White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival

[villager]

Source: Fox (!)

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival

A White House spokesman tells FOXNews.com President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.


President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/

---

Nothing like keeping those Reagan-era ideas in place...

[saracat]

1. Obama always has opposed reinstating this. I disagree with this position.

[islandmkl]

2. the fairness doctrine would not cure anything...

we need the mega-station corps to be limited to number of stations owned...as it used to be...which is easily enforced and would generate competition to provide other points of view...

the fairness doctrine would be easily run-around by clearchannel et.al...

[dysfunctional press]

4. it's sad that more people don't realize this.

limiting station ownership IS the correct answer.

[wroberts189]

11. We need both. nt

[IDFbunny]

28. Breakup the monopolies

the rest will take care of itself. More listening options.

[Lorien]

53. Yeah, all those "liberal" billionaires will take over, right?

without the fairness doctrine it will just be more of the same; corporate interests taking care of corporate interests.

[No Elephants]

86. No, the rest will not automatically take care of itself. It never has.

[depakid]

80. That won't be nearly enough

Why people think "free" market solutions alone will take care of the problems when they haven't worked everywhere else that they've been tried is beyond me.

What you've got is a classic case of market failure that require regulation, though apparently- as with other areas, the Obama administration is too wedded to failed policies of the past- and too beholden to corporate interests to do what's neccessary to give America an honest and accountable media again.

And both his adminstration's goals (and the country) will suffer the consequences.

[Lex]

57. oops, wrong place

[Lorien]

65. Once again; how much reporting did you watch pre-Reagan?

it was night and day. Diversifying ownership will do NOTHING. They broke up ma Bell and now we STILL get screwed over by our phone service providers-more so than ever. It will just be more stations in more greedy right wing hands, because the same mentality infects all wealthy corporations. The killing of the fairness doctrine was like deregulating the banks-it was a disaster. Now the left is muzzled, and yet some DUers are fighting to keep those muzzles on? I'm sorry, but if you don't remember news reporting before Reagan then you don't remember free speech.

[KittyWampus]

3. Telecom and Media ownership/regulation as issues are so much more complex than

merely asking about the Fairness Doctrine.

And as many a DU'er has pointed out the Fairness Doctrine as it existed seems outdated at this point.

Does Obama have any inclination to break up monopolies?

[wroberts189]

8. Outdated ..so break up monopolies? Lets do both !! :) nt

[high density]

5. Good, keep it gone. I agree with the President.

The government already has enough say in what goes over the airwaves.

[wroberts189]

9. Where you around when we had it?

[Plucketeer]

33. I agree

With the balance of power like it is, and the situation what it is, the Rethugs are doing a grand job of digging their grave even deeper!

[Lorien]

61. Do you remember reporting pre-Reagan?

if you did you would understand why the Fairness doctrine was critical to maintaining our democracy. There is no "left" in this country by comparison to what there once was. If we still had the fairness doctrine we would never have gone to Iraq.

[toopers]

136. Doesn't the left control the house, the senate, and the white house . . .

without the fairness doctrine. I think we are just doing fine without further intervention.

[Xenotime]

74. You obviously don't listen to radio.

The hate speech that comes from the RW media is out of control.

[roseBudd]

91. But the hate speech on right wing radio makes them unfit for polite company...

Leave them their radio, when they venture out they are unprepared and uninformed and the contrast is startling.

[Occulus]

107. Right-wing radio and print hate speech was responsible for the genocide in Rwanda.

I think those against a return of the Fairness Doctrine dangerously underestimate right wing hate speech. It happened there; it could happen here as well.

And yes- there are element of the right here in the US that would gladly embrace such violence.

[scytherius]

6. I agree. Don't think they should revive it. However . . .

diversity ownership of media is something that should be pushed forthwith. That would do much more at getting diverse views on the air.

[tblue37]

39. It's out of print now, but many years ago _The Nation_ published a book

based on an article in The Nation (or an article based on the book--can't remember which now) called . It was about the way those who control the media-plus corporations essentially own & run the world.

Its author, Ben H. Bagdikian, has written other books on media monopolies:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ben%20H%20Bagdikian

He has also written on poverty in the midst of plenty here in the US. He's an impressive researcher and author. Go buy his books and help him make a living exposing this stuff. He deserves it.

[No Elephants]

88. Why would breaking up ownership be more important than getting

diverse views on the air? Why would 40 people owning Rush Limbaugh be any better than 20 people owning him?

[wroberts189]

7. It was great when we had it ....I loved it . It was like Crossfire only serious nt

k&r

[dysfunctional press]

27. crossfire generally had only two sides to every issue- that's not real life.

how does the fairness doctrine work when there are 6 or 7 opposing viewpoints on a given issue...?

[No Elephants]

89. One side to every issue is not real life, either. That's what we get without

the Fairness Doctrine. If you do not remember what it was like when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, then you should research it.

[dysfunctional press]

97. limiting station ownership is a MUCH bigger component...

maybe you should research it yourself, instead of trying to take a revisionist look thru rose-coloured glasses.

[No Elephants]

104. I understand limiting station ownership and am not taking any revisionist view of the FD. It

worked. I understand the problems of the media momopolies. Despite the difficulties of breaking them up at this point--and regulating going forward--I think breaking them up is worth it. So is the Fairness Doctrine. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[snappyturtle]

10. I disagree. I want the Fairness Doctrine in place and along with more

diverse media ownership. I also wish that our 'news' channels were just that. Report the news without any opinions or snippy asides like Lou Dobbs in his referral to the stimulus package as 'Obamas's supposed stimulus'. I guess this just isn't my day: the Gitmo decision, the Rove handling, the mortgage solution and now this. I'm just about done with listening to any of the so called 'news'.

[wroberts189]

12. Whatever the solution the media has sure failed us all bad.

And that takes something radical to fix.

[wroberts189]

13. oops meant to reply to main thread ..but we totally agree so it works. nt

[wroberts189]

14. How about breaking up clear channel like Ma Bell? nt

[mdmc]

15. media darlings

never need fairness..

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

16. Glad to see that we're acting like Democrats!

...and Americans, not as lockstep-thinking and goose-step acting Republicans on this. Just shows that we're still trying to think for ourselves. Love that sweet smell of democracy in the afternoon!

[Metta]

17. Free speach vrs. being responsible for broadcasting the truth over the public airwaves?

Seems to me that a major issue is whether or not to keep allowing manipulation by fear and deceit, emotional violence, hate speech and bigotry to be broadcast. There should be laws enforced around that.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Agreed!

[IDFbunny]

29. Repeal the first amendment

End hate, bigotry, and lies.

[struggle4progress]

70. The Fairness Doctrine never prevented anyone from saying anything: it merely required

a right to response under some circumstances. If you don't think that's a good idea, maybe you should try to remember some of the media's recent big lies

ABC's Twisted 'Path to 9/11'
By Tom Shales
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page C01
... Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger .... say the film puts words in their mouths that they never said and has them doing things they never did ... ABC executives .. made advance copies available to such political conservatives as Rush Limbaugh but not to Democrats ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Who decides what is the truth? The government?

:shrug:

[Metta]

37. Stuff supported by actual facts. Not making stuff up, for example.

That would be a start.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. Who get to decide what is a fact and what is made up?

Would you be comfortable with the government decided what information was true enough to be broadcast on television and what was not?

[wickerwoman]

113. It seems to work pretty well for the BBC.

I don't think the government should decide what's true or not, but I think programs of a certain type (which purport to be fact-based "news" programs and news-based editorial programs) should be held to a standard of factual accuracy and that the FCC should prosecute deliberate deception vigorously. Programs should be required to broadcast apologies and corrections of information which is factually incorrect and should have to pay fines for knowingly broadcasting misleading information.

Would it create a lot of work for the FCC? Is the work worth it? To me it absolutely is. Let's take the Pentagon's propaganda budget and use it to hold journalists to a higher standard of accuracy.

[IDFbunny]

47. the Ministry of Truth will decide

"The stimulus bill will have little affect on the recovery."

LIAR!!!!




"Tax cuts stimulate the economy."

LIAR!!! Off with his head.

[Lorien]

54. Don't remember the news pre-Reagan, do you?

Here's how it worked; a reporter would say "Republicans say that supporting issue A will erode free speech rights, while Democrats maintain that without issue A speech will be controlled by corporations pushing their personal agendas". Now a reporter simply says "Some say that issue A would kill free speech". See the difference?

We would have been in Vietnam much longer without the Fairness doctrine. We would not be in Iraq if we still had it.

[struggle4progress]

71. The Fairness Doctrine didn't require anybody to determine "the truth": what it required was

an opportunity to express opposing views in some cases

[FreeStateDemocrat]

18. He should easily be able to outspend everyone in 2012 and doesn't want a level playing field.

This is part of his re-elect campaign strategy. He can raise more funds and outspend anyone presently out there and he wants to keep that advantage. Plus, as president he has an almost unlimited access to media coverage which he would lose with the Fairness Doctrine. That may make him an astute politician but it also makes him just another conniving politician.

[Lorien]

55. No one will challenge him from our side, so he must have brokered

a deal with the MSM? His access to the media would be unchanged with the fairness doctrine. The only major change would be that there would be more balance to all the GOP talking heads on radio and television. Now why would that be a problem?

[mac56]

20. This is a statement from Obama's campaign way last June.

"Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Senator Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

I was somewhat bothered when I read the original post, but now I agree with him.

[No Elephants]

90. Sorry, but opening up the airwaves to diverse viewpoints was exactly what the Fairness

Doctrine did. And there is no reason why we can't bust monopolies AND have the FD. Reagan did away BOTH with the FD and with reasonable limits on monopolies. Before Reagan, we had both. No reason why we can't have both again. As far as airwaves, that is. There is no Constitutional rationale for government's controlling the viewpoints expressed in privately owned media.

I fear Obama seems to have given a deouble talk reason for not supporting the FD.

[GreenTea]

21. Who do the public airwaves belong to?

The corporations big enough to profit and keep them exclusively for themselves, so as to be bought & sold as well as exploited for their own narrow political corporate elitist ideology?

I think so.

[readmoreoften]

60. It belongs to capital.

All your everything are belong to us.

[Wizard777]

22. There's nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. I'm with Obama on this one.

If liberals want talk radio. Let them put up their own money to produce their own shows and networks.

