Monday, June 13, 2005

The Berlusconi Example   Huge news today from the Supreme Court.  They agreed not to hear a case that, if overturned, would have allowed further consolidation of the media.  The big media companies have gotten so big that they cannot expand without a radical change in the law.  The FCC, under former FCC chairman Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son), attempted to do just that under a 3-2 party line vote, but a federal Appeals Court found that the logic behind that decision and the evidence presented in support of it was specious.  The Supreme Court decided it had no reason to disagree. The court may have refused to hear this case on the merits; it also may have done so because it was a matter of the government voluntarily reducing its power to regulate, and there is a solid 6 votes among the 9 Justices in favor of increasing federal power (three Democratic appointees and three Republican appointees).  I find that situation troubling, but that doesn't mean I can't rejoice when it means the court makes the right decision for America.  There are a number of reasons to oppose further consolidation of the press.  The most frequently cited is simply to preserve a diversity of views.  And that's important, no question.  But it's not the most important reason. The greatest risk of further consolidation of the ownership of the media isn't simply that a partisan media emperor will so slant the journalism of his empire that he chooses who gets elected.  That ship has sailed; there is, after all, Fox News.  No, what we really must face is the day when a media emperor decides to run for President.  In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi is serving as Prime Minister; when elected, he was facing charges for criminal business practices, so his parliamentary majority simply changed the law so that, poof!, his crimes ceased to exist.  That sort of thing would lead to a great howl from the press in America, but Silvio Berlusconi also owns 60% of the TV stations in Italy.  When a President not only decides how the government wishes the actions of the government be presented, but also decides what a large portion of the press decide is news, then American democracy will be in serious danger. 8:55:16 PM    comment []

Conservative Bias in the Media   In a new four page interview, Salon.com (Southern star) joins most of the mainstream media in pushing the idea that Governor Mark Warner of Virginia is the Great White Southern Moderate Hope of the Democratic party.  Once or twice every four years, the media pushes this idea that the way for the Democrats to win is to go more Southern and more conservative...and, generally, that the guy to hire to bring about this new image is a political near-amateur.  In the last election cycle, the guy they picked to make this argument was Sen. John Edwards; back before the '92 election was the one time, in Bill Clinton, that they were right, and actually picked a guy who had some experience. If the press was really liberal, they wouldn't keep trying to make the Democratic party more conservative.  If they had any conception what it takes to get elected, they wouldn't keep asking us to nominate political neophytes.  The Democrats have become in recent times the more responsible party; the party that actually tries to pay down the debt and keep the economy working for everybody.  The Republicans are free to look for candidates who view the White House as an entry-level job, or a job to seek after nearly no experience in office, as for instance when they put forth Gov. George W. Bush, who had been governor of Texas for a few years, the least powerful governorship in the country.  That resulted in a President who had no idea what it takes to govern, and no interest in working with a legislature.  The lieutenant governor does all the work in Texas--Bush had had next to no experience working with a legislature before he became President.  In addition to political neophytes not tending to make good Presidents, they also tend to make bad candidates.  At some point, they generally make fools of themselves.  Sometimes, fools can be likeable (remember Reagan saying that trees cause most pollution...that was cute); but is that really what we want or need in a candidate? 4:31:39 PM    comment []

Does Fox News Know Something We Don't Know?   "Do you think that the focus on Michael Jackson has hurt you?" Neil Cavuto asked the President on Fox News last week.  Which begs the question:  why would Michael Jackson's trial hurt the President?  Did the President spend time with Michael Jackson and small children in bed, performing some sort of three-way?  Does the President have his own well-known suspected predilection for molesting small children?  I hadn't heard that, but the folks at Fox News are all movement conservatives, so they'd hear that sort of thing before me. Either that's the best question asked in modern times by a reporter, or it's the stupidest question to be asked recently, though closely followed by other softball questions pitched at the President by the groveling folks at Fox News.  I say, let's all give Fox News the benefit of the doubt. 11:00:21 AM    comment []

Quote for the Day, 6/13/2005   "I don't know your mother, but I'll tell you something.  She did it to you and her mother did it to her and back and back and back all the way to Eve and at some point you just say, 'Fuck it, I start with me.'"   -Gene Hackman, Postcards from the Edge 1:57:06 AM    comment []