In a speech Sunday, Barack Obama said he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if he becomes U.S. president and singled out the media industry as one area where government regulators would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.

His statement signals a key opening for media and democracy reformers and the movement they have spawned in this last decade--a movement The Nation has been centrally involved in ever since we launched our National-Entertainment series (complete with glossy centerfolds) in 1996. Working with this movement, an Obama Administration could effectively challenge the destructive and concentrated attack by corporate media consolidation on the integrity of our democracy.

Obama will have smart allies among this movement, such as the media advocacy group Free Press. He will also find allies in the current Congress and in the two Democratic Commissioners on the FCC, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who are committed to defending a free, independent and diverse media.

Obama's speech comes on the heels of a sweet victory: Senator Byron Dorgan's successful push back against the Republican-dominated FCC's efforts to repeal the cross-ownership rule --which would allow media oligarchs like Murdoch to gobble up more outlets in one city. Dorgan's Senate resolution --which would work to ban a single owner from controlling a tv station and a newspaper in the same market--has 25 co-sponsors and corresponding legislation has been introduced in the the House.

Obama is tapping into the powerful and passionate view shared by millions of Americans that our current hyper-consolidated media landscape--with 90% of it controlled by some six corporations- is a disservice to a democracy which demands diverse voices and views.

Comments (45)

1. KVH,I like the sound of President Obama already and it`s only mid May. Sen. Dorgan has some brass after all,finally some very small speck of light at the end of the tunnel(bush era).

   Posted by ams@50 at 05/19/2008 @ 01:58am

2. A society enriches itself only by its diversity and that of course applies specially to the media. What is critical is the socio-political issues and their assessment because they influence elections, govermental decisions, and frankly almost anything in our lives such as for example the ways schools - where our kids study - are managed or a decision to go to war in Iraq or elsewhere.

   If only big corporations own the media then only their interests and agenda will be served and undue influence on citizens will be exerted with the predicted favorable outcome for their socio political agendas which seldom coincide with that of the rest of the population. While Internet in general provides a very diverse and enriching frame for media messages, that is not the case of newspapers, magazines and specially TV stations national and/or cable. Right now we can experience that those in a way mold our opinions too much.

   I strongly favor these anti trust laws but more - as said previously I believe- that middle and small media companies which do not have profit as its main purpose (e.g. they may profit but are not involved in acquisitions or expand to conglomerates, etc) be considered as "cultural companies" and therefore taxed to a much lesser scale or degree. Reason: as said they shape and enrich the views of the population on several issues.

   Posted by Frank42 at 05/19/2008 @ 03:52am

3. Maybe, just maybe, there are substantive policy differences between Obama and Hillary. If Obama can take a stand against corporate media, maybe he can likewise find the strength to take a stand against corporate healthcare. There is a reason the health insurance industry spent hundreds of millions to defeat "Hillary care" in 1994-95, and tens of millions to support her candidacy in 2007-08. She turned 180 degrees on issues relating to the role the health insurers, from trying to offset their power through Health Insurance Purchasing Coops (HIPCs) to moving to a "Romneycare-like" individual mandate scheme (notice how well that is working in Massachusetts?). Bill Clinton helped push the Telecommunications Act of 1996: as big a furtherance of big corporate interests at the expense of the middle class (and everyone else) as his support of NAFTA. And Hillary was just as big a cheerleader for these pro-Corporate, anti-democratic policies as existed in the Clinton administration. Lets hope Barack can distance himself from her more clearly on a full range of these issues. Meantime, media ownership is a great start.

   Posted by dmsteinman at 05/19/2008 @ 05:56am

4. [Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008]

   Competition is the core of a healthy capitalist society, isn't it? Or is consolidation the core of your ideal oligarchy?

   I have to say, the very idea of having anti-trust be on a presidents agenda again gives me goosebumps of joy!