[readmoreoften]

62. Yes, only the viewpoints of a wealthy elite should have access to our public airwaves.

[John Kerry VonErich]

87. Wealth is no excuse

Otherwide the oposition would have pointed the "Hollywood Left"

[florida08]

23. well guess I agree with the president

I like watching Keith and Rachel without having opposing views that are usually annoying. People can have a choice of who they want to listen to or support. It's sad that people like Rush and Hannity have such a huge following but it let's us know where the loonies are. I'd rather they stay over there.

[ozu]

24. There's more than 2 viewpoints to an issue

Giving equal time to each and every possible viewpoint on any particular issue would be impossible to administrate... Right, Left, Center, Anarchist, Libertarian, Crazy, religious, atheistic, et al. It would never end.

Let it stay dead.

[No Elephants]

92. It was very possible to administer. It was administered from about 1949 until Reagan abolished it.

[maseman]

25. I agree with Obama

Folks a "fairness doctrine" is next to impossible to monitor. Who gets to sit around and determine what is left-talk, right-talk or moderate talk? Our interpretation of left or right talk is I am sure different than a Freeper's position.

The key is not a "fairness doctrine" but to reinstate the telecomm act of 1996 and make the cross-ownership of media in local markets much more stringent.

RIght now for example Clear Channel can own 4 FM radio stations and 2 AM stations in a market in addition to a TV station. Some markets, like Cincinnati they are grandfathered and can own three AM stations.

Limit radio owners to 3 stations total in a market (2 FMs and an AM) and no newspaper or TV cross-ownership if they own radio. I would also say that a station deemed "News/Talk" or "Talk Radio" as a format must carry no less than 15 hours of local programming.

[Tesha]

83. So what's Obama doing to reverse media consolidation?

(I'll bet the answer is "Absolutely nothing!")

Tesha

[No Elephants]

93. The Fairness doctrine worked just fine from its inception in about 1949 until

Reagan killed it. So, administration/monitoring issue is a non-issue. And we need more than the Telecom Act reinstated. We need the Fairness Doctrine and the antitrust limits, both of which Reagain abolished. And then we need the Telecomm act.

[maseman]

102. And most businesses used to be close don Sundays

There are just some things that you cannot rewind like the Fairness doctrine. The right will play victims like you've never seen before and we will lose BIG in coming years. Again, who gets to interpret what is "fair?" DU? Freeperville?

If we go about making sure the media is owned by local businesses and not corporate shills then it would play out much better.

[No Elephants]

103. The right plays victims anyway. Neither DU nor Freeperville would decide

what is "fair." You have no way of knowing whether breaking up ownership alone will fix the problem.

It's odd that you think the difficulty of unwinding private ownership of various kinds of media consistent with First Amendment and due process concerns is not worth mentioning, but re-instituting a Doctrine that worked for decades or closing stores on Sundays again would be impossible.

Reality is none of the above are impossible, but breaking up the media monopolies while respecting due process and the First
Amendment is probably the most complex of the three. And then, there would have to be ongoing monitoring. Still, I think it is ery worth doing. So is the FD.

[NashVegas]

126. There Was Nothing Wrong With That, Either

A throwback to a time when most people thought community was more important than commerce.

[christx30]

98. I agree with Obama

Do we really want countless courtroom drama of Limbaugh or Savage trying to put their annoying voices on NPR or Air America? Remember: The law will cut both ways. I listen to Air America online (because it was replaced by a Spanish radio station 2 years ago here in Austin) because I don't want to listen to those people. With FD, we will be subjected to blandness in radio. Best thing we can do to win against them is to defeat them with our ideas and our passion. Not acts of Congress.
Just remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[katandmoon]

26. LOL, what a surprise -- not

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Looks like that meeting that Obama had with Murdock during the election just paid off.

So, Obama meets with Murdock during the election to promise him that he would not back the Fairness Doctrine in exchange for Faux News not going "full bore" against Obama during the general election...

The Fairness Doctrine MUST return if we are ever to reclaim the airwaves for decency and logical thought. The idiot Repukes can continue to spew their bullshit, just not without the opportunity for a counter-argument. Counter-arguments are death to Repuke dogma and that's EXACTLY why they have fought so hard against the Fairness Doctrine.

J

[MarjorieG]

35. Views beore Rupert meeting. How to judge which sides? Not monopolies.

[tom_paine]

32. Sad, but not entirely unexpected.

[Abacus]

34. Good. Now can we break up the monopolies?

[IndianaGreen]

36. Time to tell Obama that he is FRAKKING WRONG!

Restore Fairness Doctrine and reverse media consolidation if we are to preserve our freedoms.

[Bjorn Against]

38. The issue is not the fairness doctrine, the real issue is media consolidation.

If the media were not controlled by a small handful of wealthy corporations then we would have a lot of variety in the viewpoints that we heard and there would be no need for a fairness doctrine. The issue is not that not all the stations give multiple perspectives, the issue is that the same people own multiple stations.

[FiveGoodMen]

41. Disagree -- many viewers only watch one station

If that station continually presents only one side, that's all their viewers will hear.

I know people should be smarter and get their info from multiple sources, but if people were smarter then the pukes would be long gone and we wouldn't be at this site discussing the problem.

Furthermore, many people display unreasonable loyalties to those who do not have their interests at heart. It happens among the average population and it may well occur in the offices of editors and news directors, too.

No reason to believe that the proposed new, smaller news outlets wouldn't keep pushing the same talking points even if the profits from their "work" were distributed to different places.

[Bjorn Against]

42. But the problem is many people don't currently have multiple sources to get their info from.

We long ago reached the point in which you can count the owners of well over ninety percent of our media sources on your fingers. All of the owners of the media conglomerates have the same basic philosophies, and none of them are progressives. There is really very little difference between NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN or...well what else is there? Multiple sources mean nothing if those sources are all from the same people. The only way people can truly get diversity in media is to go on the internet, those who don't get their news from the internet get their news almost exclusively from giant corporations. This is the real issue.

[FiveGoodMen]

43. The Fairness Doctrine would help with that

As I said, breaking up the monopolies -- which we should certainly do! -- would not insure that the now-separated news sources would change their habits. And, as you point out, it wouldn't necessarily give TV viewers access to different viewpoints.

However, the Fairness Doctrine (revised, if need be) could prevent several hours a day of Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. The only way they could keep spewing that shit would be to reserve equal time to a more reasonable -- or at least opposing -- point of view and that would help a lot.

[Lorien]

56. If there were many owners of many stations they would still be very

wealthy owners-so they would likely have the same agendas that the few have today. The fairness doctrine was put in place 70 years ago because it was needed. Why do you think Reagan got rid of it?

[readmoreoften]

63. Sure. But I doubt he's going to fight for that either.

[corruptmewithpower]

40. The fairness doctrine was just a timid little step.

:think:

What we really need to do is develop the technology and the political will to reprogram public opinion to coincide with my own.

[Lorien]

66. Um, that's what happened WITHOUT the fairness doctrine

only one side holds the megaphone. The Fairness Doctrine existed for 70 years for a very good reason. You can't trust the "free market" to be honest or fair-or has the economic crisis taught us nothing?

[Zhade]

44. But WHY? We deserve more than "I just don't want to do it".

He works for US, remember? Or so he says.

[Jefferson23]

45. Obama's alternative to the Fairness Doctrine from back in 7/7/2008

snip* "Obama is more concerned about achieving diversity through "media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114438-Obama_Says_No_To_Fairness_Doctrine.php

[w4rma]

46. Obama is a total idiot, then!! (nt)

[EndElectoral]

48. Disagree with Obama on this one.It'd be fun to just watch Rush and Hannity pop a button with it in.

[depakid]

49. "tells FOXNews.com"

How about that.

Is it any wonder that the President's credibiliy is- shall we say, plummeting around the world?

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

50. The Fairness Doctrine is probably unconstitutional

under the First Amendment. Its original rationale no longer applies, now that there are basically an infinite number of channels.

[depakid]

51. There sure are a lot of stations on radio in America, eh?

all being honest and saying different things- and making sure that there's a fair and rational debate.

[Lorien]

59. Wrong. The fairness doctrine guaranteed free speech for ALL

if only one side is allowed access to the mainstream media and is allowed to dominate the media for decades, how is that "free speech"? Reagan killed the fairness doctrine to rob the left of the microphone.

[struggle4progress]

73. Nope: Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC -- 395 U.S. 367 (1969)

... The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) fairness doctrine requires radio and television broadcasters to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the airwaves. The doctrine is composed of two primary requirements concerning personal attacks in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing ... In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment ... http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_2_2/

[onenote]

96. the world is much different today than in 1969

In 1970, there were around 6750 radio stations and 874 television stations. Today there are over 14000 radio stations (including 6 times as many non commercial educational radio stations) and more than twice as many television stations (1758), including twice as many noncommercial educational stations. There also are hundreds of cable networks that didn't exist in 1969 and a vibrant source of news and information through the internet. The Red Lion case held out the possibility that the FD might not be around forever. While it might survive a court challenge if it was reinstated, I wouldn't bet on it, particularly given the make up of the court.

[struggle4progress]

99. Counting "channels" misrepresents diversity: in 1983, before the repeal of the fairness doctrine,

about 50 corporations controlled US media, and that already a significant loss of ownership diversity by historical stands; today, most of the media is controlled by five mega-corporations

So the idea, that competition between media outlets will ensure that information is available, seems even less tenable today than in 1969

Of course, you are right about the current status of the courts

Media Reform Information Center
http://www.corporations.org.nyud.net:8090/media/media-ownership.gif
http://www.corporations.org/media/

[onenote]

100. the myth that six companies control 90% of the media is easily debunked

The argument that 90 percent of the media is controlled by five or six companies is utterly ridiculous and easily disproved. While the names vary, the six companies are usually identified as:

GE/NBC
Disney/ABC
CBS/Viacom (or national amusements)
Time Warner
News Corporation
Clear Channel (replacing Bertelsman)

Let's take a look at these companies and the claimed "90 percent" of all media outlets:

Four of them (GE, Disney, Natl Amusements, and News Corp) control the four major broadcast networks. Leaving aside the fact that the networks share of the viewing audience has for some time been dropping like a rock, that is no small thing. But does it represent 90 percent of the media? Well, let's consider that these four companies own a total of around 50 television stations (out of more than 1750 full power stations in the US). Their networks of course have lots of affiliates -- around 850 -- closer to 1000 if you toss in the CW Network, MyNetworkTV and Telemundo). That leaves around 700 stations that aren't owned or affiliated with these companies, including 350 full power stations affiliated with PBS. And, it should be noted that most of those 1000 or so affiliates that aren't owned by the networks typically offer, in addition to the nightly network news programming, local news programming that they produce themselves (or acquire from sources other than the networks.)

