[QUOTE=Bricker]
Are you suggesting that all news stations should stake out overtly political positions, and that the failure to do so constitutes evidence of “news control?”
[/QUOTE]
How about reporters actually look for the facts and the truth instead of presenting the truth on one side and what the Republicans say on the other and claiming that constitutes “balance”?
PBS also broadcast the Seattle hearing. BILL MOYERS JOURNAL
I don’t understand how anyone is not concerned about the complete deregulation of the media. The FCC regulations protect American citizens by assuring the integrity and diversity of news information. When a handful of powerful, profit driven conglomerates control every thing we read, see, hear, and ultimately understand about our world, the media loses its fundamental role in democracy. The American press is an institution that must be saved. Otherwise, we will be no different than any other police State. We will be saturated with mindless entertainment while the truth about our world is underreported or ignored and journalism becomes nostalgia. The pill is sweeter but the result is the same.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
That’d be great – but even from your description, it’s far from definite that an overwhelming majority at these town meetings were against the proposal… and that would certainly not match the 2003 poll results you linked to, where only 50 ercent said they thought the effect would be negative.
[/QUOTE]
No, it seems to me to be perfectly consistent. It’s completely possible that around 50% of people in America are mildly pro-crossownership, 35% mildly anti-crossownership, and 15% totally opposed. Guess who’s gonna show up at the meetings?
It doesn’t seem to be the sort of issue where the pro-FCC side would harbor strong enough feelings to want to make themselves known in person.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I don’t understand how anyone is not concerned about the complete deregulation of the media. The FCC regulations protect American citizens by assuring the integrity and diversity of news information.
[/quote]
It does? Looking back on the era of broadcast TV and radio, it seems to me we had much less diversity of news information than we do today. You had three TV channels (at most – where I grew up I had one), maybe three daily papers (if you lived in a big city, if not you had one), and a few broadcast radio stations.
Today, however, I have access to hundreds of TV channels, newspapers of every kind, bloggers (both local and national), podcasts, satellite radio, and a number of other news sources on radio. That came about by evil profit-driven companies, you know, not the FCC.
Again, your view of the media bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. The media is much more diverse than broadcast TV and radio and newspapers. The FCC regulations are outdated and unnecessary. Furthermore, they are merely a tool for government to interfere with the media. I’m amazed that you are so concerned about a police state and yet you want to give the government a tool with which it can use to intimidate and control our media. I’d think that if you were concerned about a police state you’d want to ensure that the government has no say in media matters.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
http://www.cjr.org/resources/ Scroll down the left side and see what Time Warner owns. This is duplicated by 5 other companies. Nearly all the media in the country and soon to be the world is being swallowed up by huge corporations. If you believe for one second they wont be pushing their viewpoints you are naive. This is a serious problem. Do you think a whole bunch of newspapers owned by locals would serve their readers better.? Who knows the problems and answers ,those affected or Turner Broadcasting in Atlanta.
[/QUOTE]
Remember, corporations are blameless, holy creatures, that would never, ever do anything that’s not in the public’s best interests.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
No, it seems to me to be perfectly consistent. It’s completely possible that around 50% of people in America are mildly pro-crossownership, 35% mildly anti-crossownership, and 15% totally opposed. Guess who’s gonna show up at the meetings?
It doesn’t seem to be the sort of issue where the pro-FCC side would harbor strong enough feelings to want to make themselves known in person.
[/QUOTE]
Very valid point.
[QUOTE=Renob]
It does? Looking back on the era of broadcast TV and radio, it seems to me we had much less diversity of news information than we do today. You had three TV channels (at most – where I grew up I had one), maybe three daily papers (if you lived in a big city, if not you had one), and a few broadcast radio stations.
Today, however, I have access to hundreds of TV channels, newspapers of every kind, bloggers (both local and national), podcasts, satellite radio, and a number of other news sources on radio. That came about by evil profit-driven companies, you know, not the FCC.
Again, your view of the media bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. The media is much more diverse than broadcast TV and radio and newspapers. The FCC regulations are outdated and unnecessary. Furthermore, they are merely a tool for government to interfere with the media. I’m amazed that you are so concerned about a police state and yet you want to give the government a tool with which it can use to intimidate and control our media. I’d think that if you were concerned about a police state you’d want to ensure that the government has no say in media matters.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks to technology, hundreds of channels are broadcast to millions of people. It is true that the media, with its hundreds of channels, offers numerous choices. But the concentration of ownership has given control to a few media owners. These same media owners also own the production companies that create the programs broadcast on their networks. Media conglomerates own 80 percent of the cable channels and use those channels to cross promote their own programs and products. They violate anti-trust laws with interlocking board members, shared investments, and collusion. The media conglomerates own everything from music labels, book publishing, movie production, magazines, and news organizations. Unchecked capitalism is naturally self serving. Corporations align with conservatives because of their laissez-faire philosophy. Obscene money donations buy lawmakers’ votes.
The FCC is one of many weakened and ineffectual regulatory agencies. The FCC is not allowed to dictate content. Its job is to make sure the media serves the public’s interests. The best way to serve the public is to enforce anti-trust laws. This assures diversity, competition, and a variety of perspectives. The FCC is also supposed to protect citizens and hold broadcasters accountable to the public. This process exemplifies democracy. The Fairness Doctrine once required that broadcasters devote time to important civic issues and devote equal time to opposing views.
American tax dollars funded the technology the media uses to reach millions of people.
The airways are public property. Satellites and the internet were created with subsidies and government funded agencies, so why should the public airways be given away to self serving conglomerates with no sense of public responsibility.
Truth, communicated through the media, is fundamental to democracy. The media is a powerful tool that is used to mold perception, and the information people hear and read is how they learn and understand their world.
Information cited:
Bagdikian, B. (1992). The New Media Monopoly (Rev. ed.)
Boston: Beacon Press.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
The FCC is one of many weakened and ineffectual regulatory agencies. The FCC is not allowed to dictate content. Its job is to make sure the media serves the public’s interests. The best way to serve the public is to enforce anti-trust laws.
[/QUOTE]
I hate to be contrary, but that’s not actually true. The FCC, and its predecsesor, the FRC, was created to manage an inherently public resource; the wireless transmission range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The EM spectrum can be used but, logically, not owned, so without regulation it would be a horrid mess; imagine two radio stations in the same city broadcasting on the same frequency.
There’s no inherent reason or rationale why things like newspapers should be under the purview of the FCC.
With all due respect, it does not. It assures diversity of ownership, to some extent. It doesn’t assure a variety of perspectives.
You didn’t, in any way, respond to the substance of Renob’s point; that there is NO evidence thatthe FCC’s rule results in a diversity of perspectives. For most of the history of American television it offered almost no diversity of perspective at all. Today’s American TV scene offers a greater range of opinions, thoughts and programming than ever before, despite the alleged concentration of media ownership. You’re claiming that concentration will reduce the "diversity of perspectives at the very time when exactly the opposite is happening.
United States Internet Usage, Broadband and Telecommunications Reports - Statistics The idea that the internet has replaced TV as a news source is flawed. The saturation of internet is about 70 percent. That means about 30 percent do not even have it. Then to imply that the all the others use the net to obtain news would be incorrect.
I agree that the evening news has diminished as THE source of news. Meet The Press, 60 minutes and other programs augment the news info for a large part of the population. When the president gives a speech it is on TV. I think it is still where most people get their news. That is the medium that they are able to control now. That is what they are doing.