Democrat COWARDS

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Just another left wing conspiracy theorist? Actually, a nobel prize winning economist who once again, nails it.:

Paul Krugman: Wisconsin power playWhat is happening is not about the state budgetTuesday, February 22, 2011The New York TimesLast week, in the face of protest demonstrations against Wisconsin's new union-busting governor, Scott Walker -- demonstrations that continued through the weekend, with huge crowds on Saturday -- Rep. Paul Ryan made an unintentionally apt comparison: "It's like Cairo has moved to Madison."

It wasn't the smartest thing for Mr. Ryan to say, since he probably didn't mean to compare Gov. Walker, a fellow Republican, to Hosni Mubarak. Or maybe he did -- after all, quite a few prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, denounced the uprising in Egypt and insist that President Barack Obama should have helped the Mubarak regime suppress it.

In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what's happening in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker's pretense that he's just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin -- and eventually, America -- less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that's why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators' side.

Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.

In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.

But Mr. Walker isn't interested in making a deal. Partly that's because he doesn't want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers' ability to bargain.

The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state's workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers -- namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning -- are exempted from the ban; it's as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state's budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there's not much room for further pay squeezes. (news you won't hear on fox)

So it's not about the budget; it's about the power.

In principle, every U.S. citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we're a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we're more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it's important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don't have to love unions, you don't have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they're among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years -- which it has -- that's to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

There's a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America's oligarchy. After all, it was super-wealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

(Gee, weren't they just taking risks?)

So will the attack on unions succeed? I don't know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn't.

Paul Krugman is a syndicated columnist for The New York Times.<BR clear=all>

[ariscus99 1]

Thats funny, exactly what krugman(left wing hack) is saying that the greedy billionaires and the evil Kock brothers do(hiring dozens of lobbyist) is exactly what the unions do. So it's okay for a union to do it, but not for a different group of people with money?

You again have avoided the fact that what these cowardly democrats are doing is ludicrous. If Gov. Walker really wanted to rule with an Iron fist he could very easily do so, and it could be a brilliant political move. He could stage a press conference and simply say "Since the democrats are unwillingly to allow a vote on these new measures, we will go forth with what they are trying to protect, and will therefore effective immediately layoff the 6000 workers who would have been protected by this bill." The backlash against the democrats would be wonderful for republicans. Of course the layoff's could be temporary, because it would almost certainly bring the dems running, but the damage would be done, and would likely cripple the democrats in WI. I think it would great. And there are rumors starting to circulate that he might do just that. Time will tell.

As for the tax cuts Walker is pushing, he's doing so to BRING business TO WI. Businesses like lower taxes, thats why so many are leaving CA.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Thats funny, exactly what krugman(left wing hack) is saying that the greedy billionaires and the evil Kock brothers do(hiring dozens of lobbyist) is exactly what the unions do. So it's okay for a union to do it, but not for a different group of people with money?

You again have avoided the fact that what these cowardly democrats are doing is ludicrous. If Gov. Walker really wanted to rule with an Iron fist he could very easily do so, and it could be a brilliant political move. He could stage a press conference and simply say "Since the democrats are unwillingly to allow a vote on these new measures, we will go forth with what they are trying to protect, and will therefore effective immediately layoff the 6000 workers who would have been protected by this bill." The backlash against the democrats would be wonderful for republicans. Of course the layoff's could be temporary, because it would almost certainly bring the dems running, but the damage would be done, and would likely cripple the democrats in WI. I think it would great. And there are rumors starting to circulate that he might do just that. Time will tell.

As for the tax cuts Walker is pushing, he's doing so to BRING business TO WI. Businesses like lower taxes, thats why so many are leaving CA.

If the union lobbying power is so great, then why did most of the money in the 2010 mid-term come from corporate america and go to republicans and why wouldn't the public teacher's union have had the power in Wisconsin to stop this and get their people in office as opposed to the Koch brothers?

And you have side-stepped the issue as to why the police, firefighters and State Trooper's unions aren't affected by this bill? BECAUSE THEY SUPPORTED WALKER. So this bill is nothing more than punishment to the unions who opposed Walker.

Since the unions have already said that they will make the concessions about the ECONOMIC issues - pensions and health care - how in the world does stripping collective bargaining help balance the budget? IT DOESN'T.

It's just another blatant republican attempt to bust unions.

And I'm sick of businesses, who have gotten 17 tax cuts under Obama, whining. They are crying with a loaf of bread under each arm. Paying taxes is the cost of doing business and they have to pay their share. If all states made businesses pay their fair share, where are they going to go? And why should the workers and middle class have to make up for the taxes the businesses don't pay? I mean it's not like with all the tax breaks they get they are hiring.

In our state the gas drilling companies are salavating to drill the Marcellus shale and make them richer. There is a lot of controversy about the environmental impact of this drilling - but the fact remains that there is tons of money to be made off of this. Every other state - every one - that has marcellus shale drilling imposes a tax on these companies - and they pay it because they know that is fair. And they can't go somewhere else because the gas is here.

However, in my state, our newly elected republican governor has said that he will not impose any tax on the drillers. NONE. It is like a free, all you can drill buffet for the gas companies. But will it create a lot of jobs? Probably some, but most of those jobs have been given to out of staters so far. And who do you think will be paying for the damage to the roads, wells, creeks and rivers? The local taxpayer, that's who.

Now, since this governor said he will not raise taxes, and that pesky unsuccessful stimulus will be ending (the one that created and saved 400,000 jobs in my state) our state is broke. So this governor will give the gas companies free reign and money and make the predictable budget cuts to the poor and middle class. Typical republican thinking.

Oh, and here's the best part - I almost forgot. This governor was our attorney general and he filed suit against the federal healthcare bill. We had a state healthcare called Adult Basic under our previous democratic governor. It was for the working poor who made a little too much for medicaid but couldn't afford insurance. The waiting list was long. The premiums were about $36/month. It was subsidized by the tobacco money (lawsuits) and an arrangement with one of our biggest insurers who contributed X amount until Dec. 31, 2010. So the money is gone and 40,000 just got their notice that they have to find other insurance. They could do the high risk pool at a rate increase of 800%. NOW GET THIS - THIS IS THE GOOD PART. This republican governor wants the federal government to subsidize this insurance. Yep, the same federal government he is suing.

It gets better. Because he won't tax the gas drillers and won't raise taxes and public education has a bullseye on it - he won't be able to fund it at the currrent level because, again, that pesky stimulus is over - so ONCE AGAIN HE IS ASKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP UP AND INCREASE FUNDING TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.

Really - this guy has balls, I will say that. But that is so typical of hypocritical republicans - bash the federal government out of one side of your mouth and out of the other ask how it can help me (and my district, state, etc..)

[ariscus99 1]

And you have side-stepped the issue as to why the police, firefighters and State Trooper's unions aren't affected by this bill? BECAUSE THEY SUPPORTED WALKER. So this bill is nothing more than punishment to the unions who opposed Walker.

Come on, you're the resident fact checker, you should know better than this CM...I'm a little dissapointed with you;

From JSOnline

Walker noted that the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin - the two state organizations - backed his opponent. If the new governor really wanted to reward his supporters, he said he could have simply exempted the Milwaukee unions from his proposal.

Union lobbying power is great, however, obviously, the people of WI didn't want what the unions were backing. I've said this before but I'll do it again for you, this is what the people of WI want, the majority of the residents of WI want this to happen, the union folks are not a majority, just because they have more people showing up at a rally means nothing, the average person is WORKING while all this is going on. But if this wasn't the will of the people of WI, then Walker, who PROMISED throughout his campaign to make this his first order of business wouldn't have been elected.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Come on, you're the resident fact checker, you should know better than this CM...I'm a little dissapointed with you;

From JSOnline

Union lobbying power is great, however, obviously, the people of WI didn't want what the unions were backing. I've said this before but I'll do it again for you, this is what the people of WI want, the majority of the residents of WI want this to happen, the union folks are not a majority, just because they have more people showing up at a rally means nothing, the average person is WORKING while all this is going on. But if this wasn't the will of the people of WI, then Walker, who PROMISED throughout his campaign to make this his first order of business wouldn't have been elected.

Apparently we're both half right according to this article:

Donna Brazile says that unions that supported Scott Walker are exempt from restrictions on collective bargaining

The ongoing budget crisis in Wisconsin got pundits George Will and Donna Brazile debating on This Week with Christiane Amanpour.

Will said that changes proposed by Gov. Scott Walker were reasonable and necessary given budget constraints. Brazile countered that the governor was using the excuse of a budget battle to destroy collective bargaining rights for public employee unions.

"And, look, what we're talking about is that the governor has cherry-picked what public workers he will subject to this so-called removal of their collective bargaining rights," Brazile said. "The firefighters, the policemen and others who supported him in his election bid, well, guess what? They don't have to worry about their collective bargaining rights."

Brazile implied that this was political payback, and we want to be clear that we’re not checking Walker’s motivations. We’re looking only at whether "the firefighters, the policemen and others who supported him in his election bid ... don't have to worry about their collective bargaining rights."

Our first stop was checking Walker’s proposal. It asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets limits on collective bargaining power for the public sector unions.

In a letter to public workers, Walker explained that his proposal would limit bargaining only to base pay, which means unions could not bargain for improved health insurance, working conditions or pension benefits. Pay increases would be limited to increases in the cost of living, using the Consumer Price Index, unless voters approved other pay increases via a referendum. Union members would have to vote to stay unionized each year, and contracts could only last only a year, among other limitations.

Walker concluded the list of changes by noting, "Local police and fire employees and State Patrol Troopers and Inspectors are exempted from these changes."

So Brazile is right that police, firefighters and others are exempt. Our next question was, are these the groups "who supported him in his election bid"?

During the campaign last November, leaders of the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association and Milwaukee Police Association appeared in an ad supporting Walker and blasting his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett. Walker also won endorsements from the West Allis Professional Police Association and the Wisconsin Troopers Association

Walker didn’t get the endorsements of two statewide unions, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, which both backed Barrett.

For the record, the governor told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the charge that he was exempting police and firefighters was "ridiculous." He said he didn't recommend changing the rules for police officers and firefighters because he didn’t want public safety work disrupted.

We then contacted the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the statewide union that endorsed Walker's opponent last year. Executive director Jim Palmer said the statewide organization is much larger than the local Milwaukee police union that endorsed Walker. The state group has approximately 11,000 members versus Milwaukee’s roughly 1,400, he said.

Similarly, the state firefighters association has more than 3,000, compared with the Milwaukee union’s 875.

The state police union is opposed to the changes Walker is proposing for other public sector workers, which include county jailers and police dispatchers, Palmer said. The statewide firefighters' union also opposes the proposal.

Palmer said he believes that Walker exempted police and firefighters not for political payback, but because they are the public workers who are most popular with the public. "And in that way, it’s very political," he said.

Brazile said, "The firefighters, the policemen and others who supported (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker) in his election bid ... don't have to worry about their collective bargaining rights." It’s true that Walker won the endorsement of Milwaukee police and firefighter organizations, and they won’t lose collective bargaining rights if Walker’s proposal succeeds. But not all unions supported Walker. In fact, the two significant statewide organizations endorsed his opponent, and they too would be exempt from restrictions on collective bargaining. Because the statement leaves out the fact that the police and fire unions broke ranks on whether or not to support Walker, we rate this statement Half True.

George Will (right wing hack) interviewed Walker and he said he said that if you get control of collective bargaining and stop things like auto deduct of union dues, etc. you can get union workers to question if they need unions. This is an admission then that he just wants to bust unions.

Since the unions have already agreed to all the concession concerning cuts and increases in their contributions, then this collective bargaining assault is just bullshit and anyone who has above a double digit IQ knows it.

All that being said - if the democrats in the U.S. Senate needed republican votes for a quorum and let's say they were proposing a bill that would:

-increase the corporate tax rate to 50%

-increase the taxes on those over $250,000 to 40%

-increase the estate taxes on estates over $1 million at 50%

-increase the minimum wage to $10/hour

-eliminate all corporate welfare

-eliminate all tax loopholes for corporations.

And the republicans walked out and left for and undisclosed location to prevent a vote (let's just assume they couldn't filibuster which they do every time) - I think the right wing media that dominates our landscape would nominate them for sainthood up there with ronnie.

Oh, and one more thing. Walker didn't run on a campaign that he would strip away collective bargaining rights for some public workers. So the voters did not vote for this. He, like so many phoney republicans, have used the economic crisis to promote their sinister agenda that they've wanted to promote for years - reduce social programs while cutting taxes for the rich, bust unions and restrict women's access to reproductive health.

