JOURNALISM: CAREERISTS?
We are beginning to wonder if there are not "SOME" journalist-careerists promoting the economic interets of the upper 3% of the population - THE RICH; at the expense of the Middle-Class, and what is best for the USA.

We will not give up THE FIRST AMENDMENT without a prolonged FIGHT!

TheLiberalNews[tm] PHILOSOPHER: "YOU SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR SILENCE IN THE FACEOF JOURNALISTIC INJUSTICE."

CAREERIST JOURNALISTS - IN ESTABLISHMENT WHOREDOM - CARE ABOUT THEIR JOBS = MONEY. CONSTITUTIONAL JOURNALISTS CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

MSNBC:
REINSTATE
KEITH OLBERMANN;
OR, ELSE!!!

REINSTAE KEITH OLBERMANN; OR, ELSE!!!

MSNBC ANCHORS: WE EXPECT YOU TO SHOW COURAGE OF CONVICTION

MSNBC ANCHORS:

STAGE A WALK-OFF

UNTILL KEITH OLBERMANN IS REINSTATED; OR, ELSE!!!

Time to Draw A Line In the Journalism Sand

Corporations and their executives do not have possess ownership

of the NEWS; NOR, the first amendment FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. We, The People retain that power. MSNBC must reinstate Keith Olbermann.

This is a test for the frequently PABLEM MAIN STREAM MEDIA. They must demonstrate to the Public they not mere establishment careerists but constitutional journalists. The time has arrived to safeguard one of their own; whether they agree with him or not. America needs this VOICE of TRUTH; as Keith Olbermann understands the truth.

We summon other alarmed citizens to unite with us in this journalistic constitutional confrontation.

Creation of:

"The 2009
Free Flow of Information Act;

Establishing

A Federal
Jounalist Shield Law."

DECEMBER 17, 2008

SPECIFIC SOLUTION BY FEDERAL STATUTE: Creation of �The 2009 Free Flow of Information Act; establishing a Journalist Federal Shield Law.�

SUGGESTED LANGUAGE

This Act hereby creates �The 2009 Free Flow of Information Act� establishing a Federal Shield Law for all journalists. Authorizing a �De Jure� and �De Facto� recognition of a legal federal journalist shield privilege. Journalists may invoked this privilege when a protected relationship exists between journalists and confidentiality promised trusted sources.

No journalist is to be held in civil contempt for asserting this legal privilege. Journalists are shielded from any obligation to testify concerning information acquired by means of journalistic activities

Prosecutors may not encroach upon this legitimate privilege.
Strict privilege applicability exists where evidence demonstrates government restriction on public access to documents and/or government business. Moreover, primary applicability is present where a journalist derives exclusive "financial gain or livelihood" from journalistic activity. Nevertheless, all individuals, acting within professional standards of journalism, enjoy some level of privilege. This determination resides within the ad hoc discretion of the Courts decided using the rule of reason.

The Public Policy in this Act precludes assaults on the First Amendment; and, guarantees the free dissemination of information within a free society dependent upon a constitutionally recognized Free Press.

DAN BALZ
JOURNALIST OF EXCELLENCE

We have tracked the career of The Washington Post's Reporter Dan Balz for many years. We consider his work the HIGHEST FORM OF PRINT JOURNALISM. He is a national "TRUSTWORTHY." One deserving the label of: honorable man for excellence in journalism. Keep up the excellent work -Dan. Now, if we only had 1,000 of his caliber, the First Amendment and The Nation would be secure.

It was refreshing to view the good-humored the old "CAPITAL GANG" on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press." Such journalistic scrutiny -- excellence -- is infrequent. Unfortunately, the old CAPITAL GANG is no longer regularly scheduled on television. An enormous intellectual loss to the American People. A nation desperately in need of their experience, guidance and wisdom.

OLBERMANN

SAVAGELY
CHEAP-SHOTS

LOU DOBBS

\ This Site has enthusiastically tracked Journalist Keith Olbermann revolutionary journalistic format. Counting him among the finest journalist of these times. [Preparing and article to honor his achievement of excellence. With the exception of being somewhat too harsh on competitor "Billy O."] However, we were shocked and dismayed at his bludgeoning of the Most Honorable Media Journalists of them all � LOU DOBBS. Accusing Lou of MADNESS and RACUISM. [Others, share the guilt. Stooping to the level of ABC�s Stossel The Fossil with comments; such as nativism � class-traitor; and, worse.] This is a reprehensible and undeserved defamation of Dobbs�s character. Regrettably, we unanimously concluded this offensive conduct could not be ignored. Since others remained silent, we believed it incumbent on us to author this

commentary.
Why is all this so important? Because the Main Stream Media has ignored the oncoming-inevitable collapse of the US economy. Initially, most Site participants doubted this. Until The Economist insisted our participants researched the empirical data. The result: conclusive proof of America�s perilous economic state of affairs. Therefore, we tabled other important missions to a primarily concentrate on dreary economics issues. To our consternation, we discovered Lou Dobbs [and his excellent staff] were unerringly correct. America [especially the Middle-Class] is deteriorating across the board. Without an economic turnaround, America�s greatness will spiral into oblivion. Depressing but true. Alarming; but, salvageable. [Please see our site map,]
Here is the conundrum. How can an honorable journalist as Keith Olbermann descend to such dishonorable conduct; even, criticizing Dobbs�s children. One: The Main Stream Media�s lack of research and understanding of basic economics. Thereby, ignoring this

inevitable crisis of an American meltdown. Two. Careerism = Fear of corporate advertisers retribution. And, three: The Theologian: "Man is weak of nature. Quick to harshly judge and accuse another of what he would not desire to be accused. Man�s inherent arrogant hypocrisy infects us all. Which requires our constant spiritual self-analysis, questioning of motivation and resultant conduct."

In our judgment, Keith remains an honorable man. Nevertheless, his mistake compels an apology. For it was beyond the bounds of ethical journalism.
Whether such apology will be forthcoming is unknown

Recently, Colin Powell had the courage to redeem his reputation. Will Keith Olbermann? Otherwise, Keith will live the remainder of his life and career with this stain.

ALL OF US

Delete

Position

Delete

Position

Delete

Position

Delete

Position

Delete

Position

Delete

Position

JOURNALISM
       J.M.'S ETHICS
       Research
       BookReviews
       Factoids
       JournalExcellence

Conspiracy-Of-Silence
Corporate Jounalism

"Bring Back Bob Schieffer to the CBS Nightly News [as co-anchor] with Katie Kurick (sp?). Nothing can replace experience and journalistic ethics. That should straighten out things."
The Cynic
And "Yes" The Rest of Us Agree
"The Kid's Right"

This is the html version of the file http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/broadcst/subs/sub152.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vr2Z5QZzk2YJ:www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/broadcst/subs/sub152.pdf+Foreign+Corporation+Investment+Ownership+U.S.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=49

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted:

foreign

corporation

investment

ownership

us

Page 1

The Economics of Media Ownership

Submission to the Productivity Commission

Inquiry into the Broadcasting Services Act 1992

August 1999

Allan Brown

School of Economics

Nathan Campus

Griffith University Q.4111

Tel: 07 3875 7398

Fax: 07 3875 3719

Email: a.brown@mailbox.gu.edu.au

Page 2

1 Main Points

• The concentration and cross-media restrictions are intended to promote media

diversity and are based on the premise that a pluralistic, democratic society benefits

from more rather than fewer information and entertainment sources.

• A diversity of media sources has beneficial effects for all types of media content,

including entertainment, but it is especially important in relation to news and

current affairs, which bear directly on the political process.

• The effects of cross-media ownership upon prices charged for media products have

not been conclusively determined by empirical economic analysis.

• The implications of digitalisation and the Internet for media diversity are most

likely over-stated by those advocating the removal of ownership restrictions.

• There are a number of writers whose views are at odds with those predicting a

substantial increase in the number of media outlets and a corresponding reduction

in the level of media ownership concentration.

• Australia already has one of the highest levels of media ownership concentration

among OECD countries.

• With wide-spread uncertainty concerning the likely consequences of the new media

technologies it is premature to remove or relax the current restrictions on media

ownership simply on the assumption or hope that the new technologies will usher

in an era of increased media diversity.

• In the short term any liberalisation of the concentration or cross-media restrictions

is more likely to bring about greater ownership consolidation with adverse

consequences for media diversity and the health of democracy in Australia.

• The main effect of the foreign ownership provisions is to restrict competition by

constraining the competitive influence of foreign owners in the Australian media

and inhibiting its potential for greater plurality and diversity.

Recommendations

• The existing limitations on the extent of ownership within commercial television

and radio should not be removed or relaxed.

• The existing restrictions on ownership across commercial television, commercial

radio and newspapers should not be removed or relaxed.

• The limitations on the ownership of commercial free-to-air and subscription

television by non-Australian interests should be removed.

Page 3

2 Context

In March this year the Productivity Commission received a Reference from the

Treasurer to inquire into and report on the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) and

other related legislation. This inquiry is the first examination by the Productivity

Commission of the broadcasting industries, and forms part of the Commonwealth’s

responsibility under the Competition Principles Agreement (CPA) to review regulatory

aspects of existing legislation. The ‘guiding principle’ of the CPA legislative review is

that any restriction on competition must be justified in terms of an overriding public

benefit, and that there must be no better way of achieving the public benefit than by

restricting competition.

As in most countries, the broadcasting legislation in Australia contains a number of

restrictions on the broadcasting industries, which influence their structure, ownership

and control, and operation. The Productivity Commission’s inquiry is potentially

concerned with all of these restrictions. This submission however will confine itself to

consideration of the restrictions on ownership in the BSA.

The inquiry is being conducted in an environment of substantial technological changes

affecting the broadcasting industries, most notably, those related to digitalisation and

the Internet.

Digitalisation

Digitalisation allows information to be produced and utilised in the form of series of

ones and zeros. Once encoded in a digitalised format, all information, including

numbers, words, audio, video and colour, is technically standardised, and can be

edited, modified, stored and transmitted in the same way. The systems and networks

handling digital information are indifferent to the nature of the source material, be it

image, sound or text, and digital information and communication can be carried over

wired or wireless infrastructure.

Digitalisation has a number of significant implications for broadcasting. It greatly

increases the channel carrying capacity of the radio frequency spectrum and thus has

the potential to remove the scarcity that has traditionally limited the number of radio

and television channels and shaped the regulation and structure of the industries. The

increased capacity also permits the transmission of much higher quality broadcasting

signals, especially HDTV (high definition television) images, previously possible only

with broadband infrastructure. The capability for the transmission of large quantities of

digitalised information, and the return flow of data from audiences to broadcasters,

create the potential for broadcasters to provide a wide range of information and

services in addition to radio and television programmes, and so assume the role of

datacasters.

Page 4

3 Free-to-air (FTA) commercial television broadcasters operating in metropolitan

markets are required to commence digital broadcasting in January 2001, although

detailed guidelines for digital transmission have yet to be determined. The FTA

broadcasters will be allocated additional spectrum to enable them to simulcast

analogue and digital transmissions for a period of eight years, and will be required to

provide an as yet unspecified proportion of their programming in HDTV format. No

new commercial television broadcasting licences are to be issued in any licence area

before 2007. FTA television broadcasters will be permitted to use excess spectrum

within their digital allocations to provide datacasting and enhanced services, but will be

prohibited from multicasting, that is, transmitting additional channels of television

programming including PTV (pay television) services. Spectrum is to be allocated to

new entrants for datacasting purposes.

The provision of datacasting services by FTA television broadcasters is an example of

**how media convergence is affecting broadcasting. Other examples are the carriage of**

both voice telephony and PTV by copper, coax or fibre optic cables, and the

publication of the same text and graphics in newspapers and on the Internet. More

generally, the ability to encode information and communications in digital form

facilitates the delivery of different services, traditionally the products of separate

industries, by a common infrastructure. Digitalisation has thus permitted the attainment

of economies of scope whereby a single firm can now provide different services at a

lower cost than two or more firms in different industries. These newly realised

economies have resulted in firms expanding (or wanting to expand) their range of

operations, and in numerous alliances and mergers between firms in previously

separate industries.

Internet

The Internet is an interactive (two-way) network linking computers using common

communication protocols. It was developed by the US Defense Department from the

late 1960s, and by the early 1990s was widely employed by US government

departments and universities. Proprietary computer networks of some US

communications companies were reconfigured and standardised in the mid-1990s to

link them to the Internet. At around the same time, the World Wide Web (WWW) and

related browser software were developed, thus greatly facilitating access to data and

information, and increasing the possibilities for interactivity.

The Internet quickly emerged as a global computer network and the number of

Internet users has continued to increase at an exponential rate. Currently, the main uses

of the Internet are the transmission of electronic mail (‘e-mail’) and gaining access to

remote databases. The United Nations Development Programme estimates that there

were 143 million people world-wide with access to the Internet in mid-1998 and

(perhaps somewhat optimistically) predicts this number to increase to 700 million by

2001 (Butler, 1999).

Page 5

4 Established with large US government subsidies, the Internet’s early existence was

largely non-commercial and unregulated. It proved to be highly suitable for commercial

use and most of its recent development has resulted from commercial application. The

Internet was effectively privatised between 1992 and 1995 when US communication

companies co-operated with one another in piecing together the network, and industry

committees facilitated agreement on interconnection standards (Owen, 1999).

A major new industry has arisen in website design, and the Internet has become an

indispensable public relations medium for commercial firms and for the dissemination

of information by government and other non-commercial organisations. There are

minimal costs and no regulatory barriers to the creation of websites, and to date the

Internet has effectively been free of government regulation.

The Internet now carries audio material and provides for rudimentary telephony

communication. It can also carry video signals but as yet they are of poor quality. This

is due to the limited bandwidth capacity of the Internet, which is a major inhibitor of its

potential development.

Media ownership restrictions

The BSA imposes three types of restrictions on ownership. These are:

• limitations on the extent of ownership within commercial television and commercial

radio (concentration restrictions);

• restrictions on ownership across commercial television, commercial radio and

newspapers (cross-media restrictions); and

• limitations on the ownership of commercial FTA television and subscription

television by non-Australian interests (foreign ownership restrictions).

Restrictions on media ownership are not unique to Australia. Most OECD member

countries have some form of media ownership restrictions (OECD, 1998).

The primary objectives of the ownership restrictions in the BSA are to encourage

diversity in control of the more influential media (concentration and cross-media

restrictions), and to ensure that Australians have effective control of these services

(foreign ownership restrictions) (ABA, 1999). These restrictions represent the

recognition by legislators that the media industries are more than mere producers of

consumer goods or services, but have a more fundamental influence on society because

of the nature of their output.

The concentration and cross-media restrictions are intended to promote media

diversity and are based on the premise that a pluralistic, democratic society benefits

from more rather than fewer information and entertainment sources. In a broader sense

**this concept extends to diversity of types of media, and provides the rationale for**

community and public broadcasting as complements to commercial radio and

television. Within the commercial media industries, media diversity relates to

ownership of media outlets and is grounded on the premise that a diversified

Page 6

5 ownership structure will have an enhanced potential to provide a wider range of

opinions, values and attitudes. These propositions are well stated by the 1995 UK

White Paper on Media Ownership (cited by Green, 1995, pp.30-31):

A free and diverse media are an indispensable part of the democratic process.

They provide the multiplicity of voices and opinions that inform the public,

influence opinion, and engenders political debate. They promote the culture of

dissent which any healthy democracy must have. In so doing, they contribute to

the cultural fabric of the nation and help define our sense of identity and

purpose. If one voice becomes too powerful, this process is placed in jeopardy

and democracy is damaged. Special media ownership rules, which exist in all

major media markets, are needed therefore to provide the safeguards necessary

to maintain diversity and plurality.

