FCC commissioner who approved Comcast/NBC merger

why? was the merger suspicious? did she cast the deciding vote?

It doesn't matter if it's suspicious - look: the companies in question most certainly benefit from the merger, she helped approve the merger, then four months later is getting a cushy job.

The merger itself (although centralization of control of the airwaves is no great thing) is irrelevant to the fact that she basically took a bribe, and was very open about it.

of course it matters you don't accuse her of taking a bribe when she might actually just been doing her job.

"Ms. Baker will not be allowed to lobby any executive branch or agency official on matters related to the Comcast-NBC merger for the remainder of the administration. The F.C.C. voted 4 to 1 in January to approve the merger, subject to several conditions."

so unless it's suspicious I see no sign of a conflict of interests or foul play.

so that's why I ask what's important about this particular merge, i know nothing about this particular case, but no one has even answered. sure it's okay to raise concern but instanly crying bribe, amounts to the same as defaulting to "osama's death is a lie".

but i don't really care about this anyway, I was just trying to be informed.

2

i know its hard to use google, but thd merger brings issues with media consolodation and net neutrality to the forefront. that it was passed 4 to 1 and no one made a big fuss is because the power and money are already consolidated in corporate america.

campaigning obama was against things this lol

  On 5/12/2011 at 7:11 PM, GORDO said:

of course it matters you don't accuse her of taking a bribe when she might actually just been doing her job.

 

"Ms. Baker will not be allowed to lobby any executive branch or agency official on matters related to the Comcast-NBC merger for the remainder of the administration. The F.C.C. voted 4 to 1 in January to approve the merger, subject to several conditions."

 

so unless it's suspicious I see no sign of a conflict of interests or foul play.

 

so that's why I ask what's important about this particular merge, i know nothing about this particular case, but no one has even answered. sure it's okay to raise concern but instanly crying bribe, amounts to the same as defaulting to "osama's death is a lie".

 

but i don't really care about this anyway, I was just trying to be informed.

I think you missed the point. The merger is already happening. It's after the fact. It's easy to say she can't take place in any lobbying after the merger has taken place and she is already in her cushy corporate job at the companies she approved to merge.

  On 5/12/2011 at 7:11 PM, GORDO said:

informed.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/?partner=rss&emc=rss

and yeah sure - she's not allowed to lobby the FCC directly - she can still lobby Congress, and since she lives in D.C. whoops look who she ran into at lunch, why it's the FCC commissioner. Just a harmless lunch. wink wink.

I dunno if you're just being deliberately obtuse here...

I find it hard to believe that the senior vice president of government affairs, will not have any contact with... the government.

also, she probably has all sorts of inside info about the department, the members, procedures, etc.

  On 5/12/2011 at 9:40 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 5/12/2011 at 7:11 PM, GORDO said:

informed.

 

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

and yeah sure - she's not allowed to lobby the FCC directly - she can still lobby Congress, and since she lives in D.C. whoops look who she ran into at lunch, why it's the FCC commissioner. Just a harmless lunch. wink wink.

 

I dunno if you're just being deliberately obtuse here...

moot. so you think FCC commissioners don't ever have friends or lunch with colleagues who work for private industries? (unless they been bribed i guess, right?) what is her advantage?

I'm not being obtuse; unless she breaks the rules or has already there's no reason to be scandalous. if you can prove that the job was in exchange for the vote then go ahead and get mad, and inside info is not illegal info, it's insight. anyway whatever, i don't care.

is this really the best kind of system though? can you not see the conflict of interest? really?

  On 5/13/2011 at 4:13 PM, GORDO said:

  On 5/12/2011 at 9:40 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 5/12/2011 at 7:11 PM, GORDO said:

informed.

 

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

and yeah sure - she's not allowed to lobby the FCC directly - she can still lobby Congress, and since she lives in D.C. whoops look who she ran into at lunch, why it's the FCC commissioner. Just a harmless lunch. wink wink.

 

I dunno if you're just being deliberately obtuse here...

 

moot. so you think FCC commissioners don't ever have friends or lunch with colleagues who work for private industries? (unless they been bribed i guess, right?) what is her advantage?

 

I'm not being obtuse; unless she breaks the rules or has already there's no reason to be scandalous. if you can prove that the job was in exchange for the vote then go ahead and get mad, and inside info is not illegal info, it's insight. anyway whatever, i don't care.

I can't prove it because I don't have access to her private e-mails. Although if she's smart, none of this will have been written down anywhere.

Insider info is actually illegal, especially when dealing with government regulatory agencies.

