Corporate Media is proving Edwards RIGHT today

[jackstraw45]

"We have an epic fight in front of us against these entrenched, moneyed interests."


"...they will give their power away when we take it from them."

[helderheid]

1. k&r!

[Triana]

2. SO - let's TAKE THEIR POWER AWAY!

GO Edwards!

If you haven't donated lately and you can, please DO! They need our support to beat The Hillary and Obama Show and the lame$tream media whose only interest is Status-quo candidates.

https://www.johnedwards.com/contribute

[shenmue]

5. Let's blame the media...

Isn't Edwards fairly well-to-do as well?

Bet he wasn't complaining about the media when he won in the Senate campaign.

[progressoid]

9. A local Senate campaign is different than a national Presidential campaign.

You can win on a local level with out the assistance of corporate media. But getting your message out to the nation without the cooperation/endorsement of the corporate media is daunting.

[PATRICK]

15. FDR

made some "extreme" speeches that rang out in the early days of radio and when the papers were more in touch with the readers and had more professional depth. The corporate slant has not changed one syllable, only their massive power and intent to prevent.

Those who represent a very dirty special interest control all the labyrinth of filters most voters get informed by.

Daunting isn't the word anymore, nor do we have a Great Depression to finally shake up this generation of
lulled and co-opted minds. yet Edwards is as genuine and more rooted in the common heritage than Roosevelt who also had the great name of a legendary popular president as a big bonus to his wealth. I have faith in the American people, but the times form the deck that hands out tough hands to the true vision. At least the message can begin to win as Dean's did in stimulating agenda and grass roots growth.
It can and must become more powerful than the pols of the past generation whose checkered run is dangerously out of step with all times.

[amandabeech]

10. He initially made his fortune as a plaintiffs' trial lawyer.

He sued corporations and bad doctors for individuals. He then went with a hedge fund for a bit, a big mistake in my book, and made some risky investments that so far have panned out. However, IMHO, with the mortgage and credit crisis, his time on Wall Street may end up being a help should he win the presidency.

He started out poor in South Carolina. His dad was a blue-collar worker at a serious of now closed textile plants, his mom picked up various jobs. The family was by no possible means well-to-do or well connected in any way.

[zalinda]

16. He supported his campaign for Senator

with his own money.

zalinda

[Seabiscuit]

37. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

All the bobbleheads on Fox, MSNBC and CNN have been blathering about Obama being #1 and Hillary being #3 in Iowa. As if #2 didn't exist.

THAT's what this thread's about.

[ixion]

3. uh, yeah, except that there are many of us on DU who were saying this when

Edwards was voting for the IWR, etc.

Just Sayin...

[Selatius]

7. Old news. Even Edwards is unabashed in admitting it was wrong to vote for IWR.

The issue now is corporate consolidation over the news media.

[ixion]

18. oh, so those people we're STILL killing in Iraq are no longer an issue

got it. :eyes:

[Selatius]

29. Nice one! And here we were talking about media consolidation, so you switched topics.

Yeah, I thought so. Next time you want to reference the candidates, ask yourself who would pull out the troops immediately. :eyes:

[ixion]

31. hey, not trying to change the subject...but in answer to your question

Kucinich would. The rest of them, not so much.

Just so we understand each other: I'm against further media consolidation. It's a bad thing. But the fact that our tax dollars are going to slaughter civilians on a daily basis is at least as equally bad, or worse.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. Media consolidation gives the grteen light to continuing the war.

The surge is "working." Casualties are down. Public opinion against the war is wavering.

[jwirr]

44. We will never get out of Iraq if the media has their way. The issues

are not separate.

[Peggy Day]

45. Kucinich would, but he doesn't seem viable. I voted for him

in the last Ca primary (Kerry already had it sewed up), but he is another victim of the media.
IMO the media is the big problem, with voting machines coming in second. When my sister in Ohio watches TV, she believes what they say. These are OUR airwaves, and it's not right for them to use them in their own slanted ways. I don't know what to do to fix it, especially since Congress doesn't seem willing/able to stand up to them (the recent FCC fiasco). I like Edwards, but they are ignoring him,and by doing so, harming his chances, IMO.

