The W
Views: 98523671
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.8.14 1706
The W - Current Events & Politics - Dean: Brak up Big Media (Page 2)
This thread has 29 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.28
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(1629 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (46 total)
Nicolae Carpathia
Braunschweiger








Since: 10.11.03

Since last post: 3917 days
Last activity: 3857 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.84
When less than a dozen corporations run 90% of all media in a country, that's a very dangerous thing. If preservation of your democracy was important to you, I'd suggest supporting anyone who wishes to dismantle this all too cozy relationship.



Best Buy is really a cult.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1214 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Incidentally, this talks about who owns what.

I think 90% is an enormous miss.



The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.
- Andrew Mellon
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 4 min.
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.59
Actually, 6 corporations own about 90% of the media available (seen, heard, and read) in this country. Most of the names on the CJR list you linked to own the remaining 10 percent. And it's not like they are using entirely different models in terms of content and presentation.

One of my biggest beefs is with a radio station here in town that sounds MORE like a network station than the Clear Channel stations - although they do have some locally oriented programming.

Here's another resource of media ownsership breakdowns

And one in five people logging into the internet are using AOL... which, of course, belongs to THE largest media conglomerate in the counrty (if not the world).



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees

"Finally, a candidate who can explain the current administration's position on civil liberties in the original German."
- Bill Maher on Arnold Schwarzenneger

"You know, I'm a follower of American politics."
- President George W. Bush, 8 Aug 2003
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.52
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Incidentally, this talks about who owns what.

    I think 90% is an enormous miss.


Grimis, I don't agree with alot of your politics, but know you aren't anyone's fool. How can you defend what amounts to an oligarchy in what in many ways is key to maintaining the freedom you constantly argue for? I am not trying to bait you, honestly. How is it in the best interest of capitaliam and free markets if something isn't done to stop this and reverse the damage already done? Take Dean out of the equation. How can you justify this concentration of power over access to information? It is the duty of our elected officials to insure the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and freedom of the press is a biggie. And its not just freedom from government intervention IMO.

I know media is a business, my wife has been a newspaper reporter for a decade. I applaud anyone who can make as much money as possible but we need to have an outlet for news from a variety of opinions and sources and they are being wiped out in the economic climate of the past 20 years. Some things are beyond a simple balance sheet and need to be there whether they can make a huge profit or not.



Perception is reality
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.55
I am still wondering exactly what damage is being CAUSED by big media conglommerates. Take radio- one day, it is a local station, the next it is bought by Clearchannel - its playlist remains the same with the change in ownership.

I think anti-trust goes far enough, and 6 companies controlling 90% of the market are 5 companies too many for me to be terribly worried about.

Why isn't everyone all over McDonalds and Burger King for the SAME thing? You could make the case that 6 companies controll 90% of the fast food outlets, and no one has a problem with that.... What ACTUAL harm does big media companies cause? I hear a lot of grandstanding and doomsday predictions about it, but I honestly have not heard one concrete reason why they are a bad thing.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 4.12.03 1515)


Still on the Shelf- Every Tuesday
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1214 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Grimis, I don't agree with alot of your politics, but know you aren't anyone's fool. How can you defend what amounts to an oligarchy in what in many ways is key to maintaining the freedom you constantly argue for? I am not trying to bait you, honestly. How is it in the best interest of capitaliam and free markets if something isn't done to stop this and reverse the damage already done?
I'm really not actually. I fall squarely in the middle on this one. I don't want to see Government restrict too much, but there needs to be a limit at some point. Like I said, the public does own the airwaves and in the abscence of a natural control mechanism to keep the commodity(in this case the frequency) in check that is a legit role of government.

My problem with what Dean said is how he swiped it with a broad brush.



The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.
- Andrew Mellon
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.17
How to Make the Wienerboard a Better Place, Chapter 1: Just because you can't spell "Heidenreich", doesn't make you clever.
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I am still wondering exactly what damage is being CAUSED by big media conglommerates. Take radio- one day, it is a local station, the next it is bought by Clearchannel - its playlist remains the same with the change in ownership.