   1998- US dept of "justice', Joe Klein;

   [The last two years have witnessed mergers and alliances involving major players in the telephone, long-distance, media, and cable industries, including some of the largest and most prominent firms. These transactions, which affect consumers across the United States, often present novel and complex issues and need to be investigated carefully. As competition replaces regulation in the telecommunications industry, the merger and alliance activity is likely to continue, and vigorous antitrust enforcement is important if we want to continue to chart a path that will give rise to the important consumer benefits -- including lower prices, greater choices, higher quality, and more innovative product offerings -- that competition makes possible.

   This is a challenging time for the Antitrust Division, and I want to talk about the Department's role in reviewing these mergers to ensure that they do not create or facilitate the exercise of market power and lead to increased prices, restricted consumer choice, or reduced innovation.

   ...A number of observers are questioning whether all this merger activity is good for the economy and for consumers. Some have remarked that the Telecom Act was passed in order to increase competition, but instead we are seeing a merger wave. ]

   then they rolled over and played dead.

   Posted by crabwalk at 05/19/2008 @ 07:31am

5. Wow, this is an issue no one seems to disagree with.

   Posted by julien38 at 05/19/2008 @ 08:59am

6. Certainly a fruit basket turn over is in order for the FCC, NPR, with break-up of ALL centralized government-military-media as propaganda outlets for pathological liars and psychotic killers aka repubes.

   Plus, however, prosecution under criminal law for corrupting public understanding of political reality.

   I refer to this NYTimes article today: [QUOTE] Bush's Speech Prods Middle East Leaders

   SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt -- After basking in a showy celebration of America's close ties with Israel, President Bush criticized other Middle East leaders on Sunday, prodding them to expand their economies, offer equal opportunity to women and embrace democracy if they want peace to become reality. [/QUOTE]

   As a package, this illustrates:

   1. Snake-in-chief 'prodding' (think cattle, cowbot)robed miscreants 2. about money, women and political self immolation ($ex for oil) 3. accompanied by veiled threat 4. distributed to lizard mind audience.

   I know we're not supposed to confuse the medium with the message, but if we're going to crack down on Murdochization, how 'bout we start with the Knesset coverage. I don't see a lot in The Nation -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- about the total sell-out of America and Christ to Israel and 'the Jews' that just took place there. So there is something big to be answered for here.

   Hang a "ZYKLON B" tag on "The Media" clipboard by a Nation's Voice Ombudsman, please.

   Posted by jones at 05/19/2008 @ 11:10am

7. lvliberty1

   and how long will it be before the internet is conglomerated?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:29am

8. Two terms for Barack Obama and a Dem Congress...and in 2016...

   "90% of it controlled by some six corporations" will STILL be true.

   Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 11:42am

9. no, it'll probably be worse.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 12:04pm

10. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/19/2008

    So you are scoffing at competition? Your argument is flawed in so far as yes there may be many packages an sizes. But how many of those are still made by the same company with different minor company names on them? For instance some 80% of portable hard-drives have Western Digital parts in them. So whether you know it or not whenever you buy a harddrive you are buying at least a part of a Western Digital drive which means they are making money off of a lot of different companies. This is one small inconsequential example but this is common under a lot of companies and no body knows so no body cares.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 12:22pm

11. The Nation keeps sounding off on this issue because it hates that conservative media dominates cable and AM radio.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    Wait a second. I thought the media was liberal. If you contend that AM and Cable are the dominate news sources now and that both of these sources are dominated by conservatives then doesn't that make the media conservative? I don't know I would just think that was a logical train of thought.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 12:23pm

12. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/19/2008

    I don't know about you Happy but in this case the free market is the step to fascism. I usually don't use that argument BUT the first step towards fascism is the stranglehold on the free flow of ideas. If media moguls are able to buy out all media sources they can stop the free flow of ideas and only output THEIR ideas. I am against this on any side of the spectrum. I don't think liberals or conservatives should control the media I think it should be equal handed. We should not allow media moguls to control any portion that stifles competition.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 12:45pm

13. The specter of the guillotine lives!

    Posted by Sorelish at 05/19/2008 @ 12:55pm

14. >>>our current hyper-consolidated media landscape--with 90% of it controlled by some six corporations- is a disservice to a democracy which demands diverse voices and views.<<<

    And what a disservice it has been!

    Corporate owned media, by definition, must focus on ratings, not news. The lack of diverse ownership is part of problem, but the business model must also change, in which advertising-free newshours need to be mandated by the FCC as a condition of renewing broadcast licenses to these networks.

    Why should the advertising dollars of US automakers, for example, determine the news content (or lack thereof) on global warming, alternative energy, or independence from oil and the gas motor?

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008 @ 12:57pm

15. Does everyone see the wholes in the usual con arguments here?

    1: competition is BAD for markets, consolidation is GOOD for markets.

    2: the liberal media is owned by conservative controlled corproations.

    HAPPY(withmygubmentproapganda), if Murdoch, or The Village Voice, controlled 100% of the market, there would be no other option BUT to give those entities business, if you wanted to be "informed". Your usual rant "if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere!" would not be applicable, as there would be no "elsewhere".

    what exactly do the cons have against Anti-Trust laws?

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/19/2008 @ 1:21pm

16. "Why should the advertising dollars of US automakers, for example, determine the news content (or lack thereof) on global warming, alternative energy, or independence from oil and the gas motor?"

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008

    Mett, US automakers don't determine news content any more than you or I. For the MSM it's a matter of who can pay their fees to advertise.

    Here's my question to you - Why can't the enviromental groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club come up off the money to advertise? The MSM isn't too discriminatory when you can pay the standard $1M for a 30 second commercial or $2M if they can get it for prime time.

    Posted by ACook at 05/19/2008 @ 1:27pm

17. Posted by crabwalk at 05/19/2008

    Crabby, most of the problems with small and medium media outlets is their ability (or lack there of) to attract a larger audience pool. Many companies look at who's listening to a particular program and assess whether there's sizable market to tap into.

    Posted by ACook at 05/19/2008 @ 1:40pm

18. Wait a second. I thought the media was liberal. If you contend that AM and Cable are the dominate news sources now and that both of these sources are dominated by conservatives then doesn't that make the media conservative? I don't know I would just think that was a logical train of thought.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008

    CCC,

    I don't think you thought your response through first.

    I did not say that AM radio and Cable dominate the overall news sources. I said that conservatives dominate those two elements of media. Liberals still dominate the newspapers and the Networks.

    So the answer to your question is that media is divided when one considers all the various types of information resources. And most importantly, no one dominates the internet.

    Thus, the answer to your question is no, the media is not conservative.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 @ 2:04pm

19. This is dangerous territory for Mr. Obama to tread...

    Am I the only one who remembers that in 2004, Dean was doing pretty well early on as the outsider "change" candidate, with tons of early endorsements from educated progressives and "early endorsers" such as Al Gore - not unlike the trend towards Obama this year, when poor old Howard came out in some media interview as being in favor of breaking up the major media conglomerates...?

    Oddly enough, the very next day, those very same media conglomerates began beating an anti-Dean drumbeat of "Is this guy really the right choice?", morphing quickly into "Dean's unstable!", culminating in less than a week with the out of context "scream" tape, which they managed use as the "excuse" for jacking his ass out of the race so fast it made your head spin...

    If the permanent powers that be decide that they want you in office, anything you do is OK up to and including dead hookers and live boys. If they want you out, they can turn the most trivial thing right down to the way you chew gum into a sign from the heavens that you are dangerous scum to be eliminated as soon as possible...

    dave n nyc

    Posted by DaveNolanAudio at 05/19/2008 @ 2:12pm

20. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    Yes you did actually. You said that you neither read the newspaper nor do you watch network news. It was also contended that Network News ratings and News Paper readership is going way downhill compared to Cable, AM and the Internet. So wouldn't that then mean that media is conservative if you also contend that conservatives dominate Cable and AM.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 2:24pm

21. ACook at 05/19/2008...

    On the other hand, though the media-wide drop in ratings is in part due to the arise of the 'new and shiny' internet... and... (for now, eh, Frosty?) it's wider range of 'opinion acceptance'.

    My guess is that smart people soon lose interest in the dead end road of partisan pandering... and the "larger audience" gradually tunes it out... leaving the media sponsors scrambling to ascertain 'the new boss's' MO.

