Reuters ran a story Sunday that largely slipped beneath the radar:
Democrat Barack Obama said on Sunday he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if he becomes U.S. president and singled out the media industry as one area where government regulators would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.
“I will assure that we will have an antitrust division that is serious about pursuing cases,” the Illinois senator told an audience of mostly senior citizens in Oregon.
“There are going to be areas, in the media for example where we’re seeing more and more consolidation, that I think (it) is legitimate to ask…is the consumer being served?”
Given that Obama was whining about Fox News Channel last week, it is tempting to see this as a veiled shot at Rupert Murdoch’s recent acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, or a variation of the Left’s long-standing hostility to Clear Channel Communications, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio in general. But the story may be a little more complicated than that.
Obama has been leading a charge against a Federal Communications Commission decision last December to loosen its newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule. The Senate voted last Thursday to invalidate the FCC’s decision. As Obama urged the House of Representatives to do the same:
He framed the vote, as he has before, as standing up to “Washington special interests,” a campaign theme. “Our nation’s media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership,” he said.
In reality, Obama is backing the Media Ownership Act, which would – among other things – require the FCC to establish an independent panel on female and minority ownership and await that panel’s recommendations before voting on any changes to the ownership rules. What Obama seems to want is a return to affirmative action preferences that are really a sop to the wealthy, media-savvy minority investors positioned to take advantage of them and that — if history is any guide —  have little effect on programming.
It is a view that seemingly runs contrary to his publicly-stated views on affirmative action in other settings, like education.  It is another example where Obama is a lot cozier with those “Washington special interests” than he is willing to tell his supporters.
It’s not just the left that dislikes ClearChannel. It is anyone who actually likes music and gets irritated with hearing the same song played 18 times an hour by some talentless douchebag artist (the thirteen-year old whore/singer/actress du jour).
“hearing the same song played 18 times an hour . . .”
“Waiter, this food was so bad, I could just barely eat it all.”
It is another example where Obama is a lot cozier with those “Washington special interests†than he is willing to tell his supporters.
Well, yes, but he is cozy with the right special interest groups.
#2: So YOU are the one calling in those requests for Hannah Montana!
I’d be interested in knowing what diversity, on the radiowaves, is lacking? Detroit has just about everything, all w/o this media ownership crap. Conservatives have – basically – two AM stations (although the one isn’t all conservative), while liberal voices are heard on just about every other station. My husband- at times- has to turn off his sports radio stuff because they are so liberal. The music stations all lean left. We had that all-liberal talk-radio station, but I think it died on the vine.
Why don’t these folks realize that if something is desired, it will work commerically w/o government involvement?
Lisa – That is my daughter, Kaitlin, doing that. I denounce myself, my parenting skills, and condemn myself to a life of misery for having taught her how to dial my cell phone.
Conservatives have – basically – two AM stations
I think that’s the “problem” that Barry is trying to address.
I only have one Hannah Montana fan, so (out of five) I’m calling my parenting skillz a success!
Ha, you’re funny Spies.
But, sadly correct.
Note that NPR has been doing everything within its power to strangle LPFM community radio at birth.
I guess some “community advocates” are more equal than others, eh?
Do you suppose Barry’s proposal will break up the NPR “trust”?
“Why don’t these folks realize that if something is desired, it will work commerically w/o government involvement?”
Because you’re stupid and have to be told what to listen to by your betters.
Seems to me the only outfit truly approaching the sobriquet of ‘trust’ is the AP.
Time Warner sure as hell wants to get out of the cable bidness before Baracky gets his hands on the FCC. They’re gonna cast their lot with the Speed Racer brain trust part of the company.
Question: can the FCC control cable content? Internet content?
I mean, as far s I know, neither of the are “broadcast”.
The FCC regulates both cable and telecom, which (between them) account for most of the Internet as well.
NPR wants to be the ClearChannel of public radio. Wait….they ARE the ClearChannel of public radio…. dammit!!!
I hate that radio is so crappy, but that is why there is internet radio and iTunes. Liberal as I am, I figure the market is giving us what we want. It is not like ClearChannel appeared out of nowhere and foisted itself upon us. Someone really likes it this way or it wouldn’t be. Apparently, heavy rotation of crap music (rap, canned country, and shitty pop), bullshit contests, and inane morning drivel make a winning formula. Similar to our bitching about what is on TV: It would not be there if we weren’t watching it – thus filling someones coffers with piles of advertisement dollars.
I don’t like the idea of Obama giving lip service to the idea that somehow we got to this place by some sinister plot. We got to this place because we, as a nation, have somewhat bad taste in music and entertainment.