But when they run - it's Oh, we've got to tighten our belts and be more fiscally responsible, blah, blah, blah, until you read the fine print like we are with Walker. Another republican phoney. They must clone themselves there are so many.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Wisconsin's pension fund is among the nation's strongest. From Zach Carter: "Despite GOP hype over super-generous retirement funding for Wisconsin public employees, the state's pension fund is actually among the strongest in the nation. If it had to liquidate today, the pension fund has enough money right now to fund decades worth of pension benefits to every eligible state worker. Nevertheless, Republican Governor Scott Walker is asking public employees to shoulder an enormous portion of the load in reducing the state's $137 million budget deficit. In addition to killing collective bargaining rights over pensions for public employees, Walker wants to raise about $30 million this year by hiking taxes on public employees for their pension fund. There's simply no need. The pension plan's 'funding ratio' is 99.8 percent, meaning the plan's current assets will cover 99.8 percent of all future expenses, without any adjustments. The Government Accountability Office says an 80 percent ratio is considered healthy, while Fitch Ratings targets 70 percent." [HuffPost]

But the unions still made the concession in good faith. The democrats will return when Walker is serious about negotiating in good faith.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Poll: Americans oppose weaker unions

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Updateddocument.write(niceDate('02/22/2011 11:05:05 PM')); 1h 2m ago |

MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

[ariscus99 1]

Did you really say that the right wing media dominates? You can't really think that.

[loserbob 11]

Did you really say that the right wing media dominates? You can't really think that.

I always wonder why people say the left wing media dominates. Maybe nationally it does but in Pittsburgh area the right dominates. I dont even know of any left wing media, locally or nationally.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Did you really say that the right wing media dominates? You can't really think that.

I don't just think it - the facts prove it:

“The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”, a new report was released by The Center for American Progress and Free Press.

– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Did you really say that the right wing media dominates? You can't really think that.

Owned by right wing hack Murdoch:

Film

Twentieth Century Fox

Twentieth Century Fox Español

Twentieth Century Fox International

Twentieth Century Fox Television

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Fox Studios Australia

Fox Studios Baja

Fox Studios Los Angeles

Fox Television Studios

Television

Broadcast/Production assets

20th Century Fox Television

20th Television

bTV

Foxtel

Fox Broadcasting Company

Fox International Channels Italy

Fox Kids (1990-2002)

Fox Sports Australia

Fox Telecolombia

Fox Television Stations

Fox Television Studios

Imedi TV

Latvijas Neatkarīgā Televīzija

MyNetworkTV

STAR TV

TV5 Rīga

Cable Assets

Big Ten Network (49%)

Fox Business Network

Fox College Sports

Fox Movie Channel

Fox News Channel

Fox Soccer Channel

Fox Sports Enterprises

Fox Sports en Español

Fox Sports Net

FUEL TV

FX Networks

Fox Reality

National Geographic Channel

SPEED Channel

SportSouth

LAPTV (Latin America — co-owned with Paramount Pictures/Viacom, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/MGM Holdings and Universal Studios/NBC Universal)

Telecine (Brazil — co-owned with Globosat Canais, Paramount Pictures, MGM, Universal Studios and DreamWorks);

Direct broadcast satellite Assets

BSkyB (39.1%)

Sky Deutschland (30.5%)

SKY Italia

SKY Network Television (43.65%)

Tata Sky (20%)

Internet

Fox Interactive Media

AmericanIdol.com

AskMen.com

Fox.com

Foxsports.com

GameSpy

Hulu.com

kSolo

IGN

Drownedinsound.com

MySpace

MyNetworktv.com

NewRoo.com

Strategicdatacorp.com

Photobucket.com

Rotten Tomatoes

Scout.com

SpringWidgets

WhatIfSports

Beliefnet

News Digital Media

Slingshot Labs

Magazines and Inserts

InsideOut

donna hay

News America Marketing

SmartSource

The Weekly Standard

Gemstar

Newspapers

News International

United Kingdom

The Sun

News of the World

The Times

Sunday Times

thelondonpaper (a free newspaper)

News Corporation Ltd.

Australia

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)

The Australian (national)

The Weekend Australian (national)

The Advertiser (Adelaide)

Sunday Mail (Adelaide)

The Sunday Times (Perth)

Herald Sun (Melbourne)

Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne)

mX (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane)

The Courier-Mail (Brisbane)

The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland)

Geelong Advertiser

Gold Coast Bulletin

The Mercury and Sunday Tasmanian (Hobart)

Northern Territory News (Darwin)

The Sunday Territorian (Darwin)

Australian Associated Press (45%)

New Zealand

Sunday Star-Times

Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea Post-Courier

Fiji

The Fiji Times

United States

New York Post

The Wall Street Journal

Times Herald Record

The Brooklyn Paper

Dow Jones & Company

Consumer Media Group

The Wall Street Journal - the leading US financial newspaper.

Wall Street Journal Europe

Wall Street Journal Asia

Barron's — weekly financial markets magazine.

Marketwatch - Financial news and information website.

Far Eastern Economic Review

Enterprise Media Group

Dow Jones Newswires - global, real-time news and information provider.

Factiva - provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services.

Dow Jones Indexes - stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Dow Jones Financial Information Services — produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors.

Betten Financial News — leading Dutch language financial and economic news service.

Local Media Group

Ottaway Community Newspapers - 8 daily and 15 weekly regional newspapers.

STOXX (33%) - joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices.

Vedomosti (33%) - Russia's leading financial newspaper (joint venture with Financial Times and Independent Media).

SmartMoney (50%)

books

HarperCollins

HarperCollins India (40%) joint venture with India Today Group

Zondervan Publishing

Youth Specialties — organisation helping youth workers worldwide through training seminars and conventions, resources and the internet.

Inspirio — religious gift production.

Miscellaneous

National Rugby League (NRL) (50%)

Ansett Australia, Until 2000 (50%)

Jamba! - Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalisation/Games.

News Outdoor Group - Largest outdoor advertising company in Eastern Europe with over 70,000 ads including billboards and bus shelters, operating in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia (96 cities), Turkey & Ukraine.

Maximedia Israel (67%)

Mosgorreklama (50%) - Russia sign and marketing material manufacturer

Kamera Acikhava Reklamclik (?) - leading outdoor advertising company in Turkey

NDS Group (49%) - DRM and conditional access company.

Left wing media is just another lie from the right.

[ariscus99 1]

Thats a cute list, and it proves....? Rupert Murdoch is diversified? No one tunes into The National Rugby Association for their news. But here in the US the MAINSTREAM MEDIA, i.e. what most people watch and what is most readily available, would be, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, HNN, MSNBC, CNBC. Of those, fox is the most right. The rest are decisively left wing or at a minimum left leaning. Talk radio is dominated by the right, I will concede that. Newsprint however is overwhelmingly dominated by the left, as are most weekly magazines, Time, Newsweek, etc.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Thats a cute list, and it proves....? Rupert Murdoch is diversified? No one tunes into The National Rugby Association for their news. But here in the US the MAINSTREAM MEDIA, i.e. what most people watch and what is most readily available, would be, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, HNN, MSNBC, CNBC. Of those, fox is the most right. The rest are decisively left wing or at a minimum left leaning. Talk radio is dominated by the right, I will concede that. Newsprint however is overwhelmingly dominated by the left, as are most weekly magazines, Time, Newsweek, etc.

If the media is dominated by liberals then why was the message that most americans heard as a run up to the mid-term elections that of the phoney tea party idiots? The message about smaller government, reduced spending and cutting the deficit when what mainstream americans wanted was jobs, jobs, jobs. Why was the message that the stimulus was a failure contrary to evidence? (ask all local, county and state levels of government how much they were helped by this stimulus including the hypocritical elected republicans who bashed the stimulus and then showed up for the ribbon cuttings for projects funded by it). Why was the message that the healthcare bill would add to the deficit (CBO said it would reduce it) and cost jobs (doubted by those who analyze this)? All the messaging in 2010 was conservative, liberal bashing, Obama bashing and pro-conservative agenda.

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.

Summary

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

Argument

Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." (1)

In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." (2)

So what's the real story? The fact is that conservatives have powerful friends in the media: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These giant firms have been increasingly successful in bending the media's message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative and pro-corporate agenda. Studies show that the media are eerily silent on the issues most important to workers, consumers and other citizens adversely affected by corporate behavior. Conservatives respond to these charges with (old) polls showing that most journalists are personally liberal, but these polls are outdated. New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. We'll explore more of this question below.

The Media Monopoly

Easily the most famous book on media trends in the last 15 years is Ben Bagdikian's 1983 book, The Media Monopoly. In it, he predicted that deregulation under President Reagan would allow media ownership to concentrate in fewer and fewer corporate hands. This, in turn, would result in a more pro-corporate media. Ridiculed as "alarmist" when it first came out, it has since been praised as a classic for the accuracy of its predictions. "I derive no pleasure from having been correct," writes the former dean of American journalism in his most recent edition. (3)

To be specific, the number one trend within the media today is that they are rapidly being monopolized by large corporations. Technically, the term "monopoly" is incorrect when describing today's media -- what we actually have is a shrinking media oligopoly. Most scholars use the term "media monopoly" only because that's the direction the media are headed. This essay will also use the term "media monopoly" to denote the direction, rather than the current status, of the media.

The dangers of a media monopoly

Before reviewing the statistical evidence of the media monopoly, which is undisputed even by the media themselves, we should make certain of its dangers.

The incentives for buying media organizations have long been obvious to Wall Street, which has seen vicious competition break out to capture the remaining media markets. These incentives were articulated in 1986 by Christopher Shaw, a Wall Street expert who has handled over 120 media mergers. Shaw told investors that media buy-outs would give them two things: "profitability" and "influence." (4)

There is nothing inherently wrong with either profitability or influence, of course -- it's just that in a monopoly, they would be abused. Consider the abuse of profits. All the usual market failures would be present in a media monopoly: the captive market, the rise in prices, the drop in quality, and the exploitation of consumers.

But significantly more troubling is the monopolization of influence. If one person controls all information, there are no opposing viewpoints so essential to keeping public and scientific debate honest. We profoundly condemn the monopoly of information by the state, as exemplified by Joseph Goebbels' "Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment." But this danger is no less evident if a single business takes over the control of all information in society. Then all information would come from a corporate point of view, silencing the voices of workers, consumers and other citizens who are affected by corporate behavior. Democracy is based on the assumption that opposing viewpoints can be heard. If corporations could somehow eliminate or control populist debate, then we will not have a true democracy.

The potential for abuse by corporate owners is obvious. Just one example was General Electric's earlier buyout of NBC News. General Electric is the 10th largest company in the United States. It is a major Defense contractor and an international player on the world market. It is sensitive to the needs of its clients, who come from all sectors of the economy. It is also a fact that GE has suffered many a scandal throughout its history. During the Great Depression, it cut the life of its light bulbs by one-third to drive up profits. It was convicted of an illegal agreement with a German arms company during World War II. It has been convicted of fraud, fixing bids, conspiracy and tax evasion. (5) In all these cases, control of a major media outlet would have given it undue influence, whether in the market or before Congress or the courts.

Furthermore, GE has played an active role in conservative politics. Shortly after the company acquired NBC, a GE executive announced that NBC should start a political action committee to contribute money to strengthen the company's influence in Washington. Failure to cooperate, the executive said, would raise questions about the employees' "dedication to the company." (6) Later the President of NBC News clarified that its news employees would be exempt from contributing, but this hardly removes the larger conflict of interest.

It should not be surprising that these parent companies, like most big businesses and all Defense contractors, are extremely conservative. They have agendas: they desire lower taxes, fewer lawsuits from the public, fewer environmental restraints, better public relations (a euphemism for less public exposure to scandals), higher profits and more effective lobbying power in Washington. Controlling public opinion would give them all these things. Ironically, it would not be necessary for a single winner to emerge from the take-over wars. Shaw maintains that by the year 2000, all U.S. media will be in the hands of six giant corporations. Most business analysts agree with him. (7) One can safely assume that they will all have the same business and political agenda.

The statistical evidence of a media monopoly

That said, let's review the evidence of a media monopoly. Ownership of all forms of media (newspapers, magazines, radio shows, network television, cable, journals, books, movies, videos and cassettes) are quickly being consolidated under a few corporations. In all, the number of dominant corporations who control any form of media has shrunk from 46 in 1981 to exactly half in 1992: 23. At the end of World War II, 80 percent of all newspapers were privately owned. Today, that figure is its exact opposite: 80 percent of all newspapers are owned by corporate chains. From 1960 to today, the number of corporations which own newspapers fell from 27 to 14. (Gannett Company, which publishes USA Today, is the largest, with 87 other daily newspapers.) From 1981 to 1988, the number of corporations who owned magazines fell from 20 to a mere three. Television news is dominated by four major networks, who control up to three-fourths of the audience share. (8)

One of the most obvious signs of this trend is that cities are becoming "one-newspaper towns." One of the persons most responsible for buying out competing newspapers is Rupert Murdoch, who says that his worldwide strategy is acquisition and takeovers. (9) Another is Allen Neuharth, chairman of Gannett Company, who told a group of Wall Street investors that "No Gannett newspaper has any direct competition." (10)

Since the 1992 edition of The Media Monopoly, media mergers of unprecedented scale have continued unabated -- but there's no discussion of the dangers involved, or the controversy it should represent. Disney has since bought ABC, Westinghouse has bought CBS, and Time-Warner has bought Turner Broadcasting System. Congress cleared out the remaining obstacles for still more media mergers by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Headlines in the media blared about the bill's attempt to censor pornography on the Internet, but otherwise remained completely silent about its deregulation of anti-trust laws for the media. For this bit of censorship, the Telecom Act was voted the number one censored story of 1995 by Project Censored.

The cable industry offers a perfect snapshot of media monopolization and all its dangers. After the cable television industry was deregulated in 1984, prices soared, quality of programming plummeted, and cable systems began selling their channels in indivisible blocs that prevented subscribers from voting with their dollars. From 1986 to 1990, the cost of basic service rose 56 percent -- twice the rate of inflation. (11) The problem? Growing monopolization, at several levels. There are now 11,000 cable systems across the nation, almost all of them exercising a local monopoly over their municipal region. They in turn are controlled by a handful of national companies. By far the most dominant is the phenomenally expanding TCI, which is a gatekeeper over national programming. Its owner, John Malone, owns all or part of 25 national or regional cable channels, including Turner Broadcasting. (12) Because there is little or no competition, cable programmers search for the cheapest shows to produce. Quality of programming has sunk to network TV levels. It seems that each year, Congress passes yet another cable deregulation bill. Every single one has been touted to "open competition" and "benefit the consumer." But the concentration of power in the cable industry keeps getting worse, not better.

Another source of pro-corporate bias: advertising

Owning and monopolizing the media is only one way that corporations introduce a pro-corporate bias into the media. An equally pervasive one is advertising.

Most media depend on the sale of corporate advertisements to stay alive. Without advertisements, a medium would have to charge its customers a higher up-front price for its product. But that would kill its circulation, since competitors would offer up-front prices that were considerably lower or even free. Of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch. The consumer actually pays a higher price for the advertiser's products, which then go to the media.

Advertising has been criticized on many grounds: it is inefficient, wastes time and resources, is terribly unpleasant, stifles free market competition, helps sustains long-term advantages to giant corporations, and makes people buy products for psychological reasons instead of economic ones like cost, quality and demand. Entire essays could be written on each of these shortcomings, but what we will address is how advertising injects a pro-corporate bias into the media.

The media generally cannot run stories that offend corporations, because sponsors will threaten to pull their advertising dollars. In 1980, the liberal staff at Mother Jones debated over whether or not to publish a series of articles linking cigarettes to cancer. The editors knew that the tobacco industry would punish them by canceling their lucrative advertising contracts, which the young, struggling magazine desperately needed. Mother Jones stuck to its principles and printed the articles anyway; and, just as expected, the tobacco companies angrily pulled their ads.

And whereas a parent corporation like GE has a particular set of interests that NBC would never report against, advertisers have general interests that reporters would never tilt against either. A publisher never knows who the next advertiser might be; therefore it's good policy not to write offensive things about any corporation, or even corporate culture in general. No news organization could attract advertisers if it persistently attacked the corporate agenda.

Evidence of pro-corporate bias in the media

Obviously, parent corporations and advertising sponsors have the ability and incentive to twist journalists' arms, but do they actually? The answer is both yes and no. Media owners and advertisers are generally prevented from interfering in the editor's office because of 75 years of improving journalist ethics. Back in the 1920s, the blatant manipulation of the news by owners resulted in "Yellow Journalism" and the sort of corruption so brilliantly captured by the movie Citizen Kane. But that does not mean that owners today still do not exert influence over their editors. Ben Bagdikian writes that owners let the editors operate freely until a story arises that affects the company's interest. Then one of two forms of influence will be exerted. It may be a direct order, as when the Chairman of General Electric called the President of NBC News after the 1987 stock market crash and told him not to use words in their reporting that would adversely affect GE stock. (13) (The NBC News president claimed he did not pass on the order.)

Or it may be an unspoken agreement. Editors and writers know what their employer's interests are, and they protect them without being told. Why? Either to demonstrate their dedication to the company, thus protecting their future promotions, or simply because they fear being fired. Unfortunately, it is a frequent practice for owners to fire journalists who, knowingly or not, write against their particular interests. Just one of many examples is the owner of the Dallas Morning News, who fired Earl Golz for writing a story about an imminent bank failure that outraged the owners of the Abilene National Bank. Golz' story proved true -- the bank crashed a few weeks later -- but Golz' was not rehired. (14) To be sure, other journalists witnessing his fate would practice self-censorship whenever it came to protecting their owner's interests.

Whether owners interfere explicitly or implicitly in the newsroom, evidence of it continually surfaces. Here are just a few examples:

• During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies. (15)
• Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC's top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards. Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries. (16)
• Walter Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, used his paper to attack a candidate who opposed action that would have benefited the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Reason: he was the single largest stockholder. (17)
• Rupert Murdoch's Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory. Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan. (18)
• A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business. (19)
• Journalist Elizabeth Whelan asked ten major women's magazines to run a series of articles on the rise of smoking-related diseases in women; all ten magazines refused. Reason: "I frequently wrote on health topics for women's magazines," says Whelan, "and have been told repeatedly by editors to stay away from the subject of tobacco." (20)

The above stories are anecdotal, but they show specifically how editors and advertisers interfere with the objectivity of the media. Now let's look at broader statistics. All feature the same theme: the power of editorial selection. Editors play a crucial role in deciding which stories get covered and which ones don't. This is an important tool for shaping and influencing the nation's debate. Due to the abuse of this power, three giant trends have grown within the media as big business continues to monopolize it:

The first is that pro-labor stories are almost completely absent, even though blue-collar workers make up the vast majority of this nation's work force, and indeed the news media's audience. The majority of stories should include the conditions they work under, the challenges they face, the wages they earn and the hazards that maim and kill them. But the media is curiously silent on nearly all these natural topics. In 1989, researcher John Tasini studied ABC, NBC and CBS for a year to see how much coverage was devoted to workers' issues, including the minimum wage, workplace safety and child care. He found it amounted to a dismal 2.3 percent of all coverage. In fact, all three networks carried only 13 minutes of coverage on workplace safety for the entire year! The worst offender was NBC Nightly News, who devoted a total of 40 seconds to worker safety. This is not surprising, since its parent corporation, GE, has an appalling work safety record. (21) Elsewhere, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 53 percent of the nation's newspaper editors were pro-management, but only 8 percent were pro-labor. (22) The pro-corporate bias of our media is one of the most important reasons for the decline of labor unions in this country.

The second trend is the increasingly conservative selection of experts to be quoted in the news. Think tanks are ideal places to find such "experts." (True academics have a low opinion of think tanks, which are simply propaganda outlets for the giant corporate foundations that pour millions of dollars into them.) Think tanks are highly partisan, and the quality of their work is mediocre at best. Why? They lack the checks and balances which keep academia honest, such as peer review, the scientific conference and independence of funding. Unfortunately, it has been a growing trend in journalism to rely on think tanks more than academia. That's because think tanks have conducted an aggressive campaign to become media friendly, packaging their findings in nice sound-bites and faxed press releases. This is in stark contrast to academics, who have little interest, expertise, funding or organization to conduct mass media relations. And this is not to mention that corporate-owned media organizations are encouraged to gather their facts from corporate-funded think tanks.

So, how many times do journalists quote conservative think tanks over liberal ones? The media watchdog FAIR conducted a Nexus search of major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts for 1995, and came up with the following answer:

Total Number of Think Tank Citations in Major Newspapers, Radioand TV transcripts: (23)Conservative 7792Centrist 6361Progressive 1152

Although there are far more conservative think tanks than liberal ones in the first place, reporters could easily balance the facts if they wanted to simply by consulting academics at universities.

The third trend is that when news organizations cover corruption in Washington, it is always politicians who get the blame, and never corporations. This is one reason why Americans hate politics, why voter anger has been rising over the last 20 years, why the people's trust in Congress has reached its lowest point in half a century. But this one-sided anger is illogical. The politicians are getting the money from somewhere. Big business, of course, need not fear being exposed as the ones donating the money and requesting the shady favors in the first place; after all, a watchdog doesn't bite its master. It is interesting to note that when President Clinton became embroiled in a campaign contribution scandal on the eve of his re-election, the corporate media made sure to choose a foreign corporate lobbyist to blame.

To be sure, if Westinghouse were to get caught laundering millions in drug money, CBS News would report the story in a straightforward fashion. But otherwise, the searchlight is directed away from business and onto politicians. Even once liberal news magazines like 60 Minutes, which proudly took on corporate criminals in the 70s, has considerably toned down its approach towards the Fortune 500 today, and concentrates on everyone else.

The personal biases of journalists

The claim that the U.S. has a "liberal media" began with a book called The Media Elite, by S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter. Their 1980 survey of journalists revealed that journalists were indeed much more liberal than the rest of America, a point which no one disputed. However, the authors then went on to make a second claim: that these liberal journalists inserted their own personal bias into the news. This second claim has not withstood academic scrutiny. (Click on <A href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-oldliberalmedia.htm">the following link to see why.)

However, that debate is archaic today, because new studies show that today's journalists are more centrist than anything else. However, those who are not centrists identify themselves more frequently as conservatives on economic issues, and more frequently as liberals on social issues.

The following study was conducted by David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth University. (24) He targeted Washington bureau chiefs and Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy. His questionnaires went to 78 national news organizations, with an emphasis on the following 14:

1. ABC News /ABC Radio

2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News

3. Bloomberg News

4. CNN

5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services

6. Los Angeles Times

7. NBC News

8. New York Times

9. Reuters America, Inc.

10. Time

11. USA Today/USA Weekend

12. Wall Street Journal

13. Washington Post

14. Washington Times

The 141 journalists and bureau chiefs who responded were an excellent cross-section of the target group as a whole. When their positions on political issues were tallied up, this was the result:

Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?

Left 30%Center 57%Right 9% Other 5%

Q#23. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?

Left 11% Center 64%Right 19%Other 5%

What caused journalists to shift over the last 15 years from liberal attitudes to centrist ones, even conservative ones on economic issues?

One answer, of course, is that the media's parent corporations began hiring less liberal journalists. But another answer has to be the exploding salaries of celebrity journalists. It is a common observation in political science that receiving a higher income tends to make a person more economically conservative.

Between 1980 and 1995, the salaries of celebrity journalists sky-rocketed. In 1995, Diane Sawyer made $8 million; Ted Koppel, $5 million; David Brinkley, $1 million; George Will, $1.5 million; Cokie Roberts, $700,000. (25) These salaries place them in America's richest 1 percent (actually, the top one-twentieth of the top 1 percent). Keep in mind that the top 1 percent saw their wealth explode during the 80s, eventually coming to own 40 percent of America's wealth. These celebrity journalists live and work in centers of power like Washington D.C and New York City, where they rub elbows with the nation's political and business elite.

Says PBS producer Stephen Talbot:

• "There's an Our Town quality to official Washington -- a very small, incestuous world of politicians and press who are now almost interchangeable. The press was once known as ink-stained wretches. But in their tuxedos and evening gowns at an event like the White House Correspondents dinner, they resemble nothing more than the politicians they cover." (26)

Newsweek columnist Jonathon Alter concedes:

• "I'm a part of this so-called overclass -- and so are my bosses and many of my colleagues at Newsweek and elsewhere in the national media. There's no point in denying it." (27)

And all evidence shows that celebrity journalists identify with the various elites they cover. Recently, ABC weathered a scandal (due to lack of coverage, naturally) in which its journalists were criticized for accepting huge speaking fees before big business groups. It turns out that corporate lobbyists cultivate "friendships" not only with politicians, but TV journalists as well. They were paying Cokie Roberts, David Brinkley and Sam Donaldson between $20,000 and $35,000 per 40-minute speech. David Gergen collected over $700,000 from speaker fees in one 16-month period alone. In general, the speeches have been very friendly to big business, and that is why lobbyists were willing to pay such huge honoraria. In a 1992 speech, for example, David Brinkley described Bill Clinton's tax increase on the rich as a "sick, stupid joke." (This was even before he called Clinton "boring" on the eve of his 1996 reelection.) In July, 1994, ABC finally advised its journalists to stop accepting speaker fees from corporations and lobbying groups. The decision was immediately protested by Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, David Brinkley, Brit Hume and others. (28)

The ironic thing is that Cokie Roberts is a Democrat, as are many of her colleagues. Again, this underscores the fact that inside the Beltway, a "liberal" is often no more than a moderate conservative.

Does personal bias result in media bias?

Granted, journalists have their own personal viewpoints, ranging from liberal to conservative. But what does that really mean? Very little, it turns out.

The idea that the media's message can be boiled down to the personal biases of individual journalists is profoundly and absurdly reductionist. The media is composed of individuals, yes, but it is also composed of institutions, organizational structures, traditions, rules, social and economic forces, and interest groups applying pressure. And all these things affect the media's message in profound ways.

For example, consider the rule of balanced sources. Under normal circumstances, journalists get both sides of the story. This is a basic rule of thumb that every journalist knows, and is taught in every Journalism 101 class. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative; it is widely considered unethical to present only one side of the story. The only time that this ethic seems to break down is when a conflict of interest arises between journalists and the corporations that pay their paychecks.

But this ethic doesn't stop corporations from "legitimately" biasing the media towards conservatism. All they have to do is hire pundits who are mostly conservatives themselves. Pundits enjoy a unique role in the media, in that they are expected to be biased. In fact, the more outrageous their opinions, the better. Whereas a reporter must stick to the facts and report both sides, pundits are free to interpret them any way they want. What this means is that criticism of reporters for their alleged liberal bias is actually misplaced. It is really the political spectrum of pundits that we should worry about.