Since i happen to think that the merger will be bad for consumers, and the FCC is supposed to be looking out for the public's best interest, I do in fact think she was negligent in her duties.

  On 5/12/2011 at 7:38 AM, Jonas said:

greed, how does it work?

well there's the government. it's a pretty decent system, all things considered. it's driven by the opinions of the populace. to control the government, you have to control the opinions of the people. to control people's opinions, you have to control the media. to control the media, you have to have a fuckload of cash. from there it gets a lot more hazy

in any case, what is NBC? a television channel? i'd think the tmobile/att merger rates much higher !

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fcc_baker/

and as to why the merger is controversial - Media control and consolidation

ok so she isn't for net neutrality and now is out of the regulatory organism... that looks to me like a huge victory for net neutrality.

depends on her replacement.

also the damage has already been done in terms of this merger and the AT&T/t-mobile merger.

so, we all agree this crap is horrible.

what am i supposed to do about it, other than be outraged?

To be a devil's advocate: I don't think the problem is people who switch jobs from regulatory instances to private organizations and back. At least, not per se. I'm sure some of you have read "Too big to fail". If you have: what was the effect of having Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, as secretary of the Treasury?

An obvious huge pro is that he's got all the connections. If he needs to get something done, he can approach people directly. This is simply not the case for an "objective" outsider.

And the "'s are there for a purpose: in those roles no-one will ever be a totally objective outsider. You have to know and understand so many things, your objectivity is already out the window by having just the expertise.

After having read the book, I seriously can't see huge points where Paulson might have done things which showed his interests pushing him into the wrong side of the coin, so to speak.

I don't think having an outsider instead of Paulson would have helped much either. There was a regulatory problem, of course. But that had more to do with law and regulations itself, than with the people doing their job, IMO. In other words: the problem would be that regulatory institutions haven't got the proper set of tools to regulate.

i watched some julian assange interview, and one point he made really stuck in my mind -- government, corporations, and media have gradually been merging into some sort of whatever. the media is no longer the media, with its own brain. it's all govcorpmedia. ocp owns the cops. that's where it's headed, anyways.

as with fiefs and feudalism, then factories and consumerism, the point is for empowered people to siphon as much as they can off the backs of others.

a secretary with connections is also a secretary with loyalties and a prepackaged worldview. furthermore, just because he's worked here and there doesn't mean he's worth a shit. people these days confuse a good resume with competency!

  On 5/16/2011 at 9:26 AM, hahathhat said:

i watched some julian assange interview, and one point he made really stuck in my mind -- government, corporations, and media have gradually been merging into some sort of whatever. the media is no longer the media, with its own brain. it's all govcorpmedia. ocp owns the cops. that's where it's headed, anyways.

 

as with fiefs and feudalism, then factories and consumerism, the point is for empowered people to siphon as much as they can off the backs of others.

 

a secretary with connections is also a secretary with loyalties and a prepackaged worldview. furthermore, just because he's worked here and there doesn't mean he's worth a shit. people these days confuse a good resume with competency!

Interesting points.

I truly believe all the people involved in situations like these are normally doing the jobs they are supposed to do (and to their best intentions), and that they are competent.

Using some kind of darwinistic reasoning, it's not too difficult to come to a point-of-view where someone's CV actually can say something about someones competence. Having been a ceo of GS says something, whether you regard it as competent or not.

And anyone has a prepackaged worldview and loyalties. The question is, whether that person has the right set of loyalties and prepackaged views. Again, in the case of Paulson, I can't pinpoint specific points where I would argue that he had the wrong set of loyalties/worldviews.

I see the problem more as inherent to the system. Like curtis has argued in the trap. Or like discussed in the zeitgeist movies. (that doesn't mean i agree with their solutions, btw!). People are doing their job, like the parts in a clock would. The problems emerge from the entire system. And most of the time you just can't blame specific parts for the behavior of the entire system. It may have been the architect who was screwing up. Or it may have been that the times are changing, and the older systems should have been revised.

(Interestingly, what curtis is probably going to argue in his new series, is that the fact we look at it as if it were a clock, is part of the problem in and of itself. might be, but what would an alternative look like? ...I can't wait!)

And on the Assange point: that somehow seems inevitable. It's some sort of globalisation of not only the markets, but also governments, media, institutions and corporations. It's hard to imagine a world where these things are getting untangled. And it's also debatable whether one should, or not. To me, it's more of a case of acceptance and looking for a way to (counter)balance the powers.

But, again, I'm stoked for the new Curtis! (I demand new point-of-views and solutions!)