Jack2014

'I am not a scientist' is shorthand for 'David Koch doesn't want me to answer that'
byHunter

A good New York Times read on what Republicans get from their curious new climate-denier talking point "I am not a scientist." Short answer, they get to run away from the question.
Jon A. Krosnick, who conducts polls on public attitudes on climate change at Stanford, finds the phrase perplexing. “What’s odd about this ‘I’m not a scientist’ line is that there’s nothing in the data we’ve seen to suggest that this helps a candidate,” Mr. Krosnick said. “We can’t find a single state where the majority of voters are skeptical. To say, ‘I’m not a scientist’ is like saying, ‘I’m not a parakeet.’ Everyone knows that it just means, ‘I’m not going to talk about this.’ ”
That problem, you see, is that it's no longer credible to deny that climate change is happening—voters don't buy it. But acknowledging that it is real would quickly end the campaign dreams of any Koch-affiliated Republican who tried.
For now, “I’m not a scientist” is what one party adviser calls “a temporary Band-Aid” — a way to avoid being called a climate change denier but also to sidestep a dilemma. The reality of campaigning is that a politician who acknowledges that burning coal and oil contributes to global warming must offer a solution, which most policy experts say should be taxing or regulating carbon pollution and increasing government spending on alternative energy. But those ideas are anathema to influential conservative donors like the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and the advocacy group they support, Americans for Prosperity.
Calling it a "temporary Band-Aid," however, implies the wound will heal. Will it? The Koch brothers and other energy titans aren't going to be demanding any less fealty from their sponsored politicians two years from now or six; this notion that I am not a scientist is a silly-sounding stopgap while the party crafts a real response to climate change and needed energy policy shifts implies that such a plan might eventually emerge. So far the only plans in that regard have been offered up by the party's less savvy (cough) spokesmen, and they consist of something between Climate change is a perfectly natural process that we can do nothing about and Sucks to be you. If we're looking for the John Boehners and Mitch McConnells of the world to start explaining a realistic process that both mitigates the most catastrophic effects of climate change and allows the folks who sign the big checks to continue strip-mining large portions of North America, good luck with that.
In any event, an interesting question. When the I am not a scientist talking point itself gets too silly to use, what will it be replaced with? And just how toasty will we all get in the meantime?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Is it just me or do you think that Jack2014 could well be the next mass-shooting perpetrator?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

Concentration of media ownership

For digital media convergence, see Technological convergence.
This page has some issues
Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms.[2][3]

Globally, large media conglomerates include Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox and News Corp (the former News Corporation, split in 2013), Bertelsmann AG, Sony, Comcast, Vivendi, Televisa, The Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation, Organizações Globo and Lagardère Group.[4][5][6]

As of 2012, The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the US, with News Corporation, Time Warner and Viacom ranking second, third and fourth respectively.[7]

In nations described as authoritarian by most international think-tanks and NGOs, media ownership is generally something very close to the complete state control over information in direct or indirect ways.

MergersEdit

Media mergers are a result of one media related company buying another company for control of their resources in order to increase revenues and viewership. As information and entertainment become a major part of our culture, media companies have been creating ways to become more efficient in reaching viewers and turning a profit. Successful media companies usually buy out other companies to make them more powerful, profitable, and able to reach a larger viewing audience. Media mergers have become more prevalent in recent years, which has people wondering about the negative effects that could be caused by media ownership becoming more concentrated. Such negative effects that could come into play are lack of competition and diversity as well as biased political views.[8]

Media oligopoly

An oligopoly is when a few firms dominate a market.[9] When the larger scale media companies buy out the more smaller-scaled or local companies they become more powerful within the market. As they continue to eliminate their business competition through buyouts or forcing them out (because they lack the resources or finances) the companies left dominate the media industry and create a media oligopoly.[10]

Elimination of net neutrality

Net neutrality is also at stake when media mergers occur. Net neutrality involves a lack of restrictions on content on the internet, however, with big businesses supporting campaigns financially they tend to have influence over political issues, which can translate into their mediums. These big businesses that also have control over internet usage or the airwaves could possibly make the content available biased from their political stand point or they could restrict usage for conflicting political views, therefore eliminating Net Neutrality.[9]

Debates and issuesEdit

Concentration of media ownership is very frequently seen as a problem of contemporary media and society.[4][5][6] When media ownership is concentrated in one or more of the ways mentioned above, a number of undesirable consequences follow, including the following:

Commercially driven, ultra-powerful mass market media is primarily loyal to sponsors, i.e. advertisers and government rather than to the public interest.
Only a few companies representing the interests of a minority elite control the public airwaves.
Healthy, market-based competition is absent, leading to slower innovation and increased prices.
Diversity of viewpoints

It is important to elaborate upon the issue of media consolidation and its effect upon the diversity of information reaching a particular market. Critics of consolidation raise the issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic control of a local media market can be fully accountable and dependable in serving the public interest.

Freedom of the press and editorial independence

On the local end, reporters have often seen their stories refused or edited beyond recognition. An example would be the repeated refusal of networks to air "ads" from anti-war advocates to liberal groups like MoveOn.org, or religious groups like the United Church of Christ, regardless of factual basis. Journalists and their reports may be directly sponsored by parties who are the subject of their journalism leading to reports which actually favor the sponsor, have that appearance, or are simply a repetition of the sponsors opinion.[unreliable source?][11]

Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some crucial issues that may affect them.

Concern among academia rests in the notion that the purpose of the first amendment to the US constitution was to encourage a free press as political agitator evidenced by the famous quote from US President Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."[12] Freedom of the press has long been combated by large media companies, but their objections have just as long been dismissed by the supreme courts.[13]

Deregulation

One explanation for the cause of the concentration of media ownership is a shift to neoliberal deregulation policies, which is a market-driven approach. Deregulation effectively removes governmental barriers to allow for the commercial exploitation of media. Motivation for media firms to merge includes increased profit-margins, reduced risk and maintaining a competitive edge. In contrast to this, those who support deregulation have argued that cultural trade barriers and regulations harm consumers and domestic support in the form of subsidies hinders countries to develop their own strong media firms. The opening of borders is more beneficial to countries than maintaining protectionist regulations.[14]

Critics of media deregulation and the resulting concentration of ownership fear that such trends will only continue to reduce the diversity of information provided, as well as to reduce the accountability of information providers to the public. The ultimate consequence of consolidation, critics argue, is a poorly informed public, restricted to a reduced array of media options that offer only information that does not harm the media oligopoly's growing range of interests.[15]

For those critics, media deregulation is a dangerous trend, facilitating an increase in concentration of media ownership, and subsequently reducing the overall quality and diversity of information communicated through major media channels. Increased concentration of media ownership can lead to the censorship of a wide range of critical thought.[16]

Other

Another concern is that consolidated media is not flexible enough to serve local communities in case of emergency.[citation needed] Some say that the Minot train derailment was exacerbated by consolidation of media, but an EOU study cited by Radioworld notes that even though Minot's media was under the same ownership, the Emergency Alert System (EAS) - which is completely automated - should have been activated by emergency management officials (media personnel are not necessary for EAS activation) but was not.[17][18] So it is shown that consolidated media did not play a significant role in this incident.

Determinants of media pluralismEdit

Size and wealth of the market

“Within any free market economy, the level of resources available for the provision of media will be constrained principally by the size and wealth of that economy, and the propensity of its inhabitants to consume media.” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] Those countries that have a relatively large market, like the United Kingdom, France or Spain have more financial background to support diversity of output and have the ability to keep more media companies in the market (as they are there to make profit). More diverse output and fragmented ownership will, obviously, support pluralism. In contrast, small markets like Ireland or Hungary suffer from the absence of the diversity of output given in countries with bigger markets. It means that “support for the media through direct payment” and “levels of consumers expenditure”, furthermore “the availability of advertising support” [Gillian Doyle; 2002:15] are less in these countries, due to the low number of audience. Overall, the size and wealth of the market determine the diversity of both media output and media ownership.

Diversity of suppliers/owners

From the previous paragraph it can be assumed that size/wealth of the market have a very strong relation to the diversity of supplier. If the first is not given (wealthy market) then it is difficult to achieve fragmented supplier system. Diversity of suppliers refers to those heterogeneous independent organizations that are involved in media production and to the common ownership as well. The more various suppliers there are, the better for pluralism is. However, “the more powerful individual suppliers become, the greater the potential threat to pluralism.” [19][verification needed]

Consolidation of resources

The consolidation of cost functions and cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is a common practice in monomedia and cross media. For example, “for multi-product television or radio broadcasters, the more homogeneity possible between different services held in common ownership (or the more elements within a programme schedule which can be shared between ’different’ stations), the greater the opportunity to reap economies.” [20][verification needed] Though the main concern of pluralism is that different organization under different ownership may buy the same e.g. news stories from the same news-supplier agency. In the UK, the biggest news-supplier is The Press Association (PA). Here is a quoted text from PA web site: “The Press Association supplies services to every national and regional daily newspaper, major broadcasters, online publishers and a wide range of commercial organisations.” Overall, in a system where all different media organizations gather their stories from the same source, then we can’t really call that system pluralist. That is where diversity of output comes in.[21]

Concentration of media ownership in particular nationsEdit

Australia

Further information: Media ownership in Australia
Controls over media ownership in Australia are laid down in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992,[22] administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Even with laws in place Australia has a high concentration of media ownership. Ownership of national and the newspapers of each capital city are dominated by two corporations, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, (which was founded in Adelaide) and John Fairfax Holdings.These two corporations along with West Australian Newspapers and the Harris Group work together to create Australian Associated Press which distributes the news and then sells it on to other outlets such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Although much of the everyday mainstream news is drawn from the Australian Associated Press, all the privately owned media outlets still compete with each other for exclusive pop culture news. Rural and regional media is dominated by Rural Press Limited which is owned also by John Fairfax Holdings, with significant holdings in all states and territories. Daily Mail and General Trust operate the DMG Radio Australia commercial radio networks in metropolitan and regional areas of Australia. Formed in 1996, it has since become one of the largest radio media companies in the country. The company currently own more than 60 radio stations across New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.

There are rules governing foreign ownership of Australian media and these rules were loosened by the former Howard Government.

According to Reporters Without Borders in 2004, Australia is in 41st position on a list of countries ranked by Press Freedom; well behind New Zealand (9th) and United Kingdom (28th). This ranking is primarily due to the limited diversity in media ownership. By 2013, Australia had risen to 26th on the Press Freedom Index.

Media Watch is an independent media watchdog televised on the public broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which is one of two government-administered channels, the other being Special Broadcasting Service (SBS).

In late 2011, the Finkelstein Inquiry into media regulation was launched, and reported its findings back to the federal government in early 2012.[23]

New Zealand

Print

Independent Newspapers Limited (INL) formerly published the Wellington-based newspapers The Dominion and The Evening Post, in addition to purchasing a large shareholding in pay TV broadcaster Sky Media Limited in 1997. These two newspapers merged to form the Dominion Post in 2002, and in 2003, sold its entire print media division to Fairfax New Zealand. The remainder of the company officially merged with Sky Media Limited in 2005 to form Sky Network Television Limited.

When INL ceased publishing the Auckland Star in 1991, the New Zealand Herald became the Auckland region's sole daily newspaper. The New Zealand Herald and the New Zealand Listener, formerly privately held by the Wilson & Horton families, was sold to APN News & Media in 1996. As of April 2011, Fairfax New Zealand and APN News & Media have a near duopoly on newspapers and magazines in New Zealand, with Fairfax announcing the closure of the long-running news agency NZPA.

