What's with ABC?

Comments? E-mail: "mailto:dlagarde@suite101.com"

If ever a case proved it is not good for the public interest when a huge media conglomerate controlled TV network media outlets, then ABC's marriage to Disney is it. Here is a big-time situation that proves he who has the gold makes the rules--of course, ABC cannot be expected to air views and products contrary or in competition with Disney. I mean, who would be ridiculous enough to believe they should? Disney (I presume, being a proper business practice, I suppose) has the right to exclude sponsors and products it want to.

But should Disney make ABC make Barbara Walters--or a like individual of her fame and charisma to get folks to do or believe stuff--push Campbell's soups to the point where it is obvious she is pushing a Disney-partially-owned product? Totally shilling for it, above and beyond what is normally expected for a daytime TV host? Does Disney pay her extra, for instance? Where does one draw the line? (Info in this report is from the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Newsletter--subscribe at "http://www.fair.org/"). According to FAIR, ABC responded to this issue by stating that the show on which Walters did her Campbell's ditty, "The View", is entertainment.

Funny, but a lot of hard-news programs these days, seems to me, can only be construed as "entertainment"!

Even more interesting is FAIR's report that Disney-ABC killed a report by an ABC correspondent about pedophilia at a Disney-owned theme park, and ABC's killing of a story about sweatshop conditions in a factory overseas that makes ABC-personality Kathy Lee Gifford-endorsed products. Not to mention ABC's censoring of reports by news personality John Stossel because they were politically incorrect (Stossel is the one who did a very good nightly news magazine show about banning "hate speech" (as defined by the politically correct) as an infringement upon First Amendment-protected free speech.)

Then there is ABC military news analyst Anthony Cordesman advocating in a report that "torture" and "excessive force" should be used by Israel and the so-called "Palestinian Authority" against Palestinian civilians (see link below). Interesting, because the Clinton-Gore administration advocates the same thing. Amnesty International has, rightfully, denounced this report (see link below).

Advocating? What about reporting?

This is just another blatant example of how the major media outlets, TV, radio and print, are become less reporters of the "people's right to know" and more advocates of official government policy. How much more blatant will it get?

Go To Page: 1 2