Cross Posted at
Deny My Freedom
The fact that New York Senator Hillary Clinton has planned an upcoming Fundraiser put on by our favorite media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been covered ad nauseum on this site.
Initial reactions range from "That sucks, he's the enemy!" to "Whatever you simpleton, she is a smart politician who knows where the money is and what kind of alliances to make. It's this kind of pragmatism that the party needs right now."
I'll side with the "that sucks, he's the enemy" side, but neither of those reactions are where the debate ends. Follow me below the fold, and we'll see just how deep this rabbit hole goes...
Rupert Murdoch has always been of a mind that whomever has the power makes the rules, and his industry donates regularly to both parties to make sure sympathetic officials remain in power. (
Granted, he donates exponentially more to the GOP than Dems, but one need look no further than the name in the title of this diary to see examples of benefitting Dems.) Liberal Democrats generally side against him and his giant corporations of deplorable influence.
Why? Well I think its safe to say that the NewsCorp love for Democrats is a tough one, to be sure. But publicly opposing and taking action are two different things, and Murdoch's money tree provides a lot of shade. How many times have we heard Sean Hannity and his minions saying "If you dread another Clinton Presidency as much as I do..."
Clinton's response? Here's this in a statement from capitol hill, transcribed on Her Website:
"I am very gratified that he thinks I am doing a good job,"
Why so lenient? The Clinton's cozy relationship to Murdoch may have just become a public intrigue last month when the Senator showed up at Fox News's 10th Anniversary Bash, and with the former President speaking to a NewsCorp conference in Pebble Beach and announcing Murdoch's support behind the Clinton Global Initiative, but the partnership has been around for a long time... since the heart of the Clinton Presidency.
This year is not just the anniversary of the Fox News channel. It's also the painfully ironic (or expected) anniversary of a landmark deregulation legislation. It was in the time of Bill Clinton that everyone was so eager to push The Telecommunications Act of 1996 through congress, with the supposed goals of fostering competition in the telecom industry. How has that worked out?
Clear Channel | Sinclair Broadcasting |
40 Radio Stations Owned Pre-1996 | 11 Television Stations Pre-1996 |
1,200 Radio Stations Now Owned | 60 Television Stations Now Owned |
This is over Five times the amount of television stations, and over Thirty times the amount of radio stations--all owned by the same company, and most of which used to be independent or owned by other companies. Oh, and did I mention? The Fox News Channel was born.
This is certainly not the kind of healthy competition the American public was sold on this bill. But, perhaps you are insane, and would like to say to me,
"But MadCasey, monopolies are a natural result of a free market, and are good for America. What sort of physical harm could this do?"
Well I'll tell you.
Rupert Murdoch owes much of his current livleihood to the Clintons and Democrats who want to continue benefitting from his generous campaign donations.
This brings us back to The Question of Clinton.
- Is she a political superstar who's ironically gotten "too big" (meaning too detached) for the presidency?
- Is she a corporate insider with no respect for her party's base or grassroots activists?
- Is she too pro-war, and afraid to change things?
In a word,
yes. Look at her staff. Her former advisor and close consultant
Howard Wolfson also consults NewsCorp. A link to the past, NewsCorp executive
Gary Ginsberg was a White House aide during the Clinton Years.
This corpo-political revolving door sounding a little too drafty for you yet?
When the question becomes, "What's wrong with a politician accepting money and fundraising with the right people to give her the best chance to win," we need look no further than the "Fox News Effect:"
[Two economists] found clear evidence of a Fox effect among non-Republicans in the presidential and senate races, even after controlling for other factors including vote trends in similar nearby towns without access to Fox. "While this vote shift is small... it is still likely to have been decisive in the close presidential 2000 elections," they concluded.
The man they're cosying up to is the man who installed George W. Bush into office with his shameful news coverage. The man they're finding so helpful now has endlessly supported everything the Bush Administration has done in the last six years in the name of his own coin. The man who some may consider a relationship with nothing but pragmatic smart politics, is resposible for this:
This image is a link to PsiFighter37's powerful diary chronicling this disasterous presidency in photos.
Whenver you think about how cosying up to malicious corporate interests in the name of public relations and fundraising is just as much a victory for us as it is for them, think again.
Whenver you think about how brief the effects of a Clinton/Murdoch relationship may be, think again.
Whenever you think the media is not an issue...whenever you think that the impacts of corruption are mild...whenever you think taking action and stopping deregulation legislation isn't important, or when you think that a bill we pass today will have no effect ten years from now...
Remember George W. Bush, and think again.