Radio and television

Commercial radio stations are largely divided up between MediaWorks New Zealand and the APN/Clear Channel-owned The Radio Network, with* MediaWorks also owning TV3 and C4. Television New Zealand, although 100% state-owned, has been run on an almost entirely commercial basis since the late 1980s, in spite of previous attempts to steer it towards a more public service-oriented role. Its primary public-service outlet, TVNZ7, ceased broadcasting in 2012 due to non-renewal of funding, and the youth-oriented TVNZ6 was rebranded as the short-lived commercial channel TVNZ U. In addition, the TVNZ channels Kidzone and Heartland are only available through Sky Network Television and not on the Freeview platform.[24]

Sky Network Television has had an effective monopoly on pay TV in New Zealand since its nearest rival Saturn Communications (later part of TelstraClear and noe Vodafone New Zealand) began wholesaling Sky content in 2002. However, in 2011, TelstraClear CEO Allan Freeth warned it would review its wholesale agreement with Sky unless it allowed TelstraClear to purchase non-Sky content.[25]

Canada

Main article: Media ownership in Canada
Broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada are regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), an independent governing agency that aims to serve the needs and interests of citizens, industries, interest groups and the government. The CRTC does not regulate newspapers or magazines.[26]

Apart from a relatively small number of community broadcasters, media in Canada are primarily owned by a small number of companies, including Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications, Astral Media, Quebecor, and the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio-Canada). Each of these companies holds a diverse mix of television, cable television, radio, newspaper, magazine and/or internet operations. In 2007, CTVglobemedia, Rogers Media and Quebecor all expanded significantly through the acquisitions of CHUM Limited, CityTV and Osprey Media, respectively. In 2010, Canwest Global Communications, having filed for bankruptcy, sold its television assets to Shaw (through a new subsidiary, Shaw Media) and spun off its newspaper holdings into Postmedia Network, a new company founded by the National Post's CEO Paul Godfrey.[27] Later that year, Bell also announced that it would acquire the remaining shares of CTVglobemedia (which was originally majority owned by Bell when it was formed in 2001; Bell had reduced its stake in the following years), forming Bell Media.[28]

Between 1990 and 2005 there were a number of media corporate mergers and takeovers in Canada. For example, in 1990, 17.3% of daily newspapers were independently owned; whereas in 2005, 1% were.[29] These changes, among others, caused the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to launch a study of Canadian news media in March 2003. (This topic had been examined twice in the past, by the Davey Commission (1970) and the Kent Commission (1981), both of which produced recommendations that were never implemented in any meaningful way.)[30][31]

The Senate Committee’s final report, released in June 2006, expressed concern about the effects of the current levels of news media ownership in Canada. Specifically, the committee discussed their concerns regarding the following trends: the potential of media ownership concentration to limit news diversity and reduce news quality; the CRTC and Competition Bureau’s ineffectiveness at stopping media ownership concentration; the lack of federal funding for the CBC and the broadcaster’s uncertain mandate and role; diminishing employment standards for journalists (including less job security, less journalistic freedom, and new contractual threats to intellectual property); a lack of Canadian training and research institutes; and difficulties with the federal government’s support for print media and the absence of funding for the internet-based news media.[30][31]

The report provided 40 recommendations and 10 suggestions (for areas outside of federal government jurisdiction), including legislation amendments that would trigger automatic reviews of a proposed media merger if certain thresholds are reached, and CRTC regulation revisions to ensure that access to the broadcasting system is encouraged and that a diversity of news and information programming is available through these services.[30][31]

Brazil

In Brazil, the concentration of media ownership seems to have manifested itself very early. In this regard, Dr. Venício A. de Lima noted in 2003:

It must be noted that in Brazil there is an environment very conducive to concentration. Sectorial legislation has historically been timid, by express intention of the legislator, by failing to include direct provisions that limit or control the concentration of ownership, which, incidentally, goes in the opposite direction of what happens in countries like France, Italy and the United Kingdom, which are concerned with the plurality and diversity in the new scenario of technological convergence (Lobato, Folha de S.Paulo, 10/14/2001)".[32]

Lima also points to other factors that would make media concentration easier, particularly in broadcasting: the failure of legal norms that limit the equity interest of the same economic group in various broadcasting organizations; a short period (five years) for resell broadcasting concessions, facilitating the concentration by the big media groups through the purchase of independent stations, and no restrictions to the formation of national broadcasting networks. He cites examples of horizontal, vertical, crossed and "in cross" concentration (a Brazilian peculiarity).[32]

Horizontal concentration: oligopoly or monopoly produced within an area or industry; television (pay or free) is the Brazilian classical model. In 2002 the cable networks Sky and NET dominated 61% of the Brazilian market. In the same year, 58.37% of all advertising budgets were invested in TV - and in this aspect, TV Globo and its affiliates received 78% of the amount.[33]
Vertical concentration: integration of the different phases of production and distribution, eliminating the work of independent producers. In Brazil, unlike the United States, it is common for a TV network to produce, advertise, market and distribute most of its programming. TV Globo is known for its soap operas exported to dozens of countries; it keeps under permanent contract the actors, authors, and the whole production staff. The final product is broadcast by a network of newspapers, magazines, radio stations and websites owned by Globo Organizations.[34]
Cross ownership: ownership of different kinds of media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.) by the same group. Initially, the phenomenon occurred in radio, television and print media, with emphasis on the group of "Diários Associados." At a later stage appeared the RBS Group (affiliated to TV Globo), with operations in the markets of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. Besides being the owner of radio and television stations, and of the main local newspapers, it has two Internet portals. The opinions of its commentators are thus replicated by a multimedia system that makes it extremely easy to spread the point of view advocated by the group.[35][36]
Monopoly "in cross": reproduction into local level, of the particularities of cross ownership. Research carried out in the early 1990s, detected the presence of this singularity in 18 of the 26 Brazilian states.[37] Manifests itself by the presence of a TV channel with a large audience, often linked to TV Globo and by the existence of two daily newspapers, in which the one with the largest circulation is linked to the major television channel and to a network of radio stations, that almost always reproduces articles and the editorial line of the newspaper "O Globo".[38] In 2002, another survey (which did not include pay TV), found the presence of the "monopoly in cross" in 13 major markets in Brazil.[39]
The UNESCO office in Brasilia has expressed its concern over the existence of an outdated code of telecommunications (1962),[40] which no longer meets the expectations generated by the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 in the political and social fields, and the inability of the Brazilian government to establish an independent regulatory agency to manage the media.[41] Attempts in this direction have been pointed by the mainstream media as attacks on freedom of expression, the trend of the political left in the entire Latin American continent.[42][43][44][45]

European Union

European institutions

While the European Union enforces a common regulations for environmental protection, consumer protection and human rights, it has none for media pluralism.[46]

After concerns raised in the European Parliament and by NGOs about concentration of media ownership in Europe, and its repercussion on pluralism and freedom of expression, in 2007 the European Commission released a three phase plan.[46][47][48] The plan is supposed to produce an official communication to state members by the end of 2010.[46]

In October 2009, a European Union Directive was proposed to set for all member states common and higher standards for media pluralism, right to information and freedom of expression. The proposal was put to a vote in the European Parliament and rejected by just three votes. The directive was supported by the liberal-centrists, the progressives and the green party, and was opposed by the European People's Party.[46] Unexpectedly, the Irish liberals made exception by voting against the directive, and later revealed that they had been pressured by the Irish right-wing government to do so.[46]

Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic about 80% of the newspapers and magazines are owned by German and Swiss corporations.[49]
The two main press groups (Vltava-Labe-Press and Mafra) are (completely or partly) controlled by the German group Rheinisch-Bergische Druckerei- und Verlagsgesellschaft (Mediengruppe Rheinische Post).

Vltava-Labe-Press that owns the tabloids ŠÍP and ŠÍP EXTRA, 73 regional dailies Deník and other 26 weeklies[50][51] and that is major shareholder of publishing houses Astrosat, Melinor[52][53] and 100% owner of Metropol[54] and also partly controls the distribution of all the prints through PNS, a.s.[55] is part of the German Verlagsgruppe Passau (de)[56] (that controls also the German Neue Presse Verlags, the Polish Polskapresse and the Slovak Petit Press).[57]
Mafra (that owns the centre-right dailies Dnes, Lidové noviny[58], the local edition of the freesheet Metro, the periodical 14dní, several monthly magazines, the TV music channel Óčko, the radio stations Expresradio and Rádio Classic FM, several web portals[59][60] and partly controls, together with Vltava-Labe-Press, the distribution company PNS, a.s.)[55] is owned by the German Rheinisch-Bergische Drückerei- und Verlagsgesellschaft. This, in turn, owns 20% of the Verlagsgruppe Passau's shares, creating in this way a sort of cartel within the two corporations Vltava-Labe-Press and Mafra, controlling more than 50% of Czech print distribution through PNS, a.s. (26% by Mafra, 26,1% by Vltava-Labe-Press).
Ringier the Swiss group, controls in Czech Republic 16 daily tabloids and weeklies (such as 24 hodin, Abc, Aha!, Blesk, Blesk TV Magazin, Blesk pro ženy, Blesk Hobby, Blesk Zdravi, Nedělní Blesk, Nedělní Sport, Reflex, Sport, Sport Magazin) as well as 7 web portals, reaching approximately 3.2 million readers.
Czech governments, anxious not to be seen as placing any obstacles in the way of the country's path to EU membership, have defended foreign newspaper ownership as a manifestation of the principle of the free movement of capital.[61]
The centre-left newspaper Právo is currently the only non-foreign owned Czech newspaper.[61]
The weekly Respekt is published by R-Presse, the majority of whose shares are owned by former Czech Minister of foreign affairs Karel Schwarzenberg.[61]
The national television market is dominated by 4 terrestrial stations, two public (Czech TV1 and Czech TV2) and two private (NOVA TV and Prima TV), which draw 95% of audience share.[62]
Concerning the diversity of output, this is limited by a series of factors: the average low level of professional education among Czech journalists is compensated by "informal professionalization", leading to a degree of conformity in approaches;[63] political parties hold strong ties in Czech media, especially print, where more than 50% of Czech journalists identify with the Right, while only 16% express sympathy for the Left;[63] the process of commercialization and "tabloidization" has increased, lowering differentiation of contents in Czech print media.[63]

Germany

Axel Springer AG is one of the largest newspaper publishing companies in Europe, claiming to have over 150 newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries in Europe. In the 1960s and 1970s the company's media followed an aggressive conservative policy (see Springerpresse). It publishes Germany's only nationwide tabloid, Bild and one of Germany's most important broadsheets, Die Welt. Axel Springer also owns a number of regional newspapers, especially in Saxony and in the Hamburg Metropolitan Region, giving the company a de facto monopoly in the latter case. An attempt to buy one of Germany's two major private TV Groups, ProSiebenSat.1 in 2006 was withdrawn due to large concerns by regulation authorities as well as by parts of the public. The company is also active in Hungary, where it is the biggest publisher of regional newspapers, and in Poland, where it owns the best-selling tabloid Fakt, one of the nation's most important broadsheets, Dziennik, and is one of the biggest shareholder in #2 private TV company, Polsat.

Bertelsmann is one of the world's largest media companies. It owns RTL Group, which is one of the two major private TV companies in both Germany and the Netherlands and also owning assets in Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Czech and Hungary. Bertelsmann also owns Gruner+Jahr, Germany's biggest popular magazine publisher, including popular news magazine Stern and a 26% share in investigative news magazine Der Spiegel. Bertelsmann also owns Random House, a book publisher, #1 in the English-speaking world and #2 in Germany.

