman.

The names and the issues have changed in the intervening years, and now the FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is determined to remove certain cross ownership restrictions.

25 years later, News Corp, Viacom/CBS, General Electric and Disney are today's ventriloquists, and FCC Chairman Martin moves his lips, but the voices spoken in this matter are the voices of these media giants.

Had I the opportunity, I would ask Chairman Martin why removing or modifying the cross ownership rules is good for America? How can these new rules realistically help America be better informed? The quintessential question is "why now?"

Would it be good for Americans to have the General Electric Company own the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times? I think not.

Certainly much has changed since the implementation of the cross ownership rules, yet these rules continue to serve our country well.

Chairman Martin appeared Thursday before the Senate Commerce Committee; Martin defended his plan, notwithstanding heated inquiries from Senators from both parties urging a delay.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., suggested the FCC and some media industry execs have set up the Internet as a "boogey monster" to justify changes, when in fact Internet digital competition is no match for the real competition that will be lost between a newspaper and a TV station if the rule change is approved.

"Good for you Senator Cantwell."

Perhaps Chairman Martin a further explanation would be helpful. I have no research to support my opinions, yet I believe that my 50 years of media experience counts for something, if only a little.

When the cross ownership rules were put in place there were a limited number of content delivery systems available to the public. Presently there are many delivery systems, and in the near term there will be an unlimited number. While I am not thrilled with the concentration of power in the delivery of most mass market entertainment materiel, society requires more diverse delivery of news and opinions that can only come from independently owned newspapers that provide news and opinions that do not originate at "corporate headquarters."

Chairman Martin, the broadcast networks delivery of "magazine shows" that they "retail" as a half hour of news every day, or hours of "man bites dog local news weather and sports" is not what matters. That "content" delivery is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Because we have cable networks that hide under the nomenclature of news such as CNN, FNC, MSNBC, this content delivery is not relevant as well. We could have a gazillion additional local or national Radio or Television stations, and it would not change the situation a teeny weeny bit.

Senator Cantwell is correct when she indicates that for this discussion the very relevant internet is irrelevant.

Chairman Martin: it is better in an open and free society if it has an INDEPENDENT delivery of real news and commentary from as many diverse sources as possible. Sir, Newspapers represent other INDEPENDENT sources of news and opinion.

I would like to continue to know that when I read the New York Times that its news gathering apparatus and editorial staff are not controlled by the Walt Disney Company. Sir, you appear too statistically analyze the issue and equate numbers of outlets when you should equate diversity of control and what is truly in the best interests of our democracy.

I expect that the giants in the media business are interested in their control of that business and its profitability and not in the best interests of our society or country.

A sad American
Norman Horowitz

Comments

[realpolitic]

Under Bush, regulatory body after regulatory body has not acted in the best interests of the people, but has kept the best interests of industry in mind or simply folded their hands and done nothing. In testimony to Congress, the chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked legislators not to approve a higher budget or additional staff for her agency to insure product safety, even after lead was found in certain children's toys imported from China. The EPA is run by those who formerly worked to overturn the very environmental laws they are now charged with protecting. The Bush administration has attempted to silence scientists at NASA who have spoken out about global warming. The Civil Righs Division of the Justice Department did not launch a single lawsuit between 2001 and 2006 in defense of the voting rights of black voters and has instead hired lawyers with experience in reverse-discrimination cases. This same Department of Justice, formerly off-limits to political maneuvering under past administrations due to the primacy of respect for the rule of law, has indicted five or six times as many Democrats as Republicans. The Bush administration works hard every day to create a despair and cynicism among the public regarding government. It is then easier to realize Karl Rove's vision of a permanent Republican majority among a populace who can only remember a concept of the 'public interest' as nostalgic.

[foofighter]

When Hillary warned, some years ago, of "a vast right-wing conspiracy", she was only right. Now even she seems to have joined the same conspiracy. If you don't agree, consider that she has accepted money from Murdoch for her war chest.

The media is no longer free. Rupert now owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times' own definition of "all the news that's fit to print" has changed greatly in recent years. (And Rupert himself has long had his sights set on owning the Times.)

Are they gonna buy up Huffpo next?

[BearCountry]

Chairman martin knows exactly to whom he reports. He, the whole w administration, the majority of the SCOTUS, and most of the members of congress really do not like the Constitution. If it were otherwise, they would not be working so hard to pervert the Constitution to support a dictatorship. No matter how many news outlets there are in an area, if they are all, or most all, owned by a small group whose primary purpose is to support the dictator and suppress dissent, then they are useless for real news.

By allowing the ownership to stay in "private" hands, even though they are tied tightly to the government, the illusion of a free press exists. Pravda could never control thought as our "free press" does because it was known that the government controlled it. As it stands, the press is a providing another brick in the fascist building.

[texanna]

This twerp has demonstrated time and again whose best interest he has in mind -- those of the corporatist media! Why now, you ask. Isn't it patently obvious? The Bushies have to get this IOU satisfied while they still have time. The current state of the media is beyond dismal. The whole thing is pretty much in the control of 5 corporations, and they have no problem with using their resources to advance ownership's ideologies. The loosening of ownership restrictions in Clinton's term was the start of all of this dysfunction as has been documented by recent assessments of diversity in the media. Sadly, this is just one more frustration for those of us outside the Beltway -- we know what we want, we know what would be good for us and we just can't seem to get the message through the dense fog that begins at I-495!

[milo9]

"the giants in the media business are interested in their control of that business and its profitability." Their business practices seem to promote their class interests, as opposed to representing a diversity of ideas that might not further their hegemony but would help us,as a nation, adapt to the realities of our day. We're experiencing the ill effects of their policy.
I often wonder how much of the current mess would survive, if the average citizen knew what was really going on.

[fpie]

Mr. Horowitz, What gives you the idea that Chairman Kevin Martin cares one whit about what is good for the citizens of America? He is after all a Bush appointee. Need you be reminded that the Bush administration is the enemy of citizens of America. Yes I know that sounds unreasonable except it is of course true.

[TheIndependenceParty]

With the writer's strike, the general deterioration of programming, and the onset of Winter, I barely watch TV now at all. When Mr. Martin singlehandedly kills radio, TV and newspaper diversity in our markets, ... I will face a series of dilemmas. How can I display a beautiful screensaver on my HD flatscreen? What will I use to kindle my fires? ... and what to do with all those damn radios? Just as we emerge into a brave new era of digital high definition broadcasting, ... there will be nothing to watch that the large corporations you cite do not want us to watch. Unending streams of digital High-definition bullshit, ... day in and day out!

Not much different than now, you say? Without a fairness doctrine, and less than a handful of media conglomerates in any market, the American People will be rendered deaf, dumb, and blind to the World and even our own National news. All so that Martin, in his waning months in office, can reward multi-nationals and their political minions with this prize they have sought for decades. I believe the effect will be devastating to America, and will sever us from the real world, and what we should know about it.

Methinks Martin is clueless as to whom he reports, and for whom he works, at least in name. However, there will be no point in "Communication" if we all turn off our TVs and radios, and cancel our subscriptions to the paper. After all, how many times must I hear what the media has to say, ... unless it is intended as propaganda! Perhaps the consolidation of ownership may, in the end, leave these greedy owners with less than when they started, if we have all tuned out.