    Americans are smarter than the MSM 'hopes'...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 05/19/2008 @ 2:25pm

22. And most importantly, no one dominates the internet

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/200

    This is very true but believe me media conglomerates are trying to change that. They have been trying to privatize the internet for a while now which the first step to them being able to censor what we see.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 2:25pm

23. "the term media itself has been undergoing a transformation with the internet age. Newspaper circulations are declining annually. The Network news programs likewise do not hold the influence that they use to."

    "The Nation keeps sounding off on this issue because it hates that conservative media dominates cable and AM radio."

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    Nowwww I don't know about you. But it looks to me like that is saying that the outlets dominated by liberals are no longer major sources. If the outlets dominated by conservatives are major sources. Then doesn't that make the media conservative?

    Your argument props itself up. Then defeats your own counterpoint.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 2:28pm

24. >>>The MSM isn't too discriminatory when you can pay the standard $1M for a 30 second commercial or $2M if they can get it for prime time.

    Posted by ACook at 05/19/2008 <<<

    That is the problem - "only" those who can afford those outrageous advertising rates get to influence the content!

    If you are non-profit like the Sierra Club, you simply can't compete with GM, Ford or Exon when it comes to advertising dollars, and whether you want to admit it or not, producers of the news do take notice of who is able to pay top dollar for their advertising and they certainly do not want to piss off those "paying customers" with content that undermines their businesses.

    This is clearly a flaw in the American free-press model that needs to be addressed soon if we are ever to get any "real" news out of the mainstream press.

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008 @ 2:37pm

25. Metteyya at 05/19/2008 ...

    Extremely well stated.

    If the programming 'crosses' a major advertiser... the 'entity's representative' simply threatens to annul a multimillion dollar agreement.

    This 'arrangement'... undoubtedly played an invisible cameo role in the run up to the war... and keeps progress in general... 'predictable'.

    Posted by ttr at 05/19/2008 @ 2:50pm

26. If Obama wants to waste time fighting Rupert Murdock and his colleagues, fine. I have about 15 newspapers on my favorites list from the U.S. and Germany that I skim for news; I get a lot of news from Google and other online services; Who gives a hoot about newspapers and TV nightly news anymore? They are more alike than ever with their sensational "if it bleeds it leads" style. As for matters of some interest, if you follow online a bit, you will have the information the evening before the morning paper is tossed into your driveway. The fact is, there is more diversity in news now that there has ever been, and we aren't all at the mercy of editorial boards anymore.

    Posted by jsens at 05/19/2008 @ 2:57pm

27. well of course the biggest fascist enablers here are perfectly comfy with fascists like murdoch buying up all media.

    the moderate majority (whose ideology the fascists call "liberal" or "socialist") all want reliable news they can rely upon. "liberals" generally want unbiased, reliable news as well, in my experience...

    sure there's a market for opinion laced ideology news and nobody's saying "shut down foxnews"...

    people who want unbiased reporting and reliable news simply fear the possibility that without some anti-monopoly regulation murdoch and company can and will eventually buy up and control ALL media.

    now anti-trust legislation has a long history in this country and is not anti-capitalist. anti-monopolist is not anti-capitalist any more than talking with one's enemies is appeasing them.

    and few aspects of our society are ultimately more important than assuring the continued existance of media outlets which report news in a professional, unbiased manner.

    but of course the fauxnews fascists could care less if fascists gain control of all media and use it as a privately owned propaganda factory...THEY ARE FASCISTS, AFTER ALL!!!

    LMAO...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2008 @ 3:16pm

28. Yes you did actually. You said that you neither read the newspaper nor do you watch network news. It was also contended that Network News ratings and News Paper readership is going way downhill compared to Cable, AM and the Internet. So wouldn't that then mean that media is conservative if you also contend that conservatives dominate Cable and AM.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008

    Your assumptions don't bear out.