[AndyA]

4. ABSOLUTELY! Why can't everyone see this?

Other candidates are taking money from the lobbyists for these big corporations. They are compromising their ability to change things if elected by doing so. Those big corporations are going to expect some favors in return for all that money.

Why else would they be donating it? Out of their love for America? PLEASE! :eyes:

[Triana]

22. Exactly. Why else would they be donating all that dough to HillBama?

They're BUYING THEIR INFLUENCE that's why. They expect PAYBACK.

I think we ought to be SICK of politicians who are so BOUGHT by the corporate machinery that is destroying this country and our ability to have decent lives and to do decent things for the majority of our people - the middle-class and the poor. It's TRUE that we don't have universal healthcare because of greedy drug and insurance companies. It's TRUE that we have such abject poverty and a widening gap between the richest and the middle-class and poor because of corporate control and influence on our government to the exclusion of the interests of virtually EVERYONE else. It's TRUE that we're still in Iraq due to the profiteering of defense industries and mercenary orgs which are friends of Dick Cheney, George Bu$h and the Carlyle Group. It's TRUE that we don't have an energy policy that is appropriate for the current trends in climate change because of the undue influence of big energy and oil companies who WROTE OUR ENERGY POLICY in this country.

And...it's TRUE that the reason the lamestream media ALMOST IGNORES JOHN EDWARDS and that we cannot get any NEWS from them (all we get is corprat propaganda) is because he is out to fight this influence and control they have over the airwaves and therefore over the message - HIS message. WHO OWNS THE MEDIA? General Electric, Disney,...BIG CORPORATIONS. Huh.

Hello?

ENOUGH is ENOUGH! WHERE A CANDIDATE FALLS on these charts is directly proportionate to the degree to which they will represent corporations, big business and lobbyists when/if they are elected - INSTEAD of representing YOU, US, and the best interests of our country.

While Edwards doesn't get zero, he certainly gets a LOT LESS than Hillary or Obama. IMO, THIS speaks volumes about these candidates.

FOLLOW THE MONEY. FDR was RIGHT. So is John Edwards. Both were RIGHT and RIGHTEOUS in their fight. And as long as he is in this race, I for one, am going to help him fight the good fight.

[disndat]

52. If the Edwards campaign

were really smart, they would put on a massive drive to ask citizens to contribute $10, $20. Didn't this work with Obama at the beginnig of his run?

[Not Sure]

53. Good idea - I did just that a minute ago

John Edwards is the first person I've donated to in a national election. I feel like it's the first time I ever voted, since I live in Texas and don't get a vote.

[SoCalDem]

27. We DO see it, BUT...we gave the power away a LONG time ago

and unless "we" take it back, they will keep it. How does one take it back? by making laws to limit their ownership. who makes the laws? the people on their payroll..

see the problem.

You can have the best message around, but unless you own a broadcasting network, you have to "pay to play" and even then if someone in charge does not like your message, they can just refuse to accept your money, or accept it-run your ads, and then spend the surrounding time trashing you ...by the on-staff flunkies..

[lisainmilo]

6. Let's not forget... (Important)

Halliburton or Blackwater!
Titan or CACI!!
or KBR

All war profiteers............All record profits for 2007

Corporate Accountability International Stop Corporate Abuse....The results are in...: http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1533.cfm

We need to continue the fight against corporate interest for all Americans....Please follow the link provided. See the Hall of Shame!

[FogerRox]

8. Power concedes nothing unless WE CONTEST it.

We must seize political control of our country.

[Duncan]

11. Yep

This morning NPR said Obama beat Clinton and did not even mention Edwards AT ALL.

:mad:

[bdamomma]

23. the media is completely ignoring Edwards and not delivering his message.

[zazzle]

39. the corporate media will not give away their power!

Edwards opposes media consolidation! Hillary and Obama? not so much.

