Trump Campaign Releases Statement Threatening That Trump Administration Will “Break Up” Media Conglo

... and then President Clinton can call on them to send her a bill that DOES it.

Perfect.

work your way down.

And we as a nation control broadcasting. We don't have to give it to corporations.

You can't be trying to justify that, can you?



The reason he wants to break up the large media outlets is that they have the financial resources to fight back at him. He knows he can't win a lawsuit against the NYTimes, but he can put a smaller organization out of business -- and has.

and 'opening up the libel laws' could only be done by the courts and their interpretations.

with the lawyers and resources to fight back. So he wants to break them all down into the size that he could take on -- and break them financially even if he didn't win the lawsuit in the long run.

that control the media intact, so they can protect themselves--and therefore us--better?

Sounds like a great plan, certainly has been working like a charm lately!

Oh wait: those were the big media corporations that gifted us Donald J Trump already, for fucking ratings.

I don't think so.

Notice he isn't going after right wing radio outlets that run Rush and his ilk.

I'm no fan of mega corporations, but I'm also no fan of threats from presidential candidates to retaliate against outlets because they've been critical of a campaign.

What's next, targeting individual journalists he doesn't like? Oh wait, he's done that too.

was the statement I was responding to, and taking issue with...and which was the subject of this sub-thread

I'm not defending that ass Trump, I'm defending the concept of breaking up the media conglomerates...which, as you may know but the poster I was responding to apparently does not, the NYT and Washington Post are not part of (btw, the WaPo would be tough for that fraud to take out, since the owner is far richer than he is).

the NYT and WA Post, sending a lawsuit letter to NYT; and complaining that the WA Post is owned by "Amazon."

I also know that both companies are privately owned, not part of big media conglomerates. And Jeff Bezos owns WaPo; the fact that he also owns Amazon does not make that a "conflict of interest", no matter what Trump says.

Once more, with feeling: I was clearly referring to media conglomerates, as it seemed you were ("he wants to break them all down", which should have been clear by my reference to anti-trust laws.

A letter from his attorney, and a complaint? Trump is a bully and a coward, and nowhere as rich as he claims. He won't be following up on his threats as a private citizen, and he's never going to be anything else.

But the media conglomerates do need to be broken up, and taken out of the infotainment business.

and ONLY self-interest.

Notice he did not talk about breaking up Fox.

But the breakup of the media conglomerates would be a very good thing--in someone else's hands (as the above poster suggested, in accordance with the anti-trust laws).

The only good thing about his BS is that it brings to the forefront some issues that too many have ignored for too long (looking at you, Democratic Party).

It used to be six. But five, six ... it's still a silly BS meme.

The corporations typically cited as controlling the "media" are Comcast/NBCU, ABC/Disney, News Corp/Fox, Time Warner Inc (now possibly TW Inc/ATT/DIrecTV), and CBS/Viacom. I suppose the sixth would be Charter/Time Warner Cable.

Now, some of these are vertically integrated companies with broadcast stations, broadcast networks, movie studios, and cable and/or satellite distribution. News Corp/Fox has a two large print publication (but no cable or satellite); Charter/Time Warner Cable basically has cable systems and not that much else other than a couple of regional sports networks. Time Warner Inc/ATT/DirecTV will have Time Magazine and other magazines.

It sounds impressive until you realize that there four other satellite/cable distribution companies out there with a combined total of nearly 30 million subscribers. That ownership of the 25 largest newspapers in the country is divided among 20 different companies, 19 of which are never listed as among the companies controlling the media. Plus, the largest group owners of tv stations include several companies not included on that list as is also the case for the largest radio station group owners.

Plus, the total number of tv and radio stations is dramatically higher than it was a few decades ago. And I haven't even mentioned the Internet -- companies like Netflix, with over 30 million subscribers, an almost infinite number of websites not controlled by whatever five or six companies supposedly control the media, and a few new behemoths, such as Google -- probably the company we should all be most afraid of.

The reality is that we have vastly more choices in terms of the sources of information and entertainment (which is what I assume folks are referring to when they say "media" than we did not all the long ago. When I was growing up, my choices were limited to some AM radio stations and maybe five tv stations (of which three were affiliates of a national commercial network, one was a public broadcasting station and the third was an "independent" station that featured mostly re-runs and old movies) and two local newspapers. I'd take today over that world any day of the week.

with heavily centralized control of the media, because you have more choices on what to watch on the teevee.

"more choices in terms of the sources of information" doesn't mean squat when they are all toeing the company line, playing false equivalency games and the fair and balanced scam. These fuckers, with their all-pundit both-sides-of-every-story BS--as opposed to actual facts--bear a huge part of the blame for our dysfunctional political system. Chuck Todd is a fine example of the crap, while Joy Reid shows how it should be done.

But hey! at least you're not stuck with re-runs and old movies so it's all good.

It looks like he's not saying it's the size that's the problem, it's that they don't support him. Murdoch's 21st Century Fox/News Corporation, despite being huge, doesn't get mentioned. That looks like an attack on the freedom of the press. The statement also names the New York Times, which is not a 'massive conglomerate' by anyone's definition.

He's pandering to his base. "the beatings will continue until morale improves"

There's also this little thing called the First Amendment that prohibits government action against news organizations in order to intimidate them, which is what this sounds like. There's also the Fourteenth Amendment that promises "due process" and "equal protection" under the law, so the government can't single out particular organizations for intervention based on their politics.

Cable news also isn't, technically, "broadcasting." It's not going out over the publicly owned airwaves, so cable news outlets are also immune.

In fact, the outlets most vulnerable to this sort of action would be network TV and hate radio. Interesting, though, how Trump isn't threatening to go after Rush Limbaugh, or the various right wing radio conglomerates. Only outlets that have dared to call out Trump for the serial liar that he is.

For information, it's not about the First Amendment, it's about antitrust enforcement.

'The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 became law while Theodore Roosevelt was serving on the U.S. Civil Service Commission, but it played a large and important role during his presidency.
When Theodore Roosevelt’s first administration sought to end business monopolies, it used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as the tool to do so. Passed after a series of large corporate mergers during the 1880s, this Act enabled government departments and private individuals to use the court system to break up any organization or contract alleged to be in restraint of trade. The federal government used the Act to invalidate formal and informal arrangements by which different companies in the same industry set prices, though for the first decade of its existence the Act did little to slow the rate of business mergers.
This changed when, in 1904, President Roosevelt urged his Justice Department to dismantle the Northern Securities Corporation. This entity was a holding company, a combination of separate railroads administered by a Board of Trustees. At issue was its control of railroading in the northern tier of the United States from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Northern Securities Corporation violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the first major example of trust-busting during Roosevelt’s presidency.'

http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Sherman-Act.aspx

is preventing a lunatic from buying the government. The only price they are setting is the price on his head

They need broken up, but not by this buffoon.

There's no more Fairness Doctrine; Pres Clinton allowed for media ownership consolidation; the TV networks' News Divisions were absorbed by their Entertainment Divisions. These are the problems with today's media. But I'm sure Trump's solutions won't address these issues, just his own.

Antitrust Division.

Not EVERYTHING he says is wrong.

completely self-serving.

In this case, he knows he'd have more success suing smaller outlets that don't have the resources to defend themselves. So he'd love to make them all Gawker-size.

Printed press, radio, local TV news and finally cable news, they're all seeing their profits collapse.

Also, this would held so long in the court, that it may not be done in 8 years if at all because first amendment issues
are mixed in with partisan and business / person (sic) issues.

This would be a big ass mess.

Preventing concentration of media production and distribution is one thing, but stopping concentration of the press would be harder.

media companies, given the vast array of sources of information and entertainment available.

.... it didn't work real well.




BTW Don the US Constitution amendment #1.

He was making a point that the tide would not obey him even though his flatterers said so.

So he can fail even biglier

The Trump campaign seems to think its still relevant

or influencing voters

Pathetic

That was the key to his dictatorship, not gun ownership BS.

Chavez's thugs actually came for him but someone had tipped him off so he escaped and got asylum here. Damn immigrants!

Breitbart, Fox News, RT and Sputnik News.

given everything that's happened lately, though, I wouldn't trust any news they broadcast.

I just took a look at both Sputnik News and RT's front pages – you would think they'd try to at least make it less obvious that they want Trump to win. It's laughable to say they don't have a dog in the game.

Top headlines regarding US Politics from RT:
#Podesta16: WikiLeaks releases fresh batch of emails from Clinton campaign chair
The whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has released a new tranche of emails from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta.

Trump outlines first 100 days in office, swears to end US media’s abuse of news coverage
Donald Trump has outlined plans for his first 100 days in the White House if he wins the presidency. The outspoken critic of US media promised to stop American news conglomerates from abusing their power and change the way the country is run in general.

Brent Budowsky to RT: ‘Washington has evidence Russia hacked US’… no proof though
US intelligence has “evidence” that links Russia to meddling in the US elections, The Hill columnist Brent Budowsky told RT, yet failing to name exact facts, not disclosed by American authorities either.

Goldman Sachs CEO says ‘of course we engage’ with Hillary Clinton, admits support
CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, has publicly admitted to being “supportive” of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, saying: “Yes, so flat out, yes, I do.”



And from Sputnik News:

WikiLeaks Reveals Plans to Expose Clinton Adviser Benenson

WikiLeaks: Big Donors Expect Hillary Clinton to 'Tweak' Policy in Their Favor

Clinton's Campaign Chair Lost Phone in 2015, Used Insecure Mailbox Password

WikiLeaks Releases 17th Batch of Clinton Campaign Chair's Leaked Emails

Trump May Partially Revoke Anti-Russia Sanctions If Elected US President

Russian Ambassador-at-Large Surprised by Active CIA, FBI Role in US Vote

All in the Family: Trump Attackers Go After Ivanka’s Business

Poll Shows Trump 0.3% Ahead of Clinton 2 Weeks Before Election

Media Paints ‘Definite’ Victory for Hillary Clinton Two Weeks Ahead of Elections

thing. Control of the media.

and sue 'em all, and break them! and the whole country will watch only trump news and never a bad word will be heard.

I do support breaking up the big media companies.

However, I suspect Trump wants to do it simply as revenge. I doubt that a breakup would succeed with those motives.

Uh, yeah

What a bunch of rubes he found in the fringes of the gop

Donald,
Your such a joke when it comes to your policies. Freedom of the Press that seems to be talking about you 24/7.

Just because trump gets something right occasionally doesn't mean he's not a dangerous buffoon. The media oligarchy does need to be broken up. I don't believe trump is the one to do it. He'd sooner turn the media into a single voice for his own agenda.

By the same token it was Bill Clinton who got the ball rolling on media deregulation, and given the benefit Hillary Clinton has received as the establishment democratic candidate compared to the near media blackout Sanders and O'Malley experienced, I don't expect much action to be taken by her administration on this subject.

This is a good example of a subject I'm having to let go for now in order to prevent the election of trump, sort of a "live to fight another day" approach.

And it's a shame it can't be done because, as former UN Freedom of Expression Rapporteur Frank La Rue stated, media monopolization - rather than state interference - is the biggest threat to press freedom today.

The Ministry of Truth!

but not by Trump. Wish it had been stopped decades ago.

this feeling all along that if he makes president we will be losing a lot of rights. Freedom of speech and press are two of them and now he has made a comment proving me right.

Bury that BOZO, in a landslide. I think that's a little better. I'd never want to insult the near future "Madame President." 😃

he wouldn't be the Republican candidate today. It's the press that made him legit.

But many here seem happy with it, so long as it provides them with distracting entertainment. But because this was another of Bill Clinton's "accomplishments", I doubt very much a Hillary Clinton Administration will do anything about it. What the Obama administration can do is bar the purchase of Time Warner (the entertainment part, not the cable TV part) by AT&T.

Trump is talking out of his hat, as usual and has entirely the wrong motivations. Consolidated media does need to be broken up, not because they criticized him, but because it is bad for democracy.

So says Bill Moyers, a voice usually respected around here. Or is he under the bus now too? I can't keep track.

http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/

But now is a good time to discuss our growing media crises. Twenty years ago last month, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act, signed into law on February 8, 1996, was “essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies,” as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it, and radically “opened the floodgates on mergers.”

The negative impact of the law cannot be overstated. The law, which was the first major reform of telecommunications policy since 1934, according to media scholar Robert McChesney, “is widely considered to be one of the three or four most important federal laws of this generation.” The act dramatically reduced important Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on cross ownership, and allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across the country, increasing their monopoly on the flow of information in the United States and around the world.

But I remember when Clear Channel was allowed to buy up radio and TV stations all across the country in the 1990's, many of the sellers were going broke and happy to have a buyer.

But then they were purchased by Bain Capital and another private equity firms and, as usual, were loaded up with debt and went bankrupt.