Lisa –
I agree most mersh radio is crap… but so it was before the rise of Clear Channel. And while I rarely tune it in now, there is an argument to be made that the old Top 40 (even during the cheesy 70s) was someplace where people might hear different genres and have a shared cultural experience. Similarly, as bad as network TV is, the choice provided by cable and satellite makes it harder to have that shared watercooler chat. I still prefer the choice, but add the footnote.
Oh. It’s way more better when people who feel they must tell you what they watched on tv last night are at least telling you about something you don’t know.
Since you’re projecting/injecting a personal assumption you should be stating “what I think Obama might want is…” You’re not qualified to carry Obama’s travel bag, much less speak for the man.
Understand the hierarchy of the Native American totem pole, Obama’s top dog and you’re effen Karl; your wooden face is carved below the piss line. Glad I could clear that up.
What Baracky wants
What Baracky needs
Whatever makes Baracky happy sets you free
And I’m thanking thor for knowin’ exactly
#18: I agree wholeheartedly.
You’re not qualified to carry Obama’s travel bag, much less speak for the man.
LMAO!!! I see you are still holding it down in the ’08 for Obama. Good job.
Factless thor continues to shiver blissfully, fully impaled on the Rigid Hope™.
Did Obama author the legislation?
Thank you.
The more the Obama bashing continues, the more I become convinced to vote for him.
Interesting info for all you guys, and Karl and Dan.
As you probably aware Russian immigrants in the overwhelming majority become republican faithful as soon as they arrive in USA. Which is quite understandable cause in our minds Democratic party stands ideologically closer to the socialists back in Russia, then republicans (at least that’ used to be the common understanding in the immigrant families).
And I fall in the same niche too.
My first American presidential vote was in 2000 for Bush.
For the reasons most of you already know after my postings on this blog, the years of Bush administration turned out to be a disaster in foreign relationships imho.
Arrogance , incompetence, nepotism, ideology over pragmatism etc, etc, unprecedented in recent times(to prevent Karl’s example with FDR) grab for executive power and so on…
There will be no republican in 2008 who I will pull the lever for(I’d rather puke all over myself), because they were all willing accomplices and silent to Bush’s abuses.
And I will judge Obama administration( if he wins) be his deeds, not by the noise many of commentators engage themselves in…
how do you say drama queen in Russian?
drama queen
ahh. Ok well it’s not that fraught really. What’s scary a lot is that the media is in the driver’s seat. Baracky thinks it’s him, which is kind of cute, but for real the tail is wagging the dog.
Wait: there are still radio stations broadcasting music?
Are there still people without MP3 players?
фõр÷ь ôрðüы
Hohohoho, now there’s some nasty nuance!
In that case, by November the media drumbeat for Obama will have you voting early and often for McCain.
JD, this is the chess term-фõр÷ь
Queen is úþрþûõòð.
There is no literal equivalent to the drama queen in Russian, but anglicisms are so widespread now , that lot of of people will understand what you are saying
I find it amazing that people who think the Bush administration was corrupt would consider voting for a Chicago machine politician.
The only really cool radio station I have heard was in Spearfish, South Dakota. They played a wide variety of tunes and genres. I think they could get away with it because they were so small-market.
Any large city has its “X” station that plays hard rock, its “Jack FM” which “plays what they want” but has the same playlist in every location, etc. The predictability can be nice sometimes, but who listens to the radio for music any more?
Sashal,
And I will judge Obama administration( if he wins) be his deeds, not by the noise many of commentators engage themselves in…
so, you’ll vote for him despite what he says, what he wrote, what his closest advisors/mentors say and believe? You won’t consider what he says and writes and what those close to him say and write? You’ll just vote for him and then judge what he does?
Interesting. Idiotic, but interesting. I’m constantly amazed by the idiocy of the left. I guess this is the kind of thing I should expect from people who appear to have no grasp of facts, history, reading comprehension, or reasoned analysis.
I’ll vote for him b/c it feels good. I no need to think . . .
thor wants to know whether O! wote the bill. He did not, but he is a co-sponsor and vocal advocate for it. O! and Kerry have threatened to de-fund the FCC over the issue. All easily discoverable by clicking on the links in the post. Not that thor cares about facts when it comes to O! or me, as he obviously does not.
The more the Obama bashing continues, the more I become convinced to vote for him.
I find that surprising b/c your comments always lead me to believe you are an intelligent person open to logical and factual argument. I thought you were open minded and might consider voting for a republican.
/sarcasm off.
The more the Obama bashing continues, the more I become convinced to vote for him.
“Obama bashing” as defined by the left:
(1) Logically analyzing what Obama actually says, writes or does. Logically analyzing what his advisors/mentors say, write or do.
(2) Failing to believe that Obama is the second coming.
sashal,
Bob Barr is really going to miss your vote. Nader also.