Those four companies have other media interests of course. News Corp in particular owns a number of cable networks, including Fox News. Most of the other networks are sports or entertainment oriented. News Corp also owns the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. They have no radio stations but do have a syndicated Fox radio network. Not sure how many radio stations carry it. GE owns a lot of cable networks, including several news-oriented networks (CBNBC, MSNBC). GE has no newspapers, no news magazines, no radio properties. ABC also has a lot of cable networks, although almost all are sports and entertaintment oriented, not news. They sold all their radio stations and their radio network a few years ago (its still called ABC radio network but they don't own it anymore), they do still distribute syndicated ABC News radio programming. ABC also doesn't own any newspapers or news magazines. Nat'l Amusements owns around 140 radio stations and the CBS radio network which has around 1000 affiliates (out of the 11,000 commercial radio stations in the US). They have no newspapers, no news magazines. They have (through Viacom) a bunch of cable networks like Showtime and MTV, but no cable news programming.

Based on the above, it seems pretty hard to figure how one gets to the 90 percent control claim. And looking at Time Warner and Clear Channel doesn't help. Time Warner owns a lot of cable networks, including CNN. It also owns Time Magazine. But it owns no newspapers and no radio properties. It also owns a lot of cable systems, but it will stop owning those sometime in the next few weeks under a spin off that will leave Time Warner and Time Warner Cable completely separate companies -- no overlap in management. Clear Channel is the biggest radio station owner in the country, but it has no television properties, no news magazines, no newspapers. I'm not sure exactly how many radio stations Clear owns -- last I saw it was between 900 and 1000. That's a lot, but not exactly 90 percent of the 11,000 commercial radio stations licensed in the US (there are also between 1500 and 2000 full power noncommercial radio stations in the US).

If that isn't enough to debunk the 90 percent myth, consider the following: three of the top ten cable networks aren't controlled by any of these companies; three of the top ten grossing movies of 2008 came from studios not controlled by these companies; of the top ten newspapers in the US, only two are controlled by any of the six companies identified as cotnrolling 90 percent of the media -- the WSJournal and the New York Post, both controlled by Murdoch's News Corp. And if you look at the list of the top 100 newspapers in the US, none of them are controlled by the six companies listed, except for the aformentioned WSJ and the New York Post. Only Time Warner has any notable presence in the magazine industry; indeed,there also are three natianal news magazines -- only one, Time, is controlled by the six companies identified. Also, in considering what constitutes the "media" we shouldn't ignore cable systems and DBS companies. Only one of the six listed companies owns cable systems and/or DBS companies. Out of the close to 100 million pay tv subscribers in the US, Time Warner Cable (soon to be independent of Mr. Bewkes and Time Warner Inc) has around 13 million subscribers I think. (Its smaller than both Comcast and DirecTV and about the same size as Dish Network). And since the claim goes beyond the broadcast media, its fair to note that there are literally millions of websites providing entertainment, news and information that are not controlled by any of these companies.

My point isn't that everything is hunky-dory in the media business. Its that the claim that six companies control 90 percent of everything is nonsense and making nonsensical claims doesn't help address the real issues. Even you buy the notion that the Chairman of GE spends his day overseeing what gets reported on affilates of the GE owned Telemundo network, media diversity has been an issue in this country a long time and those that think its appreciably worse now than at some earlier time are fooling themselves.

When were the glory days of a robustly diverse media? Back in the days when there were only three broadcast networks (Fox didn't launch as a broadcast network until 1986) and when a far greater percentage of the television stations in the country (there were only around 700 stations in 1970 and even as recently as 1990 there were 300 fewer stations than there are today) were affiliated with one of those networks. Newspapers were definitely healthier back in the 70s and there is too much newspaper/television cross ownership today, but there was more cross ownership back in the 70s when companies like Times Mirror, Knight Ridder, the Washington Post, and Media General all had local broadcast/newspaper pairs. Today there are two national newspapers (USA Today and WSJ) whereas back in the 70s there was only one. There were around 5000 fewer commercial radio stations and half as many noncommercial stations as today. There were no cable networks back then, and virtually no one had any access to foreign sources of news and information. I grew up in a very large (top ten) market and could choose between three network stations, a pbs station and one "independent" station that featured mostly syndicated re-runs. Today, via cable, I have access to around a dozen local stations, including multiple PBS stations. There were three daily newspapers back then, although only one was worth a damn. Today I can choose between two papers, only one of which is worth a damn. There are more radio stations today, including a lot more foreign language stations. There was one all news radio station. Today there are two or three and while I think all of them are commonly owned, at least they're no longer owned by the local newspaper, as was the case when I was a kid.

Again, I'm not saying that the lack of diversity in the media isn't a problem. Just that its not a new problem and exagerrating it isn't the route to actually dealing with it.

[struggle4progress]

106. Here's a snapshot of the holdings of the top 6 companies as of mid-2008, which I think makes the

situation clear

Time Warner Company
1 Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019
Voice [phone] Fax [phone]
www.aoltimewarner.com/

* Holdings
* Timeline

<snip>

Time Warner - Cable
HBO
Cinemax
HBO Video
HBO Independent Productions
HBO OnDemand International
HBO Mobile International
Adult Swim
Boomerang
CNN
CNN International
CNN en Espanol
CNN Headline News
CNN Headline News in Latin America
CNN Headline News in Asia Pacific
CNN Mobile
CNN+
CETV
CNN Newsource
CNN Pipeline
CNN To Go
CNN fn
CNN Radio
CNN Interactive
Court TV (with Liberty Media)
Time Warner Cable
Road Runner
New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC)
Kablevision (53.75% - cable television in Hungary)
In Demand
Metro Sports (Kansas City)
Time Warner Inc. - Film & TV Production/Distribution
Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. Studios
Warner Bros. Television (production)
The WB Television Network
Warner Bros. Television Animation
Hanna - Barbera Cartoons
Telepictures Production
The CW Television Network
Kids' WB!
Castle Rock Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Warner Bros. Domestic Pay - TV
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution
Warner Bros. International Television Distribution
The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia - Pacific, Australia, Germ.)
Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries)
Warner Bros. Online
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
Warner Bros. Technical Operations
Warner Bros. Consumer Products
Warner Bros. Studio Facilities
Time Warner Inc. - Magazines
Time
Time Asia
Time Atlantic
Time Canada
Time Latin America
Time South Pacific
Time Money
Time For Kids
Fortune
Fortune Asia
Fortune Europe
FSB: Fortune Small Business
All You
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated International
SI for Kids
Money
People
Who Weekly (Australian edition)
People en Espa�ol
Teen People
Entertainment Weekly
In Style
Southern Living AT HOME
Southern Accents
Cooking Light
Cottage Living
This Old House
Sunset
Health
Hippocrates
Coastal Living
Real Simple
Wallpaper (U.K.)
Bride To Be
English Woman’s Weekly
Practical Parenting
Who
In Style Australia
25 Beautiful Homes
4x4
Aeroplane Monthly
Amateur Gardening
Amateur Photographer
Angler’s Mail
Beautiful Kitchens
Cage and Aviary Birds
Caravan Magazine
Chat
Chat - It’s Fate
Classic Boat
Country Homes and Interiors
Country Life
Cycle Sport
Cycling Weekly
Decanter
European Boat Builder
Eventing
Family Circle
Guitar
Hair
Hi Fi News
Homes and Gardens
Horse
Horse and Hound
Ideal Style
In Style (U.K.)
International Boat Industry
Land Rover World
Livingetc
Loaded
Mountain Bike Rider
MiniWorld
Model Collector
Motor Boat and Yachting
Motor Boats Monthly
Motor Caravan Magazine
NME
Now
Nuts
Park Home & Holiday Caravan
Pick Me Up
Practical Boat Owner
Prediction
Racecar Engineering
Rugby World
Ships Monthly
Shoot Monthly
Soaplife
Sporting Gun
Stamp Magazine
SuperBike Magazine
The Field
The Railway Magazine
The Shooting Gazette
TV & Satellite Week
TV Easy
TVTimes
Uncut
VolksWorld
Web User
Wedding
What Digital Camera
What’s on TV
Woman
Woman & Home
Woman’s Own
Woman’s Weekly
Yachting World
Your Yacht
Ambientes
Audi Magazine
Balance
Chilango
EXP
Expansion
IDC
Life and Style
Manufactura
Obras
Quien
Vuelo
Yachts
In Style Mexico
Magazines listed under Warner Brothers label
DC Comics
Vertigo
Wildstorm
Mad Magazine
Online Services
CompuServe Interactive Services
AOL Instant Messenger
ADTECH
Advertising.com
AOL.com portal
Digital City
AOL Europe
GameDaily.com
Lightningcast
ICQ
The Knot, Inc. - wedding content (8 % with QVC 36% and Hummer
WinbladFunds18%)
MapQuest.com
Spinner.com
Relegence
TACODA
Third Screen Media
Truveo
Userplane
Weblogs, Inc.
Winamp
Xdrive
CNNStudentNews.com
NASCAR.com
PGA.com
Time Warner - Online/Other Publishing
Road Runner
Warner Publisher Services
Time Distribution Services
American Family Publishers (50%)
Africana.com
Time Warner - Merchandise/Retail
Warner Bros. Consumer Products
Theme Parks
Warner Brothers Recreation Enterprises (owns/operates international theme parks)
Time Warner Inc. - Turner Entertainment
Entertainment Networks
TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television (TNT)
Turner South
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network in Europe
Cartoon Network in Latin America
TNT & Cartoon Network in Asia/Pacific
TNT Latin America
TNT HD
TCM Asia Pacific
TCM Canada
TCM Europe
TCM Classic Hollywood in Latin America
Adult Swim
Boomerang
CETV
GameTap
TBS
Pogo
Toonami
TrueTV
Peachtree TV
Film Production
New Line Cinema
Fine Line Features
Picturehouse
Turner Original Productions
Sports
Atlanta Braves
Other Operations
Turner Learning
CNN Newsroom (daily news program for classrooms)
Turner Adventure Learning (electronic field trips for schools)
Turner Home Satellite
Turner Network Sales
Other
Netscape Communications
Netscape Netcenter portal
AOL MovieFone
iAmaze
Amazon.com (partial)
Quack.com
Streetmail (partial)
Switchboard (6%)
Advantages
European Magazines Limited

last updated 8/2/08 http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner

The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521
Voice [phone]
www.disney.com