[jackstraw45]

12. A peek at top donors for Obama, Clinton & Edwards

Barack Obama's TOP two Donors:

1. Goldman Sachs ($369,078)
2. Lehman Brothers ($229,090)

more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Hillary Clinton's TOP two Donors:

1. DLA Piper ($356,000)
2. Goldman Sachs ($350,050)

more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

John Edward's TOP two Donors:

1. ActBlue ($1,965,274)
2. Fortress Investment Group LLC (Edward's employer in 2006) ($187,850)

more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

Why are Goldman Sachs (who also donated to Edwards - about 1/5 of their donations to Clinton and Obama each) and similar investment banks at the top?

From Wikipedia:

"Goldman Sachs acts as a financial advisor to some of the most important companies, largest governments, and wealthiest families in the world....Due to its secretive firm culture and revolving door relationship with the Federal government, Goldman has recently been referred to as Wall Street's secret society, with former Goldman employees currently heading the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury Department, the White House staff, and even rival firms such as CitiGroup and Merrill Lynch."

[papau]

14. those lists are the employers of donors - corporations may not contribute.

[jackstraw45]

17. True but the corporations themselves don't take the "plum" jobs...

...or the windfall salaries/bonuses home at the end of a good quarter.

[papau]

20. If a $2300 investment bought a "plum" job, my life would a lot easier

[progressoid]

13. Ha - looks like we're thinking the same thing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2590816

K&R!!

[tex-wyo-dem]

19. Interesting chart and links...

http://www.corporations.org/media/

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

[jackstraw45]

25. and FCC now allowing even MORE consolidation

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fcc-votes-relax-cross-ownership-rules/story.aspx?guid=298BE556-F9B3-4224-9F6B-6DE4FF2ABBDA&dist=SecEditorsPicks


FCC votes to relax cross-ownership rule
By David B. Wilkerson, MarketWatch

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Tuesday to allow ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same market in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., easing a long-standing rule prohibiting such ownership in any market.

(cut)

[robbedvoter]

28. Edwards could have stopped media consolidation in 2004 bt vetoing the Omnibus bill

it passed for lack of 2 senators - busy campaigning...

[FREEWILL56]

48. You just wait as the FCC isn't done with their bs.

You have all heard that HDTV is taking over and that it will be UHF only. The VHF channels being vacated they plan on selling to the highest bidders. Each channel consists of 6 megahertz of bandwidth and can accomodate many voice radio frequencies numbering up to a million or 2. That's alot of $ from something they don't own to sell off. Under the Communications Act of 1934 they are not allowed to sell frequencies as the purpose of the FCC is only to license to avoid chaos and police for violations of the rules. Again, they don't own the airwaves to sell these frequencies. This didn't start happening until the repukes of the 1st bush administration with I believe Mike Powell (yes nepotism) not knowing what he was doing started selling oddball microwave frequecies to companies. NOBODY STOPPED HIM FROM BREAKING THE LAW AND NOBODY IS STOPPING THEM NOW. Congress can stop them from this and so many other things they have been doing, but don't seem to care to stop them.

edit to add:

Just who do you think will afford the high prices the FCC will get for these frequencies as the highest bidder will get them? It won't be the little guy wanting to start a rock and roll station in his neighborhood, that's for sure. It will be the big corporations.

[vssmith]

32. Thank You Bill Clinton

"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation. It was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton." (entry in wikipedia)

[surfermaw]

54. With a controlling republican house and senate

[vssmith]

55. And no veto

[peacock]

51. Wow!

That says it all.

[bvar22]

21. I lost ALL faith in Olberman last night.

The ONLY ones who mentioned Edwards surprising performance .....Pat Buchanan and Ghouliani.

I'm sending Edwards $MONEY$ today!!!

[bdamomma]

24. I already sent my donation to John Edwards.

[southern_belle]

34. I noticed the same thing!

I've HAD IT with MSNBC!!! At least CNN MENTIONS John Edwards.

