Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad

corbettw writes "Fox News is running an article that slams Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and the Democrats (with the notable exception of Rick Boucher) as having betrayed their principles. More importantly, the article explains why the SSSCA is so bad, in language any American can understand. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media taking this beast on before it becomes law."

Comments

The Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., is at it again. Although he represents South Carolina, Hollings is sometimes known as the "Senator from Disney" because of his eagerness to support the interests of the motion picture and record industries and their lobbying arms, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Record Industry Association of America.

Hollings' loyalty to Big Entertainment -- which favored him with contributions of nearly $300,000 in the past election cycle -- was manifested last fall by his championing of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, which would mandate the inclusion of copy-protection in every digital device and every computer operating system.

And Hollings has proved that he is true to his salt, by holding hearings in support of the same idea last week, hearings at which he made no secret of his siding with the entertainment industries and against the interests of consumers.

This might seem odd for a senior member of the Democratic Party, which usually styles itself a friend of the little guy, and it can't simply be explained away as an eccentricity his -- Hollings was joined by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both of whom are heavily reliant on entertainment-industry money (with Kerry sure to become even more so if he runs for President in 2004, as expected).

And the money seems to be the explanation here. A Wired article on the hearings noted that in the 2000 election cycle, the entertainment industry gave Democrats a whopping $24.2 million in contributions compared to $13.3 million to Republicans.

So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough.

This partiality is a betrayal of principle. As such, it represents a real political opportunity for the Republicans. Democrats do like to portray themselves as the friends of the little guy and the protectors of ordinary Americans against greedy big business -- as demonstrated by their posturing over the Enron collapse. But as Ken Layne pointed out last week, the entertainment industries make Enron's management look like Boy Scouts.

Talk about screwing the little guy: audits of record companies routinely indicate "errors" that are always in the companies' favor. (Recording artist Peggy Lee just won a big judgment, and many other artists' lawsuits are pending). Accounting is byzantine enough to make Enron's look simple.

Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount. Despite being illegal, payola is rife, keeping interesting artists off the air in favor of the manufactured hitmaker of the week. And now, record companies -- who have allied themselves with the just-as-bad motion picture industry - want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money, even though courts have held that such copying is entirely legal.

"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" sounds like a pretty good slogan, and it's one that Republicans could use against Democrats nationwide. A few smart Democrats, like Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, realize this. As Boucher puts it, these companies are "seeking to use their copyright not just to obtain fair compensation but in effect to exercise complete dominance and total control of the copyrighted work...I have told the heads of the major labels I think this is a major mistake that will engender a major public backlash." Unfortunately, Boucher seems to be a voice in the wilderness within the Democratic Party, which has forged a symbiotic relationship with the entertainment industries over the past few decades.

But what's bad judgment and betrayal of principle for Democrats is a political opportunity for Republicans, who can capitalize on that "backlash." Imagine this scenario: the Department of Justice investigates the record and motion picture industries for fraud, where artists are concerned, and price-fixing, where charges to consumers are concerned. (There wouldn't be anything bogus about doing so: I mentioned the vulnerability of the record industry to racketeering charges a few months ago at an entertainment-law panel discussion that I was moderating, in the hopes of stirring up a hot dispute between lawyers who represent artists and those who represent record companies. But, strikingly, everyone there agreed that the record companies were vulnerable on this ground.)

Meanwhile, Republican legislators denounce these industries for trying to take control of individuals' computers, denouncing the "spyware" already on Windows Media Player that tracks what you listen to, and promising to outlaw such intrusive technologies in the future. Democrats are left with a choice: side with fatcats, and against consumers and popular artists, or turn on a constituency that has been a major source of campaign funds.

Such an approach would turn the Democrats' greatest political weapons into vulnerabilities. Are the Republicans smart enough to do that?

The Myth of the "Liberal Media"

[Squalish]

One the silliest expressions used in America is liberal media. The word liberal itself has been so abused and twisted in the last few decades, you'd think the Ministry of Truth had decreed its meaning must be changed. Liberal has become a contemptuous epithet for opposition to economic liberty, Constitutional principles, and even religious expression.

This is a parody of the word. Liberal has to do with open-mindedness, dedication to principles of intellectual liberty, and a strong regard for human rights. Over the last two and a half centuries, expanding the franchise, achieving religious liberty, defending human rights, and concern for the environment were all liberal causes. Not a bad record, that.

How was this fine word reduced to shabbiness? The answer is through endless repetition of the parody in magazines, newspapers, and on television. That's not exactly prima facie evidence for liberal bias in the media.

Nothing has changed to erode the truth of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration in the ownership of American corporations, including the news business, the remark is more pertinent than ever.

Just reeling off the names of some major owners of America's press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation, Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation, and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these liberal?

Even the New York Times, often regarded as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

The Times always defends the establishment. It becomes positively hot and bothered about supporting often-abusive institutions like the FBI over the rights of individuals, as in its hideous, long-term attack on Wen Ho Lee.

Where's the liberal bias? In pompous editorials that read like press releases for the American Imperium? In a slick magazine whose mostly-vapid stories float in a thick ooze of advertising for expensive clothes, perfumes, and furniture? In a letters column whose writers often use two lines to give their titles? Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York Times. They're as common as farts in a church service.

Ah, there's public broadcasting, isn't there? But America's public broadcasting is the most sanitized, politically correct that I'm aware of. Public television is hopelessly fluffy, featuring gorilla pictures narrated by authorities like Martin Sheen and puff-piece investigative reports.

Its evening news specializes in pseudo-debate, invariably with dependents of the two parties exchanging slogans. The program focuses on Beltway babble rather than investigation. Holders of think-tank sinecures are regular seat-fillers. American public radio, which does a better job than television, still lacks breadth of view, lacks bite, and, for the most part, contains precious little not found in mainstream media.

America's public-broadcast officials collapsed in a heap when Newt Gingrich and his band of Texas Visagoths attacked them about running a sandbox for yuppies, and they haven't recovered yet. Public broadcasting has lost much of its government financing over the years, and it lives under constant threat of losing more. After all, the party in power doesn't even pay its UN dues. What's support for public broadcasting compared to international-treaty obligations?

Is Dan Rather a Republican? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw? ask readers who think they have a definitive point, but the point they make is quite different to the one they think they're making.

Who cares what these gentlemen are as long as they do their jobs? What is it about the right-wing (conservative is really too gentle a word) that insists on knowing the details of one's political ties and bedroom habits? Isn't this a little like what you would expect in the old Soviet Union? And who has more influence on the overall character of a news organization, a paid news reader or the guys paying the bills? Anyone with a very good job doesn't have to be told not to seriously irritate the boss.

Reflect on events over some decades and ask yourself about the American press's liberal role in them. Did the press ever tell us what happened in the Gulf War? Has it given us much more than Pentagon press releases on Afghanistan? Does the gloss on the Middle East ever go beyond what you'd expect from the State Department?

Did the press ever reveal to the American people what a manipulative monster J. Edgar Hoover was? Did the press tell people, while he was destroying people's lives, that Joe McCarthy was a desperate drunk trying to revive a failing political career? Such questions are endless, and the answer to virtually all of them is no.

source: John Chuckman, Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckmanmedia.html