US

Free Press’ schizophrenic relationship with the FCC

Photo of Mike Riggs
Mike Riggs
Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Bio

      Mike Riggs

      Mike Riggs is a staff writer at The Daily Caller. He has written and reported for Reason magazine and reason.com, GQ, the Awl, Decibel, Culture 11, the Philadelphia Bulletin, and the Washington City Paper, where he served as an arts and entertainment editor.

Consumers who don’t want neo-Marxists and big government types determining where and how they get their news can breathe a small sigh of relief: Free Press, the anti-capitalist media reform group that has infiltrated the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, is on a mission to burn every bridge it built between the anti-capitalist ideology of Robert McChesney and a once-sympathetic Obama administration.

“This is what a failed democracy looks like,” wrote Tim Karr, the public face of Free Press, just last week. “After years of avid public support for net neutrality – involving millions of people from across the political spectrum – the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street’s bottom line.”

Karr was referring to meeting that the FCC held with Verizon, AT&T, Google and other representatives of the communications industry that Free Press would like to see the FCC regulate. While it’s SOP for regulators to meet and greet the people they’ll be, well, regulating, Karr didn’t see it that way.

“The one agency tasked with oversight of communications now thinks it can wriggle free of its obligation to protect the open internet, if only it can get industry to agree on a solution,” Karr wrote on Save the Internet, Free Press’s advocacy site. “In Chairman [Julius] Genachowski’s alternative view of reality, though, the public is immaterial, and industry consensus supreme.”

To get a sense of just how significant Karr’s statement is, consider this: Genachowski was, up until very recently, the closest thing Free Press had to a paladin. President Obama chose the former attorney specifically because he promised to cater to far-left proponents of net neutrality. Genachowski earned his keep by helping write Obama’s net neutrality platform in 2008, a time when the debate over regulating broadband access was still taking place deep in the industry weeds. After being confirmed, Genachowski even hired former Free Press staffer Jen Howard as his spokesperson.

A year into Genachowski’s tenure, Free Press has gone from begging for bones to rabidly biting the hand that feeds them, even going so far as to make stuff up. Karr’s tirade against Genachowski for denying Free Press access to the closed-door meeting with telecommunications insiders? Pure smoke. According to a story Politico ran last week, “Free Press is still taking part in those very meetings through the Open Internet Coalition, of which it is a member. Others point out it was Free Press that hit up the White House at the end of 2009 to meet with key administration officials ahead of the FCC’s initial inquiry on net neutrality.”

This isn’t a stand-alone fib, however. See if you can keep the dates straight on this doozy: Before the group claimed it had been denied entrance to the FCC gathering, Free Press claimed on June 21 that the advocacy group had been invited to a congressional telecommunications overhaul meeting to be held June 25. Perhaps in an effort to drum up sympathy, Rose contacted reporters that same day and denied that Free Press had been invited to the meeting. On June 25, the day of the meeting, National Journal released the list of industry insiders and advocates who attended in an official capacity. Near the top of the list was Derek Turner of Free Press.

  • Pingback: Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror « Internet Freedom Coalition

  • Pingback: July 2 roundup

  • truebearing

    Why are radical revolutionaries being given such access and influence if they aren’t voices Obama is sympathetic with? Obviously they are. So what is their problem with Obama?
    Perhaps it is that they distrust him like so many do because they can see that Obama is not the “true believer”, the rigid, dogmatic, ideologically obssessed fools that they are. They can see that Obama is facile in his ability and willingness to shape shift from Fascist to Marxist to Muslim, as long as it satisfies his rapacity for power and feeds his narcissistic black hole. This doesn’t necessarily match with the doctrinaire Marxist agenda of the ever-so- clever Free Speech nitwits. (who could see through their name?)

    Obama is simply more cunning and duplicitous than even doctrinaire Commies, it seems. Obama is using his rich and foolish friends to help destroy capitalism, and pay off his corrupt comrades, but not necessarily with Mao or Lenin’s playbook. Obama is using every trick in the book and like every leftist dictator of the 20th Century, is using leftist ideology to power his megalomania. Marxism is all fine and dandy for Obama, and it’s adherents useful idiots, but Obama is about Obama, and the far left doesn’t trust him. Even they can see his stratospheric ego could be trouble.

  • Pingback: Internet Roundup | RedState

  • jsminch

    I have nothing intelligent to say, so I’ll make a joke instead:

    There is no “I” in “Team”, but there are two “I’s” in “Schizophrenic.”