Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Simon & Schuster is Viacom is CBS is incestuous (You woke up, Rush! media consolidation is bad!)
rushlimbaugh.com ^ | March 22, 2004 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/29/2004 5:42:31 PM PST by Destro

Simon Und Schuster Infomercial

March 22, 2004

Richard Clarke's book is published by Simon & Schuster, which is Viacom, which is CBS. It's incestuous. Paul O'Neill's book was published by Simon & Schuster. He also got a big blurb on 60 Minutes, like Richard Clarke, and in a few weeks, Bob Woodward will have a new book looking at the Bush administration, called "Plan of Attack." It's also a Simon & Schuster/CBS/Viacom book.

Will Bob Woodward go on 60 Minutes before he spends his requisite two weeks on Larry King talking about this book? This is a coordinated assault on the president, during wartime, by a bunch of people hoping to protect their own keisters and rewrite their own legacy. These are Clinton administration people and simpaticos, with the exception of O'Neill, who apparently had some score to settle over something.

This is just the latest onslaught. There have been countless other coordinated attacks like this on this president throughout his three years, and he's still sitting there in the latest CBS/New York Times poll, leading John Kerry handily, and by even a larger margin if you factor Ralph Nader in the race. The economy is doing well, despite all of this. They're launching their best salvos here, folks. They're launching everything they've got, but it's going to land with a thud.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 60minutes; cbs; consolidation; pauloneills; richardclarke; rush; simonandschuster; viacom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
How rich! This from Rush, the (former?) champion of media consolidation. True conservatives (like the NRA) told y'all that media consolidation was bad and restricted information not increased it. I guess Rush can think clearly now that he is not hopped up on goof balls.

Break up ClearChannel - break up Viacom - break 'em all up!

1 posted on 03/29/2004 5:42:32 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Destro
Umm....I think you need to reconsider.
2 posted on 03/29/2004 6:06:15 PM PST by Cosmo (Now, I ain't one to gossip, so you didn't hear this from me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
There's nothing wrong with consolidation - the problem comes from those who are corrupted and don't want to acknowledge the connection.

If Fox can acknowledge their connection to the NYPost, then CBS can acknowledge Viacom and Simon & Schuster.

The reason CBS doesn't want to acknowledge Viacom is because too many Fox viewers/Rush listeners know that Viacom is Hillary's largest donor. Obviously, CBS didn't want Hillary to be connected with Clarke. But .. he is!

And .. your comments about Rush are way over the top, and totally out of line.

And .. please explain to me how Clear Channel is "consolidated".
3 posted on 03/29/2004 6:13:23 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cosmo; Destro
Umm....I think you need to reconsider.
Indeed. What the Destros of this world fail to understand is that media consolidation is an effect of media disintermediation by new or newer media. Rush's point, I think, is simply that CBS and its parent VIACOM colluded to cash in on the victims of 911.
4 posted on 03/29/2004 6:16:24 PM PST by Asclepius (protectionists would oursource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius; CyberAnt; Cosmo
Rush's point, I think, is simply that CBS and its parent VIACOM colluded <p. Is that not the whole point of consolidation of media? Print, radio, television, etc.
5 posted on 03/29/2004 6:47:36 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Destro
No, it's not the whole point!

However, unscrupulous people would use it for that purpose.

I think you're assuming ALL consolidation is bad .. and I just don't agree.

And .. please show me where Clear Channel - who is only radio (as far as I know) is consolidation ..?? You didn't answer that question.
6 posted on 03/29/2004 7:09:49 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Howard Stern fan?
7 posted on 03/29/2004 7:13:23 PM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Clear Channel isn't consolidated with anyone. I think you need to check your own facts before you take such great leaps in the future.
8 posted on 03/29/2004 8:28:31 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
What you're describing is not consolidation of media, what you're getting at is essentially "conflict of interest". The fact that CBS won't acknowledge to the unknowing viewer that Richard Clarke's book is being published by Simon & Shuster (which is owned by Viacom, the parent company of CBS), is disengenious. A media company is doing a service if it lets the viewer know it's being run by a larger company. Like MSNBC saying "MSNBC is a joint venture of General Electric and Microsoft" somewhere in their report of either GE or Microsoft. It's called "public disclosure".
9 posted on 03/29/2004 8:34:31 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper; CyberAnt; finnman69
It is called synergy. Enjoy it.
10 posted on 03/29/2004 9:45:16 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Right! It's called drop and run. Drop the bad info and run like hell.

Get lost - and take your loser comments with you!
11 posted on 03/29/2004 10:27:53 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Destro
It's rich irony indeed. Russell Kirk, whose name Rush sometimes tosses about but whose writing Rush evidently never has read, often warned against conflating conservatism with big business. They're not the same, and big business is often a driving force for radicalism. What do people think the big business of the entertainment industry is? Not to mention the long list of corporations which routinely donate to the radical activists that conservatives despise.

The old Right was as wary of big business as it was of big government. But today we find a foolish cheerleading for both in "conservative" circles, until something of this sort smacks them in the face with the dangers of consolidated power. They won't learn. They'll just spin until their hero comes out and explicitly admits he was mistaken. For that admission, don't hold your breath.
12 posted on 03/29/2004 10:28:27 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; CyberAnt
Well out Pelham. CyberAnt you might not enjoy his post.
13 posted on 03/29/2004 10:39:33 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; CyberAnt
That should read - Well PUT Pelham.
14 posted on 03/29/2004 10:40:14 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
What is ironic is that Rush defended the consolidation and the cross media ownerships that the FCC had recently allowed as being a good thing. It was a good thing - for Clarke that is.
15 posted on 03/29/2004 10:42:40 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Conservatism is not enough:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37800
16 posted on 03/29/2004 11:32:17 PM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
An interesting Farah essay, but flawed IMO.

For European scholars like von Mises and Hayek, 'conservative' has monarchist and class associations that are missing in American usage. The term is especially misleading in their field of economics- for them, an advocate of free markets and limited government is a 'liberal', while for us he is a 'conservative'. We would refer to an advocate of large, intrusive government as a 'liberal', they would call the same advocate a 'socialist'. Von Mises and Hayek, not being defenders of the mercantile system of preferences that characterized pre-'liberal' Europe, naturally rejected the label of conservative. They described themselves as 'liberals'.

Washington is another matter. Some writer on the American War for Independence called it a "conservative revolution", not to be confused with a "radical social revolution" of the French sort. The American revolutionaries were seeking to defend their Rights as Englishmen, which were being infringed by the Hanover monarchy and Parliament after the Seven Years War. When Parliament treated them as second class citizens, and used troops to enforce their edicts, the British North Americans fought back. Their revolution was in the form of goverment they established, not in their social arrangements.
17 posted on 03/30/2004 12:19:56 AM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Is that not the whole point of consolidation of media? Print, radio, television, etc.
No. Not in the least. Some critics decry media consolidation because they argue it limits the options available to media consumers, limits edititorial selection strategies etc.; what they do not seem to get is that media consolidation--like any industry consolidation, e.g. defense industry, automobile industry--is either an artifact of collapsing demand or intense competition. What is causing older media vehicles to consolidate is new and newer media, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. The political right as we know it now could not exist without new media.

As for Rush, he was making a particular point about a particular collusion among particular players without disclosing up front what they were up to, which is what good journalists are supposed to do. This is far more about journalistic ethics than it is about industrial policy. Murdoch's Fox and his publishing arm would not have colluded with a person like Clarke.
18 posted on 03/30/2004 4:45:27 AM PST by Asclepius (protectionists would oursource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I guess Rush can think clearly now that he is not hopped up on goof balls.

Nothing says class like making drug jokes about Rush Limbaugh.

19 posted on 03/30/2004 4:52:24 AM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Consolidation will not stop the demise of propaganda in an age of information.
20 posted on 03/30/2004 5:15:14 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson