Murdoch Pattern of Misconduct

Open Letter to the Federal Communications Commission:

Dear FCC members:

Forget the political implications for a moment and envision what you'd LIKE to do to the Murdoch media syndicate.

The Occupy movement is your signal that the time has come to act on visions like that prompted above.

Paul Krugman is right, again: Pattern of Misconduct

Now it's time for the FCC to act.

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Julius Genachowski: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov

Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

FCC Complaint for FoxNews' Intimidating Threats

File a Complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop Fox News' pattern of violent threats, which constitute clear intimidation. (The words "threat" and "intimidation" have special meaning to the FCC). We need to raise our voices.

On December 6, 2010, during the program "Follow the Money," the following statements were made in reference to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange:

BOB BECKEL: We’ve got special ops forces. I mean, a dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, a treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. The guy ought to be—and I’m not for the death penalty, so if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a [bleep].

The FCC complaint process is easy:

1. Go to the FCC: CLICK HERE (http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm)

2. Select Complaint Type (Broadcast (TV and Radio), Cable, Satellite)

3. Select Complaint Category (Unauthorized, unfair, ...) 4th button down. Includes "threatening and intimidating statements"

4. Fill out & submit the on-line complaint form. Key information:

Fox "Follow the Money" with Eric Bolling
December 6, 2010
9:00 pm Eastern Time

Here's the comment I provided:

During the FoxNews "Follow the Money" show participants made intimidating threats against an individual, Julian Assange, who is associated with WikiLeaks. The following is a partial transcript.

BOB BECKEL: We’ve got special ops forces. I mean, a dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, a treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. The guy ought to be—and I’m not for the death penalty, so if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a [bleep].

This is one of a pattern of comments made by various personalities on FoxNews Corp. that constitute direct and indirect advocacy of violence, including assassination. These threatening remarks are a clear case of intimidation.

GDAE Podcast - Episode 30

Left Right Populist Unity II

• Bill Clinton mea culpa: On corporate globalization & Haiti


• Humor: Pope's visit to Britain from "Falling on a Bruise" blog


• Bush war-crimes-Prosecution Theater: A Play called "In the Loop", by Armando Iannucci


• MUSIC: "Meet me in the Hills" by Baltimore's Dirty Mothers


• Right & Left: "Power in numbers" through coordination on advocacy for common goals


• Taxes: The Pros and Cons


• Book review: Shari S. Tepper's "The Gate to Women's Country"


• The Mail Bag: Comments on Episode 28


• MUSIC: Jeb Loy Nichols: "Dark Hollow."

Play Episode 30 from this page:


Click to Download Episode 30.

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:

GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 29 3/31/10 - Left Right Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 3/7/10 - What Motivates Action?
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 2/21/10 - Populist Movements
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

Pentagon Pundits: Urge the FCC to Investigate

It's time to put some heat on TV outlets like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC for their role in the Pentagon propaganda process leading up to and during the Iraq war. The media outlets misrepresented the objectivity of retired military personnel by presenting them in news reports when in reality they often functioned as a propaganda arm of the Pentagon. Many also had business conflicts of interests in the military industry.

MORE: Who are the Pentagon Pundits?

Now, after New York Times reporter David Barstow has received the 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning for reporting on the Pentagon propaganda campaign, the same television outlets have been silent on the subject.

AMY GOODMAN: I think what’s so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done; it’s the lack of reporting on this by the networks.... How many times have you been invited on the networks—you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation—to explain this story of the networks’ use of these pundits?

DAVID BARSTOW: You know, to be honest with you, I haven’t received many invitations—in fact, any invitations—to appear on any of the main network or cable programs.

These media outlets have licenses governed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Their licenses are based on a public trust and can be revoked by violating that public trust. It's time to remind them of that trust.

Psssst... Do Something

Contact the FCC Commissioners. Ask them to investigate these media outlets for 1) the TV media's misrepresentation of retired military personnel's objectivity, and 2) the TV media's failure to cover the 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on the Pentagon propaganda campaign. Ask them to place your complaint and their findings in the file for future consideration during the future relicensing of these media outlets.

Send a copy of your correspondence to the media outlets. Contact information is provided below.

Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  

Copy: CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC

Sources:

Democracy Now, "Pentagon Pundits: New York Times Reporter David Barstow Wins Pulitzer Prize for Exposing Military’s Pro-War Propaganda Media Campaign," May 8, 2009.

Text Message Price Gouging

T-Moble, ATT and Verizon have increased the cost for texting to twenty-cents a message. Not too long ago text messages were free. Prices have doubled in two years (100% increase). Free Press reports that

There have been no additional costs [to the phone corporations] that would necessitate a price hike.

At the new price, texting is at least four times more expensive for the customer than the cost to transmit data from the Hubble telescope.

We're facing a 7,314% mark-up; serious price gouging. The actual cost to the cell phone corporations is 0.015 cents per kilobyte compared to 109.71 cents per kilobyte charged to customers (or about a dollar and ten cents $1.10. A 7,314% differential).

If the same price mark-up used for texting was used for downloading a 4 Meg song, it would cost the user almost $6,000.

Feeling a little pissed off at the cell phone corporations? You'll be even more pissed when you learn that the phone corporations are charging for otherwise unused transmission capacity. Free Press explains it this way:

[T]he cost to carriers to transmit text messages is next to nothing [about two one-hundredths of a penny per kilobyte noted above, 0.015 cents]. Here's why. When a cell phone is on, it is constantly connected to a cell phone tower as it waits for a call or data. The cell phone and tower send little data packets to one another to keep in touch. These packets hold 160 characters. That's why a text message can carry only 160 characters of text, because they hitch a ride on these data packets. So, compared to the cost of transmitting e-mail or downloading data that need their own bandwidth, the cost of text messaging is exorbitant.

"Exorbitant" is a nice way of saying "price gouging."

So what can be done about it? In case you haven't noticed, a small number of huge corporations dominate the telecom industry. This near-monopoly situation is known as an oligopoly, and price-setting by oligopolies can be illegal.

For example, in the 1950s American tire companies took turns each year being the first to release their price list. The others would follow by releasing their lists with prices that were... Ta Dah! the SAME! They got busted.

More recently, Oligopoly Watch reported:

Five major chemical companies were caught colluding on prices once again. A cartel made up of American-based firms Dow and DuPont, Germany's Bayer, Italy's Eni, and Japan's Tosoh was convicted of fixing prices for chloroprene. Chloroprene is a kind of synthetic latex rubber is used in such products as hoses, transmission belts, condoms and shoes.

The European commission fined the companies over $300 million for the cartel, which reportedly operated from 1992 to 2003. The participants allegedly met together to discuss prices on a regular basis.

But, as noted above, they don't even have to meet together to violate prohibitions on price-fixing.

You and your friends can make a difference. Contact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and ask them to "investigate price-fixing on text messages among cell phone companies."

CONTACT the FCC Do it today. You'll feel better and together we might get text message prices down to less than a penny a message.

Sources:

Free Press, Media Minutes for July 18, 2008 (Audio and links to all sources), e.g., Spoiled Techie

McCain's Paxson Problem

Sexual trysts aside, the substance of the Vicki Iseman buzz is starting to gain attention in the main stream media (DemocracyNow had been onto it earlier). According to Market Watch, via the Washington Post:

In a new twist to a potential scandal brewing on the campaign trail, broadcaster Lowell Paxson disputed statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, in 1999.

However, Lowell "Bud" Paxson remembers it differently.

"I remember going there to meet with him." He said he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."

The letter that McCain eventually wrote to pressure the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was in violation of ex parte rules barring outside pressure. The FCC commissioners function like judges in matters of interpretation of regulation, and McCain tried to pressure those judges. For more background and links to an in-depth piece from the perspective of the other side of the Paxson FCC case my essay: Keating Five Belies McCain's Record.

