Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
   
Posts: 2529/4700
EXP: 20300177
For next: 337895
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 751 days
Last activity: 548 days
|  #1 Posted on 2.12.03 1825.07
Reposted on: 2.12.10 1829.01 | Until I went back and read the transcript, even I didn't believe he said it.(Incidnetally, it is the same MSNBC interview where he says it doesn't matter if Hussein or bin Laden are tried in the US or in the freaking World Court...putz).
We'll see if there is a liberal media on this one. Ownership of the companies is going to get, shall we say, testy.
* * * * *
DEAN: Not with a 10-foot pole, am I touching that one.
Where we’re at right now in this cycle is that we need somebody to mitigate the power of corporations. Corporations are not bad things. They’re neither good nor bad. But the problem is, they’re a bad influence on society if they get too much power, because their basic interest is the bottom line. And they forget that human being have-human beings have souls. We’re not meant to be simply cogs in a machine.
And right now, we’re at that cycle where we are cogs in a machine. When I first went to Iowa, the lesson I learned from about 20 ordinary people was, we don’t trust our employers anymore because they don’t value us, because they’ll move our jobs anyplace, including offshore.
MATTHEWS: How do we reregulate America? Is that what you want to do, put-enforce more public policy?
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: I want accountability. What I really want is accountability. I don’t think it’s OK for ordinary people to invest in mutual funds and then find out that you’ve been cheated in the stock market.
I don’t think it’s OK for Enron to steal ordinary working people’s pensions. If the CEOs goes broke, so be it. They took a lot of risks. They made a lot of money. There are a lot of ordinary people who have nothing to retire on because of what happened at Enron. And its Tyco and its Global Crossing, and again and again. And this administration is permitting it and winking at it. And I’ve had enough of that.
MATTHEWS: What about the Democrats that went along with...
DEAN: And so have the American people.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: Would you have had airline deregulation?
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Travel, the Democrats’ Ted Kennedy was part of that deregulation, the deregulation of radio. There are so many things that have been deregulated. Is that wrong trend and would you reverse it?
DEAN: I would reverse in some areas.
First of all, 11 companies in this country control 90 percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. That’s wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions in every community. We don’t have that because of Michael Powell and what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC.
MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox?
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I’m serious.
DEAN: I’m keeping a...
MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got “The New York Post.” Would you break it up?
DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?
DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not,because, obviously
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?
DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get...
(LAUGHTER)
DEAN: The answer to that is yes.
I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.
MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You’re going to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?
DEAN: What I’m going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.
MATTHEWS: Well, would you break up GE?
(APPLAUSE)
DEAN: I can’t-you...
MATTHEWS: GE just buys Universal. Would you do something there about that? Would you stop that from happening?
DEAN: You can’t say-you can’t ask me right now and get an answer, would I break up X corp...
MATTHEWS: We’ve got to do it now, because now is the only chance we can ask you, because, once you are in, we have got to live with you.
(LAUGHTER)
DEAN: No.
MATTHEWS: So, if you are going to do it, you have got to tell us now.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?
DEAN: Yes, we’re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn’t mean we’re going to break up all of GE.
What we’re going to do is say that media enterprises can’t be as big as they are today. I don’t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... regulate them.
DEAN: You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy.
MATTHEWS: How-how far would you go in terms of public policy?
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: This is not-what you describe is not laissez-faire.It’s not capitalism.
DEAN: It is capitalism.
MATTHEWS: How would you-what would you call it?
DEAN: I am absolutely a capitalist. Capitalism is the greatest system that people have ever invented, because it takes advantage of bad traits, as well as our good traits, and turns them into productivity.
But the essence of capitalism, which the right-wing never understands ” it always baffles me-is, you got to have some rules. Imagine a hockey game with no rules.
* * * * * * * * *
I like how he talks about breaking up companies, then screams "I'm a capitalist." I hope this puts to rest this conservative economic policy garbage we hear about Dean... | Promote this thread! |             | Leroy
Andouille
Level: 87
Posts: 224/2126
EXP: 6294444
For next: 98355
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 7 hours
| #2 Posted on 2.12.03 1852.12
Reposted on: 2.12.10 1852.56 | Well, you can look at this as corporate regulations, or you can look at it as widening media ownership. Do you value the corporation, or the need to have more sources of news and culture? Personally, I value the latter WAY over the former....
