Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Scoop on CBS: Why Redstone Sold Dan Rather for 20 Pieces of Silver

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:20 PM
Original message
The Scoop on CBS: Why Redstone Sold Dan Rather for 20 Pieces of Silver
As everyone knows by now, Dan Rather, who has the highest recognizability and highest favorability rating of any anchor in the US and who was dropped like a hot potato by CBS after the authenticity of a single document in a single program was called into question, has filed a $70million law suit against his former employer.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/20...

In the suit, filed a day earlier in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, Rather claimed CBS and Viacom Inc. used him as a "scapegoat" and intentionally botched the aftermath of a discredited story about President Bush's military service to curry favor with the White House. He was removed from his "CBS Evening News" post in March 2005.


As another DU member has posted, Viacom's chief, Sumner Redstone made no bones about which presidential candidate he favored in the 2004 election:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669

The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."


What an understatement. The truth was, Viacom/CBS desperately needed a second Bush term if it was to hold together its media empire and watch it grow, and it feared a John Kerry presidency. Here's a summary of what was going on behind the scenes at CBS from CommonDreams.org:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-25.htm

In the spring of 2003, Michael Powell tried to hand over the airwaves and newspapers to fewer and fewer tycoons by further loosening restrictions on how many media outlets a single company could own. Powell tried to scrap 30-year-old rules that limited the reach of any television network to no more than 35 percent of the national population, and limits on cross-ownership that, for example, prevented newspapers from buying television or radio stations in the same city. The new rules would have allowed a broadcast network to buy up stations that together reached 45 percent of the national population.

The attack on the existing media-ownership rules came from predictable corners: Both Viacom, which owns CBS, and Rupert Murdoch's conservative FOX News Channel were already in violation, and would be forced to sell off stations to come into compliance with the 35-percent limit. The rule change would enable Murdoch to control the airwaves of entire cities. That would be fine with Bush and the Powells, since Murdoch is one of their biggest boosters.

<snip>

It looked like Powell, backed by the Bush White House and with Republican control of Congress, would have no trouble ramming through these historic rule changes. The broadcast industry left nothing to chance: Between 1998 and 2004, broadcasters spent a boggling $249 million lobbying the federal government, including spending $27 million on federal candidates and lawmakers.

This would normally be called bribery. At the FCC, it's just business as usual.

You would think that FCC deregulation, affecting millions of Americans, would get major play in the media. But the national networks knew that if people found out about how one media mogul could own nearly everything you watch, hear and read in a city, there would be revolt. The solution for them was simple: They just didn't cover the issue for a year. The only thing the networks did was to join together and you thought they were competitors? in a brief filed with the FCC to call for media deregulation.

And then, something remarkable happened: Media activists an unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives mounted a national campaign to defeat Powell and stop the corporate sell-off. The FCC received 2 million letters and e-mails, most of them opposing the sell-off. The Prometheus Radio Project, a grass-roots media activism group, sued to stop the sale of our airwaves, and won in federal court last June. These are hopeful signals that the days of backroom deals by media titans are numbered.


Now, that federal court ruling was a big problem for media giants like Viacom/CBS. After all its hard work and all its money (which had been essentially flushed down the toilet) it was back where it started in 2000---out of compliance with federal media ownership rules with no room to grow. (For those who like legal documents, here is one with lots of facts http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/vcmcap.pdf ) Unless the case was overturned by the Supreme Court, it was stuck. And Viacom/CBS had another problem. W. was not doing as well as it had hoped, and John Kerry was not the friend of media giants that George W. Bush had been.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert212...

Media consolidation, an issue that galvanized millions of Americans in 2003 is nowhere to be found on the election map of 2004. That was until Sunday, when Senator John Kerry ventured forth on CSPAN to confirm that, had he been around to vote on last year's proposal to loosen rules against media ownership, he would have voted against it.

"I wasn't there for the vote, but I was 100 percent in favor of overturning his rule," Kerry told CSPAN executive vice president Susan Swain during an interview taped earlier in the week. The "his" Kerry was referring to is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell. And the "rule" in question was the FCC's ill-fated effort to allow media companies to buy up more local media outlets by raising an ownership cap from a 35 to a 45 percent reach of the national audience.


This timeline from Bill Moyers shows what was happening in 2003 and early 2004 about the media merger issue:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

The Republican Congress was persuaded to raise the media ownership cap just enough to put NewsCorp and Viacom in compliance with the law, but they had no room to grow. (And since Viacom had been described as owning 41% of the nation's television channels in the court documents from 2001, I wonder if some one was fudging the math.) No problem, said the Bush administration. Just as soon as we win this re-election campaign, we are taking the appeal to the Supreme Court, which will raise the federal media ownership cap back up, so you guys in the entertainment business can start expanding again.

So, if you were Sumner Redstone and it was 2004 and you were faced with a choice of George W. Bush who was promising to write you a blank check for unlimited media acquisitions and mergers or John Kerry, who was really uncomfortable with the whole idea of too much media power concentrated into one set of hands, which candidate would you prefer? And if, as I suspect, you were actually out of compliance with the law (television holdings don't just shrink from greater than 41% down to 39% overnight), you might be a little nervous, too, that the current administration might decide to start enforcing the law.

The irony of it all is that the Bush administration never intended to keep its promise to launch a court appeal of the lower court ruling that threw out the FCC federal media owership rule changes. It was Michael Powell, who had done the administration's dirty work for years, who suddenly had a fit a conscience---or maybe he got pissed off at how they treated his dad, and he decided to get even in the best way he knew how, by turning the mainstream media against the Bush administration, by revealing them to be liars and cheats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42134-20...

The Bush administration yesterday abandoned plans to ask the Supreme Court to allow a set of controversial rules to take effect that would have loosened restrictions on how large media conglomerates could grow.

The decision disappointed big media companies that had lobbied heavily in support of the rules and thrilled those who had fought to keep tighter rein on how much control one company should have over television, newspapers and radio stations in individual markets.

<snip>

The rules would have allowed television networks such as CBS and Fox to buy a few more television stations nationally and let one company own the biggest newspaper and highest-rated television station in most cities.


Note the date on the Washington Post article. Jan. 28, 2005. When I read that, the curious behavior of the news networks over the exit polls made sense. I also knew that the Bush administration was in for a bumpy second term with the news media, because hell hath no fury.... The administration had waited until after W. was safely sworn in for his second term to admit to their flunkies in the corporate media that they had no intention of keeping their promises, probably because they knew that they would fail. When several of the networks got together to launch their own appeal, they failed. The result was coverage of DSMs, Cindy Sheehan and Katrina.

However, this revelation came too late for Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes, who had already been sold for 20 pieces of silver by their boss, Sumner Redstone, who preferred to dismantle the jewel in CBS's crown, 60 Minutes in order to curry favor with the White House in order to make money through mergers, rather than do it the old fashioned way, by producing quality programming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Go get 'em, Dan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent OP....K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R, and off you go to the Greatest
Good article.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Brilliant analysis!
This is the best OP I've seen here in years -- and there have been a LOT of very good ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. i'm really glad to hear about this lawsuit.
will dan's legacy be the man who saved the fourth estate? hope so. that would be one hell of a great legacy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Took him some time to nail down the evidence he needed to make this case, but
the fact that he's making it means he HAS the evidence he needs. No good investigative reporter or prosecutor would go to court like this without the GOODS IN HAND.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. The DUer known as Redstone isn't going to like that headline one bit!
It'll take a split second for him (like me) to realize that, of course, it's Sumner Redstone who's the villain here.

Clearly (Sumner) Redstone has chosen profit over truth. That whooshing sound you hear is Bill Paley spinning in his grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. True, but Redstone is not the real name of either of them
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. I agree.
Every time I see these headlines and thread titles, I think of "our" Redstone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R&B
Good post! REALLY needs to be kept uppermost in mind. We have to start breaking up the monopolies. Teddy Roosevelt, where are you when we need you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. Very informational post. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. Man, it feels good to read this.
Thanks for the great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. Add to timeline - June 2, 2003: Kerry seeks to Reverse FCC's Wrongheaded Vote
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 03:54 PM by blm
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval
Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

_______
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. This would explain why the networks were quick to call 2000 for Bush...
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 03:57 PM by KansDem
even when the exit polling showed otherwise.

It also explains why VNS (Voter News Services) went "out of business" following 2000:

The VNS received intense criticism for its 'flip-flop' calling of the state of Florida in that election. During the course of the evening, it first called the closely contested state of Florida for Al Gore, then George W. Bush, and then as 'too close to call'. Critics argued that the state should never have been called until the state's fate was clear. The Voter News Service also received specific criticism for calling the state of Florida for Al Gore before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle, which was located in the Central time zone and heavily Republican. Compounding the criticism, John Prescott Ellis, a full cousin of George W. Bush, was a consultant who analysed data from the Voter News Service, and is alleged to have had contact with both Jeb and George Bush several times by telephone the evening of the 2000 Presidential election.

In 2002, the VNS intended to make calls in the November U.S. Congressional and Senate elections. It attempted to use a computer designed for VNS by an outside contractor to do this. A system failure occurred in this computer on election night, making quick delivery of data impossible. In fact, collecting and delivering the data took ten months<1>.

In January 2003, the Voter News Service was disbanded largely because of failures in 2000 and 2002. Murray Edelman, VNS editorial director, criticized the decision as making the VNS a scapegoat. <2>

In the 2004 presidential election, a new organization called National Election Pool was set up by the same organizations, utilizing consultants Edison/Mitofsky for exit polling and Associated Press for official returns. However, the NEP had controversies of its own for 2004 when it released exit polling data early that was significantly different than the final results <3>.

--more--
Wikipedia

From this article--

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Now, if we can just figure out why the US Supreme Court believed a Republican administration was "better" for our country...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. What I don't understand is how the astute Pres. Clinton allowed it to get to that
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 04:53 PM by blm
point without seeing what was going on - and why he stayed silent about it when he had the most influential voice for the Democrats in the nation at that time and the last 7 years since he left office - that is not a SMALL responsibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I don't know about 2000 but remember he had surgery
in 2004 right before the election. He was going to do some campaigning at the end and had to cancel a bunch due to that. Even when he spoke a few times after surgery he wasn't himself.

I think if he wasn't going through all that he would have helped Kerry in August fight the stupid attacks on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I doubt it. He had a book tour in June and it was Bush who got the good headlines
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 05:41 PM by blm
from Bill's appearances throughout that tour.

Remember - June 2004 - when people should have been learning about their Dem nominee - headlines were gushing over Bill's support for Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war strategies. In June 2004 that PUBLIC support for Bush was NOT helpful to a relatively unknown Kerry.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq /


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>>>



Bill seemed to forget that Kerry had the best record in DC on the tracking of terror networks and their funding. Because he never brought that up whenever he was discussing the terror issue - though he did make sure it was clear he was in support of Bush's decisions on those two major issues.

He REALLY forgot about Kerry's antiterror work - because he never even mentions one word about BCCI in his entire book. Though the final report was his to handle when he took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Because he is a tool who was groomed for a long time...
but some of us already know that, don't we?
The most ambitious are often the most corruptible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. See: BCCI - Mark Rich - Jackson Stephens - WalMart - Bush
Edited on Sat Sep-22-07 10:54 AM by blm
Global Fascsim, anyone?

or...just coincidence...yet again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. gonna have to mark this one for a later read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. This is undoubtedly one of the most important issues we face today
I wonder what it will take to get a news media that does a reasonably unbiased and informative job of reporting the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. less concentrated ownership
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 04:52 PM by redqueen
the telecom act made things SO much worse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Weren't they SUPPOSED to revisit that bill in 2001 - thinking Gore would be in
the WH, of course? That was when they would re-evaluate and tweak it from what I recall.

Then the fascists took control of everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. Excellent post
Very interesting. Someone help me with a fact. What exactly is Dan Rather suing for? Did Viacom breach his contract? Or did they simply not renew his contract?

If they breached his contract, then he may have a case. But if his contract simply expired and they opted not to renew it, where is the case? You can't force an employer to renew a contract if they don't want to, no matter what the reason is.

But I agree -- seems awfully politically motivated to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. CBS accused him of wrongdoing he did not commit for CBS's gain.
Edited on Fri Sep-21-07 08:36 PM by McCamy Taylor
CBS could have proved that there was no evidence that the documents in questions were forgeries and therefore Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes did not violate journalistic standards when they used the documents as a single piece of evidence in a news story that had lots of other evidence.

Further, CBS could have gone on the offensive against Buckhead, revealing him almost immediately to be a fraud.

http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007519.php

Buckhead posted on the Free Republic within hours of the 60 Minutes show, claiming to be an expert in typewriters. He claimed that the documents were forged and started the witch hunt against Rather and Mapes. In fact, Buckhead was Republican operative and Atlanta lawyer Harry MacDougald . Mary Mapes has torn his Free Republic "expert opinion" to shreds. Turns out that whatever actual expert he quoted analyzed a faxed copy of the documents, and faxing messes up the type, so that it does not look like it does in reality. That means that it is impossible to say what kind of typewriter a document was created on if you only have a fax. Presumably the real expert who examined the documents told MacDougald and his bosses this, and MacDougald and his bosses decided to go ahead and tell the people at Free Republic a pack of lies, using the name "Buckhead" since no actual type expert was going to sign his name to an analysis of a fax. I expect Rather's lawyers will get into that in court when they question MacDougald about who he consulted with when he posted his info about the faxed copy of the document. I would also like to know how this Atlanta lawyer got a faxed copy of the document before the show even aired. (I kind of doubt he saw the show, get a copy and had it analyzed and then figured out how to post it for maximum damage in four hours). The White House was given a chance to vet it. Did they give it to him?

This is just one of the many mysteries of how the whole media lynching of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes began that remains to be answered. And the rest of the news media, which gleefully participated in the lynching, will watch CBS-Viacom squirm on the hook with equal relish. Because there is nothing the news media loves as much as a news media scandal.

Back to the original question. As Rather's employers, it was their obligation to protect him from slander and malicious gossip of the type that Buckhead was spreading. Instead, Viacom saw a chance to buy itself some good will with the Bush administration, so it lied to Rather that it would investigate the matter in good faith---and then it threw him to the wolves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
47. Don't see it
I fully agree that Viacom took the easy way out. But I'm wondering what legal grounds does Rather have to sue on. OK, they caved. What's the legal argument? They had a legal duty to defend him from slander? I don't see it.

I think this could get ugly for Dan too. We're going to see the insides of his life too. If CBS is pushed, it's going to push back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. CBS can not let this go to court. Too embarassing if the truth comes out. So they will be willing
to settle with Rather. The huge question is will Rather sell out for a large sum of money or will he refuse to be bought off and stick it out??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. That's exactly what I HOPE doesn't happen - but, you're right - they'll pay
70 million is a drop to them in comparison of what they've already gotten out of their dealings with Bush administration - between deregulation and tax breaks they must have banked a few extra billion on that alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Didn't Rather say that he will NOT settle? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
49. Of course, but that's standard bargaining. This will be a real test of his patriotism. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #49
57. Yes - and why he needs to know we will be his force whenever he needs it.
IMO, the guy is going to need constant back up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-24-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Good idea. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
26. Good source compilation--put it in the research section n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
28. Another K & R! Great article OP. Nice to have what happened
explained in an understandable manner and nice to learn what really happened behind the scenes. Let's hope it all comes to light to the public/voters during Dan Rather. Yeah! You go Dan!

Oh, the power of the media! It's actually frightening...if it's not on your side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
29. The Repubocrats corporatized our airwaves - the U.S. of A -
Edited on Sat Sep-22-07 08:26 AM by higher class
greatest conglomerate in the world.

Repubocrats = corporatizing Repubs and some Dems - willing and able because most in this country don't care to learn what they are doing to us. Who has the power and the right presently? Phonies. Because we are lazy and trusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
30. Thank You !!!!
Analysis like this is why I love DU! ROCK ON with your bad self!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broadslidin Donating Member (949 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
31. Holy Smoke...! Talk about Investigative Reporting and Referenced, to Boot.
Checking Out D.U. each day,
sure keeps the Shrink :crazy: Away...!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Dear Broadslidin. . May your numbers be legion!. . . .
(Send your ill informed friends and relatives. . . the answers ARE out there)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
november3rd Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
34. Great Entry
This is the kind of comprehensive, informative, educational entry we need to run more of on sites like DU.

