The Senate just passed a "resolution of disapproval" nullifying the FCC's latest giveaway to big media companies!

Back in December, the FCC went against 99% of the comments submitted by members of the public and passed a rule allowing media companies to consolidate further:

The FCC voted to remove the “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” ban that prohibits one company from owning a broadcast station and the major daily newspaper in the same market. The resolution of disapproval (Senate Joint Resolution 28), introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), would nullify the FCC’s new rules if passed by Congress and signed by the president

Led by John Kerry, the resolution passed today. If the House passes the resolution as well and if Bush signs it (which is doubtful, so if the House and Senate overturn Bush's veto), the rule will be revoked.

This evening, I sat in on a question and answer session with author and journalist Eric Lichtblau, who just published the book Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice. Lichtblau also authored the original investigative report exposing the NSA's domestic, warrantless wiretapping program in 2005 and kicking off the debate around the country over FISA, Bush, and the law.

It was enlightening to hear citizens in the crowd question this respected journalist. Clearly, Lichtblau felt that he was right in publishing his original expose, yet the story was held by the New York Times for over a year before being released. While Lichtblau didn't defend his editor's choice in holding back the story, he did defend the principle; he felt an editor should withhold a story - and indeed as a journalist he would withhold a story - if the story endangered national security.

This, of course, was the ridiculous argument made by government officials to embargo the NSA story, an argument that is demonstrably false. Indeed, as Lichtbau pointed out, it was common knowledge before the NSA story that the government was tapping the foreign communications of Al-Qaeda and the like. It is inconceivable that the disclosure of a program intercepting communications between foreigners and American citizens would have disclosed something Al-Qaeda didn't already know.

While I don't necessarily find fault with the idea of embargoing stories for national security reasons - indeed, there are examples where this has actually happened. (An example that came up in the discussion of The Chicago Tribune revealing the U.S. had broken the codes of Japan during World War II ended years of successful surveillance.) What I found more troubling was who the editors at the New York Times believed.

Shall we say, cautious victory?

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. has recinded its offer to buy Newsday and Cablevision has made a bid in its place. Murdoch's purchase of Newsday would have made his company an incredibly powerful force in New York's important media market:

If the deal goes through, on top of owning three New York newspapers, Murdoch also would control two New York City television stations, WNYW and WWOR (both Fox affiliates). That means on a given day, one man would be able to reach 3,251,229 people per day through newspapers alone, plus millions more through the dual TV stations.

Of course, the purchase would have also faced regulatory hurdles at the FCC, though it is somewhat doubtful the FCC would have strictly enforced its regulations.

Now, thankfully, the situation has been averted. Though Newsday may be sold to another big corporation (Cablevision), at least the potential new own doesn't already control top newspapers and broadcast TV stations in the area.

While New York's media market might not be getting more diverse in any meaningful way, at least it's not getting more consolidated.

Though the equation above draws scorn from most journalists, and a large segment of the U.S. population sneers at the title of "blogger," the profession (occupation? (hobby?) (pass time?)) occasionally gets some credit. Most often this share of praise falls upon foreign shoulders, where blogging is a much riskier endeavor. Por ejemplo,Yoani Sanchez, a Cuban blogger, was given a prestigious Spanish press award.

Indeed, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have run prominently placed articles on Sanchez, who writes a blog Generacion Y, based in Havana.

As I said, this sort of recognition eludes bloggers in the US, largely because our media here is "free." "What need is there for bloggers when we have a robust media acting as the government and corporate watchdog?" many reason. "They only rant and post stupid pictures of cats."

Well, it's hard to rebut some of that, but given that our mainstream media is so clearly beholden to corporations, and its level of reporting is so often abysmal, the US blogosphere should be getting a lot more credit.

So, for all you Tom Paine's out there, this morning thread is for you.

Far be it from me to criticize Senators for talking tough, yet I can't help feeling skeptical:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) stepped in front of a group of tech executives in Washington this morning to deliver a caffeinated and surprisingly sharp defense of network neutrality. Pledging to use "every ounce of my energy to protect network neutrality," Wyden had a message for ISPs who might be pondering new charges for various forms of access: "think twice." If ISPs start down that road, they might soon find that they lose key legal protections including "safe harbors" and tax freedom.

As I said, I like it when Senators talk tough to corporations, especially if they are actually in the room. But consider the political realities. Congress has yet to pass a real net neutrality bill into law. This means good Senators who believe in the necessity of net neutrality are forced to ask and threaten corporations into policing themselves - something they have a poor history of doing.

