Free Press Foundation

Media ‘cartel’ controls most once independent news outlets

by WorldTribune Staff, February 26, 2017

A major media “cartel” has taken control of what had been privately-owned U.S. news companies, Pulitzer Prize winning media specialist Ben Bagdikian said.

The trend leaves small community newspapers and broadcast companies as outposts for independent American  journalism.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post have announced no guarantees of editorial autonomy or ethics provisions to avoid conflicts of interest. / Patrick Fallon / Bloomberg / Getty

Six corporations now own 90 percent of U.S. news media outlets. The six – News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast – own 90 percent of the TV stations, radio stations, movies, magazines and newspapers that Americans go to for news and entertainment.

There are major news organizations not owned by the “cartel” but they are also liberal giants that include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times (both owned by the Tribune Company). “Even those publications are subject to the conglomerate machine,” Bagdikian said.

“What we should be most concerned about is the narrowing of choices, because that removes from voters the full spectrum of views and information with which to choose its government — a dangerous trend that threatens democracy itself,” Bagdikian said, according to a documentary on media ownership for PBS.

Bagdikian, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley and author of The New Media Monopoly, describes the five media giants as a “cartel” that wields enough influence to change U.S. politics and define social values.

Read More

Media overlooks serious national security threats

Comment: Media overlooks serious national security threats

by WorldTribune Staff, May 8, 2017

By Frank Vernuccio, New York Analysis of Policy & Government newsletter

The United States may be heading into one of the most dangerous periods in its history.

The Obama Administration’s disinvestment in American national security came at precisely the same time that Russia, China, and North Korea dramatically increased their militaries. Insufficient attention has been given to the alliance between those powers and Iran, Syria, and, if actions do count more than mere words, North Korea.

Russian installation in Managua, Nicaragua. / Getty Images

The threat within America’s own hemisphere from the growing military relationship between Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and several other Caribbean and Latin American with Russia and China, as well as the association between terrorist organizations and criminal elements in Mexico, receives minimal attention.

As this article went to press, questions were raised about a new Russian facility in Nicaragua that may be Moscow’s most significant Western Hemisphere surveillance base. That revelation may be comparatively recent, but Moscow’s sending tanks and troops, and landing its Tupolev nuclear bombers in that Central American nation, have been known for years.

There are two issues worthy of intense examination in this matter. The first is the massive danger the U.S. faces. The second is how that issue has been so thoroughly ignored by so many major media outlets.

One of the crucial mistakes rendered by the Obama Administration was to reject the long-standing doctrine that the U.S. should have the capability to respond to two crises simultaneously. The error of that decision is obvious as the ravages of ISIS, Iran, and Syria continue to plague the Middle East, and North Korea threatens to turn Asia into a tinderbox.

There was no shortage of facts.

Putin committed an additional $700 billion to his military spending, violated nuclear arms accords, invaded Ukraine, and returned to Cold War bases in the west. He opened relations with the Taliban, from whence the 9/11 attack was hatched. He initiated a massive new investment in strategic nuclear weaponry, and altered his nation’s philosophy on when it was appropriate to use battlefield atomic arms, essentially establishing a doctrine that they were just another weapons choice. The Kremlin’s nuclear acceleration came at a time when the U.S. arsenal was shrinking and sliding into obsolescence.

China’s actions were equally worrisome. Its rate of spending was higher even than that of either the USA or the USSR at the height of the Cold War. It has become a military power equal in sophistication to the U.S. By 2020, its navy will be larger than America’s, a truly stunning development. It has engaged in aggressive action against neighboring nations, including the invasion of the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone, a move condemned by the World Court but virtually ignored by the Obama Administration.

Both Beijing and Moscow have shamelessly engaged in cyberattacks on American military, civilian, and corporate targets.

There is widespread agreement that funding cuts under the Budget Control Act, plus a series of continuing resolutions, coupled with the pace of required deployments have damaged the U.S. military. I believe that the damage has gone far deeper than most of us realize, requiring more time and more money to repair than is generally expected … we all have to be clear and candid with the American people.

Despite the sensational nature of these threats, the media has been relatively silent. It failed to probe these questions:

  • __Why, when the military strength of Russia, China, North Korea, and ISIS increased substantially, and the belligerence of those powers expanded, did the Obama Administration move to cut America’s military?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration fail to address Russia’s massive arms buildup?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration fail to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
  • __Why, when Russia was dramatically building up its armed forces, did the Obama Administration withdraw key Army components from NATO countries?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration surrender America’s lead in nuclear weapons to Moscow?
  • __Why was the Obama Administration’s response against the invasion of the Ukraine so trivial?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration ignore Russia’s militarization of the Arctic?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration ignore the Chinese invasion of the Philippine’s Exclusive Economic Zone?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration open up diplomatic relations with Cuba one month after Havana agreed to allow Russian Navy ships to return to the island nation?
  • __Why did the Obama Administration ignore the growing Russian, Chinese, and Iranian influence in Latin America?
  • __Why did former National Security Adviser Susan Rice mislead the public about Russia’s failure to remove chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal, as it was obligated to do?
  • __Why has there been so little coverage of Moscow’s resumption of Cold War nuclear bomber and submarine patrols along the coastlines of the United States?

At any other time, these news stories would be continuous headline news. Now, as America, thoroughly under-prepared, faces an unprecedented threat level across the globe, the press continues to underplay them.

The sins of Tom Brady: The Boston Globe wants you to know he’s deplorable

Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The liberal media owes Tom Brady an apology. For nearly the past year, the New England Patriots star quarterback has been relentlessly criticized by left-wing journalists and sports talk-radio hosts, especially in Boston.

Brady’s alleged crime: He supports President Trump. That’s right. Brady, for simply expressing his backing for the man who won the election — and who is also a close personal friend — has earned the opprobrium of the politically correct Left.

Leading the pack is the Boston Globe.
A recent article titled, “All the President’s Men — Kraft, Belichick and Brady,” summed up the liberal indictment: Patriots’ owner, Robert Kraft, their coach, Bill Belichick, and Brady should be ashamed for having cast their votes for Trump.

Why? Because Trump is allegedly a racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and homophobic bigot. Others, such as the popular sports talk-show, “Felger & Mazz,” have condemned Brady because he refuses to “own up” his support for Trump. They argue that the Pats QB owes it to the public to discuss the reasons for his support of Trump, and that his refusal to do so during numerous press conferences is “cowardly” and craven.

Only in Massachusetts could a quarterback who happened to vote for the Republican winner in the presidential election be labelled a political extremist.

It’s no coincidence the Globe ran an early edition fake headline that the Pats lost in the Super Bowl. Consumed by their hatred for Trump and by extension Brady, the moonbats at the Globe couldn’t even wait for the Atlanta Falcons to have actually won before gloating over the Pats’ supposed demise. READ MORE