    1. What I watch, listen to, or read does not determine who is dominant. I just don't have that power.

    2. If your assumptions are true, then far left media should dominate. I watch Free Speech and Link TV far more than any other stations. These are both far left stations. I also listen to Pacifica Radio (KPFK) more than any other radio station. They are also far left which you probably know if you live in the LA area.

    I seldom visit conservative websites. I only blog on the Nation. So given your assumptions, I guess the far left dominates the media.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 @ 3:46pm

29. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    It's not an assumption and its not based on anything more than ratings drops in nightly news and news paper readership.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:16pm

30. When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I contemplate the break up of corporate media, it is with complete joy and remembrance of things past. The internet is the greatest threat to all other media and will, as the last bastion of free thought media, be under constant and intensified threat of control by corporate media. Television is the media which currently has the greatest potential and is the greatest threat to freedom of thought and ideas. If coroporate owned media is broken in to smaller pieces, it will not necessarily reflect a broader range of thought and ideas. Corporations are too powerful and knowledgeable to allow their influence to be diluted. The media of George Orwell's "1984" is upon us. It already twists, turns and shapes every thought the media churns out. Most Americans have never read or heard of George Orwell and his frightening predictions for an "information/behavior regulated" society. We are already it's victims and do not know it. That is it's ugly horror.

    Posted by uknowit at 05/19/2008 @ 4:27pm

31. It's not an assumption and its not based on anything more than ratings drops in nightly news and news paper readership.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008

    Those have dropped not because the media is conservative. Their fall is due to the internet more than any other factor.

    You are capable of more intellectual honesty than this.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:49pm

32. "If you are non-profit like the Sierra Club, you simply can't compete with GM, Ford or Exxon when it comes to advertising dollars, and whether you want to admit it or not, producers of the news do take notice of who is able to pay top dollar for their advertising and they certainly do not want to piss off those "paying customers" with content that undermines their businesses."

    "This is clearly a flaw in the American free-press model that needs to be addressed soon if we are ever to get any "real" news out of the mainstream press."

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008

    Well Mett, that's tough. That's what the free market is all about. NFPs like the Sierra Club need to change their marketing platform to attract a wider audience, who in turn attracts business investors, who also in turn attracts advertising dollars. You can't have one without the other. Companies like GM, Exxon and Ford didn't start out as congolomerates overnite.

    As for the American free-press model, the only flaw is government interferrence. I'm not so sure if I agree with smaller news organizations using the Feds to give them a leg up at the expense of the taxpayer choice. Let us decide who's worth reading and listening to, and who's not.

    Posted by ACook at 05/19/2008 @ 5:00pm

33. Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008

    I never said their fall was due to a conservative media. I am just saying that if they have bad ratings and cable and AM have good ratings then wouldn't that make the Media conservatives dominated by the Conservative dominated AM and Cable networks. Never did I say they fell because of conservative media. I just always find it funny that conservatives say the media is liberal liberals say the media is conservative.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 5:37pm

34. >>> Let us decide who's worth reading and listening to, and who's not.

    Posted by ACook at 05/19/2008<<<

    Who is "us"?

    If advertising dollars are spread evenly among CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC, and the content is therefore essentially the same, what are you "deciding" between?

    And since keeping eyeballs tuned in is the objective of all of these networks, wouldn't reporting on Paris Hilton or Britney Spears get you more eyeballs than a CFR discussion on nuclear proliferation?

    It is just like in high school, where being "popular" meant pretty cheerleader or hunky jock, not the braniac in the lab creating a new mousetrap!

    Market forces have their place, but serious news is not one of them since "most" people want to be entertained, not informed!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/19/2008 @ 6:08pm

35. This is pure ambrosia. I can't believe it! And it almost guarantees brutal CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Viacom & NBC corporate media treatment all fall.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/19/2008 @ 7:15pm

36. Posted by BillSanford at 05/19/2008

    The debate IS over on global warming, Bill.

    Obama's onboard....McCain's onboard.

    Who are you voting for that still think's it's not real?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 9:58pm

37. Americans are smarter than the MSM 'hopes'...;^)

    Posted by ttr

    maybe, but they are sure working hard to fix that.