Three words:
“Watchin’ Scotty grow”
That is all.
“# Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 10:03 am #
I find it amazing that people who think the Bush administration was corrupt would consider voting for a Chicago machine politician.”
HAH!
Oooo, oooo, is “Obama bashing” the same thing as “swiftboating”?
‘Cause I want to keep my reactionary leftist lexicon up to date.
hey, Karl, who knows, may I will go and waste one on B.Barr
#38,
I might, GB, consider voting for a republican, I am sure ,but not before 2012(God willing),
and not before the current incarnation will not cleanse itself from everything neoconservative.
Like dr.Rice said about ME- “creative chaos”.
I want creative chaos to GOP.
Sashal,
Define “neoconservative” so we know what it is you think you are talking about.
sashal,
Bush relied on bad intel from the CIA.
Bob Barr was punked by Borat.
O!
I guess I’m the opposite. If the democrats can cleanse themselves of everything “progressive” (which I define as hard-core socialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-american) I would vote for a democrat.
#47.
You can’t be that naive, can you?
The Iraq thingy was on the neocon minds way before Bush even came to office. In him they found willing recipient of their ideas.
It is not nice to make CIA a scapegoat, Karl.
Politics and ideology dictated the actions against Iraq, not the urgency of their potential weaponisation…
Borat is cool, persona non grata in Kazakhstan
GB, here are 2 gifts for you
one
second
oops, I will try again
one
second
Sashal,
I asked you to define what you believe neoconservatism is.
Can you do that in a few sentances? What beliefs do you think “neoconservatism” holds? What tenents?
If you are unable to do that without linking to a long-winded post by someone else that actually say almost nothing (Yes, I read them), then you clearly have no idea of what you believe “neoconservatism” to be other than some boogy-man that you can throw out and say “I’m open-minded, I’d vote for republicans if not for those evil neoconservatives.”
So, please to answer my question yourself in your own words. Otherwise, I will believe, as I already suspect, that once again you know nothing about what you claim to know.
Sashal,
I’ll try to make this easy. You would vote for a conservative that promised not to start another war like Iraq? B/c, in most liberal circles (and in your links), neoconservative simply means those who support the Iraq war (and of course also those who support Isreal).
So, you are claiming you would vote a conservative platform of lower taxes, smaller government, getting rid of racial quotas, no stupid economy killing global warming regulations, no socialized health care, and actually strengthing SS through privatization?
Or, as again I suspect, are you simply truly a leftist who likes to throw around the term neoconservative when what you really mean is that your against anything not socialist/liberal?
sashal,
You can’t be that historically ignorant can you?
Those eeeeeeeevil neocons were interested in regime change before Bush got into office.
IT WAS ALSO OFFICIAL US GOV’T POLICY UNDER CLINTON.
To pretend that neocon think tanks were the only ones thinking about it is to ignore history at least as far back as 1991.
After 9/11, it made sense to reassess the threats posed by states that aided terror groups and pusued WMDs.
Had Bush not done that reassessment, and there had been another attack, he would have been impeached. That’s the “politics” at work.
Karl,
don’t you understand the left’s logic on this point? Clinton and the Dems never really meant that they wanted regime change in Iraq, and would never have done anything about it.
They said all those things only to make us rubes believe that they cared about national security and/or took national security seriously. Dems are allowed to say things like that to get and keep power, b/c the left knows they never mean it and would never act to secure america from a threat.
Thus, the left reasons, only neoconservatives can be blamed for thinking Iraq posed any threat and only neoconservatives can be blamed for wanting regime change in Iraq.
It’s really quite simple. Once you accept (as the left implicitly does to make this argument) that dems are always lying when they are pretending to be serious about national security, it becomes very clear.
So, you are claiming you would vote a conservative platform of lower taxes, smaller government, getting rid of racial quotas, no stupid economy killing global warming regulations, no socialized health care, and actually strengthing SS through privatization?
Yep, with one exception on healthcare.
and of course also those who support Isreal neocons not only the ones who support Israel
Karl, regime change not= military intervention
Yep, they really re-ass-essed the immediate threat from Iraq.
Another attack from Iraq?
Sashal,
Please forgive me that I don’t believe you. You are saying that b/c of the Iraq war you are going to vote against all of the allegdly conservative beliefs you allegedly hold. We call people who make these claims mobys.
For some reason there is a belief on the left that if you pretend to be a conservative, while denigrating conservatism, conservatives will say “gee, I never thought of that, now I’ll vote for the liberal policies”. That is the game you are trying to play. I don’t think anyone here buys it.
It goes hand-in-hand with the belief that liberals have that they are smarter than conservatives. Thus, you think you can trick us into changing our positions.
