Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Will Hillary Handle The FCC Chair If She is Elected With Murdoch Giving Money to her

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
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:48 PM
Original message
How Will Hillary Handle The FCC Chair If She is Elected With Murdoch Giving Money to her
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 01:04 PM by EV_Ares
campaign and fundraiser or fundraisers. Either way he has given some support to her cause.

Just a question as on another board, this was posted by a memeber:

"Yet another reason to elect a democrat who will appoint an FCC chair who will enforce existing rules,
eliminate media monopolies, and push for truth - and not just truthiness - in media."

My question is the following:

With Murdoch's fundraisers for Hillary, contributions, etc., will this have any effect on how she handles the FCC, monopolies as he has stated he intends to go after the New York Times and other papers to further enlarge his media empire?

Makes me think about it, her supporters I guess would know better.

Just a question for thought.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. So, vote for the candidate with only negative media coverage?
Got it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I got that you evidently have no answer with that remark. Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Exactly!
That was simple. O8) :toast:


Next fireball flaimbait question...Maybe they will throw sharp knives next!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. How was FDR affected
by being funded by William Randolph Hearst?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Those papers bear no resemblance whatsoever to Murdoch and
his intentions and what his media empire now is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Why?
Hearst was arguably the Murdoch of his day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hatchling Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Hemp vs. paper
Hearst had timber & paper mills and was instrumental in getting marijuana made illegal which included hemp a great source of sturdy, inexpensive paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. actually--
Dupont and the petro chemical lobbys had much more to do with Marijuana(Hemp) being made illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Funny you bring up FDR....Hillary is not exactly arguing for a "new deal"
In fact, only the names will have changed....and not so much!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. FDR didn't campaign with the "New Deal" either
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 10:41 PM by maddiejoan
though the New Deal was named after a popular campaign slogan of his.

In fact --if you go back and read the campaign speeches of Hoover and FDR at the time, they are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. He did so campaign on the New Deal....it was in his acceptance speech!
"I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people." --from FDR's acceptance speech 1932

Immediately upon taking office, FDR began reshaping the government's role in the economy.

Hoover had taken a more hands off approach to the economy, and although he did do some relief, it was nothing compared to what Roosevelt proposed immediately.

The difference between Hoover and Roosevelt: night and day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. I know that Joe Kennedy wanted to be Treasury Secretary and FDR made him SEC Commissioner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. right
and this despite the fact that Joe was another big bankroller.

didn't get the job he wanted. Though I suppose one could argue that at least he got a job.

My basic point is that even a great President like FDR was bankrolled by some less than savory folk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Different era, not saying the comparison is invalid, though...
I don't know what FDR's bankrollers were each looking for when they financed his campaign and I don't know to what extent he was able to ignore them compared to today.

In Hillary's case I do know that some of her bankrollers are looking for influence others are just betting on the horse they think will win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. I'd really say most
are betting on the horse they think will win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. You haven't presented any evidence that he supports her.
Occam's razor should apply here: She's the Senator from NY. He gave a fundraiser for her when she was running for re-election. Murdoch donates to both repukes and dems, particularly those from NY. There's no reason to believe that he supports her for President, and in fact, one can look at how his media empire constantly attacks her, to discern another pattern altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. OK, lets say he just held the fundraiser and I have no idea how much
money he has given to her besides the fundraiser. Maybe you know, has he given to Edwards, Obama, Kucinich. Besides, Murdoch as most in his position does not give money or hold fundraisers without something in mind.

So, ok I'll say he is a contributor to her campaign only, not a fundraiser. You are right about the word supporter.

Same question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I don't know who else he's given money to of even if he's
contributed to her presidential campaign, but as I said it's absolutely SOP for figures like him to spread money around to Senators and reps from the state such a person has their business headquartered in.

Honestly, I don't know what Clinton's record in Senate is as pertains to media issues. Or even what she's said. I think before suggesting that she might support more media conglomeration, you should research her record and her words and if there's something there to support your suggestion, make that case. This is like suggesting that Edwards will support the secrecy of hedge funds and protect their tax breaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Didn'[t think I was suggesting, that is why I was asking. I haven't seen
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 01:12 PM by EV_Ares
anything that much on it but I will look it up. Regardless, I know how corporations and individuals give. I also know they don't give their money freely, it goes to how it is going to serve them best. Murdoch also is another animal altogether and he has no intention of serving the democratic party cause.

I am not the only one who has wondered about this relationship.

I just figured there were more people here that knew more about her than I did and would have information regarding her thoughts on media conglomerates with some of the strong supporters of her cause, I thought they would know since they would be voting for her.

Valid question or comment you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. He's personally given her $6500
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 07:23 PM by Stephanie
That's his personal contributions, so far as I can tell, not including what was collected at his fundraiser for her. We discussed this the other day >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


MURDOCH, K R
NEW YORK,NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN
6/5/2007
$2,300
Clinton, Hillary

MURDOCH, RUPERT
NEW YORK,NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN/CEO
7/26/2006
$2,100
Clinton, Hillary

MURDOCH, RUPERT
NEW YORK,NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN/CEO
7/26/2006
$2,100
Clinton, Hillary


http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=dk2af& ... (all%20states)&txt2008=Y&txt2006=Y&Order=N
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vssmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. Bill enabled him to build his media empire
Maybe this is his way of saying "Thank You very much."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. He gave her a primary contribution too. But he's also given cash to Schumer.
He tends to 'support' the NY delegation when they're up for reelection. He's no fool--his shitty NEWSCORP is in NY, so he's wise to make nice. It's like putting a dime in a beggar's cup to him.

His GOP to Dem ratio, in terms of contributions, is much greater than 2:1. There's no mistaking where his heart is (not that he has one).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. I hope she won't get ino bed with them
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 12:56 PM by Armstead
Media consolidation is one of the most important -- and ignored -- issues facing America.

Hillary and all otehr Democratic candidates should take clear stands to stop the further consolidation and begin to roll back the excesses that have already taken place through anti-trust laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. This has bothered me a lot, as well...
From the replies, it seems the Hillary supporters are totally trusting. Wasn't Bill Clinton involved in de-regulating the FCC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, this question has been asked in other places and it is an important
one with the media situation as we now know it. Like I said, he also intends to take over the NY Times. Any help or support he can get in that as always in that type of case, I am sure he will welcome. Not saying what she will or will not do but money always talks doesn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Bill Clinton helped give birth to "Fox News"
Telecommunications Act-1996

Rupert knows who butters his bread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hopefully she'll handle it better than BushCo--but that assumes she is elected.
It's way too soon to be counting chickens, for ANY candidate, and that includes Senator Clinton. There's a long road on this primary journey.

For all we know, the matchup could end up being Obama v. Romney, or Obama v. McCain. Or someone else entirely, on both sides.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. Which is a REAL GOOD reason to find out what the candidates are going to do.
Stupid to wait until AFTER the Primaries.

Kucinich has pledged to break up the Media Monopolies.
(And now he wonders why he can't get Face Time on the Media sponsored debates.) :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
39. You're right--it's an EXCELLENT debate question.
Not only from a public policy perspective, but also from the perspective of the many Americans who rely on over-the-air television, and particularly PBS, for their viewing pleasure.

I'll tell ya, the drowning of public television in the GOP bathtub is pretty painfully apparent. The offerings on PBS aren't as jazzy as they were in the Clinton era, certainly. The hammy Republican hand is all too apparent--probably their lowest point ever was the dreadfully acted "Mr. Christmas" bit of schlocky hoke they've been showing this month. The only thing good about it was the costuming and set design--the rest of it was absolute 'set-yer-teeth-on-edge' shite!

My nomination for the WORST holiday movie, EVER:

http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-mr-christmas-dvd--pi-2532...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. The largest media mergers in the history of the nation occured under President Clinton. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. Matt Stoller covered this at MyDD
Apparently the woman in line to head a Clinton FCC is directly out of the big media is better club. I think her name is Fenn. Sorry I didn't bookmark the piece. I'll take a look around and see if I can answer the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
38. Thanks Donna, would appreciate that if you could find it. I will look too. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. EV_Ares...I left the links in a post below
As I was going through Stoller recent writing, I bumped into some very interesting articles. BTW, Stoller is now at Open Left...not MyDD.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. Clinton II will continue to support media deregulation, of course -- as Clinton I did.
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 08:15 PM by ClarkUSA
Read "Bill Clinton and Media Policy" for some hair-raising insights as to what a Clinton II administration will do.

Murdoch will not be disappointed:

According to Jeff Chester in his book Digital Destiny deregulation of the media was part of the plan early on with Clinton, who stated "we will
support removal of judicial and legislative restrictions on all types of telecommunications companies: cable, telephone, utilities, television and
satellite. Market forces replace regulations and judicial models that are no longer appropriate." This was not just rhetoric for Clinton, but a
mandate that was embodied with the passing of the 1996 Tele-Communications Act. Media Scholar Bob McChesney calls the 1996 Tele-Com
Act one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation passed in the 20th century.

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/061407bill_.php


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. And some people wonder why some of us don't want a Clinton 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Go figure
We haven't changed our convictions, at least. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
28. I see no reason for her to change the current FCC policies.
They benefit her greatly.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
29. What would Ness do?
Well the "industry" likes her.

Here is Stoller's take on the the question you asked. Also, Stoller has linked to this Newsday piece at Free Press.

With the MSM standing in the way of our hopes for democracy and threatening the net, these articles are well worth the read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. Very good column
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
32. I'm sure whatever he gave was chump change. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
37. I just read a post that said it was all over for Hillary. Y'all need to get your story straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Don't know where you read that Perry but I would say that was a little
premature. This is anybody's game at this stage. A long way to go.
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 Mon Jul 28th 2014, 09:54 PM
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