    I think anti-trust goes far enough, and 6 companies controlling 90% of the market are 5 companies too many for me to be terribly worried about.

    Why isn't everyone all over McDonalds and Burger King for the SAME thing? You could make the case that 6 companies controll 90% of the fast food outlets, and no one has a problem with that.... What ACTUAL harm does big media companies cause? I hear a lot of grandstanding and doomsday predictions about it, but I honestly have not heard one concrete reason why they are a bad thing.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 4.12.03 1515)


If you don't like what McDonald's and Burger King are selling, you can cook for yourself. Have fun trying to find out what's going on without any medium besides word-of-mouth. The media's a considerably different field than any other business.

Besides, there's a very finite amount of airspace. It's no secret that corporate interests block access to almost any information that's a threat to or critical of them when they can help it, or force-feed faulty information. The big example I can think of is the war in Iraq, but that's got all kinds of other political issues. So I'll stick with something around here.

There was a modern rock radio station here, Radio 104. It wasn't exactly GREAT, but it was fine. I don't remember exactly when Clear Channel bought them (for all I know, it might've been before they even switched to modern rock) but they did run it pretty fairly... I don't believe there was much in the way of voice-tracking, and they were supportive of local bands. The DJ's had some freedom, too. Then a few months back, they changed formats... becoming yet ANOTHER hip-hop station. There aren't any modern rock stations in CT. The only ones that are close to that format don't care about local bands. All of the on-air talent at 104 (I believe they all lived in the area, too) got canned. 104 (in its old format) came back, but only on the web. Without DJ's. Who's programming it? Probably not anyone that cares about local bands. It's no secret as to what role radio can play in breaking bands... now there's no opportunity for that here. Why? Because of ratings, and the bottom line. Clear Channel can make more ad money with hip-hop stations. And if listeners in CT want to listen to rock on their radio? Fuck 'em. THAT'S what kind of harm monolithic media corporations can do.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Tribal Prophet:

"...but you don't see non-stop 'Grab my Cock' shirts for Chris Benoit."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2775 days
Last activity: 2618 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
It's great that you like local bands, Dr. Jay. I have a friend who's heavily into the local MA hardcore scene. Not my cup of tea, but hanging around with him has given me at least a rudimentary education on the culture. None of the bands he listens to are on the radio; it's all word of mouth. And from what I've seen, it's quite a thriving subculture.

And, personally, I'm fine with hardcore-free airwaves. The music does absolutely nothing for me. What I'm getting at here is two things. 1.) The radio is not the only way bands get big; touring and word of mouth are very important. B.) Why is Radio 104 obligated to entertain you if they are going to lose money in the process? Every man is in business for himself. If I weren't getting a paycheck, you can bet your ass I wouldn't be bagging people's groceries at the local supermarket.



Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.55
When it comes to the media and news, however, I think the "coperate model" has held up nicely. People did not like the way CNN slanted things, and FOX News was born. Now there are these two different stations with 2 different approaches to news out there. And with the internet and a little more work (about the same as cooking for yourself vs. goint to McDonalds), you can access a wide array of various international and independent news sites. When it comes down to it, if people want it, people will have it.

YES, when it comes to music, I do agree that limited bandwidth are a major problem when combined with corperate media, but that is a regulation problem. That issue is easily solved by setting aside a certian bit of bandwidth for local media. With technology advancing as it is, with the advent of things like XM and internet radio is making that a moot point. So you can't hear local bands on the radio? You can still go to tha appropriate music store or local clubs and find out what you should listen to, and buy the CD. The music is still available. I would not classify this as a major problem causing serious damage to society, rather, it is nothing more than a minor nuissance to some people, and I can't think of a good reason why the government should get involved with legislating every little thing someone might be annoyed with.

What is wrong with "word of mouth?" Worked fine for hundreds of years. And the internet makes "word of mouth" a hell of a lot faster.





