From Josh Marshall:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006449

At first the evidence was scattered and anecdotal. But now it’s pretty clear that a key aim of the Bush administration’s takeover of the NOLA situation is to cut off press access to report the story.

We probably understand each other, so we can just let it go…

“to encourage responsible and independent news media… (to prevent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.” …….”This means regulations…”

How can you support something by controlling it? The only thing you need
to support is free speech. That is, if someone wants to say something and
someone else wants to “regulate” that (by force if necessary, how else?) you put the
person who wants to regulate it in jail. It’s regulation of the airwaves
that causes monopoly (BBC pre 1955
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/22/newsid_3131000/3131477.stm
and
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=632782005)

For example the Internet is the most unregulated type of news media. Due to this lack of regulation, news delivered on the internet is by far the most diverse source of information, a true “free society”. It is the lack of “controlling” and “governing” that has made the internet what it is.

Nice of you to refer to my comment, though I don’t see any dictators there, benevolent or otherwise.

David,

The public good in this case is to encourage responsible and independent news media, otherwise real democracy cannot function. This means regulations (to prvent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.) and it means taxes to support public broadcasting, so that the financial consideration will not be the only consideration. I don’t believe this conflicts with “your good” (unless you define that very narrowly, as in “I don’t want to pay any taxes”)–this is all a small price to pay to have a functioning democracy.

Yes we do have a right (my point 1 above concerned imposing forced
regulations on networks). Because we are paying them. Their fate is tied
to the desires of the viewing public. Their subjective behaviour is
therefore a result of our behaviour, not the cause. To ensure objective
networks one must first create an objective public. How do you create an
objective public? By ensuring free speech. The American people love to hear an opinion (just look at the sports shows on ESPN!, you never get Alan Hansen talking like that!) and respect your opinion much more than in other countries I’ve been to. America is the home of free speech and the country most dedicated to it’s protection. And that’s why, (crazy
as it might sound), American networks (taken as a whole) are more
objective than English networks. What do I mean by this. I mean, if you
want a left leaning opinion it is available (CNN), if you want a right
leaning opinion it is available (FOX). You could watch them both and come
up with an objective opinion (which is what I do actually). In England
you have quite homogenous opinions across the networks. Even the conservative party has to cloak their ideals in left-leaning jargon.

“It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments,”

Subvert: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subvert. Absolutely not. I’m just trying to debate with you. Sometimes I just don’t understand what you mean and would like a more explicit version of your opinion.

“Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy “news” that doesn’t
get to the facts?”

I have no clue what you mean by this. I love facts.

To the extent rights-of-way used by cable companies were obtained from railroads and roads that in turn were obtained by eminent domain, the cable companies too have obligations to fulfill, and every citizen has the right to demand that.

To Moshe Rozali’s point – free markets, democracy with division of power, etc., are good because they promote accountability. The enlightened dictator may provide much better government than a democracy; but the problem is that accountability is lost, and inevitably corruption follows. The rightwing has forgotten accountability and simply regards property rights as primary. Let us remember that intellectual property rights is a created right and does not exist without government; and property rights are a convention or derived rights, like privacy rights, that in general hold because they are necessary for upholding other rights.

I am not sure that news was always thought of as a consumer product, rather than a public service, but sadly that seems to be the case now.

It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments, as opposed to what I’m actually writing. What I’m asking for isn’t difficult to understand and shouldn’t be a left-wing ideal. Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy “news” that doesn’t get to the facts?

As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to change how they behave.

“try to make it objective”.

You could have meant two things with this statement:

1.
It is not your right to “make” them do anything, all you can do is air your opinion on the issue, as they have aired theirs on that particular issue. They are a *private* organization! If you were a stockholder in that corporation then you can have a say in “making” them do something. These news agencies respond to what the consumer wants. They are trying to make money and air their point of view (what else should they try to do?), and the only way they can do that is by being subjective and catering to those with similar politiical/philosophical opinions. Indeed this blog is a case in point. If you made blogging a professional goal (ie as the source of your livlihood), you would air your opinion so as your ratings would go up, you’re making your case, as it were, and hope that kindred spirits back you up. Network media has a similar goal. Why should they bother to be “hard-hitting” when they are making money doing what they do right now? It’s their right to do what they do if they so choose (or if their consumers so choose!).
2.
If, what you meant by “try to make it objective” was: “take reports with a grain of salt”, that is, sift through a report for the facts and form your own opinion, that’s fine, I agree.

Most likely, the media message will now become exactly what Chertoff said: ‘Let’s focus on on what needs to be done rather than assigning blame’ (subtext: only a pathetic selfish loser would focus on blame). In principle, not bad. But of course, the issue is not merely blame, but rather, asking whether those with the resources to address a national disaster be trusted again? The Chertoff (ala Rove) statement makes it seem like finding out what went wrong for future benefit, and saving lives now are mutually exclusive.

We can expect 1.) feds blaming Lousiana locals while proclaiming we should not focus on blame…. 2.) suppression of details re: loss of life…a celebrity crisis might suffice 3.) many shots of Bush Sr. and B. Clinton 4.) and of course, many shots of Bush Jr talking ‘compassion’ and perhaps awarding Chertoff and Brown with medals of Heroism. If anyone actually does get ‘blamed’, it will be some equiv of Lynndie (sp?) England in Louisiana.

And most likely, we, the people, will eat it up with a grin.

Fyodor. I think it it true that the foreign press delights in having a go at the U.S. This can be annoying at times. However, it doesn’t mean they’re always wrong. The point about the U.S. media is one that many people have made for a long time. The article isn’t about the foundations of U.S. society; it’s about the pretty poor U.S. media. It is hard to look at the way they’ve dealt with the government about Iraq and think that they have any teeth at all.

The BBC did criticize the French government over the deaths. but it was a different situation, with different weightings of blame than this one.

Also, as a European myself, the idea of “the foundations of European society”, for practical purposes, makes me giggle. Europe is composed of separate countries, with different governments, philosophies, ways of life and no underlying constitution. We’ve been at each others’ throats for most of recorded history and have been the center of two world wars within the last 90 years or so.

Exactly. And not only that — the BBC can get away with incredibly one-sided reporting in this instance because that plays to the “Well Americans are so dumb so what do you expect” audience outside the US. It was notable that when old poor people in Europe who could not afford air-conditioning were dying like flies in the summer of 2003, the BBC did not feel so moved to claim that that was an indictment of the foundations of European society or whatever. That was just an unfortunate sequence of events.

That said, check out this amazing editorial piece by Olberman…
(at this site, click on Olberman’s who’s to blame commentary)

Contrariwise, the Bush administration is going to have a rough time for the next three years.

What I always find amazing is not just that the news media have shared interests with many of the subjects of their coverage, it is often the exact same people that shuttle back and forth between news organizations and government agencies, political think tanks, party campaigns etc etc. This is not even a very subtle issue- every interview with a powerful politician has also the subtext of a job interview….