Hi all,

I’ve taken a long weekend, so you’ve got two Pickle-free pony parties today! Have at it.

U.S. Federal District Judge (Northern District of California, San Francisco Division) Jeffrey White, a Bush appointee, has ordered the Internet Service Provider Dynadot to shut down the important whistleblowing site, Wikileaks. In recent months, Wikileaks has published important documents related to Guantanamo’s Standard Operating Procedures, the heretofore secret Rules of Engagement of the U.S. in the Iraq War, as well as bank fraud in Kenya.

Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.

The good folks at Wikileaks have anticipated something of this sort sooner or later, and have a number of mirror sites hosted outside the U.S., so they can still be accessed here and here. But this attempt at outright censorship must be overturned. This is not China censoring government critics, or some small corrupt country trying to hide its dirty laundry. This is a U.S. judge, at an ex parte hearing (no one from Wikileaks was even present or represented), acting like a totalitarian factotum.

A Wikileaks press release explains:

The order was written by Cayman Island’s Bank Julius Baer lawyers and was accepted by judge White without amendment, or representations by Wikileaks or amicus. The case is over several Wikileaks articles, public commentary and documents dating prior to 2003. The documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion. The bank alleges the documents were disclosed to Wikileaks by offshore banking whistleblower and former Vice President the Cayman Island’s operation, Rudolf Elmer. Unable to lawfully attack Wikileaks servers which are based in several countries, the order was served on the intermediary Wikileaks purchased the ‘Wikileaks.org’ name through — California registrar Dynadot, who then used its access to the internet website name registration system to delete the records for ‘Wikileaks.org’. The order also enjoins every person who has heard about the order from from even linking to the documents….

Wikileaks will keep on publishing, in-fact, given the level of suppression involved in this case, Wikileaks will step up publication of documents pertaining to illegal or unethical banking practices.

Wikileaks has six pro-bono attorney’s in S.F on roster to deal with a legal assault, however Wikileaks was given only hours notice “by email” prior to the hearing. Wikileaks was NOT represented. Wikileaks pre-litigation California council Julie Turner attended the start of hearing in a personal capacity but was then asked to leave the court room.

White signed the order, drafted by the Cayman Islands bank’s lawyers without a single amendment.

The injunction claims to be permanent, although the case is only preliminary.

In a diary at the top of the Recommended List right now over at Daily Kos, Stephen Soldz makes the important point that there have been other attempts in U.S. history to

… block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response.

It’s hard to believe that this judge’s ruling will be left to stand. But in today’s political environment, nothing must be taken for granted. It’s not clear how to support Wikileaks in this instance, as they haven’t released a call for any specific action. Of course, this has just happened. It is our job to spread the news far and wide and put the heat on the powers that be that this blatant unconstitutional prior restraint of the press will not stand.

For Presidents Day, remember the freedom that the founding fathers fought for, and let everyone know that U.S. courts are trying to shut down whistleblowers, and the internet sites that publish what they find. I don’t think I need to belabor the importance of this, as any site could be affected this way, and all reasonable discussion shut down.

This is the official sappy government FCC site touting the “benefits” of digital TV.

http://www.dtv.gov/

Note all of the marketing hype. I can become a “DTV Deputy”. I can get info in spanish. Note how an entire site is geared towards the simplemindedness of a five year old. To me at least it is chock full of subliminals diverting your focus away from the Satanicness it will bring. In order to get to this let’s click on the FAQ section on the left, that stupid looking TV remote control. After that go to Why are we switching to digital TV. Here is the answer.

“An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it will free up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (such as police, fire departments, and rescue squads). Also, some of the spectrum will be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband)”.

Wireless broadband! Why is this a bad thing? Well if you have no problem with being watched 24 seven or have no problem with government knowing your every move then fine. As an engineer I could also price out very cheap solar powered mini spy cameras that only need be in range of another ugly cell phone tower. Oh, watch the proliferation of uglyness in those babies!

Financial houses are investing in corporations that will meter and control your water and electric use. Yes, you will be rationed.

I don’t see rationed energy and water use as a “benefit” of digital TV.  

Sorry but I don’t see the benefit of government partnerships with companies making all of their products outside of the United States.  And for what 300 channels of crystal clear mindnumbingly stupid “news” and or programming engineered to decimate good moral behavior.

What is does mean is the re-allocation of lower frequecy spectrum, RF energy with a farther reach potential.  They are going to reach into you life and crush it.

