The MSM often ignores Obama's record as a Senator, let alone looking at his voting record, in order to portray him as a celebrity, although Obama has been far more active than McCain over the past year with McCain missing numerous votes such as the GI Bill. One issue that Obama has been active and clear on, but which is ignored, are Obama's consistent efforts to promote an independent media. Obama touches on the issue of media bias in his book, Audacity of Hope, where he defends Hillary against common media portrayals. Moreover, as a Senator, he has been outspoken on the issue. As the record shows, Obama has been active in this area, and as the presumptive nominee, he has reiterated his support for an independent and diverse media. This is why News Corp (Fox) and Disney (ABC) will not allow Obama to win. Such a win threatens their expansion efforts. Thus, it is no coincidence that these stations have worked overtime to try to slow Obama's momentum. Of course, Big Media will never cover this issue, since they have a direct stake in the outcome.
Here's some background:
1. In October 2007, Obama issued the following press release in favor of promoting media diversity:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/071022-obama_fcc_polic /
2. In November 2007, Obama co-sponsored the Media Ownership Act of 2007:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6498856.html /snip
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) is introducing a bill Thursday that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from voting on any new media-ownership rules until sometime in 2008 and open a separate proceeding on broadcast localism.
Dorgan said he is introducing the Media Ownership Act of 2007, co-sponsored by Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). The bill would require the FCC to have a 90-day comment period on any proposed media-ownership rule changes and to conduct a seperate proceeding on localism and diversity with another 90-day comment period.
The hearing was called by Committee chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) after media-consolidation critic Dorgan and others got wind of FCC chairman Kevin Martin's plan to try to vote on new media-ownership rules by the end of the year.
/snip
3. In December 2007, Obama issued the following statement discussing his work with John Kerry on this issue, and threatened to cut FCC funds if it went forward with the relaxation of certain media ownership rules:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/071218-obama_statement_11... /
4. Most recently, as the presumptive Democratic nomineee, in June 2008, Obama reiterated his desire to promote a diverse and independent media:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6570325.html /snip
In e-mailed responses last week to questions submitted to his Capitol Hill office, Obama told us he is committed to working toward a digital-TV transition that is without significant disruption (the switchover would come less than four weeks after his inauguration); said the Federal Communications Commission needs to take merger reviews more seriously; asserted that FCC chairman Kevin Martin, like his predecessor, has tried to “dismantle” rules that protect the public; and gave his thoughts on whether cable content should be regulated or its channels unbundled.
Obama believes the consequence of consolidation has been less diversity, less local news and the parroting of stories across multiple outlets. That, he said, needs to change.
* * *
Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6480419.html ) last year?
A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?
A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?
A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
/snip
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
