Media Bias & The Corporate Concentration

"There are 1,500 conservative radio talk-show hosts. You have Fox News. You have the Internet, where all the successful sites are conservative. The ability to reach people with our point of view is like nothing we have ever seen before."

- The late Republican activist Paul Weyrich speaking to advisers of former President Bush on the capabilities of the American media.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Verbal Kint in Bryan Singer's "The Usual Suspects"

In 1949 the Federal Communications Commission adopted what was known as the "Fairness Doctrine." Under the guidelines set forth in the doctrine broadcasters were viewed as "public trustees" with the responsibility of providing the equal exchange of ideas on particularly controversial topics of importance. Stations would be required to allow ample discussion for contrasting points of view, in such manner that the FCC could refuse a license renewal to stations found unbalanced.

A 1969 Supreme Court ruling upheld the importance of the Fairness Doctrine stating that without the doctrine, "station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed." In 1974 the FCC issued a report stating the Fairness Doctrine neither detracted from nor prevented the coverage of important public issues, but rather was "the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest - the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license."

During Ronald Reagan's first year in office industry deregulation became the status quo. As a result media corporations were no longer limited to an ownership max of only seven stations. Under Reagan's newly appointed FCC chairman Mark Fowler, entities could now own up to twelve stations while guidelines surrounding the number of advertisements per hour were effectively eliminated. Fowler, an outspoken opponent of the Fairness Doctrine stated "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." In other words, allow the dollar have its day and truth be conveyed in other ways.

By a 2-1 verdict in 1986 (with Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia voting in favor), an appeals court stated the Fairness Doctrine to be "...FCC policy which the FCC can eliminate," and in 1987 the FCC thus determined in a unanimous decision the Fairness Doctrine was "contrary to the public interest" and was thereby eliminated.

In reaction to this ruling, Congress by as much as 3 to 1 in a measure of bipartisan support passed a bill to make the Fairness Doctrine law, thereby ensuring equal representation in reporting and broadcasting. Votes in favor of this bill Congressmen included Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), Rep. Newt Gingrich, and Sen. Jesse Helms, . Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill.

Shortly after the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh began syndicating his 3-year old show and within a matter of weeks 56 stations had picked up the show syndicating to over 600 stations in four years. Limbaugh's program was the fastest spreading of any talk show in history. In light of Limbaugh's success others imitated his format effectively creating upward of 900 programs by 1993.

And in a further measure of deregulation, Bill Clinton in 1996 signed the Telecommunications Act allowing larger companies to own, once again, larger and larger portions of the airwaves. Though where the deregulation of the 80's applied primarily to radio, this act applied more specifically to television.

With larger corporations legally allowed to purchase and own an increasing number of stations, and the common knowledge that big business sides with Republicans/conservatives, it should come as no surprise that an overwhelming number of these newly created programs were of a right-leaning nature. Chief among them include Rush, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Armstrong Williams, The Black Panther, and Dr. Laura Schlesinger.

I contend that Eric Alterman was correct when he stated "You're only as liberal as the guy who owns you." And the most brilliant maneuver the media owners have pulled is convincing the rest of us that the media is overtly liberal.

Answering Questions on Health Care Reform

So a buddy of mine from the Salem Gathering wrote a damn fine piece on the pending health care reform bill along with the numerous questions that have surfaced in its wake. Paul writes with clarity and reason, and thus I'm listing it below. Hope you enjoy.


"We all know that no legislation is perfect, but with all of the furor surrounding the current health reform bill, you’d think it will be the destroyer of worlds. As a Republican friend of mine commented, opponents of reform are “playing on people's fear of uncertainty." So, to stay grounded, let’s keep the facts in view as we walk through some objections together.

Here are the topics in order. I’ve tried to be brief, so if you don’t see your question or wish to chase a question further, just let me know.

-Cost?
-Abortion & Euthanasia?
-Public Plan = crappy/government-run HMO?
-Won’t I be forced off my insurance and onto government insurance?
-Is the public option really necessary?

(Or, if you’d rather just skip all this and have a good laugh, here’s a Daily Show clip.)

Cost: can we afford it?

The House bill costs just over $1 trillion over ten years, but pays for all its reforms. (So, it would NOT add $1 trillion to the deficit, a claim already debunked). This is the strongest reform bill under consideration, so it’s proof that we can pay for real reform. The only question is: is it important enough for us to make it a budgetary priority?

Abortion & euthenasia: government death panels?

1. The House bill does NOT allow federal funds to be used for abortions. The plans on the exchange may cover an abortion but must use funds from the beneficiary, not government subsidies, to do so. Pro-life lawmakers intend to try and restrict this even further as discussions continue.


2. Many conservatives themselves have already repudiated talk of euthanasia or death panels as bogus “scare tactics.” So has AARP. The coverage for end-of-life planning is in most private plans and was introduced into the bill by a pro-life Republican from Georgia! In his own words, it “empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.”

Will the public option essentially be a barebones HMO run by a government health commissioner?

No, for three key reasons:

1. Page 27 of the House bill clearly states the benefits level in the exchange is to be “equivalent to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage," not to be determined by the health commissioner. All the commissioner does is make sure that insurers in the exchange are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations (similar to how the government already does so with employer-based insurance).


2. What the bill actually specifies for the public option are “medical homes," which are recommended because they provide coordinated care (something shown to enhance care). But they are optional anyways. Choice retained.


3. Unlike HMOs, there would be protection against receiving poor care from the lump sum per patient payment method. As Tim Foley points out, "[t]he practice that’s using the medical home model has to prove that it’s offering coordinated care through establishing clear guidelines and backing that up with hard data, preferably through electronic medical records.”

Won’t we all be forced off our private insurance and onto government insurance?

This is the lynchpin in the fears of many, so let’s take a good look:

1. First and foremost, there is no provision in the legislation that calls for this. If an employer is small enough to be allowed on the exchange, they may choose to switch to a plan there, but that would be a business decision made by the employer, not the government. The only changes that could be made to an existing insurance plan would be to upgrade it to meet a standard level of benefits. So the only possible way to get to the doomsday scenario is to assume it would follow as a necessary side effect: businesses dropping insurance in droves to the point of total collapse.


2. Ah, but an important safeguard in the bill is the employer mandate that requires businesses to provide insurance to their employees. So not only does the legislation not call for a forcible removal of employer-based insurance, there is a mechanism that guards against it!


3. Plus, the single precedent we have shows mandates are effective: in Massachusetts, which has a similar exchange but a weaker employer mandate, employer-based coverage still grew rather than declined.


4. But don’t take my word for it. The CBO’s official estimates rebuff the notion that there would be a collapse of employer-based insurance. Instead, they show a net increase of persons insured by their employers by 3 million! In fact, they predict only about 10 million would even be on the public option (since, again, there would be private plans in the exchange as well). And remember, when it comes to legislative numbers, the CBO = umpire.


5. By contrast, the wilder numbers used by critics come from clearly biased sources. The main example is the "120 million" number from Mark Shields & the Lewin Group, which is owned by a major health insurance company: UnitedHealth! (This has been exposed many times, but even Business Week is calling attention to this, and they are “not exactly a bastion of anti-capitalist sentiment” (to use Al Pacino’s words from The Insider).

Thus, as even many reform critics point out, the notion that this reform will somehow cause an inexorable slide into government insurance for all seems quite unfounded. This means even if the public option ends up being the worst insurance plan ever to be crapped out, it’s NOT YOUR PROBLEM if you or your small business don’t sign up for it. It’ll be the “problem” of persons who would otherwise not have any insurance. (So, really it would be the solution to their problem).

Yes, but why must there be a public option at all? Couldn’t regulations have the same effect?

Well, this question may deserve fuller treatment, but the short answer is: not likely. The single example in the US of a regulated health insurance exchange is again, Massachusetts, where there is no public option and unsurprisingly, insurance costs fluctuate greatly between plans. As pointed out by a retired World Bank employee I know, some industries like utilities (and to a lesser degree the financial industry) are more easily regulated than health insurance because they are much more centralized. The public option would organically induce competitive practices by its mere presence in the exchange, but even if it fails to do so for some reason, it would itself be an affordable option, available everywhere. Thus, it is the best way to ensure price control, given the health insurance industry’s muscle and lack of scruples.

So, I guess I just don't find most of these or other objections to be terribly grounded. As such, I am running out of concrete reasons to oppose reform that, as we have seen, is sorely needed."

Harry Potter 6 - A Somewhat Brief Film Review

2 of 4 Stars, or a solid C if we're grading it.

***Loaded with Spoilers***

The movie versions of the Harry Potter films have been hit and miss as they've played out on the big screen. While some have been heaps better than others (Curon's "Azkaban"), no one really expects any of these flicks to top Rowling's delightful 7-volume series. What has made some of the film adaptations utter flops is when the screenwriters try and squeeze a 7 to 800 page book into a 2 1/2 hour film. See Newell's "Goblet of Fire'). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince however, fails on an altogether different level.

For those who have seen the movies and haven't read the books I'm going to outline the major differences with HBP. And don't get me wrong here. I'm not a purist with regard to the films portraying exactly what the books dictate. But I do expect the characterizations and plot and subtexts to hold up under scrutiny. Let's move on to the tower sequence at the end of the film.

It's important to understand that in the book, during Harry and Dumbledore's departure and return from the Cave, Dumbledore asks Harry to wear his invisibility cloak. They actually don't disapparate from the Hogwart's grounds as the film suggests, but they travel to Madam Rosmerta's where they are magically whisked away. This difference makes sense from a filming perspective if you're trying to shave off some time. When they return to Madam Rosmerta's following the incident at the cave, they see the dark mark cast over Hogwarts and hurry back on their brooms, with Harry again under the invisibility cloak. Arriving on top the tower set in under the greenish light of the dark mark, Dumbledore, severely weakened, instructs Harry to go and get Snape. As Harry leaves to do so, still under the invisibility cloak, Draco Malfoy bursts through the door on the other end of the tower. Harry draws his wand but is immediately immobilized by Dumbledore just before Malfoy disarms Dumbledore with the "Expelliarmus" defense. Harry is left frozen under the invisibility cloak, yet with his wand drawn, this shows was certainly prepared to fight.

In the film, heaven only knows why they chose not to put Harry under the invisibility cloak, and neither to freeze him during the encounter with the Snape and the Death Eaters. What we get instead is a rather pained-looking Snape who utters "Avada Kedavra," killing Dumbledore, and Harry...wait for it....wait for it....does nothing. We see a shot of him just staring ga-ga and doing jack shit while Dumbledore falls off the side of the tower.

Now, if you enjoyed the book series, you certainly understand that Dumbledore immobilizes Harry because he knows that Harry would jump to the ready at the opportunity to fight. Had Dumbledore not done so in this particular instance Harry would more than likely have gotten himself killed. Honestly, what was so difficult from a filming perspective that they couldn't have included the immobilization part? It changes LOADS about Harry's character! Essentially, if Harry has the ability to fight on top the tower, and chooses NOT to, then he's a freakin' wuss.

And what was with the inclusion of that brief scene straight out of book 7? Remember where Snape tells Dumbledore that he doesn't "want to do this"? and Dumlbledore is asking too much of him? It becomes immediately obvious to the non-book readers once the film concludes that Snape really is a good guy but is begrudgingly going along with the killing of Dumbledore because Dumbledore trusted him to do this. With this of course, we lose the is-he-good or is-he-bad guessing game readers of the series were guessing right up until Chapter 33 of book 7. No need to wait for movie 7 now.

To add, Harry's distrust of Snape is something that grows sharply throughout book 6 as he learns more of Tom Riddle's backstory. This is contrasted by his growing care for and relationship with Dumbledore as a parental figure. Both of these themes culminate in the final sequence at the top of the tower - Harry seriously distrusting Snape, and Dumbledore with Severus' complete confidence. Avada Kedavra!

Oh, and we can't forget horcruxes either. Dumbledore has his hand withered at the opening of the film from destroying one of them, but still has very little clue what they are about. He and Harry seem to discover their significance together with the recovery of the Slughorn memory. This is somewhat of a tension killer in the film. And how the hell is Harry supposed to remember the horcrux in the unknowable room in movie 7 when it is Ginny who ends up hiding the half-blood prince's potions book? I suppose they could write that into Ginny's storyline but she doesn't show up much in Book 7.

The ending of the film as well...no funeral for the greatest wizard of all time? Not even a snippet? Nope. All we get is lighted wands lifted like it was a nokia commercial and, "Hey Harry, Ron's not mad at you for liking Ginny" "Oh, i'm not coming back next year." "See you next year!"

Mediocre at best. I hope someone else gets the rights to this series in 40 years and can do it some justice.

Ever "Kiss Dating Goodbye" and Regret It?