And of course, in a Congress that has had a hard time not passing increased protections for telecom companies in the form of retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping, it's hard to imagine Capitol Hill ever actually rolling back legal protections.

So, while I'm impressed with Wyden's bluster, I hope the executives in the room knew less about politics than I do, otherwise they are probably shrugging off this likely empty threat.

What's your opinion? Think I'm wrong?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about John McCain's ties to convicted, and unrepentant, Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy.  A piece in yesterday's Chicago Tribune picked up on this shady connection, noting that McCain has "his own radical friend".  The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and other outlets have also picked up on the story. 

Well, The Seminal was ahead of the pack, but w're glad to see others noticing this connection as well.  Steve Chapman, who wrote the Chicago Tribune piece, says that  McCain campaign aides refused to answer questions about the subject.  Maybe Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews (unlikely), and Keith Olbermann (best bet) can press McCain for answers about his connection with Liddy, a convicted felon who calls McCain "a close personal friend" and has donated money to McCain over the past ten years. 

This is the tip of the iceberg—there are many more shady/radical McCain connections to explore.  Looking forward to seeing the media explore each of them. 

A front page headline in Saturday's Washington Post read "For Bush in Last Year, It's the Principle".  The article discussed Bush's plan to push ahead "with proposals that appear to have last chance of passage".  What caught my attention was this passage, considered in light of the article's headline:

Presidential aides characterize Bush as intent on pursuing matters of principle, regardless of the polls.  Democrats accuse him of needless stubbornness at the expense of improving a battered economy and addressing other problems.

The media seems to have pretty low expectations for McCain.  An AP story yesterday noted that McCain "is making promises that would cost billions of taxpayer dollars, yet he is vague about how he would pay for them."  Sounds like someone may be holding McCain accountable…but not so fast, AP is quick to let McCain off the hook because "[u]nlike the Democrats, McCain has made a career of trying to cut spending."

So now it's good enough for a politician to simply "try"–success is not required?  If Obama or Clinton want to end the war in Iraq, the key question, I guess is whether they will "try" to do so, not whether they actually get the job done.

It's human nature to look for the easy way out.  Why should reporters be any different?  The media has gotten used to well-worn, comfortable ways of "reporting" on presidential elections.  They accept, and repeat, over and over, the Republican meme that Democrats are elite latte drinkers, out of touch with ordinary Americans, while Republican candidates, no matter how privileged and wealthy, are presented as men (they've always been men) of the people.  It's a lot easier than thinking critically and maybe it's more fun to talk about Obama's bowling score than it is to discuss the war in Iraq, health care, or the economy.

A Bloomberg piece yesterday, entitled "Obama's Record Has Republicans Dusting off "Liberal" Attacks", is a case in point.  This isn't reporting, it's a hackneyed piece of stenography, not much different than something McCain's press shop would write up if given the opportunity.

(I wanted to make a point of updating yesterday’s post about the words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and, because I think it is important not to leave any misconceptions or mistakes on my part simply hanging out there, contributing to all the noise on this subject, I wanted to do it in a separate post, instead of a simple update, so that more people might see it. I thank you for your indulgence. –RW)

I may have misunderstood Rev. Wright’s sodomy reference Friday night on Moyers. A reader sent me a link to a post that includes this passage from David Mendell:

Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday.

If this is the case, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, what to make of this Wright quote from Friday?

That the perception of God who allows slavery, who allows rape, who allows misogyny, who allows sodomy, who allows murder of a people, lynching, that's not the God of the people being lynched and sodomized and raped, and carried away into a foreign country. Same thing you find in Psalm 137. That those people who are carried away into slavery have a very different concept of what it means to be the people of God than the ones who carried them away.

A search of other posts around the ‘sphere indicates that many believe that when Rev. Wright included Sodomy in this litany, he was making a reference to Abner Louima, the Haitian émigré who was beaten and sodomized with a plunger handle by New York City police officers (who allegedly told Louima it was “Giuliani time”) in 1997.

Given both the broader context of Wright’s words, recently and in the past, this seems like a valid interpretation, or at least a strong possibility. I fear, however, that if the subtlety was lost on me, it was lost on many whom would not take the time nor show the desire to understand it further. I’m not sure that Wright cares about that; I do think that Moyers might.