Hey but you’re happy, just look at the clear picture!

My Ghandi solution? Go dark Feb 17,2009 go dark. What will you miss? Mindnumbingly stupid corporate “news”? MTV and E channel shows socially engineered to degrade morals? TV evangelicals declaring I-35 in Texas the Holy Highway?

They are pulling the plug, we should too!

This is an Open Thread:

Once I used to join in

Every boy and girl was my friend.

Now theres revolution, but they dont know

What theyre fighting.

Monday’s Headlines: Obama seeks to turn table in Ohio, Texas: Did politics trump law in case of polluting Canadian smelter?: Asia: Pakistanis vote in tense election: Attack kills 82 in the worst atrocity since fall of Taliban:Latin America: Mexicans refuse to call time on historic bar: Guyana gunmen kill police, civilians: Europe: Cyprus reunification back on agenda after presidential poll favours moderates: Anger and fear in a city still divided: Africa: Rice in Nairobi to push for deal: Opposition Says Power Sharing the Way Forward: Middle East: Clashes With Israeli Troops Kill 4 Militants in Gaza

USDA Orders Largest Meat Recall in U.S. History

The Agriculture Department has ordered the largest meat recall in its history — 143 million pounds of beef, a California meatpacker’s entire production for the past two years — because the company did not prevent ailing animals from entering the U.S. food supply, officials said yesterday.

Despite the breadth of the sanction, USDA officials underscored their belief that the meat, distributed by Westland Meat, poses little or no hazard to consumers, and that most of it was eaten long ago.

The recall comes less than three weeks after the release of a videotape showing what the USDA later called “egregious violations” of federal animal care regulations by employees of a Westland partner, Hallmark Meat Packing in Chino.

USA

Obama seeks to turn table in Ohio, Texas

Latinos and blue-collar whites, two mainstays of Clinton support, are being aggressively courted in crucial primary states.

BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS — With the Democratic presidential race about to enter another crucial phase of voting, Barack Obama has launched a newly aggressive strategy to undermine two pillars of support for rival Hillary Rodham Clinton: Latinos and working-class white voters.

Each is an important constituency in major March 4 primaries — Latinos in Texas and blue-collar workers in Ohio — which many believe Clinton must win to keep her White House hopes alive.

In Ohio, Obama backers are courting local union leaders and members with promises that the Illinois senator will change U.S. trade policies enacted by Clinton’s husband, and which the unions blame for severe job losses.

Did politics trump law in case of polluting Canadian smelter?



WASHINGTON – Though the dumping stopped more than a dozen years ago, no one is sure who will clean up the 26 billion pounds of hazardous waste from a Canadian smelter that has turned the reservoir behind Grand Coulee Dam into an environmental nightmare.

The dispute has plowed new legal ground and threatened cross-border retaliation. It also prompted a heated clash between federal regulators in Seattle and Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department lawyers in Washington, D.C., amid allegations of interference by political appointees with ties to the mining industry.

Asia

Pakistanis vote in tense election

People in Pakistan are voting in a crucial election overshadowed by political violence and fears of fraud.

The parliamentary poll was delayed after the killing of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, and is intended to complete a transition to civilian rule.

The two major opposition parties say President Pervez Musharraf’s allies are planning massive fraud. They have vowed to protest if they suspect foul play.

The worst act of pre-poll violence saw 47 killed at a rally on Saturday.

Attack kills 82 in the worst atrocity since fall of Taliban

By Kim Senguptain Gereshk

Monday, 18 February 2008

The carnage was savage even by the bloody standards of the spiralling and vicious violence in Afghanistan. More than 80 people watching a dog fight on the outskirts of Kandahar were killed yesterday when a suicide attacker detonated his bomb, causing the worst atrocity in Afghanistan since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001.

Among the dead was Abdul Hakim Jan, the leader of a local militia that had been fighting alongside British and Nato forces against the Taliban. The governor of the province, Assadullah Khalid, who survived an assassination attempt last week, had planned to go to the event, but is said to have changed his mind at the last minute.

Latin America

Mexicans refuse to call time on historic bar

Shutters close on drinking den favoured by presidents, revolutionaries and artists

Mexico City’s oldest licensed bar stands on a corner of the grand Zócalo plaza. Across the road is the huge National Palace, home of Mexican presidents until the 1930s and still the official seat of executive power. Behind lie the ruins of the great Aztec capital, to one side looms the Metropolitan cathedral, and in every available open space is the buzzing, often chaotic street life of the historic centre.