Quite frankly, I have zero empathy for media companies - it's not like they are large scale manufacturers with tens of thousands of employees on their payroll. Radio and television are relatively cheap to operate - especially a company like Clear Channel - and can make millions with relative ease, even in smaller markets.
Quite honestly, Dean's got a point here.
(edited by Leroy on 2.12.03 1735) | spf
Scrapple
Level: 130
Posts: 2522/5351
EXP: 25242485
For next: 488161
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 5 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #3 Posted on 2.12.03 1932.28
Reposted on: 2.12.10 1934.43 | | If he's talking about print media or new media where the resources are basically endless, then I would be opposed to this. If however he is talking about the public airwaves which are licensed for usage by the government, then there is no divine right which says Clear Channel gets to own a certain amount of the public airwaves. | Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 56
Posts: 406/772
EXP: 1361534
For next: 36651
Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.
Since last post: 1508 days
Last activity: 1161 days
| #4 Posted on 2.12.03 1935.18
Reposted on: 2.12.10 1935.20 | Yes Clear Channel and Cumulus Broadcasting make a lot of money. They have a lot of stations so they can split the cost of programming.
Take the different morning radio shows for an example. I listen to Bob and Tom on my way to work. I don't know the exact numbers but I guess the entire payroll for B&T is got to be about a million dollars. For the 4 people on the radio, producer, sound people, and whoever else.
A "local" show might cost a quarter as much but would only have about 1% of the listners. So you would have the nationally syndicated radio shows anyway. What difference does it make if Clear Channel has Howard Stern working for them directly or that 200 stations pick him up independantly?
There are always going to be crap like Kasay Kasum and Rick Dees on the radio just because it's cheaper to pay a part of a large cost rather than all of a small cost.
Now if people are talking about rules such as so much time for local programming that is fine. But from a consumer standpoint the radio channels seem pretty much the same. The same generic music, the same nationally syndicated shows, the same national add campaigns.
Also if local radio and t.v. was profitable more people would be doing it. Clear and Cumulus never would have been able to buy around 1,000 channels each in 5 years if those other stations were profitable. | eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 65
Posts: 736/1084
EXP: 2300468
For next: 35172
Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan
Since last post: 2470 days
Last activity: 2466 days
| #5 Posted on 2.12.03 2134.30
Reposted on: 2.12.10 2135.39 | It's not that they aren't making a profit, it's that the nationwide omcpanies throw huge sums of money at them.
Anyway, Harper's has a real interesting article on how Clear Channel works this month. It's kind of creepy how nobody who works for them wants to even mention them by name. | Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 82
Posts: 734/1857
EXP: 5043127
For next: 166122
Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)
Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #6 Posted on 2.12.03 2152.27
Reposted on: 2.12.10 2159.02 | | This might have been a "you gotta see it" thing, but it seems to me, from reading the transcript, that the audience isn't taking Dean seriously and the host is trying to get him to say something stupid. | astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 51
Posts: 497/612
EXP: 968149
For next: 45796
Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH
Since last post: 2062 days
Last activity: 2030 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #7 Posted on 3.12.03 0103.54
Reposted on: 3.12.10 0108.44 | | Damn! Looking at the headline, I thought Dean was petitioning for more Adult Swim. ;) | drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 113
Posts: 1685/3923
EXP: 15635004
For next: 183605
Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
| #8 Posted on 3.12.03 0115.45
Reposted on: 3.12.10 0115.50 | Originally posted by astrobstrd
Damn! Looking at the headline, I thought Dean was petitioning for more Adult Swim. 
Hells yeah... everyone could use some more Brak Show. And ATHF. Sealab, only if it's eps that are more like the Bizarro one than "Uh-oh". | Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 46
Posts: 292/472
EXP: 660234
For next: 51545
Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley
Since last post: 77 days
Last activity: 18 hours
| #9 Posted on 3.12.03 0146.03
Reposted on: 3.12.10 0146.07 |
MATTHEWS: This is not-what you describe is not laissez-faire.It’s not capitalism.
DEAN: It is capitalism.
MATTHEWS: How would you-what would you call it?
DEAN: I am absolutely a capitalist. Capitalism is the greatest system that people have ever invented, because it takes advantage of bad traits, as well as our good traits, and turns them into productivity.
But the essence of capitalism, which the right-wing never understands ” it always baffles me-is, you got to have some rules. Imagine a hockey game with no rules.
Laissez-faire is not the definition of capitalism. It is a government policy towards economic activity, and it tends to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
IMO, Dean is making reasonable sense, or trying to, in the middle of an overheated and cooked-up argument. Of course democratic governments need to regulate their economies and sometimes move against monopolies. Monopolies are anti-competitive; competition is the soul of capitalism. I don't think you have to advocate a totally unfettered robber-baron style economy to support the basic idea of private enterprise. It's absolutely possible to go overboard on regulations--I'm no Euro-socialist--but some companies have become the modern equivalents of the medieval "over-mighty subject".
MM | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 2531/4700
EXP: 20300177
For next: 337895
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 751 days
Last activity: 548 days
| #10 Posted on 3.12.03 0559.03
Reposted on: 3.12.10 0559.22 | | My big problem with Dean is that he continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I've railed on this board about how bad Clear Channel is. Unfortunately, Dean however blames capitalism as a whole instead of just addressing the issues of media ownership. The public does own the airwaves. It is in the FCC perview to limit how much the companies control. But "breaking up" a company that does not have a monopoly treads on dangerous ground. Even Standard Oil and MaBell were full monopolies when they got smashed. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 235/2662
EXP: 8143039
For next: 213649
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
| #11 Posted on 3.12.03 0848.39
Reposted on: 3.12.10 0851.26 | Well said Madame Manga. Here in Western Kansas, we essentially have no local radio except when they broadcast local hihg school and juco sports. Everything is syndicated, including most of the music stations. We do get the odd community programming at 4:00 in the morning. We essentially have repeater stations. I know of one locally owned paper in an eleven county area. They are owned by big, and I mean big, corporations who bottom line almost everything. Our founding fathers, especially Jefferson, knew the value and absolute necessity of a free press. The major networks are so in bed with major corporations that they ae not capable of reporting the truth in many area before GE or Disney gives them the green light.
I like Matthews, but this was weak. Dean was rightly trying to speak about a guiding philosphy, what's wong, and what in generally terms should be down. Pinning him down to specific corporations wa just a cheap ploy to make news and make dean squirm. he was smart enough not to allow himself to be pinned down. Preety cheap tactic with no real value. | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 2532/4700
EXP: 20300177
For next: 337895
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 751 days
Last activity: 548 days
| #12 Posted on 3.12.03 0923.08
Reposted on: 3.12.10 0923.31 | Incidentally, did anybody reading the transcript catch this?
DEAN: Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons.
So four times he mentioned a country that hasn't existed in over a decade. Is anybody going to jump on him like they did Bush for less obscure snafus?
| redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 149
Posts: 3107/7528
EXP: 41082473
For next: 252762
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 9 min.
Last activity: 9 min.
| #13 Posted on 3.12.03 1023.32
Reposted on: 3.12.10 1024.23 | A few points from some of Dean's statements:
The Soviet Union is back? Well, I guess Nikita Koloff might be able to get a job from Vince soon.
Onto the radio/TV talk:
(Not our) Dean is bitching about only 2 or 3 stations carrying local news? First, if their is a groundswell among the humanoids for local news, those stations will benefit in the Arbitron ratings, thus causing the other stations to either reconsider their stance to regain the audience or sacrafice that audience to the people broadcasting local news. As an example, when I'm listening to WFAN in New York during the day, I'm really hoping that they decide to bail out of their sports talk format and provide local news from New York. That's definately what I the listener desire.
