If the other government-interest groups won’t play with you, just how far out there must you be?


We have oft discussed just how unpopular the Media Marxist policy oeuvre is.

So it would stand to reason that the purveyors of these unpopular policies aren’t exactly the coolest kids in the room.

But if your fellow Media Marxists find you repulsive to the point of ostracization - you must be way out there.

Ladies and Gentlemen – Free Press.


The latest, predictable, formulaic Media Marxist Big Government push is their outright opposition to the AT&T/T-Mobile merger.

They say that even pages and pages of illegal at-the-point-of-a-gun AT&T policy capitulations – a la the woefully abused Comcast-NBCU marriage – would not be enough to satisfy them.

They have as a part of their rote anti-free market process put together a NoTakeover.org mini-coalition - the same miniscule cast of characters as always.

Well, the same miniscule cast of characters as almost always.  Glaringly absent is Free Press.

Free Press is just as opposed to the merger.  For exactly the same anti-free market pseudo-reasons as their fellow Media Marxists.

But Free Press wasn’t invited to play in NoTakeover.org.


On almost every media policy question going all the way back, Free Press’s positions line up identically with the rest of the Media Marxist mini-gaggle.

And until recently, they were all playing nicely together.

On just the last absurd Media Marxist push – Network Neutrality – Free Press, Public Knowledge and the Media Access Project were all happily hand in hand.

But now, Free Press is on the outside of the tiny room, looking in.  What happened?

This is really a question for Public Knowledge and Media Access Project.  But there are some obvious maybes on which we can postulate.


Free Press routinely goes more than a bit over the line - at times in personal and distasteful ways.

Behold but one egregious example.

Free Press used the January Arizona murderous shootings (which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords miraculously and thankfully survived) to obnoxiously and tastelessly advance their Media Marxist cause.

Free Press-er Tim Karr was a Twitter inanity explosion.  In the midst of the unfolding terribleness, he was again, and again, and again using it to push the Media Marxist agenda:

Drew Weston on Giffords: "a profound indictment of both our media and our political system." http://huff.to/fc8qoz (link)

More on the haters and their media enablers: http://bit.ly/g8UKOX (from @peterdaou) (link)

More on the haters and their media enablers: http://huff.to/fxG2C1 (via @martykaplan) (link)

More on the haters and their media enablers: http://nyti.ms/gMZoet (via @NYTimes) (link)

More on the haters and their media enablers: http://nyti.ms/f4WKLa (via @NYTimeskrugman) (link)

Even more on the haters and their media enablers: http://nyti.ms/go3nm6 (Via Timothy Egan) (link)

And for total detached delusion, there was this:

@jcstearns @JasonBarnett A lot out there. It's amazing how quickly beltway media closed rank w/right to dismiss idea that they enable. (link)

Karr even threw former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin into the no-class blame game mix:

Did Sarah Palin yell "fire" in a movie theater? (link)

There were, in fact, even more.  But you get the idea.

The Free Press response to their Tim Karr behaving in so reprehensible a fashion?

Absolutely none.  Karr’s still there, slinging the same old stuff.

Despicable, and unapologetic.


Perhaps Public Knowledge and Media Access Project find behavior such as this more than a might distasteful.  Thus the recent distance they’ve put between themselves and Free Press.

Despite their identical Media Marxist policy goals.

Now, if only the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would likewise distance themselves from Free Press - rather than cite their absurdities fifty-three times in but a single illegal order.

Hopefully they too will soon reach the same, sensible conclusion as it appears Public Knowledge and Media Access Project have. 


That Free Press is utterly unworthy of consideration or affiliation.