* Holdings
* Timeline

<snip>

Film
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Miramax Films
Pixar
Broadcast Television
ABC Network
Owned and Operated Television Stations
WLS - Chicago
WJRT - Flint
KFSN - Fresno
KTRK - Houston
KABC - Los Angeles
WABC - New York City
WPVI - Philadelphia
WTVD - Raleigh - Durham
KGO - San Francisco
WTVG - Toledo
Cable Television
ESPN (80%)
ESPN2 (80%)
ESPN Classic (80%)
ESPNU (80%)
ESPNEWS (80%)
ABC Family
Disney Channel
Toon Disney
SOAPnet
Lifetime Network (partial)
Lifetime Movie Network (partial)
Lifetime Real Women (partial)
A&E (partial)
A&E International (partial)
Jetix Europe (partial)
Jetix Latin America
The History Channel (partial)
Lifetime Real Women (partial)
Radio
ABC Radio
WDWD – Atlanta
WMVP – Chicago
WLS – Chicago
KESN – Dallas
KMKI – Dallas-Forth Worth
KRDY – San Antonio
WCOG – Greensboro, NC
WRDZ – Indianapolis
KABC – Los Angeles
KLOS – Los Angeles
KDIS – Los Angeles
KSPN – Los Angeles
KDIZ – Minneapolis - St. Paul
WKSH – Milwaukee, WI
WEVD – New York City
KDZR – Portland, OR
KWDZ – Salt Lake City
KIID – Sacramento
KMKY – Oakland
KQAM – Wichita
KKDZ – Seattle
WSDZ – St. Louis
WWMK – Cleveland
KMIK – Phoenix
KDDZ – Denver
WWMI – Tampa
KMIC – Houston
WMYM – Miami
WBWL – Jacksonville
WBYU – New Orleans
KDIS – Little Rock
WWJZ – Philadelphia
WWJZ – Philadelphia
WMKI – Boston
WDZK – Hartford
WDDZ – Providence
WDZY – Richmond
WGFY – Charlotte
WDYZ – Orlando
WMNE – West Palm Beach
WEAE – Pittsburgh
WDRD – Louisville
WDDY – Albany, NY
KPHN – Kansas City
WQUA – Mobile
WBML – Jacksonville
WFDF – Detroit
WFRO – Fremont, OH
WDMV – Damascus, MD
WHKT – Norfolk Radio Disney
ESPN Radio (syndicated programming)
Music
Walt Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Lyric Street Records
Publishing
Book Publishing Imprints
Hyperion
Miramax Books
ESPN Books
Theia
ABC Daytime Press
Hyperion eBooks
Hyperion East
Disney Publishing Worldwide
Cal Publishing Inc.
CrossGen
Hyperion Books for Children
Jump at the Sun
Volo
Michael di Caupa Books
Disney Global Children's Books
Disney Press
Disney Editions
Disney Libri
Global Retail
Global Continuity
Magazine
Automotive Industries
Biography (with GE and Hearst)
Discover
Disney Adventures
Disney Magazine
ECN News
ESPN Magazine (distributed by Hearst)
Family Fun
Institutional Investor
JCK
Kodin
Top Famille - French family magazine
US Weekly (50%)
Video Business
Quality
Wondertime Magazine
Parks and Resorts
Walt Disney Imagineering
Disneyland Resort
Walt Disney World Resort
Tokyo Disney Resort
Disneyland Resort Paris
Hong Kong Disneyland
Disney Vacation Club
Disney Cruise Line
Other
Disney Theatrical Productions
Disney Live Family Entertainment
Disney on Ice
The Disney Store
Club Penguins
ESPN Zone
Disney Toys
Disney Apparel, Accessories and Footwear
Disney Food, Health and Beauty
Disney Home Furnishings and Decor
Disney Stationery
Disney Consumer Economics
The Baby Einstein Company
Muppets Holding Company
Disney Interactive Studios
Walt Disney Internet Group
last updated 7/30/08

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=disney

News Corporation
10000 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Voice [phone]
www.newscorp.com

* Holdings
* Timeline

<snip>

Television
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Television Stations
WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WTVT - Tampa
WHBQ - Memphis
KTBC - Austin
DBS & Cable
FOXTEL
BSkyB
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
# Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.
Film
20th Century Fox Español
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios Baja
Fox Studios LA
20th Century Fox
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios
Newspapers
United States
New York Post
The Wall St. Journal
Dow Jones
United Kingdom
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Literary Supplement
Australasia
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Magazines
InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
Big League
ALPHA
Books
HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Avon A
Avon Inspire
Avon Red
Collins
Collins Design
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
Harper Mass Market
Harper Pakerbacks
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Perennial
Perennial Modern Classics
HarperCollins e-Books
HarperLuxe
Rayo
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Amistad
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTeen
Katherine Tegen Books
Julie Andrews Books
Rayo
Trophy
HarperCollins International
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins India
HarperCollins New Zealand
Zondervan
Other
Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Scout Media
Rotten Tomatoes
AskMen
FoxSports.net
WhatIfSports
kSolo
Fox.com
AmericanIdol.com
Spring Widgets
News Digital Media
News.com.au
FoxSports.com.au
CARSguide.com.au
Careerone.com.au
Truelocal.com.au
last updated 08/07/08

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newscorp

Bertelsmann AG
Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 270
33311 Gütersloh
Germany
Voice ++49.5241.80-0 Fax ++49.5241.80-9662
www.bertelsmann.com/

* Holdings

Broadcasting - RTL Group
Radio
RTL Radio France
RTL2
FUN RADIO
RTL Radio Deutschland
104.6 RTL (Berlin)
ANTENNE BAYERN (Germany)
Radio Hamburg
radio NRW (Germany)
RADIO 21 (Germany)
bigFM (Germany)
Radio Regenbogen (Germany)
Radio Dresden
HITRADIO RTL SACHSEN (Germany)
Hit-Radio Antenne (Germany)
ANTENNE MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN (Germany)
Radio Brocken (Germany)
89.0 RTL (Germany)
ANTENNE THÜRINGEN (Germany)
BB RADIO (Germany)
105'5 Spreeradio (Germany)
radio TOP 40 (Germany)
Oldie 95 (Germany)
ROCK ANTENNE's (Germany)
RTL Radio Lëtzebuerg
Bel RTL
Radio Contact (Belgium)
Mint (Belgium)
Onda Cero (Spain)
Europa FM (Spain)
Television
RTL Television
M6 (France)
Five (UK)
ANTENA 3 (Spain)
RTL 4 (The Netherlands)
RTL 5 (The Netherlands)
RTL 7 (The Netherlands)
RTL TVI (Belgium)
RTL Klub (Hungary)
RTL Televizija (Croatia)
Télé Lëtzebuerg
VOX (Germany)
RTL II (Germany)
Super RTL (Germany)
n-tv (Germany)
Den 2. RTL (Luxembourg)
RTL Shop (Germany)
Traumpartner TV (Germany)
RTL TVI (Belgium)
Plug TV (Belgium)
RTL 9 (France)
REN TV (Russia)
Fun TV (France)
Téva (France)
Paris Première
Série Club (France)
TF6 (France)
W9 (France)
M6 Music Rock (France)
M6 Music Black (France)
M6 Music Hits (France)
Antena 3 (Spain)
Antena.Nova (Spain)
Five US (UK)
Five Life (UK)
Progamming
FremantleMedia
UFA Film & TV Produktion
UFA Fernsehproduktion
UFA Filmproduktion
UFA Entertainment
Grundy UFA
GRUNDY Light Entertainment
Karlheinz Brunnemann
teamWorx
Universum Film
talkbackTHAMES
Crackerjack
Blue Circle
Blu
Home Shopping Service
SND
CLT-UFA
ENEX
Publishing
Books
Random House, Inc.
Ballantine
Ballantine Books
Ballantine Reader's Circle
Del Rey
Del Rey/LucasBooks
Fawcett
Ivy
One World
Wellspring
Bantam Dell Publishing Group
Bantam Hardcover
Bantam Mass Market
Bantam Trade Paperbacks
Crimeline
Delacorte Press
Dell
Delta
Domain
DTP
Fanfare
Island
Spectra
The Dial Press
Crown Publishing Group
Bell Tower
Clarkson Potter
Crown Business
Crown Publishers Inc.
Harmony Books
Prima
Shaye Areheart Books
Three Rivers Press
Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group
Broadway Books
Currency
Doubleday
Doubleday Image
Doubleday Religious Publishing
Main Street Books
Nan A. Talese
Harlem Moon
Knopf Publishing Group
Alfred A. Knopf
Anchor
Everyman's Library
Pantheon Books
Schocken Books
Vintage
Random House Audio Publishing Group
Villard Books
The Modern Library
RH Trade Paperbacks
Striver's Row Books
Random House Children's Books
Dell/Delacorte/Dell Young Reader's Group
Alfred A. Knopf
Bantam
Crown
David Fickling Books
Delacorte Press
Dell Dragonfly
Dell Laurel-Leaf
Dell Yearling Books
Doubleday
Wendy Lamb Books
Random House Diversified Publishing Group
RH Value Publishing
Random House Information Group
Fodor's Travel Publications
Living Language
Prima Games
Princeton Review
RH Espanol
RH Puzzles and Games
RH Reference Publishing
Waterbrook Press
Shaw Books
Fisherman Bible Study Guides
Magazines
Gruner + Jahr
Allakste Yefsis
ART
ASTROLOGOS
AUTOREVUE
AVTO MAGAZIN
BIEN DANS MA VIE
BÖRSE ONLINE
BRIGITTE
BÜHNE
ÇA M'INTéRESSE
CAPITAL
CAR & MOTOR
CLAUDIA
CONNECT
COSMOPOLITAN
CUISINE ACTUELLE
CUISINE GOURMANDE
DB MOBIL
DECORATION
DIVA
DOGS
E&T - FÜR JEDEN TAG
ELLE
ELTERN FAMILY
ELTERN ARZT & SCHWANGERSCHAFT
ELTERN UNSER BAB
E-MEDIA
EMOTION
ESSEN & TRINKEN
EXODOS
FEMME ACTUELLE
FITNESS
FLORA GARTEN
FOCUS
FORMA
FORMAT
FRAU IM SPIEGEL
FOCUS
FUSHI MEIRONG
GALA
GEO
GLAMOUR
GOLFREVUE
GUIDE CUISINE
GUSTO
HÄUSER
HEALTHY LIVING
HOW TO SPEND IT
IKIA & DIAKOSMISI
IMPULSE
JACK
JASMIN
JIAJU
JOY
KLIK
LEA
LISA
LIVING AT HOME
LUFTHANSA EXCLUSIVE
MANAGEMENT
MARIE CLAIRE
MEN'S HEALTH
MIA
MOJ LEPI VRT
MOJA LEPA BA TA
MOJE DIJETE
MOJE GOTOWANIE
MUY INTERESANTE
NAJ
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
NEON
NEWS
NOVA
PAIDI & NEI GONIS
PARENTS FUMU
PARK AVENUE
P.M.
PRIMA
PROFIL
QUEST
RODZICE
SCHÖNER WOHNEN
SER PADRES
STARS
STERN
STORY
SWAROVSKI MAGAZIN
TéLé LOISIRS
TOP GIRL
TREND
TV-MEDIA
VIEW
VIVA!
VOICI
VSD
VW MAGAZIN
WOMAN
XIANFENG
Xpress
YACHTREVUE
YI REN
YO COCINO
Newspapers
CHEMNITZER MORGENPOST
DRESDNER MORGENPOST
FINANCIAL TIMES DEUTSCHLAND
MORGENPOST AM SONNTAG
SÄCHSISCHE ZEITUNG
Music
Sony BMG
Arista
Bluebird
BNA
Burgundy
Columbia
Epic
Jive
J Records
Legacy
Masterworks
Provident
RCA
Windam Hill
Zomba
Other
Arvato
last updated 7/22/08

