TELL CONGRESS “NO” TO MEDIA MEGA-MERGER
Back in 2003, America’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed rules that would, in effect, consolidate all major media outlets into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. Thanks to grass roots reaction from millions on the country’s Left, Center and Right, such efforts failed.
But now, current FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin is trying to implement similar rules with little or no public scrutiny. He announced this in early November at a public meeting in Seattle. He has ignored protests from even two of his fellow FCC commissioners regarding this matter. His intention is to eliminate anti-monopoly media regulations by December 11th. Prominent among these is getting rid of the rule that forbids a company from owning both a major newspaper and a major television or radio station in the same market.
Thanks to warnings on the Internet, however, such villainous and underhanded tactics have not gone unnoticed. These proposals Martin supports violate a key tenet of Distributist Thought. And that is promoting and supporting ownership of the means of production and distribution into as many hands as possible. In this case, it is ownership of media outlets by as many small owners as possible.
We at the Review urge you to join in the growing effort to stop this legal pandering to globalist fanatics, Socialists and corporate conglomerates in Big Media. Time is short, so act quickly. Contact the FCC and politely ask them to not loosen these restrictions on big Media. And there is also a bill in the U.S. Senate, S. 2332, called the “Media Ownership Act of 2007”. It is designed to encourage review of sales of media outlets to big companies, among other things. We ask you to call your Senator and demand he or she support this bill to the hilt.
We only have until December 11. So click on the links and act now! Thank you.
Link one is here. Link two is here. Link three is here.
6 comments:
I like the idea of this post, as we were discussing this issue in my bureaucracy class, and under distributist theory this bill is not a good thing. Here's my question, what practical effect would keeping people from buying too many media outlets really do for our news coverage? Would our news coverage really be any different? My thought is that it wouldn't be any different.
However, this is not to say that such an underhanded tactic can go rewarded because I do agree it is underhanded. I'm just not seeing what practical effect that it will have on our news coverage. (Usually I watch the news and have to turn it off because it's the same basic thing over and over again, this is why I get my news source from the CSMonitor (that's a little better media outlet.)
I would like to hear more about how distributist theory plays a role in rejecting this bill, and also what practical effect you think this bill might have. If you would like to e-mail me my e-mail address is acfitzpatri@csbsju.edu. Thanks for your input and thoughts on this topic.
Grace and Peace,
With the rise of the Internet, MSM is less powerful. However, MSM does have the power to influence viewers immensely, especially older viewers who do not use the Internet. If allowed into the hands of only a few, these few could promote political candidates and sway public opinion.
The masses don't generally get to hear of but part of the story. MSM sold the Iraq War and more recently the Jena 6 hoax. MSM has also fallen behind candidates Giuliani and Clinton. If allowed to consolidate, such bias would only increase.
I wonder if such consolidation could create 'blowback' and a resulting rise in Internet popularity...
I'd say that's definitely possible. What exactly was Jena 6 about (because I actually haven't heard anything about that.)? I do agree also that older audiences that do not use computers and the internet could be affected by this. Okay this idea makes some sense to me now thank you for the clarification.
Grace and Peace,
I was just thinking, one of the criticisms often made of Russia's elections is the state ownership of its media. The papers, radio, and TV have a lot of influence. That said, Putin seems a patriotic leader, though certainly not ideal by distributist standards. I think I'd prefer him to any of the loons running for president in this country, save Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter of course.
---
Jena Six was just a case involving 6 black boys who beat up a white boy. Al Sharpton flew down and all sorts of false rumors were accepted as true by the media. One was that the victim wasn't really hurt badly and that the charges against the attackers were too harsh (admittedly they were later reduced though the attack was brutal and the victim thought dead at first - I'm uncertain of what the typical punishment is for such a thing though), another this wild tale of a whites only tree that students hung out at (maybe ate lunch at I forget - they do eat there but it isn't 'white's only') from which nooses were hung (2 nooses were hung one but by rodeo fans and much earlier than the fight - also not by the victim.)
Though a biased source in the other direction, the CofCC is big in my state, and when I hear of racial conflicts I go to its website to hear the other side's version. Its section on Jena 6 can be found here. There's a lot more to the hoax than you probably care to hear. Needless to say, a lot of money has been made by the race demagogues over it.
It might just be the tendency of meddling outsiders to get the facts wrong, but the media readily jumps on any white on black crime assuming it's racist (especially if by a Southerner.)
I meant 2 lassos were hung, not nooses. And they were hung months earlier. I write too quickly...
This article just came out smearing Putin and his Orthodox revival.
Post a Comment