[Seabiscuit]

38. I don't think even Olberman had any control over that. It wasn't his show.

The memo came down from on high that only Buchanan would be allowed to mention Edwards.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. K&R!

[RestoreGore]

30. The people must deliver his message

And take their power from them!

[newburgh]

33. If he truly believed this BS where is the anger at keeping Kucinich out of

the debates tonight? He's in it to win it. Where are the promises from the people we voted in in 2006? Believing him in the middle of the campaign when his record- and accepted contributions- shows differently is deceptive. I agree that he's the closest to what Kucinich is saying and has a better chance, but how can anyone truly believe he will make such a drastic change in the way this capitalistic system has devolved as a result of the crooked courts of the 1800's? It's all a bunch of campaign blah-blah...

[southern_belle]

35. k & r

[balantz]

36. K&R

[Vilis Veritas]

40. Edwards speech after the caucuses hammered his message...

into the heads of the Corpora-Fascist Oligarchy.

His numbers made them listen.

His numbers give me hope that maybe not this time, but soon enough, the winds of change will blow cold for the Corpora-Fascist Oligarchy controlling the shadow government within our once great nation.

Edwards must stay on course. Edwards must stay safe. Edwards must stay active, regardless of the outcome.

Peace.

[jeanruss]

41. Edwards media blackout

It makes me sick to see the shabby treatment and non-treatment of Edwards in the media-it is so un-American-I suggest we all get extremely busy letting these supposed news outlets how disturbed we are-I have been calling and sending e-mails to CNN, FOX, MSNBC and even Bill Moyers at PBS-I usually respect his show, but last night he had an election expert on and SHE NEVER MENTIONED EDAWARDS' NAME-Edwards name didn't come up until 52 minutes into the broadcat, and then of course in a negative way-When Bill Moyers has been compromised, you know we don't have press freedom anymore-as I mentioned on another thread, what else aren't we being told? Maybe it's a cancer breakthrough, or vital global warming or financial information, or all three-personally I have stopped watching these networks unless Edwards is on(which isn't often) and I also have stopped buying any products from their advertisers and let them know that I am-our democratic press is too precious to allow what is happening-I hope you will all take action-if millions of us do, they will get the message.

[spooky3]

43. welcome to DU, jeanruss!

I agree.

[annabanana]

46. yup

Anyone know where I can get one of these?:

[AzDar]

47. K & R....

[Kajsa]

49. Edwards is attacking corporate greed

and monopolies.

You see their logos directly above his photo.
To them- Edwards is a huge threat.

Go John! :applause:

[kuss]

50. Obama and Clinton Have Co-Sponsored Murdoch's S.431--Edwards Has Not

Obama has already been pawned by Rupert Murdoch's Machine. Obama (and Clinton) is a co-sponsor of S.431. A bill requiring all registered sex offenders to register their email and online addresses with the Feds, who in turn, would provide the non-public info to designated third parties to deny them access to the Internet. This includes those who no longer are subject to conditional release and those whose offense was committed decades ago or will be reclassified as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act. In short, citizens engaging in free speech.

The original version was drafted by McCain and Murdoch henchmen, and resurrected by Schumer. Murdoch promised McCain a fund raising platform on MySpace in return for the legislation, and word got to Schumer, Obama and Clinton. Obama signed on to the bill just days after it was introduced, and Clinton signed on right after the MySpace Impact Channel was officially announced. The detailed background of the bill, and why Murdoch wanted it, can be found here:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/142742/315

The bill is unsupported by any relevant data, nor is it technically feasible without third party monitoring of citizens engaged in free speech, and will have a chilling effect on the Internet as indicated by the CDT.

Edwards has not co-sponsored the bill, but is taking advantage of the MySpace Impact channel, like the rest. But why would any politician pull a "Stevens" by showing how clueless they are about the Internet, its corporate interests, crime statistics and studies, while using said corporate interest to collect millions in campaign donations?

IMO, Obama has already been corrupted by the Murdoch Machine (like Clinton) and if this is his example of "hope and change" then prepare for further consolidation of the Internet into Murdoch's empire.