Sarkozy Taking Control of the Media

Whilst Sarkozy has been turning on the charm of late, the story in France is altogether more worrying. Sarko seems to be taking a leaf out of Berlusconi's book and seeking to control the output of the French media and ensure that it is entirely uncritical of his presidency. Sarkozy's latest attempt to control the media revolves around France's public broadcaster, FTV. From The Guardian:

Earlier this year, Sarkozy surprised everyone - including his own culture minister - by proposing stopping advertising on FTV in January 2009. The cost? €850m - roughly the third of FTV revenues not covered by the licence fee. Was his aim, as he said, to help FTV avoid ratings-chasing and learn from the BBC, or to help his friends in commercial TV and disorientate the left? The answer, of course, is both.

He created a commission to sort out the mess. His majority leader in parliament, Jean-François Copé, headed a group of politicians and industry experts with the aim of modernising FTV and filling the funding gap. Inclusiveness extended to politicians, producers, film makers, a philosopher and me, for my expertise on the BBC.

Last week Sarkozy received the commission's report and said that from now on he would choose FTV's director general. Sceptics were to be reassured by safeguards: parliament could reject the proposed candidate - but only with a three-fifths majority vote, and Sarkozy has a majority in both houses. So how has an initiative, heralded in January as creating a French-style BBC by ending advertising, resulted in the most obvious attempt by any French government since De Gaulle to place public broadcasting under its control? The answers lie in attitudes to funding and governance.

But so what? FTV is only one of a multitude of media outlets in France, it's not as if free speech is under threat. Well, the assault on FTV is just the tip of the iceberg. Sarkozy counts many influential media figures amongst his personal friends. These influential figures include:

* Serge Dassault - owner of the historically conservative Le Figaro newspaper and a senator from the president's right-wing party
* Martin Bouygues - godfather to Sarkozy's youngest son, who controls the biggest French television channel, TF1
*Arnaud Lagardère - an aerospace company chairman who once said he and Sarkozy were as close as brothers
* Bernard Arnault - chairman of LVH, the holding company for the financial newspaper Les Échos and best man at Sarkozy's wedding.

Of course, there should be nothing particularly surprising about this. The political establishment has long seen the media as a convenient propaganda tool. The United States has long given up the pretence of having an objective media. For much of the past eight years they have failed to scrutinise the White House and have been keen to play the role of obedient puppy. And that's before we even begin to look at the influence certain elements had on the first Bush election 'victory'. The appointment of Roger Ailes as CEO at the Fox News Channel merely served to underline the point. Ailes was media consultant for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I and displayed perfect Republican credentials. As such, Fox was always going to be a tool for the Bush White House, and so it has proved.

And so it has continued. Berlusconi has a large chunk of the media under his thumb in Italy. Even the UK government has attempted to crush the independence of the BBC over the build-up to the Iraq war (much to the delight of the supposedly anti-state right). The political elite have seen what an effective propaganda machine the media can be. As a result, they have sought to control it in order to consolidate their positions of power and crush dissent. The line dividing media and the government is being eroded at an alarming rate. France is just the latest victim of the political elite's rush to control the media.

Fox News - Laugh Out Loud Funny

One of the 'benefits' of coming to Spain is the chance to catch a bit of Fox news. Even though I am forced to pay for Sky news whether I want to or not, I choose not to line Murdoch's pockets further by paying his over inflated subscription. Yes Biased BBC fans, even if I did not own a TV, I would still be forced to pay money to keep Sky operating. The difference with the BBC is.......??

Anyway, just a quick glimpse of Fox and it is easy to see why American's are a little confused about the world. Take today for example. Sean Hannity, the puffed up right-wing windbag, was interviewing Karl Rove (laughingly dubbed 'the architect' - is that because he labours over grand designs which ultimately fail to deliver??) about the forthcoming American election. So far, so typical. What had me gasping with astonishment, however, was their description of Barak Obama. Obama is, according to Rove, a man of the "far-left". Far-left!!!!!?????? I laughed so hard I nearly choked. In what friggin' world could Obama ever be described as "far-left"???? Of his policies, which are particularly linked to far-left ideology??? I can barely think of one. Try to make a similar comparison in the UK, and almost everyone would laugh in your face. It strikes me as rather similar to pointing at an opponent and shouting "fascist" before running in the other direction. "Far-left"???? Obama is a representative of the Republican Lite party, a party that has never embraced that ideals of socialism, but has been as craven in its rush to support the rich as the Republicans. I worry for the state of America when brain dead experts like Rove and Hannity can openly claim such utter nonsense. And don't even get me started on Liebermann's appearance...........

Judith Regan, Rudy Giuliani and the Death of Fox?

Well, there is hope anyway. Things could just about to be getting interesting for Fox News in the US. This from The New York Times:

Ms. Regan filed a $100 million lawsuit against her former employer, claiming she was unjustly made a scapegoat for the O. J. Simpson “If I Did It” fiasco that (briefly) embarrassed Mr. Murdoch and his News Corporation. But for those of us not caught up in the Simpson circus, what’s most riveting about the suit are two at best tangential sentences in its 70 pages: “In fact, a senior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani’s presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik.”

Yes, let that last sentence roll around your head. A Fox executive advised her to lie to investigators. And it gets more intriguing:

Who at the News Corporation supposedly asked Ms. Regan to lie to protect Rudy’s secrets? Her complaint does not say. But thanks to the political journal The Hotline, we do know that as of the summer Mr. Giuliani had received more air time from Fox News than any other G.O.P. candidate, much of it on the high-rated “Hannity & Colmes.” That show’s co-host, Sean Hannity, appeared at a Giuliani campaign fund-raiser this year.

Clearly Fox News had it in their interest to protect Giuliani and seemed intent on breaking the law in order to do so. Typically, the Murdoch owned media have closed ranks:

Fox News coverage of Ms. Regan’s lawsuit last week was minimal. After all, Mr. Giuliani dismissed the whole episode as “a gossip column story,” and we know Fox would never stoop so low as to trade in gossip. The coverage was scarcely more intense at The Wall Street Journal, whose print edition included no mention of the suit’s reference to that “senior executive” at the News Corporation. (After bloggers noticed, the article was amended online.) The Journal is not quite yet a Murdoch property, but its editorial board has had its own show on Fox News since 2006.

So, whilst Giuliani trades on his 'heroic' role in the events of 11/9, Murdoch's empire is apparently prepared to break the law to ensure he is protected from any attacks. Such allegations, if proven, could hit right at the heart of the Fox News network and expose it as the lying, deceitful, law breaking extremist fringe that it truly is. For that, we must all be grateful.

Shepard Smith: Just Another Moron at Fox News

Caught this astounding cock-up by Shepard Smith on Fox News, do these guys know anything about the country in which they live?

"'......[quoting latest Osama Bin Laden video] neo-conservatives such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle.....'[Smith interjects] You remember Richard Perle, the Wall Street Journal journalist who was killed over there."

And people rely on this man to bring them news???? He can't even tell the difference between Richard Perle (one of the architects of current American forien policy) and Daniel Pearl (a journalist who was beheaded by a bunch of fanatics). No wonder the average Fox News viewer is about as smart as the average Big Brother viewer.

American Workers 'Most Productive' According to UN Report

Yes, the conservative media have been all over this one today. Fox News has particularly been keen to trumpet these statistics as evidence of the strength of the American workforce. This is, as far as the media are concerned, something to celebrate. From Fox:

American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

Wow, don't it make you so proud?? America leads the way in terms of productivity. But what does this actually mean?

Part of the reason why Americans work longer hours is due to a decrease in income. For example, the real value of the minimum wage has decreased from $5.84 in 2000 to $5.15 in 2005 (statistics from Economic Policy Institute - EPI). Consequently, lower income earners have to work longer to make up the shortfall. As well as a decrease in the real value of the minimum wage, there has been a marked decrease in the median family income. In 2000, the median was $55,647, in 2004 it was $54,061 (EPI). That's a decrease of over $1,000 per year. Interestingly, while incomes have generally declined, the main obstacle to wage decreases, the unions, have become almost powerless in the US. Union coverage decreased in 2005 to an all-time low of only 12.5%, down one percentage point since 2000 (EPI).

In contrast to these decreases, the rich have been getting richer. Between 2002 and 2003, the most recent available statistics, the top one percent earned an extra $53,000 (EPI) after tax. The lowest quintile actually saw a $200 decrease. The actual share of the income has also grown dramatically. For 2005, the top fifth took home 50.4% of total income. The bottom fifth only took home around 3.4%. Of course, it goes without saying that the top fifth will be the owners and the bottom fifth the workers. Workers who are, according to the report, working longer than their counterparts in other industrialised nations. This discrepancy in the distribution of income makes another statistic from the report stand out:

The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.

The US worker produces more wealth than their counterparts across the globe. They create $63,885 of wealth per year, and yet they see only a tiny fraction of that wealth. Those that do reap the benefits of this world beating level of wealth creation are the rich. In effect, the workers are working harder and longer for less pay, and yet they are creating more wealth which, in turn, ends up not in their pockets, but in the pockets of the top fifth. Yes, American workers are working harder, but they do not see the fruits of their labour. That is the capitalist system. It enslaves the workers to produce more and then takes what they produces and distributes it amongst the rich. And this makes the media proud? I see nothing to be proud of here. Corporate America should be ashamed of the way it steals from the poor and gives to the rich. There is nothing to celebrate in this achievement. America has been hijacked by the rich and Fox News pops open the champagne. Workers of America, your system hates you.

A Tale of the Romanticism of RCTV and the Demonisation of Chavez

I could write another post on how Melanie Phillips is intent on pulling apart the very things that she and others claim the terrorists wish to destroy (terrorist sympathies perhaps?? Well, at least they would be if they weren't a different colour). But another post on the sheer moral depravity of the right's favourite spokesperson would seem a little obsessive. For now Mel, you can continue to rave like a loon with your inaccurate polemics, while the rest of us focus on the real world.

There has been much written about Chavez's decision not to renew RCTV's contract. As per usual, the right-wing press have come out claiming that this is another example of Chavez's dictatorial tendencies. Fox News reported it in typical Fox News terms:

CARACAS, Venezuela — The countdown has begun for Venezuela's oldest private television station. At midnight Sunday, Radio Caracas Television — the most widely watched channel — will be forced off the air after President Hugo Chavez's government decided not to renew its license.

Talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez, whose program is a daily rant against Chavez, ended his Friday segment by blowing a kiss to the camera and saying defiantly: "There is no goodbye. It's 'see you later."'

The opposition plans street protests over the weekend to demand that RCTV be allowed to keep transmitting, while Chavez supporters are expected to hold their own demonstrations. The authorities tightened security Friday in Caracas, putting hundreds of police and National Guard troops along major avenues.

Interesting how they romanticise the plight of RCTV. They even quote a protester as saying:

"People have to realize that we have a totalitarian president," said Maria Alecia Klemprer, a 25-year-old university student wearing a T-shirt reading: "Freedom of Expression S.O.S."

Bet that had the Fox News executives creaming in their pants over that one. In a very small paragraph, Fox News touches on the crux of the issue:

Chavez accuses RCTV and other opposition-aligned private media of supporting a failed 2002 coup against him. The channel has been accused of violating broadcast laws and showing programs with violence and sexual content that are morally degrading.

