You comment cracked me up. Mostly because I think many of us are about to crack and I completely identify.

Posted at June 20, 2008 5:14 PM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

Thank you Democrats. You remind me why I'm an independent almost daily now.

Spineless fucking enablers.

Posted at June 20, 2008 1:10 PM in response to NEW FISA LAW PASSED

Warrantless surveillance: The ultimate in opposition research.

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:22 PM in response to Today's Must Read

Yet another unfortunate consequence of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which enabled massive and historic media consolidation under the guise of increased benefit to the American people. Of course, we can debate whether narrowing the spectrum of news, fact and opinion available to the electorate is really all that beneficial. It was the day after the Telecom Act was signed into law that the FCC, under Mr. Hundt's chairmanship, gave its final approval of Disney’s acquisition of ABC. It was the second-largest merger in U.S. history and it created the world's largest entertainment company. Cap Cities/ABC owned 8 TV stations, with 225 affiliate stations, the nation’s largest radio network; it published newspapers, magazines, and books, and had ownership stakes in ESPN, Lifetime, A&E networks; and significant international broadcast holdings. Eisner hyped the benefits of corporate "synergies," syndication, and vertical integration, and promised the combined company would "become a vital and dynamic force in the entertainment and media business, reaching family audiences worldwide and providing them with unparalleled news, information and entertainment". He thought ABC would be good for Disney's bottom line. Since that time, Disney has demonstrated a firm commitment to providing the type of programming that apparently supports that bottom line (like debates on flag pins and America hating preachers) instead of the type of programming necessary for a well informed electorate (like substantive debates on torture, Guantanamo, the limits of presidential power, rendition, the fourth amendment, illegal surveillance, national security letters, signing statements, etc...).

Observe the difference between Ted Koppel's Nightline and the Nightline of today and I think you get a good sense of where media consolidation and mega-corporate ownership have taken us. Koppel's Nightline was a program respected for its integrity that ran on ABC for some 25 years. The man is a journalistic powerhouse, holding 41 Emmy Awards and 11 Peabody Awards among many others. The program itself was by all accounts unsensational in its approach to the news, and it regularly won awards right up until Koppel left in 2005. Disney executives made it known that his style of journalism just wasn't bringing in enough money and had tried unsuccessfully to court Letterman into the slot. According to a 2005 article in The New York Times, Disney figured it was losing as much as $100 million a year by not scheduling an entertainment program during his time slot. Since Koppel's departure, Nightline has migrated in that very direction morphing into a faux-news magazine along the lines of 20/20 and Dateline. Dramatic, newsy intro music and graphics, engaging, attractive hosts... with content that often panders to the lowest common denominator audience. Stories about kiddy porn, sex predators and lurid discussions on men who cheat with prostitutes and why their wives stick with them sA quick visit to their website today reveals an abundance of non-news stories to choose from: Cooking for the Pope, Amy Poehler's 'Baby Moma' Drama, and more on the issues of polygamy, teen marriages, and underage sex than I think most people really care to see. This is what passes for journalism in the 21st century.

For those of us who have watched the descent of broadcast journalism into sales-driven sensationalism through the age of big media consolidation, it comes as no surprise when networks like ABC chase the lowest common denominator in their programming, and in their questioning. That after all is where the money's at. Good journalism, civic responsibility, and the kind of profits demanded by a giant like Disney apparently aren't often compatible.

Posted at April 18, 2008 8:17 PM in response to That's What They Do

This was a terrible showing by ABC journos. They went out of their way to dress this event up in the constitution-- quoting from the document after every commercial break, and surrounding the candidates with "We the people" banners. But they ran the debate more like an episode of Dancing With The Stars. Non-issues, superfluous questioning, and not a single word on timely constitutional issues: TORTURE, ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE, SIGNING STATEMENTS, THE SPECTRE OF THE MILITARY TRAMPLING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, and on and on and on. Bring back the League of Women Voters.

Oh, and enough already with the commercial breaks. It is ABC's civic duty to carry this kind of thing without trying to turn a profit. The fact that they can't find it within themselves to eat the cost of something as important as this makes me wonder just how much influence their corporate owners and advertisers have upon the content of their dismal broadcasts. Bring back Koppel. These guys are making a mockery of the profession.

Posted at April 18, 2008 7:01 AM in response to George Stephanopoulos Responds To Obama, Defends Handling Of Debate

Or is interested in destroying?

Posted at April 11, 2008 8:30 PM in response to Berkeley Law Dean: Yoo Was Not The Decider

Should a person be free to teach something at university that they do not understand?

Posted at April 11, 2008 8:02 PM in response to Berkeley Law Dean: Yoo Was Not The Decider

You are right about FISA being controversial in itself. It did after all mandate a secret court. But hey, at least it was a court right? In retrospect it looks like one step taken away from liberty does in fact lead predictably to another.

Posted at March 11, 2008 10:29 PM in response to Surveillance vs Democracy: The Nixon Parallel

"Everyone knew he ran with clear intent to elect a Republican president."

Care to back that one up?

I can understand why you might have an axe to grind with someone who rightly takes exception to the fact that our government has been bought out from underneath us by big business. Especially considering your role in what was perhaps the single biggest government giveaway to big media with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Hey, great job with that. Way to "increase consumer choice" by narrowing the spectrum of fact, opinion and programming available to citizens via their media.

Yes Mr. Hundt, the media belong to the people. Of course, you acted in the interests of big media when you tore down the restriction on media ownership in '96... so I don't expect you to totally get that one. So what are we down to now, like 5 mega-conglomerates manufacturing and syndicating the news for the entire country? Awesome. What an amazing "marketplace of ideas" we have now.

I still don't understand what was so bad about media companies --who lease our public airwaves-- being required to use those airwaves in the public interest by providing substantive and useful programming.

Anyways, I like Obama too so at least we have that in common.

Posted at February 25, 2008 4:36 AM in response to Nader Who Doesn't Deserve Attention