John Edwards Not Playing Rupert Murdoch’s Monopoly

[babylonsister]

John Edwards Not Playing Rupert Murdoch’s Monopoly
Filed under: Big Media, Election, General — Mark @ 1:20 pm


John Edwards isn’t shy about letting Rupert Murdoch know how he feels. When asked a question about media consolidation at a recent campaign stop, Edwards said:

“I am not particularly interested in seeing Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper in America.”

Nicely done, John. This answer responds directly to the heart of the question and points an incriminating finger at the industry’s worst offender.

Edwards continues to solidify his position as the candidate most committed to media reform and supportive of efforts to rollback consolidation. He has spoken out on many occasions on the need for independence and diversity in the press and he has been a leading voice of opposition to the FCC’s policy of weakening regulations on ownership caps. He was also the first candidate to refuse to participate in Fox News-sponsored primary debates.

But every time Edwards takes a principled stand, the pundidiots can’t help but crack-wise at Edwards expense. In the item linked above, James Pindell of the Boston Globe follows the Edwards quote with this bit of irrelevancy:

“It should be noted that Edwards received nearly $800,000 in a book contract from one of Murdoch’s companies, HarperCollins.”

Why, pray tell, should that be noted? It is not a political contribution or evidence of electoral support. It is a payment for publishing rights to an author from a book publisher. It is the free market at work. And if anything is notable about it, it is that Edwards will act on his principles even if it is contrary to the interests of corporations who lay out big bucks to do business with him. In other words, they can’t buy him.


more...

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=724

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Edwards has nothing to lose by taking on the media, and I applaud him for it.

There is no way in hell he's ever going to get fair treatment from any media in America, since he has so staunchly aligned himself against corporate power and the abuses thereof. He's now gotten to the second rung of what I refer to as "Gandhi's Ladder:" "First they ignore you, then they make fun of you..."

[onehandle]

2. Take away Rupert Murdoch's citizenship!

He only became an "American" to take over our media. He admits it.

[bvar22]

3. What is Hillary's position on Murdoch/Media Consolidation?

No wait!!
Let me guess.

Show me the $MONEY$!!!

[babylonsister]

6. Her remarks from the link:

snip//

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s qualifying remarks following a rather commendable statement against media consolidation:

“I’m not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.”

While Clinton takes pains to soften the blow against her Foxic benefactor, Edwards comes right out and says what he thinks.

[asdjrocky]

4. Wow-

A Dem candidate actually willing to stand up to this vile, disgusting, asshat.

Thanks for the post, Sister, can't believe I missed it out there. I swear, you must read 24 hours a day, I'm always impressed with what you bring to DU.

[annie1]

8. yes, thank you.

[cascadiance]

5. Complaining about the book fee is like complaining about Dicaprio flying to promote his film..

... The 11th hour. So, is Dicaprio supposed to EFFECTIVELY market that film by just driving every place instead, or doing it through televised appearances in different places?

Sometimes, like with the current corrupt system of campaign financing, you have to work within the corrupt system in order to overcome it at some point. Kudos to people like Edwards who are TRYING to work with public financing in its current *crippled* state so that later he can have more power to fix this system if and when he can become president.

Right now, those that will most likely lead us into fixing the current corrupt institutionalized bribery system that are called "campaign contributions" will necessarily have to be independently wealthy to run their own campaign and not be compromised with necessary money contributions from those asking for favors. Those not spending at money at all in our current setup don't really have a chance at the moment. So if we slam anyone that tries to run a populist campaign to average people by saying they aren't *really populist* because they are wealthy screws us in just about every case of a realistic chance of getting some substantive reform to happen.

That is why there needs to be some consideration for allowing for those that are wealthy to speak for us.

As I have said before, it is *the message* that is important to vote for. If you don't, then you won't have any mandate to hold over other elected officials to effect real change later on. If you vote for "the message" that Edwards and Kucinich are promoting, and even if one or both of them back away from it later, you still have the mandate to hang over them and other elected officials to measure them by and hold them accountable.

[bvar22]

7. Well Said.

:toast: