Buy NOW - What are you waiting for - But no wait - if you call in the next 15 minutes blah, blah.., - So call NOW, what are you waiting for - but no wait along with that offer, just for the next 15 seconds, before we run out, for a limited time only - we'll include even more stuff and stuff to clean that stuff but you must call now, Call Now, Call now, call now, What are you waiting for, times running out, limited special edition, one of a kind buy one get one FREE, FRee, Free, free, it's all free, Free to buy right now and get half-off so what are you waiting for - but no wait, if you call in the next 15 nanoseconds and not before and not after, you can become debt free, get big tits, get an instant hard-on, a bigger hard-on, an instant huge hard-on, yes that's right we'll take half-off all instant-huge hard-ons and you'll lose weight so fast it'll make your head grow hair, it's all free if you buy right now, call now, no wait we'll also include with every purchase shipping, shipping direct to you if you call now so what the fuck are you waiting for, put down that remote and pick-up the phone today, DO IT NOW, DO It Now, DO it now, do it for your wife do it for your kids do it for your parents do it for all mankind do it for your uncle francine in Paris, but do it, just fucking DO IT.

*Moore Nazi Propaganda

*Media Mouse - Moore Censorship

5/15/03

Believe it or not the people of this country own the airwaves over which radio and television broadcasts travel. "The People are the landlords, and the radio and television stations are the tenents. They pay us no rent to our real estate agents, the Federal Communications Commision (FCC), yet they control who says what and who doesn't, for twenty-four hours a day." Ralph Nader.

Fair ACTION ALERT:
Will the FCC Help Big Media Get Even Bigger?

May 20, 2003

A majority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intends to ratify a sweeping plan to weaken or eliminate rules that limit the size
and power of media companies. Among other things, the FCC's three Republican commissioners hope to revoke the newspaper-broadcast
cross-ownership rule, which prevents a company from owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same market, and to significantly increase the number of TV stations one company can own.

While FCC chair Michael Powell has the votes to pass the plan, the decision to vote on the matter by June 2 could still be challenged to allow for more public education and debate. Several senators have asked for a delay in the process, and a measure to that end was introduced on May 9 in the House of Representatives (Reuters, 5/13/03). The two Democratic FCC commissioners, Michael Copps and Kenneth Adelstein, also oppose the deregulation, and requested on May 13 that the Commission
postpone its planned vote. Powell rejected their request.

The FCC's rulemaking process is, by design, difficult to follow, but the potential impact of what the New York Times called (3/14/03) "the most important set of rules changes in decades" is alarmingly clear. Broadcasting & Cable reported (5/15/03) that the FCC's current proposals would allow a single company to own as many as three TV stations in any of the five biggest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia), and permit ownership of two TV stations-- as well as a major newspaper-- "in nearly all of the largest 100 markets." In large radio markets, according to B&C, the changes would allow a company to own eight radio and two TV stations.

Imagine living in a community where one large, multinational conglomerate controlled eight radio stations, two major TV stations and the leading
daily newspaper. Given the damage that media consolidation has already done to the quality and diversity of media offerings, such a scenario- repeated in communities across the country-- has worrying implications.

For people relying on network television for news, however, it would be tough to know much about the changes in the works. ABC World News Tonight aired a May 15 report on FCC deregulation- divided into "pro" and "con" segments- and a May 18 report on radio deregulation. At CBS and NBC, there have been no mentions of the sweeping proposals on any of the nightly newscasts, and only three brief early-morning reports elsewhere on the network schedule (ABC World News This Morning, 9/9/02, 2/27/03; CBS Morning News, 5/13/03).

These networks are all owned by companies that stand to profit from the FCC's plan to re-shape the media landscape. Their scant coverage of these issues- ranging from very little at ABC to none at all at NBC- reflects a glaring conflict of interest.

Despite the near-blackout on broadcast media, the FCC has received an enormous, perhaps unprecedented amount of public feedback on the ownership rules. According to Editor & Publisher magazine (5/5/03), commissioner Michael Copps says that the FCC has received over 18,000 comments from individuals, which overwhelmingly opposed relaxation of ownership restrictions. According to the group Free Press, comments from the public are running at least 10 to 1 against the FCC's plan to allow large media companies to get even bigger. If media corporations and the FCC's Republican commissioners get their way, the FCC's vote will disregard this overwhelming public opposition.

ACTION: Encourage the nightly newscasts to do substantive reporting on the FCC deregulation controversy, including the congressional attempts to postpone the vote. Remind them of their ethical duty to disclose the interests of their parent companies.

You also might want to commend ABC for reporting on the issue.

CAPITOL HILL & THE FCC:
It's also important for citizens to speak out for diverse, democratic media by contacting the FCC and elected officials. There are a number of
websites designed to make this easier. See:
http://www.mediareform.net

Stop me if you've heard this one, a guy and a duck walk into a bar where sits a Jewish Rabbi, a Catholic Priest and a Hollywood & Vine Whore and the guy with the duck says to the bartender - " The massive increase in media channels through multi-channel television and the Internet has eliminated the need for ownership regulation of broadcast media, because the scarcity of the airwaves is no longer a relevant issue. The reality of media today, is that the media system is no longer oligopolistic, but, instead, it is hyper-competitive. The market will be a better regulator than the government." So the bartender says - "I hope the duck is driving."

Captive Audience
A few big media firms dominate 4 of 5 FCC commissioners’ hometowns
By John Dunbar

WASHINGTON, 5/22/2003 — As Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell mulls over whether the FCC should loosen rules on media ownership, he might want to take a ride through Birmingham, Ala., the town of his birth.

If he flips on his car radio, he will find that of 40 commercial radio stations within a 40-mile radius of the city, 15 are owned by three giant out-of-state companies. (Another eight are gospel or Christian stations.) If he stops at a diner to read the paper and watch the news, he will find that one of the largest private media companies in America owns the Birmingham News and the local cable television system.

Of the 203 commercial radio stations identified in the Center analysis, 50 are owned by four publicly traded, out-of-state radio conglomerates. Twenty-seven of those are owned by radio giant Clear Channel Communications. The cable systems in the five communities are controlled by four companies. AOL Time Warner owns systems in Charlotte, N.C., and Milwaukee; Birmingham’s system is owned by Advance/Newhouse, which is also programmed by AOL Time Warner; Louisville’s system is owned by Insight Communications Co., the nation’s ninth-largest cable company. Of the 20 network affiliates in the five cities, 14 are owned by out-of-state companies, including two each by Murdoch's News Corp. (Fox Entertainment Group) and Hearst-Argyle Television Inc. (a division of Hearst Corp.).

While Viacom’s radio holdings are considerable – Infinity is No. 2 behind Clear Channel in revenue – it is the company’s television holdings that have drawn scrutiny. Viacom is the No. 1 television broadcaster in the U.S. based on audience reach. Another FCC rule up for consideration would allow the company to get bigger.

In 1941, the FCC limited the total audience reach of a single television broadcast owner to no more than 35 percent of the nation. The FCC is expected to raise that limit, possibly to 45 percent, according to those close to the issue, or throw it out altogether. Regardless, commissioners have to do something about it – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that there was no legal justification for the limit and remanded the issue back to the commission.

Viacom’s television stations reach 38.8 percent of the nation, according to Broadcasting & Cable, meaning the company is currently over the limit. In reality, Viacom reaches a great deal more of America than that. When the FCC measures market reach, it discounts UHF stations by half, a method instated when the UHF band was new and barely used. If the full reach is calculated, Viacom actually reaches 44.8 percent of the American audience. News Corp.’s Fox network is also currently over the limit and has lobbied hard to have it raised.