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=bertelsmann

Viacom, Inc. Headquarters
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Voice [phone] Fax [phone]
www.viacom.com

* Holdings
* Timeline

<snip>

Cable
MTV
MTV2
mtvU
AtomFilms
Addicting Games
Gamerailers
Harmonix
MTVN International
MTV TR3S
Neopets
Parents Connect
Quizilla
Rhapsody
Shockwave
VH1
VH1 Classic
VH1 Soul
Virtual Worlds
XFIRE
Nickelodeon
Nick Jr.
BET
BET J
Nick at Nite
TV Land
NOGGIN
VH1
Spike TV
CMT
Comedy Central
Film
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Dreamworks Studiis
Paramount Vantage
MTV Films
Nickelodeon Movies
Home Entertainment
last updated 07/31/08

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=viacom

General Electric
www.ge.com

* Holdings
* Timeline

<snip>

Television
NBC Stations:
WNBC
New York
KNBC
Los Angeles
WMAQ
Chicago
WCAU
Philadelphia
KNTV
San Jose/San Francisco
KXAS
Dallas/Fort Worth
WRC
Washington
WTVJ
Miami
KNSD
San Diego
WVIT
Hartford
WNCN
Raleigh
WCMH
Columbus
WVTM
Birmingham
WJAR
Providence
Telemundo Stations:
KVEA/KWHY
Los Angeles
WNJU
New York
WSCV
Miami
KTMD
Houston
WSNS
Chicago
KXTX
Dallas/Fort Worth
KVDA
San Antonio
KSTS
San Jose/San Francisco
KDRX
Phoenix
KNSO
Fresno
KMAS
Denver
WNEU
Boston/Merrimack
KHRR
Tucson
WKAQ
Puerto Rico
NBC Universal Television Studio
NBC Universal Television Distribution
CNBC
MSNBC
Bravo
Mun2TV
Sci-Fi
USA
Sleuth
Oxygen
Film
Universal Pictures
Parks
Universal Parks & Resorts
Other General Electric Businesses
GE Aircraft Engines
GE Commercial Finance
GE Consumer Products
GE Industrial Systems
GE Insurance
GE Medical Systems
GE Plastics
GE Power Systems
GE Specialty Materials
GE Transportation Systems
last updated 08/13/08

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=ge

[Occulus]

108. I'll take "your post has sources and johnny one-note's doesn't" for $1000, Alex

:D

[onenote]

109. what your "snapshot" makes clear is that these six companies are big and have diverse holdings

But that's a far cry from establishing that they control ninety percent of the music,radio, television, movies, magazines, newspapers etc in the US or the world. As pointed out, these companies control only 2 of the top 100 newspapers, none of the top 10 magazines, one of the three national newsmagazines, a miniscule fraction of the radio stations, less than 60 percent of the television stations (assuming that you give them credit for controlling stations that they don't own but that are network affiliates), and probably less than 25 percent of the more than 500 satellite delivered national cable programming services. They represent five of the six leading movie studios. The six listed companies are pretty strong in the publishing field, but even then, don't include Penguin, Scholastic, Houghton Mifflin and McGraw Hill.

No one is arguing that the biggest players in the media business (or in some elements of it) are big diverse corporations, in some instances with interests that aren't even media related. But that wasn't the issue -- the issue is whether these six companies control ninety percent of the media in the US. And your snapshot simply confirms that they don't and, indeed, don't come close.

BTW, while comparisons to the past are always tricky, let's not lose sight of the fact that in the 60s and 70s two of the three networks (Fox didn't exist yet) were controlled by big conglomerates. CBS' holdings included major magazine and book publishing groups, the New York Yankees, Fender guitar and other musical instrument companies, Tri-Star Pictures, CBS Home Video, a toy manufacturer, CBS Records, among other things. And NBC was owned by RCA, one of the largest companies in the world. Sure, these companies didn't own dozens of cable networks, but then again, no one did -- as recently as 1990 there were less than 100 cable networks (compared to over 550 today).

Again no one disputes that the biggest media companies are bigger than ever. But it requires industrial strength blinders to ignore the fact that the number of sources of news, entertainment and information -- particularly when you consider the Internet -- is far greater today than at any time in history.

[struggle4progress]

112. To make sense of this, you would have to notice facts like the following: News Corp not only

controls two of New York City's print outlets (Wall Street Journal & New York Post), it also owns two Fox stations in the New York City (WNYW & WWOR), and so exerts great influence on the huge New York City media market, which affects about 15 million people: this exceeds the combined punch of the hundred or so media markets in

#181 Lubbock, TX 209,700
#182 Cape Cod, MA 206,700
#183 Kalamazoo, MI 206,100
#184 Johnstown, PA 199,700
#185 Tupelo, MS 198,200
#186 Manchester, NH 197,000
#187 Green Bay, WI 196,600
#188 Odessa, TX 194,400
#189 Merced, CA 192,600
#190 Traverse City, MI 191,500
#191 Topeka, KS 191,000
#192 Dothan, AL 190,200
#193 Amarillo, TX 187,400
#194 Waco, TX 184,800
#195 Danbury, CT 184,100
#196 Chico, CA 181,200
#197 Morgantown, WV 180,500
#198 Yakima, WA 179,700
#199 Frederick, MD 178,600
#200 Santa Barbara, CA 176,500
#201 Terre Haute, IN 176,000
#202 Muncie, IN 174,400
#203 Clarksville, TN 173,800
#204 Duluth, MN 172,000
#205 Santa Maria, CA 171,800
#206 Olean, NY 167,800
#207 Cedar Rapids, IA 165,500
#208 Richland, WA 164,900
#209 Bowling Green, KY 164,500
#210 Florence, SC 164,300
#211 Laredo, TX 163,800
#212 Medford, OR 163,700
#213 Bangor, ME 161,300
#214 Elmira, NY 160,600
#215 Champaign, IL 158,700
#216 Alexandria, LA 155,900
#217 Ft. Walton Bch, FL 155,000
#218 Lake Charles, LA 153,500
#219 Fargo, ND 152,300
#219 St. Cloud, MN 152,300
#221 Blacksburg, VA 150,400
#222 Laurel, MS 149,900
#223 Redding, CA 147,200
#223 Charlottesville, VA 147,200
#225 Winchester, VA 146,400
#226 Muskegon, MI 143,700
#227 Rochester, MN 143,500
#228 Tuscaloosa, AL 142,000
#229 Bryan, TX 140,700
#230 Marion, IL 138,300
#231 Pittsburg, KS 137,700
#232 Abilene, TX 137,400
#233 Dubuque, IA 136,900
#234 Joplin, MO 135,600
#235 Bloomington, IL 133,600
#236 Santa Fe, NM 133,100
#237 Lafayette, IN 132,700
#238 Panama City, FL 132,400
#239 Eau Claire, WI 130,000
#240 Lima, OH 129,900
#240 Wheeling, WV 129,900
#242 Parkersburg, WV 129,500
#243 Waterloo, IA 129,000
#244 Meadville, PA 128,400
#245 Elizabeth City, NC 124,800
#246 Sussex, NJ 124,700
#247 Pueblo, CO 124,400
#248 Florence, AL 123,500
#249 State College, PA 123,100
#250 Monroe, LA 121,100
#251 Columbia, MO 120,700
#252 Wichita Falls, TX 119,100
#253 Battle Creek, MI 116,100
#254 Texarkana, TX- 112,200
#255 Altoona, PA 111,000
#256 Billings, MT 110,500
#257 Columbus, MS 106,400
#258 Grand Junction, CO 105,600
#259 Williamsport, PA 103,600
#260 Albany, GA 101,700
#260 Augusta, ME 101,700
#262 Sioux City, IA 101,300
#263 Mankato, MN 100,100
#264 Harrisonburg, VA 98,100
#265 Sheboygan, WI 96,700
#266 Rapid City, SD 96,600
#267 Decatur, IL 96,100
#268 Lawton, OK 93,500
#269 Watertown, NY 92,500
#269 Bluefield, WV 92,500
#271 Lewiston, ME 89,900
#272 San Angelo, TX 88,700
#273 Ithaca, NY 86,100
#274 Cookeville, TN 82,900
#275 Bismarck, ND 81,400
#276 Grand Forks, ND 80,600
#276 Sebring, FL 80,600
#278 Jackson, TN 79,500
#279 Jonesboro, AR 71,800
#280 Cheyenne, WY 70,600
#281 Mason City, IA 68,700
#282 Beckley, WV 67,800
#283 Great Falls, MT 66,300
#284 Meridian, MS 64,600
#285 Brunswick, GA 59,000
#286 Casper, WY 57,000

list from: http://www.radio-media.com/markets/main.html

Even a careful approach link this will underestimate the reach of News Corp, since it also owns Fox Broadcasting Company, 20th Century Fox Television, Fox News Channel, Fox Television Studios, and a host of similar companies that provide content to a large number of television stations affiliated with Fox nationwide, but not owned outright by News Corp

As I said before, merely counting "channels" (or "number of sources") is misleading

[onenote]

114. again, this only serves to prove the point I'm trying to make

Listing what Fox owns in New York looks impressive, until you consider what it doesn't own.

