Time to start paying...

Have you gotten used to reading your local newspaper on-line for free? Yeah, you look at the ads at the same time, so it's a fair trade, you're not really getting it for free, totally. Well, now, the big media corporations got you hooked, and now it's time to make you pay. Just like your local movie theater, you pay $11.50 a ticket and still are forced to watch TV commercials on top of the movie previews. You pay out the wazoo for cable TV and every channel is packed with commercials, unless you pay extra for a channel like HBO that doesn't have commercials. Commercials are everywhere we go -- and no one is paying us to watch them. They are assumed to be what we give up to get free or "cheaper" entertainment.

Well, the problem with newpapers, at least the big ones, is that they long ago forgot about local investigative reporting. They have created the opportunity which is being exploited by small-time bloggers. Charging for the crappy content that now is given away won't pull the big newspaper companies out of bankruptcy. Providing a better product is the only way to survive.

Here's a thought: pay the local bloggers to write a section of the newspaper.

Adapt to the future, or get replaced.

--from the big cheeze, Rex Frankel
-----------------------------------------------

Can Internet charges stem newspapers' losses?

Publishers hope readers will pay if content is no longer offered free.
By Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press
Posted: 05/25/2009
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_12448668

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is a rarity among large U.S. newspapers - it's selling more weekday copies than a decade ago. In Idaho, the Post Register's circulation has remained stable, while many print publications have lost readers to the Internet, where much of their content may be viewed for free. The executives behind the Arkansas and Idaho newspapers think they've been stable because they have been giving free Web site access only to print edition subscribers. Everyone else has to pay. "To just give it all away on a Web site is completely and blindly idiotic," says Roger Plothow, Post Register editor and publisher. That logic is starting to resonate with many publishers, who are preparing to erect toll booths on parts, if not all, of their Web sites. They hope the switch adds to online revenue and helps them keep print subscribers and ads. If it works, it would provide a sorely needed boost for an industry that has seen $11.6billion, or nearly one-fourth, of its annual advertising revenue dry up during the past three years. But ending free access could drive away many online readers and discourage online advertising at a time just as marketing budgets shift to the Internet.

As a result, 28 percent of newspaper executives responding to a recent survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors, a group of newspaper executives, said their publications are considering online fees.

Newsday's owner, Cablevision Systems Corp., plans to start charging for online access to the Long Island, N.Y., paper this summer. MediaNews Group, which owns the Daily Breeze and 53 other daily newspapers, has decided to charge for the online versions but hasn't said when. Hearst Corp. is assessing whether online fees could help save its 15 remaining daily newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle.

"Online fees will give people one less reason to stop subscribing to the newspaper" in the print format, said Steven Brill, Journalism Online's co-CEO. "Fewer people will be saying, `Why am I buying this thing when I can get it free online?"' Some commentators say the numbers don't add up. Former newspaper editor Alan Mutter, now an industry consultant and author of the blog, "Reflections of a Newsosaur," doubts most publishers understand how to produce the "content niches" that will cause people to ante up. Yet it's not an impossible task, said Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time magazine and now chief executive of the Aspen Institute, a think tank. Charging online fees "could create a discipline on journalism that produces more things of value," Isaacson said. "We could end up getting better journalism and a better business model out of it."

Like good dope dealers...

-
Big 5 Media Corps. are pissing off cable firms and DirecTV big time by letting the public watch shows for free on the internet;

Fox and NBC are Scheming together to give it to us free, get us hooked, then jack up the price.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-hulu11-2009may11,0,5771665.story

5/11/2009 L.A. Times

...But in making a bid for the next generation of Internet- attuned viewers, Hulu's owners have strained their lucrative relationships with cable and satellite operators. Companies like Time Warner Cable Inc. and DirecTV Group Inc. pay cable networks billions of dollars each year to carry programming. Believing that they should have exclusivity because their payments support the enormous cost of producing TV shows, such companies have been pushing back against the Hulu freebies...

..."And now people are starting to wonder, do we even need the cable connections?"

The country's largest cable operators aren't waiting around to find out the answer. In recent months, the operators have taken a hard line against cable networks for funneling their shows to Hulu. Some have gone so far as to stipulate that cable networks limit the number of episodes they make available online. Others have imposed an outright ban. The strictures buy time for cable operators until they can develop their own response to Hulu....

...NBC Universal and News Corp. are considering whether to adopt a cable industry initiative called authentication, which would require users to prove they are pay TV subscribers before they can watch current shows on Hulu.

The partners also are discussing setting up a tiered system for online video, with some shows available for free -- such as prime-time network offerings -- while others would be reserved for existing cable TV subscribers.

"Everyone is coalescing around a central area -- authentication," said Tony Vinciquerra, chief of Fox's television networks. "If we can move this in the right direction, it will be something relatively seamless to the consumer, and good for business overall."

After Setting Record for Text-Messaging, Two Men May Finally Get a Life...

Slaves to their cell phone company rack up a $26,000 bill in 1 month.

--Their next record to beat: buying millions of dollars of useless crap on their credit cards from infomercials all in one day! Can they do it? Inquiring swines want to know! Reporting on this exciting story are Billy Bush and Britney Spears for Excess Hollywood...


By BILL BERGSTROM, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 22, 7:13 am ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd217

PHILADELPHIA – Their thumbs sure must be sore. Two central Pennsylvania friends spent most of March in a text-messaging record attempt, exchanging a thumbs-flying total of 217,000. For one of the two, that meant an inches-thick itemized bill for $26,000.

Nick Andes, 29, and Doug Klinger, 30, were relying on their unlimited text messaging plans to get them through the escapade, so Andes didn't expect such a big bill.

"It came in a box that cost $27.55 to send to me," he said Tuesday. He said he "panicked" and called T-Mobile, which told The Associated Press it had credited his account and was investigating the charges.

The two Lancaster-area residents have been practically nonstop texters for about a decade since they attended Berks Technical Institute together.

That led Andes to search for the largest monthly text message total he could find posted online: 182,000 sent in 2005 by Deepak Sharma in India.

Andes and Klinger were able to set up their phones to send multiple messages. During a February test run they found they could send 6,000 or 7,000 messages on some days, prompting the March messaging marathon.

"Most were either short phrases or one word, 'LOL' or 'Hello,' things like that, with tons and tons of repeats," said Andes, reached by phone.

Andes sent more than 140,000 messages, and Klinger sent more than 70,000 to end the month with a total of just over 217,000, he said.

A spokesman for Guinness World Records didn't immediately return messages asking whether it would be certified as a record.

April came as a relief to Andes' wife, Julie, who had found his phone tied up with texting when she tried to call him on lunch breaks.

"She was tired of it the first few days into it," Andes said.

The Middle Class Fights Back?

-
Which "Losers" Should the Government Bail Out?

"Do We want to subsidize the loser's mortgages?"--Rick Santelli, CNBC financial analyst

3/5/2009

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-financial-advice

-
Concern over "class warfare" depends on which class you're in...

for full story, see http://www.latimes.com/business/personalfinance/la-fi-hiltzik4-2009mar04,0,1356927.column

by Michael Hiltzik
March 4, 2009

"Class warfare" comes in many flavors. There's the variety practiced by feudal overlords upon their serfs, and the variety waged by the Jacobins of the French Revolution against the monarchists.

Then there's the variety that Republicans claim to find in President Obama's proposed budget -- a taking from the rich to reward the undeserving poor. The rhetoric has spread quickly, moving from the libertarian Heritage Foundation to the ranks of GOP presidential hopefuls like flames leaping from tree to tree in the Angeles National Forest.

"Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff," says former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but a Union of American Socialist Republics is being born."

Yet the true class war of recent American history is the one that has pitted the upper 1% of income earners against almost everybody else. Over the last three decades, a period that spans Republican and Democratic administrations alike, average family income has scarcely budged an inch, while the wealthy have grown measurably wealthier.

In 1979, the top 1% of U.S. households earned eight times as much as the middle 20% and 23 times as much as the bottom fifth; by 2005, the Congressional Budget Office found, the upper crust touched 21 times as much as the middle class and 70 times as much as the bottom. Adjusting for inflation, the average American worker made 16% less in 2004 than in the 1970s, according to economist Benjamin M. Friedman....

-
In a bad economy, Oil companies still profit

from a 3/4/2009 letter to the editor, http://www.dailybreeze.com/letters/ci_11830754

A few weeks ago there was an article in the business pages that should have been on the front page of every newspaper in the country and the top story on every television news show. While the whole country was suffering a recession, including giant corporations like Microsoft, the ExxonMobil Corp. posted not only the highest profits in its history but the highest of any corporation in U.S. history: $45.2 billion. ExxonMobil made this money through outrageous price gouging, which caused the entire economy to suffer. That cost was added to the price of everything you buy, and it caused every business except the oil companies to suffer. The Republicans did everything possible to help them get away with this. When Congress tried to get records of the secret meetings between the Dick Cheney, administration officials and the oil companies, they were refused even when the records were subpoenaed. For that alone, Cheney should go to prison. The Bush administration gave them huge tax breaks, and when gas prices shot up to record levels and the economy went into recession, their answer was more tax breaks for the oil companies. The Republican Party works for these crooks and against ordinary people. They should all be removed from office. - MARK BEGOVICH

-
Cable Industry Fires Back Against Viewer Choice

As We reported last week, (http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/while-cable-system-operators-have.html), the Big-5 Media monopolies are finding new ways to distribute their programming and that is breaking the backs of the big cable TV monopolies. Now the cable firms are fighting back, as usual, to restrict the ability of the viewing public to choose where they get their favorite shows...

excerpted from:

Cable operators seek platform to put TV shows online
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-tvonline25-2009feb25,0,7627468.story

2/25/2009--Wary of the growing number of consumers watching TV shows online for free -- and yet reluctant to upset viewers by yanking shows from the Internet -- the nation's largest cable operators are in talks with media conglomerates to take back control. They would create a platform to release cable TV shows online, but exclusively for paying subscribers....

Gaspin and others familiar with the project said the new service probably would be free to cable TV subscribers. But it's also possible a small fee might be assessed....

-

Here's a very interesting 20 minute video on the cycle of over-consumption and how it's killing our planet.

Enjoy!

http://www.storyofstuff.com/index.html

-
BUY IT NOW!!! THE NEW IMPROVED 2009 MODEL PIECE OF CRAP!

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of

-
While Cable System Operators Have Fought Consumer Choice (aka A la carte) Cable, Consumers are taking their dollars elsewhere. In Response, the Big 5 Media Corporations are Dumping Less Lucrative Businesses...

2/18/2009--More and more the entertainment mega corporations, the big 5, ie., Disney, Fox, Viacom-CBS, GE-BBC-Universal and Time-Warner, are dumping their less-profitable cable and satellite distribution arms, while retaining their ultra-profitable broadcasting and content-production divisions (studios and cable channels).

Thanks to the internet reaching as much or more of the country than cable and satellite, a lot of the TV fare we have to pay big bucks for on cable can now be found on free websites sponsored by the Big 5. These sites typically have very few commercials, maybe 2 minutes in a half hour show instead of 8. Some of the best shows are archived forever, such as all 35 years of Saturday Night Live, and all ten years of the Daily Show. What the Big 5 are doing is cutting out the middlemen. And since cable system monopolies have jacked up their rates much higher than the rate of inflation for over 20 years, it's hard to feel too sympathetic for them.

Fox last year traded away the #1 DirectTV satellite service to Liberty Media (an owner of cable channels), and this month reported a $6.4 billion loss.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Time-Warner is spinning off the nation's 2nd largest cable system as an independent company. Given that Time-Warner owns numerous cable channels, which are essentially TV "brands" that they can distribute any way they want, they now can fully embrace giving viewers the maximum number of ways to see their programming, whether it's on the internet, cable, phone company TV or satellite. Their bottom line was really hurting, with their last quarterly loss being $16 billion, so I can understand why they chose to get out of a very competitive business. Contrary to what corporate propagandists say, they don't like competition.

Another big cable system owner, Charter, just declared bankruptcy. Charter is controlled by Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft who couldn't transfer his success in software to the cable business.

Controlling all facets of a business, or what is termed "vertical integration", has made a lot of money for stock traders who helped the big guys gobble up additional variations of their core business. The big guys haven't always done as well. AT & T really blew it 10 years ago when they bought TCI, which then owned Liberty Media and the nation's top cable system operator. Very soon they wrote off around $50 billion in losses, and spun off Liberty Media to the public, and sold the cable systems to Comcast. They recovered well (well, maybe not for us) by the Bush administration letting them merge with SBC and BellSouth and buy Cingular Wireless, essentially rendering the U.S. a 2 -phone company country (except for some tiny competitors).

(see http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/search/label/AT%2BT)

This trend of binging and purging really hit Clear Channel, which hugely overpaid for over 1000 radio stations and hundreds of thousand of billboards 10 years ago and then they lost billions and dumped a lot of stations. CBS likewise gorged on radio stations and billboards and then wrote off a lot of paper-value recently. Time-Warner blew over $100 billion by buying America OnLine and found that Americans weren't that keen about buying everything over the internet.

In the end, we still have 5 mega corporations that produce and distribute most of our news and entertainment. But at least we have more ways to get it, at lower cost, and that's good.


--Rex Frankel, 2/18/2009
------------------------------------

A Historical Trend of Sell-offs:

RADIO: ABC sold off much of their news and music radio stations to Citadel Broadcasters in 2006, while keeping their ESPN radio and Radio Disney stations. NBC had sold off their radio division in the 1980's. Only CBS remains heavily in the radio business but is selling a lot of stations in middle American markets in order to keep their big holdings in big cities.

MUSIC: All of the Big 5 have been out of recorded music since Universal Music (which had previously bought ABC's labels) was bought by Vivendi of France in the 1990's and CBS's Columbia and Epic records division were sold to Sony in the 1980's. NBC's RCA labels were sold off in the 1980's and are now owned by Sony.

-
Where were the Fiscally Conservative Republican/Conservatives that are Foaming at the Mouth Over Obama's Economy Fix for the Past 8 Years?

http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php?selected=1&id=150
from February 15, 2009

Mr. ANDREW SULLIVAN (The Atlantic Senior Editor): They're also saying that
we are the party of fiscal conservatism. Now they...

MATTHEWS: Since when, though?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Well, since like I think like 10 minutes ago. I mean, they
spent, for future debt of this country, they added $30 trillion in a period of
boom. We're now in the swiftest downturn in employment in decades and they're
quibbling over something like $400 billion worth of spending. It doesn't make
any sense. The hypocrisy of these people, their ability to turn on a dime and
not even acknowledge their own responsibility. If they hadn't spent the
amount they'd spent in the last eight years, we wouldn't have this crisis in
the sense that we'd have much more leeway to spend our way out of the
recession. The one moment you don't want to be a fiscal conservative is when
the global economy is heading down into a down draft. And yet that's the one
moment that these Republicans pick to allegedly stand up for their principles.
It's insane, I think, and frankly, all these news cycle spins, I--that's the
old politics. The new politics is we're in a terrible economic crisis, have
we done enough to get ourselves out of it?

-
Is the Digital TV Changeover Really Just a Big Gift to the Broadcasters at the Expense of Consumers?

2/18/2009--Why should the public have to pay anything more in order to see ad-filled crappy TV channels that are packed with celebrity news and reality TV junk, along with a few programs featuring actors and writing?

The airwaves belong to the people, but they are occupied by mega-corporations, which, thanks to digital TV, will have many more channels to fill with junk.

To compensate, the 5 mega-media corporations are giving up their "analog" channels (the one our TV's currently can pick up). Originally, when the U.S. Congress approved the digital TV switchover in the 1990's, the promise was that we would now have all these local-owned stations. Instead, a few years ago the Bush administration auctioned those channels off to AT & T and Verizon, the U.S.'s 2 phone monopolies, so they can SELL us more cell phone services.

Call or write your congresspeople now!
This is a ripoff!
--------------------------------

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11726018?IADID=Search-www.dailybreeze.com-www.dailybreeze.com

About a quarter of the nation's TV stations cut off their analog signals Tuesday, causing sets to go dark in households that were not prepared for digital television despite two years of warnings about the transition.

Though most viewers were ready - and people with cable or satellite service were unaffected - some stations and call centers reported a steady stream of questions from frustrated callers.

"It's kind of an irritation, but I understand that everyone will have a much better picture. As far as I was concerned, they could have left things the way they were," said Dorothy Delegard, 67, of Minneapolis, who bought a converter box because a friend gave her a coupon that expired Tuesday.

Phones were ringing off the hook at a walk-in information center set up by stations in Providence, R.I.

A volunteer at the center, Jeremy Taylor, said he tried to calm agitated callers.

"I try to explain that the digital switch is not something we're doing to extort them of money," Taylor said...

OH, REALLY?

--------------------

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-dtv17-2009feb17,0,6567234.story

Early converts to digital are fuzzy about benefits

Some report getting worse reception and fewer stations, at least for now

…The switch to digital broadcasts will free up valuable airwaves for public safety officials to improve their communications networks and for wireless companies to offer new services. And for most people, it will produce sharper pictures with better sound. Digital TV also enables broadcasters to transmit four or more programs simultaneously on new sub-channels….

-
Tax Rates Fell by a Third for the 400 Richest Americans, Whose Average Income Doubled to $263 million a Year Under George Bush's Presidency

January 31, 2009
NOT FRONT PAGE NEWS???
in print edition C-4

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/31/business/fi-richtaxes31

The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2% through the first six years of the Bush administration, and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new data show. The 17.2% in 2006 was the lowest since the Internal Revenue Service began tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992, although they paid more tax on an inflation-adjusted basis than for any year since 2000. The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9% was largely because of President Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15% in 2003. Capital gains made up 63% of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, those taxpayers reported a combined $105.3 billion in adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data. “The big explosion in income for this group is clearly on the capital gains side, although there are also sharp increases in dividend and interest income,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington. In addition, “they are realizing more of their gains due to the lower tax rate,” Baker said. The data may provide ammunition for Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco who say they intend to increase the capital gains tax rate even as the credit crunch roils markets and is producing more investment losses than gains. President Obama pledged during the presidential campaign to increase the rate.

------------------
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/11/03/better-off/

Are You Better Off Than You Were Eight Years Ago?»

Our guest blogger is Adam Jentleson, the Communications and Outreach Director for the Hyde Park Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked America, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

After eight years of conservative rule, it’s worth posing a similar question – are Americans better off today than they were eight years ago?

As our new memo shows, unless you happen to be a big corporation or make enough money to be in the top percentage of earners, the answer is probably no:

A variety of metrics can be used to judge this question and assess what eight years of conservative policies have wrought. The picture painted here is clear: from job growth to debt, and from income disparity to national poverty indices, the conservative approach of putting big corporations and the very wealthy ahead of the middle class has failed to create prosperity that can be shared by all Americans.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE BUSH YEARS—THE END OF CAPITALISM AS WE KNEW IT

By Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009, the last day of George Bush’s term in office

When the stock market came crashing down just before the November 2008 presidential election, politicians scrambled to bail out failing corporate monoliths on the premise that helping them would help the average American. For a lot of the middle class who have or had their retirements invested in the stock market, on the surface this sounded like the politicians cared for them. But since the stock market index, or the Dow Jones, is simply an average of the prices of the stocks of the 30 biggest and richest corporations, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Average ) merely shoring up the Dow is trickle-down economics on a colossal scale. The benefits go to the rich and stay there. For much of the Bush years, we have been told that the economy is great, job growth is great!, etc. while housing costs zoomed, outsourcing of jobs to India zoomed, and gas prices tripled. All this “good news” was based on a false barometer of health--the ridiculous rise in the top 30 stocks. The absurdity of it all is that the economic health of the 30 richest American corporations has not trickled down to the rest of us. America was not better off at any time during the Bush years. The people who made money were those that shuffled assets around, buying and selling companies and properties with little regard for the people who worked there. Bush’s friends created fake energy shortages and Enron and Exxon earned billions. Even after bankruptcy no one knows where Enron’s fraudulently earned riches went. Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton reaped billions in overcharges and no-competition contracts to run our war in Iraq. And after their crooked billings were uncovered, they simply relocated to Dubai.

Yes, the Bush insiders, the corporate managers and stock traders and money-movers made out like bandits. For the rest of us, the outcome of the Bush years is that control of things which we can’t live without are in fewer hands at the end of the Bush years than at the beginning.

This “look the other way—business can do what it wants” attitude in our government is not just a Republican disease. Under Bill Clinton’s presidency, the corporate merger mania continued unabated as it did through the 1980’s under Reagan and Bush #1. The difference between Republican and Democrat presidents is that job growth was stagnant under Republicans, while under Clinton we added an average of 3 million jobs per year. So even though mega-corporations gained ever more power under Clinton, American workers didn’t suffer like they did under Reagan and the Bushes. See http://rexfrankel.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-better-off-than-you-were-8.html

Oh, there’s nothing like a disaster to make us all lose our senses. After 9-11, we were asked to give up our civil rights, or we weren’t being good Americans. Then we were told not to question Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which possessed Weapons of Mass Pollution, AKA lots of oil. For the cynical, a disaster is an opportunity to get richer.

So the financial crash last year gave our leaders the opportunity to do real good for the average Americans or to again reward the rich campaign contributors. Guess what the Bush administration chose?

In the aftermath of the Bush years, key American industries are even more tightly controlled by a small group of people. When we debate whether the bailouts of our country’s key industries are really socialism for the rich, who privatize the profits but socialize the losses, it makes me wonder what capitalism really is. I believe that the infrastructure of this country should be owned by all of us. That means that the key industries—the necessities that we can’t live without-- should be owned and run by the government. Banks and oil companies and health care should be like public utilities, like our electric and water companies. They are vital to our existence--so vital that when bankers choose to engage in fraud, it affects all of us. When the oil companies use any excuse to raise prices, and we have no choice but to pay, that causes ripple effects on everything else. I am convinced that when gasoline hit $4.50 a gallon, it was the last straw. An economy that was already teetering finally gave out. Consumers couldn’t pay their mortgages and health care and car loans on top of the huge profits demanded by the oil industry.

That’s why any further bailouts of America’s big businesses MUST be accompanied by mandatory restructuring of their way of doing business. If socialism is good for our key businesses in the bad times, it’s good all the time.

-----------------------------------------

A GUIDE TO WHO BOUGHT WHOM DURING THE BUSH YEARS:

BANKS: By the end of 2008, in the financial industry, we had 4 banks dominating every corner of the country: Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase. When Washington Mutual failed, Chase was allowed to scoop them up. When Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial flopped, B of A gobbled them up. When Wachovia blew up, Wells Fargo picked up the bones. With hundreds of billions in our tax dollars to prop them up, we might as well nationalize the banking system completely—and finish the job. (for more, http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-4-super-banks-got-so-big.html)

OIL: Once America had 7 big oil companies and several smaller ones. Now 4 oil companies are totally dominant and earned hundreds of billions in profits during the Bush years. When was the last time you saw gas stations compete with each other? In the 1970’s, when we still had competition, we had “gas wars”, where oil companies competed for customers by lowering their prices. Now the phrase “gas war” means something completely different: War on Iraq, war on consumers. (for more, http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-5-big-oil-companies-got-so-big.html)

CARS: After getting fat selling SUVs for years, the car industry finally tanked after oil company greed convinced buyers that Hummers and monster gas hog trucks were not family cars. While they blamed workers, (again!), car company executives proposed to let 2 of the remaining 3 companies merge. Gee-that’s always worked before! Thanks to globalization and homogenization (or sameness), today we have worldwide only 9 car makers producing 100’s of virtually indistinguishable models under numerous brand names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_badge_engineered_vehicles These 9 firms have gobbled up numerous car makers. This illusion of choice for consumers, of fake competition by corporate monopolies, is another phony symbol of economic well-being. More monopolization is not the solution—innovation and ending our addiction to oil is. (for more, http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/monopolization-of-worlds-car-industry.html)

AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE: Among the companies that help defend America, seven of the top ten defense contractors in 1995 are owned by three now. (for more, http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Aerospace%20and%20Defense%20Contractors)

FINALLY, TV AND THE MEDIA: In 1984, we had 50 media companies serving up most of our news and entertainment, as the famous book on media consolidation, the Media Monopoly, concluded. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/CommunCartel_Bagdikian.html Now we have 5 companies controlling virtually everything we see or hear. Lest we forget, the taxpayers own the TV and radio airwaves. The big 5 media merely have a license to use the airwaves. Early in the Bush years, hardly anyone with a dissenting view could be found on the many TV and cable channels owned by the big 5. For more history of media monopolism:
http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/milestones-in-media-monopolism-compiled.html

A huge thank you is deserved by google.com, which has made it possible for millions of Americans for free to create websites and post videos on their YouTube site to spread the stories that the big-5 media has ignored. Advertisers have discovered that viewers and readers have deserted other media and get much of their news and entertainment through the internet, thereby they are giving their ad dollars to internet sites that are not controlled by the Big-5. Google and YouTube were key to breaking the Big-5 Media’s monopoly and have brought democracy back to the corporate dominated media landscape. And Google accomplished this entirely without a government bailout.