Unfortunately, there are far more conservative pundits than progressive ones:

Conservative pundits: Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds of other conservative radio talk-show hosts.

Centrists (self-described): Sam Donaldson, Mark Shields, Michael Kinsley, Morton Kondrake, Al Hunt, Jack Germond, Hodding Carter.

Progressive pundits: Jim Hightower (cancelled), Barbara Eirenreich, Molly Ivins.

Conservatives freely admit to this bias themselves. Here's Adam Myerson, editor of the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review:

• "[Pundit] journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives… We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college… If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual… because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns." (29)

In fact, no one can deny the extreme right-wing bias of the pundit spectrum after listening to talk radio. Conservatives have captured an entire media arm and devoted it almost exclusively to corporate and conservative propaganda. Liberal talk-show hosts are almost non-existent. Conservatives blame this on the low ratings of liberal talk show hosts, but this is a curious argument, since liberals form the largest political school of thought in America. The fact is that corporate owners simply do not promote liberal talk show hosts. When ABC first hired Rush Limbaugh, they spent millions promoting him, ghost-writing his books and arranging appearances on Nightline, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour and even Phil Donahue. No liberal talk show host has received anything even remotely resembling this kind of promotion. It's just another way that corporations ensure the conservative slant of the media.

The Fairness Doctrine

The United States once had a law which attempted to balance viewpoints in radio and television: the Fairness Doctrine. Created by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, this law required broadcasters to cover controversial issues with some opposing views. It required neither the internal balancing of programs, nor for equal time, nor for all opinions to be heard. It merely prevented broadcasters from airing relentless, one-sided propaganda.

An example of the Fairness Doctrine in action was the ABC movie The Day After. This anti-nuclear war movie angered many conservatives like Henry Kissinger, who believe that the willingness to use nuclear weapons is actually a deterrence to war. However, Kissinger got a chance to respond to the movie on national television, for Nightline followed the movie with a group discussion that included Kissinger and other conservative pundits. The reason why ABC was so even-handed, presenting both a liberal and conservative viewpoint on nuclear war, was because the Fairness Doctrine required them to.

Another example was controversial state ballot measures. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both viewpoints of any initiative. It is interesting to note that since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, studies show that the media's treatment of many initiatives has been heavily one-sided. (30)

Why the Fairness Doctrine? Why not just let the market produce what it wants? The market works fine in the case of print media, because almost anyone can afford to print something, even if it's just a flyer. However, this is not the case for radio and television. In the 1920s, the airwaves were unregulated, and became so overcrowded with signals that they jammed each other. The Federal Communication Commission therefore started issueing licenses for broadcasters to use certain radio frequencies. Because the spectrum is so limited, however, there can only be a limited number of broadcasters. Diversity of opinion cannot be achieved by adding more stations, but only by creating it within stations. This is the rationale for the Fairness Doctrine.

Up until the late 1980s, the Fairness Doctrine enjoyed broad popular support, ranging from the left-wing ACLU to the right-wing National Rifle Association and Accuracy In Media. In 1987, Congress considered a bill that would inscribe the Fairness Doctrine in federal law. It passed with overwhelming support in the House (3 to 1) and the Senate (nearly 2 to 1). Even such far-right legislators as Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms voted in favor of it. (31)

Unfortunately, Reagan vetoed the law, and then went a step further: his FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine completely. Reagan had staffed the FCC with corporate media types who were bent on deregulating the media at all costs, and were thus hostile to the Fairness Doctrine. It was the equivalent of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. Shortly afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives were free to take over AM talk radio, without fear of giving equal time to liberals.

Interestingly, media corporations have fought all subsequent attempts by Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine -- a sure sign that they have an incentive to avoid balanced coverage. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to slander it the "Hush Rush Law." (In fact, Rush would not be silenced, nor even forced to internally balance his program.) Today, conservatives have done a complete 180 on the Fairness Doctrine: their one-time support has turned into angry opposition.

This speaks volumes about the true bias of the media. It also shows conservative media criticism to be highly incoherent. If the media were truly as liberal as they claim, they would jump at the chance to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, for it would give them a voice they didn't have before. The fact that they oppose it so vigorously proves that they know when they have a good thing, and don't want to give it up.

A solution: public media

The manipulation of the media by the interests that control it proves the need for major reform. There are a number of good suggestions, but by far the best is expanding public media. This is media supported neither by advertisements nor parent corporations, but by the taxpayers themselves. With only the American people to answer to, public journalists are free to investigate businesses as aggressively as they do government. In fact, journalists in public media should be elected, just as politicians are elected. The media prides itself on being the "Fourth Estate" or "fourth branch of government." We should recognize this fact by making it true.

Of course, the private media would be free to continue operating as before. The creation of a truly public media would be just one more player on the block -- but a player that has no secret agenda and is more responsible to the people.

Europe has a much stronger tradition of public media than the U.S., and it has worked superbly for them. In the U.S., our experiment with public media is limited to National Public Radio and National Public Television -- both underfunded, both under severe attack by the Republican party. With the GOP threatening to cut off its funding, NPR has recently backed off its criticism of corporations. It should also be noted that our "public" media depends rather heavily on corporate donations. This is a mistake. Progressives argue that the U.S. should strengthen its public media, and institute reforms that insulate it from all political and economic influence. And only then will we have a media that truly operates "without fear or favor."

And we all know that corporate america supports republicans and conservatives.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The protests in Wisconsin are having a positive effect. The republican governor of Florida said he is not planning similar legislation and the republican governor of Indiana is putting his on the back burner. Good idea, guys, you got the message loud and clear - the middle class working people are not going to be the scapegoats for your fiscal problems, caused in part by tax cuts ($200 million in Wisconsin) and other fiscal problems they didn't create.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Why Americans Need Unions Now More Than Ever

'Why Americans Need Unions Now More Than Ever', '

How often do you hear someone say, "Oh, at one time unions were a good thing, but not anymore"?

The premise of this argument is that once upon a time there were robber barons stalking the land, and it was a fine thing that workers organized into unions to prevent them from hiring children and paying employees a pittance as they labored in sweatshops working fifteen-hour days.

Now, goes the narrative, in the age of high-tech industrial campuses and "information" workers, unions are "obsolete."

Next time you hear that argument from an otherwise rational person, give them a good shake and insist that they wake up from their dream world.

The central problem facing the American economy -- and our society -- is the collapse of the American middle class. The incomes of the middle class Americans, and those who aspire to be middle class -- 90% of Americans -- have been stagnant for almost three decades. This trend, which was briefly interrupted during the Clinton Administration, is the chief defining characteristic of our recent economic history.