It owns 2 television stations. It doesn't own the other 13 stations licensed to NY, 11 of which are not owned by any of the six companies that allegedly control 90 percent of all media.

There are around 30 radio stations licensed to NYC. Fox owns zero.

Fox owns the WSJ (cir 2 million, half of it from outside NY) and the New York Post (Circ 625,000). It doesn't own the New York Times (Circ 1 million) or the New York Daily News (Circ 700,000) or Newsday (Circ 377,000). And it doesn't own US Today, which like the WSJ is a national paper (circ 2.3 million)

Fox owns Fox Cable News and other cable networks. It does not own CNN, MSNBC, or several hundred other cable networks available in New York from Time Warner, RCN, Cablevision, DIrecTV, Dish, and in parts of the area, Verizon.

Fox owns the Fox Broadcasting Network. It does not own the other three major broadcasting networks that are available in New York.

Fox owns Fox Televison Studios/20th Century Fox Television. Out of the 19 shows that these companies managed to place on broadcast or cable television since 2000, fewer than half are currently on the air and only one "24" can be considered a ratings leaders. Other production companies not owned or controlled by Fox are responsible for far more of the televised content available to New Yorkers.

And on a national basis, Fox does provide programming to around 175 affiliated stations -- fewer affiliated stations than any of the other networks; and those affiliates include more UHF stations than the other three major networks.

Again, the point being that Fox and its cohorts are big, but there is a lot of other stuff out there. More than ever before.

[struggle4progress]

116. This BS is tiresome. Here are the broadcast stations available in the NY City area:

channel 2 - WCBS - CBS Network
channel 3 - KYW - CBS Philadelphia
channel 4 - NBC Network
channel 5 - WNYW - Fox Network
channel 7 - WABC - ABC Network
channel 8 - WTNH - ABC New Haven
channel 9 - UPN
channel 11 - WPIX - flagship station of The WB Television Network
channel 12 -News 12 Interactive- a division of News 12 Networks
channel 13 - WNET
channel 25 - WNYE - NYC Media Group (responsible for City of New York media assets
channel 31 - WPXN - Independent
channel 47 - WNJU -Spanish
channel 49 - WEDW - Connecticut Public Broadcasting
channel 55 - WLNY - movies
channel 75 - GNPS - Great Neck South Middle School
channel 77 - 77T - Tuckahoe Educational Access (programming for Tuckahoe, Eastchester and Bronxville)
see: http://www.infonewyorkcity.com/television.htm

The former UPN & WB are jointly owned by CBS & Warner Brothers
see: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=38988

WNJU is a Telemundo station; Telemundo is an NBC operation
http://www.stationindex.com/tv/callsign/WNJU
http://www.nbcuni.com/About_NBC_Universal/Company_Overview/overview02.shtml

WPXN apparently runs mostly infomercials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPXN-TV

News 12 Networks is owned by Cablevision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_12_Networks

Glossing over the detail that you do not even attempt to count them accurately, I will say again that JUST COUNTING CHANNELS IS MEANINGLESS, since infomercials and movies really don't provide civic information. There are about 17 broadcast stations (not 15) available in New York City. Of these, 9 (not 4) are obviously outlets for ABC, CBS, NBC, Time-Warner, or Fox. The remainder are: two (2) public broadcasting outlets, a city station, a "station" at a middle school, a small community station, a movie channel, a station that predominantly broadcasts infomercials, and the broadcast arm of a cable network that concentrates on local news. City residents may have more choices for some local coverage, than most Americans do, but otherwise they are limited to the usual sources (ABC, CBS, NBC, Time-Warner, or Fox) and public broadcasting

[onenote]

117. what's really tiresome is your dodging the issue and your factual misstatements

What part of my post was bs?
I specifically referred to stations licensed to NY. Last time I checked, Philadelphia and New Haven were not in NY. And the channels you include from CT and Philly are not generally available in NYC. For example, Time Warner Cable doesn't carry them on its system. Moreover, the FCC publishes lists of broadcast stations that were being watched in measurable levels over the air in the pre-cable era, broken out county by county, and the lists for New York, Bronx, Queens and Westchester don't include the Philly or Connecticut stations -- in fact those stations are not listed as being viewed over the air in any measurable quantity anywhere in the state of New York. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations021909.pdf

There are indeed, as I said, 15 broadcast stations widely recognized as serving New York City. Those 15 stations are carried by Time Warner Cable and are generally available over the air. (Time Warner Cable also carries one broadcast station that isn't local to New York City -- WRNN, a station licensed to Rye Brook NY that shows mostly infomercials, with four hours of news a day. Its not owned by Fox -- or any of the other 'big six'-- either).
http://www.timewarnercable.com/customerservice/clu/Clu.ashx?CLUID=536&Image1=&Zip=

And channel 12 is not a broadcast station licensed by anyone -- its a cable only channel. You want to include cable networks in the new york area --fine -- we can increase the number of non-Fox owned alternatives to include Channel 12 and, for that matter, NY1 (Time Warner's cable only news channel) and a whole bunch of cable public access and governmentally owned channels that aren't broadcast and, also, aren't owned by Fox or the big six. Heck, let's go all out and include all 200 plus channels that you can get from Time Warner cable. I'm sure that's less choice than people had 20 years ago, right? Not.

And while we're worrying about accuracy: UPN and WB don't exist anymore. Channel 9 is a My Network station owned by Fox, something you noted in your earlier post and I acknowledged in mine. WPIX, which is a CW Network station is owned by Tribune, not by Fox or CBS or Warner Bros (although the network with which it is affiliated is owned partially by CBS).

So let's review. We started out discussing the claim that six companies control 90 percent of the media outlets in the US, which is nonsensical and which you haven't even tried to establish as being statistically accurate. Then you decided to show how Fox has undue influence because, in NY, it has two stations, two newspapers, cable channels, a movie studio and a production company. I pointed out that there are lots of other stations not owned by Fox, other newspapers not owned by Fox, other networks not owned by Fox, and other production companies and movie studios, not owned by Fox. Some of them are indeed owned by CBS, NBC, Disney and Time Warner. But I thought at that point we were focusing on Fox. I guess we've gone back to the big six again but focusing on NY. To which I would again point out that, in terms of media options -- choices for consumers to get information in NY, there are 30 radio stations, the two big newspapers, the educational stations and independent broadcast stations (some of which don't offer news, but some do), and oodles of cable networks, including a news channel owned by Cablevision (not one of the big six), magazines, and, of course, Internet sites.


Yes, its tiresome spelling out the obvious -- most people today have a shitload more choices for getting information and news than they had previously. However, I will give you this much: You are right that if there is someone in NYC that relies only on over the air broadcast television for their English language news and information television programming and ignores radio, newspapers, magazines, movies,cable networks, and the internet, then one half of their choices (WABC, WNBC, WCBS, WNYW, and WWOR) are owned by Fox,CBS, NBC or ABC, while the other half (WPIX (which gets its entertainment programming from CW but produces its own news programming), WNET, WLIW, WNYE, and WMBC) are not.

[struggle4progress]

119. (1) This is a thread on the Fairness Doctrine. The top of this subthread contained a post claiming

the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional. I (#73) provided a Supreme Court case, showing that the court had ruled the Fairness Doctrine was not unconstitutional. In response to this, you (#96) asserted that media diversity is greater than ever and that the Fairness Doctrine would not pass constitutional review today: your argument there was based simply on counting channels. I (#99) objected to counting channels as a measure of diversity of the broadcast media, though I did agree with you that the current right-wing make-up of the courts would influence the effect of any litigation on this subject; I also provided a graphic labelled "Number of corporations that control a majority of US media," indicating a significant twenty year decline in diversity; the graphic clearly references (newspaper, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, movies, videos, &c&c)

Your responses typically appear to attempt to rebut claims, that I have not made, and (other than the most recent) none of your responses contain any links. For example, most of your subsequent response is devoted to an effort to debunk six companies control 90% of the media -- which is a claim that actually appears in none of my posts. Similarly, you (#100) want to look back at "the glory days of a robustly diverse media" -- as if I had ever claimed there was such a time -- but of course, we never had "a robustly diverse" broadcast media in this country, the original reason for the Fairness Doctrine (the topic of this thread), and increasing ownership concentration in recent years (across a variety of media, whatever the exact percentages are) suggests that the issues (that first led to the Fairness Doctrine) are still with us

[onenote]

122. revisionism on your part

First, what I said (#96) about the constitutionality of the FD, after noting that media options today were significantly different than was the case in 1969, was as follows " The Red Lion case held out the possibility that the FD might not be around forever. While it might survive a court challenge if it was reinstated, I wouldn't bet on it, particularly given the make up of the court." Your characterization of my statement distorts what I said significantly.