A diversity of media sources has beneficial effects for all types of media content,

including entertainment, but it is especially important in relation to news and current

affairs, which bear directly on the political process. It is thus most relevant in relation

to the major sources of news, information and opinion, namely, FTA television, radio,

and newspapers which are covered by the ownership provisions in the BSA. It is also

relevant to other influential media not subject to ownership restrictions, notably,

magazines, PTV and the Internet.

Economics of ownership: old media

Restrictions on media ownership have economic as well as non-economic implications.

There is, however, relatively little empirical economic analysis of media ownership and

its consequences. None of this work relates to the new media technologies of

digitalisation or the Internet, and none has been carried out in Australia.

Concentration within broadcasting

One study of the ‘old media’, based on 1975 data, concerns the common ownership of

Canadian commercial broadcasting stations (Ownership Study Group, 1978). It found

that there existed “significant” economies of scale in the group ownership of both radio

and television stations. However, the economic benefits of group ownership were not

passed on, either to broadcast audiences by way of better ‘quality’ programming (as

measured by cost), or to advertisers in the form of cheaper advertising. In fact, for

radio (only), group owners of two or more stations were found to charge “somewhat

higher” advertising rates than licensees of single stations. In summarising its

conclusions, the study group reported (p.40) that:

Although group ownership of radio and television results in higher levels of

financial health and profitability for the corporate entities involved, the studies

revealed no evidence that groups generally provide commensurate quantifiable

Page 7

6 benefits to the public in terms of relatively higher expenditure on programme

production or lower advertising rates.

Cross-media ownership

**Economists have generally assumed that economies of scope accrue to firms from their**

common ownership of outlets across different media. They have asserted, rather than

tested empirically, that commonly owned media outlets are able to lower overall costs

by sharing news staff, physical facilities and administrative resources. Commonly

owned different media may also benefit from the joint promotion of group outlets

**(Bear et al., 1974).**

Owen (1969, 1973) was the first to examine the economic effects of cross-media

ownership. His results suggested that newspaper-television combinations in the US

**gave media companies the market power to charge higher rates for advertising than**

newspaper and television stations which were separately owned. Peterman (1971)

concluded however that cross-media ownership **did not affect the advertising rates of**

newspaper-owned television stations, while Bloomfield (1977) derived results similar

to those of Peterman for newspapers that formed part of newspaper-television

combinations. The Canadian Ownership Study Group (1978) found that cross-

ownership of Canadian television stations with either a newspaper or a radio station in

**the same market did not influence advertising rates. Finally, Wirth and Allen (1980)**

found evidence that US television stations commonly owned with newspapers in the

**same markets charged lower advertising rates than television stations not jointly owned**

with newspapers (but they suspected that this reflected strategic pricing behaviour by

the stations at a time they were subject to scrutiny by the Federal Communications

Commission). Because of these conflicting results it is difficult to draw firm

conclusions regarding the economic effects of cross-media ownership.

Newspapers

It has been clearly established that there are substantial economies of scale in

newspaper publishing. In the production of each edition of a newspaper there are high

first copy costs (costs incurred in producing a newspaper to the printing stage), but

low marginal costs (costs of reproduction). At the creation stage, the costs of

producing both the editorial and advertising content of any edition of a paper are

independent of the number of copies printed. In the reproduction process the cost per

copy declines as the number of copies is increased, and for a given number of copies

the cost per page declines as the number of pages is increased. There are also

economies of group ownership which encourage common ownership of newspapers in

different geographic markets (Rosse, 1967).

These economic characteristics of newspaper publishing are primarily responsible for

there being only one title in all but very large newspaper markets. They create very

high barriers to entry into newspaper markets such that the position of established

Page 8

7 papers is usually unassailable against challenge from potential competitors. Usually,

therefore, the only way for a company to publish a newspaper in an existing market

with an incumbent publisher is to acquire the incumbent company (Brown, 1986).

In summary, the effects cross-media ownership upon prices charged for media

products have not been conclusively determined by empirical economic analysis.

Economies of scope are generally considered to exist between different media. There

are substantial economies of scale in newspaper publishing that are largely responsible

for the tendency toward monopoly newspaper markets and common ownership across

those markets.

Economics of ownership: new media

The case for relaxing the concentration and cross-media restrictions in the

broadcasting legislation is based on the contention that the new media technologies

will bring about a significant increase in the number of media outlets, and that the

restrictions established for the old media will become unnecessary, ineffective and/or

irrelevant. This view is advanced not only by a number of media companies with vested

interests in the issue, but also by writers on new media technologies, and some

academics. Prominent among the latter group are Albon and Papandrea (1998) who

argue (p.84) that:

… substantial diversification of the media industry has weakened the non-

economic case for ownership restrictions, and, as the delivery of media services

by non-traditional means becomes more widespread, the justification for

continued restrictions on ownership of traditional media will be further eroded.

Negroponte (1995, pp.57-58) goes further and asserts, “… the monolithic empires of

mass media are dissolving into an array of cottage industries” and “media barons of

today will be grasping to hold on to their centralized empires tomorrow”.

The argument that new technologies will facilitate the creation of a host of new media

outlets and end the dominance of the existing media oligarchy is reminiscent of

predictions in the early 1980s of the establishment of a multitude of new newspaper

titles in Australia resulting from the shift from the old linotype (‘hot type’) method of

typesetting to the use of computer-linked video display terminals (‘cold type’).

**Contrary to these predictions there has been a significant decrease in the number of**

daily newspapers over the past two decades and, with the take-over of Herald &

Weekly Times by News Limited in 1987, a substantial increase in press concentration.

This is not to deny that digitalisation and the Internet may be responsible for some new

media outlets in Australia, but it does suggest that the implications of the new

technologies for media diversity may be over-stated by those advocating the removal

of ownership restrictions.

Page 9

8 There are a number of writers whose views are at odds with those predicting a

substantial increase in the number of media outlets and a corresponding reduction in

the level of media ownership concentration. Goodwin (1998) focuses on the effect of

digitalisation on economies of scale in the creation of media content. He argues that

**digitalisation is likely to extend the economic advantages of the large established media**

companies. Digitalisation permits media products to be produced, stored and

transmitted without physical embodiment – in bits rather than atoms – and thus brings

the marginal cost of extra copies even closer to zero. The corporation which is able to

spread its first copy costs over a greater number of consumers of its products will have

an economic advantage. Goodwin (1998, p.186-87) explains: “The particular

economies of scale stemming from media goods’ immateriality, and hence zero

marginal cost, will persist, and with them the same mechanism for media

concentration”.

Goodwin believes that, with digitalisation, competition for consumers will be waged

mainly in terms of the attractiveness of media products. In this competition existing

large media corporations will have an inherent advantage because they can afford to

invest more in production and thus produce a more attractive product. When the

‘enthusiastic amateur’ comes up with a promising project it will frequently be taken

over and pursued by an established media company.

Herman and McChesney (1997) examine the potential of the Internet to reduce the

dominant role of the existing media. They point out that in spite of its enormous

attraction to users and the increasing sophistication of commercial websites, Internet

operations have proved to be profitable to only a few content providers. Whilst many

people are keen to pay for web access, they are, to date, reluctant to pay extra for

information and other Internet content. This may be a permanent characteristic of the

Internet: “nobody is generating profit from Internet media content … and it is unclear

if the medium will ever become especially lucrative for content providers” (Herman

and McChesney, 1997, p.123).

Herman and McChesney argue further that if the provision of content does become

profitable, existing media firms will have a strong competitive advantage over potential

Internet rivals. It takes time and money to attract audiences to a website, but websites

of existing media firms enjoy ready-made audiences from traditional media that shift

over to the Web. Existing media firms can also promote their online activities to their

traditional media audiences. To the extent that content providers rely on advertising

for Internet revenue, existing media operators again have the front running by virtue of

their relationship and experience with major advertisers. Herman and McChesney point

out that the large media firms are the major source of capital for new Internet start-up

ventures. These investments are intended to put the traditional media companies in the

most advantageous position to anticipate and appropriate Internet developments. The

authors conclude (p.107), “the Internet and the digital revolution do not pose an

immediate or even foreseeable threat to the market power of the media giants”.

Page 10

9 Owen (1999) agrees. He is of the opinion that Internet technology is most suitable for

transmitting e-mail and data files, not for real-time communications such as video

broadcasts or telephone calls. Owen argues that media which have traditionally

appealed to mass audiences have been ‘passive’ rather than interactive, and doubts

whether it will be worthwhile for firms to make the massive high-risk investment in

infrastructure and the development of more ‘user-friendly’ interfaces for the Internet to

become a mass medium. To Owen (p.41), “it is not at all clear that the Internet is

going to be an important mass medium of any kind, much less an important means of

delivering television”.

Media diversity in Australia

In spite of the ownership restrictions in the BSA, Australia has one of the highest

levels of media ownership concentration among OECD countries. The daily press is

dominated by two publishers, the leading commercial television network is the

country’s largest publisher of magazines, and the owners of the traditional mass media

are the major domestic investors in the Internet.

The Internet has not to date generated any new significant domestic news source, most

of the Australian news appearing on the web being repackaged and recycled from

existing news services. The cross-media provisions allow Publishing & Broadcasting

Limited (PBL) and News Limited to have significant ownership interests in PTV. Not

even this important new medium has produced a new commercial source of news and

current affairs. Sky News is compiled from the news services of the Seven and Nine

networks.

The removal or relaxation of the ownership restrictions will facilitate an increased

concentration of media ownership. The extension of the allowable audience reach for

commercial television from 75 to 100 per cent would be likely to lead to the

acquisition of the remaining regional television broadcasters by the major networks,

with the loss of local news programming. More disturbingly, the removal of the cross-

media restrictions would pave the way for the take-over of John Fairfax Holdings by

PBL, which would reduce the number of major domestic news sources. The take-over

of Fairfax by PBL is unlikely to be prevented by the mergers provisions of the Trade

Practices Act (Fels, 1996), even though it would eliminate existing competition for

advertising between the companies.

Another potential problem with allowing common ownership of capital city

newspapers and broadcasting outlets is that, because of the press duopoly, any

amalgamation of press and broadcasting will cause an imbalance in media competition.

Common ownership of different media outlets in the same markets would allow cross-

promotion and package deals for advertising across commonly owned media to the

disadvantage of companies with interests in only one medium.

Page 11

10 The previous section indicated the widely divergent views on the likely consequences

of digitalisation and the Internet for media ownership. This reflects the more general

uncertainty concerning the media products, consumer demand and industry structures

that will result from the new media technologies. The following quotes from different

contributors to the debate in Australia underline this uncertainty:

• … convergence driven by digital technologies is rapidly changing the environment

in which broadcasting is operating. No one is certain about the kinds of services

which will be available, and demanded by consumers, in five to ten years time.

(DCITA, 1999, p.5)

• [One of the] key characteristics of the convergence era [is the] tremendous

uncertainty in respect of demand, new technology, regulation and business models.

(Telstra Corporation, 1999, p.5)

• … no one knows where this [new media] technology will take us … (News

Limited, 1999, p.8)

With such uncertainty it is premature to remove or relax the current restrictions on

media ownership simply on the assumption or hope that the new technologies will

usher in an era of increased media diversity. In the short term at least any liberalisation

of the concentration or cross-media restrictions is more likely to bring about greater

ownership consolidation with adverse consequences for media diversity and the health

of democracy in Australia. It would be imprudent at this stage to liberalise the

concentration or cross-media ownership restrictions in the broadcast legislation.

Recommendations

• The existing limitations on the extent of ownership within commercial television

and radio should not be removed or relaxed.

• The existing restrictions on ownership across commercial television, commercial

radio and newspapers should not be removed or relaxed.

Foreign ownership

The foreign ownership provisions of the BSA restrict the ownership of commercial

FTA television and subscription television by non-Australian interests. The foreign

ownership restrictions on commercial radio were lifted in 1992 and two of the major

radio networks are now foreign owned. News Limited is a foreign company by virtue

of the US citizenship of Rupert Murdoch. It is the major publisher of daily newspapers

in Australia and has a large equity interest in Foxtel, the largest PTV operator.

Network Ten also has significant foreign ownership.

Page 12

11 There are economic arguments for and against foreign investment in general but, in

recent years, government policy in Australia has clearly moved in favour of a more

liberal attitude to foreign investment. Continuing the trend towards reducing

restrictions on foreign capital inflows, the government announced in August 1999 that

the threshold for the screening by the Foreign Investment Review Board of

acquisitions in Australia by foreign companies had been raised from businesses worth

$5m to $50m, and for the establishment of new businesses by overseas interests from

$10m to $50m. Applications by foreigners to invest in Australia are rarely declined

(Pearson, 1999).

The major non-economic rationale for restricting foreign ownership of commercial

broadcasting is that it may facilitate cultural dominance by foreign interests. This view

is complemented by an economic argument that Australian broadcast owners may be

more likely to employ Australian staff than foreign owners (ABA, 1999). There is no

solid evidence for either of these propositions and they are unlikely to be valid.

The main effect of the foreign ownership provisions is to restrict competition by

constraining the competitive influence of foreign owners in the Australian media and

inhibiting its potential for greater plurality and diversity. It is also possible that

restricting foreign ownership of the media contributes to the conflict of interest

problem arising from Australian media owners having substantial non-media assets

(Pokarier, 1996). On balance, the costs of the foreign ownership restrictions are

unlikely to be outweighed by their benefits.

Recommendation

• The limitations on the ownership of commercial free-to-air and subscription

television by non-Australian interests should be removed.

Page 13

12 References

ABA (Australian Broadcasting Authority), 1999. Statement by the Australian

Broadcasting Authority to the Productivity Commission on the Inquiry into the

Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Albon, Robert and Franco Papandrea, 1998. Media Regulation in Australia and the

Public Interest, Institute of Public Affairs, November.

**Baer, Walter S. et al., 1974. Concentration of Mass Media Ownership: Assessing the**

State of Current Knowledge, Rand.

Bloomfield, Edward C., 1977. Media cross-ownership, newspaper chains, competition,

and daily newspaper advertising rates. PhD thesis, University of Rochester.

Brown, Allan, 1986. Commercial Media in Australia: Economics, Ownership,

Technology and Regulation, University of Queensland Press.

**Butler, Grant, 1999. Telstra - top of internet POPS. Australian Financial Review, 13**

July, p.27.

DCITA (Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts),

1999. Reviews into the Scope of Datacasting Services and Enhanced Services:

Discussion of Options, June.

Fels, Allan, 1996. Monopolies, mergers and the media. Speech to the Melbourne Press

Club, 26 July.

Goodwin, Peter, 1998. Concentration: does the digital revolution change the basic

rules of media economics?, In Robert Picard (ed.), Evolving Media Markets: Effects of

Economic and Policy Changes, The Economic Research Foundation for Mass

Communication, pp.173-89.

**Green, Damien, 1995. Preserving plurality in a digital world. In Tim Congdon et al.,**

The Cross Media Revolution: Ownership and Control, John Libbey, pp.25-37.

Herman, Edward S. and Robert W. McChesney, 1997. The Global Media: The New

Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism, Cassell.

**Negroponte, Nicholas, 1995. Being Digital, Knopf.**

News Limited, 1999. A Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into

Australia’s Broadcasting Legislation, May.

Page 14

13 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1998. Cross-

Ownership and Convergence: Policy Issues, November.

Owen, Bruce, 1969. Empirical results on the price effects of joint ownership in the

**mass media. Studies in the Economics of Mass Communication, no.93, Research**

Center in Economic Growth, Stanford University.

Owen, Bruce, 1973. Newspaper and television station joint ownership. The Antitrust

Bulletin, 18.

**Owen, Bruce M., 1999. The Internet Challenge to Television, Harvard University**

Press.

Ownership Study Group to the Canadian Radio-Television and Communications

Commission, 1978. Ownership and Private Broadcasting: An Economic Analysis of

Structure, Performance and Behaviour, Ottawa.

Pearson, Brendan, 1999. FIRB threshold is lifted from $5m to $50m. Australian

Financial Review, 5 August, p.3.

Peterman, John L., 1971. Concentration of control and price of television time.

American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 61(2), pp.74-80.

**Pokarier, Christopher, 1996. A diverse or an Australian media?, Policy, Winter, pp.7-**

11. Rosse, James N., 1967. Daily newspapers, monopolistic competition, and economies

**of scale. American Economic Review, 57(2), pp.522-33.**

Telstra Corporation **Limited, 1999, Broadcasting Inquiry Submission, May.**

Wirth, Michael O. and Bruce T.Allen, 1980. Crossmedia ownership, regulatory

**scrutiny, and pricing behavior. Journal of Economics and Business, 33(1), pp.28-42.**

A Few. But, very, very Few

Are there any honorable, honest men left? What was that before? Conspiracy-of-Silence Journalism? A NEW JOURNALISM HAS BEGUN

MARCH 13, 2006

WE OBJECT, PROTEST AND TAKE OFFENSE TO:

DISGRACEFUL MAIN STREAM MEDIA'S

ARROGANT, ELITIST EDITORIALS.

JOURNALISTIC CHEAP SHOTS [USING INSULTING CODE WORDS] DEFAMATORILY BRANDING 70-80% OF AMERICANS' POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES AS: IGNORANT, RACIST, BIGOTED, PREJUDICIAL, INJURIOUSLY HATE-FILLED, PROTECTIONIST, ISOLATIONIST, XENOPHOBIC, ANTI-IMMIGRANT NATIVISM. WORST OF ALL, EDITORIALS UTILIZING MALEVOLENT FEAR-MONGERING TACTICS TO REPROACH THE PUBLIC FOR THE FEIGNED CAUSATION OF A POSSIBLE ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

Our response to such hostility:

"Shame, Shame, Shameful Un-American Behavior. Demagoguery designed to elicit activation of the darker nature of man."

[More to come.]

JOURNALISM PAGE

Give us a break! Exactly what we do not need, when so mush is going wrong in America.

ON THE OTHER HAND

ABC'S 20/20 MYOPIC

"STOSSEL THE FOSSIL"

Rarely do we specific criticize ANY journalist for inferior coverage and reportage. However, after two viewings of ABC's John Stossel's "Myths, Lies, and Bad Behavior" - NO LONGER WE CAN Remain SILENT. "Hey. John, Give us a break Stossel." We did not just fall off a turnip truck, Your alleged expose' itself constitutes myth, [excuse us] lies and very bad unprofessional behavior. No credibility should be given these fallacious 20/20 reports. This epitomizes Pseudo-journalism by half-truth and offensive factual manipulation. For Example: Stossel's brazen claim [in effect] The USA lost enormous numbers of jobs due to outsourcing, but gained substantially more jobs over the same period. On its face, this is true. But, Stossel the Fossil ignores the WHOLE TRUTH. The new job are $9,000 to $13,000 less in wages paid. Here is another glaring half-truth: Outsourcing is good because it mean lowers prices for the American consumer. Of course, this is true. However, Stossel neglects to mention imports cost massive losses of US living-wage manufacturing jobs. Third. Get this. Gasoline prices are just as low as ever, compared to inflation. True. However, The Fossil neglects to mention, all other price increases have squeezed the middle-class to the brink of extinction. Yes, figures can lie and liars are always figuring. Stossel proves that axiom..

There was s a time John Stossel exemplified the up and coming honorable future journalist. Not so, Today. We no not what happened along the way; except he is a great disappointment. Replacing his reportage with propaganda and apparently a hidden political agenda. We say to the brazen, arrogant Stossel: SHAME JOHN. Please give us, and the American Public a break.

DAVID GREGORY

A RETIRED REPORTER PRODUCED A VIDEO TAPE OF NBC'S DAVID GREGORY ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND DEMANDING SPECIFIC ANSWERS. Sobbing he said, "See. American Journalism is not dead!"

HELEN THOMAS

Then he PRODUCED a second video of White House reporter HELEN THOMAS ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND DEMANDING SPECIFIC ANSWERS. Sobbing he REPEATED "See. American Journalism is not dead! Noting: That 'Fist Pose' reminded all of us of a former Florida Politician.

GRUMPY'S ANALYSIS OF

2007 PERNICIOUS GOP BUDGET

EPITOMIZES JOURNALISM EXCELLENCE

GRUMPY'S [OUR AFFECTIONATE NICKNAME FOR Journalist David Broder of the Washington Post] article analyzing the pernicious 2007 GOP budget, reached Journalism excellence. Why? Not only because of its through objective analysis of the positive [ and MOSTLY NEGATIVE ASPECTS] of the travesty of misgovernment. Misguided destructive FEDERAL POLICY. But also, BECAUSE IT EXEMPLIFIED HOW NEW JOURNALISTS CAN disregard emotions [inflamed passions which overwhelm reason] covering an explosive story. As our mentor, The Late Great J.M. asserted "Experience does matter!" Thanks Grumpy. All of Us

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM?

;or, coverage of:

EMOTIONALISM AND "ALLEGED REAL" SOAP OPERAS

OBSESSION ON

A CULT OF PERSONALITIES

Worse Yet: Conspiracy-of-Silence Journalism? HAS A NEW JOURNALISM HAS BEGUN

"Journalism is a profession; not employment. It is a sacred CALLING, not a career. It is the only PRIVATE PROFESSION recognized in The Constitution. As such one is ethically expected to act in THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The trust of The People to oversee government, resides within the journalist's hands. Breaching that trust perverts Truth, and poisons Democracy." The Law Professor, The Philosopher, The Theologian

personalities are just people,
not the issues.

issues are the news;
not peoples'
or celebrities'
personalities
or mere opinions.

LIBERAL NEWS ANALYSIS

Analysis of Life From A Liberal Perspective

LIBERAL COMMENTARY ON:

THE NEWS,

THE WHOLE NEWS,

''ALL'' THE NEWS,

NOTHING BUT THE NEWS

REGARDING HUMILITY: Humility is man's most minimal virtue. We hope we retain the maximum capacity to apologize when one of ours makes: errors in judgment, mistakes and authors outright absurdities.

OUR "ALL THE NEWS" PLEDGE ETHICAL QUESTIONS:

We made a pledge to inform you of 'ALL THE NEWS. " Never to simply ignore important news , nor soundbite half -truth news (which is a half lie by its omission of the entirety), That is ALL THE NEWS not just some watered down portions. Nevertheless, there are times when the facts are so negative, disturbing and depressing to engender a furor. as with the above Social Security item. In other words, we morally cannot bring ourselves to report them. Why? We are concerned such might inflame the fire of justified but passionate anger even hatred; or worse. Who knows what a mentally imbalanced person or demagogue might do. One suggestion--- to generally inform you with a disclaimer that a subsequent full report will be forthcoming . Nevertheless, we are trapped- deadlocked in an ethical conundrum. Therefore, we are placing this ethical decision in your hands. Write your advice and guidance to POB #9001, Dickson PA, 18519. No donation requested. " "the"

CNN'S HOWARD KURTZ (sp): We were ecstatic to discover Jounalist Howard Kurtz, the best Media analyst in journalism, finally was granted an hour program at 10:00 AM [Please check listings.]. As Ann Flemming (sp) and Andrea Mitchell recently commented - in effect - these are not good times for journalism. However, with Howard on the job, [and the Eric Burns Fox team] there is hope for progress. In American society, the point is to first precisely define our problems, then reform them through republican-democratic means. Such as, Free Speech. Go! Howie! Go!

Or, Email us at: suggestions@theliberalnews.com

AFTER FOUR YEARS 0F SITE WAREFARE

WHICH IS THE BEST NATIONAL NEWSPAPER?

THE NEW YORK TIMES < OR > THE WASHINGTON POST

"He who WARS with his BIAS discovers THE TRUTH!" The Philosopher

MEDIA-JOURNALISM OBJECTIVITY QUESTION

BIAS
Bias YES, THERE IS A LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE BIAS
IN THE PRESS,
HOWEVER, A MORE CONSERVATIVE BIAS BY EDITORS:

CAN IT BE COMBINED WITH A LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE?

"Those vigorously insisting they are without bias, discover and report Ignorance!" The Philosopher

All topics discussed are simply views from a liberal perspective. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that all information is subjective in nature.Objectivity logic and reason are used in gathering the facts however, the perspective of those facts are viewed from a liberal not conservative perspective.

For instance, the mean statistics between conservative and liberal statistic will be utilized in discussions and debate and argumentation herein. Yes, there is liberal and conservative bias in the press. Always has been.  Always will be.   It depends with which Media you engage your mind.

Furthermore, the  liberal bias is coming under question as a myth.  One only has to view Fox Cable, Extremist Radio Talk,  and other Cable networks.  With all those kid conservatives.  All with opinions but with little facts to support them.  In any event, for all intents and purposes, the bilateral media biases are presently balanced in press/.some media  LIBERAL TO MODERATE. There should be no embarrassment if a journalist candidly reports a story , hos view of the news,

COMBINED WITH A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE?

HELLOOOOOOO!

ABC AND CBS EXECUTIVES:

MUST IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISH 24/7 CABLE NETWORKS 

THE MAN TO SEE IS: (YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS) TED TURNER!!

NOTE TO DON HEWITT

Why are we  concerned?&; Bluntly, network news is falling into relative insignificance.  We must rescue and preserve these network news departments (They are societal repositories and national treasures). Because we  need these further viewpoints on cable television.  If necessary, they must (from scratch) initiate their own cable networks. Otherwise, the democratic debate will suffer.  Let’s see some old fashioned American pioneering! Besides news makes profits!!!

Is anybody awake? You must act with undue haste to establish your own CABLE TV NEWS CHANNELS,. Otherwise,  the Fat Lady is gonna' be singin' and  you're gonna be lookin' for jobs. How many times do we have to tell you? We'll get Rooney after ya'.  Hell, even Rooney seems depressed these days. Self-censoring himself—we thought we’d never see it.  Can anyone imagine the tragic loss of CBS’S  and ABC’S intellectual and journalistic expertise to our society???

NOVAK'S APOLOGY - NOVAK'S FORGIVENESS

We do not endorse ROBERT NOVAK'S ultra-conservative political viewpoint; nor, his recent misbehavior. Especially, during the Wilson Affair. Now. His petulant exit [walk-off] from a live CNN broadcast.

Nevertheless, we fervently believe in the "value" of FORGIVENESS. After admission of non-criminal guilt, all should be pardoned for wrongdoing. We trust Novak's straightforward APOLOGY (and request for forgiveness) was honest, frank and genuine. Every family has a curmudgeon like Uncle Bob. Family members roll our eyes and bear it. Besides, as we want to be forgiven, so should we forgive.

Therefore, after some reasonable sanction, CNN should exemplify journalistic forgiveness. CNN place Right-Wing Robert back on-air. Yes. To aggravate we liberals. As the youthful Cynic remarked, "Hey. If they get rid of Novak, there won't be anyone to hate. I mean. You know, to get intellectually mad at. Some aggravating conservative who forces you to think. [As, many year ago, did Bill Buckley provoke some Site Participants to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. To frantically utilize the dictionary. To learn to educate themselves.]

Furthermore, embarrassment of embarrassments! We condemn liberals abusing the age issue against Novak. Mailing innuendo suggesting his forced his retirement. How would they like subsequent age discrimination used against them? What our dear friend Claude Pepper worked so fervently against in his final years. Passage of the Age Discrimination Act. "Yes. Claude. We were listening."

Moreover, our society is obsessed with GOTCHA-ISM. The scandal mentality. Sadistically, rejoicing in another's suffering. Fall from grace. The list is replete: Rather, Lott, Gingrich etc ... Emotionally, the Roman arena? "Hey let's not cover serious news or issues. Let's look for the next sensational scandal. Then, inexpensively cover it with obsession. " At a time when America must confront true values. Not the phony superficial ones. Damn It! Everybody loves the flag, prayer, church, marriage, kids, Mom and apple pie.

American journalism dangerously descending further into homogenized coverage. Boring. Orwellian. Ignoring controversial serious issues and news. As America imperceptibly declines into third-rate nation status. Due to official and Media inaction apathy and indifference.

We say, "Enough already!" The USA needs people who speak their mind. Not necessarily people we like. But those who get our blood boiling. Some Founding Fathers hated one another. Nevertheless recognized the need for republican-democracy's INTELLECTUAL VITALITY - intellectual combat. That is what The National Discourse - The On-going Great American Debate = IS.

Programming such as "Crossfire and The Capital Gang etc." are essential societal steam-valves. The exemplification of real in-home family kitchen table political arguments. [Belated Kudos to Paul Bagala and James Carville. You did a great job. Do not tolerate the executive types to neuter you into political geldings. Fight to say what you think.] What good are 500 CHANNELS, if there is nothing on?

In any event, as Hillary - the peacemaker - said "It's TIME TO FORGIVE AND FORGET." So despite his misbehavior, let's bring back Bad Boy Bobby. We liberals forgive Novak's latest misconduct.

Our liberal friends will be furious. HOWEVER, As The Philosopher says. "Without forgiveness there is no hope. Beware of those quick to condemn others, but quicker to forgive themselves."

All Of US, as in the USA.

P.S. An aside: The theologian, philosopher, prophet and mystic insist Novak is transitioning through an inner spiritual catharsis. Struggling for his salvation. The rest us are skeptical.

O'REILLY WILL APOLOGIZE TO PHIL DONOHUE FOR THREATENING TO 'THROW' HIM OFF THE SET. OTHERWISE, O WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SLEEP WELL. ON THE OTHER HAND, O'REILLY PRAISED, FOR EXPOSING TRUTH RE 'RIGGED' GASOLINE PRICES. ONE MINUTE HE'S BAD, THE NEXT A PATRIOT. GO FIGURE.

O.K. O'REILLY you do not have to APOLOGIZE TO PHIL DONOHUE. We are certain the spiritual Phil forgives you. So, now you can get some sleep. You look exhausted, and have us all worried. Also, the child molestation issue. Oprah has started full force action. It can be resolved, if all pull together. The only solution which may be possible is some sort of LIFETIME SOCIETAL SEPARATION of such evil individuals? Now, is the time to act. The new catrholic scandal has us all too depressed even to write about it. "Sleep, Dear Prince, perchance to dream..." "Politics is not about hatred but learning to forgive and love you political enemy." The Philosopher, The Theologian

KUDOS TO THE AMERICAN MEDIA - YOU MADE US PROUD

It appears for the first time, in a long time, the American Media actually did its job at New Orleans- as PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS. Have they awakened? We certainly pray this is the case! Most Importantly: Most of the credit must be given to THE HONORABLE JOURNALIST LOU DOBBS, who stood courageously alone, with his trusty back-up team, demanding the truth be reported. Thank God for Lou Dobbs. What would our nation become without him. One observer: "Lou is a rare man of CHARACTER AND COURAGE in a sea of cowards and self-seekers!" ALL OF US = Thanks Lou!!!

P.S. Civil War Historian: "It is like the kid - the standard bearer of the 143rd Pennsylvania, during the bloody first day at Gettysburg. When the boy saw the 150th and 149th [PA] were wiped out [slaughtered]; and, the frightened 143rd were about to retreat. Suddenly, the boy screamed 'Follow Me!" And, with only the point of the flag, he single-handedly attacked the rebels. Embarrassed the 143rd rallied, charged, and won the Battle for SEMINARY RIDGE! My great-great-grandfather talked about that boy until the day he died. Of natural causes, after fathering 16 children."

CONGRESSMAN PETE KING CHEAP SHOTS

JOURNALIST CHRIS MATHEWS ON "HARDBALL" PROGRAM

Normally, we avoid personalized political conflicts. However, when unconscionable misconduct is involved, we exercize our citizen's right to justifiable ethical outrage. Such ocurred when Pete King appeared on the Mathews program. King was well-prepared, ready for a phony war. His politician's acting talents were superb, at academy award levels. Everyone in politics imediately recognizes such farces. Attack the victims. Instead of placing blame where it belongs. King feigned anger and indiignation - as if he was personally victimized.

The polirtical reality was: he was fronting and spinning a crafted deceptive ploy to deflect blame from the President. A cover-up to confuse the public to believe the President was blameless. Not morally-culpable for the inexplicable delayed response to Katrina. King angrily accused The Media of emotionalism, distorting and exaggerating the victims' plight. The Media coverage was a political plot, tromped-up, solely to humiliate the President - now the victim! What the nation witnessed on television. did not really occur. Well. King iis entitled his tromped-up opinion. However, when he stooped to fradulently abuse the Gospel to justify himself, the President, and his Party, he went too far. Angrily, he shouted at Mathews, in effect, "There's no proof any of that happened. The President did nothing wrong." Further, debate ensued. Then, King, used played cheap-shot card. He angrily announced these despicable words, "Hey. Chris I am a Christian. Judge not; lest ye be judged." This dumbfounded Mathews, known for his spiritual beliefs. Embarrassed he rushed King off the program.

Why is this unconscionable? Because, almost all theologians agree, this teaching applies as follows. Do not judge the personal sins of your neighbor harshly; for harshly your sins will be judged. It does not apply to journalistic investigation and reportage of a national horror! After investigating, gathering a story's facts., it is a journalists moral responsibility to make a professional judgment - THEN publish. US journalists covered the empical facts they witnessed - first-hand. The entire nation witnessed the Truth, while the Administratuion tried press conferences to cover-up MALFEASANCE. The truth is the truth. King, usually a reasonable and effective elected official, this time brought THE WRATH OF GOD DOWN UPON HIMSELF. His misconduct is a shameless dishonor to himself and the nation. He will never politically recover from this one. No one will ever trust his credibility and integrity. This episode will haunt him for the reainder of his life. Just another political hack axing innocent people to promote his political career. With such elected officials, the Republic is in jeopardy. King must be removed from office! ALL OF US

MEDIA CONCENTRATION IN THE HANDS OF A FEW MEGA-CORPORATIONS!

"WE PUBLISH ALL THE NEWS THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND. THE AVERGAE UNEDUCATED AMERICAN IS A 12 YEAR OLD CHILD. Give him his 6 Pack, Sports and a Couch - That's all he cares about. OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS: Not to tell them THE TRUTH, with which they could not cope. Rather, we must decide: WHAT THEY SHOULD KNOW AND NOT KNOW. People will believe what I tell them to believe."" FROM A MODERN-DAY CITIZEN KANE
EVIL BIG BROTHER KNOWS BEST???

Remember, the MSM is a BUSINESS

Is money more important than the Truth?

Headline

FREEDOM OF PRESS

IS FOUNDED UPON

THE UNFETTERED FREEDOM OF SPEECH

WITHOUT AN INDEPENDENT HONORABLE, REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVE COURT - FREEDOM IS IMPOSSIBLE.

WHY IS

FRREEDOM OF SPEECH

SO IMPORTANT?

"AS SPEECH IS LIMITED; SO TOO IS YOUR LIBERTY"
The Philosopher

BECAUSE

WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH
[WITHOUT PUNISHMENT]

EVERY CITIZEN CAN DEMOCRATICALLY ORGANIZE

A CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMNENT

WITHOUT

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

NO OTHER LIBERTY OR TRUE DEMOCRACY

IS POSSIBLE

THIS CREATES

FEAR OF SPEAKING FREELY

SELF-CENSORSHIP FRREZING SPEECH

CALLED "THE CHILLING EFFECT"

THE SPEECH IS NO LONGER FRRE

SUCH IS THE CASE WITH

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

THE WORST INJURY TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

IS

UNSTATED BUT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL INFERENCE

THAT "SOME" FREE SPEECH IS

"UNACCEPTABLE OF POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE"

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?

"You are what you think."
The Philosopher

BECAUSE IT INFLUENCES WHAT PEOPLE THINK.

WHAT PEOPLE THINK DETERMINES WHAT THEY DO
WHAT IDEAS AND ISSUES THEY SUPPORT
DETERMINE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS TRUE
HOW THEY VOTE IS BASED UPON THEIR BELIEFS

THIS DECIDES
THE FATE OF OUR DEMOCRACY
AND OUR LIVES!

Headline

YES, AMERICA DOES HAVE A FREE PRESS AGAIN:

It is called THE INTERNET Should we believe everything written on the Net? Of course not, just like everything you read , or see of television--- no sane American should believe. all must give reasoned consideration what to believe or not believe. Do some investigation for yourself. It is your responsibility as a citizen

CENSORSHIP ABOUNDS -TRUTH DROWNS

DISGUISED AS ''EDITING''?

THE DUMBING-DOWN OF THE NEWS

THE WATERING-DOWN OF THE NEWS

IMPORTANT NEWS IGNORED

NEWS AS ENTERTAINMENT

POWDER-PUFF NEWS

CULT OF PERSONALIT NEWS

Any reporter worth their salt will confidentially tell you, non-elected conservative news editors have always served as the first line of American censorship. Hopefully, The Internet will correct this travesty. Any one who tells, the whole truth, as they see the truth, invites censorship. Yet, the worst censorship of all is self-censorship- imposed by an inner pseudo anxiety of possibly offending others. In the early 60s, the Beatniks would tell me; Â“Hey, Man, you gotta tell the truth and then run.Â” To which I replied, Â“No, Man, you gotta tell the truth as you see it, and then get ready to face the negative consequences. For, only this way will we create a fair public debate to resolve our national and societal problems. No flight with fright, but, to be a man - take a stand; and, if necessarily intellectually fight for the minds and hearts of our fellow Americans.Â” Of such courage and character, great men are made.

INTERNET PROVIDES RETENTION OF YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY, ANONYMITY, AND PRIVACY-PEOPLE FREE TO EXPRESS SELVESIn

these times of diminishment of the right to individual privacy, we request all individuals interfacing with this website, when necessary and appropriate, to use a pseudonym. One only has to visit certain chatrooms to understand there are misguided people sometimes with malicious intent. If writing to our Post Office Box please use you Â“real name and address.Â” We do sell personal information and warrant your privacy.

Please see RIGHT TO PRIVACY article below

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

FINDING TRUTH THROUGH ''FREE SPEECH'

No one has a monopoly on the truth. Life is a search for truth. One mans truth may be another's falsity. All have right to speak their minds without penal consequences. that why they call it free speech . You can speak openly what you believe in democracy and no one is allowed to punish you for your speech and ideas. It is unpopular speech which is constitutionally. protected. if all speech was popular no one would challenge and debate content stated.

This is referred to as the national discourse or national debate. Hence this debates must be freely expressed. Free speech creates a socio/political steam valve preventing violence. Leads to ballots not bullets. Otherwise, in time , eventually national implosion occurs ala soviet union. In the Soviet Union, you could speak, say what ever you wanted, then, after arrest and summary trial, be severely punished in the Gulag. Worse yet, in NAZI Germany, it was extermination in the concentration CAMPS.

Free speech is the essence of free republican-democratic society. Because with it, one can politically organize others for positive change. THROUGH electoral, executive, legislative and judicial processes. .More later re free speech...............

THE TRUTH IS A TWO-EDGED SWORD:

In Truth Beauty, In Beauty Truth, Yes, but also in Truth there is ugliness, and the evidence of the darkness at work.

