Cassady Rosenblum urges the Senate to adopt the House amendments that would restrict U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:

The Senate should embrace these amendments, but lawmakers also need to start asking themselves harder questions about whom the U.S. chooses to befriend in the Middle East and why. Any country that intentionally or recklessly attacks a boat carrying unarmed refugees to safer shores is not an ally that shares our values.

Rosenblum is referring here to the slaughter of Somali refugees at sea that occurred back in March. The U.N. recently reported on the results of their investigation into the attack, and they confirmed that the Saudi-led coalition was responsible. This was already clear at the time, and the government of Somalia said as much back then. The attack on the refugee ship was one of the coalition’s most egregious violations of international law, but as anyone following events in Yemen know it is one in a series of deliberate attacks on civilian targets.

It is certainly true that the Saudi-led coalition does not include allies that share our values, and that was true even before their forces murdered these poor refugees. In fact, none of the governments wrecking and starving Yemen can be called real U.S. allies in any sense. None is a formal treaty ally, the U.S. has no obligations to defend any of them, and their interests also increasingly diverge from ours. The U.S. has often justified working with despicable regimes in the past because it supposedly serves some larger strategic purpose, but in this case the U.S. has supported the Saudis and their allies for the last two and a half years in Yemen out of little more than unthinking habit. There is no good reason for it, and the excuses that have been offered in defense of this policy (“reassurance,” weapons sales, etc.) are pathetically weak.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship is noxious and destructive, and the war on Yemen has made that clear to a growing number of Americans. Let’s hope that more members of the Senate have begun to realize that as well.

read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-war-on-yemen-and-the-...

Just a week after telling the Australian media to be kinder and to stop attacking each other (to howls of laughter), News Corp’s Australian boss Michael Miller joined a chorus of media chiefs who accused the public broadcasters of stealing audiences with their free content, distorting the market for commercial players and aggressively competing for TV shows and online news audiences.

The Australian used its front page to launch an unedifying attack on the ABC and SBS (“Calls to rein in ABC and SBS”) which continued for a couple of days. “Corporate chiefs at News Corp, Fairfax Media, Seven West Media and Nine Entertainment are among a group of industry leaders throwing new weight behind criticisms the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service are overstepping their public service remit,” the report said.

While attacks on the ABC are commonplace at the Oz, SBS was now in Murdoch’s sights. Why? Because The Handmaid’s Tale was a hit. While News Corp hates Netflix as its competition for Foxtel, what they hate even more than the US giant is “free Netflix” or SBS on Demand, which has built an excellent library of quality TV shows, documentaries and classic movies. SBS also bought the online rights to The Handmaid’s Tale, the show of 2017, and the commercial media are jealous.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/04/news-corps-handmaids-fail-...

Meanwhile at the brown coal face:

When the American billionaire John Malone failed in his first attempt to become a major player in the British pay-TV market a decade ago he questioned Rupert Murdoch’s power by dubbing Sky the Death Star. It was a rich comment coming from a man whose fearsome reputation for deal-making in the wild west days of the cable TV market in the 1970s and 80s led Al Gore, the former US vice president, to nickname him Darth Vader.

Last week’s move by Malone’s Discovery – he holds the most voting shares at almost 30% – to buy Scripps Networks in a deal worth $14.6bn (£10.9bn) marks the latest move among the titans of media vying to dominate the global pay-TV market.

The 76-year-old’s global ambitions mean he frequently crosses swords with Murdoch on his way to becoming the most powerful challenger to the octogenarian’s empire in the UK and Europe.

Malone’s latest deal will add UKTV, owner of 10 channels including Dave and Gold, and Food Network, which broadcasts shows such as Nigella Express, to a burgeoning European portfolio that includes Eurosport, which paid almost £1bn for Olympic TV rights, Bear Grylls’s shows and channels including Animal Planet and Discovery.

Over the years Malone’s sporadic skirmishes with Murdoch have varied from fierce to frenemy-like.

Earlier this year, Malone’s Liberty Media bought Bernie Ecclestone’s Formula One in a deal valuing the sport at about $8bn, an asset Murdoch had looked to buy – Sky has TV broadcast rights in the UK, Germany and Italy. He rubbed it in by promptly installing Chase Carey, a former top executive at Fox and once Murdoch’s right-hand man, as chairman.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/05/john-malone-chewing-up-uk-...

It has been something of a tough week for the Holt Street troops. The Daily Telegraph relaunched its website only to see it plagued by teething problems and heavily criticised by readers.

The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph have been “reimagined, re-engineered and redesigned”, the digital editor, Peter Brown, announced on Wednesday. “DailyTelegraph.com.au’s new desktop, tablet and mobile responsive website features a bold and modern new look but most importantly our commitment to agenda-setting, exclusive and breaking news journalism remains at the heart of what we do,” he said. “The look of the site has changed but our passion and dedication to advocate for you and a better NSW has not.”

But most readers who left comments weren’t having a bar of it. Brown was admirably patient, calmly answering every single criticism.

Michael: “This new website is absolutely awful, how do I go back to the old pages. This is hard to look at.”

Brown: “I appreciate the feedback. The old site no longer exists as we have moved to our new responsive website for desktop, tablet and mobile. It would be great if you can describe what you do not like – and do like – so we can include your specific feedback in our ongoing work to make the site better.”

Terry: “It’s crap!”

Brown: “Thanks for the feedback Terry. Are you able to specifically describe ‘crap’?”

read more about this piss week in the media:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/01/daily-telegraph-readers-re...

The problem with the Daily Telecrap is not the presentation which is crass, but with the content presented as "news". It's loaded with ultra-right wing views, bordering on the neo-fascist. But of course we are all discerning intelligent sheep.