Still on the Shelf- Every Tuesday
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.52
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    When it comes to the media and news, however, I think the "coperate model" has held up nicely. People did not like the way CNN slanted things, and FOX News was born. Now there are these two different stations with 2 different approaches to news out there. And with the internet and a little more work (about the same as cooking for yourself vs. goint to McDonalds), you can access a wide array of various international and independent news sites. When it comes down to it, if people want it, people will have it.

    YES, when it comes to music, I do agree that limited bandwidth are a major problem when combined with corperate media, but that is a regulation problem. That issue is easily solved by setting aside a certian bit of bandwidth for local media. With technology advancing as it is, with the advent of things like XM and internet radio is making that a moot point. So you can't hear local bands on the radio? You can still go to tha appropriate music store or local clubs and find out what you should listen to, and buy the CD. The music is still available. I would not classify this as a major problem causing serious damage to society, rather, it is nothing more than a minor nuissance to some people, and I can't think of a good reason why the government should get involved with legislating every little thing someone might be annoyed with.

    What is wrong with "word of mouth?" Worked fine for hundreds of years. And the internet makes "word of mouth" a hell of a lot faster.




Pool-Boy, I somewhat agree but still have a problem. What I want and I think the country need is news channels and print media not beholding to a megalith of a corporation. News outlets that have, you know, news as their sole reaason for existing. Outlets whose revenue stream only comes from and is concerned with news. Where the top of the food chain is concerned soley with news. I know it's not realistic but I can dream.

Plus there ia a large segment of the population who really don't have access to the plethora of sources you describe. We all seem to think everyone has the means to have what we have and they don't. They have cable of some sort, no internet access and no ability to pay for XM radio.

And on the subject of music, the worst thing that happened to most froms of music, especially Rock N Roll, is that it became acceptable and generated huge revenues. Out here, except on the internet, we have absolutely no access to anything but the pap corps like Clear Channel feed us. It really does stifle creativity and diversity.



Perception is reality
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 4 min.
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.59
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    YES, when it comes to music, I do agree that limited bandwidth are a major problem when combined with corperate media, but that is a regulation problem. That issue is easily solved by setting aside a certian bit of bandwidth for local media. With technology advancing as it is, with the advent of things like XM and internet radio is making that a moot point.


Corporations are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any set aside for non-commercial programming - it has not even been brought up with regards to XM. The companies established the technology, and divided up amoungst themselves. Non-commercial set asides were not even considered.

Check out the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. ASCAP and BMI, along with backing from the RIAA, went after internet radio hard. The reporting requirements and costs they were establishing literally destroyed the internet radio market unless you were already a licenesed station. The royalties were also retroactive - meaning if you were an internet radio station for 5 years, you owed 5 years worth of royalties at whatever costs they established - and the commercial radio stations wanted non-commercial stations to pay royalties at the same rate (although the rates established were kinder to non-commercial stations in the end).

And really, the way radio has worked, advertising has creeped into NPR and PBS with the loosened underwriting requirements (loosened by not enforcing, that is).

PBS is jokingly refered to as the Petroleum Broadcasting System, not just because how much oil money they take, but how they've gone from simply saying "This program is brought to you by Cheveron" to the name of the company, a tag line, and some animated logo. And it does affect their programming.

The hardcore scene is kept alive - not just by word of mouth - but also by college radio, where it is EXTREMELY popular. And they work at one-tenth or lower of the budgets of commercial stations.



(edited by Leroy on 5.12.03 1154)


"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees

"Finally, a candidate who can explain the current administration's position on civil liberties in the original German."
- Bill Maher on Arnold Schwarzenneger

"You know, I'm a follower of American politics."
- President George W. Bush, 8 Aug 2003
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.52
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      YES, when it comes to music, I do agree that limited bandwidth are a major problem when combined with corperate media, but that is a regulation problem. That issue is easily solved by setting aside a certian bit of bandwidth for local media. With technology advancing as it is, with the advent of things like XM and internet radio is making that a moot point.


    Corporations are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any set aside for non-commercial programming - it has not even been brought up with regards to XM. The companies established the technology, and divided up amoungst themselves. Non-commercial set asides were not even considered.

    Check out the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. ASCAP and BMI, along with backing from the RIAA, went after internet radio hard. The reporting requirements and costs they were establishing literally destroyed the internet radio market unless you were already a licenesed station. The royalties were also retroactive - meaning if you were an internet radio station for 5 years, you owed 5 years worth of royalties at whatever costs they established - and the commercial radio stations wanted non-commercial stations to pay royalties at the same rate (although the rates established were kinder to non-commercial stations in the end).

    And really, the way radio has worked, advertising has creeped into NPR and PBS with the loosened underwriting requirements (loosened by not enforcing, that is).

    PBS is jokingly refered to as the Petroleum Broadcasting System, not just because how much oil money they take, but how they've gone from simply saying "This program is brought to you by Cheveron" to the name of the company, a tag line, and some animated logo. And it does affect their programming.

    The hardcore scene is kept alive - not just by word of mouth - but also by college radio, where it is EXTREMELY popular. And they work at one-tenth or lower of the budgets of commercial stations.



    (edited by Leroy on 5.12.03 1154)


I agree, it would just be easier to have the damn commercials on PBS and public radio. As I stated in a previous post I am a suporter of Public broadcasting, but compared to what it was 10 to 20 years ago, it sucks. Public radio is somewhat better but not what it once was. I long for the days when PBS was conoversial and got in trouble instead of the neutered little twits they are becoming.

And Leroy, You got me to thinking back to the good old days when FM was underground and subversive in the eyes of the society. And that included the commercial stations. I remember when punk hit and it signaled the end of the world.



Perception is reality
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.55
In other words, the problem for alternatives to FM is not big corperations, rather, government regulations.

Who would have thunk it?



Still on the Shelf- Every Tuesday
Nicolae Carpathia
Braunschweiger








Since: 10.11.03

Since last post: 3917 days
Last activity: 3857 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.84
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I am still wondering exactly what damage is being CAUSED by big media conglommerates. Take radio- one day, it is a local station, the next it is bought by Clearchannel - its playlist remains the same with the change in ownership.

    I think anti-trust goes far enough, and 6 companies controlling 90% of the market are 5 companies too many for me to be terribly worried about.

    Why isn't everyone all over McDonalds and Burger King for the SAME thing? You could make the case that 6 companies controll 90% of the fast food outlets, and no one has a problem with that.... What ACTUAL harm does big media companies cause? I hear a lot of grandstanding and doomsday predictions about it, but I honestly have not heard one concrete reason why they are a bad thing.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 4.12.03 1515)



Oh, come now. You're comparing burgers to a (democratic) society's diversity of opinion? Democracy requires differing viewpoints to stay vital. Without dissent accountability goes out the window, and once your public officials are free to act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that a concentrated (and thus easier to manipulate/cooperate with) media will not mention word of their indiscretions, well then you just lost your say in your country's government.

Oligarchic media is anathema to a healthy democratic process. Why do you think Putin has been hard at work muzzling the press these past years? Russia now controls it's press through government direct control (Putin nationalized all major media). The United States is not at that extreme yet, but if left unchecked, we are just going to see fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of whet we see and hear. If that prospect doesn't strike fear into your heart, then it is my summation that below all your empty and hollow rhetoric, you really don't care a whit for democracy.



Best Buy is really a cult.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 506 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Well first off I am surprised that our government has lasted so long. I mean 50 years ago there were only 3 companies controlling TV news. How could we have survived with all these EVIL corporation own 100% of our nightly news viewing brain washing us.

You people seem to think that we are getting less and less source of news these days. I mean sure there is a limited amount of government airspace for over the air stations but more and more people have cable now-a-days. Were you have more and more stations. Plus more and more people are getting a computer and Internet access.

And why are Big Companies owning a newspaper such a bad thing. I mean sure I can start the West Bridgewater Post tomorrow but I don't think that it will be able to scoop the Boston Globe or hell even the Brockton Enterprise in any story. I will simply not have the resources to get any scoop or to be able to cover more than one story at a time. You need the backing of a big corporation to really get at meat and bones of a story.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.52
    Originally posted by calvinh0560
    Well first off I am surprised that our government has lasted so long. I mean 50 years ago there were only 3 companies controlling TV news. How could we have survived with all these EVIL corporation own 100% of our nightly news viewing brain washing us.

    You people seem to think that we are getting less and less source of news these days. I mean sure there is a limited amount of government airspace for over the air stations but more and more people have cable now-a-days. Were you have more and more stations. Plus more and more people are getting a computer and Internet access.

    And why are Big Companies owning a newspaper such a bad thing. I mean sure I can start the West Bridgewater Post tomorrow but I don't think that it will be able to scoop the Boston Globe or hell even the Brockton Enterprise in any story. I will simply not have the resources to get any scoop or to be able to cover more than one story at a time. You need the backing of a big corporation to really get at meat and bones of a story.


1. fifty years ago, the national nightly news was about 15 minutes each night and TV news paled in comparison to print and radio.

2. Please read previous posts regarding internet access. Points are made there.

3. My wife has worked for several BIG corporations owning hundreds of local papers across the country, some good and some bad. Most wer bad. Why? Because they have cookie cutter rules and sales goals, etc. for the entire chain and what works in Ohio often doesn't in Kansas. They slash local reporting staffs and put more and more wire copy and syndicated crap in with less and less local coverage. Finally they don't give a rats ass about the newspaper business. the are in the profit business.



Perception is reality
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2775 days
Last activity: 2618 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Say what you will, Dirt, but Calvin's right: the sky simply is NOT falling. If all these trends being cited in this thread were so damned threatening to Democracy! we never would have made it past 1776, when, as you may recall, the distribution of information was a wee bit slower. Heck, we've survived the Battle of New Orleans. I'm sure we'll survive the evil Clear Channel.



eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2933 days
Last activity: 2929 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.51
You are still ignoring his argument. it isn't the speed with which we can get news, it's the source. And with fewer and fewer sources, certain issues will not get covered. It already happens, and will probably keep happening as consolidation continues.



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - Just trying to help out
Nicolae Carpathia
Braunschweiger








Since: 10.11.03

Since last post: 3917 days
Last activity: 3857 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.84
    Originally posted by calvinh0560
    Well first off I am surprised that our government has lasted so long. I mean 50 years ago there were only 3 companies controlling TV news. How could we have survived with all these EVIL corporation own 100% of our nightly news viewing brain washing us.

    You people seem to think that we are getting less and less source of news these days. I mean sure there is a limited amount of government airspace for over the air stations but more and more people have cable now-a-days. Were you have more and more stations. Plus more and more people are getting a computer and Internet access.

    And why are Big Companies owning a newspaper such a bad thing. I mean sure I can start the West Bridgewater Post tomorrow but I don't think that it will be able to scoop the Boston Globe or hell even the Brockton Enterprise in any story. I will simply not have the resources to get any scoop or to be able to cover more than one story at a time. You need the backing of a big corporation to really get at meat and bones of a story.


And somehow the cable news networks are an independent voice? They are all part of the same media empire owned by large corporations such as General Electric and the like. That is the point; there are no more majour outlets of news, be it print, radio or television (including cable, satellite news) that are not, further up the corporate chain, owned by a large parent company which each have their respective hands in our media pie. We all know the influence that comes in such a symbiotic relationship as that between politicians and corporations, whom the former rely on for donations, and the latter recieves favourable legislation in return. It's a recipe for collusion and undue influence on the public's decision making.



Best Buy is really a cult.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.55
I think something that is ignored is the fact that the very reason we get so much news, so fast is because of the big corperations. Do you honestly think that small, local news agencies will have the resources for up-to-the minute news just about anywhere?

No way. The Big Media conglomerates are the reason we get our news as fast as we do now.



Still on the Shelf- Every Tuesday
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.28
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: GW Bush Stickers
Next thread: Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
Previous thread: Republican Presidential Nominees in 2008
(1629 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
He was, after all, Alex P. Keaton's favorite economist.
- Peter The Hegemon, Milton Friedman Passes Away (2006)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Dean: Brak up Big Media (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.238 seconds.