But while those other Mexico City landmarks will live on, the doors to El Nivel have closed, taking with them a small piece of history.

“Every big city has a sort of an iconic place. There’s La Fleur in Paris, or the Chelsea hotel in New York, or the French House in Soho. This was a cantina that had a presence and a fullness that you very seldom find,” said Irish-born artist Phil Kelly, who discovered the bar after moving to the Mexican capital in 1982.

The closure of El Nivel, frequented over the years by artists, writers, revolutionaries, presidents and street vendors, has provoked a passionate protest from its regulars. Kelly was among the hundred-odd demonstrators who gathered outside El Nivel last month to drink beer and chant their outrage at the shutters that have stayed down since January 2.

Guyana gunmen kill police, civilians

GEORGETOWN, Guyana – Gunmen killed at least three police officers and several civilians in an assault Sunday night on a small town in Guyana, authorities and local media said, in the second such attack in recent weeks.

Police said the men, dressed in military fatigues and armed with assault rifles, invaded a police station and made off with ammunitions and weapons in the southwestern township of Bartica.

Police did not identify any suspects or possible motive, but this impoverished South American country has been beset by gang violence.

Alleged criminal gang leader Rondell Rawlins claimed responsibility for a Jan. 26 assault on another small town that left 11 people dead, including five children.

Europe

Cyprus reunification back on agenda after presidential poll favours moderates

The hardline President of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, conceded defeat after the first round of presidential elections last night, raising hopes that international efforts to re-unite the divided island could be back on track.

The surprise election results left two moderates, who both want to resume reunification talks, to contest a run-off vote next Sunday.

The President’s departure could also ease the accession of Turkey to the European Union, according to regional analysts.

Ioannis Kasoulides, a former foreign minister and member of the European parliament who is running as an independent backed by the right-wing Disy party, won 33.5 per cent of the vote.

Anger and fear in a city still divided

Marko Tijnic was reading a newspaper headline in the Cafe London in the Serbian enclave of Mitrovica North yesterday. “The Oath Lasts,” it read. “The Ownership Remains.” Meaning Serb ownership. For Tijnic and other Serb residents, the declaration of independence from Serbia means nothing but the prospect of trouble.

The 19-year-old history student pulled out a printed map of Kosovo from inside the paper, covered in red dots. “Look, they are the monasteries and other sites important to Serbian culture,” he said. “It’s a tragic situation.”

Tijnic, originally from a small Serb enclave of 20 families, Crkolez near Istok, where his family still lives, blames the international community. But mainly he is worried about the future. “I don’t expect anything to happen today,” he said speaking of fears that violence might again break out along Kosovo’s most dangerous faultline, the divided city of Mitrovica. “But in the coming months I am concerned they will start applying pressure on us. It will happen in the enclaves first.”

Africa

Rice in Nairobi to push for deal

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has arrived in Kenya in an attempt to end the political crisis which has led to widespread unrest.

Ms Rice is expected to push President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to agree a deal to share power, following December’s disputed election.

She will also hold talks with the lead mediator, former UN chief Kofi Annan.

On Friday, both sides agreed to set up an independent panel to review the vote, which Mr Odinga says was rigged.

The dispute has led to political and ethnic violence in which at least 1,000 people have been killed and 600,000 have fled their homes.

Kenya’s Opposition Says Power Sharing the Way Forward

As Kenyans await the arrival of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday, an official of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has given more details on what would constitute a possible solution to the country’s post-election crisis. ODM secretary general Peter Anyang Nyong’o said the opposition hopes Secretary Rice is coming to Kenya to re-enforce former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s mediation effort and President Bush’s call for a power sharing government.

Nyong’o told VOA that only a power sharing government can produce a needed political stability for Kenya.

“Given what President Bush himself has said, I think she is coming to re-enforce the Kofi Annan initiative to ensure that there’s a political solution that will finally bring justice and peace to our country.

Middle East

Iraqi military hopes security will last

BAGHDAD – Iraqi military officials expressed hope Sunday that security gains from a yearlong crackdown against extremists will allow the removal of thousands of concrete barriers in six months that protect Baghdad residents from bomb attacks.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent the weekend touting the successes of the security operation that began one year ago and peaked last summer with the influx of thousands of U.S. troops. The operation helped restore some security to a country that in January 2007 was on the brink of civil war.

The U.S. military said Sunday that insurgent attacks had declined by 60 percent over the past year, but cautioned the war was not yet won.

Clashes With Israeli Troops Kill 4 Militants in Gaza

JERUSALEM – Four Palestinian militants were killed in clashes with the Israeli Army in southern Gaza early Sunday, and an Israeli soldier was seriously wounded in an exchange of fire.

An Israeli Army spokeswoman said the Israeli forces had been “operating against terrorist infrastructures” inside Gaza, near the city of Rafah. About 80 Palestinians from the area were detained and brought back to Israel for questioning.

Palestinian hospital officials said that three of the four gunmen killed belonged to the military wing of Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza, and that the fourth belonged to the Popular Resistance Committees, a smaller militant group. More than 20 Palestinians, including some civilians, were wounded during the army incursion, the hospital officials said. The incursion ended early Sunday afternoon.

“The basis of a strong democracy is a diverse and dynamic media. It’s time to take away the corporate media bullhorn and let America’s many voices be heard.” – John Edwards

The current corporate stranglehold on the media is one of the biggest obstacles to growing a progressive movement in America. The progressive ideals of removing corporate control from our Government and having the people’s voices count as much or more than the corporations is impossible when the message is mediated by those corporations themselves.

The moment that all of this hit me was while I lay in bed listening to the TV that was on a bit too loud. My husband was watching Bill Moyers Journal and I was sucked into the report regarding political advertising and the huge amounts of money that will go to the corporate media in the form of political ads. The same media that has been reporting on the campaigns and is also the major source of news for the majority of American voters. The money we send our candidates is being funneled back to this media that is becoming more and more consolidated and representing the interests of less and less people.

But it represents another issue that concerns me and that is the need to condense a political message down to a 30 second ad.

RICK KARR: As a voter– if I see nothing but 30-second spots for the presidential candidates, what kind of picture do I get? How accurate is that picture of what these candidates stand for?

BROOKS JACKSON:If all you know about candidates in an election is what you see in your ads, you are going to cast a very poorly informed vote. Because those ads quite frequently are– based on information that’s selective, or twisted and, sometimes just downright false and made up.

RICK KARR: Political consultants will tell you that TV ads are essential because a candidate can’t run an old-fashioned door-to-door campaign from coast-to-coast. And given this year’s compressed primary schedule and the twenty-four states voting together on Super Tuesday the only way for candidates to reach the masses and keep control of their messages is with TV ads.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…

I find this to be patently false. There is another way to get more voters informed rather than feeding them sound bites paid with their own candidate contributions. But because of the death of the fairness doctrine and lack of public campaign finance, the thirty second ad has become a necessary evil.

Another source of an interesting idea was John Cleese on Fox News. Yes, I’m serious. I was not aware that political advertising was illegal in Great Britain.

CLEESE: No. No, not at all. I thought this was a very, very interesting debate. And I think that it’s great that you have so many of them, because you really begin to get a feeling for the candidates after you see them a lot of times. I think this is a really great process.

LUNTZ: What about the advertising? We were talking about…

CLEESE: Really, I mean, you won’t believe this. There’s no paid political advertising on British television. We don’t have those 30-second things. They…

LUNTZ: Would you like that, by the way, to cut out all the ads?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

LUNTZ: No?

CLEESE: It means that everything’s got to be condensed into 30 seconds, and that means that it’s just sound bites, so that nothing substantial — you just sort of put across a slur or, “Mmm, I like that person,” or (RASPBERRY SOUND) “I don’t.” That’s about it.

COLMES: Hey, Frank…

CLEESE: I love the fact that, when we have politics on British television, it’s paid for by the television companies.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/pub…

So what is scarier about this, that John Cleese made a great point using a raspberry or that people don’t want to do away with political advertising? And to what benefit does it have for them? I wonder why people would want to hang on to Political advertising if it can be so misleading? What is the benefit?

RICK KARR: So who really profits from the two and a half billion dollars that they’ll bring in through this campaign? The biggest beneficiaries will be media conglomerates which have been buying up more and more local TV stations. Take New Hampshire as an example: More than half of the stations that serve the state are owned by conglomerates – media giants such as News Corp., which owns 35 stations nationwide CBS, which owns 39 Sinclair, with forty-six and one you may never have heard of: Ion Media, which owns 57 television stations coast to coast.

…

RICK KARR: And they do ‘make it’ thanks to political ads and the cash bonanza they bring in. So much so . that corporate bosses at media conglomerates are bragging about how good campaign spots are for the bottom line: In its 2006 annual report, Hearst-Argyle, for example, wrote “We expect that our stations will benefit significantly from the 2008 election cycle.” “Political revenue” got its own line in that report. And other media conglomerates have made similar claims. CBS President Les Moonves reportedly told investors last December, “We like the fact that there are a number of candidates with a lot of money behind them”.

Now, you might wonder, “What’s the big deal? These are corporations, after all – aren’t they supposed to maximize profits?” The answer is yes, but – because broadcasters aren’t like other businesses. The airwaves that we use are owned by the public.

Think of it this way: when a company drills for oil on public land it owes the public a royalty – a percentage of whatever it earns. Broadcasters don’t have to pay for the licenses that give them the right to use the public airwaves but in exchange for those licenses, they ARE supposed to give something back to the public.

MEREDITH MCGEHEE: What they’re supposed to do is fulfill these public interest obligations. Insure that the public gets information it needs to be an informed and engaged electorate.

RICK KARR: But local TV stations have been doing a lousy job of that. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they get most of their news from local TV. Yet when scholars studied how local TV news covered the 2004 campaign they found that the average political story was just 86 seconds long that stations spent more time reporting on weather, sports, and crime than they did on politics and that when they did report on campaigns, nearly half of all stories covered the “horse-race” – who was ahead and who was behind. That kind of reporting dominated the conglomerates’ newscasts in the run-up to the Iowa and New Hampshire votes this year.

BROOKS JACKSON: I mean, the first amendment gives the press in this country, and that includes– broadcast outlets, terrific freedom, which is used to make a lot of money. But it’s there because– the voters need information to base a sound decision on. And I think in– too many cases broadcasters and cable outlets– are making– huge amounts of money from running these political ads. Which in many cases are false and misleading. And they’re putting very little of that money back into some reporting that would inform their viewers– about when they’re being scammed.

RICK KARR: Broadcasters can get away with reaping huge profits from the public airwaves without giving back to the public because Washington has abandoned its obligation to hold stations accountable to the public interest.

MEREDITH MCGEHEE: The failure is a failure public policy. It’s a failure at that Federal Communications Commission, and a failure in Congress. They are not getting for the American people a fair compensation for the value of these airwaves that are being used by the broadcasters. The American people are the ones that get robbed here.

RICK KARR: So in the end, what the public gets is a political campaign dominated by thirty-second sales pitches.

BROOKS JACKSON: What it does that is pernicious is it forces the candidates and their handlers and their media experts to compress– their message into a very small space, basically a bumper strip. And to try to make it as dramatic as possible so it’ll punch through all the competing advertising and all that noise and clutter on 100 cable channels out there, and grab people’s attention. And frequently– truth goes by the wayside. If you think commercial advertising is misleading, you gotta realize it’s the wild, wild West when it comes to political advertising.

So, not only is the media failing to be fair and covering topics to the extent the public deserves, the money we pour into donations is being used to limit our access to information. Not everyone is as involved as we are here, not everyone thinks about politics as much as we do. According to The Political Brain by Drew Westen, the average American thinks of politics much less of the time tan we do (I don’t have the exact figure or a quote, so I will be vague, I apologize).

So exactly how many companies are controlling our major media outlets?

Eight business conglomerates control the majority of media content in America, with extensive holdings in publishing, print journalism, online content, movies and radio. In the two years after Washington removed the 40-station radio ownership limit in 1996, nearly half of America’s radio stations changed hands, and by 2000, one company had acquired over 1100 stations. Over the last 30 years, two-thirds of all independently-owned newspapers have shut down. The Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to dismantle limits on cable, broadcast and newspaper concentration. Edwards believes extreme media consolidation threatens free speech, tilts the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and makes it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. Edwards will strengthen local and national media ownership and concentration limits so that a few huge multinational corporations are not in charge of shaping our democracy. [Free Press, 2007; Clear Channel, 2007; Consumers Union, Undated]

http://www.johnedwards.com/iss…

How can our voices be heard if the corporate interests are controlling the media? How can the control of corporate interests over our Government and legislative process change if they also own the main source to inform the public? Doesn’t it seem like a roadblock to Democracy at every turn?

John Edwards has a plan to help remove these road blocks and to restore the media back to the people, who support it and who should benefit from it other than by being entertained and lulled into a false sense of being informed. And since so many of us are busy trying to keep our lives somewhat together, how can we have the time to demand more? And if we believe that the little time we do spend is keeping us well informed, then why demand more at all?

