Edwards Comes Out Strongly Against Media Consolidation, Challenges Other Candidates

Wonder what the responses will be? Personally, I think there should be anti-trust (ironic term in this case, no?) laws against someone monopolizing any large segment of information sources.

I could not agree more. In fact I do not think all the money is what being President is about. It appears as buy outs no matter how you look at it.

The myth of the "liberal media" persists but the reality is that it is conservatives who own the media. Where the media is concerned, there is no level playing field.

Rock on, John!

Give me a break and stop whining. Plenty of FOX News contributors are lefties, some far-lefties. This merger will increase the amount of information we receive, not the contrary, because of the giant resources both companies will now not have to fight over.

If you wanted to stop the merger, why the hell did you wait until now to jump in the middle of it? Your speaking sooner might have changed a few of the Bancrofts' minds.

There is only one and that is hannity's pal , what's his name.
Oh yeah Bancrofts , famous Democrats , you crack me up porter.

Wow, John P - by your reasoning, it would be better having just one large corporation controlling EVERYTHING in our lives! Mergers never end up increasing anything but the stockholders' pocketbooks. Do you know anything about economics and free markets? Take away the anti-trust laws and you'll get less and less competition, higher prices, and less diversity in the marketplace. If my company controls the market, why would I ever bother to provide more to my customers? They're held captive to my whims, basically.

I say we block the merger!

My concern is the fox will continue to take over more media outlets and it will be difficult to find reporting that is unbiased.

John Porter ?

Could you possibly - list those on fox that are the lefties - I might be interested in watching their show? Just haven't seen any myself - I know Bill O'reilly's had a top person on his show that was close to Bill Frist. See quote below:

"Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor," $5,000 in June 2006 to Volunteer PAC, which gave to Republican candidates. Her father was once a campaign treasurer for former Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Banker didn't return calls. A Fox News spokesman said donations are allowed?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/#Banker

A merger really won't do the people waiting for unbias news any good! Only those at the top will profit from this and maybe Hillary Clinton = since Murdoch seems to like her the most.

Fair and unbias news coverage left when all the media started getting courted by those who wanted unquestioned coverage, wined and dined - like Wolf Blitzer has openly on CNN remarked about to dinner at Dick Cheney's house. Many expressed the problem right after the Presidential Press Dinner.

Thanks for again leading on the issues that matter most - to most people.

Sheryl, economics & free markets? This article is about something as inane as where we get news; in the internet world, the choices are endless. The whims are in the hands of the people. If you don't like Murdoch, don't buy the Wall Street Journal anymore, or watch FOX. And I find it tremendously hypocritical for any southpaw to criticize a republican receiving donations from famous people, when they are flooded with donations and, more importantly, public endorsements from Hollywood. If O'Reilly, Hannity, or any other anchor at FOX has publicly stated support for any candidate, left or right, I missed it.

And, dk, note that I wrote "FOX contributors", not "anchors". Dems are featured just as much as Reps on FOX's shows.

"Sheryl, economics & free markets? This article is about something as inane as where we get news; "

The "news" is part of a larger media industry that makes very big bucks for people, John P. It's a BUSINESS, just like any other business and not at all inane. The people who control the media outlets get to control the information flow. Without reliable, unbiased information, there is no hope for a democracy. Wake up - you need truth to make good decisions - and you cannot BUY truth. The only thing that can be bought are people's favors and support. When this man controls most of the media market, he controls information and he controls our society. The internet? Look at what they're trying to do now by carving up the internet among a few choice companies.

Again, wake up - once the information is controlled so are you. Although it looks like he has already won over your heart and mind as an avid FOX viewer. Do you ever watch any other media outlets? Do you ever watch C-Span, or do research into the original sources? If you do, then you know how valuable it is to have an open internet and a variety of info sources other than the ones owned by ONE MAN.

One man? The boards of directors of both publicly-traded companies approved this deal.

Yes, I watch other news outlets; I even choke down super-far-left commentators like Olbermann & Maher. Am I supposed to assume that what they're taking is the "truth", just because they work for outlets other than FOX? NBC is owned by giant GE; how can I trust that GE's CEO isn't pressuring NBC reporters? How about ABC, owned by giant Disney? The point of this article was the Senator's contention that FOX is republican biased; why don't we take a look at CNN, which was started and undoubtedly still influenced by ultra-lefty Ted Turner?

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that where we get news is "inane". Multiple sources of information is extremely important and the "fourth estate" has historically been essential in issues of accountability of our elected officials. From a sociological perspective if one is able to control the language of an idea, then in essence that one has controlled the entire idea, has power over it. Consolidating news organizations does not add resources to this endeavor, it limits it, ensuring fewer voices control the language and discussion of ideas. For the record I did not approve of the CNN/TIME/AOL merger either which was in my opinion a disaster for all concerned and happened under Clinton's watch.
The difference between Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann and Fox News Channel and its hosts Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Gibson, Hume, et al, is that Maher and Olbermann do not hide under the guise of pretending to be the objective standard. Fox News's trademarked tagline is "Fair and Balanced" when objectively FNC is clearly NOT that. O'Reilly's show is called the "NO SPIN ZONE" (when in fact O'Reilly's show is ALL about Bill O'Reilly's spin-it's why he does TALKING POINTS! LOL) Neil Cavuto's "Common Sense" additions to the FNC website has nothing in common with the principles of Thomas Paine and implies objective understandings (which is what common sense actually is) and yet under that title he communicates his own blustery opinion. He's entitled to have and share those opinion but it is about truth in trade. It is about saying you are about objectivity and yet doing anything but being objective.
It is long past time for FNC and its programming was called out on that issue.
It is LONG past time.

Bill Maher is a comedian. He does stand up acts. He writes humorous books (if one finds him funny it is humorous, you would find his work under humor).
Keith Olbermann's show is called COUNTDOWN. He has the "worlds' worst person" feature. He has his own editorial dialogue. He does not imply or pretend to be objective when presenting his opinions. This is the difference between Maher and FNC and those in control of the microphones there.

When Keith Olbermann refers to Rush LImbaugh he says "Comedian Rush Limbaugh". Maher deserves the same title and if Fox News called itself the Conservative News network or the Republican network i would have no issue with it.

"From a sociological perspective if one is able to control the language of an idea, then in essence that one has controlled the entire idea, has power over it."

Bravo, Joe. That is the essence, isn't it? How many times over the past few years while we were involved in this God awful war did you flip the channels during the news hour only to hear the same phrase used over and over and over again by announcers, by interviewees, by government officials. It was like the thought police, reaching out for your mind. There were countless phrases, thought up and fed to the sheep media outlets by the spinmeisters in the White House. And what did they do? Just suck it right up and spit it back out to the public ad nauseum. You couldn't get away from it until you went to some independent news, or feature investigative reporter or blog. They are getting harder and harder to find these days - God help us if they are able to divy up the internet and control that. That's the next step for these folks.

And, John Porter - if you want an excellent example of what Joe is referring to, then just think of one of Bush's first force-fed phrases:

"DEATH TAX". The ESTATE tax has been around almost forever and nobody really cared about it because nobody but the extremely wealthy were even affected by it. When Bush came into office and started his campaign to make the top 1% even wealthier, he decided to play the thought police game and renamed it the DEATH TAX. All of a sudden, people were all up in arms - What? Taxing Death? When are these people going to stop with the taxes? Abolish it!!!

It doesn't affect most people, but he literally had them up in arms about this stupid tax and railing against it. So, what happens? The rich people win out and the stupid people who swallowed the rhetoric end up paying more taxes to make up for it in the end. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

If you can't see that these media channels who are owned by large corporations aren't ALL the same, even if they do pretend to be on one side or the other, then just do a test. Next time Bush makes a major swing for something and comes up with one of his precious catch phrases, do a channel sweep for a few days. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX - you'll hear the same crap over and over again using the same phrases. No real investigative reporting - just repetition to get it deep into the stupid public's heads.

This is a most interesting post. I look forward to reading more on the subject as the election draws nearer.

I don't care how you explain or defend it less ownership of news outlets limits the free flow of ideas and information.