Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009
I asked the same question? I've re-read Glenn's post and it is a little confusing here, and he should clear it up in an update:
"and that's particularly true where -- as is the case for Rep. Carney's district -- one company controls the bulk of the important television outlets. In an age where corporate consolidation of our most influential media outlets is increasing rapidly, companies such as Comcast can suppress the expression of political views it dislikes -- or conceal their own illegal behavior -- by censoring any political viewpoints that are contrary to their interests or to the interests of the political figures who receive substantial contributions from them and then serve them. Obviously, that is precisely what Comcast is doing here."
I can't tell if the ad was submitted to Comcast the Cable provider to run in its local markets, or if it was submitted to television companies owned by Comcast (and perhaps also broadcast by Comcast)in those markets.
Glenn,
As you have so thoroughly pointed out, the idea that there could be any liability resulting from running the ad with the statements of illegal activities by companies identified in the ad is laughable. So, why not offer Comcast an indemnity agreement in which they are held harmless in any action resulting from claims arising from the running of the ad? After all, you can bet the house that they got just such an agreement from DHS before they started illegal wiretapping.
Wasn't it Comcast who paid people to fill up the Net Neutrality public hearing in Boston last February? Sure it was:
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/02/26/comcast-pays-for-a-friendly-crowd/
You might even say that there is an emerging pattern of discouraging public awareness and discourse by Comcast.
Impasse on Spying Could Lead to Tighter RulesBy ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 10, 2008
WASHINGTON — With Congress at an impasse over the government’s spy powers, Congressional and intelligence officials are bracing for the possibility that the government might have to revert to the old rules of terrorist surveillance, a situation that some officials predict could leave worrisome gaps in intelligence.
...
But government and Congressional officials said in interviews that they saw it as a dangerous step backward. A return to the old rules, they said, would mean that government lawyers, analysts and linguists would once again have to prepare individual warrants, potentially thousands of them, for surveillance of terrorism targets overseas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/washington/10fisa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Some very disturbing quotes in this crappy article, especially from disgusting Jay Rockefeller.
The evil we face is a symbiant -- one part corrupt public officials, one part their enablers/beneficiaries in the media. The Blue America ads directly target one component, but they have also created an opening for frontal assault on the other.
I know how dollar and time-intensive these kinds of cases are. But we now have a very big fish on the line. So:
-- Do Electronic Frontier Foundation/ActBlue/FAIR/MoveOn/ whoever have the resources to take on Comcast in court?
-- If so, is the best strategy for stopping this symbiant to take on the hundreds of dirty politicians one by one, or to confront the much smaller number of much larger media chokepoints?
-- And should that battle be tactical (fight small battles serially, winning most, but never ending the war) or go for a knockout (refuse to settle short of a Supreme Court/Circuit Court decision)?
Very good thoughts. I'd add the ACLU to your list. They were the first ones that came to mind (what's left of mine).
I'd be concerned about losing sight of things though. There's a FISA fight going on, and a secondary blue dog fight. Can't fight everything at once, even when fighting symbiants. At present time, shouldn't the focus remain primarily on the FISA fight.
But your observation about this new fish on the line is right, in my blurry view.
... apologies in advance if redundant.
Had to take a quick peek. Yep. It was Comcast who stood accused of a net neutrality violation.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/66715/
I wondered when you first indicated resistance from a station whether Comcast might not be involved. Well, yeah. In a big way. D'oh!
Any way to take those thousands and thousands of dollars and pump 'em into the same market via radio and print to highlight Comcast's choice in this matter?
Like others who have raised the question, it seems to me that it should be possible to bypass Comcast completely and go to the broadcast stations directly. I searched on Carbondale, PA and found that they are served by Scranton stations. Here is the list from one website, along with corporate ownership for the stations:
* W18BN (Channel 18; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: COMMONWEALTH TELECASTERS)
* WQPX (Channel 64; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: PAXSON SCRANTON LICENSE, INC.)* WSWB (Channel 38; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: KB PRIME MEDIA LLC)
* WNEP-TV (Channel 16; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: NEW YORK TIMES MANAGEMENT SERVICES)
* WOLF-TV (Channel 56; HAZLETON, PA; Owner: WOLF LICENSE CORP.)
* WVIA-TV (Channel 44; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: NE PA ED TV ASSOCIATION)
* WBRE-TV (Channel 28; WILKES-BARRE, PA; Owner: NEXSTAR BROADCASTING OF NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, L.L.C.)
* WYOU (Channel 22; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.)
* W26CD (Channel 26; SCRANTON, PA; Owner: NATIONAL MINORITY T.V., INC.)
Link: http://www.city-data.com/city/Carbondale-Pennsylvania.html
My personal triage matches yours, I think -- killing telecom immunity, at least in the short term, is an acute need that trumps this more chronic issue.
OTOH, we are, as I wrote once before, an army of Lilliputians. We don't all have to be fighting the same battles at the same time. We can take them down with a thousand irritants even if we do not have the power to do it with a single mighty blow.
Some satellite service is running ads which make lots of fun of cable TV in general. In it, either Ed Begley Jr. or somebody who looks just like him sits at the head of a meeting table.
The reason I bring this half-remembered ad up is that it would count as applicable to Glenn's letter. I don't have Comcast, but other readers who do have Comcast might know if these ads are running.
The media outlet's use of Bush euphemisms sparks a much-needed debate on journalistic standards.
The Wasilla soap opera just gets weirder as Palin complains critics are "picking apart a good point guard"
And so are his Fox News pals, who lambasted Sen. Al Franken's "stolen election"
An inflexible right wing is allowing the Golden State to drown in debt. But it's not alone
Thanks for sharing, Governor. Now please take a cue from Norm Coleman, and go away
Salon headlines in your mailbox