Restoring the Public Interest to the Public Airwaves: America’s radio and television broadcasters use our public airwaves-worth more than half a trillion dollars-for free. Until radical industry deregulation in the 1980s, the government required that they serve the public interest in return, with public interest obligations on minimum public affairs programming, a Fairness Doctrine, modest limits on advertising, and most importantly a vigorous license renewal process. The subsequent concentration of media ownership into a few corporate hands and the loss of localism and independence makes the public interest tradition in broadcasting more important than ever. Edwards will appoint FCC Commissioners who will immediately define robust public interest obligations for digital broadcasters-a task twelve years overdue. These obligations will ensure closed-captioning and other tools for people with disabilities. He will use the license renewal process to vigorously review whether broadcasters have served their local communities, ending the current rubber-stamp “postcard renewal.” [Copps, New York Times, 6/2/2007; Benton Foundation, et al., 2007]



Building a Universal, Affordable Internet: The country that developed the internet is now 16th in the world in broadband penetration. While half of urban and suburban households have broadband, less than a third of rural homes do. The people in poorer regions are having to use USave in order to find a cheaper broadband service as prices continue to rise. John Edwards will set a national broadband policy to help make the Internet more affordable and accessible to all Americans, regardless of where they live or how much money they have. Universal broadband would stimulate job creation and result in up to $500 billion in economic benefits. The starting place is setting a goal of giving all U.S. homes and businesses access to real high-speed internet by 2010. Edwards will establish a national broadband map to identify gaps in availability, price, and speed; create public-private partnerships to promote deployment; require providers not to discriminate against rural and low-income areas and to improve accessibility for people with disabilities; support and expand the e-rate program; encourage local service providers and municipal wireless projects, and use the newly available 700 megahertz spectrum and broadcast television white space to support wireless networks that can connect with all digital devices, so that everyone can connect, be it with gaming on hughesnet and viasat or other means. [Newsweek, 7/9/07; CWA, 2006; Pew, 2007]

Keeping an Open Internet: Edwards believes America must preserve the uniquely democratic nature of the Internet, which has allowed regular people to contribute on equal footing with big businesses and organizations. As president, he will ensure that the FCC preserves free expression and competition on the Internet by continuing to enforce net neutrality ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to websites. He will also bring interoperability to wireless communications so that Americans can connect any device or applications to their wireless service, just as they can to their landline phone service.

So, why is this important to the progressive movement? Until the corporate media is forced to cover issues that are important to us, to the progressive movement, it will make it harder for it to grow. Out of sight out of mind is a cliche for a reason, nothing can change if it’s not brought to our attention because it does not serve the interest of the media corporations. Ratings, advertising and revenue is what drives our current corporate media and it has even turned their news outlets that used to not have to turn a profit into a profit center for their shareholders.

We have to demand that this change and we can, by calling and writing and by demanding better coverage of the issues. Our issues, the progressive issues that matter. But we also have to force our elected officials to push for reform, not just media consolidation but campaign finance reform. It can change, but we have to be part of the change and by blogging and by writing we can all be another voice along with corporate media, hopefully someday we can make as much noise as they do. Someday.

Some resources:

Media Reform Information Center

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media” — controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.

Corporate media From Wikipedia

Fair, Issue Area: Corporate Ownership

Democratic Media

Today’s media system is not a top-down environment, but a “web 2.0” world where each of us can create the content and tell our own story. The key to cultivating this space, is to take our digital destiny into our own hands, by working together in communities across the country to help build a digital media system where democracy, fairness, creative opportunity and social justice are key measures for success.

The U.S. media system is undergoing a profound transformation as the Internet and other digital media reshape communications, commerce, community, and political power. Billions have been invested to build and define a system where the majority of global citizens will always be connected to interactive communications networks–via computers, cell phones, and other new devices. But will this world of broadband video, instant messaging, social networks, and video games give us a media system where the public interest is paramount?

In a way that traditional media was never able to, the powerful forces of interactive media can help our country address critical social issues such as:

* Economic opportunity for the poor and working middle class

* New approaches to solve the environmental crisis

* Divisions within the education and health care systems

If news, cultural and civic-oriented content came directly from the public-and not just a few private interests-then more accountability and responsibility would follow. By embracing Web 2.0 concepts and tools – starting with socially conscious social networks (SCSN) – greater democracy will be able to flourish under a brighter media future.

Reclaim the Media