Quote from the article: "Looking back on my decision not to date until I was “ready for marriage,” it is evident that this course has led me to become a bit of a cripple when it comes to approaching women. While putting the brakes on dating was good wisdom for some of my more sexed-up peers, I could really have used a good kick in the pants to throw me into gear."

Article Here

One would think the author of this short piece certainly regretted ever committing to Joshua Harris' book of the same name . . . that is until you read the last few sentences. Which, of course, then leads one to wonder, why the hell this guy even penned a piece about the problems of giving up dating altogether, when he suggests that dating was never his biggest problem to begin with?

That's Relevant Magazine for you. Great topics, great potential, weak punch.

To be honest, I found everything but the last few sentences of this article quite fascinating and probably because it was heading towards something that needs to be address in Christian circles. Namely, that the church (moreso the evangelical church) does a pretty rotten job at preparing Christians to properly handle their sexuality both before, apart from and within marriage. (For the record, I'm pretty much speaking about the evangelical church here because that is my background. While I am an Orthodox Christian I can't speak much to how sexuality is taught in this tradition as I'm too new to the program)

I can't tell you the numerous sexual ideologies i encountered growing up as an evangelical adolescent. "True Love Waits," "Second Virginity" "I Kissed Dating Goodbye," I even had someone tell me at a study session once that the most biblical marriages are "arranged marriages". As it turns out, "True Love Waits," where teens sign a pledge to save their virginity for their marriage partner, really only delayed sexual start-up times by about 18 months. I Kissed Dating Goodbye, as noted from the article above, does a great job at not preparing you to meet and interact with the opposite sex on a relational/marriage level, and arranged marriages....gimmie me a freakin' break!

Now I'm with Scot McKnight when he states that the Bible doesn't teach "no sex before marriage," so much as the Bible teaches that sex IS marriage. So why, for something that is espoused so highly, does the church approach so incompletely? I'll never forget the day I was closing up the ropes course out in Santa Cruz California at my favorite youth camp, when an old friend walked over to converse. He was married only 2 weeks prior and had just arrived back from his honeymoon. We started chatting about how things went over the past week when he told me, "Dude...don't expect everything to work on your first night." No one had ever told me anything like this previously. No one in the church...just no one. Apparently, no one told him either. And what was supposed to be this magnificent, romantic night, as many evangelicals holding out for their wedding night expect that it will be, really just wasn't.

Obviously, i don't need to go into extravagant detail here as I hope what i've written above makes stand alone sense. But seriously, why can't churches of all traditions who espouse and glorify (in a good sense) abstinence until marriage . . . why, WHY, can't they speak more realistically toward the subject? Why not speak to what married couples, singles and divorced individuals can and will encounter and to what singles wonder about what happens in the marriage bed; to what is permissible and what isn't?

Who was it who once said that growing up they were taught that 'sex is a very bad thing that you should save only for someone you love?' I guess we really shouldn't be surprised when those outside of the church see Christianity as just another irrelevant, prudish and repressed religion.

A Heavenly Slice of Joy

I've come to believe that God's Kingdom is much larger than my evangelical upbringing once lead me to believe. More tangibly, I am rightly no longer comfortable attempting to officiate who's in and who's out. All I can truly focus upon is myself.

And I sure can't help but wonder if a little slice of Heaven isn't contained in this four and half minute clip, because i weep like a baby thinking on the Gospel every time I watch this.


Lord, grant me the strength to be an instrument in bringing a slice of Heaven here to Earth, and grant me the courage to do the work of the Gospel where it needs to be done. Amen.

The Bra Exam

Don't let the title fool you. Here's a little web commercial I had the opportunity to partake in courtesy of my one of my old camp friends, Fenway! Thanks Glen! (And thanks for pimping the video, sir gentry!)

On Mike Murrow Photography

While visiting California over the Thanksgiving holiday I had the opportunity of not only crashing with my buddy Mike, but sitting in for session of new headshots for my theater work. Seriously man, Mike did some fantastic work with these images. The session was easy, he had a full range of ideas with which to experiment and he's flexible enough to listen and work with the mood you are trying to capture. If you're in the Santa Cruz area or wish to fly him out for an event, Mr. Murrow has what it takes to get the job done. Check out his website to see weddings, photo sessions and other memorable events.



And if anyone out there is short an actor for an upcoming film, theater production or staged reading, this dude is just a shot away! mikemurrowphotography.com!