# Media soft of Bush in return for relaxation of media ownership rules?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/media-soft-of-bush-in-return-for-relaxation-of-media-ownership-rules/184673>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 27, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/media-soft-of-bush-in-return-for-relaxation-of-media-ownership-rules/184673 "2003-06-27T01:19:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/media-soft-of-bush-in-return-for-relaxation-of-media-ownership-rules/184673/1 "2003-06-27T01:19:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Michael Wolff, the media commentator and New York Magazine columnist, has accused American television networks of “kissing ass” in their coverage of the Iraq war in return for a relaxation of media ownership rules in the US.
> 
> Wolff put forward what he described as the “semi-conspiracy theory” that major media companies in the US meekly followed the flag-waving agenda of the Bush administration in order to persuade the federal communications commission to change its regulations.

> **[US TV networks 'kissed ass', says Wolff](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/25/Iraqandthemedia.broadcasting)**
>
> MediaGuardian war forum: Media commentator Michael Wolff has accused US TV networks of pandering to the Bush administration in their coverage of the Iraq war. By Ciar Byrne.

Why else would Powell and his pubbie brothers on the FCC board fly in the face of all the dissent on the decision? More than 90% of public comment was against lessening the rules. Congress wasn’t thrilled either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/media-soft-of-bush-in-return-for-relaxation-of-media-ownership-rules/184673/2 "2003-06-27T01:52:49Z")

</div>

Powell is an evil dweeb. He said that limiting ownership of media outlets by one corporation was violating the first amendment rights of those corporations because it was limiting the number of subsidiaries they could talk to. Wow, what Orwellian logic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/media-soft-of-bush-in-return-for-relaxation-of-media-ownership-rules/184673/3 "2003-06-27T03:47:03Z")

</div>

The media rolled over and played dead during Grenada and Panama when there was no pending regulatory change. They rolled over, again, in Gulf I when there was no pending regulatory change. I fail to see where their actions were any different in Gulf II than in the three previous invasions. Given that they behaved in exactly the same manner for four consecutive invasions, how would one expect them to have reported this differently if they had _not_ wanted to influence the regulatory process?  
(The media was hardly condemning of Clinton’s actions, for that matter, but the actions undertaken by the Clinton administration tended to not be the sort of full-scale invasion that I have used to show the parallels.)

This looks much more like coincidence than back room dealings, to me.