My hope for the Obama years is that enterprising Americans come up with more innovations that further break the monopoly strangleholds on other areas of American business.

MILESTONES IN MEDIA MONOPOLISM:

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, THE BIG 5 MEDIA CORPORATIONS BOUGHT UP THE MOST LUCRATIVE MEDIA ASSETS AND DUMPED THE LESS PROFITABLE ONES, ENDING UP WITH NEAR TOTAL CONTROL OF TV, CABLE AND FILM PRODUCTION, AND MOSTLY DUMPING PRINT, RADIO, AND RECORDED MUSIC.

GE/NBC/UNIVERSAL:

Main Businesses: TV stations and network, cable channels, film and TV production and distribution, theme parks

Bought During the Bush Years: Universal Studios, Telemundo TV network, Bravo, Oxygen and the Weather Channel

1932-Feds make GE and Westinghouse sell stakes in RCA radio networks

1957-MCA Universal buys Paramount’s pre-1948 film library

1980--RCA sells Random House book publisher to Newhouse co.

1985-GE buys RCA, getting NBC TV network and stations

1986-GE sells RCA music division to Bertelsman of Germany. They eventually sell it to Sony.

1987-GE sells consumer electronics division of GE and RCA to Thomson of France

1987-NBC radio programming producer is sold to Westwood One, a firm now owned by CBS.

1988-NBC sells 5 of its radio station to Emmis Broadcasting

1989-Universal buys 1/3^rd stake in Cineplex Odeon theaters. Stake is sold later to AMC Theaters

1989-NBC launches CNBC cable channel

1990-Universal and MCA is sold to Matsushita of Japan (now known as Panasonic)

1991-Polygram buys film producers Propaganda and Working Title Films and in 1992 buys Interscope Films. Polygram was jointly owned by Siemens and Philips of Europe.

1995 Universal is sold to Seagrams

1996-NBC and Microsoft launch MSNBC channel

1997-Universal buys October Films

1997-Universal buys out its partner in USA and Sci-Fi cable channels (Viacom)

1999-Universal buys Polygram pictures and recorded music co.

2000-Seagrams and Universal are sold to Vivendi of France. Deal is a disaster financially.

2001-Vivendi buys Houghton Miflin book publishing

2001-NBC buys Telemundo TV network which owns two stations in several major markets

2002-Vivendi sells Seagrams liquor business and Houghton Miflin book publishing

2002-NBC buys Bravo cable channel from Cablevision Corp. and MGM

2003-GE buys Universal Pictures leaving Vivendi with 20% stake in new NBC-Universal company. Vivendi keeps ownership of Universal recorded music division

2006-NBC buys Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants with Donald Trump

2007-NBC buys Oxygen cable channel from Oprah Winfrey

2008-NBC buys the Weather channel

TIME-WARNER:

Main Businesses: magazines, cable channels, film production and distribution

Bought during the Bush years: split the #3 cable system owner with their main competitor, Comcast (#1 in USA). Time Warner is the #2 largest cable system owner.

1944-Warners buys Looney Tunes cartoon studio and Bugs Bunny

1948-Warners sells film library to MGM

1967-DC Comics is bought by Kinney National Company

1969-Kinney National buys Warner Brothers, in 1972 Kinney spins off Warner Communications Co.

1972-Time inc. buys HBO pay channel

1978-Warner Communications buys cable system operator ATC

1982-CBS sells paperback publishing to Warners

1987-Time and Warner merge

1989-Warners buys Lorimar-Telepictures studios

1989-Time magazine publishing merges with Warner, which makes films and record

1991-Turner Broadcasting (18% owned by Time-Warner) buys Hanna-Barbera animation company

1992-Turner launches the Cartoon Network

1993-Turner merges with Castle Rock and New Line films

1996-Time-Warner buys Turner Broadcasting, getting CNN, TBS and other cable channels, and old MGM film library

1998-T-W sells Six Flags theme parks to Premiere Parks co.

1999-AOL buys Mapquest internet site

2000-Time-Warner merges with America Online. Deal is a huge money-loser.

2000-TW buys some magazines from the Tribune Company. It resells them in 2007 to Bonnier.

2003-TW sells half stake in Comedy Central to Viacom (already owned other half)

2004-AOL-TW sells music division to Edgar Bronfman

2005-TW buys remains of bankrupt Adelphia cable with chief rival Comcast Corp.

2006-TW sells its book publishing division to Hachette of France.

2006-TW buys half of Court TV channel from Liberty Media (already owned other half)

2009-Time Warner plans to spin off #2 US cable systems division to shareholders.

WALT DISNEY COMPANY:

Main businesses: TV stations and network, cable channels, film production and distribution, theme parks, books and magazines

Bought During the Bush Years: Pixar Animation, top producer of computer animated films

1943-feds force RCA to divest itself of ABC radio network

1960-Disney buys out stake in Disneyland from ABC

1984-ABC buys ESPN channel

1985-Capital Cities co, owner of TV stations and newspapers, buys ABC

1993-Disney buys Miramax films

1994-ABC buys out Viacom’s stake in the Lifetime channel

1995-Disney Buys ABC TV and radio networks

1996-Radio Disney network is launched

1997-Disney sells its 4 daily newspapers to Knight-Ridder

1997-Disney buys asset of Cinergi Pictures, producers of Die Hard series

1999-Disney sells its women’s magazines

2006-Disney buys Pixar Animation, which had been founded by GeorgeLucas

2006—ABC sells its music, talk and news radio networks and stations to Citadel Broadcasting, keeping ESPN Radio and Radio Disney stations

FOX—RUPERT MURDOCH-NEWS CORPORATION:

Main Businesses:

Newspapers in USA, Australian and UK, cable channels, TV stations and network, magazines, book publishing, internet sites

Bought During the Bush Years: myspace.com and Wall Street Journal

1935-Century Pictures and Fox Film merge to form 20^th Century Fox

1977-Murdoch buys NY Post

1985-Murdoch buys Fox Pictures and also buys 7 TV stations from Metromedia to set up TV network. Murdoch buys the Boston Herald and Chicago Sun-Times but later sells them

1987-Murdoch buys Harper and Row book publishers

1988-Murdoch buys TV Guide and Seventeen magazine

1988-Murdoch buys William Collins book publisher

1991-Murdoch sells several magazines

1995-Sets up Fox sports channels in partnership with TCI, later brings in channels owned by Cablevision in east coast

1996-Fox News channel is launched

1996-Fox buys New World Communications, getting 10 TV stations

1997-Buys and in 2003 sells L.A. Dodgers baseball team, keeps broadcast rights

1997-Fox/Liberty Media buys control of FitTV channel

1999-Fox trades stock to Liberty Media for full control of Fox Sports channels

1999-Fox sells TV Guide to Gemstar corp.

1999-Murdoch buys William Morrow and Avon books from Hearst

Buys and later sells DirecTV satellite TV distributor

2000-Fox buys 10 Chris-Craft TV stations, gaining second channels in several major markets

2001-Sells Fox Family channel to Disney, had bought it from Pat Robertson in 1997

2001-Fox sells its 33% stake in the Golf channel and Outdoor Life to Comcast, getting full ownership of Speedvision channel in deal.

2003-Murdoch buys DirecTV from General Motors

2005-Murdoch buys myspace.com

2006-Murdoch trades DirecTV to Liberty Media in exchange for Liberty’s 19% stake in News Corp.

2007-Murdoch buys Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Company. To finance the deal, Fox sells 9 TV stations in smaller market.

CBS-VIACOM-SUMNER REDSTONE

Main businesses: TV stations and network, billboards, radio stations, film production and distribution, book publishing, cable channels

Bought During the Bush Years: rest of Comedy Central, and DreamWorks Pictures

1938-CBS buys Columbia record label

1964-CBS buys NY Yankees baseball team, sells in 1973

1965-CBS buys Fender guitar co.

1970-Viacom is formed when feds make CBS divest its ownership of TV show producers and syndicators

1981- MTV-launched 1981 by Warner Communications and American Express

1985-Viacom buys out partners, gets full ownership of MTV, VH-1, Showtime, the Movie Channel and Nickelodeon

1985-Mutual Broadcasting radio network is sold by Amway to Westwood One. NBC sells its radio network to Westwood One.

1987-Redstone buys control of Viacom

1987-CBS sells off it book publishing division to Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

1988-CBS sells recorded music division to Sony

1993-Viacom buys Paramount Pictures

1993-Paramount buys Macmillan book publishing

1994-Viacom buys Blockbuster video rental stores

1994-Viacom sells Madison Square Garden and 2 sports teams to partnership of Cablevision and ITT.

1994-Infinity Radio buys Westwood One

1995-Viacom sells its cable systems to TCI (which eventually sold out to AT & T, which sold them to Comcast)

1995-CBS is sold to Westinghouse Corp, which owned 8 CBS TV affiliates, 18 radio stations, the Nashville Network cable channel and 31% of Country Music TV channel. Eventually most of Westinghouse’s non-media assets are sold off and company is renamed CBS.

1995-Viacom launches UPN TV network using Chris-Craft’s network of stations

1995-Viacom spins off its local cable TV systems, which TCI buys.

1996-CBS buys Infinity Radio getting 77 stations and up to 6 stations in several major markets.

1997-CBS buys American Radio Systems, getting 98 stations

1999-Viacom and CBS merge, with Redstone in full control.

1999-CBS buys Outdoor Systems billboard firm, largest in USA

1999-CBS buys King World-distributor of shows like Oprah, Wheel of Fortune

1999-Westwood One buys Metro Networks, producer of radio traffic reports

2000-Viacom buys Black Entertainment TV cable channel.

2003-Viacom buys other half of Comedy Central from Universal

2004-Viacom spins off Blockbuster video stores to shareholders, writing off big loss

2005-to boost stock price, Redstone splits CBS and Viacom in two, though he still controls them; CBS writes off $18 billion loss from purchase of overpriced radio and billboard assets

2005-Paramount buys DreamWorks pictures

2006-CBS sells Paramount’s 5 theme parks to Cedar Fair, owner of Knotts Berry Farm in L.A area.

2007-CBS sells off 39 radio stations and 10 TV stations in smaller markets

THE BIG-4 RAILROAD MONOPOLIES:

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

thanks to wikipedia.org and oligopolywatch.com for helpful data

4 Companies control virtually the entire USA railroad industry. The UP and BNSF control the western US, CSX and Norfolk Southern control the eastern US.

The Union Pacific

-1997, bought Southern Pacific RR

-1982 Missouri Pacific RR

-1982 Western Pacific RR

--1988 Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR

-1988 Denver & Rio Grande RR

-1995-Chicago & Northwestern

-Overnite trucking co.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe

--1970—merger of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad; Northern Pacific Railway, Great Northern Railway; and the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Co

--1980 St. Louis-San Francisco RR

-1995 merged with Santa Fe RR

The CSX

--1960 merged with Baltimore& Ohio RR

-1979 merged with Seaboard Coast Line

--1991 bought Richmond Fredericksburg & Potomac RR

-1992-PL & E RR

--1998 bought Conrail from the federal government, splitting its assets with Norfolk Southern.

--SeaLand shipping co.

The Norfolk Southern

--1964 Norfolk Western bought Wabash, Nickel Plate, Pittsburgh & West Virginia RR and the Akron, Canton & Youngstown RR.

--1974 Norfolk Southern RR bought by Southern Railways

--1982-Norfolk & Western merged with Southern Railways

---------------------

WHO MAKES ALL THE APPLIANCES, HARDWARE AND TOOLS?

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

THE BIG 3 APPLIANCE MAKERS:

In recent years, America’s 5 dominant appliance makers (GE, Electrolux, Whirlpool, Raytheon and Maytag) have merged into 3.

GE:

Hotpoint (acquired 1918) http://new.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=309&z=62

RCA—bought 1985 (but sold GE and RCA TV manufacturing division in 1987 to Thomson of France. Thomson in 2004 transferred all TV production to joint venture with TCL of China)

Monogram

Roper bought 1988

WHIRLPOOL:

Bought During the Bush Years: Maytag and numerous brands

Kitchenaid-bought in 1986 from Hobart Corp.

Estate-bought from RCA in 1955

Glenwood ???

Heritage ??

In the Maytag purchase in 2005, brands added to Whirlpool included:

Jetclean dishwashers

Neptune washers-introduced 1997

Jenn-Aire-bought 1982

Admiral-bought 1986

Magic Chef-bought 1986

Norge-bought 1986

Toastmaster-bought 1986 (sold 1987, now owned by Salton inc.)

Gaffers & Sattler-bought 1969 by Magic Chef http://www.johnmills.net/work/history.html

Gemini ranges

Amana and Radarange (sold by Raytheon in 1997 to Goodman, they sold it to Maytag in 2001)

Modern Maid, sold to Raytheon in 1979, then to Maytag,

http://www.rekitchen.com/stoves/brands/modern-maid.html

Caloric-sold to Amana in 1967- http://www.rekitchen.com/stoves/brands/caloric.html

Hardwick bought 1981- http://www.maytagclub.com/page-2j.htm

Dixie-Narco vending machines-bought 1986 (sold in 2006 to Crane co.(a division of American Standard Brands)

Hoover vacuums-bought 1989- sold 12/2006 to Techtronic --Hong Kong based-owns Royal and Dirt Devil vacuums, and Homelite, omelite, Milwaukee Sawzall (bought 2005) and Ryobi power tools, Stiletto hammers)

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Maytag-Corporation-Company-History.html

ELECTROLUX:

--1986-buys White-Westinghouse, getting

Frigidaire (brand was owned by General Motors from 1919 to 1980)

Gibson (bought 1979) http://www.rekitchen.com/stoves/brands/gibson.html

Kelvinator (sold by AMC in 1968)

Tappan

--in 1986 buys Poulan/Weedeater, yard tools; In 2006-spun off Husqvarna lawn and garden products, including Poulan and Weedeater

--in 2000, buys back rights to use Electrolux name in USA, had sold it in 1968 to Consolidated Foods, later known as Sara Lee, which sold it to management in 1987.

-------------------------------------

SMALLER APPLIANCES, HARDWARE, TOOLS:

TECHTRONIC

Hoover vacuums sold 12/2006 to Techtronic --Hong Kong based, owns Royal and Dirt Devil vacuums, and Homelite, omelite, Milwaukee Sawzall (bought 2005) and Ryobi power tools, Stiletto hammers)

NEWELL RUBBERMAID:

TOOLS:

Bernzomatic torches

Vise-grip

Lenox saw blades

OFFICE PRODUCTS: Sanford, Sharpie pens, Eberhard Faber, uni-ball, Berol, rotring, Parker pens, Papermate, Waterman, Liquid Paper, Rolodex, Eldon, Dymo, Expo, Grumbacher

COOKWARE/HOUSEHOLD: Mirror, Wearever, Airbake, Calphalon, Anchor Hocking, Pyrex (not in USA)

Goody hair products

Levolor

Louverdrape

MeadWestvaco, which was sold to Cerberus Capital in 2005:

Bought Stuart Hall stationery products in 2001, from Pen-Tab Holdings. Pen-tab had bought it in 1998 from Newell Corp.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/03/19/daily20.html; Brands: Mead, Day Runner, Trapper Keeper, Cambridge, Zwipes, At-A-Glance

BLACK & DECKER:

EMHART BOUGHT 1989, they owned: Kwikset locks, Price Pfister faucets, Molly wall anchors, POP rivets, True Temper golf clubs

DeWalt tools

Porter cable-bought 2004 from Pentair

Baldwin locks, Weiser locks bought 2003 from Masco

NACCO INDUSTRIES:

Hamilton Beach, Proctor-Silex

SALTON INC., BOUGHT APPLICA IN 2007:

http://www.saltoninc.com/

Black & Decker small appliances

Spacemaker appliances

Toastmaster

Farberware

George Foreman grills

Infrawave

Stiffel lighting

JARDEN CORP.

Sunbeam

Oster, Osterizer

Grillmaster

Mr. Coffee

Borg scales

Oskar

Diamond matches

U.S. Playing cards

Crock-Pot

Bionaire

Pine Mountain firelogs

Kerr and Ball canning supplies

Coleman camping gear

Campingaz

4/2007 buys Pure Fishing

4/2007—buys K2 inc. for $765 mil., maker of skis, Shakespeare and Penn fishing tackle and Rawlings baseball equipment

STANLEY WORKS:

Bostitch staplers, nail guns

Mac tools

Proto tools

MASCO:

Delta and Peerless faucets, Hansgrohe, Brasscraft

Mills Pride cabinets

Behr paints

Milgard windows

COOPER INDUSTRIES:

Crescent wrenches

Lufkin tape measures

Plumb axes and hammers

Wiss snips

Buss fuses

McGraw Edison

Xcelite

INGERSOLL RAND:

Schlage locks

Kryptonite locks

-Thermo-King refrigerated trucks—bought in 1997 from Westinghouse-CBS

-12/2007 buys Trane air conditioning for $10 billion

AMERICAN STANDARD BRANDS:

Trane air conditioners-spun off in 2007

American Standard and Eljer toilets

Crane plumbing

EMERSON ELECTRIC:
In-Sink-erator

MONOPOLIZATION OF THE WORLD'S CAR INDUSTRY

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

THE BIG 3 USA CAR MAKERS:

General Motors,

sells under these brands:

Chevrolet,

Pontiac-bought 1909,

Buick—original car line of GM,

Cadillac-bought 1909,

GMC,

Saturn,

Hummer—their SUV’s are actually made by A-M General Corp. , a former division of American Motors and later LTV corp., now a separate company

GM-Daewoo-bought in 2002-in South Korea

Saab of Sweden--bought in ‘89 and 2000,

GM also owned between 2000 and 2005 up to 20% of FIAT of Italy, which sells under these brands: FIAT, Lancia, Alfa Romeo-(bought 1986 from the Italian government), Ferrari, Maserati (bought 1993, 51% owned), and Iveco trucks, while FIAT owns 6% of GM. FIAT sells 46% of all cars sold in Italy, and also owns 90% of Polish carmaker FSM.

GM also sells under these brands in Europe: Adam-Opel in Germany, Vauxhall in the UK. GM also has technology sharing agreements with Toyota, and buys engines from Honda. GM also owned Lotus for a while, but sold it in ‘93.

Discontinued car lines:

Elmore, bought 1909-halted 1912

Geo-1989-1997

LaSalle-1927-1940

Marquette-1930

Oakland-1907-1931

Oldsmobile-1897-2004

Rapid Truck-1909-1912

Reliance Truck-1909-1912

Viking-1929-1931

Former stakes in other car-makers:

Isuzu (49%)-sold in 2006,

Suzuki (9.9% sold in 2008),

and once owned Subaru (20%) of Japan.

Lotus of UK-1986 to 1993

-------------------------

Ford

#2 with 25% of the US market, sells under these brands:

Ford,

Lincoln and

Mercury,

Volvo cars of Sweden-bought in 1999,

and owns 50% of AutoLatina with VW in Brazil. Ford also has a joint venture with Navistar to build trucks in Mexico

Discontinued brand lines:

Edsel-1958-1060

Merkur-1985-1989

Aston Martin Lagonda, made in the UK,- bought in 1989, sold in 2007

Land Rover & Range Rover (bought in 2000), Jaguar, (bought in ’89), in 2008, Ford sold Land Rover and Jaguar to Tata of India

-- Formerly owned controlling share of Mazda of Japan (33.4%, cut in 2008 to 13%, along with another large shareholder, Sumitomo Bank)

---------------------------

Chrysler,

#3 in the US with 15% of the market, sells under these brands:

Jeep--bought in 1987 as part of American Motors Corp.,

Dodge,

Chrysler,

Daimler, owner of Mercedes-Benz, which is 24% owned by Deutsche Bank, bought Chrysler in 1998. Daimler also owns Freightliner trucks and Puch mopeds. In May of 2007, Daimler sells Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management for $7.4 billion, but most of the cash will go back into Chrysler, and Daimler will keep a 19% share and keep $950 million. Cerberus also controls GMAC, 51% sold 4/2006 by GM for $14 billion.

Discontinued car lines:

Maxwell-dropped in 1925

Chalmers-ended in 1923

DeSoto-1928-1961

Imperial

Eagle-1988-1998

Plymouth-1928-2001

Rambler-1950-1969

Nash-1916-1957

Hudson- to 1957

LaFayette-1920-1940

Willy’s-Overland-until 1955

Kaiser-Frazer—until 1955

Chrysler formerly owned 15% of Hyundai, selling it in 2004 (which owns Kia--bought in ‘98).

Hyundai’s first model sold in the USA was the Cortina, marketed by Ford

Mitsubishi Motors--Chrysler owned stake between 1971 and 1993 and sold their cars under Dodge brand in the USA, then between 2000 and 2005, Daimler-Chrysler owned up to 37%.

Mitsubishi also owned 10% of Hyundai until 2003

--------------------------

THE BIG FOREIGN CAR-MAKERS

Toyota, #4 in the US with 8% of sales, sells under these brands:

Toyota,

Lexus,

and Scion

--Subaru. A 16.5% stake is owned by Toyota; this stake was previously held by Nissan from 1968 to 1999, and by GM until 2005

---------------------------------

Honda,

Makes the Honda and Acura brands.

It used to sell the Sterling, which was made in England by Austin-Rover, from 1987 to 1992

-----------------------------------------

Renault, was owned by the French government from after World War 2 to 1996.

It controls:

Nissan-bought in 1999 (and owns 44% of its stock, while Nissan owns 15% of Renault),

Infiniti –launched by Nissan in 1989

Samsung Motors of South Korea-70% stake bought 1998 (not sold in US)

-beginning in 1979, Renault bought a small stake in AMC-Jeep, eventually owning 47%; Renault sold that stake in 1987 to Chrysler

-----------------------

BMW sells under these brands:

BMW,

Rolls Royce (bought ‘98),

Mini Cooper, bought in 1994 as part of Rover (Rover Cars used to be called British Leyland, and made the MG, Triumph, Austin Healey and Morris Minor; BMW sold off Rover to Ford in 2000, which sold it in 2008 to Tata Motors of India. BMW also kept the right to make a Triumph brand.)

---------------------

Porsche bought a controlling stake in VW in 2008, they own:

VW,

Audi, bought by VW in 1964 from Daimler-Benz

Lamborghini (bought in ’98 by Audi),

Bentley (bought in ‘98,

Porsche

SEAT in Spain-bought in 1986

Skoda of the Czech republic, bought in 1991

Bugatti bought 1998

----------------------

Daimler-Benz

Makes Mercedes-Benz

Daimler also owns Freightliner trucks and Puch mopeds.

Owned Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep from 1998 to 2007

HOW THE 4 SUPER-BANKS GOT SO BIG...

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

BANK OF AMERICA:

4800 branches, 15,000 ATM’s

Bought During the Bush Years: FleetBoston, MBNA, U.S. Trust, LaSalle Bank, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch

ACQUISITIONS:

Fed law change in 1956 forced spin off of Transamerica Insurance co.

Nevada N & L,

Harbor Security,

Montgomery Securities,

Robertson and Stephens,

and used to own Charles Schwab investment adviser co.-sold back to founder in 1986

1983-Seafirst

1986-Orbanco

1986-Diablo

1987-Rainier, but sold off after Security Pacific purchase due to monopoly concerns

1988-Hibernia

1989-Nevada First

1990-Gibraltar

1990-Mercury savings

1990-Mera Bank

1990-Western Savings

1990-Ben Franklin Federal Savings

1991-Southwest

1991-Security Pacific

1991-Valley Bank of Nevada

1994-Continental Illinois

1994-Arbor National

1996-Boatmen’s Bancshares

1997-Barnett Banks

1998-Nations Bank bought BofA, kept BofA name

2003-FleetBoston

2005-buys MBNA-credit card issuer

11/2006--buys U.S. Trust, a money manager, from Charles Schwab for $3.3 billion

4/2007 buys La Salle Bank Corp. From ABN Amro for $21 bil.

2007-buys Countrywide Financial

2008- buys Merrill Lynch stock brokerage

CITIGROUP:

Bought During the Bush Years: CalFed, Banamex

ACQUISITIONS:

1988- Bank of Arizona

Early 1990’s—Travelers buys Shearson Lehman Brothers, merging it into Smith Barney

1997-Salomon Brothers joins Traveler’s Group

1998-merged with Traveler’s Group brokerage and insurance co.

2000-Associates First Capital Corp

2002-CalFed/Cenfed/Glendale Federal/First Nationwide

2002-Spun off Traveler’s insurance, keeping brokerage and financial service divisions

2009-Citi to put Smith Barney in joint venture with Morgan Stanley (keeping 49% stake)

Grupo Financial Banamex, (#1 in Mexico)

Diner’s Club,

Carte Blanche credit card

Franklin Fund

WELLS FARGO

Bought During the Bush Years: Wachovia Bank

ACQUISITIONS:

1986-Crocker-Citizens purchased from Midland Bank of UK

1987-Allied Bancshares

1988-Barclays Bank of California

1989-American National Bank

1989-Valley National Bank

1990-Great American Savings branches in Calif

1994-Bank of A. Levy

1996- First Interstate

1998-Norwest-actually, Norwest bought Wells Fargo and kept the Wells name,

1/2007-buys Placer Sierra Bancshares-based in Sacramento area-50 branches

5/2007-- buys Greater Bay Bancorp (SF bay area) for $1.5 bil, has 41 branches.

2008-buys Wachovia, which had taken over First Union, Corestates, First Atlanta, Jefferson National, Central Fidelity, 1^st United Bancorp, American Bancshares, Republic Security, Southtrust, Prudential Financial, Metropolitan West Securities, Westcorp, Golden West Financial, World Savings Bank, A.G. Edwards

Homefed Bank,

J.P. MORGAN CHASE AND COMPANY

Bought During the Bush Years: BankOne, Bear Stearns brokerage, Washington Mutual

ACQUISITIONS:

1986-Texas Commerce Bancshares bought by Chemical Bank

1991-Manufacturer’s Hanover bought by Chemical Bank

1994-Margaretten Financial

1995-Chemical Bank buys Chase Manhattan, renamed Chase

1999-Hambrecht & Quist

2000-Chase bought J.P. Morgan and Co.

2004-Bank One/First Chicago/City National

2006-Collegiate Funding Services

2008--bought Bear Stearns stock brokerage

Chase Mellon Shareholder Services???,

--2008, bought WASHINGTON MUTUAL

ACQUISITIONS:

1986-Leucadia National

1986-Southern Home Savings

1987-First Commercial Savings

1987-Bowery Savings

1997-Great Western Savings

1997-Coast Federal

1998-Home Savings

2005-Providian National Bank

American Savings,

some branches of Western Federal and Household Bank

-------------------------------

SOME BANKING STATS:

http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/sodMarketRpt.asp?barItem=2&sZipCode=&InfoAsOf=2008&SortBy=Market%20Share&reRun=Y

market share of banks in L.A. area

http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/sodSumReport.asp?barItem=3&sInfoAsOf=2008

http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/pdf/ddep_2008.pdf

there is $7 trillion in deposits in FDIC insured institutions

total deposits of bank holding cos. As of 6/30/2008

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 6,146 branches $701 billion

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 3,195 branches $497 billion

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/WACHOVIA 6741 branches $715 billion

CITIGROUP INC. 1,079 branches $271 billion

Which totals $2.184 trillion or 31% of all deposits are in the top 4

(the FDIC does not list deposits for WaMu, so most likely they are counted in JPM’s total)

http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08085.html

at time of WaMu takeover by JPMorgan Chase, WaMu had $188 billion in deposits

http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/sodPFMarketRpt.asp?barItem=2&sCounty=all

number of offices in L.A. MSA—top 4 have 1142 branches out of 2481 total in L.A. metro area, or 46% of branch offices are the top 4 banks, BofA, WaMu, Wells-Wachovia and Citibank (JP Morgan not in the list as no presence in L.A.)

Temasek Holdings, owned by the government of Singapore, owned Merrill Lynch. When ML was sold to BofA, Temasek and the government of Singapore become a big owner of BofA. (America’s largest bank!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America

Aerospace and Defense Contractors

Consolidation of Control of U.S.Defense Contractors

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

One interesting stat: 7 of the top 10 USA defense contractors in 1995 are now owned by the top 3, Lockheed, Northop and Boeing.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/complex/top15.html list the top 10 in 1998

ACQUISITION HISTORIES:

LOCKHEED MARTIN:

1994-Martin-Marietta

1996 Loral

Defense-contracting divisions of:

1983-Xerox

1987-Goodyear

1987-Gould

1989-Fairchild

1989-Honeywell

1990-Ford

1992-LTV

1992-GE-RCA aerospace divisions

1993-General Dynamics’ Atlas rocket division

1993-IBM

1995-Unisys

NORTHROP GRUMMAN:

Bought During the Bush Years: TRW

1994 Vought Aircraft

1994 Teledyne’s Electronics Systems

1994-Northop bought Grumman

1996 Sperry Marine

1996 Westinghouse defense division

1997 Logicon

2000 Litton

2000 Newport News Shipbuilding

2002 TRW

BOEING:

1960 Vertol helicopters

1984 Hughes Helicopters

1996 McDonnell Douglas

1996 Rockwell Defense and Aerospace (owned North American Aircraft which was originally spun-off by GM in 1948)

1997 Argo Systems

2000 Hughes Space and Communications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boeing_History_Timeline.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing

Boeing once owned United Airlines and United Technologies in the 1930’s

Boeing sold the Rocketdyne rocket engine division to Pratt & Whitney in 2005

---------------------

THE SMALLER DEFENSE CONTRACTORS:

RAYTHEON:

Beech Aircraft

1992 General Dynamics’ missile division

1995 Magnavox aerospace division

1996 Chrysler defense division

1997 Hughes Aircraft (from GM)

1997 Texas Instruments missile and defense division

2006 sells Hawker and Beechcraft airplane divisions to Goldman Sachs/Onex Partners for $3.3.bil.

At one time, Raytheon owned Amana Radarange ovens (sold to Maytag) and made Speed Queen washing machines—sold 1998 by Raytheon to Alliance Laundry Systems

GENERAL ELECTRIC

2001—had U.S. OK to buy Honeywell but European Union killed deal

1/2007-Buys Smiths Group aircraft control systems unit for $4.8 bil.

5/2007 sells GE Plastics for $11.6 bil to Saudi Basic Industries corp.

TELEDYNE:

Continental Engines

Brown Engineering

GENERAL DYNAMICS:

1982 Chrysler combat systems

1995 Bath Iron Works shipyard

1997 Acquired Lockheed Martin Defense Systems and Lockheed Martin Armament Systems

1998 National Steel and Shipbuilding

1999 Gulfstream Aerospace

2002 General Motors’ armored vehicle division

2003 Veridian Corp.

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES:

Pratt & Whitney

Hamilton Sundstrand

Sikorsky Helicopters

1975-Otis Elevator

1979-Carrier Refrigeration

1999-Sundstrand

2001-Chubb Security

2004-Schweitzer Aircraft-2004

2005-Kidde

2005-Rocketdyne

TOSHIBA:

Westinghouse nuclear plant division

EADS (Eurpoean Aeronautic Defence and Space) formed in 2000 bymerger of top European aerospace firms:

Daimler-Benz aerospace

Aerospatial Matra

Marconi Electronics

Airbus

Arianespace

Fokker

TEXTRON:

Avco

Bell Helicopter

1992- Cessna (bought from General Dynamics)

Lycoming

GENCORP:

Aerojet General (rocket and missile propulsion)

HONEYWELL:

1999 merged with Allied-Signal

HOW THE 5 BIG OIL COMPANIES GOT SO BIG:

1/19/2009

compiled by Rex Frankel

British Petroleum (major brand name in USA is ARCO):

competitors bought out:

1969-Sinclair oil

1968-SOHIO merged with BP, BP took full ownership in 1987.

1988-Britoil

1988-Dome of Canada-bought by Amoco

1998-Union Texas Petroleum

1998-Amoco (Standard of Indiana

1999-Arco

2000-Burmah-Castrol

Gulf stations in 8 SE USA states,

also has joint refining and marketing venture with Mobil in Europe.

Chevron-Texaco:

Bought During the Bush Years: Texaco, Unocal

competitors bought out:

1984-Gulf Oil bought by Chevron,

1984-Getty Oil –bought by Texaco, causing a disastrous lawsuit for Texaco filed by Pennzoil

1997-Monterey Resources--(was originally spun-off by Santa Fe Energy in ‘96),

2001-Texaco

2005-Unocal

Dynegy-owns electrical power plants-26.5%,

Conoco-Phillips:

Conoco was formerly owned by DuPont Chemical co., bought in 1981 and spun off in 1998

Bought During the Bush Years: Phillips Petroleum

competitors bought out:

2001--Phillips bought Tosco (The Oil and Shale Corporation), which had bought western US division of Unocal and 76 stations in 1997; Tosco owned Circle-K stores and gas stations-which they bought in 1996, then sold in 2003 to Alimentation Couche-Tard of France.

2001-Gulf Canada Resource

2002-Phillips 66-merged with Conoco,

2006-Burlington Resources—was formerly oil division of Burlington Northern Railroad co.

BP stations in N. Calif.,

Alaska oil fields formerly owned by Arco,

Exxon-Mobil

competitors bought out:

1987-Celeron pipelines-from Goodyear Tire co.,

1989-Texaco Canada

1999-Exxon merged with Mobil Oil

Imperial/Esso in Canada,

joint venture in Calif. Oil fields with Shell, called Aera Energy

Royal-Dutch Shell:

Bought During the Bush Years: Pennzoil

competitors bought out:

1979-Belridge Oil

2001-Texaco’s refining and marketing division in USA

2002-Pennzoil/Jiffy Lube/Quaker State/Slick-50

European joint refining and marketing venture with Texaco.

-
Watch Out for Sky-High Cell Phone Bills from Internet-Connected Phones!

Cell Phone Bills that Truly Roam
1/7/2009 L.A. Times

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=2531&topicId=100015123&start=1&docId=l:907450862


Not long after I returned from a recent trip to Canada, I was surprised to find a $400 cellphone bill in the mailbox. This seemed odd because I'd made only two phone calls when I was there, the longer one for 15 minutes.But when I looked closer at the breakdown, I saw what was going on. It wasn't I who'd been making dozens of long-distance calls back to the States -- it was the phone itself. While I thought my iPhone was sitting "unused" in my jacket, it had been constantly checking my e-mail for 72 straight hours. You see, using a data-enabled cellphone in a foreign land has become a little like falling asleep on a train in Naples -- if you're not careful, you could end up with empty pockets. And if you ever have, you know the feeling. "Shock, fear, panic," said Mike Cottmeyer, a software consultant in Suwanee, Ga., referring to an $800 iPhone data bill he'd been hit with after visiting Toronto for a few days last year. "It kind of makes you sick to your stomach."The roaming ripoff stems from a sad new kind of Catch-22: With all the contracts, agreements and stipulations we've signed on for, there's more fine print than ever and less time to read it. And like a high schooler's nightmare, if you fail to memorize everything, you could be in big trouble.For an idea of how easy it is for travelers to rack up a nauseating data bill, consider that most phone companies charge roaming customers about two cents per kilobyte. How much is that? Well, your average e-mail message might be 10 kb. So that's around 20 cents per e-mail. Not instantly fatal.Well, what if someone sends you a message with a snapshot in it --that might run a megabyte or two (about 2,000 kb). So while the picture of your nephew in his first snowstorm might be priceless in one sense, in another it just cost you 40 bucks.But even that is child's play. The real action comes when travelers use their phones to surf the Web or watch videos -- both of which can consume thousands of times more data than checking e-mail. The blogosphere is littered with ghastly tales of "bill shock" over such unanticipated fees, like the American who visited London for two weeks, bringing his Web-enabled iPhone, not a laptop, for all computing needs. The price tag on that bit of light traveling? $3,000.Then there was the Briton who, while vacationing in Portugal, decided to download an episode of "Prison Break" to his cellphone. The guy ended up owing close to $60,000. Most of the really galactic fees -- like this one -- end up being partially refunded. When I complained, mine was too -- but it took me 20 minutes of arguing with the customer service rep, more than most people would likely bother with."You get this false-positive feeling of comfort," said Gerry Purdy, an Atlanta-based mobile communications analyst for the consulting firm Frost & Sullivan. "You get off the airplane and say, hey, the phone works? And my e-mail's coming? That's great."But unwitting consumers and Web columnists don't realize they've been silently shifted to a new set of much more expensive "roaming" rates that are, as Purdy put it, "almost insane."You might wonder if sending all this data around the world costs the telecoms that much money. But consider your home broadband connection, a kind of all-you-can-eat buffet that allows you to scarf down as many Web pages, photos, songs and movies as you can in one month. All for about $40 -- about the same as what they charged you for that pic of your nephew in the snow.If you had to pay that kind of price for every byte of your monthlong smorgasbord of home broadband, you'd probably be paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So wherefore the discrepancy? AT&T, the only telecom that offers the data-hungry iPhone, won't say whether the roaming rates reflect the real cost of keeping users connected internationally. A spokesman wrote only that "roaming fees are established by the carriers whose networks are available to our customers while traveling abroad" and that "AT&T must pay these fees to the carrier per the agreement."This response sidesteps the rather obvious fact that AT&T is itself an international service provider -- charging roaming fees to visiting foreigners -- and therefore knows precisely how much or rather how little data transfer costs.For a hint at the real answer, we can look to the European Union, which recently agreed to caps on both the price of text messages -- about 14 cents U.S. -- and the price of data: 1 euro, or about $1.50, per megabyte, more than 10 times less than what AT&T and other U.S. telecoms charge for roaming.Our own Federal Communications Commission declined to comment on the issue, noting only that if consumers have a problem with roaming charges, they should send complaints.Frustrated with "unbelievable" roaming costs, Howard Thaw of Nova Scotia has found ways to scrimp when traveling with his iPhone. For one: Make sure you use it near a wireless connection point -- at a Starbucks, say, so you can access the Web without always hearing a cash register. But as Thaw noted, that sort of "defeats the purpose of what the phone was designed to do" -- i.e., work anywhere.Thaw speculated on the mentality behind the pricing: "If you can afford an iPhone," he said, "why shouldn't you be able to afford the data charges, especially if you're traveling on business and you have a company paying?"Cottmeyer, the software consultant from Georgia, did exactly that. Admitting he should have read the fine print, he gritted his teeth and expensed the $800 charge. "Did I feel like it was fair? Absolutely not. But I didn't feel like I had a leg to stand on."Cottmeyer's boss told him not to let it happen again and asked him to write a warning memo about it for his colleagues. The post is online at Cottmeyer's blog, LeadingAgile.com, if anyone, including the FCC, would like to read it.

Could No One See this Coming?

Moral Hazard--the Financial Industry's term for Fraud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Hazard

Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company.

-----------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3

On Ex-Senator Phil Gramm, who was John McCain’s financial advisor:

He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine the financial markets. He advanced legislation that fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and reach of financial conglomerates.

And he pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world…

In the final days of the Clinton administration a year later, Mr. Gramm celebrated another triumph. Determined to close the door on any future regulation of the emerging market of derivatives and swaps, he helped pushed through legislation that accomplished that goal.

Created to help companies and investors limit risk, swaps are contracts that typically work like a form of insurance. A bank concerned about rises in interest rates, for instance, can buy a derivatives instrument that would protect it from rate swings. Credit-default swaps, one type of derivative, could protect the holder of a mortgage security against a possible default.

Earlier laws had left the regulation issue sufficiently ambiguous, worrying Wall Street, the Clinton administration and lawmakers of both parties, who argued that too many restrictions would hurt financial activity and spur traders to take their business overseas. And while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — under the leadership of Mr. Gramm’s wife, Wendy — had approved rules in 1989 and 1993 exempting some swaps and derivatives from regulation, there was still concern that step was not enough….

Mr. Gramm helped lead the charge in Congress. Demanding even more freedom from regulators than the financial industry had sought, he persuaded colleagues and negotiated with senior administration officials, pushing so hard that he nearly scuttled the deal. “When I get in the red zone, I like to score,” Mr. Gramm told reporters at the time.

Finally, he had extracted enough. In December 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed as part of a larger bill by unanimous consent after Mr. Gramm dominated the Senate debate.

-------------------------------

WHAT ARE DERIVATIVES?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/derivatives/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Derivatives are financial instruments that were created to reduce risk, and their use on Wall Street is known as hedging. In recent years, however, as their prevalence and complexity ballooned, they have created new kinds of risk and have played a major role in the meltdown of the world's financial system.

Their name comes from the fact that their value “derives” from underlying assets like stocks, bonds and commodities.

One of the easiest ways to understand derivatives is to consider an early example -- traders in Chicago in the 19th century buying corn futures. A contract that guaranteed a certain amount of corn at a certain price at a date in the future helped reduce the risk the trader faced, since he would have some protection if prices rose. But that future also had a value in and of itself, one that rose and fell with the price of corn -- when prices went up, a contract for corn at a cheap price was worth more. So futures were traded as avidly as corn.

The most common types of derivatives are futures; forwards, which are futures traded outside of a regular exchange; options, which are the right to buy or sell something at a specified date and price; and swaps, contracts involving an exchange of assets or payments.

In recent years, a bewildering variety of derivatives have been developed. Two types that have played a central role in the recent turmoil are mortgage-backed securities, whose value depends on the value of the mortgages, which depends on how many of them are being paid off, and credit default swaps, which are in essence a form of insurance policy, and whose value swings with the fiscal health of the transaction or asset it is written to cover.

The derivatives market today is $531 trillion, up from $106 trillion in 2002 and a relative pittance just two decades ago. Theoretically intended to limit risk and ward off financial problems, the contracts instead have stoked uncertainty and actually spread risk amid doubts about how companies value them.

The contracts allowed financial services firms and corporations to take more complex risks that they might have otherwise avoided — for example, issuing questionable mortgages or excessive corporate debt. The fact that they can be traded in one sense limited risk but also increased the number of parties exposed when problems emerged.

Throughout the 1990s, some argued that derivatives had become so vast, intertwined and inscrutable that they required federal oversight to protect the financial system. But the financial industry lobbied heavily against such measures, and won backing from important figures, including Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to early 2006.

------------------------

WHAT ARE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_default_swaps/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Credit default swaps, which were invented by Wall Street in the late 1990's, are financial instruments that are intended to cover losses to banks and bondholders when a particular bond or security goes into default -- that is, when the stream of revenue behind the loan becomes insufficient to meet the payments that were promised.

In essence, it is a form of insurance. Its purpose is to make it easier for banks to issue complex debt securities by reducing the risk to purchasers, just like the way the insurance a movie producer takes out on a wayward star makes it easier to raise money for the star's next picture.

Here is a more detailed, but still simplified explanation of how they work, given by Michael Lewitt, a Florida money manager, in a New York Times Op-Ed piece on Sept. 16, 2008:

"Credit default swaps are a type of credit insurance contract in which one party pays another party to protect it from the risk of default on a particular debt instrument. If that debt instrument (a bond, a bank loan, a mortgage) defaults, the insurer compensates the insured for his loss.

"The insurer (which could be a bank, an investment bank or a hedge fund) is required to post collateral to support its payment obligation, but in the insane credit environment that preceded the credit crisis, this collateral deposit was generally too small.

"As a result, the credit default market is best described as an insurance market where many of the individual trades are undercapitalized."

The market for the credit default swaps has been enormous. Since 2000, it has ballooned from $900 billion to more than $45.5 trillion — roughly twice the size of the entire United States stock market. Also in sharp contrast to traditional insurance, the swaps are totally unregulated.

When the mortgage-backed securities that many swaps were supporting began to lose value in 2007, investors began to fear that the swaps, originally meant as a hedge against risk, could suddenly become huge liabilities.

The swaps' complexity and the lack of information in an unregulated market added to the market's anxiety. Bond insurers like MBNA and Ambac that had written large amounts of the swaps saw their shares plunge in late 2007.

Credit default swaps also played an integral role in the federal government's decision to bail out the American International Group, one of the world's largest insurers, in September 2008. The Federal Reserve concluded that if A.I.G. failed and defaulted on its swaps, throwing the liability for the insured securities onto the swaps' counterparties, the result could be a daisy chain of failures across the international financial system.

-------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties. The buyer makes periodic payments (premium leg) to the seller, and in return receives a payoff (protection or default leg) if an underlying financial instrument defaults.[1] CDS contracts have been compared to insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if a specified event occurs. However, there are a number of differences between CDS and insurance; the buyer of a CDS does not need to own the underlying security; in fact the buyer does not even have to suffer a loss from the default event.[2][3][4]

A credit default swap (CDS) is a swap contract in which the buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if a credit instrument (typically a bond or loan) goes into default or on the occurrence of a specified credit event (for example bankruptcy or restructuring). Credit Default Swaps can be bought by any (relatively sophisticated) investor; it is not necessary for the buyer to own the underlying credit instrument.[5]…

…Credit default swaps are often used to manage the credit risk (ie the risk of default) which arises from holding debt. Typically, the holder of, for example, a corporate bond may hedge their exposure by entering into a CDS contract as the buyer of protection. If the bond goes into default, the proceeds from the CDS contract will cancel out the losses on the underlying bond.

…Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JPMorgan Chase[7][8]. Credit Default Swaps became legal, and illegal to regulate, with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. They were introduced and rushed through congress as a companion bill, the last day before the Christmas holiday. It was never debated in the House or the Senate. The bill was 11,000 pages long. Less than a week after it was passed by congress, President Clinton signed it into Public Law (106-554) on December 21, 2000.

…For example, at the time it filed for bankruptcy on 14 September 2008, Lehman Brothers had approximately $155 billion of outstanding debt[21] but around $400 billion notional value of CDS contracts had been written which referenced this debt.[22]

-------------------------

http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/60-minutes-bets-brought-down-wall-st

As Steve Kroft reports, essentially they are side bets on the performance of the U.S. mortgage markets and the solvency on some of the biggest financial institutions in the world. It's a form of legalized gambling that allows you to wager on financial outcomes without ever having to actually buy the stocks and bonds and mortgages.

It would have been illegal during most of the 20th century, but eight years ago Congress gave Wall Street an exemption and it has turned out to be a very bad idea.