Chavez accuses? Is that the same Chavez that you characterised as 'totalitarian' earlier in your piece? Mmm, guess that might undermine his point a little. The truth is this is no wild accusation, this is fact and it is the sole reason why RCTV has lost its license. As one letter in today's Guardian pointed out:

The RCTV station did not just back an illegal military coup against President Chávez in 2002, but was active in orchestrating it (Chávez silences critical TV station, May 23). RCTV ran adverts encouraging people to take to the streets and to overthrow the elected president; spread lies that pro-Chávez supporters were shooting on unarmed civilians, which were used by some in the military to justify the coup; and read out a fake resignation letter from President Chávez.

Furthermore, Patrick McElwee, a policy analyst with Just Foreign Policy, writes in ZNet:

RCTV encouraged viewers to attend a rally that was part of the coup strategy, invited coup leaders to address the country on their channel, and reported the false information that the president had resigned. After Pedro Carmona declared himself president and dissolved the National Assembly, Supreme Court, and other democratic institutions, the head of RCTV Marcel Granier met with him in the Presidential Palace. The following day, when mass protests and loyal army units brought back President Chávez, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news, showing movies and cartoons instead.

Imagine if this were the case in the UK or the US. Do you really think that Bu$hie would allow the New York times to exist if it was the prime sponsor of a military coup? It would be shut down at the earliest opportunity. RCTV supported the use of violence to overthrow a democratically elected government, it's little surprise that the license was revoked.

But what of the voices of the opposition in Venezuela? Is this really the sign of the 'totalitarian' that Fox News loves to characterise? Not according to McElwee:

If RCTV were the only major source of opposition to the government, the loss of its voice would be troubling. It would also be disturbing if the RCTV case forced others to tone down legitimate opposition. But Greg Wilpert, a sociologist living in Venezuela, declares, "It is the height of absurdity to say that there's a lack of freedom of press in Venezuela."

Of the top four private TV stations, three air mostly entertainment and one, Globovisión, is a 24-hours news channel. On Globovisión, Wilpert says, "the opposition is very present. They pretty much dominate it. And in the others, they certainly are very present in the news segments."

Regarding the print media, Wilpert told me, "There are three main newspapers. Of those three, two are definitely very opposition. The other one is pretty neutral. I would say, [the opposition] certainly dominates the print media by far. There's no doubt about that."

"I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated [their opposition to the government] not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez . They've reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before."

This won't stop the mainstream media from casting Chavez as the devil, certainly in the US where the corporate establishment are scared to death of his populist rhetoric. The truth is, this is a move that would have been taken by just about any democratic world leader on the international stage against such a media organisation. A media organisation that supports a coup and refuses to cover the mass protests that bring him back to power. As McElwee himself says 'it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.' Surely if he had any totalitarian tendencies, he would have shut down the station at the earliest opportunity. Instead, he waited until the license was up for renewal and then took a perfectly legitimate decision under the circumstances. The predicted totalitarianism in Venezuela seems a long way off yet.

Fox Just Made It Personal

I saw the Fox news obit of Kurt Vonnegut over at Crooks&Liars. It is a hateful hit piece.
They lie about the number of dead in Dresden (25,000 as opposed to the 100,000 plus), they laugh at Kurt’s suicide attempt, yep, real nice motherfuckers. They call him rich and irrelevant playing the old -if you’re such a lefty how come you’re not poor? Kurt shared his money, adopted his sister's children when she died and freely gave away his skills to struggling artists who asked for help. They reduce his work to ‘left wing screeds’ and show nothing of his criticisms of the Bush crime family instead calling his work 'despondent leftism', clearly being unable to understand humanism and empathy. An utter piece of lying bitter Nazi garbage, by James Rosen and John Podhertz.
Motherfuckers.

I used to just ignore the idiocy of Fox news, but now Fox, I wish you ill.

Oh, You Guys!!

Just a couple of quickies today (blame the rail network). From the Diary in today's Guardian:

Overheard by US News and World Report, US secretary of state Condi Rice complaining at the unfair coverage she has to endure at the hands of certain media organisations. "My Fox guys," she moaned. "I love every single one of them."