Second, your response (#99) expressly stated that "most of the media is controlled by five mega-corporations" and linked to an article that specifically claimed that the number of companies controlling 90 percent of the media had dropped to 6. So suggesting that I'm the one that brought up that issue is another bit of revisionism on your part. My response to the claim that a handful of companies control 90 percent (or even a majority) of all radio, tv, movie, magazine, newspaper, etc media focused on the utter ridiculousness of that claim as well as on demonstrating that the media environment of 30 years ago wasn't all that diverse and that while there are a number of big diverse conglomerates with multiple media interests today, the overall media landscape affords the public a greater array of choices than at any time. Citing lists of all of the media (and non-media) holdings of certain companies doesn't prove that diversity has diminished when (a) a large number of the ventures listed for each company didn't exist 20 years ago and no effort is made to compare these ventures with all of the new ventures that have been created in that time that are independent of those companies. While there are many ventures on the lists you posted that were acquired by those companies, failing to distinguish the ones that were acquired from those that were created undercuts the utility of the list as a measure of reduced diversity. And in the case of some of the acquired assets, a case can be made that they might have gone under if not acquired. For example, Turner Broadcasting faced possible bankruptcy in the mid 1980s and was saved when TCI and Time Warner purchased sizable stakes in the company -- setting the stage for the eventual Turner/Time Warner merger. The expansion of media outlets and sources is not just a matter of counting channels -- there are more channels but there also are more entities offering content particularly when you consider cable networks and the Internet. Certainly (and my posts acknowledge this), the biggest players have gotten bigger, but one can't focus only on the growth of the biggest and ignore the entry into the field of hundred if not thousands (particularly when the internet is considered) sources of information news and entertainment. The change in the media landscape is illustrated, among other things, by the decline in the size of the audiences that the major networks get for their programming as a result of fragmentation.

Finally, it certainly wasn't my intent to suggest that you personally were claiming that 20 years ago represented "the glory days of a robustly diverse media". Rather, the point I was making (and that you have mischaracterized) was as follows: "I'm not saying that the lack of diversity in the media isn't a problem. Just that its not a new problem and exagerrating it isn't the route to actually dealing with it." (#96)

[struggle4progress]

120. (2) Since you typically provide no links, I am at rather a disadvantage in responding

to your posts: you throw out one claim after another, and it is tedious to evaluate them

You (#114) apparently want to assess the New York City media market by claiming there are 15 broadcast stations, 11 of which are independent of the top corporations. Of course, you provide no link. I (#116) make an effort to determine what broadcast channels are available in the city to to determine their ownership -- and find 9 associated with the top corporations. In response, you (#117) make further claims (for which you still provide no links): for example, you apparently do not want to count the former UPN/WB stations as being owned by the top corporations on the grounds that "UPN and WB don't exist anymore." Um ... what happened is that UPN and WB merged to form

CW Television Network ... a joint venture between CBS Corporation, the former owners of United Paramount Network (UPN), and Warner Bros., former majority owner of The WB (Warner Brothers) Television Network ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CW_Television_Network

I (#116) already indicated this by writing The former UPN & WB are jointly owned by CBS & Warner Brothers, which seems accurate enough for determining whether the CW network

WPIX
http://www.wpix.com/news

should be regarded as controlled by the top corporations

[Occulus]

123. Hey, look at this

The Nation drew a map.

PDF warning! And because there are so many companies owned by those six, it's really tiny type.

False claim? Not just six companies?

Who is Onenote trying to kid?

[struggle4progress]

125. Nice chart. Thanks.

[onenote]

129. wouldn't it be interesting to see that chart expanded to show every other owner of media?

Of course, such a "map" would be too large to post on the internet. It would include: Every other owner of the hundreds of newspapers not reflected on that map. Every owner of the more than 10,000 radio stations and hundreds of broadcast stations not listed on that map. Every owner of the hundreds, if not thousands, of magazines not listed on that map. Every owner of the hundreds of cable channels not listed on that map. And, since I notice that the Atlanta Braves are listed, let's add the owner of every sports franchise in the US to the list along with every other television and movie producer. List getting pretty big? Well, we've just scratched the surface. Since the Nation's map includes foreign media, let's add every newspaper and magazine in every country in the world, and every movie production studio (India alone will fill a good map), and all the international soccer, rugby and god knows what else sports franchises. And since the Nation lists websites, let's list every other website on the Internet. When you finish THAT map, the portion of it represented by the Nation's map won't be 90 percent of it. Or 50 percent of it. It will be so tiny you'll have a hard time finding it.

Let's be clear. There is not enough diversity at the local level. Newspaper cross ownership should be limited, not expanded. Local ownership of broadcast outlets should be capped: one television station and one radio station per owner, max. Duopolies and local marketing agreements that allow common control of broadcast stations should be broken up.

But pretending that sources of media and entertainment are somehow more limited today than a couple of decades ago? When you are communicating with me over a website that didn't exist 10 years ago and that is the veritable tip of the iceberg?

The real question is why you are kidding yourself.

PS - You should be happy about the following -your map is out of date. For example, Time Warner sold the Braves two years ago. It lists both WB and CW, but WB doesn't exist -- it was replaced by CW. ABC Radio is listed under DIsney, but DIsney sold off its radio stations 18 months ago. And Turner South is listed and it ceased to exist in 2006. So I guess the trend is in the other direction, eh?

[onenote]

131. links

CW "network" offers 15 hours of purely entertainment programming a week: http://www.cwtv.com/

WPIX is owned by Tribune, not by Time Warner and CBS (or any of the other "big six"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPIX

Citation establishing that CW meets the bare minimum test of being a "network" under federal law (and offers far less programming to its affiliates than networks such as NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX):
17 USC Sec. 119(d)(2)

List of television stations serving New York showing ownership and with links to more info on each station: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_New_York

Time Warner Cable New York City channel line up:http://www.timewarnercable.com/customerservice/clu/clu.ashx

Cablevision New York CIty channel lineup: http://www.optimum.com/lineup.jsp?regionId=4

List of top 100 newspapers in US by circulation showing owners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation

List of top magazines by circulation: http://www.optimum.com/lineup.jsp?regionId=4

If for some reason you doubt the veracity of any other assertions in my posts and would like links to back them up, just let me know and I'll do my best to provide you with a source.

[struggle4progress]

133. See #134 below

[struggle4progress]

124. (3) You seem to be correct that "Channel 12" is not a broadcast station in NY city; this,

however, only strengthens the case that available broadcast media in the city is limited. Tracking down info is tedious, but you also appear to be correct that WWOR is not associated with the descendents of UPN: it was a Fox-owned UPN affiliate, and it remains a Fox (i.e. News Corp) station, so the overall conclusion is unaffected :shrug:

If we use your FCC list, we will obtain the following indications:

channel 2 - WCBS-TV - CBS
channel 4 - WNBC - NBC
channel 5 - WNYW - News Corp
channel 7 - WABC-TV - ABC
channel 9 - WWOR-TV - News Corp
channel 11- WPIX, 11 - CBS & Time Warner

By this measure, your claim that there are 15 broadcast stations in NY City, with only four spewing for the top corporations is still wrong: the FCC list indicates 6 stations, with essentially all six broadcasting the content of the top few corporations

[onenote]

130. WPIX is not owned by CBS and Time Warner

It is an affiliate of the CW "network" which provides it with 15 hours of entertainment programming a week -- the absolute bare minimum to meet the statutory definition of a "network" under federal law. (see 17 USC Sec 119(d)(2). It gets absolutely no news or other informational programming from CW and thus to characterize WPIX as being controlled by owned by CBS and Time Warner is completely misleading. I stand by my post (#117) that indicated that of the ten english language broadcast stations serving New York, five are owned/controlled by CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX and five are not.

[struggle4progress]

134. It's silly to pretend the Tribune and Time-Warner are really independent of each other:

WPIX used to call itself the flagship WB network, reflecting significant Tribune ownership interests in Time-warner

[onenote]

135. not silly and not pretending

WPIX's connection to TW and CBS consists entirely of 2 hours of programming mon-friday, nothing on Saturday and five (including a 2.5 hour movie) on Sunday. All entertainment. No news.
TW and CBS don't remotely "control" WPIX.

[struggle4progress]

137. However one looks at Channel 11 in NY city, it isn't independent of

Time-Warner: enough of its owner's shares are structured around Time-Warner stock holdings, that Tribune was forced into bankruptcy last year as a result of manipulations of its Time-Warner holdings

channel 2 - WCBS-TV - CBS
channel 4 - WNBC - NBC
channel 5 - WNYW - News Corp
channel 7 - WABC-TV - ABC
channel 9 - WWOR-TV - News Corp
channel 11- WPIX, 11 - owner bankruptcy associated with Time-Warner stock holdings



Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Tribune Co. files for bankruptcy protection
By Phil Rosenthal and Michael Oneal
December 09, 2008
... Traders in an exotic form of Tribune Co. debt tied to the price of Time Warner stock began to figure out that they could profitably buy the debt and exercise a right to exchange the securities to Tribune Co. for cash ... http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/dec/09/business/chi-081208tribune-bankruptcy

It seems our ideas of independent media differ

[onenote]

138. I'm guessing you aren't an expert in financial matters

If you are, I'd like to hear your description of the "exotic" debt instrument that was tied to the tw stock price and how it gives TW any control over Tribune.
I don't know exactly what it is, but it sounds like some form of subordinated derivative. Derivatives often are tied to stock prices, not always those of the issuing company. They do not in any way give the company whose shares are tied to the value of the security any interest in, let alone control over, the issuing company. And at $70 million (out of Tribune's 12.8 billion of debt, those derivatives standing alone were a drop in the bucket. As the article indicates, Tribune's financial problems were far deeper and far more significant than this one "exotic" bond issue.

So yes, our ideas of control and independence are different. Mine are based on reality and the normal indicia of control/influence. For example, if Tribune had a significant interest in TW or vice versa, you'd typically see some commonality in their boards -- there is none whatsoever. And when the WB network was ditched and CBS and TW combined forces to create CW, Tribune, which was a 22 percent stakeholder in WB, was the odd man out -- happily so since it was losing money hand over fist from its investment in WB, see http://ir.timewarner.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=950144-06-10008
(at page 62)

[struggle4progress]

139. "Exotic" wasn't my word: I quoted from a Tribune Company publication

discussing Tribune's problems

Perhaps the natural response today, to claims of "financial expertise," would be a loud guffaw: the current state of Wall Street says enough about "financial experts" and "derivatives" -- in the present case, it seems the "experts" had so little understanding of the "exotic" instruments they issued, that their knowledge gap helped drive the Tribune to bankruptcy. Certainly when the fate of one company depends on the stock value of another, one can scarcely regard the companies as "independent" of each other, whatever other management issues are involved

You're absolutely correct, of course, to point to interlocking directorates as a major determinant of control: from this point of view, the largest media companies are closely tied to each other and to the other mega-corporations, which not only means that the largest media companies are unlikely to compete strongly with their supposed competitors but also means that actual broadcast content is subject to effective filtering by various corporate interests at multiple levels (production, distribution, broadcast ... )

[humblebum]

77. Yes but, The people's airwaves are the only FREE medium.

And the courts have ruled that the airwaves belong to the people and the people are being denied their right to hear alternative views over their own airwaves. It is that simple. If I start a newspaper up to discredit you, you can start another one up to defend yourself, but if a Rush Limbaugh accuses someone of treason over the airwaves( which belong to the people),that person has no recourse. Plus, over the air broadcasting is still the most pervasive media of all. It's in your car, your workplace, and in the home.
Without the Fairness Doctrine the dems will be making the same mistake they made during the Clinton era.

