Political "News" Replaced By Political Ads

When Franklin Roosevelt and the first New Deal Congress faced the question of how best to organize broadcasting on the public airwaves, they enacted the federal Communications Act of 1934. That law brought into the modern age the principle that had underpinned the "freedom of the press" protection in the first amendment to the Constitution: that a competitive and responsible media was essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy.

Though the airwaves belonged to the people, private owners would be allowed to broadcast on particular frequencies. Ownership would be diverse, competition would be encouraged and all who used the people's airwaves would be required to do so in the public interest.

Over the ensuing decades, the radio and television airwaves have been colonized by ever more powerful corporate interests. Media conglomerates have used their economic power – a power obtained through their exploitation of the people's airwaves – to hire lobbyists and secure ever more favorable federal rules and regulations. Slowly, the civic and democratic values that were intended to guide broadcasting have been replaced by commercial and entertainment values.

The duty to inform the public about the political processes of the Republic, which once was considered the essential responsibility of the recipient of a broadcast license, has been abandoned. The amount of news coverage of state and local elections is in decline, while television stations cede the political discussion to paid advertising.

How bad has the circumstance become?

In the month before this year's mid-term elections, local television news viewers received dramatically more information about the candidates and their campaigns from paid political advertisements than from news coverage, a just-completed University of Wisconsin-Madison NewsLab study concludes.

Local newscasts in seven Midwest markets aired 4 minutes, 24 seconds of paid political ads during the typical 30-minute broadcast while dedicating an average of 1 minute, 43 seconds to election news coverage.

Even the miniscule amount of attention that was paid to electioneering by the news departments of local television stations in markets spread across some of the key battleground states of the Midwest was warped. According to the analysis, "most of the news coverage of elections on early and late-evening broadcasts was devoted to campaign strategy and polling, which outpaced reporting on policy issues by a margin of more than three to one (65 percent to 17 percent)."

What makes these figures all the more troubling is the fact that, while local television stations are clearly failing to provide adequate coverage of the most basic functions of democracy, they continue to be the primary source of information for voters. In other words, the great majority of citizens who rely on television news for the healthy diet of information that is needed in order to cast informed votes are being starved by station owners who are more interested in collecting revenues from political advertisers than in meeting the responsibilities of a broadcast license holder.

How should citizens respond? There are two necessary actions:

1.) The data gathered by the UW researchers should be employed in broader efforts by citizen groups to challenge the renewal of broadcast licenses for communications corporations that are failing to serve the communities in which they own stations. These challenges are legitimate and they should be pursued aggressively. For more information, visit www.freepress.net

2.) Federal and state legislators should take up proposals to require commercial television and radio stations to provide free air time to all serious candidates as a means to counter the influence of commercials and, hopefully, to energize the news coverage of campaigns. For more on this, visit the website of the national campaign, endorsed by Walter Chronkite and others, visit www.freeairtime.org and www.campaignlegalcenter.org

------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols is the co-founder with Robert W. McChesney of Free Press, the national media reform network. Nichols and McChesney are the co-authors of many books on media policy, including Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy, which is just out in paperback from The New Press.

Comments (45)

1. 1.Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/24/2006 @ 3:50pm

   "Somehow it is the responsibility of the media and not the citizens themselves to make sure the citizenry is informed."

   No. It is the public's responsibility to be well informed. It is the media's responsibility, (in return for use of our airwaves), to provide said info.

   "2. Who says that media must fit the definition that Nichols lays out? Nichols? other leftists? the government?"

   The original FCC charter says so. Before it was bastardized by moneyed interests.

   As for your number three; True, there are more outlets for news nowadays. But, they are pay to play outlets. Public broadcasting, over public airwaves, should adhere to rules that are in the public interest.

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 4:11pm

2. Personal responsibility is an alien concept to liberals.

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/24/2006 @ 4:15pm

   As are public responsibility and protection of democracy from rule by wealth incomprehensible ideas to reactionaries and fascists.

   Posted by Tiresias at 11/24/2006 @ 4:57pm

3. "to provide free air time to all candidates"

   all candidates!??!? American Nazi Party get a spot?...PETA for Cockroaches Party?....Nader? hehe

   Posted by Mask at 11/24/2006 @ 6:40pm

4. Must be talking about Air America...

   Posted by woodyee at 11/24/2006 @ 6:41pm

5. "It is not the responsibility of the government or the media to educate or inform the public."

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/24/2006 @ 4:15pm

   Interesting government, you are rooting for there. I guess you don't feel the need for the government to advise it's peoples about the laws the plutocrats have devised for them, huh?

   I guess now that it is gutted, the original FCC charter is "unamerican"? You can call it a "leftist ideal" if you desire, but that was the price to be paid for use of my airwaves for free (as I am not free to use those frequencies, yet I've just as much right to them as big media.)

   Even if it is not the governments "job" to advise and inform, do you think it would be bad? Worse than media conglomeration? Can you not see the connection, between the MIC and big media and what your average joe learns about thier govt. from TV? Do you desire ininformed voters? Do you think it is good for America?

   The broadcasters are in it for the money, not public service. Should they be under control of people with an agenda, that may not be in this country's best interest?

   No FDA? No explaination for the new medicare "drug benefit"? No NOAA?

   No Corporation Left Behind?

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 6:44pm

6. Posted by MASK 11/24/2006 @ 6:40pm

   Well, maybe the nazis....but, those PETA people are waayyy out there.

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 6:45pm

7. .....not Nader either...he'll just get the cockroaches elected.

   Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 6:46pm

8. Posted by MASK 11/24/2006 @ 6:40pm

   "all candidates!??!? American Nazi Party get a spot?"

   You make an excellent point. Since it is unimaginable that we could find a way to separate out credible candidates from the "nuts or mentally incompetent" as I recently heard it put, Nichols goals are untenable and the subject should not be further discussed. Thank you for saving us all the time and effort.

   Posted by TP at 11/24/2006 @ 7:00pm

9. .....not Nader either...he'll just get the cockroaches elected.

   Posted by MALCONTENT 11/24/2006 @ 6:46pm

   ...the cockroaches are still running the Executive branch - and indeed, it is arguable that Nader did get them elected - so that point is moot . And why not afford the Nazi's access to the airwaves as long as all others are free to have equal time? That is what the marketplace of ideas and freedom of speech is all about. After all, neo-nazis have access to this forum, but have no real impact other than to serve as a source of amusement.

   Posted by Tiresias at 11/24/2006 @ 7:33pm

10. "...the cockroaches are still running the Executive branch - and indeed, it is arguable that Nader did get them elected - so that point is moot..."

    Posted by TIRESIAS 11/24/2006 @ 7:33pm

    Got a point there. I stand corrected.

    How'd I miss that?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 7:40pm

11. (Actually, you had a couple of points there...)

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 7:41pm

12. and anyway.....the nazis already have a near-monopoly of talk radio, so that is already a fait accompli.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/24/2006 @ 7:42pm

13. Serious discussion time...

    My comments about "Nazis" and "PETCockroaches" won't be that silly, I'm afraid.

    Once the TV nets and radio are forced by the Government to "provide free air time", then where do we draw the line guys? And HOW can you?

    How DO you deny every nut job who can get on a ballot free air-time EQUIVALENT to the Republican, Democrat, Green, etc.? You can't, otherwise you violate both anti-discrimination laws AND the 1st Amendment.

    And if you start getting 20, 30, 40 candidates...all of which are guarenteed time...and the networks can't PROVIDE enough time for them all...so they can't provide it for ANY.

    Posted by Mask at 11/24/2006 @ 9:30pm

14. Posted by MASK 11/24/2006 @ 9:30pm

    20,30,40 candidates? When did we ever have more than two choices...three or four at best, for most elections?

    What would be wrong with debates and political ad time for all who participate in them?

    Tie it in to the amount of paid ads a station accepts. Then primarily stations that provide "news" would have to participate.

    Would give them at least a few hours to break the never-ending jonbenet/oj rotation. Might even help their ratings. And it would encourage pussy politicians like HR Clinton to participate in debates or lose their time slot in the free air time.

    I would be a good time to standardize the requirements to be on a ballot in every state too, and then make that the requirement to be in the debates.

    (And maybe exclude nazi cockroaches while we're at it).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 10:01pm

15. Besides, who has PETCockroaches anyway? (Are those roaches that block and unblock your pipes?)

    My pet tapeworm thinks that's gross.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/24/2006 @ 10:03pm

16. Posted by MASK 11/24/2006 @ 9:30pm

    20,30,40 candidates? When did we ever have more than two choices...three or four at best, for most elections?

    Posted by MALCONTENT 11/24/2006 @ 10:01pm | ignore this person

    Oh now Eric, there you go spoiling Mask's 'point' with all that logic and reality and stuff. I mean, he even claimed "Serious discussion time..." before he pulled that "20, 30, 40 candidates{" thing out of...thin air.

    And then you just made that carefully crafted bit of Mask BS go...

    ...poof!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/24/2006 @ 10:26pm

17. Here's another little bit of reality...if a candidate does manage to get onto the ballot through the normal process...and turns out to be a complete whacko...what EXACTLY is wrong with putting them under the public eye so that everyone can SEE that they are whacko?!?!?

    Posted by Lillian at 11/24/2006 @ 10:28pm

18. Posted by MASK 11/24/2006 @ 9:30pm Serious discussion time...

    My comments about "Nazis" and "PETCockroaches" won't be that silly, I'm afraid.

    Once the TV nets and radio are forced by the Government to "provide free air time", then where do we draw the line guys? And HOW can you?

    And if you start getting 20, 30, 40 candidates...all of which are guarenteed (sic)time...and the networks can't PROVIDE enough time for them all...so they can't provide it for ANY.

    Posted by MALCONTENT 11/24/2006:

    My pet tapeworm thinks that's gross.

    Posted by LILLIAN 11/24/2006 @ 10:26pm:

    Oh now Eric, there you go spoiling Mask's 'point' with all that logic and reality and stuff.

    Posted by TIRESIAS 11/24/2006 @ 7:33pm

    ...After all, neo-nazis have access to this forum, but have no real impact other than to serve as a source of amusement...

    QED

    albeit I should not have so severely limited the observation to "neo-nazis" but should have written the more generally applicable "right-wingers"

    Also, the first quote demonstrates the selective amnesia of the right since, until the late 20th Century American reactionaries changed the original FCC act, elections had indeed proceeded with the broadcast media fulfilling the requirement of equal air time.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/25/2006 @ 02:53am

19. Posted by MALCONTENT 11/24/2006 @ 10:01pm

    Ok Eric, now I don't expect LILLIAN to figure this out, but you're a smart guy and I thought YOU would.

    You'll get those 20, 30, 40 candidates WHEN the networks are forced to offer free air-time. EVERYBODY will want to be on TV as the "Slightly Slily Party" candidate or whatever and get some face-time.....especially if they think it could...help them with a career in entertainment.

    How many dumb 20-somethings sign up for "Real World", "Survivor", etc. hoping it will turn into a movie or television big break?

    Now...imagine all you need is a few hundred signatures in New York, LA, Chicago...and you get to be the "Free Hot Dogs Party" candidate and get time on the local CBS, ABC, NBC affiliates?

    As far as "tying it into their paid ads"....that's not what Mr Nichols and the "free air time" guys are calling for, but a REPLACEMENT for paid ads.

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2006 @ 07:38am

20. Ok Eric, now I don't expect LILLIAN to figure this out, but you're a smart guy and I thought YOU would.

    You'll get those 20, 30, 40 candidates WHEN the networks are forced to offer free air-time.

    Posted by MASK 11/25/2006 @ 07:38am | ignore this person

    So, did you get that Eric. If the networks are forced to do something like provide air time to qualified candidates, suddenly, 20, 30, 40 candidates will get qualified to be placed on every ballot for every office in every election. Accoring to Mask, "all you need is a few hundred signatures in New York, LA, Chicago..." Mask said so (or maybe it was one of those pesky voices in his head again.)

    Never mind that major alternative parties like the Green Party candidates have been struggling for years to accomplish that particular feat. Once free TV gets into the mix, every Tom, Dick, and Maskian nutcase will suddenly get themselves qualified, just to be on TV.

    Oh, and never mind that the networks could easily tackle that very remote possibility by simply limiting the number of televised candidates to the top (pick a reasonable number...maybe 7 or 8?) vote-getting parties. We wouldn't want to inject any intelligent consideration into Mask's little fantasy.

    Much better to take Mask's cue and dump the idea without any 'reality-based' discussion at all.

    After all, that reality stuff always makes Mask's little BS go...

    ...poof!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/25/2006 @ 1:56pm

21. Posted by MASK 11/25/2006 @ 07:38am

    You completely ignored the part of my post, where I refer to standardizing getting on the ballot.

    As Lillian pointed out, it is not as easy as it sounds.

    Standardization would also help to keep partisan station managers from manipulating the rules.

    And, tying debate time to ad time would help incumbants see the light about actually participating.

    It seems to me, not to be a "can of worms", but the begining of potential real debate. If constructed properly, it would actually address some issues that are not currently under discussion.

    Sure, I almost always find your argument specious, but in this instance, I think you are actually waaay off. Bring on the nazis...and the greens, libertarians, dems, repubs, constitutionalists etc. Even parties with no chance at office holding could bring something to the debate.

    And if the result was not a dominant majority party, it would be good for America. It has been so long sisnce we had actual choices, it would feel foreign, but we'd get used to it.

    (While we're at it, lets kill the electoral system, (or at least, make electoral votes proportional in each state), and maybe a (not sure what it's called) system where you vote for each candidate with a numerical order, instead of just picking one.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2006 @ 2:53pm

22. Look everybody, Rese is back..... :)

    Posted by ACook at 11/25/2006 @ 3:51pm

23. Damn, Rese...you doubled the size of the thread.

    I wonder if you had anything relevant to add....oh well...back to ignore, for you.

    (We'll all chip in and get you an editor, for that day we all pretend is that dead guys b-day and not that evil old winter solstice).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2006 @ 4:08pm

24. Full frontal assault by Rese.

    Take cover.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2006 @ 4:09pm

25. As I pointed out before, prior to the change of the FCC's policy of having access to broadcast time by candidates, the system worked quite well. It was indeed not necessary to allow everyone the right to broadcast but only those who showed reasonable electoral support. The FCC was comfortable with that. It was not a problem then, it would not be a problem now.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/25/2006 @ 4:21pm

26. As I pointed out before, prior to the change of the FCC's policy of having access to broadcast time by candidates, the system worked quite well. It was indeed not necessary to allow everyone the right to broadcast but only those who showed reasonable electoral support. The FCC was comfortable with that. It was not a problem then, it would not be a problem now.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/25/2006 @ 4:23pm

27. I have to observe that the quality of the blogging on this story reflects the utter foolishness of the idea of pulling TV station's broadcast licenses because John Nichols disagrees with their programming; We all know that censorship in general is a slippery slope, yet, the paradox is that so many on this story's blog make a strong case for it, proving the old adage that birds of a feather do indeed flock together. Even so, I would not censor anyone else's forum, that is what editors are for. John can censor me from this forum, for all I care, I'm not paying for the privledge of blogging...yet, in spite of the fact that John probably never agrees with what I have to say on this blog, I don't expect that he is afraid read, or have anyone else read what I have to say. But, when the stakes are higher, say, control of the House and Seanate, No doubt that the lines between editorial descretion and censorship are easily blurred, and the temptation for one in control might be to edit out dissenting points of view....As John is proposing. But, of course, we all know that if our heart is in the right place, it's ok. It's only when republicans do it that it's censorship. Right, John???

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/25/2006 @ 4:59pm

28. Eric, you mean this?

    "I would be a good time to standardize the requirements to be on a ballot in every state too, and then make that the requirement to be in the debates.

    Posted by MALCONTENT 11/24/2006 @ 10:01pm |

    No, I didn't....I mentioned EARLIER that such restrictions would violate anti-discrimination and First Amendment provisions.

    You can't give out something FREE like Government-mandated air-time and NOT face a Supreme Court decision that "restrictive requirements" are un-Constitutional, because they restrict Free Speech (political speech) by limiting their access to the ONLY means of political communications (free air time).

    You guys (LILL too of course) are thinking "Stage 1" of this idea...and not "Stage Three" or "Stage Four".

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2006 @ 5:43pm

29. Gee. and I thought it was when that "great" president, Regan, killed the Fairness Doctine and the wimps in congress couldn't over ride Regan's veto to reinstate it that caused the media to become ineffective as the 4th estate. Seems since then, we have truly become dumber as a society. Thanks for keeping this issue on the front burner. Aren't we all starving for TRUTHFUL reporting and information.

    Posted by foegy at 11/25/2006 @ 10:24pm

30. PRAY WE MAKE IT THROUGH UNTIL JANUARY AMERICA!!!!!

    Posted by RESE 11/25/2006 @ 6:05pm

    And of course, January will come and nothing will happen...and then poor RESE will start in on websites "proving that Bush has compromising photos of Nancy Pelosi"...or "Cheney and Harry Reid go WAY back and are in cahoots", when impeachment doesn't come about.

    He's ranting on about something that happened 40 years ago (JFK etc)...yet expects "the whole house of cards to come crashing down" in the next 5 months or else Bush is going to declare martial law and execute the Dem Congress!!!

    but then again...he may be nuts, but he's still smarter than LILLIAN!

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2006 @ 10:34pm

31. You can't give out something FREE like Government-mandated air-time and NOT face a Supreme Court decision that "restrictive requirements" are un-Constitutional, because they restrict Free Speech (political speech) by limiting their access to the ONLY means of political communications (free air time).

    You guys (LILL too of course) are thinking "Stage 1" of this idea...and not "Stage Three" or "Stage Four".

    Posted by MASK 11/25/2006 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person

    Mask, really...your "Stage Three" or "Stage Four", are, as always, fantasies...the rantings of the mulititude of voices in your head.

    You did happen to notice that the government gives out "free" stuff all the time...welfare, education, social security, medicare...even campaign money...all with "restrictive requirements".

    Oops Mask, it must really hurt when a 'dummy' like me makes your BS go...

    ...poof!...

    so easily.

    hehe!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/25/2006 @ 11:20pm

32. MASK, just because Rese is paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get him...

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/26/2006 @ 12:03am

33. You did happen to notice that the government gives out "free" stuff all the time...welfare, education, social security, medicare...even campaign money...all with "restrictive requirements".

    Posted by LILLIAN 11/25/2006 @ 11:20pm

    Did you mention "welfare"?!?!?....then why did we need "welfare refrom" in 1996, if "Stage Three" or "Four" were "fantasies"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2006 @ 07:32am

34. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/26/2006 @ 12:03am

    I'm always curious as to what RESE will be posting in 26 months when Bush and Cheney leave office....and we're not living in a "fascist dicatatorship and martial law" "anymore"?!?!?!

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2006 @ 07:34am

35. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/25/2006 @ 6:40pm

    All these comments and as usual, not one liberal could be bothered to address personal responibility.(sic - perhaps should include personal responsibility for writing?) It boggles the mind to see the total banality and intellectual bankruptcy of the left.

    __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

    It is really rather simple and should require no explanation, but I shall state the obvious, nevertheless. Those of a liberal bent of mind actually know that they do, and must, exercise personal responsibility that, probably to your amazement, they find also involves consideration of responsibility to their society. Also, since personal responsibility presupposes independence of thought and ability to weigh facts and identify propaganda, it could not possibly be a skill exercised, nor a concept truly understood, by reactionaries who feel compelled to blind adherence to their ideology and parroting the spin of their hierarchy.

    It is, of course, appreciated that personal responsibility should be a point of concern to those of the right for whom the concept is actually quite foreign (they confuse it with doing whatever they like, avarice, selfishness and freedom to exploit others, especially those less fortunate) and something that those of that persuasion should attempt once in a while. To those of more progressive outlook, it is a given, not worthy of comment, and, just because a vapid observation is posted for discussion in this liberal forum, it is not incumbent upon participants to respond to the trivial and truly banal - such topics being only of concern to those not adept at framing more substantive questions nor rendering more useful insights.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/26/2006 @ 11:12am

36. Posted by RESE 11/26/2006 @ 10:07am

    Say, RESE...what's your escape plan? Dash for the Canadian border....run for the Mexican border? Jet to the Bahamas?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2006 @ 12:03pm

37. Posted by TIRESIAS 11/26/2006 @ 11:12am | ignore this person

    amazing. that is the best response to luvvy i've ever read. and there have been some damn good ones. the beauty of it is liberty is one of those from the right who just might be able to comprehend your post.

    Posted by loveloki at 11/26/2006 @ 1:59pm

38. good video rese. i saved it to my bookmarks.

    Posted by loveloki at 11/26/2006 @ 1:59pm

39. look everyone, amidst the massive cut n pastes, rese was rappin:

    Enjoy these links, simply cut and paste into your address bar

    To the Lazy

    Fucking crazy!

    You will never curse until you drive a car, and the lawless take over the roadway. I appologize for the profanity

    Need it for my sanity.

    Posted by RESE 11/25/2006 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person

    :)

    Posted by loveloki at 11/26/2006 @ 2:03pm

40. All these comments and as usual, not one liberal could be bothered to address personal responibility. It boggles the mind to see the total banality and intellectual bankruptcy of the left.

    According to the leftists, government must be father and mother because the citizenry is too stupid to be personally responsible. And God forbid that someone would miss some information because big government didn't provide it free to them.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/25/2006 @ 6:40pm | ignore this person

    Actually, I would imagine that most probably just have better things to do on Thanksgiving weekend than debate with religious zealots who dont listen to reason.

    Posted by jpolston at 11/26/2006 @ 2:34pm

41. Did you mention "welfare"?!?!?....then why did we need "welfare refrom" in 1996, if "Stage Three" or "Four" were "fantasies"?

    Posted by MASK 11/26/2006 @ 07:32am | ignore this person

    Mask, your "Stage Three" or "Stage Four" were based on "...a Supreme Court decision that "restrictive requirements" are un-Constitutional...". So, if your objections are based on reality and not some fantasy in your head, name the Supreme Court decision that struck down welfare as being unconstitutional.

    Posted by Lillian at 11/26/2006 @ 2:36pm

42. what does Politic means and the relation between media and politicization? the answers of them are significant. Media should be fitted but not by politicians. The media corporations has magnificent power over the society. This power should be balanced. The definitions and links of newspaper corporations;

    Linked text [click2info.net] Linked text [open-sites.net] Linked text [open-sites.net] Linked text [getindirectory.com]

    Posted by stopy at 11/26/2006 @ 3:32pm

43. Cronkite.

    Posted by Vic Anderson at 11/26/2006 @ 6:00pm

44. It is obvious that some of the posters here are shills for those who do not believe in democracy but believe in the concentration of power into the hands of a few, the conservative elite.

    The airwaves are public domain and used by corporations by the will of the people, or that is how it is supposed to work anyway. The conservative elites who want to protect their moneyed interests continually try to kill the idea of "public" because if people believe that democratically making decisions regarding the "public good", whether it be "public" schools, "public" parks, "public" rights to decide that a coporation can exist only if it serves the "public" interets, etc. scares the hell out of them. They fear democracy because they fear "the public" may just take back the rights, the rights that have been perverted by a system that gives corporations "personhood" at the expense of the "people", that sets up regulatory agencies that serve more as a buffer to keep corporate power intact rather than use its teeth to make corporations subservient to the 'public" will, that allows those in corporations to alleviate themselves the responsibility of their actions, etc, ad nauseum.

    The media and the "public" domain airwaves they use should answer to what the people decide, and to say that the media makes the decisions just shows you how off kilter the thinking of these shills really are. It all comes down to self-serving interest, greed, and get mine at any cost, a short term "me" thinking that those who do not understand "the public good" will use any means to fight.

    Of course, they cloak all this with speech filled with falsehoods and diversion, and legal system has been subverted to give the multi-nationals and the large corporations their way.

    If one looks back over 200 years ago, they may remember that the people rebelled to having other decide for them regarding who makes the decisions, thus the American revolution. All the Patriot Act laws, the Military Commissions Act, the building of large detention centers by Halliburton, all these have nothing to do with threats from without. They are being implemented for the day that those within who rebel against a system that is undemocratic and has usurped the will of the people will have great barriers to making change, and their voice heard, due to the degading of the airwaves (and internet) by giving it wholesale to the corporations.

    The blueprint it there. All you have to do is read it.

    Posted by MichaelPDA at 11/27/2006 @ 08:15am

45. Posted by MICHAELPDA 11/27/2006 @ 08:15am

    Sounds vaguely paranoid.

    Or, it would, if I didn't think you were right.

    Sad times for the American experiment. Something has contaminated it.

    What ever happened to the 60 yr. limit on corporations? The sad part is how many will defend to the death, (even if they have no actual stake in it and it goes against their best interests), the idea that a corporation, beholden to no authority and outliving any investor/employee, is a person. It is perverse logic, that only a head up your ass or money in your pocket stance could support.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/27/2006 @ 6:37pm