Skip to main content

View Diary: Who does Carol Darr speak for? (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the conflict of interest (none)
    We exempt Viacom/Disney/NewsCorp/GE, as well as Kos Media, LLC, and the Freepers, because despite any partisan leanings, and any vocal support for one side or another, their chief function is that of a media entity: Their job is to spread information.

    Kos, Freepers, etc. also have a direct political function: to organize around issues and collect funds for political candidates.

    2 points: Do we want Viacom/Disney/NewsCorp/GE to be able to actively promote certain candidates, to the point where the corperations are asking people to donate?

    And: The difference between Kos, Freepers, etc. and allowing Halliburton to own a blog is that the traditional blogs are generally owned by people who operate the blog out of a personal want to express themselves. And I think that's a very good thing. But should corperations be allowed to maintain such a thing, if that means corperations soliciting donations and funnling millions of dollars for the blog, which doesn't just actively promotes a partisan agenda, but solicits donations and organises activists?

    Wouldn't that be the equivelant of giving ads directly for candidate donation pages?

    And what if a PAC opened up a blog. What legal status does it have? A 521? or a media entity?

    Or a non-profit, like Focus on the Family. If it had a blog?

    I appreciate the intent, I just have a few reservations.

    The Kool-Aid. We drank of it. And it tasted sweet. It tasted like something...Truth.

    by Pluto101 on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 06:49:04 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  smart questions (none)
      Here's where I come down on this, and others may disagree:
      Do we want Viacom/Disney/NewsCorp/GE to be able to actively promote certain candidates, to the point where the corperations are asking people to donate?

      When they're operating within scarce, high-cost-of-entry, regulated media, probably not.  We can't all own television or radio stations, which is why tv stations that receive the media exemption have a legal obligations to, essentially, "play fair" -- evenhanded treatment of the issues, ad rates not determined based on partisan affiliation, etc.  

      But a newspapers, a magazine or a newsletter?  Or a local radio host?  I have no real problem there.

      But should corperations be allowed to maintain such a thing, if that means corperations soliciting donations and funnling millions of dollars for the blog, which doesn't just actively promotes a partisan agenda, but solicits donations and organises activists?

      There's no reason not to apply the traditional bar on corporate activity in politics to this sphere.  Halliburton is not a media company, and unless its "blog" was an actual attempt to cover the news rather than express corporate political views, it should not be legally protected.

      "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

      by Adam B on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 07:10:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site