Now, onto the idea of breaking up FOX etc. Well, if we are breaking up FOX because they own newspapers and TV, (not the real) Dean's friends at the New York Times will be looking at getting broken up. They own newspapers in other markets, and, they own the Red Sox (who also own a TV network). Thus, they also own TV and newspapers. And, Cubs fans rejoice, the Tribune company that owns the Cubs and Superstation WGN and newspapers will have to break up once (not the real) Dean becomes President, as they own several outlets. And let us not get into Viacom, and its owning TWO over the airwaves networks (CBS and UPN). And General Electric and Microsoft collaborating? That wreaks of antitrust under (not the real) Dean's philosophy. The way (not the real) Dean's philosophy sounds, throw out your cable boxes and dishes, dump the remotes, and return back to the days of the 3 networks only. | Leroy
Andouille
Level: 87
Posts: 225/2126
EXP: 6294444
For next: 98355
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 7 hours
| #14 Posted on 3.12.03 1029.58
Reposted on: 3.12.10 1032.29 | Originally posted by Grimis
My big problem with Dean is that he continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I've railed on this board about how bad Clear Channel is. Unfortunately, Dean however blames capitalism as a whole instead of just addressing the issues of media ownership. The public does own the airwaves. It is in the FCC perview to limit how much the companies control. But "breaking up" a company that does not have a monopoly treads on dangerous ground. Even Standard Oil and MaBell were full monopolies when they got smashed.
Dean never blamed capitalism for media consolidation in that interview. Not even subtlety...
Corporations aquire other corporations. That's how things work, and it's been that way for a LONG time. And the FCC regulations that prevented the consolidation have been rolled back steadily since the 80's - it's better to do something now than wait for monopolies to form, for many reasons (although it may even be too late now). Especially with regards to media....
Again, these aren't corporations that manufacter products or services - they literally control information and who has access to it.
Originally posted by Grimis
So four times he mentioned a country that hasn't existed in over a decade. Is anybody going to jump on him like they did Bush for less obscure snafus?
You think Bush's "snafus" are LESS obscure? Okay, then... | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 237/2662
EXP: 8143039
For next: 213649
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
| #15 Posted on 3.12.03 1041.37
Reposted on: 3.12.10 1042.25 | Leroy's point is well taken. Controlling access to information is really important to a democracy. Having a few corporations control it all is scary, especially when their intent is brainwashing the public, on either side.
All the attempts by many who support Bush to destroy Dean tell me one thing. Dean's message must be polling well and they are scared, very scared. For help in destroying him properly instead of both sides engaging in a debate please contact Liddy and company. I'm sure they have some tricks left. Seriously, if Dean is as much of a flake as many on the right think,. it will come out in a vigorous discusion of ideas and he will be laughed out of town. And incidentally, I am not even a Dean supporter. | PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76
Posts: 928/1528
EXP: 3851864
For next: 154215
Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 2312 days
Last activity: 2155 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #16 Posted on 3.12.03 1930.03
Reposted on: 3.12.10 1930.12 | Originally posted by DrDirt
Leroy's point is well taken. Controlling access to information is really important to a democracy. Having a few corporations control it all is scary, especially when their intent is brainwashing the public, on either side.
Boooo... evil brainwashing corporations.
This all sounds like so much pap to yours truly. A few corporations control the papers and the evening news, yes. Even the radio. But they do not control the internet, this marvelous, widely accessible source of information and pornography. If you wish to be well read these days, it's fairly easy to access any newspaper from any market, foreign or domestic. Ditto foreign broadcast services like al Jazeera and its pro-Arab cousin the BBC (ha ha ha). [Tangent: Does the BBC being government-owned bother you, Dirt?]
We're all free to turn off the TV; this is a free market. We don't need the iron fist of Dean to come in and rescue us all from evil corporations; that's what freedom of choice is for (incidentally something Mr. Dean doesn't seem to believe in, cf. his stance on right-to-work laws).