------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml

“Think of it for a moment as a football game. Every week, the New York Giants take the field with hopes of getting back to the Super Bowl. If they do, they will get more money and glory for the team and its owners. They have a direct investment in the game. But the people in the stands may also have a financial stake in the ouctome, in the form of a bet with a friend or a bookie.

"We could call that a derivative. It's a side bet. We don't own the teams. But we have a bet based on the outcome. And a lot of derivatives are bets based on the outcome of games of a sort. Not football games, but games in the markets," Partnoy explains.

Partnoy says the bet was whether interest rates were going to go up or down. "And the new bet that arose over the last several years is a bet based on whether people will default on their mortgages.”

Dinallo says credit default swaps were totally unregulated and that the big banks and investment houses that sold them didn't have to set aside any money to cover their potential losses and pay off their bets.

"As the market began to seize up and as the market for the underlying obligations began to perform poorly, everybody wanted to get paid, had a right to get paid on those credit default swaps. And there was no 'there' there. There was no money behind the commitments. And people came up short. And so that's to a large extent what happened to Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and the holding company of AIG," he explains. …

In other words, three of the nation's largest financial institutions had made more bad bets than they could afford to pay off. Bear Stearns was sold to J.P. Morgan for pennies on the dollar, Lehman Brothers was allowed to go belly up, and AIG, considered too big to let fail, is on life support to thanks to a $123 billion investment by U.S. taxpayers.

Noblesse Oblige my ass!

-
How Much Would You Pay in Taxes?

October 12, 2008

SOURCE:
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/how-much-would-you-pay-taxes.html?archive=true

Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both say they’ll cut federal taxes if elected. Here’s what their proposals would mean for you.

	Obama	McCain
If you make...	you'd save...	you'd save...
less than $19,000	$567	$21
$19,000-$37,600	$892	$118
$37,600-$66,400	$1118	$325
$66,400-$111,600	$1264	$994
$111,600-$161,000	$2135	$2584
$161,000-$227,000	$2796	$4437
If you're in the top 5% of earners...	you'd pay an extra...	you'd save...
$227,000-$603,400	$121	$8159
$603,400-$2.87 million	$93,709	$48,862
more than $2.87 million	$542,882	$290,708

*Source: Tax Policy Center. Numbers have been rounded. For complete details, go to TaxPolicyCenter.org.


If your annual salary is less than $112,000, you’d pay less in taxes under Obama’s plan; if your salary is higher, McCain would cut your taxes more. “While the aggregate tax cut is bigger for McCain, a larger number of voters get more money under Obama,” says Alan Viard, a tax-policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Obama is choosing to emphasize tax cuts for the middle class, whereas McCain’s strategy is to keep rates lower at the top as a way to facilitate long-run growth.” For example, a person with an income of $1 million could see his taxes increase under Obama by as much as $94,000, whereas under McCain’s plan he could save about $48,000.

— Rebecca Davis O'Brien

-----
Moron-Math Used to Claim Exxon-Mobil is Overtaxed

8/18/2008

When oil-industry propagandists try to fool the public into showing sympathy for the greedy oil monopolies, they lately cite the high taxes the oil companies pay. What???

Exxon-Mobil profits are up 70% in the most recent three-month sales report. But a recent soundbite says that in the last 3 months, "Exxon paid almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion)".

Certainly the U.S. government doesn't charge income taxes at a 75% rate. So what are these guys talking about?

And since Exxon's total revenue was $138 billion and the taxes they paid were $32 billion, they are not even paying a 33% tax rate!!

Doing the math, there's $106 billion of other money that flowed through Exxon during those three months, and most of it they don't call "profit". Yeah, some of it was to pay the suppliers of the crude oil; of course, they are also the supplier of a lot of that oil.

I'd sure like to tell the the IRS that about my small business.


According to CNN, http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073109

"The company returned $10.1 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, 12% more than last year."

This doesn't count as a profit for the company. The shareholders pay the taxes on it instead.

And a lot of those taxes are not really "paid" by the company.

The oilmeisters love to whine a lot about gas taxes being the problem. For example, $9.5 billion of the taxes Exxon paid in that quarter were sales taxes which the company merely extracts from consumers and then passes onto the government. And of course, that gas tax goes to pay for roads, which keeps us all driving and buying their gas.

Of course, our ever-non vigilant media always fails to reveal that while the price of a barrel of oil has zoomed, the profit for refining that barrel has also zoomed. The "refining margin" is a forgotten statistic, and that profit goes only to the USA oil monopolies, not to some "foreigners" who are ripping off Americans.

How much of the spike in oil prices has really gone to other countries, and how much has been grabbed by the big-5 worldwide oil monopolies?

I wish someone would report that.

--Rex Frankel

---------------------------
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2459357&title=Exxon_Posts_Record.html

Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.
That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

Buried in the story we also find that "In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called 'other taxes.'"

MP: In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second. Another way to look at it - Exxon paid almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion), see chart above.

--------------------
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073109
7/31/2008

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.

That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

That barely beat the previous corporate record of $11.66 billion, also set by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2007.

"The fundamentals of our business remain strong," Henry Hubble, Exxon's vice president of investor relations, said on a conference call. "We continue to capture the benefit of strong industry conditions."

But Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) profit fell short of Wall Street estimates.

Analysts predicted the company, the world's largest publicly traded oil firm, would make $12.1 billion in profit on $144.4 billion in revenue, according to Thomson Reuters.

Exxon shares fell about 3% on the New York Stock Exchange.

Excluding money set aside for a recent damage award related to the Valdez tanker spill back in 1989, Exxon made $11.97 billion in the quarter.

Pricey oil cuts both ways

Exxon was both helped and hurt by high oil prices.

As an oil producer, the company makes a lot of money when crude prices rise. Exxon made $10 billion from selling oil in the latest quarter, up nearly 70%.

But as a refiner, it must also buy crude oil to turn into gasoline. Exxon actually buys more crude than it sells.

Profits from its refining business totaled $1.6 billion in the quarter, less than half of what they were last year.

"Record crude oil and natural gas realizations were partly offset by lower refining and chemical margins, lower production volumes and higher operating costs," read a statement attributed to Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chief executive.

While oil prices in the quarter were nearly twice as high as the same time last year, gasoline prices only rose about 30%.

That's one reason why the stock of major oil companies - such as Exxon, Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) and BP (BP) - that both produce and refine crude has been relatively flat over the last year, despite the runup in oil prices.

Meanwhile, shares of companies that mostly produce oil, like Anadarko and Apache, have soared in the last year, while shares in refiners like Valero and Sunoco have tumbled.

Where the money goes

Exxon spent $7 billion in the second quarter finding and producing more new oil, up 38% from last year. Still, oil and natural gas production from the company fell 8%. Even excluding special events such as a labor strike in Nigeria and seizure of fields in Venezuela, production slipped 3%.

The production declines shouldn't be seen as an indicator the world is running out of oil, said Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer.

Rather, as the price of oil rises, the amount of oil Exxon or any international oil firm is allowed to pump from many oil-rich countries decreases, said Gheit.

"We didn't expect production to be down as much as reported," he said. "But that doesn't mean [worldwide] production is down, just that Exxon's share is decreasing."

The company returned $10.1 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, 12% more than last year.

On an earnings-per-share basis, Exxon made $2.22. That was still lower than analysts had expected, but 24% higher than last year, a gain Exxon attributed to its aggressive stock buyback plan.

The big international oil companies have been criticized for plowing much of their profits back into stock buybacks and other programs to benefit shareholders, as opposed to exploring for more oil which could bring down the price of crude for everyone.

"While oil companies are earning record profits and gas prices are soaring, the largest oil companies have invested more resources in stock buybacks than U.S. production," said Congressional Democrats in a press release shortly after Exxon announced its earnings.

Other critics charge the oil companies with deliberately restricting production in an attempt to keep prices high.

The industry says it's investing as much as it can in finding new oil, but is having a hard time given the shortage of workers and equipment in the sector.

Recent efforts by countries such as Russia, Venezuela and Kazakhstan to gain greater control of their own domestic oil resources have also hampered the ability of international oil companies to increase production.

In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."

Political backlash

With Americans paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, oil company earnings have been political fodder of late.

Congressional Democrats said they are having a conference later in the day to call for an end to tax breaks for big oil firms.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to enact a "windfall" profits tax on these earnings, or at the very least eliminate manufacturing tax exemption oil companies now enjoy. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to tax oil companies at a special rate every time crude goes over $80 a barrel.

Most plans would either use this newfound tax money to fund investments in renewable energy, or give it to low income Americans struggling with high energy prices.

But so far those efforts have been blocked - mainly by Republicans - who say raising taxes on oil companies will only discourage investments in finding new oil and raise the price of crude.

Defenders of oil company profits also point out that their profit margin, at around 8%, is slightly below average for S&P 500 companies, and far below the 20%-plus margins seen at companies such as Microsoft or Pfizer.

-----

Giving “Choice” to a Captive Audience is bad for media behemoths:

The USA’s Biggest Radio monopolies are selling off stations, But sticking with their monopoly on billboards…

With the public turning to digital music players and podcasts, they can avoid the homogenized, ad-packed, junk-radio formats that litter the AM and FM dials in most cities. What they can’t miss, though, are the sky-blocking billboards owned by the same radio behemoths. During the late 1990’s, two corporations went on a deregulation-fueled radio and billboard buying spree. The two, CBS and Clear Channel, loaded up on debt to buy these speculation-steroid-enhanced properties. The results are mixed. CBS has done well, as it is insulated by its holdings in TV and publishing.

Clear Channel, on the other hand, which made its name in the early years of the Bush administration as the home of Rush Limbaugh and countless other right-wing radio hotheads, has lost a ton of someone’s (?) money. Their zeal to buy up radio stations led them to own over 1200 across the U.S. CBS, the next largest owner at its peak had 180 stations. Clear Channel reported losses totaling $21 billion in 2002 and 2005 due to the true value of their radio empire becoming evident, and they have sold off their 56 TV stations and are trying to sell off over 400 radio stations in smaller USA markets. Clear Channel was recently sold to several investment groups for $17.9 billion, after a $19.5 billion deal fell through.

With the economy in the dumper lately, a lot of the USA media are fighting themselves for market share—ah, yes, competition, we haven’t seen that for a while. As the internet has gobbled up ads from daily newspapers, we are seeing hard times for the daily papers that have largely served up corporate press releases to their readers masquerading as news.

Most important to the media monopolies is a “captive” audience. This is when we have over 100 cable channels available to us, but most of them are owned by the 5 media monopolies (CBS/Viacom, GE, Time-Warner, Fox and Disney). For daily newspapers, in most cities in the USA we have only one choice. For radio, the listeners and ad revenues are monopolized by CBS and Clear Channel, who each have 8 radio stations in L.A., for example. The big profit is in the audience having no alternative, and therefore, we are captive watchers or listeners. For example, when I tune into the 6 L.A. rock music stations, and a commercial block comes on, when I switch stations, guess what? They and all the other rock stations are playing commercials, too. Is this coincidence or collusion?

Thanks to my digital music player, I can pack my entire music collection in a little box. I really don’t miss the inane, pre-recorded chatter. I can always look away from the billboards, unless I’m stuck in the gridlocked traffic.

But that’s another rant…

---by Rex Frankel

----------------------------------

CBS to sell 50 of its radio stations:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cbs1-2008aug01,0,6157912.story

August 1, 2008

“The New York-based broadcasting company, controlled by billionaire Sumner Redstone, said Thursday that it planned to sell 50 radio stations in a dozen mid-size markets as ad revenue continued to slide in a weak economy. The company's once-mighty radio division continued to produce static and a drag on the company's earnings…

…Just two years ago, CBS Radio boasted nearly 180 radio stations. It has since shed about 40 stations, and with the planned sale of 50 more, the company would cut its holdings to about 90 stations. Included on its roster are Los Angeles powerhouse AM stations KNX 1070 and KFWB 980.

Analyst Tom Taylor said CBS might look to sell stations in such markets as Sacramento, Riverside and Las Vegas to focus on big-market stations that produce greater revenue. The loss of Howard Stern, who defected to satellite radio, continues to be felt, he said.”

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/797894/clear_channel_sells_radio_stations_to_rincon_for_173_million/index.html

...Thought Oil Companies Put their Huge Profits into Finding New Supplies of Oil? Think Again:


Where Big Oil's profits go

By John Porretto, The Associated Press
7/21/2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/21/financial/f140139D71.DTL&feed=rss.business

HOUSTON - As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what are expected to be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?

The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel.
The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

Growing profits

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn't stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion - nine times what it spent on exploration.
Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.
"If you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who's studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

State-run oil companies, like those in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, control about 80percent of oil reserves - and at today's prices, it's not surprising they're keeping a tight grip on what they have. Scarce equipment and hard-to-find labor also pose problems.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.
"It becomes a management decision," said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's. "It's not like they're going to the board and saying, `Well, I can do one or the other or the other.' The balance sheets are flush with cash."

The companies say they are doing what they can to find more fossil fuels around the world, but the easy oil is gone. Exploring these days may mean expensive projects in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico or costly ventures pulling petroleum from Canada's vast oil-sands deposits.

TransCanada Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. just said they'd spend $7 billion to nearly double the amount of crude flowing through a pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Analysts point out that because there's no guarantee prices will stay high, oil companies should approach exploration projects with caution.

Lag time involved

"There's only so much money you can throw at it without being ridiculous," said Joseph Stanislaw, a senior adviser to Deloitte LLP's Energy & Resources practice. "I think they're doing what they can."

It's also important to remember it can take several years before a company produces the first barrel of oil from a new field.

One example is an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico called Thunder Horse. Operated by BP and partly owned by Exxon Mobil, the platform only last month began producing oil and gas - nine years after the field's discovery.

At its peak, the multibillion-dollar project is designed to produce 250,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas each day, which would make it the Gulf's largest producer.
"When you look at the spending that's going on, the companies are bringing on a lot of long-term discoveries," said John Parry, a senior analyst with John S. Herold Inc.

At ConocoPhillips, the capital spending budget for 2008, which includes exploration and production, is $15.3 billion, more than double the spending of five years ago.

"Could we spend $20 billion or $25 billion? Absolutely," spokesman Gary Russell said. "Could we do it effectively, in a way that provides ultimate value to our shareholders? Probably not."

Exxon Mobil has drawn criticism for its reluctance to invest in alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

Cree Indian proverb

Feds Continue the Coverup of The Enron/Bush Greed scandal

It's Time to Mess With Texas...

A Guide to Corporate Welfare...

When our government does something to help the less fortunate in this country, there's always a chorus of so-called experts on the TV who call that "welfare for the undeserving." Most of the time, however, it seems our government prefers to take care of the needs of big corporations, which buy and sell most politicians from our major political parties. And yet, it's hard to find one of TV's alleged experts who will criticize the billions of dollars our government gives away each year to these big corporations. The corporate-owned media blacks out this information because they're also big recipients of corporate welfare....

continued...Corporations Give to Politicians; Politicians Give to Corporations...

Who's the Pirate Here?

From the hundreds protesting in Prague, the thousands protesting in Davos and Jakarta, and the tens of thousands protesting in Seattle, it is clear that people are fed up with the forces of economic domination and the increasing concentration of wealth. Anger is expressed with nonviolent vigils, vitriolic slogans, and broken windows. It is an anger born from the feelings of powerlessness in the face of a planetary machine trying to pave the world. Take heart. Just as every action produces its own reaction, the extreme of global corporatism fuels its own demise. There is already an effective economic response to global corporatism and its many official arms, including the WTO. This response is technologically sophisticated, worth untold billions of dollars, is grass roots oriented, and is gaining strength. It is considered illegal, even evil, in the eyes of global corporatism and its puppet national governments. However, there is a good chance you already participate in this economic enterprise.

It is the Pirate Economy.

The world's pirates are actively turning the tables on those with monopoly power. They are the lightest, quickest, least bureaucratic, most democratic, and--most importantly-most market-driven sector of our economy. In a world of corporate dinosaurs, the pirates are the rats feasting on dinosaur eggs...

Who's the Pirate Here? continued...

-----

Overvalued and Generally Evil, Clear Channel is in Trouble....

(next to Fox, the biggest media backer of the Bush regime)

Clear Channel, private equity firms sue banks
Radio and billboard company claims five banks renege on promise to finance$19.5 billion buyout.
March 26, 2008

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/news/companies/clear_channel/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular

SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- Clear Channel Communications Inc. and the private equity firms seeking to close a $19.5 billion purchase of the company on Wednesday sued the banks backing the deal.

In lawsuits filed in Texas and New York, Clear Channel and the buyers group, led by Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners LLC, claimed the six banks that promised to finance the deal were reneging on the agreement to provide long-term financing, looking to offer little more than a short-term bridge loan.

"The lenders agreed to provide long-term financing," said Alex Stanton, a Bain spokesman. "They now have lenders' remorse because the credit markets have been difficult."
The lenders, which include Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank AG and Wachovia Corp., signed commitments when the deal was inked 18 months ago saying they would bear all the risk in changes to the debt market.

In that time, it has become more difficult for the banks to resell the loans so -- instead of sticking with the minimum six years of financing -- the lenders had sought to provide only a short-term loan, the equity firms and Clear Channel complained.

The firms contend the banks are trying to kill the deal by putting unreasonable terms on the loan.

"The behavior of these banks is irresponsible, unprofessional and unjustified. The defendants have made clear that they are determined, by any means possible, to destroy the merger and thus avoid their obligation to fund, as they are required legally to do," said Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays in a statement.

The banks issued a statement denying they failed to make good on their earlier commitment.
"The bank group presented the sponsors with credit agreements fully consistent and compliant with the commitment letter," said the statement issued by Citigroup on behalf of the lending consortium. "We believe the suits are without merit and will contest them vigorously."
Clear Channel shares have been volatile for months. Shares fell $5.64, or more than 17 percent, to $26.92 Wednesday, the day after reports surfaced that the deal was on the brink of collapse. Following the lawsuits, the share price climbed $2.43, or 9 percent, to $29.35 in after-hours trading.

But the share price remains anemic compared with the $39.20 the equity firms agreed to pay for the company. The equity firms say they remain committed to closing the deal. If they don't, they face an estimated $500 million to $600 million in breakup fees.

The deal was scheduled to close by Monday. Failure to close on time opens the parties up to fees and other potential problems.

SMH Capital analyst David Miller said banks that were gladly loaning money for ever bigger leveraged buyouts just a year ago are now concerned about whether the company can generate enough free cash flow to cover the interest payments in a miserly credit market.

The banks are looking at a $3 billion to $4 billion write-down on the loan, so there's obvious incentive for lenders to seek a way to renegotiate or pull out.

Clear Channel has had success before in forcing a deal through legal action. The $1.1 billion sale of its television group closed after the company lowered the price by $100 million and sued Providence Equity Partners, which had been having difficulty getting Wachovia to make good on its earlier financing commitment.

Clear Channel is the nation's largest operator of radio stations, a business that has been stagnant for years as digital music players and satellite radio have siphoned off listeners and advertising dollars.

The company now generates more than half of its revenue from its billboard business, consisting of roughly 800,000 signs worldwide, and that business has been growing as advertisers have shifted spending away from other avenues to billboards, which are harder for consumers to bypass.

Clear Channel Communications Inc. and the private equity firms seeking to close a $19.5 billion buyout of the company have sued their lenders.

The radio and billboard giant filed suit Wednesday in Texas, claiming the five banks who promised to finance the deal are reneging. The private buyers, led by Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners, also sued.

The banks signed letters backing the deal, but in the 18 months since it was first made, the credit market has gotten much tighter and Clear Channel's stock is now trading well below the $39.20 that the buyers committed to pay.

The private equity firms face an estimated $500 million to $600 million in breakup fees if the deal does not go through.

Shares of Clear Channel closed down 17% to $26.92 on Wednesday as shareholders grew pessimistic about whether the deal would go through.

The buyout was supposed to be completed by Monday.

The Britney Industrial Complex

By Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Tuesday, January 22, 2008; 12:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101691.html?sub=AR

The most useful magazine journalism of the (still) new year comes to us not from the usual sources -- Newsweek, Time, etc. -- but from Portfolio, a business publication. It has enumerated the vast amounts of money Britney Spears is worth not just to herself, but to others as well -- about $110 million to $120 million annually to the struggling U.S. economy. This is what Portfolio calls the Britney Industrial Complex.

Spears' ubiquity goes without question. She gets the sort of coverage only dictators, potentates or absolute monarchs can command or even dream of. "Between January 2006 and July 2007, Britney was a cover subject of People, Us Weekly, In Touch, Life & Style, OK!, or Star a total of 175 times in just 78 weeks," Portfolio tells us. And on Yahoo, just to throw another statistic your way, she was the No. 1 search subject in six of the last seven years. Her single slip to No. 2 came in 2004, when she was bested by Paris Hilton -- a dark, dark year for us all.

Portfolio says a Las Vegas nightclub reportedly sold seats next to Spears' table for $50,000. (I'd like to see a cover story on those people!) Spears herself gets a reported $250,000 to $400,000 just to appear at an event, giving new meaning to Woody Allen's observation that "90 percent of success in life is just showing up." At Spears' prices, Woody would no doubt show up 100 percent of the time.

Portfolio's point, and mine as well, is that Spears is big business -- and ought to be viewed that way. She herself still makes oodles of money -- about $9 million a year, the magazine says -- and maybe has a personal fortune of about $125 million. In a way, though, she is worth as much to others as she is to herself, if such a thing is possible. One photo agency, X17, sold $2.5 million worth of Spears pictures in 2007, and although it did not do better with Britney than Britney did with Britney, it didn't have to pay Kevin Federline $35,000 a month in child and ex-spouse support either.

The Britney Industrial Complex is a handy tool to examine more than just Britney Spears. It also explains why Hillary Clinton's human backdrop changed from Iowa to New Hampshire. On election night in Des Moines, Clinton surrounded herself with familiar figures, some of them not so young anymore, while Barack Obama had a backdrop of youthful faces radiating pheromones. By New Hampshire, Clinton had younged-up her crowd, suggesting she was now, like Obama, an agent of change.

A major difference between young people and older ones is that the former are likely to spend their last cent on whatever attracts them. Why not? They usually don't have kids or mortgages, or live with the fear that their boss has blown the money that was in their 401(k) accounts on his mistress. That being the case, young people are beloved by marketers who will flatter them just so they can reach into their pockets and take their last penny. This, in an abridged form, is why we have come to see young people as somehow inherently wise and able to peek into the future. Marketers have lied to them in the same way that a man on the make tells a woman that she is -- cross his heart and hope to die -- the loveliest of all things. In America, the consumer is never wrong.

Portfolio's Britney Industrial Complex illustrates the economy's need for celebrities. Vast amounts of money can be made by manufacturing ones who appeal particularly to the young. Spears was once one of those, although at age 26 she has leaped that demographic boundary. Still, the breadth of her drawing power cannot be fully estimated. Portfolio's concoction does not, for instance, measure her worth to the morning television shows -- "Today," etc. -- which on any given day are mere adjuncts to the fan magazines. Nor can it measure what she is worth to us as a topic of common interest for our communal water-cooler moments. Even this column has, in a sense, exploited her.

It is one thing to do an economic analysis of Britney Spears and still another not to see her as a sad, updated version of the lumpy prizefighter from more than one black-and-white movie. She's taken too many punches and soon those who have attached themselves for the ride will drop off. As Portfolio shows, the Britney Industrial Complex represents an economic truth -- as good a reason as any for economics to be called the dismal science.

Tired of Poll-Driven News Coverage of Elections, Instead of Issue-Driven News Coverage?

Lie to a Pollster.

-----
Note: While we'll never get a handle on global warming and smog as long as we continue to be tied to cars and oil as the main way to get around, until that changes it's good to see an independent oil firm push for more competition. While oil companies over the last 20 years have been closing gas stations despite the huge growth in the number of cars in the USA, all the while buying each other and concentrating control of the remaining gas stations in the hands of 5 big corporations, one independent is opening new gas stations...

Valero steps on the gas in state

The company's service station growth pace has been speedy since entering the California market in 2000.

By Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 7, 2008 Three gas stations vie for customers along Interstate 5 in Cardiff-by-the-Sea, but Cheryl Ahern-Lehmann usually bypasses the Chevron and Arco in favor of a station she once spurned as too pricey.

That station in north San Diego County, a Texaco for years, won her business after n Antonio-based Valero, which began gasoline operations in California in 2000, now owns two of the state's 14 fuel-making refineries and displays its brand on 921 service stations out of a statewide total of around 9,400. In the last three years, the company has added nearly 300 Valero locations to its California roster.

Valero's quiet expansion, which has continued apace across the country as well, represents an unusually speedy entry for a new brand. The company's push is all the more unusual because it comes as many major oil companies shed dealers, sell off stations to wholesalers and concentrate on larger, high-volume locations known as "super-pumpers."

"All the major brands have indicated that they really don't want any more gas stations . . . and they're terrified of cost cutting by companies like Costco and Wal-Mart," said Charles Langley, gasoline project manager at the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a San Diego-based watchdog group. Of Valero, he said, "they're the only brand that I see that actually seems to be growing and is aggressive about growing."

Since 2000, Valero has gone from an industry footnote to the largest refiner in North America, with 17 plants from California to Aruba in the Caribbean. The company supplies 5,800 gas stations in 38 states using the Valero, Diamond Shamrock, Shamrock, Ultramar and Beacon brands. Most of the sites are owned and operated by individual dealers and distributors instead of by Valero.

for rest of story: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-valero7jan07,1,5037050.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=la-headlines-business

-----
Cable group says it opposes bundling

From Bloomberg News
January 5, 2008

A group representing 1,100 smaller cable companies said Walt Disney Co., Viacom Inc. and other network owners force them to buy unwanted channels, and asked the Federal Communications Commission to step in.

The American Cable Assn. made its remarks in a filing to the agency, which requested comments by Friday on the practice of bundling, or requiring more program purchases when cable operators buy the most-popular channels.

Disney, in a separate filing, said the market is fair and FCC action isn't needed.

The cable operators' group gives FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin support for plans to widen industry regulation. He has criticized the cable industry for boosting prices 93% from 1995 to 2005.

Thirteen of the biggest channels, such as Disney's ESPN and Disney Channel and Viacom's MTV, are bundled with obligations to carry at least 60 other channels, the trade group said.

-----
Scam to get consumers to replace their DVD Collections Picks Up Steam?
(When they come up with some "high definition" writing, let me know...)

---------------------------------------------------------

DVD format war appears to be over

Warner picks Blu-ray over HD, but some say the Net may beat both.

By Dawn C. Chmielewski, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 5, 2008

The fuzzy future of high-definition DVD came into sharper focus Friday after Warner Bros. said it would release movies for the home video market exclusively on the Blu-ray disc format.

The decision, announced on the eve of the influential Consumer Electronics Show, delivers a de facto knockout punch to the rival HD DVD format backed by Toshiba Corp. and others now supported by only two of Hollywood's six major movie studios.

It also averts a further costly format war that has been stymieing the growth of the next generation of DVD with promises of enhanced video images and digital audio to match the popularity of flat, big-screen television sets. For the first time, sales of movies on regular DVDs declined last year, jeopardizing a longtime and important source of profits for Hollywood. The studios hope the new, higher-quality format will spur consumers to restock their DVD shelves.

In addition to Warner Bros., studios supporting the Blu-ray format include News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Co., Sony Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Taken together, they represent about 70% of the home video market. HD DVD is supported by General Electric's NBC Universal, Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures and the independent studio DreamWorks Animation.

"Expect HD DVD to die a quick death," said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with Pali Research in New York, in a research note Friday.

Late Friday, the HD DVD group canceled a news conference scheduled for Sunday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. "We are currently discussing the potential impact of this announcement with the other HD DVD partner companies and evaluating next steps. We believe the consumer continues to benefit from HD DVD's commitment to quality and affordability," the group said in a statement.

The larger question, however, is how long even the winning high-definition DVD format may survive. Some analysts say the battle between Blu-ray and HD DVD may become irrelevant as high-speed Internet and on-demand video become the pipelines of movies into the home.

"I think the fat lady just sang," said Rob Enderle, principal analyst with Enderle Group in San Jose. "This gives Blu-ray a decisive lead. The question now is whether it is too little too late."

Enderle said consumers might have moved on to digital downloads to get movies rather than wait to buy them on next-generation DVDs. The next big chance to sell high-definition movie players won't be until next Christmas, he said. "By then, it may all be moot."

Warner Bros. had remained neutral as the rival technology camps spent millions to win over consumers. Each group engaged in aggressive price cutting and promotions this holiday season in an attempt to persuade consumers to take the high-definition DVD plunge.

But sales of these next-generation discs fell short of expectations, given the huge summer box office from popcorn movies, said Kevin Tsujihara, president of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group. Nor, he added, did the high-definition DVD players keep pace with the sale of high-definition TVs.

"There's a window of opportunity here," Tsujihara said. "There are a number of high-definition television sets being purchased. The best time to sell one of these high-definition DVD players is when the consumer walks out the door with that television set. That window was beginning to close on us."

Warner Bros. even sought its own solution to the format war at the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show, proposing a high-definition disc that combined the Blu-ray and HD DVD formats. But Warner was the only studio to embrace the dual format, so it never reached stores.

Sony Corp.'s Blu-ray discs have had a 2-1 sales edge since the beginning of 2007, thanks to its exclusive studio deals and the sale of Sony PlayStation 3 game consoles that play films in that high-definition format.

That prompted the HD DVD camp to flash its cash to remain viable. It paid $150 million to Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation in August to secure exclusively the rights to such major movies as "Transformers" and "Shrek the Third" on HD DVD. Paramount had previously released movies in both high-definition formats.

"HD DVD had a lot of momentum in 2007 when they had their own defection of Paramount. That was a very big move," said J.P. Gownder, an analyst with Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. "Now, the balance of power shifts back to Blu-ray."

The Paramount deal reportedly sparked a furious courtship of Warner, which was the last of the major studios to support both high-definition DVD formats. Warner will begin releasing movies exclusively on Blu-ray in June.

Barry Meyer, chairman and chief executive of Warner Bros., flatly denied that the studio was offered a big check to choose the Blu-ray format.

"This was not a bidding contest between the two formats. This is a huge business for us," Meyer said. "We're the market leader globally. We're not going to make a strategic decision based on any kind of short-term financial gain."

Nonetheless, studios such as Warner are facing pressure to grow the nascent high-definition video business at a time when consumer spending on DVDs is declining.

And it's clear that the format war -- though benefiting consumers by driving down the price of high-definition DVD players -- has been confusing them too and keeping them from replacing their DVD players and their movie collection.

"Unfortunately, the loser here with the format war has been the consumer," Gownder said. "We found that 28% of people said the fact that there was a format war meant they weren't going to buy a high-definition DVD player. They weren't going to try to figure it out."

-----

TRIBUNE COMPANY:

SUMMARY OF WHAT THEY OWN:

23 TV stations--Major carrier of the CW Network, which is owned by CBS and Time-Warner

1 radio station in Chicago

13 daily newspapers mostly in big markets

1 nationwide cable channel-WGN



According to wikipedia:

The Tribune Company (NYSE: TRB) is a large American multimedia corporation based in Chicago, Illinois. It is the nation's second-largest newspaper publisher, responsible for the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Hartford Courant, and the Baltimore Sun, among others. Through other subsidiaries, the Tribune Company also owns Tribune Broadcasting, Tribune Entertainment, Tribune Media Services, and the Chicago Cubs baseball team.

On April 2, 2007, Chicago-based investor Sam Zell announced plans to buy out the media company for $34.00 a share, totalling $8.2 billion. Zell will also turn the company private. The deal is expected to be completed some time in the fourth quarter of 2007[1], and was approved by 97% of the Company's shareholders on August 21, 2007[2]. Upon completion of the transaction, Tribune will divest itself of the Chicago Cubs and its 25 percent interest in Comcast SportsNet Chicago, and possibly Wrigley Field.

The deal was approved by 97% of the Company's shareholders on August 21, 2007.[1] Privatization of the Tribune Company occurred on December 20, 2007 with termination of trading in Tribune stock at the close of the market.[2]

On 21 December 2007, Tribune and Local TV announced plans to collaborate in the formation of an as yet unnamed "broadcast management company".[3]


Television:

CW Stations:
WPIX 11 - New York
KTLA 5 - Los Angeles
WGN 9 - Chicago (Tribune's flagship TV station)
KDAF 33 - Dallas
WDCW 50 - Washington
KHCW 39 - Houston
WSFL 39 - Miami/Ft. Lauderdale
KWGN 2 - Denver
WTTV 4 - Bloomington/Indianapolis
KSWB 69 - San Diego
WTXX 20 - Waterbury/Hartford/New Haven
WNOL 38 - New Orleans
KPLR 11 - St. Louis
KRCW 32 - Portland, OR


Fox Stations:
KCPQ 13 - Tacoma/Seattle
KTXL 40 - Sacramento
WXIN 59 - Indianapolis
WTIC 61 - Hartford/New Haven
WXMI 17 - Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo, MI
WPMT 43 - York/Harrisburg, PA


ABC Station:
WGNO 26 - New Orleans


MyNetworkTV Stations:
WPHL 17 - Philadelphia
KMYQ 22 - Tacoma/Seattle


Other TV Assets:

Tribune Entertainment
Andromeda
Mutant X
BeastMaster
Family Feud
South Park
Soul Train
Candid Camera
Ron Hazelton: House Calls
Pet Keeping City Guys
Earth: Final Conflict


Cable Channels:
Superstation WGN

Chicagoland's Television

Tribune Broadcasting

Once owned 1/3rd of the Food Network, but it’s now owned by Scripps co.

Radio WGN (AM) – Chicago


Newspapers:

Newsday (Long Island, NY)
Los Angeles Times
Chicago Tribune
The Redeye
Baltimore Sun
AM New York
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Orlando Sentinel
The Hartford Courant
The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)
Daily Press (Newport News, VA)
The Advocate (Stamford, CT)--sold 2007
Greenwich Time (CT)--sold 2007
Hoy (newspaper)
El Sentinel (Orlando)


Other:

Chicago Cubs (and Wrigley Field)

Tribune Media Services

Classified Ventures, LLC (partial)

CareerBuilder (partial)

Brass Ring

Zap2it

Chicago magazine

Forsalebyowner.com

Channel Guide Magazine


Former Tribune Properties:

Television:

(Station and Market | Former and Current Affiliations | Sold to...)
WATL, Atlanta, GA | WB/MyNet | Sold to Gannett Corporation in 2006
WCWN, Albany, NY | WB/CW | Sold to Freedom Communications in 2006
WGCL (formerly WGNX), Atlanta, GA | Ind./CBS | traded to Meredith Corporation in 1999 WLVI, Boston, MA | WB/CW | Sold to Sunbeam Television in 2006

-10/2007 Time Media sells the Recycler Classifieds to Target Media Partners. Recycler publishes 4 ad papers, and 11 weekly or bi-weekly photo ad and employment guides in Southern California.

-10/2007 The Tribune Company sells its two southern Connecticut daily papers, the Greenwich Time and The Advocate of Stamford, to Hearst Corp. for $62.4 million. The papers will be managed by MediaNews Group.

-----
Murdoch Deals Some of his TV Empire to Affiliate of the Tribune Company

12-24-2007

BACKGROUND:

Tribune is the major carrier of the CW Network, which is the joint venture of CBS and Time-Warner. Tribune now owns 23 major market TV stations. After this series of deals, Tribune will take over management of 17 more.

Rupert Murdoch will still own 2 TV stations each in L.A., New York City, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Orlando, Washington D.C. and one station in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Tampa, Baltimore, Austin, Memphis, Winston-Salem and Ocala-Gainesville Florida.

News Corp. sells 8 Fox stations

Cory Bergman December 22nd, 2007

News Corp. has sold eight of its 35 stations to Oak Hill Partners, a private equity firm. The stations sold are: WJW (Cleveland), KDVR (Denver), WGHP (Greensboro), KTVI (St. Louis), WDAF (Kansas City), WITI (Milwaukee), KSTU (Salt Lake) and WBRC (Birmingham). Oak Hill already owns 9 other stations under the name Local TV LLC, and the WSJ reports that the day-to-day operations of all the stations may fall to Tribune. After all, Local TV’s top exec was just hired by Sam Zell to take over Tribune’s broadcast and internet operations.

Fox sells eight TV stations to Oak Hill

News Corp. had made good on its promise to sell eight of its Fox TV stations, and it did to the newly-formed Local TV group headed by private equity firm Oak Hill Partners for $1.1 billion. The proceeds from the sale gives News Corp. the cash it needs to purchase the Wall Street Journal.

In a separate development, Tribune and Oak Hill have agreed to create a third-party management company that will share administrative duties. Randy Michaels, who was CEO of Local TV, was named Thursday as CEO of Tribune Broadcasting and Tribune Interactive.

The eight stations being sold are: WJW-TV in Cleveland, KDVR-TV in Denver, KTVI in St. Louis, WDAF-TV in Kansas City, WITI-TV in Milwaukee, KSTU in Salt Lake City, WBRC-TV in Birmingham, and WGHP-TV in Greensboro-High Point, N.C.

Six of these stations - WJW, KTVI, WDAF, WITI, WBRC, and WGHP - were former affiliates of the Big Three networks that were involved in the New World-Fox affiliation switch in 1994 and 1995. New World Communications sold all but two of its stations to Fox in 1997.

Local TV launched earlier this year when it made a deal to acquire eight former New York Times Co. stations, including WREG-TV (CBS) in Memphis, KFOR-TV (NBC) in Oklahoma City, WNEP-TV (ABC) in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Pa., and WQAD-TV (ABC) in Moline, IL.

The transaction leaves Fox with 26 stations (for now - the fate of WHBQ in Memphis is still undetermined), including WFLD-TV and WPWR-TV in Chicago.

-----
Boo Hoo!...Media Giants Say Anti-Monopoly Rules Governing the Public-Owned, but Corporate-Occupied Airwaves are Unfair...to Them

Feds bottle caps
Congloms prep deals as end to regs looms

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117852459.html?categoryid=1064&cs=1

By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK, 9/10/2001

WASHINGTON -- The forecast for the next wave of media consolidation got friendlier Friday when a federal appeals court sent strong signals that it will allow networks and the congloms who own them to add unprecedented numbers of TV stations and cable systems to their empires. Reps of the mega-companies that dominate the entertainment biz were present -- and smiling -- during oral arguments before a three-judge appellate panel in the nation's capital. Ultimately, the court's ruling could reshape the TV biz in terms of who controls both programming and distribution. It didn't take long for the robes to begin questioning the merits and constitutionality of two Federal Communications Commission ownership rules underpinning the historic balance between nets and affiliates, as well as the historic tension between broadcasters and cablers.

"You're in a jam," said Judge Harry Edwards to FCC general counsel Grey Pash. CBS, Fox and NBC want the court to scrap an FCC cap that blocks a broadcaster from reaching more than 35% of the national audience.

Counsel for the nets told the appeals court that the FCC reg is "oppressive" and a violation of the First Amendment. "Every day this rule is in effect, we are being deprived of reaching 65% of the nation's households" said Edward Warren, attorney for the Eye, Fox and Peacock.

Already, CBS parent company Viacom is at about 40%. Fox is likewise over the cap due to its recent merger with Chris Craft. Affiliates, i.e., independent station owners, argue that the rule is their last defense against the power of the networks, and that the nets shouldn't be allowed to dominate both programming and distribution. Should the 35% cap be lifted, networks will use their leverage and might to determine compensation and to buy up stations, according to the National Affiliated Stations Alliance (NASA) and the National Broadcasters Assn. (NAB). While most attention has been focused on the 35% rule, the second FCC ownership reg up before the appeals court is of equal significance. As it stands now, the FCC won't allow a broadcaster to operate a cable system in the same market. Thus, congloms like AOL Time Warner can't get into the lucrative business of operating a TV station in any of the many markets where they provide cable service. Another good example is the Walt Disney Co., which would have to dump stations in certain major markets if it wanted to pursue a merger with a cable giant such as Comcast. (While the Mouse isn't a direct party in the appeals case, top Disney lobbyist Preston Padden made sure to be on hand Friday.) During the much-anticipated hearing, AOL Time Warner general counsel Paul Cappuccio told the court that the cross-ownership cable/broadcast rule equals "ongoing suppression" and "irreparable harm."

Pash bashing?

But the three appellate robes reserved most of their questioning for FCC counsel Pash, who didn't seem to make much headway in arguing that overturning the rules would have "enormous adverse consequences." The judges said it would be more than appropriate for the court to strike the ownership rules, but let the FCC draw up new limits -- this time, with adequate justification. Consumer advocates say remanding the rules to the FCC would be tantamount to overturning them altogether, since Republican FCC topper Michael Powell has made it clear that he favors deregulation. Others disagree and say that now that he heads the regulatory agency, Powell must take a more centrist position compared to that he maintained previously as just a commissioner.

Nonetheless, it was difficult for affiliates to appreciate the witty barbs that punctuated much of Friday's legal session. "I don't mean to disturb the good humor, but please, hear me out," said attorney Bob Long, who argued for the NAB and NASA, which reps the more than 600 CBS, Fox and NBC affiliates.

Reach breach

Long said it was a "gross overstatement" for the networks to argue that they are being cut off from reaching 65% of the American audience, considering that nets reach virtually everyone through broadcast programming alone. What's more, companies like Viacom that own some of the nets provide vast cable programming.

But nets say the affiliates are crying wolf and that affils still enjoy enormous power, pointing out that some larger station groups, such as Tribune, are nearing the 35% limit themselves. In the competitive age of cable and satellite, networks say they shouldn't be barred from fully participating in the marketplace. Even before the oral arguments, the nets and AOL Time Warner were predicting success. Several months ago, the same appeals court struck down an FCC cable ownership rule prohibiting a cabler from reaching more than 30% of the national audience. FCC cap cast The FCC will soon launch a public probe into whether the cap should be kept in some fashion, but again, people are predicting that Powell will work toward deregulation. In the coming days, the FCC is expected to launch a similar probe into repealing a cross-ownership rule barring a broadcaster from owning a newspaper in the same major market. Powell is definitely opposed to this regulation. Meanwhile, the federal appeals court is expected to rule on the two ownership rules in the next few months.

-----------------------------

It's not fairness

L.A. Times Editorial 7/24/2007

There are plenty of opinions on the airwaves; the government doesn't have to mandate equal time.

(Democrats) anger at (talk radio) demagoguery is justified, but their response isn't. They want to re­vive the Fairness Doctrine - a Cold War-era federal rule designed to promote balanced coverage of important isues on the public airwaves. Under this rule, broadcasters who took a side on a divisive topic could be compelled to give free airtime to opposing points of view. If they refused, they risked losing their licenses.

The threat to talk radio is clear. If the rule were reinstituted, stations that carry Rush Lim­baugh could be forced to broadcast commentaries favoring everything that Limbaugh derides, from greenhouse gas controls to same-sex marriage. With hundreds of provocative talk-show hosts on the air, federal regulators could soon be awash in demands for rebuttals.

But the danger posed by the Fairness Doc­ttrine Is broader and more fundamental than an attack on a radio format. No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive out­lets available today to express It - maybe not a radio or TV station but certainly a website, a video blog, a podcast or an e-mail newsletter. At the same time, the public has unprecedented access to a diverse array of opinions. Just as the govern­ment shouldn't decide what you say on the chan­nels you create, nor should it be able to dictate the range of opinions people hear over the air.

The Federal Communications Commission instituted the Fairness Doctrine in the late 1940s as a compromise of sorts - it wanted broadcast­ers to pay attention to local issues but feared they would exert undue influence over them. It aban­doned the rule in 1987 on grounds that the rise of cable TV networks had diluted broadcasters' sway over public opinion. The proliferation of media sources has made that dilution even more pro­nounced today.

Granted, broadcasters remain the most pow­erful voices because they're the ones with the larg­est audiences. But that's because the public chooses to tune them in, not because there are no alternatives. Restoring the government's power to monitor broadcasters' fulminations and splice in opposing views seems more likely to tame speech than to enlighten listeners.

---------------------------

What can we own?

L.A. Times editorial, 8/25/2006

MEDIA COMPANIES IN THIS COUNTRY face unreasonable government restrictions on their activities. Yet for the Federal Communications Commission, rewriting the ownership limits for television and radio stations has been a labor fit for Sisyphus. The commission updates the rules every few years, as required by law, only to have a federal appeals court or Congress smack them down.

The latest go-round started when the Commission announced in June that it would reconsider some of its rules limiting what companies can own. The FCC had tried to ease or eliminate these limits in 2003, only to have its actions blocked by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate, prodded by a motley alliance of anti-corporate zealots and conservative activists who think local media tycoons are less lib­eral than national media tycoons, also intervened.

Media ownership restraints seek to preserve a healthy competition of distinct voices, but the rules developed over the decades are woefully outdated. If anything, what the FCC tried to do three years ago was too modest. In an age of cable and satellite TV (not to mention an age of You Tube. com -It's no longer justifiable for the government to impose any limits on how many affiliates broadcast networks can own, given that CBS, NBC and ABC no longer control the distribution of their programming the way they did when American families gathered around their sets to watch "I Love Lucy," captured by their rabbit-ear antennas.

And yet the FCC only sought to raise the percent­age of the national audience that network-owned at affiliates can reach from 35% to 45%. This would have been a radical move - in 1960. Three years ago, It was laughably meek. After a compromise raised the limit to 39%, these rules aren't even on the table for review this time around.

A different set of rules limiting the number of me­dia outlets one company can own within the same city do remain relevant. Here again, the FCC was rather prudent in its ill-fated 2003 ruling. The Commission would have let TV groups control three sta­tions in markets with at least 18 outlets, and two sta­tions in markets with five to 17 outlets - although only one of the stations could be among the four most popular in that community. It also proposed to allow TV, radio and newspaper owners in a community to consolidate to varying degrees, depending on the number of TV stations in the market.

Full disclosure: Tribune Co., owner of this news­paper and KTLA-TV Channel 5, would benefit from a relaxation of these rules. Indeed, its purchase of The Times in 2000 was allowed because of the widespread assumption that the so-called cross-ownership rule banning ownership of a broadcast station and news­paper in the same city would soon be retired, as it should be.

More cities might still have a competitive news­paper market if more broadcasters had been allowed to buy newspapers in the past.

Studies show that those broadcasters that do operate local newspapers through waivers or exemptions offer more news and public affairs programs, on average, than competi­tors that don't. Moreover, the business challenges facing media giants such as Tribune and Time Warn­er Inc., which had hoped for greater "synergy" divi­dends, underscore the ever-changing media land­scape and the fact that Americans have a growing number of media choices. The number of people who regularly watch local TV news is down from 77% in 1993 to 54% today. It's in their interest that the FCC press ahead with liberalization.

(Editor's note. This claim that letting TV station operators also buy up daily newspapers will lead to a competitive newspaper market is totally bogus. In fact, only a few companies control most of California's daily newspaper subscribers.

See http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Newspapers, for list showing that 40% of California daily newspapers are owned by one company, MediaNews Group, which is also partners with Hearst Corporation, a large owner of TV stations and cable TV channels. Two of the other largest daily paper owners in California, Tribune company and Freedom Communications also own lots of TV stations. With this control of California daily papers by TV station owners, you'd think that most towns would have two or more daily, competitive papers, based on the L.A. Times' logic. Not so. In fact, it's very hard to find a city in this state where one paper isn't totally dominant. )

-----
U.S. Automakers Smell the Winds of Change. Will Builders of Gas Hogs and SUVs Change their Products or just to whom they send political donations?

