quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

Mycroft:
Sure. Let me start.

I see no similarity at all.

---

Oh come on Mycroft. Certainly you can see that too few owners of much of the media would have a chilling effect on free speech, while at the same time allowing for the promotion of a limited point of view to be broadcast over most of the media?

Propaganda is propaganda, whether it's government or corporate sponsored.

Capitalism or communism isn't the issue here. Control of the message is. When the message is in too few hands, it becomes centralized. And that is bad for the people, no matter where they live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal

...and Dave somewhere but I can't quite figure out where.

---

quote:

---

(AP) LOS ANGELES A man was arrested and accused of mailing threatening letters laced with white powder to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, David Letterman and other high-profile figures, the FBI announced Sunday.

FBI agents took Chad Conrad Castagana, 39, into custody Saturday on charges of conveying false information and sending threats via the U.S. mail, the bureau said in a statement.

---

quote:

---

Ok how do I know this, first I searched for Chad Castagana and found many posts using the same expression on the same topic.

examples..
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue279/letters.html#pc

SF Has No Space for PC

W ith the passing away of Lexx ends an intriguing albeit smarmy experiment in sci-fantasy. One that breaks with conventions, or should I say, cliches of TV sci-fi of the '90s. The politically correct pabulum, the multicultural indoctrination, the Bladerunner motifs, and not the least—the steroid mutated superbabes that can punch the lights out of men, but never get punched back in return!?

---

quote:

---

The Free Republic must be held accountable

Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001 by Dan E. Moldea



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 29, 1999, I posted an open letter at the ultra-conservative FreeRepublic.com--one of the largest and, in my opinion, most dangerous political forums on the Internet. During the four-day period prior to my letter, these Freeper-sharks had posted no fewer than a half-dozen defamatory threads about me, including, "Moldea Blackmailed Congress During Clinton's Impeachment," "The Curious Case of Dan Moldea," and "The Evil of Dan Moldea Exposed." All of these threads wound up on search engines throughout the Internet.

With the publication of my letter, I made the decision to take the time to challenge any and all such defamations with my own public responses--which would also appear on those same search engines. I advise others who have been the victims of Free Republic shark attacks to do the same. (Also see: Los Angeles Times & Washington Post v. Free Republic and Graham v. Oppenheimer.)

To date, I have received three public retractions for reckless and malicious charges leveled against me.

Here is a portion of my letter:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal
Well, that's Kil, OY and me on one side. Mycroft on the other, and Dave somewhere but I can't quite figure out where.

I hadn't thought about it sooner, but there are many things we don't just let the free market loose on. There are anti-monopoly rules for good reason. They've slipped under the Republican administration. And I'm not forgetting the first attack came in '96 under Clinton but with the Republican controlled Congress.

We have to have rules about who controls the microphones. I fail to understand why private ownership should be allowed free reign in that regard. There is just no question how bad that could be if we didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal
Currently there are laws about equal access in the media to political advertising. Those laws need to be revised to cover the shift from separate advertising to the integrated advertising that has become the norm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal
Banning the DC's music was part of an orchestrated pro-Bush campaign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigalThat Disney move "The Path to 911" was a political propaganda piece.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigalAnd the most important law is to roll back the media monopoly ownership restrictions to before 1996.

---

quote:

---

This is by far Koppel's best cinematic work. The narrative cuts between the December 2002 off-hand comment by lead singer Natalie Maines about not being proud that President Bush was from Texas (it took place at a London concert just a few hours after a million people marched against the looming war in Iraq) and their present travails in Los Angeles trying to rebuild their careers.

I didn't intend to write about the movie except I saw an interesting post last night on Donkey Rising. It cites a poll of southern voters that showed 57% of southerners now believe the U.S. "should have stayed out of Iraq." Moreover, 56 percent of southerners, compared to 59 percent in the nation as a whole, believe the U.S. should begin withdrawing its troops. In other words, country has gone mainstream.

