Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'm finding something else for my cable TV and Internet. I'm not sure what my choices are, but even the evil AT&T would be better than Comcast at this point.
Why are not all broadcast companies under the common carrier laws as telephone, telegraph, and transport companies have been for over 200 years - a basic premise of free enterprise and free speech -separating delivery (hardware) from content. Why, why, why did this not happen the instant broadcast media became a two way communication system? Money I’m sure.
The only way to get these telecoms under control is to force them into public utilities under enforceable common carrier laws.
Subject: Thank you for stretching our advertising dollars.
Dear Ms. Koles,Thank you so much for throwing ridiculous barriers in front of the Blue America advertising campaign pointing out Representative Chris Carney's failure to support the US Constitution in his position on new versions of the FISA bill. This obvious attempt to cover up previous illegal behavior by Comcast through erecting petty barriers to carrying the ads only helps to shed more light on the issues involved. Your behavior is very likely to take what would have been a local issue in one Congressional district and add considerable fuel to the FISA debate in general. Prominent media figures such as Keith Olbermann at MSNBC and Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post routinely monitor Glenn Greenwald's blog, so it now is only a matter of time before our small ad campaign gets free national exposure.
Sincerely,
Jim White
Gainesville, FL
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, and with the assistance of your employer, Comcast, the NSA may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
And, of course, I provided a hot link on the words "Glenn Greenwald's blog" to the permalink of the current post.
Tee hee. That was fun.
Call the Justice Dept, cry Censorship!
CLEVELAND -- The CBS and NBC television networks are refusing to run a 30-second television ad from the United Church of Christ because its all-inclusive welcome has been deemed "too controversial."
http://www.wfn.org/2004/11/msg00231.html
And to think, they weren't even calling people commies. They should have retained Glenn to sue. Heh.
In bringing up the church example, are you saying that two wrongs makes a right, and if they turned down the church then it's only fair that they turn down Blue America?
Or are you calling Glenn a hypocrite for going after Comcast regarding the current spat, while (I assume) he had no involvement in the church issue?
Or are you agreeing with everyone here, that lots of bad comes out of media conglomeration, where the church is one example and BlueAmerica is another?
Or are you just leaving a turd in the punchbowl, as you do in every other one of your posts, because you can't address this issue head-on for whatever reason?
Comcast reserves a certain fraction of advertising time for local ads on myriad of the stations it carries. Not just local news which reaches a limited audience. Have you never seen an ad for some car dealership in your area while watching, oh, say, The Weather Channel?
Seems to me that Glenn is following up on a matter he said he would clarify, that of a prominent cable company refusing to run ads critical of said cable company and of a Pennsylvania Representative who is advocating immunity for self-same cable company (and others) in the matter of warrantless domestic surveillance -- surveillance which is against the law.
The ads are running on alternative outlets in the region, but the major cable television outlet refuses to run them for whatever reason, or no reason at all, and they're throwing up all sorts of smokescreens to hide behind and to try to pretend their refusal is due to something other than simply not wanting ads questioning their ethics and legal standing on the air.
Even if they were to admit their real reason, they still wouldn't run the ads, though, would they? And they wouldn't have to, would they? Glenn isn't even arguing that they should be compelled to run them.
No, the stink that is arising has its own purpose, I would say, and that is to get wider notice of the controversy here, say on "Countdown" or one of the other cable "news" shows. With the idea that telecom lawlessness, Democratic and Republican enabling of said lawlessness, and telecom refusal to run ads critical of that lawlessness would penetrate the thick skulls of the public and ultimately make them mad enough to do something about it.
But what would happen if cable and other media outlets didn't have the option to refuse ads like this? Of course then there wouldn't be a stink over the refusal, because there wouldn't be a refusal. And the public could even become educated on the issues without a lot of gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
Democracy might could work.
<<shudder>>
The notion that we can't fight every battle at once is valid, but we also have to understand where the pressure points are.
In this case, as we've seen in many other cases of refusal to run certain kinds of political ads, the media companies face no consequence for their refusal except -- perhaps -- some momentarily bad publicity, which usually they don't care about at all.
But if they did face consequences for such refusal, financial or legal or what have you, they'd change their tune right quick.
I don't know if it was your response or the Comcast ad screaming at me from the side panel of my screen, but your response irked me. APologies in advance, but I'm going to say this anyway. If you had read my post, you would have noticed that I was asking whether Glenn was writing about Comcast as a cable provider, or Comcast as a media corporation that also owns local television stations and provides the cable. Yes, I have watched cable, Mona, thanks. This has happened often, here. Having questions doesn't mean your ignorant, and it certainly doesn't require people who don't know the answer to respond.
The reality is that Glenn's article has a few faults. He should have been specific about which of Comcast's roles he was critiquing--they answer to different regulation. I'm sure Glenn can handle the criticism, though no one else here seems to need the specifics to proclaim this the greatest piece ever written. Which also bothers me.
I'm sure that Comcast, in whatever role, is abusing its position and standing in the way of bringing telecoms to justice. But I liked to be convinced anyway.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