Detroit 3 swing support to Dems

November 29, 2007
BY TODD SPANGLER
DETROIT FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS07/711290339/1009

WASHINGTON -- Long a reliable contributor to Republican candidates and causes at the federal level, the auto industry is giving a lot less overall than it did four years ago but donating more of it to Democrats now that they hold majorities in Congress.

Republicans still get the lion's share of the money in this election cycle -- 67% from auto-related business, including dealers, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzed federal campaign records this fall.

But the amount contributed to federal candidates and parties -- $5.1 million -- is 20% less than in the same period in the last presidential election cycle, in 2003-04. In that cycle, Democrats got just 22% of the money contributed, compared with 33% so far this year.

The swing is even more pronounced when looking at Detroit's automakers.
From General Motors Corp., the split is an even 50-50 between the parties this year. Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC contributions have swung even more definitively to the Democratic side.

"What we now have is a year when it looks like this is likely to be a Democratic cycle, so it's not surprising we're starting to see some shift toward the Democrats," said Anthony Corrado, who studies campaign finance as a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution and as a professor at Maine's Colby College.

"You're seeing that not only in the auto industry but in other industries," he said.
That is borne out by the data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics and published on its Web site, http://www.opensecrets.org/.

In a year when news reports have touted the Democrats' success in fund-raising, particularly in the presidential race, the data show many traditionally Republican sectors leaning more Democratic this year.

The securities and investment business, for instance, hasn't gone for Democrats in a presidential cycle since 1992. This year, however, 61% of its money is going to Democrats. The trend also is apparent in the real estate industry and among health professionals.

Meanwhile, other industries -- like automotive -- may still be in the Republicans' corner overall, but some are giving less. Those giving more, like the oil and gas industry, aren't keeping pace with the increases from traditionally Democratic givers like nonprofit institutions and education interests.

Lawyers and law firms, traditionally the largest federal donor by sector and one that strongly leans Democratic, has increased giving 52%, to $76.4 million, this year -- with 77% going to Democrats.

The UAW, a staunch Democratic giver, has contributed $436,410, fourth among industrial unions, with nearly all of it going to Democrats. The UAW total is not included with the auto sector in overall calculations.

When compiling its data, the Center for Responsive Politics not only counts contributions made by political action committees tied to an industry trade group or corporation, but also tallies donations of $200 or more made by anyone who lists his or her occupation or employer as part of the industry.

For example, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has collected more than $9,000 in individual donations from top managers at GM, Ford and Chrysler and leads recipients from automakers as a group, with more than $111,000 in contributions so far.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, with $357,250, leads all recipients in the industry as a whole. Four years ago, President George W. Bush led automakers and the industry as a whole.

In the automotive sector, none of the Detroit Three is the biggest donor overall, however. That would be the National Auto Dealers Association, since at least 1990.

The NADA remains reliably Republican, but this year it has been giving less -- $709,750 compared with $865,800 in the first nine months of 2003. The money has been split 39% to Democrats and 61% to Republicans, a slight change from the 31%-69% split four years ago.
The big change with the Detroit Three has been in the Democrat-Republican split.

GM's donations, now an even split, went 54% to Republicans in the first nine months of 2003 and a wider margin, 65%, to the GOP by the end of that cycle.

Ford, which sent 66% of its donations to Republicans at this point four years ago and ended the cycle with a slightly larger share for the GOP, has sent 60% of its contributions to Democrats this year.

Four years ago, 61% of Chrysler donations went to GOP campaigns and parties; this year, Democrats have gotten 55%.

Contributions from Detroit's automakers as a group have come down slightly, from $908,489 in the first nine months of 2003 to $881,831 this year. The decline is attributable to a huge drop in Ford's giving; the others have increased contributions somewhat.

When asked about the change, GM spokesman Greg Martin said, "PAC spending generally reflects the election cycle, political party shifts on Capitol Hill and similar considerations."
Bruce Andrews, Ford's vice president of government relations in Washington, said his company's giving with its PAC is down, but the company is smaller, too.

"Our policy has always been to support those members who support us," he said.
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said that "voters and industries are pushing back against Republicans which have failed to address major problems like health care."

Biggest Wastes Of Space
They are famous simply for being famous ... Time magazine took a look at who are the biggest wastes of space of 2007, and picked ...

Paris Hilton: "All she seems to do is keep very small dogs, dance her way around the world's nightclubs and get arrested for driving offenses. She spends the rest of her time dating multimillionaire shipping magnates or having public fights with other celeb-nobodies, What a gal!"

Lindsay Lohan: "Sometime actress and full-time Hollywood party girl, Lindsay catapulted to fame ... After three car crashes in a year and admitting to alcohol and drug addiction, Lindsay checked herself into rehab. With a third album on the way and a threat to "tour like Madonna," the Lindsay epidemic won't be going away soon. Sadly."

Britney Spears: "She has managed to dilute her brand and her fan base with one fell swoop into crazy-town. But even with a string of poor performances and personal humiliations, Britney's latest single, "Gimme More," continues to climb the charts and her net worth is still estimated at around $150 million from past albums, tours, an epic advertising deal with Pepsi ,and the sales of four different perfumes branded by Brit. She may be a train wreck, but this pop tart isn't leaving the spotlight any time soon.

Kim Kardashian: She was "close" friends with fellow celebutante Paris Hilton, but that alone wasn't enough to make Kim famous. Thanks to a sex tape that was leaked onto the Internet with a former boyfriend, singer Ray-J, and the reality show, Keeping Up With the Kardashians -- AND Kim posing in the December issue of Playboy, it's obvious Kim is here to stay for the time being.

AND THE WINNER IS...
Heidi Montag: The girl everyone loves to hate on The Hills. Heidi and her stupid fiance, Spencer Pratt, stay in the media spotlight by courting paparazzi to follow them just about everywhere. Heidi and Spencer are desperately trying to launch Heidi as a pop star, but her debut single, "Body Language," tanked in August.

-----
MAKE BUY NOTHING DAY EVERY DAY!

A Guide to Corporate Ownership of Everything

SUMMARY: the mega-monopoly corporations that control most major industries in America also fund the (generally) right-wing corporate media by being the source of most of their advertising dollars, as they are the only ones that can afford the high-priced commercial airtime. They control the corporate political parties that run the country and, due to the mutually-beneficial advertiser-publisher relationship between the corporate press and the corporate monopolies, the corporate press rarely investigates the conflicts of interest between politicians and their corporate benefactors.

THE SOLUTION: STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY!!! Shop at locally owned stores. Get an alternative-fueled car that doesn't need gas from the big-5 oil companies. Dump your cable TV. Seek out non-monopoly-corporate alternatives for everything you need. If every progressive American chose to not give their cash to the corporate monopolies, we could help starve them for cash that they would then not be able to give to their other corporate buddies.

Is it difficult? Maybe. Is it impossible? NO!

---Rex Frankel, webmaster

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here's an inspiring story:

Boycott Everything...

Like so many great ideas and Movements, this one is simplicity itself.

Just boycott everything.

Take public transportation to work, or walk to the corner store, or figure out a way to leave your car in the garage for the weekend. If you own an SUV, sell it. If you are in the market for a car, look into the gas/electric hybrids that are available. Thus, you boycott the petroleum companies that rape our planet and soil our air. Make your own coffee, or buy your morning cup of brew from the mom 'n pop joint you always walk by on your way to Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts. Sure, it's crummy brew. But you are boycotting corporate hegemony.

Turn off the God damned television. While it is on you are a vapid receptacle for all of the invasive nonsense that is our sad and deranged estate. By simply boycotting television, you are saying 'NO' to all the advertisers and corporate hucksters who have sold us all down the river. If you are a news junkie, satisfy yourself with a couple of newspapers or the Internet. CNN hasn't told you anything that you need to know for a long, long time.

continued...Boycott Everything...

_____________________________________________________________________

Details on what the Mega-Corporations Own:

http://www.endgame.org/oligopolies.html

http://www.knowmore.org/index.php?title=Special:Browse&filter=all&id=1

updates on corporate mergers: http://www.endgame.org/mergers.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to Overthrow Corporate Rule in 5 Not-so-easy Steps

http://www.corporations.org/solutions/

REMEMBER: BUY NOTHING DAY IS NOVEMBER 25TH!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/

• 
  Download the US version
  Download the International version
• 
  Download the US version
  Download the International version
• 
  Download the US version
  Download the International version
• 
  Download the US version
  Download the International version

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compact

1) to go beyond recycling in trying to counteract the negative global environmental and socioeconomic impacts of U.S. consumer culture, to resist global corporatism, and to support local businesses, farms, etc. -- a step, we hope, inherits the revolutionary impulse of the Mayflower Compact; 2) to reduce clutter and waste in our homes (as in trash Compact-er); 3) to simplify our lives (as in Calm-pact)

http://sfcompact.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecompact/

Greetings, Compact-wegians,

Tomorrow is the start of our 12-month flight from the consumer grid. To aid us all in getting started and sticking to the regime, I've compiled the guidelines we set in stone at our great dinner a few weeks back.

As agreed, The Compact has several aims (more or less prioritized below):

1) to go beyond recycling in trying to counteract the negative global environmental and socioeconomic impacts of U.S. consumer culture, to resist global corporatism, and to support local businesses, farms, etc. -- a step, we hope, inherits the revolutionary impulse of the Mayflower Compact

2) to reduce clutter and waste in our homes (as in trash Compact-er)

3) to simplify our lives (as in Calm-pact)

So, here goes for the rules:

First principle - don't buy new products of any kind (from stores, web sites, etc.)

Second principle - borrow or buy used.

A few exceptions -

to read the rest: http://sfcompact.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_sfcompact_archive.html

-----
Rich getting richer faster

New studies spotlight a growing gap between top and bottom. The divide
is widest in Arizona, narrowest in Wyoming.

By MSN Money Staff 1/30/06

Two new studies find the rich are getting richer at a faster pace.

A study released in late January, from the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, found that the gap
between the highest- and lowest-income families is significantly wider than
it was 25 years ago.

And an analysis of income-tax data by Congressional Budget Office found
that the top 1% of households own nearly twice as much of the nation’s
corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

The studies come among a growing push to increase the federal minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour for the first time in nine years. Public advocacy
groups have successfully lobbied for “living wage” reforms in 18 states
and a number of cities, raising the minimum wage in some places as high
as $12 an hour.

An employee working full-time at the federal minimum wage makes $10,712
a year. About 7% of the workforce earns a minimum wage.

“Growing income inequality harms this nation in a number of ways,”
stated Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute
and co-author of the income report. “When income growth is concentrated
at the top of the income scale, the people at the bottom have a much
harder time lifting themselves out of poverty and giving their children a
decent start in life.”


Market rebound favors well-off:

The five states with the largest income gap between the top and bottom
fifths of families are New York, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona and Florida.
Generally, income gaps are larger in the Southeast and Southwest and
smaller in the Midwest, Great Plains and Mountain states. (To see the
state-by-state list, ranked, see end of story.)

Income inequality declined somewhat, the report found, following the
bursting of the stock and high-tech bubbles in 2000, which were costly to
the highest-income families. But incomes at the top have rebounded,
while the negative effects of the recent recession on low and
moderate-income families have lasted longer than usual.

In 38 states where the incomes of the bottom fifth of families grew
more slowly than those at the top, incomes at the top rose by an average
of $45,800 (62%), while the incomes of the poorest grew by $3,000 (21%).

The only state in which incomes of the poor grew faster than those of
the rich was Alaska.

The study is based on Census income data that have been adjusted to
account for inflation, the impact of federal taxes and the cash value of
food stamps, subsidized school lunches and housing vouchers. Income from
capital gains is also included. The study compares combined data from
2001-2003 with data from the early 1980s and early 1990s, time periods
chosen because they stand as comparable low points of their respective
business cycles.

Possible steps to stem the disparity, the report offers, include
raising state minimum wages, strengthening supports for low-income working
families and reforming the unemployment insurance system. In addition,
states can pursue tax policies that partially offset the growing
inequality of pre-tax incomes.

Corporate wealth concentrates further:

The richest 1% of households -- those with incomes above $237,000 for
2003, the latest year analyzed -- owned 57.5% of all income from capital
gains, dividends, interest and rents in 2003, the CBO analysis found.
That was up from 53.4% the year before and 38.7% in 1991.

Long-term capital gains were taxed at 28% until 1997, and at 20% until
2003, when rates were cut to 15%. The top rate on stock dividends was
cut to 15% from 35% that year.

The poorest fifth of Americans owned 0.6% of corporate wealth in 2003,
down from 1.4 percent in 1991.

The CBO analysis excludes the stock held in retirement accounts such as
401(k)s and IRAs, which isn’t subject to taxation and was thus
unaffected by the tax cuts.

Although these tax cuts are slated to expire in 2008, Congress is
already debating whether to extend them through 2010. The Bush
administration has been calling for the cuts to be extended or made permanent.

An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that an
extension of the tax cuts would save households with incomes under $50,000
about $11 in 2009. Those with incomes above $1 million would save about
$32,000.

The growing gap in family incomes:

Rank State Top 5% Bottom 20% Ratio

14 Alabama $172,029 $14,765 11.7
45 Alaska $180,148 $20,533 8.8
1 Arizona $223,081 $15,719 14.2
13 Arkansas $163,908 $13,888 11.8
8 California $207,363 $16,773 12.4
19 Colorado $215,109 $18,983 11.3
24 Connecticut $231,928 $21,003 11.0
41 Delaware $188,435 $20,225 9.3
7 Florida $199,892 $15,396 13.0
36 Georgia $158,382 $16,345 9.7
26 Hawaii $208,340 $19,294 10.8
43 Idaho $162,923 $17,847 9.1
20 Illinois $203,876 $18,032 11.3
30 Indiana $195,217 $18,590 10.5
48 Iowa $155,722 $18,503 8.4
17 Kansas $209,125 $18,284 11.4
5 Kentucky $193,766 $14,814 13.1
16 Louisiana $153,334 $13,347 11.5
31 Maine $164,232 $15,975 10.3
12 Maryland $253,923 $21,480 11.8
11 Massachusetts $233,108 $19,690 11.8
21 Michigan $200,814 $17,927 11.2
33 Minnesota $223,411 $22,608 9.9
25 Mississippi $145,342 $13,456 10.8
38 Missouri $176,320 $18,482 9.5
42 Montana $135,164 $14,788 9.1
49 Nebraska $160,862 $19,242 8.4
39 Nevada $180,521 $19,143 9.4
35 New Hampshire $226,178 $23,128 9.8
4 New Jersey $268,889 $20,391 13.2
18 New Mexico $157,011 $13,748 11.3
3 New York $216,061 $16,076 13.4
9 North Carolina $183,253 $14,884 12.3
44 North Dakota $147,519 $16,805 8.8
27 Ohio $195,175 $18,216 10.7
37 Oklahoma $150,011 $15,483 9.7
32 Oregon $175,976 $17,367 10.1
10 Pennsylvania $223,152 $18,548 12.0
28 Rhode Island $200,859 $18,916 10.6
29 South Carolina $157,634 $14,957 10.5
47 South Dakota $155,427 $18,353 8.5
6 Tennessee $187,026 $14,303 13.1
2 Texas $203,174 $14,724 13.8
34 Utah $192,142 $19,594 9.8
40 Vermont $176,291 $18,846 9.4
23 Virginia $200,191 $18,110 11.1
15 Washington $195,170 $16,911 11.5
22 West Virginia $147,434 $13,208 11.2
46 Wisconsin $174,919 $20,197 8.7
50 Wyoming $145,587 $18,171 8.0

-----

6/28/2005
Big contributors to GOP reap big post-election rewards
By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - Just six months into a new term for
President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress,
some of their heaviest donors are scoring victories on
the legislative and regulatory fronts.
From rewrites of the laws governing bankruptcy and
class-action lawsuits to relief for oil, timber and
tobacco interests, GOP supporters who gave millions of
dollars last year are reaping decisions worth billions
from a Congress with more Republicans.

"Clearly, the election outcome has helped," says Bruce
Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce. "We are heading in the right direction. A
lot more has been done by this time in a new session
than usual."

While much public attention has been focused on Bush's
sputtering effort to sell an overhaul of Social
Security, legislation long sought by the GOP and its
business allies have been enacted with bipartisan
support. In February, Congress passed and Bush signed
a bill that sharply limits class-action lawsuits. The
savings will likely come to several billion dollars a
year, says Russ Sutter of Tillinghast-Towers Perrin,
an actuarial firm that studies tort costs.

The business sector that includes manufacturing and
retail was among top GOP donors last election cycle.
It directed three of every five political dollars to
Republicans--almost $121 million, according to the
non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

There was a similar partisan tilt in political giving
by the finance industry, which won passage in April of
a law making it harder to erase debts by declaring
bankruptcy. Credit card companies and banks sought the
change as a way to collect more debts.

The finance sector gave nearly $195 million to the GOP
in the 2004 elections. And 105 of Bush's 548 elite
fundraisers--those who raised $100,000 or more--were
from the world of finance, making it his biggest base
of top-dollar support, at $34 million.

"Many of the traditional business supporters are
really getting the agenda they wanted, and it seems to
be speeding up," says Larry Noble, director of the
Center for Responsive Politics, which studies the
impact of money on politics.

Still to come: Congress is pushing to complete an
energy bill. Business interests want limits on
liability for water contamination caused by MTBE, a
fuel additive designed to reduce auto emissions, and
oil companies seek to open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The Senate passed its
version Tuesday.

Bush supporters also have had good luck outside the
legislative arena:

--Justice Department lawyers this month abruptly
scaled back their request for a penalty in the
government's lawsuit against tobacco companies. Rather
than the 25-year, $130 billion smoking cessation
program their own expert had recommended, they are
asking for a $14 billion remedy. The tobacco industry
favored Republicans three-to-one over Democrats last
year, giving $2.7 million to the party and its
candidates.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional
Responsibility is looking into whether politics
influenced the decision.

--After Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
William Donaldson resigned under fire from business
groups who complained about overzealous regulation,
Bush replaced him with someone with a pro-corporate
record: Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif.

"It's hard to imagine somebody with a more nakedly
deregulatory agenda," says William Lerach, a trial
lawyer who has brought shareholder lawsuits against
corporations accused of securities fraud. Securities
and investment firms gave $47.8 million to Republicans
last election.

--The administration last month reversed a ban on road
construction, timber harvesting, mining and energy
development on undeveloped national forest land. The
government also has expanded oil and gas development
on federal lands, including areas in New Mexico and
Wyoming.

Energy and natural resources interests gave $39.3
million to the GOP last year, three times the amount
given to Democrats.

Election Campaign Spending:

The top 10 corporate donors to 2006 California ballot initiatives are responsible for half the money given to ballot initiatives :

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/pr/?postId=6967&lk=4533736-4533736-0-23855-7tj8nlhDfrkcz0t6hfp7Q9tDFm9Icy2q

Philip Morris USA Inc. - $30,420,081

Chevron Corporation - $30,250,000

Aera Energy (ExxonMobile & Shell) - $24,620,838

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company - $22,781,513CA

Hospitals Committee On Issues, Sponsored By CAHHS- $9,916,673

Occidental Oil And Gas Corporation - $9,350,000

U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. - $2,121,799

California Alliance For Jobs Rebuild California Committee - $1,800,000

Plains Exploration & Production Company - $1,250,000

Commonwealth Brands, Inc. - $1,250,000

-----
Excuses...excuses...

Cable a la carte still isn't on menu.
Tired of So Many Violent Programs and high rates for Sports that you never watch?

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/articles/7536662.html?showAll=y&c=y

By John Dunbar
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 5/16/2007

WASHINGTON - Sports fans everywhere want to know: "Why do I have to subscribe to the soap opera channel when all I really want is ESPN?"

That's the kind of question the cable TV industry hates answering.

The channel choice issue comes up every few years, but people who argue that subscribers should be able to choose channels "a la carte" have never made any real headway.

The latest effort, and the newest reasoning for requiring cable companies to offer channel choice, or a la carte cable, has to do with yet another issue: television violence.

The Federal Communications Commission released a report in late April suggesting to Congress that an a la carte system would allow parents to shield their children from violent shows by not subscribing to the channels that carry them.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has been unshakable in his support of channel choice, says it can't happen without federal legislation. And thus far, the issue has gotten little traction on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who is expected to unveil a bill addressing television violence any day now, has opposed the creation of an a la carte system.

The overall lack of support might seem surprising, considering the average household in 2006 received 104 channels, yet tuned in to only 16 of them, according to the Nielsen TV ratings company.

If we aren't watching all those channels, why can't we just pick the ones we want and avoid paying for the rest? The answer lies within the arcane world of cable TV economics.

In the old days (pre-1970s), cable systems provided viewers with broadcast channels that viewers couldn't tune in because the signals were too weak where they lived.

Since then, there has been a steady growth in cable-only channels, starting with popular ones such as HBO, CNN, MTV and ESPN.

Federal law requires cable companies to offer a bare bones, "basic tier" of service, consisting of local broadcast and public access channels.

The second tier, commonly known as "expanded basic," includes most of the major cable networks. There's usually no choice on this tier; subscribers get all the channels or none of them.

Beyond that, subscribers may pick premium channels such as HBO, that are priced separately.

Unlike over-the-air broadcasters, which rely almost entirely on advertising to stay in business, cable networks earn about half their revenue from per-subscriber charges levied on cable system operators. Those costs are passed on to subscribers.

Two types of companies dominate the cable industry: those that own both broadcast and cable networks (such as Walt Disney Co.); and those that own both cable systems and cable networks (such as Time Warner Inc.).

Disney, for example, owns the ABC television network, which feeds programming to 228 affiliates, several popular cable-only channels (80 percent of ESPN) and several not-as-popular cable channels (SOAPnet).

Cable customers demand that their local cable company carry the ABC affiliate so they can watch popular shows such as "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" or catch the local news. Disney can charge the cable operator to carry the ABC network, but the cable operator can avoid the cost by agreeing to carry other, less-popular Disney-owned networks.

The second model is a form of vertical integration, or ownership of the cable delivery system and its programming content.

Time Warner owns the second-largest cable television service in the nation with 13.4 million subscribers. It also owns some of the most popular cable channels in the U.S. That means that Time Warner the cable system owner must negotiate with Time Warner the cable channel owner to provide programming.

In a nutshell, the cable television business is a closed, profitable system with a small number of very large players who negotiate secret deals with one another and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

"The whole system feeds on itself," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. "It's almost like everyone benefits except for the consumer and the independent content provider."

An a la carte regime would blow up that system and disrupt its economic model. And that would lead to higher prices and less programming diversity, according to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, an industry trade group.

Fewer channels would mean less advertising and fewer advertising dollars. An a la carte system also would require more customer service representatives, higher billing costs and higher marketing costs.

These factors and others would ultimately lead to higher rates for consumers, according to the NCTA.

The bottom line is there is no way of knowing for sure. A 2003 GAO report stated that "a variety of factors" make it "difficult to ascertain how many consumers would be better off and how many would be made worse off under an a la carte approach."

Consumers Union has lobbied long and hard for a la carte, saying it would put a halt to steadily rising cable prices. It has an ally in the Parents Television Council, a group that successfully pushed for higher fines for broadcast stations that air raunchy programming.

The opponent is the cable industry, led by the NCTA, which issues press statements every time Martin utters the words "a la carte."

Cable networks that cater to minorities fear cable choice. They worry that it will drop their subscriber base dramatically and run them out of business. (The biggest minority networks, such as Black Entertainment Television, are owned by big cable or broadcast companies.)

Cable's closed system has developed mostly because of the industry's status as a monopoly for most of its early years. Even when direct broadcast satellite providers like Dish Network and El Segundo-based DirecTV came on the scene and cut heavily into cable's customer base, the system still didn't change much.

The same programming rules that apply to cable apply to satellite. If you want the popular channels, you have take the unpopular channels.

MORE ON THIS SUBJECT:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-High-Price-Cable-TV-Cartel-87743
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19122767-Look-at-the-phone-company-example
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19122365-Re-20-Channels
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19122014-Re-Bye-Bye-ESPN

---------------------------------
Satellite TV offers a la carte deals:

http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html

	Digital 4DTV A la Carte Channels	MonMonthlythly	Quarterly	Annual
	Animal Planet/The Travel Channel/TLC E/Discovery E	$3.50	9.60	31.80
	Bravo E (C-band) & W (Ku-band)	4.50	12.00	43.00
	Cinemax Digital	14.25	38.75	145.00
	Discovery HD Theater (High Definition)	6.00	16.75	59.00
	ESPN Classic	4.69	12.69	45.29
	GAC - Great American Country (Ku-band)	4.89	12.69	45.29
	Golf Channel (Ku-band)	4.69	12.69	45.29
	Mini Scripps (HGTV/DIY/Food Network E&W/Fine Living)	8.89	24.97	76.99
	History Channel E (Ku-band) & W (C-band)	4.69	12.69	45.29
	HBO Digital *	16.75	46.50	174.00
	HBO/Cinemax Digital	22.25	63.00	243.00
	Independent Film Channel (Ku)	4.69	12.69	45.29
	PT24E - CBS	5.35	14.95	53.19
	PT24E - ABC	5.35	14.95	53.19
	KDVR FOX Denver	3.15	8.99	30.60
	KUSA NBC Denver	3.15	8.99	30.60
	KMGH ABC Denver	3.15	8.99	30.60
	KCNC CBS Denver	3.15	8.99	30.60
	KWGN WB Denver	3.15	8.99	30.60
	Sci-Fi (Ku-band)	4.69	12.69	45.29
	Showtime Digital Triple * Showtime/FLIX/TMC	15.25	42.00	159.00
	Showtime Digital *	14.50	40.50	150.00
	Speed Channel (Ku-band)	4.85	12.80	45.99
	STARZ! Digital	14.75	41.00	152.00
	Sundance Digital	13.00	35.75	126.00
	TV Land (Ku-band)	4.69	12.69	45.29
	WE: Women's Entertainment (Ku-band)	4.39	11.69	41.59
	Wealth	1.99	4.99	18.72
	* Get the Analog movie channel free (analog decoder required) when you subscribe to that Digital movie channel.
	Analog A la Carte Channels	Monthly	Quarterly	Annual
	FOXNews	2.25	-	-
	HBO	15.75	-	-
	Showtime	13.75	38.27	138.00
	The Weather Channel	2.25

or other satellite providers:

http://www.bigdish.com/satala.htm

-----

AT&T: Buying Back its Monopoly

AT&T is the U.S.’s dominant phone company. Despite the 1983 breakup of AT&T’s monopoly by the Justice department into seven local phone monopolies, since then the company has re-acquired four of those local firms. Two of the local monopolies are now owned by Verizon, and one by Qwest, leaving 3 companies in control of almost the entire USA land line and cell phone market. (Other options for phone service are from the cable monopoly in your area, usually either Comcast or Time-Warner, which together have over half of all USA cable subscribers.http://ncta.com/contentview.aspx?contentid=73)

After the passage of the 1996 U.S. Telecommunications Act by congress, AT&T was freed to move into most other communications businesses. In the hopes of establishing a “synergy” between using phone and cable lines together to reach the maximum number of American homes and sell phone service, cellular, internet and pay TV as one package, AT&T made an ill-fated foray into the cable TV business, buying TCI, the nation’s largest cable system owner in 1998. In 1999 AT&T bought MediaOne, another large cable system owner. AT&T also bought a 2.5% stake in DirecTV.

Because this “synergy” did not excite the buying public, and the massive run-up in values of entertainment properties after the 1996 Telecom act meant that AT&T had rung up enormous debt in buying cable systems that were not worth those prices, AT&T’s stock took a huge dive. Several other major media firms that had expanded rapidly through debt-financed purchases in the 1990’s also soon wrote off billions of dollars in value. These firms included AOL-Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, Clear Channel radio, Qwest and MCI Worldcom. In 2001, AT&T sold its cable systems to Comcast, creating the USA’s largest system owner with almost 40% of all subscribers. AT&T also spun off its cell phone division, which was bought in 2004 by a partnership owned by SBC and BellSouth. This left AT&T as only a long distance firm again.

Ironically, the weakened AT&T sold itself to SBC in 2005, and SBC later that year bought BellSouth, re-creating the massive AT&T of before.

--Rex Frankel

SUMMARY OF ACQUISITIONS:

-1983 AT&T is split up; parent company will be AT&T long distance and Bell Labs phone equipment firm. Newly spun-off local phone service companies are Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Pacific Bell, U.S. West, BellSouth, Southwestern Bell and Nynex. For the next 13 years, AT&T was restricted to only providing long distance phone service, while the local companies were restricted to selling local service.

-7/1990 AT&T buys Western Union’s email and telex business for $180 million

-1991 AT&T buys NCR for $7.5 billion

-8/1993 AT&T merges with McCaw Communications (#1 in US cell business) in deal valued at $12.6 billion

-9/1995 AT&T spins off its Bell Labs phone equipment business as Lucent Technologies (now known as Alcatel-Lucent) and also spins off NCR computer and cash register biz.

-4/1996 Southwestern Bell buys Pacific Bell for $15.6 billion

-1/1998 SBC buys independent Southern New England Telecom for $4.4 billion

-6/1998 AT&T buys TCI for $43.5 billion in stock. In deal, TCI’s former owner John Malone will retain control of TCI’s Liberty Media division and its interests in over 90 cable channels as a tracking stock of AT&T. AT&T will get TCI’s 111 million subscribers, and TCI has partnerships with other cable system owners that bring its reach up to half of US subscribers. AT&T will also get control of TCI’s @home internet service.

1/1999 SBC merges with Ameritech for $85 billion. Will sell off its Chicago cell system. Combined SBC/Ameritech/PacBell will control 1.3^rd of USA local phone lines. FCC staff calls merger anti-competitive. FCC eventually OKs the deal in 10/1999 after adding 30 conditions The conditions require SBC to sell discount access to other DSL ISPs and they must open their local phone service to competition.

-4/1999 AT&T bids $58 billion for MediaOne cable systems outbidding Comcast.They become part of AT&T Broadband. AT&T agrees to sell off 2 million subscribers of MediaOne to Comcast. In the deal, AT&T gets 25% stake in Time Warner’s cable systems. Time Warner protests the deal.

-10/2000 facing a loss of half its stock value in past year, AT&T splits into 3 companies: cable, wireless, and long distance phone and business services. The costs of upgrading TCI cable to broadband were underestimated at $2 rather than $10 billion. AT&T also controls Liberty but doesn’t own it as it is owned by shareholders of a separate tracking stock.

-11/2000 AT&T board votes to spin off Liberty Media and its stakes in Encore-Starz, USA, BET and Discovery, and could also sell its stake in Rainbow Media (controlled by Cablevision). 8/2001 is set as spin-off date, and Liberty holdings will also include stakes in Time Warner cable and News Corp.

1/2001 AT&T plans to sell its stake in E Channel, Food Network, Outdoor Life and Speedvision, Digital Cable Radio, Fox Sports New England, In Demand, National Cable Communications and the Sunshine Network which were acquired as part of MediaOne deal

-7/2001 AT&T Wireless is spun off to shareholders. AT&T will keep 7.4% stake, other holders include NTT DoCoMo of Japan with 17.4% and AXA financial firm with 6.7%

In 12/2001 AT&T sells cable broadband systems to Comcast for $52 billion in stock; giving existing AT&T shareholders 66% stake in Comcast. Comcast also gets 25% stake in Time Warner Entertainment, which owns HBO, Warner Brothers studio and TW’s cable systems, plus gets $20 billion or ½ of AT&T’s debt.

-2/2004 Cingular wireless, owned 60% by SBC and 40% by Bellsouth, bids $41 billion for AT&T Wireless. With purchase, Cingular will have 30% of US cell users compared to 24% by Verizon. FCC eventually requires sell-off of assets in 22 markets

-1/2005 SBC buys AT&T long distance for $15 billion. AT&T had been weakened by rise of cell phone use, appeals court ruling in 2004. SBC changes its name to AT&T. FCC and California's PUC require SBC to offer stand-alone DSL to customers

-3/2005 AT&T agrees to pay $67 billion in cash for BellSouth, and assume $22 billion in debt, giving it ownership of 4 of the original 7 Baby-Bells that were ordered spun-off in 1983 to settle monopoly issues.

-----
British Government Investigating Murdoch Media holdings; Murdoch wants British Sky News to be more like rightwing Fox

Owen Gibson, media correspondent
The Guardian
Saturday November 24 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/24/bskyb.television?gusrc=rss&feed=media

The media mogul Rupert Murdoch has said he wants Sky News to become more like his rightwing US network Fox News, and revealed the extent of his editorial grip on his British newspapers to a House of Lords committee.

The communications committee, chaired by Lord Fowler, toured the US in September to meet media executives, regulators and consumer groups as part of an inquiry into media ownership. Their conversations were made public yesterday in detailed minutes.

Murdoch said he wanted Sky News, which has confounded cynics by maturing into a well-funded and award-winning 24-hour news operation, to be more like Fox News to make it "a proper alternative to the BBC".

Due to the lack of impartiality laws in the US, Fox News became successful as a rightwing counterpoint to the perceived leftwing leanings of its rivals.

Murdoch said Sky may become more like Fox, even if there was no overhaul of news impartiality laws by Ofcom, by copying its presentational style. He complained that changes had not been made because "nobody at Sky listens to me". The BSkyB chief executive is his son James.

Murdoch, 76, recently added the Wall Street Journal to an empire that includes 20th Century Fox, the Times, the Sun, a stake in BSkyB, MySpace and interests in South America, Asia and Australia.

Murdoch restated his antipathy towards British legislators and regulators, saying the UK was "anti-success" and this had prevented him from expanding his media empire further. They kept investigating his purchases on the grounds of plurality, he said, but he had invested in plurality by keeping the Times afloat and putting 200 channels on the air through Sky.
He claimed the government's concern about cross-media ownership was "10 years out of date" given the proliferation of media outlets, and said concern over BSkyB's purchase of a 17.9% stake in rival ITV stemmed from "paranoia".

Next month John Hutton, secretary of state for business, enterprise and regulatory reform, will receive the Competition Commission's final verdict on the matter and decide what action to take.

In the minutes, Murdoch distinguished between the Times and the Sunday Times, in which he said he did not interfere in editorial matters, and the Sun and the News of the World, where he said he acted like "a traditional proprietor". "He exercises editorial control on major issues - like which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe," said the minutes.

OMG! Text message charges soar

It's the communication method of choice these days, but texting two-liners can totally add up.

11/12/2007

By Jennifer Dickler

Texting your boss that you'll "brb" (be right back) can save a lot of time and energy, but chances are it won't save you money. Although teenagers have been driving the trend, nearly everyone is texting (also known as SMS, or "short message service"). According to Forrester Research, now more than one-third of all cell phone subscribers are on board with "txt" - and sending almost a billion messages each day.But that convenience comes at a price. If you don't shell out for a texting package, which can cost $3 to $20 a month depending on the provider and the plan, most carriers will charge you for each message whether sent or received, read or unread, solicited or unsolicited. More Raw Deals And the price per text is on the rise. Earlier this year, T-Mobile, AT&T (Charts, Fortune 500) and Verizon (Charts, Fortune 500) raised their rates to 15 cents a text, from 10 cents, while Sprint (Charts, Fortune 500) upped the cost to 20 cents per domestic text, and those prices get even higher across the board for international messaging.That can really add up. Especially with incoming texts - even spam - that you can't control. Paying per text can exponentially impact your monthly bill....

more of this story: http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/08/pf/raw_deal_texting/index.htm

Ticketmaster charges: A concert killer

After paying a 30% to 40% premium over the face value of a ticket, some concert goers have had enough of Ticketmaster's hefty fees.

By Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney.com staff writer
October 11 2007

Hankering for some live music or sports this fall? Be prepared to shell out some cash. Above and beyond the rising face value of tickets is a heaping helping of service fees. Nearly anyone who has ever ordered a ticket through Ticketmaster will say the charges, which can be as much as 40 percent above the face value depending on the event, are excessive.

The company claims it's the cost of doing business, but consumers are tired of paying through the nose for nose-bleed seats, and even some politicians are considering capping the fees levied by ticketsellers. There is no doubt that Ticketmaster has mastered the ticket-selling business. The company, which is a division of IAC InterActive Corp. (Charts, Fortune 500) has 9,000 clients (mainly arenas, stadiums and theaters) in 20 countries and exclusive rights to sell tickets through its Web site, retail outlets and call centers.

Last year the West Hollywood, Calif.-based company sold more than 128 million tickets with a face value of over $7 billion and raked in the service fees.

On top of the face value of a ticket, which is determined by the promoter, venue or artist, Ticketmaster levies a convenience charge that covers the costs of providing tickets at local ticket outlet locations, staffing call centers and ongoing maintenance of its Internet-based system. But ticket buyers must pay this charge regardless of how they purchase their tickets, be it on the phone, online or in person.In addition to the convenience charge, there is also an order processing fee which covers taking and maintaining the order, arranging for shipping or coordinating with the box office will call. And in almost all cases, additional delivery prices may be charged based on the delivery method.Standard mail and will call are usually, but not always, free, although other delivery options, like FedEx, UPS and even email cost extra.

There can also be a facility charge, which varies depending on the location and goes directly to the venue, not Ticketmaster.S

o say you purchase a $35 ticket through Ticketmaster for an upcoming event, there could be a convenience charge of $8.35 (per ticket) in addition to a $3.15 order processing fee and $1.75 fee for an e-ticket. That adds up to a whopping 38 percent premium over the face value of the ticket price."Like any business, we have every right to seek a fair return on our investment and efforts," the company said in a statement.

Even artists have complained that the company's anticompetitive practices result in unfair markups of their concert tickets. In 1994, the rock band Pearl Jam attempted to sue Ticketmaster for refusing to lower its service fees for the band's tickets. But because Ticketmaster had exclusive contracts with so many large venues, Pearl Jam had no alternative but to cancel their tour....

for rest of story: http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/11/pf/raw_deal_ticketmaster/index.htm?postversion=2007101112


to read more "tales of economic injustice": http://money.cnn.com/commentary/raw_deal/index.html

Are the corporate suits ruining TV?


Network control and media consolidation are wringing the creativity out of entertainment.

By Marshall Herskovitz

L.A.. Times, November 7, 2007


After 20 years and five series, including "thirtysomething" and "My So-Called Life," my partner, Ed Zwick, and I have -- for the time being at least -- stopped producing television programs.


It's not personal. I count as friends many of the executives who work at the networks. We had a deal at one network, ABC, for all of those 20 years, and, in spite of many regime changes, we were always treated with great respect. This is not about how we were treated but rather something much larger: How a confluence of government policy and corporate strategy is literally poisoning the TV business.


It started in 1995 when the Federal Communications Commission abolished its long-standing "finsyn" rules (that's financial interest and syndication, for those unfamiliar with the term), allowing networks for the first time to own the programs they broadcast. Before that, under classic antitrust definitions, the networks had been confined to the role of broadcaster, paying a license fee to production companies for the right to broadcast programs just two times. The production companies owned all subsequent rights. In the mid-1990s there were 40 independent production companies making television shows. If a particular network didn't like a show -- as famously happened with "The Cosby Show" many years ago -- the production company could take it to another network.


But not after 1995. The abolition of the old rules set in motion an ineluctable process, one that has negatively affected every creative person I know in television. Today there are zero independent production companies making scripted television. They were all forced out of business by the networks' insistence -- following the FCC's fin-syn ruling -- on owning part or all of every program they broadcast.


The most profound change resulting from that ruling is the way networks go about the business of creating programming. Networks today exert a level of creative control unprecedented in the history of the medium. The stories my friends tell me would make me laugh if the situation weren't so self-defeating. Network executives routinely tell producers to change the color of the walls on sets; routinely decide on the proper wardrobe for actors; routinely have "tone" meetings with directors on upcoming pilots; routinely give notes on every page of a script. (When we did "thirtysomething" in the late '80s, we never received network notes.) And by the way, they have every right to do these things. As owners, they have a responsibility to satisfy themselves that their product is competitive and successful.


The problem, of course, is that these executives often have little background or qualification for making creative decisions. They are guided by market research and -- they want to believe -- a learned intuition about what the public wants. This season's new shows have been a good indicator of how successful that strategy is: Even before the current writer's strike, virtually every new show was struggling.


But the changes have gone further. Over the last few years -- during a time when network profits have been increasing -- salaries and profit participation for the writer-producers who create the shows have been slashed. Fees were cut by one-third to one-half, and profit participation in many cases was effectively eliminated. It's a curious (and peculiarly American) fact that many of the great artistic talents in the history of film and TV also have been entrepreneurs: Chaplin, Capra, Serling, Pakula, Lucas, Spielberg -- the list goes on. For reasons that are probably more psychological than anything else, creative and financial independence seem to go hand in hand.


Yet what we have now is a complete absence of either in the world of television. Your TV may receive 200 channels, but virtually every one of them is owned by one of six big companies -- NBC Universal, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom/Paramount, Sony and News Corp. And each channel has a brand identity dictated by those companies to which each program must adhere. Producers are now employees, not creators. If you were foolish enough to independently produce a TV pilot today, when you took it to the network, you would give up at least half of your ownership and all of your control, even though the network wouldn't pay any more than it used to pay as that old license fee.


Is there significance to this, outside the narrow concerns of Hollywood and the lost earning power of producers? I think so. Besides any esoteric discussion of the value of storytelling in a culture -- which I believe is immense -- this trend is part of a larger problem caused by the FCC in all areas of media. The relaxation of the Fairness Doctrine (which required the networks to present the news in a balanced way), the lapse of any oversight of networks' civic responsibility, the commoditization of network news -- these are all parts of a troubling move toward the aggregation of control of information in an ever-shrinking number of entities.


Our founding fathers could not have foreseen that freedom of the press might eventually be threatened just as much by media consolidation as by government. And if you doubt that's happening, just watch Bill Moyers' recent expose on the networks' passive collusion with government in selling the Iraq war.


Because the business of television has become an exclusive club, closed to new members, some producers are turning to the Internet to have a voice. And, of course, the Big Six are doing everything they can to own and control that as well. Already, it's impossible to make an "overall deal" -- the time-honored arrangement in which producers are kept on retainer to develop shows for a particular network -- without agreeing to be exclusive to the network on the Internet as well as television. The logic of this defies all laws of economics; producers pledge fealty to networks because they (the producers) don't have the millions it takes to shoot, distribute and broadcast their own programs on television. Producing for the Internet, on the other hand, costs as little as $30,000 an hour, and "broadcasting" costs much less. Virtually anyone can do it.


So what value do the networks provide that makes it worthwhile for producers to agree to that exclusivity? You tell me, because I can't figure it out. Less polite folks might call it extortion.


Zwick and I have joined that migration to the Internet. We've created a project called "quarterlife" -- a series and a social network -- that we own and control, and we had to give up our TV deal in order to do it. The series will premiere Sunday on MySpace and then on our site, quarterlife.com, the next night. We've worked very hard, and spent a great deal of our own money, to make it as good as anything we've ever done on television. And we've gotten calls from every guild and virtually every producer we know, all of whom are curious to see if this little experiment can succeed. Because if it does, it will prove that there's a way to independently produce, finance and distribute ambitious content on the Internet. And if we can do it, others can do it. To be sure, there's every possibility this series will end up on television after it's established on the Internet, but only if we still own it and control it creatively, which would make it unique in today's landscape.


The problems of network ownership and creative control are not directly at issue in the current strike by the Writers Guild of America. What's at stake is how writers will be compensated, given the control everyone assumes the big companies will exert over new methods of delivery.


But make no mistake -- deep resentment in the entire creative community over the absolute power now wielded by these companies is the fuel that feeds the strike. The public is also fed up, turning out in droves and sending millions of e-mails whenever the FCC holds hearings on the subject. And yet the large corporations move forward, seemingly unaware that they are strangling the creative engine that might save them.


Within five years there won't be a significant distinction between TV and broadband. As of now, the Internet is just too big for any company to get its hands around, and that's good for all of us. If the large companies -- and the FCC -- cannot come to comprehend the paradox that too much control is destructive to their own ends, they may bring about their own downfall, losing their audience and their workers at the same time. Like carriage makers at the dawn of the auto age.


Marshall Herskovitz is a TV and movie producer whose credits include "Blood Diamond," "thirtysomething" and the upcoming "quarterlife." He is president of the Producers Guild of America (which is not affiliated with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers, currently being struck by the Writers Guild of America).

11/6/2007
Liberty Media-Controlled Interactive Corp. to be split up into 5 new pieces; was split in two in 2005

Interactive Corp. once owned USA Channel, Universal TV in Complex Deals in 1990's that attempted to create "synergy" between creative assets and internet portals

taken from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9810781-7.html and other sources

IAC will be all-Internet and will include many of the company's popular online media brands, including Ask.com, Bloglines, BustedTees, Citysearch, CollegeHumor, Evite, Excite, Gifts.com, iWon, Match.com, Vimeo, and Zwinky. In addition, this new pared-down IAC will include the company's current investments in brands like Active.com, Brightcove, and OpenTable.

Ticketmaster.com, under the new plan, will spin off into its own publicly traded company, along with other IAC-owned global ticket brands like Admission.com, Echomusic, and TicketWeb, Biletix, Billetnet, BillettService, LiveDaily, TicketService and TicketWeb as well as the company's investments in Frontline and social music service iLike

Home Shopping Network (HSN) will also spin off along with a number of IAC's retail brands and catalogs, like HSN TV, Frontgate, Garnet Hill, and TravelSmith, HSN.com and Cornerstone Brands

Additionally, several of IAC's vacationing brands will join the title Interval International, CondoDirect, Resort Quest Hawaii and VacationSource.com.

LendingTree brand will also include RealEstate.com, Domania, GetSmart, Home Loan Center and iNest.

This is not the first time that IAC has shrunk itself; in 2005, the company ditched its Expedia travel brand. Expedia includes Hotels.com, Hotwire, TravelNow.com, Activity World, HotelDiscount.com, Condosaver.com, AllLuxuryHotels.com, Anyway.com, eLong, TV Travel Shop, Expedia Corporate Travel, Classic Custom Vacations and TripAdvisor.

"If you total all of the assets that include Expedia and IAC, it's an enterprise of about $19.5 billion," Diller said in the press call. "We thought Expedia was certainly large enough to stand on its own, and we thought that it would be enhanced as a standalone company, and that has certainly proven true."

Under the deal, IAC will retain all the company's cash and the new businesses will be "appropriately capitalized," Diller said.

Apple Computer and AT&T Tie Down I-Phone Buyers; Hackers Undo Problem; Apple Sends "Updates" to Wreck the Untied Phones

Surprising number of iPhones unlocked

Apple says nearly one in six have been tampered with to run on unauthorized wireless networks. From Bloomberg News October 24, 2007

Apple Inc. said Tuesday that almost one of every six iPhones sold may have been unlocked to run on unauthorized wireless networks, surprising analysts who had estimated the problem wasn't as widespread.

Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook said 250,000 of the nearly 1.4 million iPhones sold might have been bought by users with the intention of unlocking them to work on a network other than AT&T's.

