Don't Let Rupert Murdoch Gobble Up More Major U.S. Media

While Bill O’Reilly and the Fox Newsies hype their faux War on Christmas, their behind-the-scenes boss, Rupert Murdoch, is poised to receive some major gifts this month from the United States government in the form of a change in FCC rules that would allow him to buy the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, the major papers in the nation’s second- and third-largest cities (where, incidentally, Murdoch already owns TV stations). This rule change was attempted in 2007, under the George W. Bush administration, but was repealed by the Senate and overturned by a federal court after a big public outcry. Now, the Obama administration is considering the same changes. We join with Free Press in urging that you speak out against this change.

In an excellent article in Truthout, Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks note that right now, five major media companies, one of which is Murdoch’s News Corporation, own the majority of American media. If the FCC loosens the ownership rules, more consolidation would likely follow. We already know that Murdoch is looking to beef up his U.S. holdings.

Hartman and Sacks highlight Italy as an example of the dangers of media monopolies to democracy:

You remember Silvio Berlusconi? He started out as a cruise boat lounge singer and small-time hustler. But then he bought a newspaper, then a small television station, then a radio station, then another TV station, then another newspaper, then another radio station, then another TV station, then another newspaper, then a radio network, then a TV network, and suddenly Berlusconi ended up owning about 95 percent of all the media seen, heard, or read in Italy.

And with control of the information in Italy, Berlusconi decided to run for Prime Minister, and wouldn’t you know it – he won!

Although it’s very unlikely Rupert Murdoch will be running for president, there's no doubt that his Fox News Channel operates as a communications outlet for the Republican Party. We also know that he has not hesitated to interfere with American politics. There is every reason to be concerned about what might happen if this man got even more of our precious media resources.

Please go to FreePress.net and join their campaign to oppose relaxation of media ownership rules.

Our very democracy could be at stake!

Follow @NewsHounds

Follow @NewsHoundEllen

Do you like this post?

Showing 7 reactions

commented 2012-12-02 09:04:57 -0500 · Flag

With a decline in print subscriptions, I am wondering if he buys these things in order to eventually shut them all down. Sort of a longer term Bain approach. If you essentially eliminate the sources of information, you have free reign to operate your agenda in the dark.

commented 2012-12-01 04:50:35 -0500 · Flag

The example of Italy is true except for a small detail: Berlusconi never “owned” 95% of the TV media but he certainly “controlled” that share while he was prime minister. As the owner of the three Mediaset channels, he made sure the three public-owned RAI channels were made increasingly less relevant and entertaining.

That’s what happens when greedy unprincipled elements get control of crucial instruments of power like the media and the mainenance of law and order. Murdoch wouldn’t even want to run for POTUS, considering that he doesn’t have to deal with an elected body of representatives some of whom actually feel that representing the interests of the people is a calling. He already exercises far more power as today’s equivalence of Citizen Kane.

Should Murdoch ever be allowed to get even close to the degree of power over the media that Berlusconi was able to win (with massive assistance from self-seeking politicians who had the nerve to call themselves “socialists”), he will be able to control who gets elected.

Thanks be to the flying spaghetti monster for the great gift of the internet.

commented 2012-12-01 02:56:46 -0500 · Flag

Murdoch has for many years owned two TV stations here in NYC (channels 5 and 9… both not worth a minute of anyone’s time), as well as that slime sheet, The NY Post (does the WSJ count also, or maybe that’s not a “local” paper?).

I always thought that was against the rules!

Has Murdoch been paying off the FCC commissioners? Anyone have a theory?

Must be easy to bend the rules. He also owns two stations in each of NINE other major cities, according to Newscorp’s own web site.

BTW, did I ever tell anyone of how I “worked” for a week at one of Murdoch’s earliest American publishing ventures, about 38 years ago?

commented 2012-11-30 22:08:15 -0500 · Flag

The Chgo. Tribune has long been the ‘conservative’ rag in our city. But it has always maintained a fairness and class that is reminiscent of what the Republicans used to be. I’ve gone back & forth with this paper, and am currently a subscriber, but if Rupert is able to get his hands on the Trib, I’ll drop it, just like I did the WSJ. Let’s hope that someone somewhere has some sense and blocks the sale.

commented 2012-11-30 16:04:55 -0500 · Flag

Wrinkled Rupert is an evil old man whose appetite for political power is insatiable. I wouldn’t let him acquire a free advertising circular or a 50 watt radio station in the USA.

Some say that his criminal indictment under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is just months away.

commented 2012-11-30 15:54:26 -0500 · Flag

I always said put a black hooded robe on that MF and he’s look like Darth Sidious.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/darth%20sidious?before=1352680636

commented 2012-11-30 15:24:07 -0500 · Flag

As a long time LA Times subscriber, I would be sad to have to give up my subscription, but would drop it in a heartbeat if Darth Murdoch became the owner.