BushCo buddies buying more media outlets
Damn that librul media! They aren’t staying on top of buying up all the available tv stations. Rupert has sold off some of his television holdings to another rightwing equity firm, OakHill Partners. From the RawStory writeup:
Oak Hill Partners lead investor Robert M. Bass, a longtime associate of President Bush, is also the founder of the Ft. Worth, Texas-based Bass Brothers Enterprises. Oak Hill issued a statement announcing the stations would be jointly managed by a broadcast holding company, Local TV, that was created by Oak Hill for the purpose of purchasing 9 other television stations from The New York Times previously this year.
*snip*
News Corp. had originally intended to sell off nine of its US television stations; however Bass’s subsidiary, Local TV, could not purchase WHBQ-TV in Memphis, Tennessee as it had previously purchased CBS affiliate WREG-TV: “Federal Communications Commission rules allow market duopolies but only one of the two stations under a single owner can be among the market’s four top-rated stations there and there must be least eight unique station owners in the market once the duopoly is formed.”
I don’t want to hear about that liberal bias in the media. Not with these guys selling to each other to keep it in the ‘family’ as it were. With newspaper circulation dropping each quarter, television stations are vastly more important than print media as a form of news dissemination.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I’m not sure I agree. What has become much more important than newspaper circulation in this country vis-a-vis news dissemination is the internet. In this day and age, people don’t trust the television news any more than they trust the dead-tree newspapers. More and more people are relying on the internet to learn what’s what because they understand that if you want a fair and balanced picture of world events you need to look to multiple media sources. For that, one can either subscribe to five different dead-tree papers and still be missing important sources of news and analysis or log on to the internet and within minutes have access to dozens of points of view on the same exact story.
I haven’t subscribed to a newspaper in, well, forever and I haven’t watched tv news in years. Why listen to a talking head deal with an important story in a 15 second to maybe two minute report when one can subscribe to rss feeds from a half a dozen news sources and get in-depth news and then analysis from many different points of view?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Craig! I was just discussing on my blog that very same fact regarding another issue today. The Big Media boyz are turning their attention to having more and more of their content free online lately because with dropping revenues in the hardcopy area, they have to make it up somewhere don’t they?
The bottom feeder in the dissemination of news is the printed medium. The internets are taking over. I was watching Pakistani television online this morning, I love that I can do that..and its free to boot. The best of both worlds..the internet and tv in one neat package.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Hey, Dusty! Long live the internet!
December 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I have been trying to get on BIO for an hour now. I forgot what I was going to say damn it!
The MSM can’t control the Internet as they can the airwaves and the printed medium, so they can only join in and try to make as much money as possible with ad’s and what not..or die on the vine.
Some how, I don’t see the MSM as dying however
December 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Yeh, it’s been frustrating. I don’t know if the WordPress software is the problem or if it’s the servers that keep going down but there have been one or two periods of time each week now where BIO! has been unreachable.
No. MSM probably won’t be going anywhere. After all, someone has to have reporters around the world reporting on events so us bloggers have something to bitch about! :^)
December 28th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Who watches right wing media anyway? Here’s something that right wing media won’t tell us:
http://www.cmpa.com/index.html
December 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
on the cmpa
this
and this
I’m not sure that they can be trusted to tell the truth.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
while the physical newspaper is in decline, they are still important. I check msn and yahoo for news. All the articles that I check ( about two or three) were from the AP. Having only one source of news seems dangerous to me. Especially since by being on multiple sites gives it the impression of many sources. Looking at the history of TV in europe and the rest of the world I can not see how a case can be made for consolidation.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/fnc_most_fair_and_balanced_at_least_according_to_one_study_73882.asp
FNC Most Fair and Balanced (At Least According to One Study)
A study by George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) published last week has gotten a lot of pick up, but most rife with criticism. One of the first was Inside Cable News, which broke down the CMPA findings to expose a very strange method the CMPA used to make their conclusions.
ICN brought up that the study looked at the ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news broadcasts and the first half hour of Brit Hume’s Special Report on FNC. Besides the fact that Special Report is a specifically political show as compared to the network broadcasts, the time’s don’t even match up (6pmET for Special Report and 6:30pmET for the network newscasts). Also, no comparison was given for CNN or MSNBC’s balance.
ICN brought up other issues as well, writing, “Even the PDF refers to Special Report as the ‘flagship evening news’ show on FNC. That’s patently not the case. The flagship show is The Fox Report. Why this detail was omitted is one the Center needs to step up and answer for because it’s not insignificant.”
Portfolio.com’s Jeff Bercovici notes that even if Special Report were picked for comparison, the second half hour is where the majority of the pundits weigh in and the balance would be more telling.
Huffington Post argues that the funding of CMPA “comes from conservative foundations.”
But the study press release takes a very obvious, unprofessional, swipe at Fox News in its sub-headline: “Obama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo).”
Looks like the fair and balanced debate continues…
December 28th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
oops, hit the submit too soon. 1st thing i noticed was the Hume show against the news shows..wtf? Fair and balanced study my ass.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Lisa..keep drinking the retarded Republican koolaid ok? Soros isn’t as big a deal as those assholes make..really, he’s not. But feel free to buying into the bullshit..I thought you were smarter than that..evidently not..
December 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
And the media is not right winged either which I cannot believe you buy into that.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
You buy into the thinest bullshit around..and yet you bust my chops over this piece? Get a grip reichwinger..They love folks like you..seriously..they do. They thrive on folks that take it all in as you do.
The MSM is owned by nothing but corporations now..and its in their best interests to keep the majority of the citizens of our country down and out..and out of the loop. They only make money when they fuck the masses.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Oh yeah I see “Rah Rah Republicans” in the media everyday.
Is that how the democrats won the majority? Everyone thinks that Bush doesn’t care about children and R
December 31st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Oh that’s right we torture terrorists,Bush doesn’t care about poor children,we’re losing in Iraq.
We are the worst country in the world. Does that sound right wing to you?
Everyday in our Newspaper we see Dem’s at the top of every article and republicans on the bottom and pictured in the order of their preference.
I guess you also think that moveon.org and Media Matters are right winged too?
December 31st, 2007 at 9:43 am
I don’t know what newspapers your reading, and I don’t care. You can whine and bitch all you want this is about the media..not Moveon.org or Media Matters. Stay on topic much?