I was wondering if this was a joke or the real thing–apparently the site was hacked….but whodunnit? A Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility. What is really bad is that rival news organizations were taking advantage of the situation instead of…you know…pulling together as Americans against a perceived foreign threat. Disgusting.
Rupert Murdoch, is a foreign owner (WSJ) and his motives and ethics are highly suspect. For him to take advantage of a situation like this should be sounding alarm bells. This is why it was put into Communication and Media laws to restrict foreign ownership of our media.
So I went looking for the latest....and yes, they are trying to *cough* reform alien ownership rules. Reform is beginning to be a dirty word to me. It’s doublespeak where the word means something new and progressive, but in real time is a step backward…
From the first link:
The Commission already had in place a policy of reviewing potential foreign ownership in non-broadcast companies where, through a petition for declaratory ruling, a company could seek FCC approval for ownership, and even control, of these entities by non-US citizens or companies. In the recent proceeding, the FCC made such investment even easier, in very general terms easing certain reporting requirements for alien ownership where the interest of a specific alien investor was less than 5% (10 % in some instances), and also allowing an alien individual or group, once approved, to increase ownership without further approval (if the interest is a minority ownership interest, to 49%, and if it was controlling, to 100%), as long as the interest in possibly doing so is revealed in the original request for approval. Allowing investments by affiliates of the foreign owner, and allowing the company that is approved to seek additional licenses, all without additional approvals, was also allowed in many instances.
And doing things in the public interest is a joke. It’s not the public’s interest they are kowtowing to….but corporations whom have given less and less to consumers while demanding more $$. The public interest is not being served.