Actually here in Des Moines MediaCom was running a PSA that said that since Sinclair wants more money or something for the local Fox station that they might lose it at the end of the month.

So I called them and basically said not to give in to those bastards at Sinclair.

Then they ran a PSA about who Net Neutrality was bad for the consumer.

So I called them right back and basically said to stop being lying bastards about Net Neutrality.

So I'm sending mixed messages I guess.

I can understand the ending of media consolidation, but the fairness doctrine is bad legislation and by definition puts government above freedom of speech.

I am not scared one bit about Mitt Romney. He is trying to run hard right after governing the state of Massachusetts. No matter how hard he tries, I don't think the Republican primary voters can stomach that. Plus, his religion may be a hinderance especially for the Christian Conservatives. He didn't do a good job as head of the Republican Governors Association having poured a lot of money into the Iowa race and ignoring many others. His real name is Willard  Mitt Romney ... will people actually vote for a "Willard?"

With a name like "Willard", I definitely smell a rat.

Why don't our wealthy liberal business people support the liberal media like Air America Radio or another potential liberal media entity?  This would certainly be a wonderful project for George Soros and would help us build our much needed liberal message machine. We keep complaining about the right wing echo machine.  Let's get one ourselves and add it to the bloggosphere that helped us so much in this election. Imagine what we could have done and what we could do in the future if our message were articulated on the airwaves.

Mitt The Shit, as I have been saying (I'm a Massachuttsan) is simply Bush Jr., but with more smarts (no surprise, huh?). He is ultra-slick. And seriously knows how to stick a knife in the back.

Now that he is the don of one of the biggest imperial media families, we are more deeply screwed than ever. Time to pull out all the big guns for NET NEUTRALITY!

First of all, Mitt Romney no longer has any interest in Bain Capital. Romney gave up his 100% interest in the firm several years ago. He couldn't possibly have run for Gov. of MA if he had retained his interest unless he wanted serious questions raised about his integrity. Secondly, Thomas H. Lee, the founding partner of Thomas H. Lee LLC is a major donor to Democrats, for what it's worth. Finally, the May brothers, who have been running Clear Channel, and are big contributors to the Republican party, are also part of the buyout consortium. Bottom line: there is no story here.

The Thomas H Lee Company is very, very blue. They are the partners in this, along with Texas Pacific Group, which has a lot of blue contributors. (As does Bain. They have been operating out of Boston, MA and have been about 60-40 Repub to Dem contributions.)

Look at some of Thomas H Lee's contributions. (Via www.fec.gov )

LEE, THOMAS H
BOSTON, MA 02109
THOMAS H LEE COMPANY

DSCC/NON-FED UNINCORP ASSOC
10/02/2002 10000.00 22020813535
10/09/2002 10000.00 22020813551
10/31/2002 25000.00 22020892355

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
12/31/2003 25000.00 24020023546

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
07/13/2005 26700.00 25020350959

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
06/20/2006 4700.00 26020541033

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
06/20/2001 8333.00 21020090265

So you're saying that Clear Channel won't be doing any news stories about the Big Dig and tunnels collapsing on motorists?

What he also just bought was entry into a shit load of concert venues and the muscle to influence musicians.  If you don't think that's serious, go read Alex's post mortem of Philly GOTV.

Whether Mitt is really involved or not, this episode is another reminder of why media consolidation is bad for the majority in the country. If Mitt was behind buying Clear Channel, we'd at least know to suspect what he would do with it. Since he's probably not, we have to guess about the intentions of whoever is actually buying it. Either way, the problem is the size of this media enterprise, the death of local media caused by media consolidation, and the unfair advantage anyone who owns big media has to influence public discourse.

The threat and the problem we face is the same whether it is Mitt or someone else.

Worked for Silvio Berlusconi.

Makes sense, though - not every GOPer can count on Fox supporting them in the primary. So, get a media company bought for ya. Free speech, if you can afford it.

As many liberal billionaires as there I wish someone would start a liberal cable news network. With hundreds of cable networks that appeal to obscure interests you would think there would be a large potential for a liberal or at least moderate network.

"we have to end media consolidtion and reinstate the fairness doctrine ASAP."

Yep.  

And that's on top of the other news today, about Clear Channel killing their progressive station (which carries Air America) in favor of an all-sports station.

They know progressive radio is hurting them and are doing what they can to kill them.  And liberals with money, as far as I can tell, are doing precious little to support AAR, which is a terrible, terrible mistake.

We should be buying radio stations instead of just sitting on the sidelines and watching them suck up all our air.

I am definitely NOT into Ron Paul as a presidential candidate or Lew Rockwell, whoever/whatever that is, but it's worth noting, as far as the prospect of solidarity among citizens subjected to an artificially dichotomized political system goes, that the Lew Rockwell folks caught this too:

"it takes a special breed to use investors' money to buy entire networks that can operate as passive wings of a presidential campaign."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ar chives/017694.html