(edited by PalpatineW on 3.12.03 2050) | MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 86
Posts: 1529/2076
EXP: 6096950
For next: 45181
Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 13 hours
| #17 Posted on 3.12.03 2203.20
Reposted on: 3.12.10 2204.01 | | Other than your pro-poverty position on "Right-to-freeload" laws (hey, a good union man such as myself has to use such rhetoric) I pretty much agree with your thoughts. If Internet access were as Universal as TV access, the whole "whether to break up media monopolies" argument would be moot - other than for the blind of course. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 241/2662
EXP: 8143039
For next: 213649
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
| #18 Posted on 4.12.03 0836.07
Reposted on: 4.12.10 0836.23 | Originally posted by PalpatineW
Originally posted by DrDirt
Leroy's point is well taken. Controlling access to information is really important to a democracy. Having a few corporations control it all is scary, especially when their intent is brainwashing the public, on either side.
Boooo... evil brainwashing corporations.
This all sounds like so much pap to yours truly. A few corporations control the papers and the evening news, yes. Even the radio. But they do not control the internet, this marvelous, widely accessible source of information and pornography. If you wish to be well read these days, it's fairly easy to access any newspaper from any market, foreign or domestic. Ditto foreign broadcast services like al Jazeera and its pro-Arab cousin the BBC (ha ha ha). [Tangent: Does the BBC being government-owned bother you, Dirt?]
We're all free to turn off the TV; this is a free market. We don't need the iron fist of Dean to come in and rescue us all from evil corporations; that's what freedom of choice is for (incidentally something Mr. Dean doesn't seem to believe in, cf. his stance on right-to-work laws).
(edited by PalpatineW on 3.12.03 2050)
No Palp, uninvolved public allowing themselves to be brainwashed. Corporations are not evil or good, the people in charge are. How long do you think that the internet will remain the Wild West? And in reality, how "free" do you really think the internet is? And as far as freedom of choice goes, when the media is as incestuous as it is, how much choice is there? | Leroy
Andouille
Level: 87
Posts: 227/2126
EXP: 6294444
For next: 98355
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 7 hours
| #19 Posted on 4.12.03 1142.18
Reposted on: 4.12.10 1145.22 | Originally posted by MoeGates
If Internet access were as Universal as TV access, the whole "whether to break up media monopolies" argument would be moot - other than for the blind of course.
But the reality is most people do not have access to the internet. Broadcast radio and television are where most people get their information - especially in poor or rural areas.
And for the rocord, Palp, you are the only one who brought up "brainwashing". It's a well known fact that stations are not going to air news or entertainment programming that will cost them advertising.
Case in point - Anybody else see the HBO Sports story on the ESPN drama "Playmakers"?
Edit: Actually, Dr.Dirt brough up brainwashing first... my bad.
(edited by Leroy on 4.12.03 1057)
(edited by Leroy on 4.12.03 1122) | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 248/2662
EXP: 8143039
For next: 213649
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
| #20 Posted on 4.12.03 1232.39
Reposted on: 4.12.10 1238.52 | Originally posted by Leroy
Originally posted by PalpatineW
If Internet access were as Universal as TV access, the whole "whether to break up media monopolies" argument would be moot - other than for the blind of course.
But the reality is most people do not have access to the internet. Broadcast radio and television are where most people get their information - especially in poor or rural areas.
And for the rocord, Palp, you are the only one who brought up "brainwashing". It's a well known fact that stations are not going to air news or entertainment programming that will cost them advertising.
Case in point - Anybody else see the HBO Sports story on the ESPN drama "Playmakers"?
Agreed, internet access out here is very expensive and out of the reach of many. And even with cheap computers, a large class of people only see them if they're kids in school.
And while not brainwashing, you can get your beliefs across by simply repeating something over and over. It enters the minds of people not taking the time to be informed and becomes part of ther view. Remeber the poll on the facts of the recent war and how Fox viewers misconceptions came from Fox.
I am not comparing this to these examples, please. Remeber how Hitler and Co. knew the value of a big lie told loud and often. Huey Long knew it. If you tell people something long enough and with enough conviction, many will believe it. That is the danger in this.
The ESPN/Playmakers example is well played. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