Grassroots activism has to grow to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
35. Well done. Thank you! CBS has sure paid for their greed with market share
on the nightly news. With the firing of Rather, I no longer considered CBS an authentic news source and stopped watching even "60 Minutes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasEditor Donating Member (286 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
36. Excellent post, thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
38. Confirmation fo that which was assumed as typical Bushie Totalitarian Behavior
But as always, it's nice to see the deatils of how it was carried out and to receive confirmation of another Bushie unethical, perhaps illegal, manipulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyDawg Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
39. Face it folks...
...this is precisely what happened to Howard Dean. As soon as he let it be known that his administration would overhaul the media ownership rules, along with Equal Time, big media turned on him and ridiculed him into submission. The fact that Kerry and the others let 'em do it is politics, but if we'd have had Howard running against that shitforbrainsbush the US would be a hellofalot better off today...with a damn-site more media owners and objective news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
40. Only partly through this excellent information, recognize it's going to have to be absorbed in
increments! This is so welcome now.

We were left desperate for more news on this, all knowing there was so much more involved which was being withheld.

Hope it ALL becomes common knowledge in the coming months.

Thanks for taking the time to collect and organize this material. Looking forward to reading the rest of it, and sharing it, also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
41. EXCELLENT thread-thanks for this information McCamy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
42. I hope there is a special, particularly horrible place in whatever hell is for them, for Sumner
Redstone and his ilk. He is a true reflection of what is probably the major problem in this country today...private profit of corporations taking precedence over what is truly best for the country. That is, in a nutshell, the core of Repuke "Family Values". How anyone who is not one of the "have mores" that constitute *'s base, could cast a vote for a Repuke is totally beyond my comprehension.
Perhaps it is a sad truth that today, most people truly are just sheeple...to be led around by appealing to their lowest common, ignorant desires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
43. It has always been so obvious that Kerry has been a prime
media target for years and even to this day, most undeservingly so. Thanks for shedding some light on why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. Half their strategy depended on persuading the left that Kerry was establishment
and not much different than Bush, so they would key on some remarks they could take out of context while ignoring and burying all the numerous and STARK differences.

And it is more than onvious why they trumepeted the swifts for months while giving no play to Kerry's tough responses.

Now they have so many Democratic voters convinced Kerry is the only one to blame for 2004 - that hides their complicity, the election fraud, and the complicity of establishment Dem powerstructure who sides with the corporatists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
44. Rather and Kerry are both heroes...
Now a question....

Don't we control the FCC now?

If so can't we tighten media ownership regulation on our own?

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. 5 members, Bush appoints them
Edited on Sat Sep-22-07 01:55 PM by McCamy Taylor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. No - The President's party gets one more person
Edited on Sun Sep-23-07 05:18 PM by karynnj
The President appoint them - but this is always the ratio. This is possibly the heart of what happened with the media in 2004. President Kerry would have gotten the chance to appoint the commissioners as terms expired - and he could have found 2 good Republicans. (Of the type now mostly out of government.) This makes sense - I couldn't understand why even after he dropped out they continue to treat him badly. It makes sense because they know that he may be the best qualified person on either side in terms of character, brilliance, knowledge and temperment. They still can't rule him out as a powerful leader - even if not President. (The scary thing is whether they will attempt to defeat him in MA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-22-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
46. Dan Rather is a giant in media in his own rite and has the gravitas
Edited on Sat Sep-22-07 03:14 PM by ooglymoogly
of a lonely truth teller...my only regret is that he didn't sue for Viacoms entire net worth and Redstone for his and squash a whole family of cockroaches and rats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
50. Where did you get the 20 pieces of silver from?
I didn't see that in the original article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. It;'s a Biblical reference
referring to the 20 pieces of silver given to Judas, who betrayed Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. I thought that was THIRTY pieces of silver.
Damn this Bush economy is bad! Betrayers are going to have to get two jobs just to make ends meet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Sorry, you are right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
56. THIS is why I read DU.
Thank you McCamy Taylor for an outstanding post, reportage and analysis.

You've pegged Corporate McPravda and their puppet master, Dick Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC