Bill Mahr, censored!

So, it seems that a giant media conglomerate has struck again. Bill Mahr, on Larry King Live on Wednesday night (above), made the assertion that many people in high leadership positions in the Republican Party are gay, and he named Ken Mehlman, the current head of the RNC.

In the subsequent rebroadcast of Larry King at midnight, Mahr's naming of Mehlman was edited out of the broadcast.

I just finished watching last night's episode of Bill Mahr's show, Real Time with Bill Mahr, and no mention of gay Republicans.

Before I go any further, and this will come as no surprise to any regular readers of this blog, I don't care if any or all of the leaders of the Republican Party are gay. I really don't. The only issue I would have with it is their fervent anti-gay stance on just about every social issue, including gay marriage, which they want to amend the Constitution to make illegal in all states.

The issue this raises to me is media conglomeration, and how an increasingly consolidated media controls what we hear. In essence, with some exceptions, we only hear what these media giants, and the politicians who benefit from their campaign largess, want us to hear. That ought to frighten every American.

I'll bet everything I'm worth that one or more of the following happened:

1. An attorney representing Ken Mehlman and/or the RNC made a phone call to Time Warner with these threats: a lawsuit; and worse for Time/Warner, the threat that no prominent Republicans would appear or give interviews on CNN, HBO, Time Magazine, etc. Time/Warner owns all three (and a whole lot more).

2. Bill Mahr was told to shut his mouth, which he did on his show last night. No prominent Republicans announced.

Okay, I freely admit that it was stupid of Mahr to even allude to the fact that he was going to out Mehlman, which he ended up doing on Larry King anyway. It's unwise, and he's better have proof, or there would have been a lawsuit, a point I'm sure Time/Warner's lawyers no doubt made to Mahr in fairly animated terms.

But, is it right that a phone call from the RNC or a lawyer can effectively shut someone up? In this case, probably, because Mahr was out of line, IF it's untrue. But, what if Mahr has rock solid proof? The threat of a lawsuit has censored him. That's not good for our democracy.

Neither is media conglomeration, which has taken place at a breathtaking pace under this administration. A Republican-controlled Congress relaxed regulations a few years ago that allowed companies to purchase and own more radio and television stations.

The example above is just one way that this rapid consolidation of ownership can come back and bit democracy in the ass.

Anyone remember the 2004 election-year media censorship? In 2004, The Sinclair Broadcast Group caused a huge controversy when it forbade eight of its ABC-affiliate stations from broadcasting an April 30 episode of a Nightline that was to pay tribute to the 721 soldiers killed by reading their names on the air. The reasons given? That it undermined the war effort. A little investigation uncovered the fact that all of the senior leaders at Sinclair were maxed out contributors to the Bush campaign.

But, Sinclair wasn't done. In October 2004, Jon Lieberman, a Sinclair executive, revealed in an interview with the Baltimore Sun that Sinclair planned to order all 62 (Yes, 62!!!) of its ABC affiliates to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a documentary critical of Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism just two weeks prior to the presidential election. Public outrage followed, and Sinclair aired an edited version, and they fired Lieberman for revealing company business.

If our government prevents something from being broadcast, it's called prior restraint. But, what do you call it if a large media conglomerate friendly with the party in power forbids unflattering material to that party from being aired? Second-degree prior restraint? A threat to a free press and our very democracy is more like it.

I'm very hopeful that the new Democratic-Congress will immediately repeal the relaxed restrictions on media ownership and put in place more sensible restrictions; restrictions that don't put too much power in the hands of enormous media companies, their executives and their stockholders.

Our democracy, and our free press, depend on it. I'll be writing much more about this in the coming weeks and months, including what we can do about it.