[onenote]

132. in the end, I cast my lot with William O Douglas

While its been suggested that if you don't support the reinstatement of the FD you're a freeper (not on this thread, but here -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8206630#8209359 ) I think its possible to simply disagree on the issue on first amendment grounds. Yes, Red Lion upheld the Doctrine 40 years ago. Even then, the Court left the door open a crack for the possibility that circumstances could change in ways that called into question the doctrine's constitutionality. Personally, I find it notable that William O Douglas, who no one could accuse of having a freeper mentality, did not participate in the Red Lion case and, in another case (CBS v.Dem Nat. Committee) expressly stated that if he had participated he would have dissented because, in his view, the FD was incompatible with the first amendment. Other distinguished and progressive jurists have come to the same conclusion, including Appellate court judges J Skelly Wright and David Bazelon in a case in which the FCC revoked a station's license for violating the Fairness Doctrine (The Brandywine-Main Line case). The DC Circuit upheld the FCC (and the SCOTUS denied cert). But only one judge, Judge Tamm, agreed that the station's license could constitutionally be revoked for violating the FD.

I don't know how the SCOTUS today would come out. I do know that there are some cogent arguments in the opinions of Douglas, Bazelon, Wright and other progressive judges that someone like Ginsburg might well find persuasive.

[libodem]

52. One thing about listening to the right-wing-nut stations

spewing the hate is at least they are not hiding it. It's all out in the open. It scares me. It makes me dizzy with incredulous dumbfounded jaw-dropped disbelief. But you know what is rolling in from the top down. I just wish the left were as prolific with the indoctrination. Someone should be shoving secular humanism and unions down the general publics throat at all times.

[Lex]

58. Of course Obama will PUBLICLY distance himself from support of reinstatment

of the Fairness Doctrine.

Politically I think it wouldn't be a great thing for him, as President, to push.

There might be several issues that he distances himself from publicly that he doesn't actually have a problem with.

[readmoreoften]

64. Ah, conspiracy hoping. The real Obama is good and true. But he must wear the mask of a fiend!

It's all an elaborate ruse!

[Lex]

67. I'm sure that must mean something.

nt

[marksmithfield]

68. Good

Does anyone remember what it was like to try and watch the news? Everyone with an opposing opinion on anything was allowed air time, it was ridiculous. Remember Emily Litella from Saturday night live? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella
There has to be a better way.

[No Elephants]

85. I remember what it was like to watch the news. I don't know where you watched, but I watched in

New Jersey, then in Manhattan and then in Boston. It was a heck of a lot better and fairer in all three places than it is now. I'd rather have Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather than Rush Limbaugh and Sinclair any day of the week, month or year.

Heck, I even remember when a guest on Meet the Press actually met the press and got interviewed without a script.

[onenote]

115. Sinclair doesn't have any stations in NYC, NJ or Boston

For sake of accuracy.

[librechik]

72. Obama probably feels there's enough in current law--IF ENFORCED-- to make a difference.

Besides, there is no such thing as The Fairness Doctrine. Try to find a copy of it, anywhere. It doesn't exist.

The real action item would be to repeal the 96 Telecommunications Act, or parts of it, to roll back the number of outlets media corps can own in any one market. That seems illegal on its face.

[No Elephants]

75. A policy does not exist--and never did-- unless you can find a copy of it? Seriously?

[librechik]

79. something existed--but it wasn't a law, more of a posture.. This is just another strawman argument

from the intellectually bankrupt right wing. No there there.

Seriously.

[No Elephants]

94. The fairness doctrine was established in numerous adminstrative rulings. It was

the subject of a Supreme Court case and a number of Circuit Court of Appeals cases. It was the policy of the FCC and the Supremes upheld the FCC's right to enforce it. It was also the subject of at least one DU poster's master thesis (see Humblebum's post on this thread. Pretty hard to do a master's thesis on something that does not exist.

Adminstrative law doesn't need to be in a statute to be enforceable by an administrative agency or or to have the courts back up that enforcement. However, as to the FD in particular, it seems that Congress liked the FD, too, and DID make it into law, albeit well after the FCC began enforcing it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

Apparently you simply were not looking in the right places (no pun intended).

As far as the right wing, it opposes the Fairness Doctrine, exactly as you do. See, among many others, http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm

[humblebum]

76. I did my master's thesis on the Fairness Doctrine a couple

years ago and I can only say that there is no single issue more feared by conservatives than the doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine worked for about 40 years before it was abrogated by the Reagan Administration. Without elaborating, I have no doubt that without a new updated FAIRNESS DOCTRINE the neocons will attempt and most likely succeed in doing to Obama what they were able to do to Clinton. It is that serious!
Without the FD, an atmosphere of hostility will be created over the next few years in a majority of people and the results will be disasterous for the Democrats.
I just recently started posting again. I used to be 'eagler' but have been inactive for a long time.

[No Elephants]

78. Congrats on completing your masters' thesis. It must have been cool to do it on the FD.

[depakid]

81. "Without the FD, an atmosphere of hostility will be created over the next few years "

It's already there- and failure to act will simply perpuate it.

That along with what I've come to call the culture of lies.

Re-regulating the corporate media and providing listeners and viewer with diversity and accountability is probably the single most important and effective thing that the aministration could do- yet, like the Clinton administration, they seem incapable of learning from past mistakes.

[marshall]

82. Well, I'm glad that's settled

Now we can move on to something else.

[Tesha]

84. And while you move on, the Republican-dominated media will continue dismantling your efforts...

...and plans. But why worry about that, ehh?

Tesha

[No Elephants]

95. Neo cons want to invade Iraq? No problem. Let's put them on the Today Show, Good Morning America,

the Early Show, Meet the Press and Face the Nation every time they want to appear. Not to mention Fox, MSNBC,. etc. And let's let them say exactly what they want to say. And let's make believe we asking incisive questions, but let's not ask any follow up questions. And let's be grateful we don't have to give any Democrat equal time to rebut any of the shat Dickie, Rummy and Condi are dishing out.

[Lost4words]

101. The FD went much farther than equal time for opposing views.

Under the FD the airways belonged to the people. By reading some of the replays on this thread I am saddened that so many are smugly satisfied with their own ignorance.

Aging former broadcaster!

[onenote]

105. actually, it didn't even go that far

The FD did not require "equal time" for opposing views. Indeed, the FD, in practice, was pretty loose -- as the FCC said: "the Fairness Doctrine does not require coverage of every possible viewpoint or shade of opinion, and does not entitled any particular individual or group to air time". MOreover, in enforcing the FD, the FCC's rulings "were not based on a determination of whether we believe that the licensee has acted wisely or whether we would have proceeded as he did. Rather, we limit our inquiry to a determination of whether, in the light of all the facts and circumstances presented, it is apparent that the licensee has acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable fashion." The FCC tended, in the first instance, to accept the station's judgment as to whether an issue reflected a matter of controversy in the community, often finding that it did not. And where the first prong of the doctrine was satisfied, it was pretty generous in finding that station's had aired opposing viewpoints.

[annabanana]

110. OK, then. . will he work to break up the media monopolies?

. . or make companies that own media outlets ineligible for federal contracts?

I would accept either option. .

[Dukkha]

111. well he have lots more murders to look forward too

all the lunatics out there taking their orders from the hate mongers are arming up for more mass shootings. All rights have responsibilites and the unmigiated free speech on the airwaves has gone too far for too long.

[Zavulon]

118. Good for Obama here.

The so-called "Fairness" Doctrine can easily be played up as censorship, and to be quite honest it actually strikes me as such. If I owned a radio station, I wouldn't want to have any other obligation than to comply with FCC decency laws - I wouldn't want the feds to tell me what I have to run, either.

Obama is smart enough to know that the supposed "Fairness" wouldn't go over well, AND that by letting the righty gasbags bloviate it helps us rather than hurts us. Doubt me? Listen to three hours of Hannity and tell me otherwise. Those who listen to that asshole will never vote for our people anyway. Those with an open mind will run screaming away from that shit. Unlike others, I will never stoop to stupid labels like "hate radio" because I've never actually heard any hatred or promotion thereof on these shows, but I hear a lot of ignorance - and I see nothing wrong with letting these fuckbags continuing to shoot themselves in the foot.

In other words, I'm trusting Obama's instincts on this, as I think we all should.

Let the Dittoheads have their little radio shows. Limpballs claims to have an audience of 20 million, but a.) I doubt even half of them vote, and b.) I've always been amazed at the number of so-called "conservative" assholes who collect welfare and unemployment. I'd be inclined to guess that a lot of them listen to radio because they can't afford cable. Fuck 'em, let them curl up in their own little world. We'll never win them over anyway.

If you want to pass this bullshit doctrine, pass it with about three months left in Obama's eighth year in office if and only if it looks like the GOP nominee is going to win. Then the asshole who wins can piss away valuable time erasing it and come off as far less effective during his first 100 days.

Fuck the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine. We don't need it, and kudos to President Obama for knowing so.

[depakid]

127. People with misguided and ill informed opinions like this deserve ECACTLY the media they get

As well as the culture of lies that goes with it.

Unfortunately- others deserve bette- and aren't going to get it due to willful ignorance like you've expressed.

[shannonmerklan]

121. Minorites should be allowed to own media outlets

The number of minority owners of media outlets (women, blacks, latinos) in the nation is disproportionately low. That is one aspect of this whole situation that should be addressed.

[NashVegas]

128. Disappointing. I Believe This Is a Great Pro-Pirate Radio Argument

We call the airwaves "public" because anyone with minor technical knowledge can broadcast. With consolidation and radio as an "investment," we effectively steal this public resource and put it in the hands of the few.

If the entity charged with seeing access to the public airwaves remains fairly distributed refuses to do what its main - alleged - reason for being entails, why should anyone who wants access but is denied due to lack of finances feel obliged to meet government regulations? Maybe a little civil disobedience on a massive scale would remind the FCC who they work for.