In June 2000, Tribune vastly expanded its holdings with the purchase of the Times Mirror Co. for $8.7 billion. The purchase included the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and the Hartford Courant.

The merger made Tribune the only media company with major newspapers and television stations in the top three markets in America – New York, Los Angeles (the W.B.) and Chicago. It also made Tribune the dominant player in Connecticut. While Tribune is grandfathered in Chicago, it is not in its new markets. Despite the FCC rule, the company went ahead with the merger.

Finally, hope that the newest consumer electronic technology – direct broadcast satellite television – would create a real competitor, has raised new concerns. DirecTV, with more than 11 million subscribers, has emerged as a real competitor to the cable television industry. But a recent $6.6 billion deal that would give controlling interest to News Corp. and Fox has consumer advocates and competitors worrying that News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch may use the direct broadcast pipeline to push his own programming. The deal is currently awaiting federal approval.

Center for Public Integrity : -WASHINGTON, DC, May 22, 2003 – The three largest local phone companies control 83 percent of home telephone lines. The top two long distance carriers control 67 percent of that market. The four biggest cellular phone companies have 64 percent of the wireless market. The five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.

News Feature/Analysis, Marcelo Ballvé,
Pacific News Service, May 23, 2003 -"The FCC has failed even to consider what abandoning its media rules will do to African American, Latino, Asian, and many, many other communities," says Michael J. Copps, one of two Democrats on the FCC, a five-person regulatory body appointed by the president.

Critics say changes to media ownership rules being considered at the FCC amount to a sweeping deregulation that will accelerate big corporations' entry into ethnic markets. They say the strong community focus of ethnic media could be eroded and that minority owners may be squeezed out.

Under relaxed ownership rules, some ethnic media owners will also face tougher competition for ad dollars, and many will receive buyout offers, Gutiérrez says.

The 1996 Telecommunication Act helped pave the way for monoliths such as Clear Channel and few others, like Viacom and Disney to dominate the am/fm radio spectrum, and on June 2 Michael Powell chairman of the FCC -and son to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, is expected to further loosen what is left of FCC ownership rules, putting control in even fewer hands. Pirate radio takes on a whole new meaning - Pirate Satellite - Radio Iraq.

Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the School of Journalism at UC Berkeley and author of The Media Monopoly said that in 1983, when the first edition of his book was released, , "50 corporations dominated most of every mass medium." The number then dropped with each new edition – to 29 firms in 1987, 23 in 1990, 14 in 1992 down to 10 in 1997. The 2000 edition found that just six conglomerates were supplying most of America's media.

The Nation magazine released a chart of "Big Ten" Media ownership. Even as this issue - 01/2002 - left the presses it had already been outdated by further consolidation.

The argument pushing for the 1996 De-regulation Act by the large conglomerates was - they were getting their ass kicked by all the choices on cable and it just wasn't fair. Of course nobody considered increasing the quality of programming to attract viewers back, which would be the case in a truly competitive market. But instead these big-wigs were able to show the tears and some money and get the 1996 Telecommunication Act passed. They don't believe that the government should protect our interests when it comes to public property. But if not them, the people we get to more or less elect, then who? The sponsors of commercial advertisement?

Now in 2003 it's the internet that's taking all their customers away. "Powell has said he believes technology like the Internet has helped produce a dizzying array of outlets with niche audiences." Corporate media are the most predominant player on the web, but so far there is still room for little pages to publish - free press, not for long. Thanks to existing de-regulation just a handful of people own the major ISP's, own the cables, own the phone lines, own the satellites. They argue of all the diversity on the web they just can't keep up so further de-regulation is necessary. Does this argument make sense to anyone? I've written this paragraph ten times and find this argument far too ridiculous to address. If it makes sense to you - you need to check your prescriptions. Let this be the litmus test for mental health; or put that crack pipe down and step away from the t.v.

Lou Dobbs' Moneyline last week ran an online poll asking whether "too few corporations own too many media outlets." Now this show's audience has a high-end demographic. Yet ninety-eight percent said yes – ninety-eight percent

That's an interesting poll as another poll shows that 70% of the American people - no doubt watching corporate controlled newscasts - don't even know about Powell's plans for further restricting the airwaves to just a few corporations.

Another argument they like to hear themselves repeat is - if they can control more they will have more money and with that more money they can create more diversity. "Powell has said he believes big companies are often in consumers' interests, since they can invest in more varied and high-quality programming."

Please this is Wall Street, since when does a company use it's profits to improve product. Actually what these people are trying to suggest, "use our profits and invest in the quality of product?", is downright communist and a full senate hearing should be lit up under these anti-capitalist pigs. Bring back the likes of Joe McCarthy and burn these traitors, we can't allow that sort of behavior in American business. Nor can we allow them to control our airwaves unleashing Taco Bell sponsored Marxist propaganda.

John Ashcroft needs to check this. The commie Soviet Union had state-owned state-controlled media, and we were taught in school, it was down right evil - they control the people's minds with commie propaganda. In contrast the Amerika media is corporate run and the corporations run the state, therefore state run media, so our minds must be under "Their" control, hey just like the USSR, the red in red white and blue becomes suspicious.

If anyone needs further proof of the dominance of corporate/state controlled media here in amerika one needn't go furhter than the news coverage leading up and into the jacking of Iraq - Liberated Iraq, New Jack City - cause that was nothing but a jack - Jack. Fox news, and the others, had no problem broadcasting all the lies and misconceptions leading up and into that "war" and they reported how many non-combatant deaths in Iraq, "Iraqi Liberation" caused by our highly sophisticated weaponry? How about ABC, NBC, CBS?

FAIR-Action Alert, 04-04-03; In two separate incidents last week, dozens of Iraqis were killed by what eyewitness survivors claim were U.S. airstrikes. U.S. officials, however,
offered a range of denials and evasions about what may have caused the explosions. Despite evidence uncovered by one British newspaper about the second (and more deadly) of the incidents, however, most U.S. media outlets have allowed the story to end with the official denials.

In other news - what ever happened to Paul Wellstone's plane "mysteriously crashed". Mysterious? Isn't that the makings for some interesting investigative reporting - especially considering he was in a close race against a republican candidate hand-picked by Dick Cheney? I guess not.

How about the 2000 presidential race, wasn't that like the biggest story ever? Whatever happened in the aftermath?

And the vegan-sized diet of corporate corruption stories, do you think your getting the full picture?

This is "Russian Commie" t.v., or what we were led to believe "commie" controlled t.v. would be like.

No, that can't be we have MTV, MTV2 and VH! (all content controlled by Viacom). And we can say "penis" and show naked breasts and NYPD Blue ugly ass, you know they can't get away with that shit in Syria. And as long as we have that kind of freedom we can feel safe our first amendment is still in tact.

The reality of media today, is that the media system is no longer oligopolistic, but, instead, it is hyper-competitive. The market will be a better regulator than the government.

On one hand they tell us that "the market" promotes competition in free market capitalism - the american way, but when they feel it's too competitive, too american, too captalist, (not commie enough?), then they say "the market" which promotes will now regulate - or suppress.

The market "promoted" competition when it de-regulated cable. Now, in most areas you have to sell your house and move into another time-zone in order to change cable providers, which helps the real-estate market so I guess it works.

This deal is so good for public interest they find it necessary to conduct this business in secret; as all business with this adminstration is handled behind closed doors with a cast of characters -the operating principles - that's about the size of the cast of "Friends", who too have been with us far too long - now being fronted by a less than loveable "SideShow George" - and are not allowing us any say in the matter. Powell will hand over, whether we like it or note, whether we approve or not - to a few, apparently idealistic communists, fiscally market-driven, materialistic fascist fundementalists - the control of our FCC.

Judith Miller Exposed - NEXT>