Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concentration of Media

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concentration of Media

    http://tvset.org/fcc_consolidation.html

    The gist of it is this:

    On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission is planning on authorizing sweeping changes to the American news media. The rule changes could allow your local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations, and cable provider to all be owned by one company. NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox could have the same corporate parent.
    More links:

    http://www.mediachannel.org/news/tracker/fcc.shtml

    http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership/

    Mainstream media (not only in the US, but in many other countries as well) is avoiding this like the plague - refusing to even mention it. Meanwhile every media watchdog group in the US is going off the wall. Whether you agree/disagree with it, be aware that it's happening because the mainstream media sure as **** isn't going to tell you.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    They all say the same thing anyway, even the different networks. Your average afternoon news shows have content that are all indistinguishable from one another. It is as if they all got together before airing and decided what was news and what wasn't. The occasional variation to this is also predictable.
    Get the US out of NATO, now!

    Comment


    • #3
      Perhaps it is being under-reported because there isn't actually an issue. At no other time has there been a more diverse and easily accessible number of news sources. Let Big Media foolishly try to corner a market that can't be cornered if that is their desire.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with Tex. The ultimate goal of any media organization is to get the story out first and capture the most viewers. Big corporations would get caught in the information undertow if they try to corner the market, and limit access to information.

        Maybe the smaller media sources can't compete with big corporations individually. Yet, when combined, they can overwhelm larger organizations.

        Since I first got the Internet in 1999, I've increasingly turned to it for my information. Whether it's ordering books, reading up on current events, or researching the past, the Internet gives you a wealth of resources that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS can't. The most informative stories are written by reporters who have yet to be tainted by the cameras and rewards. You don't have to spend hundreds of dollars and clog your mailbox with 2 week old articles. The Internet, not mega-media, is the #1 source for information.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          The trend has been pretty clear. Constant consolidation of the media into fewer and fewer hands.

          Right now something like 6 corporations own around 90% (I forget the actual figures, not in the mood to go look them up) at the national and local level.

          If we run on the assumption that it doesn't matter because they can't control all the media if they tried - then why deregulate in the first place? For what purpose?

          They're obviously going to try - which is why they're lobbying so hard for deregulation in the first place.

          The reason this is alarming, at least to me - is because most people still seem to get most of, if not all of their news from the big networks. The internet is a wonderful medium, but how many people care enough to research things they hear on the "news"? Definately not the majority.

          The ultimate goal of any media organization is to get the story out first and capture the most viewers. Big corporations would get caught in the information undertow if they try to corner the market, and limit access to information.
          Monopolizing the market isn't the easiest way to get the story out first and capture the most viewers?

          Perhaps people would turn to the internet. But I'm betting most people are too apathetic to do so, which means the voters - where the power ostensibly is - can be misinformed (read: war in Iraq).
          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is an issue that has been of continuing, and apparently, of growing concern.
            Not too long ago there was a bit of a controversy up here in Canada when Conrad Black was buying up every newspaper in site.
            The ability to monopolize the media could put an awful lot of power in too few hands.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              Good points MikeJ and tigersqn. I didn't consider either side. I hate the media and see them as a curse and a tool.

              Originally posted by MikeJ

              Perhaps people would turn to the internet. But I'm betting most people are too apathetic to do so, which means the voters - where the power ostensibly is - can be misinformed (read: war in Iraq).
              I believe the public in general lack the ability to understand the complexity of developing foriegn and acting upon foriegn policy. Most people only accept simplistic explanations. Go beyond that, and you run the risk of them drawing misguided conclusions. That's because people tend to resolve complicated discussions using simple equations that doesn't apply.

              Not everyone is as intelligent as this forum. Most people here can accept and resolve foriegn policy issues using more accurate equations such as economic, and long-term value. This is not common. In many cases, I've spoken to people who don't consider the post, but words used in it. If I say there is "no immediate threat," people assume that means war was not justified. It's rarely that simple. One could say Germany was not an immediate threat to the US, thus not warranting our partici-pation in the war in Europe. People rarely consider political forecasting as a justification for much.

              This is not to say people are stupid. Politicians that choose to lie usually fall prey to the public's intelligent analysis. That, in part happened to President Bush during the diplomatic dispute leading up to the war. Instead of lying and telling everyone Iraq was an immeidate threat. He should have focused on making Iraq out to be such a threat diplomacy was no longer acceptable. That doesn't mean Iraq had to be an imminent threat.

              It's kind of like posting on a forum. I'm certain there have been times you wanted to start your post off with telling somebody to go *uck themselves. However, you conclude this would be counter-productive. Thus you rephrase your post to ensure your point is made without detracting from the integrity of your comments. You don't lie, just omit certain things and amplify others.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                I believe the public in general lack the ability to understand the complexity of developing foriegn and acting upon foriegn policy. Most people only accept simplistic explanations. Go beyond that, and you run the risk of them drawing misguided conclusions. That's because people tend to resolve complicated discussions using simple equations that doesn't apply.
                This is true, but it also true that there are many powerful interests in the world who have caused problems because they also only accept simplistic explanations. However in order to protect the threat they pose to human welfare with their wretched values and base beliefs, they offer up falsely posed problems and artificially complicated pictures of what is going on in the world to people who depend on them for information. Sometimes there are simple solutions to the world's problems. Sometimes the simple solution is the only solution and the public would be only to willing to oblige if only they could get the real picture. The problem is not one of intelligence, but rather the corruption of that intelligence. The easiest way to corrupt intelligence is by providing false information to encourage people to cultivate baseless beliefs. It is no suprise when they apply simple equations that don't apply.
                Get the US out of NATO, now!

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X