    Monday, May 19, 2008 11:20:26 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:14pm

38. From a results standpoint, I'd say, media consolidation has been a great thing for the Left!

    Posted by HAPPY3

    sure thing.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:16pm

39. Neocons = Followers of False Capitalism.

    Herdies, try and ask yourself whether the span of talk radio market products mirror the electorate, e.g., "what people want". This gives you two options: lie to yourself on open your eyes.

    The "liberal" demographic is huge. But you're continuing to lie to yourselves if you equate Lockheed Martin / GE with "The Nation" and "Democracy Now".

    The size ratio of "The Nation": NBC reflects corporate power not the liberal demographic, not what people want. That's a corporate lie which you Followers of False Capitalism swallow whole. "Liberal media" is an even bigger lie and Obama recognizes this, just as Teddy Roosevelt did.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/20/2008 @ 12:03am

40. Posted by BillSanford at 05/19/2008

    Can you not read? The people arguing here WANT free speech. That's why we DON'T want the monopolization of all media sources. We don't want 90% of the media controlled by 6 companies because that is NOT free speech. That is a message controlled by very few with infinite power. Free speech is the bolstering of many many sources of media so they can present to us many many varied opinions. Jesus, do you guys try to look stupid or do you just not have your talking points in order?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 12:44am

41. [Well Mett, that's tough. That's what the free market is all about]-ACOOK

    Buwahahaha.

    "Free market!"

    good one!

    [Lots of words.....can you explain why, given the media's concentration in recent years, why has Head Fascist GWB's rating sunk so low? And Vice Head Cheney? And Colin Powell, Rice, Gonzalez, on and on.....And why Congress flipped in `06?

    From a results standpoint, I'd say, media consolidation has been a great thing for the Left!

    Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/19/2008]

    Yep, must be the "librool medias" fault. Just like it is the "libroll medias" fault that you and Chimpy are losing two wars in the ME.

    Isn't it fun to blame others for your failures?

    [Posted by BillSanford at 05/19/2008]

    Isn't "shut-Up" Bubb Oh Really?'s tag line?

    I still have not heard any decent argument FOR consolidation, when COMPETITION is one of the hallmarks of a functioning CAPITALIST market. All I read here is "librool" this, "librool" that.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/20/2008 @ 07:20am

42. Katrina wrote:

    "...our current hyper-consolidated media landscape--with 90% of it controlled by some six corporations- is a disservice to a democracy which demands diverse voices and views."

    So apparently, the feared consolidation has already happened. But where is the feared stifling of diverse voices and views?

    By any measure the voices and views we receive are far MORE diverse now than 20 years ago when we had just 3 major broadcast networks controlled by 3 corporations. Newspaper and radio ownership is more consolidated, but that's been balanced many times over by growth in Internet, cable, etc. - and even the much-feared homogenization of editorial voices by newspaper chains simply never happened.

    This is a false bogeyman and always has been.

    Posted by BillMan at 05/20/2008 @ 12:02pm

43. If this "bogey man" were let loose if The Nation = ABC in market share, etc., not a three-store feed and seed chain, we would not have gone into Iraq.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/20/2008 @ 1:37pm

44. more of the same bias message here.

    President John McCain will be sworn in Jan.'09 (w/ Obama as the nom. its a slam dunk.)

    Posted by TruPat at 05/20/2008 @ 5:13pm

45. Posted by crabwalk at 05/20/2008

    The problem is that free-market capitalism was never intended to be relied upon for information that our society uses to police its democracy and determine whether its representatives are actually representing the public interest.

    If you re-read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", he envisioned small entrepreneurial firms competing for the benefit of the consumer, not behemoth multi-national firms that "stifle" competition and the free flow of information as they attempt to protect their markets.

    In fact, "corporatism" is a PERVERSION of the capitalist model, in which erecting "barriers to competition" in now seen as a desirable business model. Any venture capitalist will tell you that if your "barriers to competition" are flimsy then so is your business.

    So if you "conservatives" on this board want to be true to your capitalist roots, you should be fighting media consolidation rather than applauding it!

    Posted by Metteyya at 05/21/2008 @ 7:20pm