This stagnation of middle class incomes has not happened because our economy has failed to grow over this period. In fact, real (adjusted for inflation) per capita gross domestic product (GDP) increased more than 80% over the period between 1975 and 2005. In the last ten years, before the Great Recession, it increased at an average rate of 1.8% per year. That means that if the benefits of economic growth were equally spread throughout our society, everyone should have been almost 20% better off (with compounding) in 2008 than they were in 1998.

But they weren't better off. In fact, median family income actually dropped in the years before the recession. It went from $52,301 (in 2009 dollars) in 2000 to $50,112 in 2008. And, of course it continued to drop as the recession set in.

How is that possible?

Was it -- as the Right likes to believe -- because of the growth of the Federal Government? Nope. In fact, the percentage of GDP going to federal spending actually dropped during the last four years of the Clinton Administration. When Bush took office it began to increase again as the Republicans increased spending on wars. Over the last 28 years, federal spending has averaged about 20.9% of the GDP and varied within a range of only about 5%, with the high being in 1983 (in the middle of the Reagan years) and the low in 2000 before Bush took office. It has never even come close to the 43.6% of GDP that it consumed during World War II in 1943 and 1944, or the 41.9% it consumed in 1945. The percent of GDP that goes to Federal spending went up in 2009 and 2010 -- but that was mainly because the economy shrunk on the one hand, and a major, temporary stimulus bill was need on the other to prevent another Great Depression.

Was it because taxes have skyrocketed? No again. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, the median household tax burden actually dropped from 24.9% in 2000 to 22.4% in 2009.

Was it that labor became less productive? No. In fact, there has been a major gap between the increase in the productivity of our workforce and the increase in their wages. Even when wages were improving at the end of the Clinton years, productivity went up 2.5% per year and median hourly wages went up only 1.5%.

From 2000 to 2004 worker productivity exploded by an annual rate of 3.8% but hourly wages went up only 1% and median family income actually dropped .9%.

The bottom line is that people who work for a living (most of us) are getting a smaller and smaller share of the nation's economic pie.

In August of 2006, the New York Times reported that Federal Reserve study showed that, "Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross national product since the government began recording data in 1947; while corporate profits have climbed to their highest shares since the 1960."

So the answer to the question is simple. Virtually all of the increase in our gross domestic product over the ten years before the Great Recession went to the wealthiest 2% of the population.

These changes in income distribution are not the result of "natural laws." They are the result of systems set up by human beings that differentially benefit different groups in the society.

Economist Paul Krugman has summarized the history of income distribution in America.

At the beginning of the Great Depression, income inequality, and inequality in the control of wealth, was very high. Then came the great compression between 1929 and 1947. Real wages for workers in manufacturing rose 67% while real income for the richest 1% of Americans fell 17%. This period marked the birth of the American middle class. Two major forces drove these trends -- unionization of major manufacturing sectors, and the public policies of the New Deal.

Then came the postwar boom, 1947 to 1973. Real wages rose 81% and the income of the richest 1% rose 38%. Growth was widely shared, but income inequality continued to drop.

From 1973 to 1980, everyone lost ground. Real wages fell 3% and income for the richest 1% fell 4%. The oil shocks, and the dramatic slowdown in economic growth in developing nations, took their toll on America and the world economy.

Then came what Krugman calls "the New Gilded Age." Beginning in 1980, there were big gains at the very top. The tax policies of the Reagan administration magnified income redistribution. Between 1980 and 2004, real wages in manufacturing fell 1%, while real income of the richest one percent rose 135%.

The single largest contributor to this stagnation of middle class incomes has been the corporate attack on organized labor. The percentage of private sector workers in unions has shrunk from 35 percent to 7%. The exception has been the public sector, where 35% of teachers, firemen and public service workers now have access to collective bargaining.

The last thirty years shows conclusively that the "competitive market" -- absent collective bargaining -- simply does not assure that everyday employees share in the fruits of increased productivity or economic growth. Left to their own devices, CEO's will pad their own massive incomes and seek higher returns for the stockholders that hire them. That is especially true in an economic world that is globalized -- where CEO's can often hire labor at pennies on the dollar of what they would have to pay in the U.S. -- if it were not for union contracts.

Collective bargaining is the only way to level the playing field -- to assure that increases in American productivity are widely shared throughout the economy.

And when they are not shared, that is not only bad for the everyday family. It is horrible for the economy. Economies are in balance if productivity gains result in commensurately higher salaries for employees that allow them to buy the larger number of products and services that the productivity increases allow corporations to manufacture and sell. If they don't have increased buying power -- if all of the income growth goes to the top 2% -- then a demand deficit will inevitably develop that will lead to a recession -- or depression. That gap in buying power can be filled for a while -- as it was in the early 2000's -- with greater consumer debt. But after while the bubble bursts and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

We saw that movie -- we know the ending. And it was mainly a result of the disparity between increased worker productivity and increased worker income. It was the direct consequence of the corporate attack on the right to join a union.

American workers -- and the American economy -- need unions now more than ever. They are the only means by which we can guarantee widely-shared economic growth. And as it turns out, sustained, long-term economic growth requires widely-shared economic growth. Unions are the only way to prevent the collapse of the American middle class.

That's why the fight in Wisconsin is so fundamental. Governor Scott Walker and his corporate supporters want to destroy labor unions -- to eliminate the right to choose a union. They want a low wage economy. They want the freedom to pay people as little as possible at their companies -- and in the government.

They believe if they can break public employee unions, that they can ultimately eliminate organized labor as a meaningful force in the American economy -- and in American politics.

Walker's action are a case study in right wing philosophy. He cut state taxes on corporations and then demanded that middle class state workers take cuts in wages and benefits in order to pay for the corporate tax cuts.

Luckily regular voters have begun to smell the coffee. Nationally a new poll shows that 61% of voters reject the kind of proposals that Walker is trying to cram down the throats of the people of Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin itself a new poll by Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research found that a majority of Wisconsin voters disapprove of Walker's job performance and give him a negative favorability of 39 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable. In contrast 62 percent of voters offer a favorable view of public employees and only 11 percent unfavorable. And 53 percent rate labor unions favorably with only 31 percent unfavorable.

Over half of the voters oppose the agenda offered by Walker and Republicans in the legislature. Only 43 percent favor it. There is a major intensity gap as well, with 39 percent strongly opposing their proposals and only 28 percent strongly supporting them.

In the end, the Republican attack on the right to choose a union completely ignores what is good for everyday Americans -- and for the American economy. It is only concerned with what is good for the narrow economic and political interests of a tiny fraction of our population. That's why they must be defeated. That's why the battle of Wisconsin is really a battle for the survival of the American middle class.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

If the media were really liberal, these facts and the message they convey would have been repeated over and over again until every middle class american could recite them, but they weren't because the conservative media was too busy giving voice to the republican and tea party lies.