I would actually respect you more if you simply said “look, I’m an unabashed liberal/progressive, I believe the gov’t should tax more, regulate more, and control more – and here are my arguments why”.
Instead, you pretend to be a conservative, but one who is turned off by the “lies” and “evilness” of “Bushco” and therefore simply have to vote for an extreme liberal like Obama. It simply defies any credibility to make such a crazy claim.
the fact that liberals like you are unable to do that says much more about the weakness of your philosophy and positions then anything else I could argue.
Karl, regime change not= military intervention
Really, according to who?
Yep, they really re-ass-essed the immediate threat from Iraq.
Again, like you always do, ignore all the facts of a decade of dems, including Clinton when President, saying that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
If you have to lie to make your argument, doesn’t it ever make you wonder why? I just don’t understand.
Argue that the policy to attack Iraq and depose Saddam with teh military was wrong, and that the aftermath was mishandled. But arguing that Bush someone traveled in time to make the assessments that Iraq posed a threat is mind-numbingly stupid and completely dishonest.
So, to sum up – you are either stupid or dishonest. Which is it?
GB, I never said I am a conservative .
I am liberal and I support the message of lower taxes and smaller government and I am against affirmative action.
Can you comprehend that ?
I am also against unnecessary wars against countries which did not pose a threat to us, did not attack us.
But arguing that Bush someone traveled in time to make the assessments that Iraq posed a threat is mind-numbingly stupid and completely dishonest.
Where the fuck this dishonest assessment came from
How about countries that violate negotiated ceasefires?
nuke them
You know, Karl.
Why do you think I am on the Clinton side, btw.
Did I ever say that or gave any hints?
Just to make it clear for our future discussions- I was never his fan, and was not approving of many of his foreign initiatives…
#58: You guys have just as many of those faux liberals who ‘express their concern’ about the ‘dreadful direction of the Democratic party’ incessantly on liberal blogs. We call them concern trolls. I also love it when someone gets a hold of a supposedly “liberal” or “conservative” pundit who says something to trash their purportedly native party – giving them some bullshit form of legitimacy.
We totally had lots of reasons to kick Iraq’s ass. We have good reason to kick a lot of people’s asses. But we generally decide not to because it is expensive in both blood and money and a pain in the ass. Arguing about whether we had a reason to go in is moot. Yeah we had a reason. Shit we have a reason to kick the shit out of Syria and North Korea…..fuck, we really ought to cock punch Saudi Arabia. The endless argument is whether we should have gone in there (just because you can doesnt mean you should).
sashal,
No, I was merely pointing out that the notion of regime change was not cooked up in some darkened cave by the eeeeeeeeeevil PNAC. Regime change doesn’t have to be by direct military intervention, but given that GHWB and Clinton both screwed over the Shia and Kurd resistance, a proxy war wasn’t really an option either. And sanctions only work when they are universal, which was not the case with Iraq, as the massively corrupt UN OFF program demonstrated.
Again, had Bush taken no action, and the US had suffered another 9/11 that could have been traced in any way — no matter how remote — to Iraq, the Dems would have had his head on a pike, based on the conventional wisdom as to Saddam’s intentions.
Members of PNAC were not in the cave, but in the government.
But anyway , Karl, I like you and I like Dan, but I do not think we would ever agree on the Iraq war.
The war which resulted in the devastation of another country for no good reason, which led to multiple deaths of innocents for no good reason – and the millions of refugees.
Let’s finish that theme, looks like we never going to get agreement on that anyway.
Hopefully the new administration will be more pragmatic in the foreign policies, just like Reagan and Kissinger were….
“Bush-hate” is sashal’s god. It’s the golden calf of “Bush-hate”.
I’ll go as far as to say that if “Bush-hate” were a dude, sashal would be cupping his balls and sucking his joint like it had the winning lottery numbers in it. Other than that, I find sashal to be perfectly reasonable.
incidentally,
I either missed it discussed here or you guys missed two things which happened recently.
The absolute idiotism of the congress for suing OPEC countries; and finally a good thing that Bush did-vetoing the farm’s bill
sashal,
Agree with you on both of those. I did write about how pork-laden the farm bill was. That the veto will be overridden makes it almost too depressing to revisit. And Dems thinking a lawsuit is the answer to life’s problems borders on self-parody.
did not attack us.
Saddam fired on U.S. aircraft hundreds of times.
Hundreds, sashal.
After he signed a “cease fire”.
Just what the hell do you consider an “attack”, anyway?
6 platen watervastverlijmd Brynzeel Mahonie, 5 blikken verf, 1 pot plamuur en vellen schuurpapier , een kilo RVS Schroefjes en 6 vuilniszakken vol met rommel Maar het resultaat mag er wezen!.