The media gave extensive coverage to the campaign against the Dixie Chicks, which was orchestrated by extreme right wing groups who organized call-in campaigns to pressure country radio stations to stop playing their records (don't forget, this was the best selling band in country music history). What they never covered was the deep well of support their stance had, not just in liberal free-speech precincts where you'd expect it, but among the thousands of so-called rednecks who continued to fill arenas in the immediate wake of the London incident.

---

quote:

---

Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:45 AM GMT
Contributed by: Stranger

Action Alert!July 16, 2003

Robert McChesney and TBTM ask that you take the time to call The House.

This week roughly 75 television network executives descended on Capitol Hill to tell Congress it should -- against the wishes of nearly two million Americans.

But we have been fighting the special interests and it is working. Last week's phone-in campaign brought in 17 new co-sponsors of the FCC rollback legislation in the House, and five co-sponsors in the Senate. It reminded legislators that we are watching what they do, and that we're not going away.

This week, the call-in campaign focuses on the House with a simple message: "We want a media that is diverse, competitive and engaged with the local concerns of our communities. We can only have that if House members support BOTH HR 2462 (Sanders) and HR 2052 (Burr-Dingell), measures that will overturn FCC rule changes benefitting big media alone."

---

quote:

---

March 24, 2003

Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of radio stations (over 1200 stations in all 50 states and DC), sponsored the numerous "patriotic rallies" which were held in various cities around the country. They organized, advertised, provided speakers and entertainment for them, and even handed out numerous American flags to participants.

While Clear Channel promoted these as patriotic rallies, the attendees obviously felt otherwise. In addition to waving their provided flags, they also held signs condemning their fellow Americans - liberals, Hollywood, the Dixie Chicks. They were not so much patriotic rallies as pro-war rallies, and not so much pro-war rallies as rallies against anyone who opposes the Bush administration's policies.

There are close ties between the company and President Bush. The Vice Chair of the company is Tom Hicks, a member of the Bush Pioneer club for elite (and generous) donors. The relationship between Bush and Hicks goes back even further, however. The two were embroiled in scandal when Hicks, as University of Texas Regent, was responsible for granting endowment management contracts of the newly created (under legislation signed by Bush) UT Investment Management Co. (UTIMCO). The contracts were given to firms politically connected to both Hicks and Bush, including the Carlyle Group - a firm which has the first President Bush on the payroll and had the second one on the payroll until just weeks before receiving this lucrative business. The board of UTIMCO also included the Chair of Clear Channel, L. Lowry Mays. In addition, Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers from George Bush, making him a wealthy man through a deal that was partially sweetened by a shiny new taxpayer financed stadium, which included valuable land obtained at below market rates through the use of eminent domain.

Whether or not the close ties between the radio behemoth Clear Channel and the president have anything to do with their rallying support for his policies is unclear. If it were a small company it would not much matter. But Clear Channel is a media giant, domin

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal
One example of integrated advertising: Advertisers learned people trust the news more than they trust advertising. Thus was born the Video News Release.

Also Wiki on VNRs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal
Orchestrated campaigns against free speech.

Wow, that is definitely an example of an orchestrated campaign against free speech, and kudos to you for pulling an example from the other side of the political fence.

At the same time, while I certainly agree that “Right Wing Watch” seeks to stifle speech from the right (ironically while pointing out virtually identical ways they believe right-wingers are stifling left-wing speech, lol!) I still have to point out that criticizing someone else's speech is itself an exercize of free speech, not an act against it.

You see, really everyone in that example is exercising their rights and nobody is doing anything wrong.

The anti-war protestors are protesting, which is their right. One may disagree with them and their goals, but they are doing nothing wrong.

Right-wing critics that bask anti-war protestors as communists, anti-American or pro-Saddam are also exercising their right to free speech. One may disagree with them and their goals, but they are doing nothing wrong either.

And finally, Right Wing Watch is perfectly within their rights to criticize the right-wing critics for criticizing the anti-war demonstrators. One may disagree with them and their goals, but they are doing nothing wrong either.

While it may seem that criticizing someone else's speech is a restriction of that speech, it's really an exercise of that very same right. The right to speak your mind doesn't include the right to do so without opposition, without someone else challenging you. The whole idea is that if everyone is allowed to speak, most people are smart enough on their own to decide who is