Ladies and Gentlemen,
Well, as I am sure many now know, Murdoch has bought Dow Jones, and with it; the Wall Street Journal. Well, maybe not, seems there is a dispute still and the Dow Jones owners aren't ready to make that declaration formal.
That isn't all he owns:
Beginning with newspapers, magazines and television stations in his native Australia, Murdoch expanded News Corp into British and American media, and in recent years has become a leading investor in satellite television, the film industry, the Internet, and other forms of media.
So what happens when you own the messenger?
Meet me after the fold...
It would seem that once you own the messenger, you get to help run a country:
It was good to see the Conservative party use it too, making a valuable contribution to our rapidly expanding knowledge of John Prescott's relationship with the American billionaire Philip Anschutz. And talking of American billionaires, what a pleasure to watch Downing Street put on the spot over the prime minister's conversations with Rupert Murdoch. The Lib Dem peer Lord Avebury asked more than a year ago for dates of conversations between Tony Blair and Murdoch and Blair and Richard Desmond, the owner of the Express. His request was rejected by Downing Street but supported last week by the information commissioner.
The peer hardly had an overwhelming victory: you could sense the irritation in the subsequent statement from the Cabinet Office, revealing that the prime minister spoke to Murdoch by phone on March 13 2003, and met Desmond on January 29 2003 and February 23 2004. It said these were the only meetings or conversations "clearly of an official nature" in the period referred to by the peer and it excluded contacts "not clearly of an official nature". On the face of it, then, Avebury didn't get very far. But in using these words, the Cabinet Office draws attention to fruitful areas for further probing. First we seem to be able to assume that there were other contacts that might have been of an official nature - ie those that were not clearly official - and second, that if these other contacts were not official, they were nevertheless contacts.
And this should concern us greatly since Murdoch owns FOX and we already know they fought in court for the right to lie:
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, "It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased... It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."
So, anything Murdoch owns is now going to lie to the public. We can take this as a given since that is exactly what FOX was caught doing and what they fought in court to be able to do. But, look again at what Murdoch is dipping into: the internet. Remember Net Neutrality? Control the messenger and you control the message; even if that message is lies. It doesn't matter if it is over print, radio, television, cable, internet, or over satellite. We've seen it before; Pravda.
Deregulation wasn't just about giving corporation's the ability to lessen standards for profit; it was also about lessening the monopoly laws. It has already happened:
NEW YORK: In the autumn of 2003, a piece of Rupert Murdoch's sprawling media empire was in jeopardy.
Congress was on the verge of limiting any company from owning local television stations that reached more than 35 percent of American homes. Murdoch's Fox stations reached nearly 39 percent, meaning he would have to sell some.
A strike force of Murdoch's lobbyists joined other media companies in working on the issue. The White House backed the industry, and in a late-night meeting just before Thanksgiving, congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit - to 39 percent.
One leader of the congressional movement to limit ownership was Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. But in the end, he, too, agreed to the compromise.
It turns out that Lott had a business connection to Murdoch. Months before, HarperCollins, Murdoch's publishing house, had signed a $250,000 book deal with Lott, records and interviews show.
I want that to sink in; in the middle of the night, enough Congressmen had been bought off (damn right I'm saying it) to raise the limit to the exact level to allow Murdoch to expand his media empire.
His vast media holdings give him a gamut of tools - not just campaign contributions but also jobs for former government officials and media exposure that promotes allies while attacking adversaries, sometimes viciously - all of which he has used to further his financial interests and establish his legitimacy in the United States, interviews and government records show.
Laws mean nothing in this war, ladies and gentlemen; not when those who make them get bought off. Rules mean nothing when those who make the rules change them for a book deal. Fairness Doctrines are useless when it can come, and go, at the whim of people who know they are guaranteed a cushy, high-paying job after they leave government. There is only one way to fight this war; with money.
What does losing this battle mean?
- 62 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (a claim which Vice President Cheney has made more than President Bush).
- 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
In October 2004, 62% of America thought Saddam had strong ties to Al-Qaeda and 41% believed Saddam helped plan and support the hijackers.
This wouldn't be so shocking if our President hadn't already stated there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11:
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found
President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.
The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
Yet, after the President stated there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11, 41% of America still believed it. Even Rumsfeld said there were no ties:
9/16/2003 WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
So why did so many still believe it? I refer the reader back up to the statement; Murdoch's lawyers fought for the right to lie to us in the media.
- The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Yet, after the Sept. 11 commission reported there were no credible ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, a full 62% of America continued to believe. Why? I again refer the reader back up to the statement; Murdoch's lawyers fought for the right to lie to us in the media.
So, you've worn out one outlet. People don't trust it anymore and your ratings are in freefall. What do you do? You buy an outlet people trust and corrupt it until people catch on - The Wall Street Journal.
OWN THE MESSENGER AND YOU OWN THE MESSAGE - OWN THE MESSAGE AND YOU OWN THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
If the political party you were supporting is in freefall as well, what do you do? You just swap sides:
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.
The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.
We've seen this before, ladies and gentlemen:
During the 1980s and early 90s, Murdoch's publications were generally supportive of the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
At the end of the Thatcher/Major era, Murdoch switched his support to Labour and the party's leader Tony Blair. The closeness of his relationship with Blair and their secret meetings to discuss national policies was to become a political issue in Britain.
And we know how Blair turned out, don't we? Bush, Blair, and Murdoch = Iraq disaster.
So, how do we fight this war?
- As a Democratic investor, you buy media outlets.
- As a consumer, you don't watch or read anything owned by Murdoch. You drive his profits so low that it is no longer profitable for him and he sells. His holdings are found link.
- You don't buy or read the Wall Street Journal, you don't buy or read the New York Post.
- You write your Democratic Congress men/women and let them know that if they support anything Murdoch does, they will be challenged by primary.
- Hillary supporters, sorry, but you'd better do something with your candidate... she has now made a deal with the devil.
So, what happens when a person only listens to "All spin - All the time"? You get this:
Clinton pardoned some shady characters
I see where the Democrats are all upset over President Bush commuting the jail sentence (not pardoning) of Scooter Libby.
They must have forgotten the pardons that Bill Clinton granted throughout his disgusting stay in office.
The following is just a brief list of what can be found by a quick search of the Internet using "Clinton pardons" or by going to the Department of Justice Web site (www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm).
• Elizabeth Marie Frederick (aka Elizabeth Sigmon): distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
• Reza Arabian Maleki: conspiracy to make false statements to the Immigration and Naturalization Service; false statements to INS and aiding and abetting the same.
• Madison Dow Kimball Jr.: bank robbery.
• Debi Rae Huckleberry: distribution of methamphetamine.
• Joseph A. Yasak: knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a grand jury.
There are many more examples, many of whom did far more damaging things then anything Mr. Libby did.
Don’t fall for the hype of "enraged" Democrats.
Yep... just another day in freeperville...