EMAIL
PRINT
20 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Also in PEEK
Romney Scrambles to Win Iowa After Spending Tens of Millions
Thomas B. Edsall HuffingtonPost.com
Vermont Group Wants Cheney, Bush Charged With War Crimes
GottaLaff Cliff Schecter's Blog
Did Bush Risk Bhutto To Save Musharraf?
Scarecrow Firedoglake
Score one for John Edwards:
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.
But so many people whine and moan about how negative Edwards is becoming!
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.
He's so mean! The pundits tell us that, so it must be true.
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.
Attaboy, News Corpse, who goes on to compare Hillary's soft response to Edward's principled one, comparing their "independence and integrity".
Edwards:
"It's time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation."
Hillary:
"I'm not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets."
News Corpse:
That is the same characterization they make of him when he advocates for the poor - something the media apparently believes rich folks should never do. And for his trouble he is ganged up on by sanctimonious pundits that would rather point a finger at targets of their imagined hypocrisy than left a finger to help those less fortunate.
If you're paying attention it's easy to see who the phonies really are.
So pay attention.
Tagged as: media consolidation, news corp, murdoch, clinton, edwards
GottaLaff is a regular blogger for Cliff Schecter's Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment