Friday, May 30, 2003
AIN'T NO BIG SURPRISEBack to Iraq. John makes a
good point that the peace can be lost in the early days and that if the Administration believes, as Condi Rice said, that "We are through the Iraq conflict," then there's really going to be trouble in the fertile crescent. I suspect that it was local politics, that the Administration wants to send the message at home that we kicked ass and won, but they need to realize that the Iraqis need to think that we are still engaged in getting things straight in greater Iraq. Condi sounded like we were finished.
Christopher Hitchens argues about the nature of our engagement:
If the U.S. occupation authorities had been shooting down looters and Baathist mercenaries, they would have been portrayed as repressive and cruel. If they fail to do so, they are indicted for negligence. OK, that's what happens when you assume the responsibility for someone else's country. No self-pity is allowable on Washington's part, and it doesn't matter that much of the criticism is itself inconsistent, or uttered in bad faith. It's not as if the occupation came as a surprise to those who had planned it.
That last sentence is key, and the Administration needs to do a better job.
MEDIA CONSOLIDATIONThe Congressman responsible for oversight of the FCC, Billy Tauzin, is a
big fan of consolidation.
"It is now time for the commission to act," the Louisiana Republican said. "In a highly competitive, diverse 21st century marketplace, the idea of the federal government trying to regulate media ownership should be as offensive to Americans as trying to regulate free speech itself."
Then there's this defense from
the legal angle:
But it is short-sighted to simply say that we can't have consolidation because diversity is important, when the alternative is de facto consolidation, without which stations would go out of business. It is simply not profitable anymore to independently operate a television station in many mid-sized television markets. Sure, you can make money off of the WB or Pax affiliate in Miami, but how about in Corpus Christi or Shreveport or Fargo? Without co-ownership and taking advantage of economies of scale in these markets, those WB and Pax affiliates will go off the air. Now what's happened to your diversity of voices? Economies of scale is not just about efficiency and profit, but in the TV business, it's about survival.
MEDIA OWNERSHIPAlthough the consolidation of radio (mainly by Clear Channel) has resulted in the homogenization of music, it has probably also helped to save some stations that might not have survived if it was locally owned and had to pay a full day's worth of talent and its own sales staff. Instead, Clear Channel-type consolidation allows the sharing of sales staffs and talent. Rush Limbaugh
argues that syndication has saved small local stations, and he's partially right. But so have economies of scale. Currently, many local television stations, especially in smaller markets, are losing money and will be forced to go out of business unless they can join forces with another station in their market. This might mean that your local UPN and CBS stations will be owned by the same company. The alternative is no UPN. No big loss to some, but certainly a blow to diversity of programming, despite by the
hysterical rantings of John Edwards and his ilk.
CONSERVATIVE?I thought conservatives loathed the concentration of power. Where is the outcry at the creation of the media duopolies, Winston? I see nothing in your missive below about this. I do see a good bit of playing to the right as you stress only the diversity (now an emotionally loaded term). I'm having a harder and harder time seeing the intersection of libertarianism and modern conservatism, which is taking on a harsher, holier-than-thou sort of tone much as liberalism did in the early 70's through early 80's. This will have the same sort of effect on televison that Clear-Channel has had on radio - a narrowing of the offering to the public.
REVEALING"We are through the Iraq conflict," Rice told reporters, citing a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution to lift sanctions against Iraq as proof.
Try telling that to the American wives and children who've lost their dad's since that resolution was passed.
Try telling the Iraqi's who STILL have no electricity in Baghdad (at best 40-50% get electricity for two to three hours a day).
What a revealing remark about the administration's real committment to restoring the basics of a nation. The Afghan model is clearly not one to follow. If you've followed that at all, you know it's as bad now for Karzai as its been since he was elected. He had to give up his enforcement authority and give it to another warlord just to keep his job. Bush and gang know that the American electorate don't really care about this, so they don't either - despite all the promises. Now, failure isn't carved in stone until or unless we just throw up our hands and say "too hard" and leave. But the prospect of that is much easier to imagine after months of devolution in Afghanistan and the backsliding in Iraq thus far. It is one thing for a nation to take years to set itself right after a revolution. It is becoming apparent that it is quite another thing to expect the populace to give an invading/liberating force that long. We took it - the problems are now ours, like it or not. America's long-term credibility is at stake here, not just one faction within American politics.
DICK MORRIS ON SIDNEY BLUMENTHALLike a car accident you can't turn your head away from, Dick Morris
administers a severe beating to Sidney Blumenthal and his
new hagiography of the Clinton White House.
A second term is a terrible thing for a president to waste. Sidney Blumenthal's new book makes clear how totally Bill Clinton wasted it. He was a one-term president who lived in the White House for eight years.
. . .
Anything that needs doing, Blumenthal does in this book, like he did in the White House. This 800-page job application for a job in a Hillary White House shows his willingness to buy any line she hands out and treats it as gospel. One can imagine Sidney as her Bob Haldeman, sitting across the Oval Office desk, willing to do anything she wants, copying down her most delusional and paranoid proposals and seeing them through to full implementation.
. . .
Blumenthal’s gullibility is his chief asset. When Bill Clinton says Monica was stalking him, he nods his assent. When Hillary adds, helpfully, that her husband was just ministering to a troubled child, he faithfully parrots her line.
Morris is so brutal, you want to look away, but you just can't. Ouch.
MEDIA OWNERSHIP CONSOLIDATIONSenator Edwards has decided that it is important to come out against raising the cap on broadcast media ownership and media cross-ownership. He fires off a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell telling him to hold it.
Diversity in the media is enormously important to our democracy. As consumers, Americans should have choices in the music they can hear and the television programs they can watch. As citizens, Americans should have access to different ideas and points of view. The government has a responsibility to foster this diversity of expression. Unfortunately, the FCC’s new rules are likely to undermine it.
The effects on rural America could be particularly harmful. People in rural communities and small-town America have distinctive interests, and local stations offer programming that responds to these interests. In recent years, local stations in rural North Carolina have offered prime-time broadcasts of Atlantic Coast Conference basketball games, Billy Graham crusades, and muscular dystrophy telethons. All Americans can appreciate the importance of offering local programming tailored to local concerns. By undercutting this diversity, the FCC’s new rules will do a disservice to all Americans.
But the Senator doesn't support his point that further media consolidation would hurt this diversity of programming. Currently, the stations in rural eastern North Carolina are owned by Disney, GE, Raycom and other large media groups that favor raising the cap on ownership. Does Edwards really think for a minute that ACC basketball games won't be carried in prime-time if CBS buys a station in eastern North Carolina? Does Edwards realize that, in his own home town, Disney owns the ABC affiliate, GE owns the NBC affiliate and the CBS and Fox affiliates are run by the same folks (even though technically licensed to different entities to get around FCC rules)? I doubt he would characterize the Raleigh-Durham TV market as un-diverse and I doubt that anyone in the market will ask him about it.
I have heard you suggest that with the growth of cable and satellite television, broadcast diversity is no longer important. That may be true in some affluent communities, but many Americans do not have cable and satellite television, especially in rural areas. These Americans depend on broadcast news and programming, and their programming should offer real choices that are responsive to their interests.
There he goes standing up for the "regular people" again. Chairman Powell has never suggested that "diversity is no longer important," but for trial lawyer Edwards to lie in argument is not a big stretch for him. Powell has said that a diversity of media voices will still exist because of new information technologies, from cable and satellite to the internet. In fact, in Edwards' home TV market, where I grew up, the number of television stations alone has doubled in the past 25 years. More diversity despite the fact that WRAL (CBS) and WRAZ (Fox) are operated together, as are WLFL (WB) and WRDC (UPN).
I am especially troubled that your agency is implementing these proposals without permitting further public discussion. The FCC does not have a mandate to make controversial decisions without giving the public a full opportunity to comment. The fact that two Commissioners have requested a delay should signal to you that the prudent course, at the least, is to postpone the vote and permit open public discussion.
Anybody with any clue about this issue knows that it has been debated and postponed for years. Oh wait, Senator Edwards didn't even vote until he ran for office in 1998, so I doubt he was paying attention then. It probably is a new issue to him.
See
Lawrence Lessig's Cyberlaw blog for the full text of Edward's letter.
ARAFAT VS PEACEThe Israeli Knesset approves the Bush Administration’s peace plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who many in the Arab world
want tried for war crimes, refers to the Israeli “occupation” of “Palestinian lands” -- and says it must end -- and
Yasser Arafat puts the kaibosh on a planned summit between PA PM Mahmoud Abbas and Sharon. So, who’s standing in the way of peace here? Answer,
Europe's man, the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
