Brent Bozell admits Murdoch Ownership bad for America/Repugs Failed FV's

[KoKo]

I heard Amy Gross interview "self declared Democrat," Tim Winter, the Executive Director of Bozell's Parents Television Council on her NPR Show "Fresh Air" this afternoon. Tim Winter is working with Bozell (that RW Pig) to try to regulate Cable by allowing viewers to select the channels they want to watch from the Cable Companies rather than having to take the "tiered packages" we are forced to, today.

It was a great interview. Gross asked Winter all the right questions about wouldn't regulating Cable mean that gays, christian preachers and other groups be left out if the cables were regulated like the networks.

Here's an article from Washington Post which is excellent in showing that Republican Family Values is such TOTAL CRAP that even the RW'ers are unhappy with their own sucess!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHTING INDECENCY...One Blip at a Time..

He's never met Murdoch, Bozell says. "But those who know him have told me that he makes no bones about it" -- meaning why he backs "Nip/Tuck" and other shows the PTC finds offensive. "He does it to make money."

Um -- this is bad?

The question is problematic for a man whose responsibilities include overseeing the MRC's Free Market Project. The FMP, which seeks to defend the free enterprise system from alleged liberal slurs, "has nothing to do with the Parents Television Council," Bozell says -- though for him, there's clearly some cognitive dissonance involved.

But the dissonance isn't just within Bozell's modest empire. It's within the conservative movement as a whole."It's interesting to see the conservatives split," says Tim Winter, the PTC executive director, by which he means "social conservatism versus business and corporate conservatism."

-Snip-

Sure, the PTC recently struck out in its efforts to replace basic cable with an "a la carte" programming option. Under this plan, consumers would be able to choose only the cable fare they wanted and thus could exclude raunch-heavy channels like MTV and FX. Last month the FCC came out strongly against the idea, though some in Congress still favor it.

Score one for Viacom and News Corp.

But the PTC also joined what Bozell calls a mostly liberal-driven protest that derailed -- at least temporarily -- last year's FCC attempt to relax major media ownership rules. The proposed changes would have benefited big industry players like Murdoch, allowing them to expand the number of outlets they controlled in individual markets -- lessening the chance of community standards triumphing, in Bozell's view.

As for the politics of sleaze control: Bozell thinks the issue is still up for grabs.

ON EDIT:But, he says in the article he thinks Hillary can do it! :shrug: Brent Bozell for Hillary? :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49907-2004Dec8_2.html

[theboss]

1. This article is from December

I thought it was familiar. I read it when it came out.

[KoKo]

2. Actually, I was addressing Amy Gross's NPR interview heard TODAY

on NPR while I was driving to an appointment. I came home and looked up Tim Winter/Brent Bozell and "Parents TV Council" on Google and found the link to the Wa Po Article.

I think this is "CURRENT" because I and many other DU'ers were involved in barraging the FCC with complaints over Corporate Media Ownership.

I'm interested to see that we have a "strange bedfellow" in the "Parent's TV Council" fighting on OUR SIDE agains FCC Deregulation.

:-)'s to you.

[theboss]

4. I don't know if "regulation" is the right word for "a la carte" cable

I guess it is.

I like the idea - in theory - of a la carte cable. There are about 50 channels out of my 150 or so that I would never watch in a million years. However, I think such a move would end up costing more.

[tsuki]

5. Not so. I have a big dish with a la carte programming. It ends up

being about $435.00 a year with HBO/Cinemax. If I don't watch it; I don't pay for it. Most of the fluff is gone, including FAUX.

Now the cable and small dish companies will tell you it is Cost Prohibitive, but if they can signal your box for special events and movies, they can do that also for channels. They don't want to.

[KoKo]

7. Who is your cable provider that gives you such a good choice?

I will sign up!

[tsuki]

14. Skyvision. I have a big dish. Although I have been threatened by

the cable and small dish providers with loss of service, I have never experienced it. Maybe because I do not subscribe to the fluff. I have Discovery, Travel, A&E, History, TNT, TBS, WGN, USA/SciFi, PBS, HBO (a kizillion channels,) Cinemax, Arts, C-Span, ESPN. I do not have the networks or any of the cable news networks.

[KoKo]

8. I pay for stuff I never watch...why should I? I thought Repug stuff was

all about the "Marketplace." If you don't like the "vendor stall" move on and competition will give you another choice.

Right now, I'm forced to take Cable Channels that I never watch. I would only watch maybe four channels out of the 80 something they force me to suscribe to to get the four I do watch...because my viewing is diversified..:shrug: Why shouldn't I pay per channel/per view?

Sheesh

[theboss]

10. I agree that in theory, it's great

But cable companies pay fees to carry channels. If everyone is paying 5 cents a month for ESPN, it may be cheaper for me to get Oxygen and EWTN as well instead of paying 50 cents for just ESPN.

I just wonder how the economics will work.

[tsuki]

15. EWTN is free.

[brucefan]

6. It's Terry Gross.

[KoKo]

12. Is there something wrong with Terry Gross?

I admit I don't listen to her, but I was in the car and on the road and it was a fascinating discussion. Should I be ware that Gross is a Right Winger kissing ass with Rove. :shrug: :eyes:

[devilgrrl]

11. That's Terry Gross...

eom

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Bozell's trying to get cable companies to let you pick your own channels?

Damn, I never thought I would agree with that beard-dyeing Pat Robertson puppet about anything :wow:

[KoKo]

9. Yeah...it's Shocking ...that's why I posted. We have room here to really

fracture the Right! Amazing isn't it. I think it might be only one this "particular"issue...but the "Chimp" has been terrible for Family Values! He's send fathers and mothers off to Iraq to be killed leaving children and pets in "foster homes" or with "Grandparents" who are trying to cope with the "slack" and he's not helped ANYONE in AMERICA COPE with 9/11 and the gas prices and the Job Downsizings and the terrible Crap on TV where many folks of ALL AGE's dont turn it on because of "Left Wing Bias/Propaganda or Murdoch and other's who are purveying Sleeze and Filth to our Children and ourselves. :Shrug:

OMG is this an issue we could unite on? Figuring that a "compromise" could be reached? :shrug:

[KoKo]

13. I dunno...but still think this means we can show Bush as Bad for Kids...

because TV has gone downhill during his administration and wasn't he supposed to be the "Family Values" President?

Instead all we have is "Reality Shows" and less in the way of "Little Kids Quality TV."

Powell, jr. at FTC was a Disaster allowing the BIG BUSINESS MURDOCH to hone in and do his trash and propaganda.

This is an ISSUE we DEMS could RUN on to take back the FV's Issue.

:shrug: I think there are huge amounts of ANGRY PARENTS and SENIORS out there...enough to form a coalition.

[KoKo]

16. Kick...........