Connecting Dots: FCC, superbowl, CBS, Dan Rather, documents, apology....

Okay, it's something of a conspiracy theory, so don't pillory me.

FCC is neo-con controlled. Is it unreasonable that they leaned on CBS about the documents and asked for a retraction (since we still have yet to see anything real about them other than spin...) in exchange for a lower fine for the super-breast?

They DID fine CBS very heavily, but the fine is distributed between 20 stations, bringing the individual costs down. They could have fined all of the affiliates as well, and chose not to. Perhaps that was the prince of Rather's retraction.

I'm not saying it happened... it just seems strange that as soon as the retraction comes out, they show some mercy on the network.

Pcat

Dan Rather's just covering their butt.

IMO.

affiliates, who could go independent. (I've seen this happen when the network treats an affiliate badly...)

Instead of a 550K fine, it could have been a 5 million USD fine, a $22,750 for each network station and affiliate. That's where I'm seeing something like... a plea bargin? a deal?

Pcat

If the affiliates shared the fine, then the pressure would be on CBS from them, "to behave."

The one who should be fined, since I believe CBS had no idea this was coming, was Janet Jackson.

air? I think his name was Stevens. Is he a Democrat or a Republican?

-Viacom, which owns CBS and Showtime, did the following over the past year or so.
- aired "DC 9/11" on Showtime, a pro-Bush propaganda piece disguised as a telemovie.
- moved "The Reagans" mini series off CBS and onto Showtime after a lot of conservative pressure.
- refused a moveon.org ad for the highly watched Super Bowl.
- aired a lightweight interview with Bush during the highly watched Super Bowl pre-game.

-Viacom, along with News Corp (Fox's parent), were the two companies to benefit from White House pressure to change TV station ownership limits from 35% to 39%

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript305_full.html

- The fines were only issued to the CBS O&O's, not the independently owned affiliates. It's kind of like how Clear Channel, a company with strong right-wing ties, was fined, but not a slew of independently owned stations.

-The affiliates, along with others, belong to the National Association of Broadcasters, which I'd consider the second most powerful lobbying organization in the country (The NRA #1). Certain this would be a group politicians don't want to piss off. (Don't need negative political stories on the six o'clock news.)


It would seem there's possibly a little quid pro quo here. "You scratch Bush's back, I'll scratch CBS & Clear Channel's back." Or maybe the White House knows it has CBS and Clear Channel by the short ones. In any event, they can't afford to take on the independent stations. At least, not yet.

How am I doing?

Look, I'm a psychologist. I'm not a media expert. I know where my strengths are.

But this seems strange.

And you're making strong points....

Pcat

I'm a dentist. I'm not a media expert either. But I know what I know and I'm just think I'm putting two and two together. We're probably in the same boat in that regard.

I think Viacom was engaged in major league sucking-up for a while. As much sucking-up that they could do short of, oh, I dunno, maybe creating a 24/7 cable and satellite channel specializing in right-wing propaganda under the guise of a news organization. And it worked. The ownership limits were changed for two companies.

(The sucking up worked even better for News Corp. After Charlie Ergen's Dish Network bid to take over DirecTV failed (blocked by Powell's FCC and Ashcroft's Justice Dept. even though GAO thought it was a good idea), News Corp's takeover sailed right through.)

Janet Jackson is a sideshow, but used for political opportunism. Thus the fine to Viacom, a pittance for them. But the FCC/White House doesn't have political capital to fine the independents. Yet.

CBS News is just Viacom's way of saying, "We'll work with you, but don't get too full of yourself, Bush." Others may feel BushCo couldn't let that sentiment stands, hence Roger Stone's activity. Revealed in the New York Post of all places. Doesn't that come off as a slap in CBS's face?

Ok. enough tinhatting for me.