Ireland

In Ireland, the company, Independent News & Media (CEO: Tony O'Reilly), owns many national newspapers: the Evening Herald, Irish Independent, Sunday Independent, Sunday World and Irish Daily Star. It also owns 29.9% of the Sunday Tribune. Broadcast media is divided between state owned RTE which operates several radio stations and television channels and has started digital radio and television services in the early 2010s; TG4 and Irish language broadcaster, and TV3 a commercial television operator. Denis O'Brien an Irish billionaire with a fortune partly accumulated through the Esat Digifone licence controversy, formed Communicorp Group Ltd in 1989, with the company currently owning 42 radio stations in 8 European countries, including Ireland's Newstalk, Today FM, Dublin's 98 (formerly 98FM), Spin 1038 and Spin South West. In January 2006, O'Brien took a stake in Tony O'Reilly's Independent News & Media (IN&M). As of May 2012, he holds a 29.9% stake in the company, making him the largest shareholder. This compares to O'Reilly's family stake of around 13%.

Italy

Further information: Silvio Berlusconi § Media control and conflict of interest
Silvio Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, is the major shareholder of - by far - Italy's biggest (and de facto only) private free TV company, Mediaset, Italy's biggest publisher, Mondadori, and Italy's biggest advertising company Publitalia (it). One of Italy's nationwide dailies, Il Giornale, is owned by his brother, Paolo Berlusconi, and another, Il Foglio, by his former wife, Veronica Lario. Berlusconi has often been criticized for using the media assets he owns to advance his political career.

United Kingdom

In Britain and Ireland, Rupert Murdoch owns best-selling tabloid The Sun as well as the broadsheet The Times and Sunday Times, and 39% of satellite broadcasting network BSkyB. In March 2011, the United Kingdom provisionally approved Murdoch to buy the remaining 61% of BSkyB,[64] however, subsequent events (News of the World hacking scandal and its closure in July 2011) leading to the Leveson Inquiry have halted this takeover.

Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) own The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, Ireland on Sunday, and free London daily Metro, and control a large proportion of regional media, including through subsidiary Northcliffe Media, in addition to large shares in ITN and GCap Media.

Richard Desmond owns OK! magazine, Channel 5, the Daily Express and the Daily Star.

The Evening Standard[65] and The Independent[66] are both owned by Russian businessman and ex KGB agent Alexander Lebedev.

India

See also: Media ownership in India

In India a few political parties also own media organizations, for example Kalaignar TV is owned by Tamil Nadu's former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. Sakshi TV a Telugu channel in Andhra Pradesh is owned by ex-chief minister's son and family.

Israel

In Israel, Arnon Mozes owns the most widespread Hebrew newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, the most widespread Russian newspaper Vesty, the most popular Hebrew news website Ynet, and 17% of the cable TV firm HOT. Moreover, Mozes owns the Reshet TV firm, which is one of the two operators of the most popular channel in Israel, Channel 2.

Mexico

In Mexico there are only two national broadcast television service companies, Televisa and Azteca. These two broadcasters together administer 434 of the 461 total commercial television stations in the country (94.14%).[67]

Though concern about the existence of a duopoly had been around for some time, a press uproar sparked in 2006, when a controversial reform to the Federal Radio and Television Law, seriously hampered the entry of new competitors, like Cadena Tres.

Televisa also owns subscription TV enterprises Cablevision (Mexico) and SKY, a publishing company Editorial Televisa (es), and the Televisa Radio broadcast radio network, creating a de facto media monopoly in many regions of the country.

United States

Main article: Media cross-ownership in the United States
In the United States, movie production is known to be dominated by major studios since the early 20th Century; before that, there was a period in which Edison's Trust monopolized the industry. The music and television industries recently witnessed cases of media consolidation, with Sony Music Entertainment's parent company merging their music division with Bertelsmann AG's BMG to form Sony BMG and Tribune's The WB and CBS Corp.'s UPN merging to form The CW. In the case of Sony BMG, there existed a "Big Five" (now "Big Four") of major record companies, while The CW's creation was an attempt to consolidate ratings and stand up to the "Big Four" of American network (terrestrial) television (this despite the fact that the CW was, in fact, partially owned by one of the Big Four in CBS). In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by eight corporations: News Corporation (the Fox family of channels), The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN and Disney brands), National Amusements (which includes CBS Corporation and Viacom), Comcast (which includes the NBC brands), Time Warner, Discovery Communications, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision, or some combination thereof.[68]

There may also be some large-scale owners in an industry that are not the causes of monopoly or oligopoly. Clear Channel Communications, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, acquired many radio stations across the United States, and came to own more than 1,200 stations. However, the radio broadcasting industry in the United States and elsewhere can be regarded as oligopolistic regardless of the existence of such a player. Because radio stations are local in reach, each licensed a specific part of spectrum by the FCC in a specific local area, any local market is served by a limited number of stations. In most countries, this system of licensing makes many markets local oligopolies. The similar market structure exists for television broadcasting, cable systems and newspaper industries, all of which are characterized by the existence of large-scale owners. Concentration of ownership is often found in these industries.

In the United States, data on ownership and market share of media companies is not held in the public domain.

Recent media mergers

Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the amount of media outlets have increased. That translates to fewer companies owning more media sources, increasing the concentration of ownership.[8]

Venezuela

Main article: Media in Venezuela
By corporationEdit

Among other assets, Disney owns ABC, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, and ESPN; it is a partner in A&E Networks, which includes History, A&E, and Lifetime.
CBS Corporation owns CBS, CBS Radio (formerly Infinity Broadcasting), Simon & Schuster editing group, a 50% ownership stake in The CW, etc. Though technically separate companies, CBS and Viacom (owners of MTV Networks and several mostly cable television stations) have a large portion of common ownership through Sumner Redstone's National Amusements.
Comcast owns NBC Universal, The Weather Channel, G4, Versus, style., E!, a share of A&E Networks, Comcast SportsNet, the Philadelphia Flyers and the Philadelphia 76ers. As of February 13, 2014, Comcast also owns Time Warner Cable.[69]
Time Warner owns CNN, TBS, TNT, Sports Illustrated Time, and a 50% ownership stake in The CW. It previously owned Time Warner Cable, but spun off that company in 2009.
Bertelsmann owns Arvato, Direct Group, RTL Group (which in turn owns VOX, a part in M6 TV channel, and FremantleMedia North America), and several other companies.
Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners own Clear Channel Communications, one of the largest radio station and billboard ownership groups in the United States, its syndication wing Premiere Networks (which controls several of the most popular U.S. radio programs), and a share in The Weather Channel.
Rupert Murdoch, the media magnate, a part of News Corp., also owns British News of the World, The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times, as well as the Sky Television network, which merged with British Satellite Broadcasting to form BSkyB, and SKY Italia; in the US, he owns the Fox Networks, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. Since 2003, he also owns 34% of DirecTV Group (formerly Hughes Electronics), operator of the largest American satellite TV system, DirecTV, and Intermix Media (creators of myspace.com) since 2005. See also Murdoch Newspaper List.
The estate of William Randolph Hearst, doing business as Hearst Corporation, owns minority shares in ESPN Inc. and A&E Networks, King Features Syndicate, and fifteen newspapers along with 29 local television stations.
Oaktree Capital Management's Triton Media Group owns Dial Global (As of December 12, 2013, Cumulus Media now owns Dial Globial, which it renamed WestwoodOne), Waitt Radio Networks, Westwood One and Jones Radio Networks, three major satellite music radio providers; they also own Townsquare Media (itself a consolidation of Regent Communications, Double O Radio and Gap Broadcasting, the last of which has mainly bought radio stations away from Clear Channel Communications).
Companies tied to the Dolan family and Cablevision (either AMC Networks or Madison Square Garden, Inc.) own AMC, IFC, Sundance Channel, WE tv, News 12 Networks, MSG Network, Fuse TV, SportsTime Ohio, the New York Rangers, the New York Knicks, and the Cleveland Indians
E. W. Scripps Company owns fourteen newspapers, nine broadcast television stations, Travel Channel, HGTV, Food Network, DIY Network, Cooking Channel, GAC, and the National Spelling Bee.
Gannett Company owns USA Today and a large number of local newspapers and television stations.
European media organizations

Lagardère Group owns Hachette Filipacchi Médias, which is the largest magazine publisher in the world, 100% of Lagardère Media, 34% of CanalSat, and Hachette Livre (as well as parts in the European military aerospace EADS company).
Vivendi owns Canal + Group and Universal Music Group.
Edouard de Rothschild has 37% of French left-wing daily Libération since 2005.
Arms company Dassault owns 82% of the Socpresse, which controls conservative Le Figaro (in which the Carlyle Group previously had a 40% stake), as well as L'Express.
Le Monde is owned by Groupe Le Monde (fr), which also controls Télérama and other publications of La Vie Catholique, as well as 51% of Le Monde diplomatique.
French Bouygues company owns 42.9% of TF1 TV channel, and is the parent company of Bouygues Télécom.
Modern Times Group, quoted on the Stockholm Stock Exchange, owns Viasat TV network and Metro International, which is the world's largest chain of free newspapers, publishing 57 daily Metro editions in 18 countries.
In the UK, Daily Mail and General Trust plc owns newspapers including the Daily Mail, Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, has a 29.9% stake in GCap Media (the owner of Classic FM and other radio stations), and a 20% stake in ITN, and also owns regional publisher Northcliffe Media.
Bolloré, owned by Vincent Bolloré, who is Havas's main share-holder and president and UK group Aegis' first share-holder. Bolloré owns Direct 8 French TV channel.
Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, controlled by Fininvest, the family holding company of Silvio Berlusconi, possesses a large share of the magazine publishing industry in Italy.
Mediaset, also controlled by Silvio Berlusconi's Fininvest, owns 3 out of 7 national TV channels in Italy. Mr Berlusconi in his function of prime minister also exerts great influence over 3 more channels (RAI-owned), thus directly or indirectly controlling almost 90% of Italy's mass media.
Bonnier owns in its native Sweden, the main commercial TV channel TV4; the satellite broadcaster C More Entertainment; the major newspapers Dagens Nyheter, Sydsvenskan, Dagens Industri and Expressen, cinema chain SF Bio and film production companies Svensk Filmindustri and Sonet Film and the book publisher of the same name. While in Finland, it owns the largest commercial television broadcaster MTV3; a nationwide radio station Radio Nova, and a major broadsheet and tabloid Aamulehti and Iltalehti.
See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

Steven, 2009: p. 19
Downing, John, ed. (2004). The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies. SAGE. p. 296. ISBN 978-0-7619-2169-1.
Lorimer, Rowland & Scannell, Paddy (1994). Mass communications: a comparative introduction. Manchester University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-7190-3946-1.
New Internationalist (April 2001). "Global Media". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
New Internationalist (April 2001). "Ultra Concentrated Media - Facts". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
Katharine Ainger (April 2001). "Empires of the Senseless". New Internationalist. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
- Fortune 500
Shah, Anup. “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership.” Global Issues, Updated: 02 Jan. 2009. Accessed: 21 Mar. 2011
Straubhaar, Joseph, Robert LaRose, and Lucinda Davenport. Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008. Print.
Shah, Anup. “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership.” Global Issues, Updated: 02 Jan. 2009. Accessed: 21 Mar. 2011.
"CNN American Morning Sells Out Cancer Survivor for Coal". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
"Government: Watchdog Organizations". Activism. 1999-02-22. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
Baker, C. Edmund (2007). Media concentration and democracy: why ownership matters. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 127.
McChesney, R. (2001). "Global media, neoliberalism and imperialism". Monthly Review 52 (10).
Baker, C. Edmund (2007). Media concentration and democracy: why ownership matters. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 3.
Cooper, M. (2004). "Limits on Media Ownership Serve the Public Interest". Television Quarterly 34 (3/4).
on 01.18.2006 (2006-01-18). "Commentary: Reconsidering Minot and EAS". Radio World. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
[1][dead link]
Doyle, 2002: p. 18
Doyle, 2002: p. 22-23
Doyle, Gillian (2002). "What's "new" about the future of communications? An evaluation of recent shifts in UK media ownership policy" 24 (5).
The full text of the act, Australasian Legal Information Institute, Retrieved 2009-10-24
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy - Independent Media Inquiry
TVNZ and Sky TV too cosy, says industry
"Sky TV adds to customer base - Business - NZ Herald News". Nzherald.co.nz. 2001-12-22. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. "About the CRTC". Retrieved 23 October 2011.
CBCNews (2011-03-11). "Media convergence, acquisitions and sales in Canada". CBC News. Retrieved 24 October 2011.
Marlow, Iain (2010-09-10). "BCE-CTV deal remakes media landscape". Toronto: The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 13 September 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-11.
McCurry, Lawrence. "Web Exclusive: Media Guilty In G-20". Articles - December 3, 2010. Canadian Dimension. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
The Globe and Mail (June 22, 2006). "Review media mergers - Senate group urges Grant Robertson and Simon Tuck". The Globe and Mail - republished by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (June 2006). "Final report on the canadian news media". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
Venício A. de Lima (2003-07-01). Observatório da Imprensa, ed. "Existe concentração na mídia brasileira? Sim" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2012-04-08.
Castro, D. (2003-03-10). "TV fatura R$ 5,7 bi e cresce 6% em 2002". Folha de S. Paulo (in Portuguese).
Ortiz, R. et al. (1989). Brasiliense, ed. Telenovela-História e Produção. São Paulo.
Laura Schenkel (2006-09-12). Observatório da Imprensa, ed. "Formação de monopólio da RBS em SC será questionada" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2012-04-08.
Jacques Mick; Lima, Samuel (2006-08-30). Agência Experimental de Jornalismo, ed. "RBS e AN: os riscos da monopolização" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2012-04-08.
Amaral, R.; Guimarães, C. (1994). Journal of Communications, ed. Media Monopoly in Brazil 44 (4, Autumm ed.). pp. 30–32.
Amaral, R.; Guimarães, C. (1994). Journal of Communications, ed. Media Monopoly in Brazil 44 (4, Autumm ed.). p. 30.
Daniel Herz; Görgen, James; Osório, Pedro Luiz (2002-03-06). CartaCapital, ed. "Quem são os donos" (pdf) (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2012-04-05.
Prof. Murilo César Ramos. University of Brasília, ed. "Communications regulatory framework in Brazil: media, telecommunications, internet" (pdf). Retrieved 2012-10-16.
UNESCO (ed.). "Freedom of Expression in Brazil". Retrieved 2012-10-16.
Maira Magro (2011-01-03). Center for International Media Assistance, ed. "Brazil’s New Communications Minister Defends New Regulation". Retrieved 2012-10-16.
Rosenfield, Denis (2012-03-27). "Liberdade e regulação" (in Portuguese). O Estado de S. Paulo. Retrieved 2013-01-01.
João Brant (2012-05-17). Carta Maior, ed. "FHC defende a regulação dos meios de comunicação" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2012-10-16.
Mansur, Vinícius (2012-05-22). "Assusta-me que FHC assuma a bandeira da regulação da mídia" (in Portuguese). Carta Maior. Retrieved 2013-01-01.
Pisanò, Alessio (2010) Se il pluralismo scivola in fondo all’agenda Ue, Il Fatto Quotidiano, August 16, 2010
"European Journalism - Study :Statistical review of journalism and media sector in the European Union". Ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
[2] by the Council of Europe
Commission of the European Communities, Commission staff working document - Media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union, Brussels, 16.1.2007 SEC(2007) 0032, p.9
"Independent periodicals", Website of VLTAVA-LABE PRESS a.s.: CV Týden, Tachovská Jiskra, Týdeník Domažlicko, Týdeník Chebsko, Týdeník Karlovarska, Týdeník Klatovska, Týdeník Sokolovska, Týdeník Vysočina, Týden u nás, Vyškovské noviny, Nový život, Slovácko, Znojemské noviny, Týdeník Ostrava, Region - Bruntálský, Region - Krnovské noviny, Region - Opavský a Hlučínský, Region - Karvinsko, Region - Havířsko, Region - Týdeník okresu Nový Jičín, Region - Frýdecko-Místecko, Prostějovský týden, Nové Přerovské, Hranický týden, Moravský sever, Slovácké noviny plus
Company structure on VLTAVA-LABE-PRESS's website
Czech: Website of VLTAVA-LABE PRESS a.s., "About us"
Czech: Město Brno pohledem lidí z různých oborů BA thesis by Michal Kárný
Vltava Labe Press' profile on the Czech Publishers Association
Vltava-Labe-Press AS acquires a minority stake in Prvni Novinova Spolecnost from Czech Republic Thomson Financial Mergers & Acquisitions. 08-06-2001
Website of VLTAVA-LABE PRESS a.s.
Company structure on Verlagsgruppe Passau's website
The Czech media landscape - print media
Web page of MAFRA
Company profile. Czech Publishers Association, 2008
"The press in the Czech Republic". BBC news. December 10, 2005. Retrieved 2008-12-13.
Pre-workshop Report, Robert Schumann centre for Advanced Studies
Jaromír Volek. «The market takes all - Czech Republic: Playing the game of media trumps». Eurozine 2009-03-20
"Rupert Murdoch BSkyB takeover gets government go-ahead". BBC News. 2011-03-03.
Brook, Stephen; Sweney, Mark (2009-01-21). "Alexander Lebedev's Evening Standard takeover: Dacre announces sale to staff". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-21.
"The Independent bought by Lebedev for £1". BBC News. 2010-03-25. Retrieved 2010-03-25.
Permisos y concesiones de televisión en México
Steiner, Tobias. "Convergence in the US Television Market between 2000 and 2012, from a User's perspective". academia.edu. Retrieved 24 Jan 2013.
Comcast buys Time Warner Cable for $45 billion. CNN Money, Feb. 13, 2014.
BibliographyEdit

Further readingEdit

Amelia Arsenault & Manuel Castells (2008) The Structure and Dynamics of Global Multi-Media Business Networks. International Journal of Communication.
Bagdikian, Benjamin H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-6187-9.
Baker, C. Edwin (2007). Media concentration and democracy: why ownership matters. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86832-7.
Compaine, Benjamin M. & Gomery, Douglas (2000). Who owns the media?: competition and concentration in the mass media industry. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-8058-2936-5.
Croteau, David & Hoynes, William (2006). The business of media: corporate media and the public interest. Pine Forge Press. ISBN 978-1-4129-1315-7.
Dwyer, Tim (2010). Media Convergence. McGraw-Hill International. ISBN 978-0-335-22873-7.
Harper, Joe & Yantek, Thom, ed. (2003). Media, profit, and politics: competing priorities in an open society. Kent State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87338-754-5.
Hassan, Robert & Thomas, Julian, ed. (2006). The new media theory reader. McGraw-Hill International. ISBN 978-0-335-21710-6.
McChesney, Robert W. (1997). Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-888363-47-9.
Noam, Eli M. (2009). Media ownership and concentration in America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518852-3.
Skinner, David et al., ed. (2005). Converging media, diverging politics: a political economy of news media in the United States and Canada. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-1306-6.
Media convergence. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
FilmEdit

External linksEdit

Read in another language


Sent from my iPad

Jack2014

What
You didn't feed that ugly cat again?
Shame on you Gringerich

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

http://m.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/

Who Owns What on Television?

All those hundreds of TV channels may lead you that there's a true diversity and variety in today's television ... but you'd be wrong. A handful of large companies control what you see, hear, and read every day.

Let's take a look at who owns what on television - here are the TV channels owned by 6 of the largest companies in media, as depicted by their logos:

General Electric

General Electric is a true behemoth: the conglomerate is the world's third largest company with market capitalization of nearly $370 billion and annual revenue of $173 billion (2007). The company produces practically everything - from aircraft engine to locomotives to medical devices.

GE's media holding includes television networks NBC and Telemundo, 27 television stations in the United States and many cable TV networks, including the History Channel, A&E, and Sci Fi Channel. It also owns the popular web-based TV website Hulu.

Update 7/8/08: A&E is co-owned by The Hearst Corporation and ABC, which in turn is owned by Disney.

Time Warner

Time Warner is the world's largest media and entertainment company - it owns major operations in film, TV, print, Internet, and telecommunications. Time Warner has an annual revenue of $50.5 billion (2008) - the equivalent of the entire GDP of Luxembourg.

Like cartoons? Time Warner's got you covered with Cartoon Network and Adult Swim. Classic movies? Check (Turner Classic Movies). And who can forget CNN and Headline News? Both are Time Warner properties. (Note: CW is co-owned by Time Warner and CBS).

The Walt Disney Company

You may associate it with amusement parks, but The Walt Disney Company has grown to be one of the world's largest media and entertainment corporation since its founding as an animation studio by brothers Walt and Roy Disney in 1923.

The Walt Disney Company owns the ABC television network, with more 200 affiliated stations reaching nearly 100% of all U.S. television market, as well as dozens of niche cable networks. True to its cartoon animation origin, Disney captures its viewers early - it counts millions of young children as its audience with kids channels like the Disney Channel.

News Corporation

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is a behemoth: it is the largest media company in the world by market capitalization ($38 billion). For most people, the conservative news channel Fox comes foremost to mind when asked what they think of Murdoch's media empire - but the company's holding is far larger: it includes Asia's Star TV Network, the National Geographic Channel and even the iconic TV Guide network.

Don't watch TV? Even if you prefer to browse the Internet, most likely you've visited News Corp's property, which include Hulu (owned in partnership with GE through its subsidiary NBC Universal) and the social networking giant MySpace.

CBS

CBS (which used to stand for the Columbia Broadcasting System) is not sometimes called the Tiffany Network for nothing: the company is known for its high programming quality. It is currently the most watched television network in the United States, and reached more than 103 million homes in the country.

Both CBS and Viacom (see below) are owned by multi-billionaire Sumner "content is king" Redstone, through his holding company National Amusements.

Viacom

Viacom stands for "Video and Audio Communication" - and true to that name, the company owns a large number of cable and satellite television networks (the company was split from CBS Corporation in 2005, though both have the same majority owner).

In 2007, Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement and recently a federal judge granted Viacom's request for data of all YouTube users. The blogosphere has since called for a boycott of all Viacom properties - so that means no MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon or - gasp - Comedy Central for you!

vernon

climate change?

Jack2014

You skinheads would rate murder as a petty crime. Tell that to the family's of the 6000'troops Bucheney's killed

Get the point dog breathe

L.E. Liesner Loc: New Mexico

The thing about arguing with a fool is, after a few minutes the people cannot tell which one is the idiot. Jack2014 has proven that that the liberal/progressive movement is made up from the brain dead mentally disturbed, don't lower yourself to his level.

Jack2014

Well you certainly prove that you are lacking a brain. Horse Sh£T head
You and your idiot friends haven't said a thing worth arguing or debating
You give yourself too much credit!

vernon

he better calm down ,i think he might have a stroke.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Old Al Gore knows all about big oil money, now doesn't he. How much did he make off of them 100,000 million off Current television. The same Current TV station that was about to go belly up.
You should do some REAL research and pick your hero's better.
Next we can talk about Clinton crowning achievement the Glass Steagal Act, and how its deregulation of the markets was the main culprit to our economic downfall.

vernon

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Rufus Loc: Deep South

:thumbup: It is not just you. We all think that.

Jack2014

Really? Can I profit from the bucheney wars too little fool

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

It would be better to just ignore it.