Note: Paxson Communications is now called Ion Media Networks. Paxson "PAX TV" grew throughout the 1980s and 1990s buying stations on the fringe of markets, catering to shopping, informercials and religious programming. According to Wikipedia:

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the company wanted to buy WPCB, channel 40, from Cornerstone Television, and move the license to channel 16 (which was, and still is, occupied by WQEX), with channel 40 used for educational purposes. The two agreed on a purchase price, but the Federal Communications Commission had too many questions about the deal, most relating to the type of broadcast license to be operated on each channel, and it fell through.

So, Paxson's Pittsburgh deal fell thru, despite, or perhaps as a rebuke of, McCain's pressure. Remember, in 1999, the FCC was of a majority Democratic composition reflected by the Clinton administration.

Sources:

San Fransisco Market Watch,
McCain's denial of lobbyist meeting disputed: report, Sue Chang, February 23, 2008.

Senator Mikulski on Media Ownership Consolidation

Senator Mikulski's response to my letter opposing FCC rules to allow greater consolidation of media ownership:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to media consolidation. It's good to hear from you.

I share your concerns about media consolidation and changes to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that would allow for greater consolidation of media ownership. I want to make sure that competition, localism and diversity of media ownership is preserved. I also want to make sure that the free exchange of ideas, on which our nation is based, continues unabated.

You can be sure that I will be watching this process very closely. I also want you to know that your views on media consolidation will be very helpful to me should the Senate consider any legislation related to media ownership rules in the future.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please feel free to let me know.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

P.S. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please visit my website at http://mikulski.senate.gov or call my Washington D.C. office at 202-224-4654.

Write the FCC and Congress on Media Ownership

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman, Kevin Martin, is on the cusp of ramming new regulations through a Bush-majority commission. The rules woudl allow corporate media to consolidate even more than the 1996 Telecommunications Act. By adding newspapers to the cross-ownership mix, Bush's FCC would allow a single corporation in a particular city gain more dominance by owning the main newspaper, broadcast TV, radio and possibly the cable/internet network. That's too much consolidated power.

The vote could occur very soon.

Write the FCC, it's easy. You can simply send the canned letter, or write an original letter. Here's what I wrote:

In a democracy, the voice of the majority can choose non-economic values over "market efficiency." That voice is saying we want an FCC rule that reverses the trend of media ownership consolidation among a small number of powerful corporations.

This fundamental policy should not be dictated by whoever happens to be in the White House in disregard to the voice of a majority of the people.

While your at it, Write Congress and tell them to pass the Media Ownership Act of 2007.

Sources:

Stop Big Media

Escalating the Progressive Offensive

There's some truth to the saying that "The best defense is a good offense." The progressives in the US have been on the defensive for quite some time, perhaps including the Clinton years.

Those years were dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) Republican Lite orientation. One of their views is that corporate globalization is inevitable, a view that is crumbling under the weight of reality. That period yielded the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which among other things, undermined our sovereignty via NAFTA's Chapter 11. That period also gave us the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which led to the strong consolidation of radio stations, and the grip of right-wing talk radio.

This kind of overt damage done to progressive ideals during the Clinton Administration was enabled, in part, by a complacent public. The thinking was, "Our people are in control now, so we can relax." In other words, the only time the progressive public needs to be active is when "the other guys" are in power, and we need to defend our ideals. If nothing else, the Clinton Administration should have taught progressives a lesson: We need to be on the offense at all times.

Sometimes, it's nearly impossible to be on the offensive. Faced with a multi-front offensive by the Bush administration, it's about all we can do to defend attacks. However, even in these circumstances it is possible to take offensive measures, even if it is only to launch legal investigations into cronyism.

Now that the Democratic Party has taken control of the House and Senate, it is time to escalate offensive actions. One example consistently comes to mind. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new regulations on media ownership. The debate is framed as, "Should we allow a single corporation to own more media outlets in a local area or not?" Instead, we should go on the offensive and reframe the debate, "Should we reduce the number of outlets that a single media corporation may own in a single market?"

There is ample quantitative evidence, some of which the FCC tried to suppress, which shows that the media consolidation following the 1996 Telecom Act resulted in a degradation of diversity in news and entertainment.