So, a seeker of wisdom and Truth, better be ready to confront the best and the worst regarding human nature. A man who tries to be a just a righteous man will soon be besieged by many enemies-i.e.. People who consider themselves his enemy. For a just man considers no man his enemy. Nonetheless, in the end, the Lord will deliver him.

HOW TO KNOW THE TRUTH---

WHAT TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE WHO CAN YOU BELIEVE?

Major accounting firms who cook the corporate books and major Brokerage Houses who intentionally give investors false fraudulent advise commit a crime against, not only the poor investors and the company employees, but against the fundamental underpinning of society. For who know what and whom to trust, is a society whose very existence is based upon confidence and trust. Not to mention, the destruction of Americans financial security, and retirement. There are some crimes, which must be punished without mercy. (How did it happen that the time-honored Red Cross became bloodsuckers? Talk about being let down.)

THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS:

THE MAN OF GENERALITIES--

THE MAN OF SPECIFICS---

PROOF

Men who lie generally speak in generalities simplistic slogans etc. THEY ARE short on specifics because they know their contentions cannot bear strict scrutiny of others inquiring minds --- the questioners . Excellent example string generalities together as excuses for the Iraq war when the examined specifics later proved the opposite.

HOW TO KNOW WHAT IS NOT TRUE?

HOW TO RECOGNIZE A FALSEHOOD OR MISREPRESENTATION?

HOW TO KNOW A LIAR?

Ask Al Franken

Beware OF WORDS
''MAY MAYBE MIGHT PERHAPS''
Always question.
Never accept another's content on faith.
Journalism is not Religion

RESEARCH NOTE:

Our research is assembled from numerous resources; such as, "The Statistical Abstract of the U.S." "The Federal Register," Professional research consulting firms, The Library of Congress; and, of course, "direct Divine Revelation" (satire!).

All statistics are within +4% or - 4% standard for error. Please inform us of any oversights re new statistics etc. Other statistics use extrapolation of past figures for update purposes e.g. "In 1985, approximately 500,000 Americans were incarcerated. Today there are 2 million. Here, the extrapolation would be times four (4) of past statistics used. Subsequently, we will footnote, as time permits.

STATISTICS-CLOSEST TO TRUTHKNOWING AND LEARNING THE NUMBERS:

After law school, I spent the most important year of my life. Memorizing the Statistical Abstract of the United States. This was my true education, Although statisticians joke that Â“Figures lie, and liars figureÂ” Any one who does not know or who has not attempted the learn the numbers, against which they can tell whether they are hearing the Truth or not ---will never understand what is happening in their lives, this nation and the world. These are essential fundamental statistics every citizen must know.

More later... 3 IMPORTANT STATISTICS: 1,) The USA population is 280 million souls. 2.) The EarthÂ’s population is more than 6.3 Billion. 3.) Of the 6 billion, only 1 billion live in the First World, as it is referred to; while about 5 billion planetary inhabitant live in abject poverty-almost at starvation basic subsistence level. And we wonder why there is such hatred of the West, and especially our be-loved America. Economic jealousy.

THE INCREDIBLE ECONOMIC PIE NUMBERS:

(These figures are approximations but close to being accurate - plus or minus 5%) The Economic Pie represents all the annual income produced by all Americans. To understand who is prospering and who is not the population must be divided in to 5 separate 20% sectors. Economists call these 5ths. The top 20% of Americans earn 50% of all the annual income produced. Yes, they get half of all revenue produced. If they earned it, worked hard for it, they deserve it, as long as they pay 50% of all the taxes with includes all corporations. Also the top 3% of this 20% reap vast amounts of annual wealth. By deduction, this means the 80% of the rest of us must compete against each other for the remaining 50% of the pie. The bottom 20% represents the poor. Our brothers and sisters earning about $13,000 or less necessary for survival. It must be emphasized that 70% of the poor are THE WORKING POOR who have always refused welfare. (As an aside, Welfare is a white not an African American program---70% are white usually women and children, and only 30% are African American. Hard to believe but it is true.

The remaining 60% comprise what we call the middle-class. More later... BECOME A SKEPTIC --- NOT A CYNICFor our Brothers and sister who do evil on this planet are CYNICS. The think everyone else is bad and seeking their self interest even at the expense of others, so why shouldnÂ’t they. ItÂ’s a rat eat rat world and you better eat then before they eat you. It is a race ---a game- the game of life if you will. What is the end objective---lifeÂ’s goal? Winning of course. And how do you win, by cynically defeating your opponent by any necessary means, perhaps short of breaking the law. However, today I wonder. But how to you know you defeated, excuse the Nixionian term, your enemy. By amassing more money and property than he or she. Better yet become their boss. To demonstrate you are superior, ergo, ego-centrism, megalomania, fascism, and authoritarianism ... You get my meaning.

But what does this have to do with the LIBERAL NEWS ---?

It is what makes you daily news on TV and newspapers. Who won today, who wad destroyed even killed. So why is the liberal news any different. Because a liberal trains himself to be a SKEPTIC ---NOT A CYNIC. More about that LATERAL

THE LIBERAL NEWS™ © Assisting single mothers by our 441 society plan. The Gospel Followers of JESUS CHRIST[sm]© Editor: Dr. Stephen-James Warner

Saving the World; One Person At A Time[sm] = Make Every Day Christmas; Every Night Christmas Eve!

FRONTPAGE

GOSPEL FOLLOWERS OF JESUS

PROTECT OUR TRADEMARK

Preface

Trustworthys

HONORABLE TRUST SITES

HON DYLAN RATTIGAN&CHENK

KEITH OLBERMANN

HONORABLES 2011

>>>>>WORTHY OF TRUST

HonorAwards

THE 441 SOCIETY

Financial

>>>>>OUR RESEARCH

Statistics=Factoids

SITE MISSION MAP CONTENT

GAO,CBO,CENSUS

>>>>>OUR BOOK REVIEWS

>>>>>WHAT ARE THE ISSUES

Opinion=Remarks

NegativeViews2Depressing

Gloom and Doom Grimms

theliberalnews.org!

the prophet?

The Dishonorables

DEMAGOGUE = BECK

Site Map

TV COMMERCIAL 4 REFORMS

ADVERTISING HONOR SYSTEM

911

BLOGS BLOGGER.COM

HEALTH-CARE PROFITEERING

STOP HEALTH MONOPOLY

HEALTH WAGE PRICE CONTROL

21ST CENTURY POL PARTY

PREJUDICE>FREE-MASONS

CYNIC'S CORRUPTION LIST

STOP SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION

NEED NATIONAL PROTESTS

DC MARCH LIVING WAGE JOB

UNIONS=LABOR ALLIANCES

RIGHT TO LIVING WAGE

BUY AMERICAN MOVEMENT

ECONOMIC CONVENTION PLAN

2011=USA MUST START OVER

OUTLAW OUTSOURCING

START REBUILD AMERICA

AlternativeEnergy=PickOne

Quick Use Energy Sources

CUTTING CARBON ILLUSION

Clean Coal Slurry

Coal Gasification Clean

High-Octane Furnaces

Co-generation Plants

Underground Nuclear

Uniform Nuclear Design

Windmill Design Invention

WINDMILL INVENTION NOW!

NEED FORBES FLAT TAX NOW!

CREATE NEW MANUFACTURING

BusinessIndustrialComplex

BANKS INVEST USA OR TAXED

STOP EXPORT US CAPITAL

AMERICA FIRST= INVESTMENT

SaveUSCapitalFutureInvest

USA REFORMS 2011

SOLUTIONS-REFORMS

Specific Solutions

Robotics

ANTI-TRUST LAWS> MONOPOLY

MONOPOLYvsFREE ENTERPRISE

CORP. MONOPOLIES RUN USA

USA A TWO-CLASS SOCIETY

TOP 10% GET 50% INCOME

NEW PARTY DEMS & REPS

NO REPUBLICANS OF OLD

DEBT DEFICIT FALSEHOOD

DEFICIT? TAX THE RICH