Customers who aren't signing up with AT&T, Apple's approved service provider in the U.S., are preventing the two companies from collecting monthly mobile-phone fees. Analysts had estimated that between 10,000 and 100,000 iPhones had been unlocked since Apple began selling the device in June.

"I did not think it was that much," said Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in Minneapolis, describing the 250,000 figure as "huge."

Some people have been buying five phones at a time at Apple stores in the U.S., modifying the software that locks it to AT&T's service, and then reselling the unlocked iPhones overseas.

To quash unauthorized use, Apple released an iPhone software update last month that rendered some unlocked devices inoperable -- an approach that users described as turning the gadget into a "brick." Hacker groups have since developed software that bypasses Apple's update and allows bricked phones to work again, according to appleinsider.com.

Apple said Monday it sold 1.12 million phones in the three months ended Sept. 29.

Companies Owned By Liberty Media Group

SOURCE:

http://www.libertymedia.com/ir/asset_list.htm

also cross-checked with wikipedia and http://www.ketupa.net/liberty.htm

SPORTS TEAMS:

-Atlanta Braves baseball team—100%; Atlanta Braves: in 2/2007 purchased from Time Warner in a complex deal, in which $1 billion cash, a group of craft magazines & the Braves (valued at approximately $450 million) were exchanged for 60 million Time Warner stock shares.

-Owner of the Denver Nuggets basketball team, the Colorado Avalanche hockey team and the Pepsi Center, a sports and entertainment facility in Denver, Colorado—6.5%

CABLE CHANNELS:

-Game Show Network—50%, other 50% owned by Sony

-Hallmark Entertainment Investments Co.—11% Owner of controlling interest in Crown Media Holdings, Inc., the owner and operator of U.S. cable television channels, including the Hallmark Channel. Liberty Media has an approximate indirect 9% economic ownership in Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRWN) through its investment in Hallmark Entertainment Investments Co.

-QVC channel—100%

-Starz Entertainment—100%, owns Starz, Encore channels

-50% stake in Discovery - television networks such as the Discovery Channel, the Travel Channel, the Learning Channel and Animal Planet - and the Ascent media postproduction business.

BROADCAST TV:

WFRV and WJMN Television—CBS affiliates in Michigan-100%

Liberty has also purchased Green Bay, Wisconsin, television station WFRV-TV and its sister station in Escanaba, Michigan, WJMN-TV, from CBS estimated at about $234 million. CBS will swap the stations and $170 million in cash for 7.59 million shares of CBS common stock held by Liberty Media. The purchase was announced February 13, 2007, The sale was completed on April 18, 2007. [7]

INTERNET PROPERTIES:

-GoPets Ltd. -28%- Virtual community of pets that interact with each other and other users all over the world.

-Priceline.com—1%

-Wildblue Communications—satellite internet provider—32%

-Backcountry.com—83%

-Expedia inc, owners of : Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Expedia Corporate Travel, TripAdvisor and Classic Vacations.—23%; Liberty Media owns approximately 23% of Expedia common stock representing an approximate 52% voting interest; however, the Chairman and CEO of Expedia currently has the authority to vote these shares.

-IAC/Interactive Corp. , Comprised of HSN cable channel; Cornerstone Brands, Inc.; HSE24; Shoebuy.com; Ticketmaster; Lending Tree; RealEstate.com; ServiceMagic; Match.com; Entertainment Publications; Interval International; Ask.com; Citysearch; Evite; Gifts.com; iBuy; Pronto; and CollegeHumor. –24%; Liberty Media owns approximately 24% of IAC common stock representing an approximate 55% voting interest; however, the Chairman and CEO of IAC currently has the authority to vote these shares.

-Provide Commerce inc-100%, perishable products

-Buy Seasons inc.—100%--costumes and Halloween products

BOOKS:

Leisure Arts, publishers of crafts, needlework how-to books—100%

OTHER HOLDINGS:

Jingle Networks, Operator of the advertiser-supported 1.800.FREE411 service which allows callers to obtain residential, business and government telephone numbers for no charge.—8.3%

Motorola inc.—3%

DirecTV—owned News Corp—16%; On December 22, 2006 Liberty Media announced that it entered into a definitive agreement with News Corporation to exchange Liberty Media's stake in News Corporation for a News Corporation subsidiary holding a 38.5% stake in DIRECTV Group, Inc., regional sports networks in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Seattle, and $550 million in cash, (with an aggregate value of US$11 billion).. That transaction will allow both sides to avoid paying taxes. News Corporation will retire Liberty's 19% voting stake in a major share buyback that will increase the Murdoch family's stake to around 36%.

McNeill-Lehrer Productions—67%

Overture Films—100%

Sprint Nextel corp. 3%

Time Warner-3%

Viacom—1%

Also owned acc. to wikipedia:

OpenTV

COMPANY HISTORY:

It originated as part of TCI, an American cable television group, and acquired by AT&T in 1999 for $54 billion.

-2001- It was spun-off from AT&T, subsequently spending $5 billion on nine German regional cable networks.

-In the second half of 2001 it aggressively acquired cable operators and content developers in the EU. During 2003 it bought the remaining 57% of QVC from Comcast for US$7.9 billion and absorbed Liberty Livewire Corporation (formed as a result of the 2000 and 2001 acquisitions of The Todd-AO Corporation, Four Media Company, Video Services Corporation, certain operations of SounDelux Entertainment Group and other businesses engaged in the provision of creative and technical services for the media and entertainment industries).

-In 2004 it increased its voting stake in News to 9% (and its economic interest to 17%, later to 19%), becoming the largest shareholder in the Murdoch-controlled group.

-In March 2005 Liberty announced plans to spin off its stake in the Discovery cable and satellite business, with new publicly traded company (to be called Discovery Holdings and worth between US$10 and $15 billion) housing Liberty's 50% stake in Discovery - television networks such as the Discovery Channel, the Travel Channel, the Learning Channel and Animal Planet - and the Ascent media postproduction business.

--In May 2006, Time Warner acquired Liberty Media's 50% stake in Court TV for $735 million

--On May 16, 2006, IDT sold its IDT Entertainment division to Liberty Media for "for all of Liberty Media's interests in IDT, $186 million in cash and the assumption of existing indebtedness." IDT Entertainment's assets and Starz Entertainment Group's popular line of premium TV channels will combine to produce content for all distribution platforms. [4]

Gap between rich, poor seen growing

Income disparity reaches highest since 1920s, paper reports, with recent Wall Street boom partly to blame.

October 12 2007: 9:56 AM EDT

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/12/news/economy/income/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans grew to its widest level since the 1920s, according to a report published Friday.

Citing Internal Revenue Service data, the Wall Street Journal reported that the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans earned 21.2 percent of all the nation's income in 2005, up from the previous high of 20.8 percent in 2000.

Conversely, the bottom half of working Americans earned just 12.8 percent of all the nation's income, down from 13.4 percent in 2004 and slightly lower than 13 percent in 2000.

While the IRS data only dates back as far as 1986, academic experts told the paper that the last time the rich had this large of a share of income was during the 1920s.

The figures, based on "adjusted gross income" which incorporates certain deductions such as contributions to individual retirement accounts, revealed that the income level for the tax filer in wealthiest 1 percent of Americans grew 3 percent to $364,657 between 2000 and 2005, according to the Journal.

At the same time, the median American income, however, slipped 2 percent during that same period to $30,881.

Academic experts told the paper that the income disparity among Americans was due a combination of factors including globalization and technical advances, which favor the most skilled workers, while the recent boom on Wall Street was also seen playing a large part.

Leading up to this summer's market meltdown, stocks were on a tear, while the availability of cheap credit helped led not only to big deals, but hefty payouts for workers in the private equity, hedge fund and investment banking businesses.

It's About Time

Chevron says its earnings will take a hit

The heads-up signals that oil firms' profits will be more modest in future quarters.
By Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 10, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chevron10oct10,1,374836.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Sharply lower profit from making fuel took a big bite out of Chevron Corp.'s third-quarter earnings, which the oil company said Tuesday would be "significantly below" the record $5.4 billion it earned during this year's second quarter.

The announcement by the nation's second-largest oil company wasn't a surprise but is nonetheless one of the strongest signals yet that industrywide, record-setting results have come to an end and that oil companies are going to be posting smaller profits in the quarters to come....

Twisted Irony...

"the merely affluent are diminishing the ability of the very rich to derive pleasure"

Feel sorry for wealthy? Now that's rich

By George Will/October 11, 2007

Enough, already, with compassion for society's middle and lower orders. There currently is a sympathy deficit regarding the very rich. Or so the rich might argue because they bear the heavy burden of spending enough to keep today's plutonomy humming.

Furthermore, they are getting diminishing psychological returns on their spending now that luxury brands are becoming democratized. When there are 379 Louis Vuitton and 227 Gucci stores, who cares?

Citigroup's Ajay Kapur applies the term "plutonomy" to, primarily, the United States, although Britain, Canada and Australia also qualify. He notes that America's richest 1percent of households own more than half the nation's stocks and control more wealth ($16 trillion) than the bottom 90percent. When the richest 20 percent account for almost 60 percent of consumption, you see why rising oil prices have had so little effect on consumption.

Kapur's theory is that "wealth waves" develop in epochs characterized by, among other things, disruptive technology-driven productivity gains and creative financial innovations that "involve great complexity exploited best by the rich and educated of the time." For the canny, daring and inventive, these are the best of times - and vast rewards to such people might serve the rapid propulsion of society to greater wealth.

But it is increasingly expensive to be rich. The Forbes CLEW index (the Cost of Living Extremely Well) - yes, there is such a thing - has been rising much faster than the banal CPI (consumer price index). At the end of 2006, there were 9.5 million millionaires worldwide, which helps to explain the boom in the "bling indexes" - stocks such as Christian Dior and Richemont (Cartier and Chloe, among other brands), which are up 247 percent and 337 percent respectively since 2002, according to Fortune magazine. Citicorp's "plutonomy basket" of stocks (Sotheby's, Bulgari, Hermes, etc.) has generated an annualized return of 17.8percent since 1985.

This is the outer symptom of a fascinating psychological phenomenon: Envy increases while - and perhaps even faster than - wealth does. When affluence in the material economy guarantees that a large majority can take for granted things that a few generations ago were luxuries for a small minority (a nice home, nice vacations, a second home, college education, comfortable retirement), the "positional economy" becomes more important.

Positional goods and services are inherently minority enjoyments. These are enjoyments - "elite" education, "exclusive" vacations or properties - available only to persons with sufficient wealth to pursue the satisfaction of "positional competition." Time was, certain clothes, luggage, wristwatches, handbags, automobiles, etc. sufficed. But with so much money sloshing around the world, too many people can purchase them. Too many, in the sense that the value of acquiring a "positional good" is linked to the fact that all but a few people cannot acquire it.

That used to be guaranteed because supplies of many positional goods were inelastic - made by a small class of European craftsmen. But when they are mass-produced in developing nations, they cannot long remain such goods. When 40 percent of all Japanese - and, Fortune reports, 94.3 percent of Japanese women in their 20s - own a Louis Vuitton item, its positional value vanishes.

James Twitchell, University of Florida professor of English and advertising, writing in the Wilson Quarterly, says this "lux populi" is "the Twinkiefication of deluxe." Now that Ralph Lauren is selling house paint, can Polo radial tires be far behind? When a yacht manufacturer advertises a $20 million craft, cachet is a casualty.

As Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations," for most rich people "the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eye is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves." Hennessy understands the logic of trophy assets: It is selling a limited batch of 100 bottles of cognac for $200,000 a bottle.

There is some good news lurking amid the vulgarity. Americans' saving habits are better than they seem because the very rich, consuming more than their current earnings, have a negative savings rate.

Furthermore, because the merely affluent are diminishing the ability of the very rich to derive pleasure from positional goods, philanthropy might become the final form of positional competition. Perhaps that is why so many colleges and universities (more than 20, according to Twitchell) are currently conducting multibillion-dollar pledge campaigns. When rising consumption of luxuries produces declining enjoyment of vast wealth, giving it away might be the best revenge.

Matrix of Big USA Media Monopolies

MONOPOLIZATION OF CALIFORNIA DAILY NEWSPAPERS

117 total

--45 out of 117 are owned by MediaNews Group

-Only in L.A and the Bay Area are there longtime competing daily papers, although the L.A. Times (circulation 779,000) widely outsells the 4 L.A. County papers owned by MediaNews Group, (388,000 total). In the 8 county Bay area, MediaNews' 4 papers outsell the San Francisco Chronicle (circulation 365,000) with a combined 615,000 daily circulation. The North Coast town of Eureka also has two dailies, one recently launched and distributed free by the largest real estate developer in the town. Santa Barbara also has a recently launched free daily.

November 2007 circulation figures: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003667952

http://www.medianewsgroup.com/about/Circulation/Circulation.pdf (3/2007 figures)


-Hearst Corporation, owner of the SF Chronicle, is partners with MediaNews in owning daily papers outside of the Bay area and around the USA. The L.A. Times co-financed MediaNews' purchase of the L.A Daily News and they jointly bundle their ad insert sales. See the following link for more on that deal:
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services-miscellaneous-business/4674884-1.html

North Coast

The Daily Triplicate - Crescent City http://www.triplicate.com/, Western Communications (Tues-Sat)

-------

The Eureka Reporter http://www.eurekareporter.com/ –Robin Arkley

Times-Standard - Eureka http://www.times-standard.com/ MediaNews Group

--------

Ft Bragg Advocate News (Ft Bragg) –MediaNews Group (weekly)

Lake County Record Bee (Lakeport) –MediaNews Group

The Ukiah Daily Journal http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ –MediaNews Group

Willits News (Willits) –MediaNews Group (twice a week)

Mendocino Beacon (Mendocino)-MediaNews Group (weekly)

---------------------------------

SF Bay Area

San Francisco Chronicle - http://www.sfgate.com/ -Hearst co.

San Francisco Daily - http://www.sfdaily.net/ (free m-f)-Dave Price and Jim Pavelich

San Francisco Examiner - http://www.examiner.com/san_francisco (free) -Phillip Anschutz/Clarity Media Group

NORTH BAY:

Napa Valley Register - http://www.napavalleyregister.com/ Lee Enterprises

Marin Independent Journal - Novato- http://www.marinij.com/ –MediaNews Group

Petaluma Argus Courier- http://www.petaluma360.com/section/petaluma360 -New York Times co.

The Press-Democrat - Santa Rosa- http://www.pressdemocrat.com/ New York Times Company

Times-Herald - Vallejo- http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ MediaNews Group

EAST BAY:

Contra Costa Times - Walnut Creek - http://www.contracostatimes.com/MediaNews Group-- Also, the West County Times, East County Times, San Ramon Valley Times and Valley Times are duplicates of Contra Costa Times

East Bay Daily News - Berkeley (free)– http://www.ebdailynews.com/ MediaNews Group

Oakland Tribune - Oakland- http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune –MediaNews Group

Alameda Times-Star (edition of Oakland Tribune)- http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar -MediaNews Group

The Daily Review (Hayward)- http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview -MediaNews Group

The Argus - Fremont - http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus –MediaNews Group

Fremont Bulletin, MediaNews Group

Milpitas Post -MediaNews Group

Tri-Valley Herald - Pleasanton – http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald --MediaNews Group

SOUTH BAY:

San Jose Mercury News – http://www.mercurynews.com/ MediaNews Group

Morgan Hill Times- Mainstreet Media Group

Gilroy Dispatch - http://gilroydispatch.com/ --Mainstreet Media Group

Berryessa Sun, MediaNews Group

WEST BAY:

Los Gatos News (weekly) - http://www.thelgnews.com/ MediaNews Group

Palo Alto Daily News - http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/ (free) –MediaNews Group

San Mateo Daily News - http://www.sanmateodailynews.com/ (free) –MediaNews Group

San Mateo County Times - http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes –MediaNews Group

San Mateo Daily Journal http://www.smdailyjournal.com/

Pacifica Tribune (Pacifica) -MediaNews Group

Redwood City Daily News – http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/ (free) MediaNews Group

Burlingame Daily News –(free) http://www.theburlingamedailynews.com/ –MediaNews Group

Central Coast

Hollister Free Lance - http://www.freelancenews.com/ Mainstreet Media Group

The Pinnacle- (weekly) Mainstreet Media Group

--------------
Santa Cruz Sentinel - http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ MediaNews Group

Good Times Santa Cruz- (weekly) Mainstreet Media Group

Watsonville Register-Pajaronian - http://www.register-pajaronian.com/ –News Media Corporation

---------------------

Monterey County Weekly - http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/ - Milestone Communications inc.

Monterey Herald - http://www.montereyherald.com/ –MediaNews Group

The Salinas Californian - http://thecalifornian.com -Gannett co.

-----------------

The Tribune - San Luis Obispo- http://www.sanluisobispo.com/ McClatchy co.

New Times SLO— http://www.newtimesslo.com/ New Times Media Group-(weekly)

----------------

Santa Maria Times - http://www.santamariatimes.com/ -Lee Enterprises

Santa Maria Sun - http://www.santamariasun.com/ New Times Media Group (weekly)

The Lompoc Record— http://www.lompocrecord.com/ Lee Enterprises

Times Press Recorder -Lee Enterprises (weekly)

Adobe Press -Lee Enterprises (weekly)

Santa Ynez Valley News-Lee Enterprises

Santa Barbara Daily Sound - http://sbdailysound.blogspot.com/ -(free) NODROG Publications

Santa Barbara News-Press - http://www.newspress.com a-Wendy McCaw

----------------

Ventura County Star - http://www.venturacountystar.com/ - E.W. Scripps co.

Central Valley/Sierras

Siskiyou Daily News - http://siskiyoudaily.com/ Yreka-Gatehouse Media inc.

Record Searchlight - Redding http://redding.com/ –E.W. Scripps co.

Red Bluff Daily News - http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/ –MediaNews Group

Oroville Mercury-Register - http://www.orovillemr.com/ --MediaNews Group

Paradise Post (Paradise) -MediaNews Group

Chico Enterprise-Record - http://www.chicoer.com/ –MediaNews Group

The Mountain Democrat - Placerville – http://www.mtdemocrat.com/ McNaughton family.

Tahoe Daily Tribune - http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/ , Swift Communications

Sierra Sun- http://www.sierrasun.com/ - Swift Communications

The Union - Grass Valley- http://www.theunion.com/ Swift Communications

Auburn Journal - http://www.auburnjournal.com/ -Gold Country Media, http://www.goldcountrymedia.com/ (publishes 10 daily and weekly papers)

The Davis Enterprise - http://www.davisenterprise.com/ -McNaughton family

The Fairfield Daily Republic - http://www.dailyrepublic.com/ -McNaughton family, The Daily Republic is part of the McNaughton Newspapers including the Davis Enterprise, the Mountain Democrat, Village Life, and Winters Express newspapers.

The Daily Democrat - Woodland - http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ MediaNews Group

Vacaville Reporter -MediaNews Group

Appeal-Democrat - Marysville – http://www.appeal-democrat.com/ Freedom Communications

The Sacramento Bee - http://sacbee.com/ -McClatchy co

Amador Ledger-Dispatch-Mainstream Media Group

The Record - Stockton - http://www.recordnet.com/ Ottaway Newspapers, Inc/Dow Jones—bought by News Corp.

Tracy Press - http://www.tracypress.com/ –family owned

Lodi News-Sentinel - http://www.lodinews.com/

Manteca Bulletin - http://www.mantecabulletin.com/ –Morris Multimedia

Turlock Journal - http://www.turlockjournal.com/ -Morris Multimedia-twice a week

The Union-Democrat – Sonora- http://www.uniondemocrat.com/ Western Communications inc.

The Modesto Bee - http://www.modbee.com/ -McClatchy co

Merced Sun-Star - http://www.mercedsunstar.com/ –McClatchy co.

The Fresno Bee - http://www.fresnobee.com/ -the McClatchy Co

The Sentinel - Hanford- http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/ Lee Newspapers

Porterville Recorder - http://www.recorderonline.com/

Tulare Advance-Register/Visalia Times-Delta - http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage -Gannett co.

Bakersfield Californian - http://www.bakersfield.com/ –family owned

The Daily Independent - Ridgecrest http://www.ridgecrestca.com/ –Gatehouse Media inc.

L.A.

Grunion Gazette (Long Beach) -(weekly) MediaNews Group

Long Beach Press-Telegram - http://www.presstelegram.com/ MediaNews Group

Daily News – http://www.dailynews.com/ San Fernando Valley--MediaNews Group

Los Angeles Sentinel - http://www.lasentinel.net/ owned by Danny Bakewell, distributed by L.A. Times

Los Angeles Times – http://latimes.com Tribune Company

San Gabriel Valley Tribune - West Covina- http://www.sgvtribune.com/ -MediaNews Group

Antelope Valley Press - Palmdale- http://www.avpress.com/ independent

Palos Verdes Peninsula News - http://www.pvnews.com/ –MediaNews Group

Star-News - Pasadena – http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ MediaNews Group

The Signal - Santa Clarita- http://www.the-signal.com/

Santa Monica Daily Press - http://www.smdp.com/ Newlon Rouge, Inc.

The Daily Breeze - Torrance http://dailybreeze.com ,

Beach Reporter/weekly http://www.tbrnews.com/ –MediaNews Group

LA.com (Los Angeles) -MediaNews Group

Whittier Daily News -MediaNews Group

Far South Calif.

The Orange County Register - Santa Ana http://www.ocregister.com/ -Freedom Newspapers

-----------------

The Daily Dispatch - Barstow- http://www.desertdispatch.com/ Freedom Communications

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - Ontario- http://www.dailybulletin.com/ –MediaNews Group

The Sun (San Bernadino) -MediaNews Group

Redlands Daily Facts - http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/ - MediaNews Group

Daily Press - Victorville- http://www.vvdailypress.com/ Freedom Communications

Hesperia Star- http://www.hesperiastar.com/ Freedom Communications

-------------------------

The Desert Sun - Palm Springs- http://www.mydesert.com Gannett co

The Press-Enterprise - Riverside- http://www.pe.com/ Belo co.

------------------

The Californian http://www.nctimes.com/news/californian/

Ramona Sentinel- Mainstreet Media Group (probably weekly)

La Jolla Light- Mainstreet Media Group

Del Mar Times- http://www.delmartimes.net/ Mainstream Media Group

North County Times - Escondido – http://www.nctimes.com/ Lee Enterprises

The San Diego Union-Tribune - http://www.signonsandiego.com/ Copley Press

Today's Local News - San Marcos- http://www.todayslocalnews.com Copley Press

-------------------

Imperial Valley Press - El Centro http://www.ivpressonline.com/

What Companies Dominate the Right-Wing Radio Talk Show Business?

--analysis by Rex Frankel


A report by a progressive media watch group released in June of 2007 stated:

"Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive. Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

Several interesting things were not mentioned in the summary of this report: for CBS radio, of their total of 30 news or talk stations that air or could air 720 hours of programming a day (24 hours times 30), they only aired 68.5 hours of conservative talk. That's only 9.5% of their total airtime. Only 3.3% of their total airtime was devoted to progressive talk, but also a whopping 88% was non-political by the standards in this study. While the progressive percentage should be equal to the conservative time, this huge amount of non-political fare is what a good news broadcaster should be doing.

On the other hand, the other big 5 radio owners had super-high percentages of conservative talk compared to their total airtime. Clear Channel was 40% conservative vs. 6.5% progressive; Citadel was 49% conservative vs. .0018% progressive; Cumulus was 38% conservative vs. 0% progressive and Salem was 83% conservative vs. 0% progressive.

Another big broadcaster that is not in the top 5, Disney/ABC, has similar high percentages of conservative shows. In fact, nationwide, they are the network that airs Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in most of the U.S.'s big cities. Disney now no longer owns ABC radio, as they sold it to Citadel Broadcasting in June of 2007. What this shows is that C