More Consolidation of The Media

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Stevie D:
Why are you so concerned NOW that a right-winger may have a controlling interest in the media? Did it not concern you when Fox was not around and all the news outlets were bent to the left? Were you crying foul then? Please be consistent. I find your argument hypocritical. If things are going your way, let's shut up and be happy, otherwise, let's scream our head off just like all the Hollywood wackos "Free Speech -First Amendment" cries.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
SSD, I do not know why you call me a hypocrit. I have been against consoloidation of the media since 1996 when I first found out about it.
My views have been consistent here. If you can show me Left wing radio outlets that are as biased as Limbaugh and Hannity, and Savage and the like than I would be against them. The sad fact is that to my knowledge there are not any Left Wing Radio Conglomerates equal to what is being aired by the Right.
If that makes you happy that Fox tells you Happy Republican News than good for you. But it does not make it the best thing for the country.
There has been a lot of talk of the Liberal Media. Just where is this Liberal Media? The New York Times and their papers perhaps but they are more than offset by the Murdock group.
On the Cable I hear that CNN used to be the Liberal station but they are not anymore.
And when they were I spoke out against them.
I am not against a Rush Limbaugh type show but they should have time for the other side as well. The stations that carry Rush are not allowed to carry anything else but Right Wing type Shows and that is sad.
If you look at what Clear Channel has done to music maybe you could understand how our news is getting slanted.
I think it is a cheap shot for you to call me a hypocrit. My views have been consistent and I think fair. You may disagree with me in that maybe you like only three or 4 people being in charge of our news and entertainment and you are entitled to your opinion. But just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am a liar or a hypocrit.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
Anyone that lives in California knows that Maxine Waters is nothing but a blithering idiot. But that is the problem with too many of our politicians today - they have an agenda that may or may not reflect the feelings of those they represent. Both sides are equally guilty here. If I was a liberal, I dion't think I would be concerned about Murdoch and his attempts to buy Direct TV. I could also take solace in the fact the the major newspapers in the United States like the L.A. Times and New York Times have a clear liberal slant to them. Assuming that most people in this world have the requisite brains to tell truth from fiction, why is FOX any worse than the L.A. Times? I was around in the 60's when we all had to live with 3 major television networks and a bunch of local channels. No one was worried about consolidation of the media then. The concept that our news sources should be fair and balanced is a good concept. But it isn't ever going to be that way again. It will tilt to one side for awhile and then to the other side. On the other hand, if certain media sources have a built in bias, as most would say FOX does, doesn't the public make the ultimate choice on content? Would O'Reilly and Limbaugh be on the air if no one cared to watch them or listen to them? Should the government mandate that Phil Donohue's show not be canceled because he represents a different viewpoint? In all seriousness Stevie, how would YOU solve this horrific trend that you have noticed? What steps would you take so that the major news outlets presented accurate, unbiased news? Would you propose new laws governing the content of television, newspapers and magazines? And who would decide what the ratios were? And who would decided what is fair and balanced? Again, in a perfect world........................it ain't gonna happen.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
Ferdville I am glad you asked. I would go back and make it like the 60's. I understand that we have cable now and that was supposed to open new doors and create more opertunity for new voices. Instead we have more of a closed shop now than we had then.
In the 60's you could not own the newspaper, radio stations and tv stations in the same city. But today that is what we have. This is not good. It was not good when it was Ted Turner who was owning everything and it is no good that Murdock owns the rest.
What is needed for democracy to flow is a free exchange of ideas by as many voices as possible. If the outlets for expression is to be controlled by one or two people then democracy as we know it will die.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
Stevie - you make a good point, but it is entirely specious in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Flashback to the 60's - television is Channels 2.4.5.7.9.11.13
Flash forward to now - 500 plus cable and satellite stations

If you can't find what you want to hear, that is another matter. But there has never been, at any other time in the history of the United States or any other country, this kind of proliferation of television for public consumption. The same can be said for radio, including the new satellite radio. The internet is yet another realm open to virtually anybody. And the same can be said for magazines. My guess is that there are not many more newspapers today than there were in the 60's, though I don't really know.

It is obvious that the danger exists that one faction can create a very powerful network of outlets intended to change public opinion. But there is no way to control the output without seriously harming not only free enterprise, but the public's right to see or read what they choose. There has never been so many opportunities for anyone, no matter how crazy, to make their opinions known as there are today. That includes you, me, Dr. Freeze, Eddie Haskell, Beantown Jim, et al.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
Ferdville, you make an exellent point about the number of outlets availible. But, not talking about the internet, that is exactly the problem. True there are 500 stations, but those 500 stations are only owned by a handful of people. And by a handful I do not mean 500 or a hundered but just a few. And they are the same people who own the radio stations and the newspapers. In essence a few people of wealth control what we see and hear for news.
The internet is still here yes but very few people use it for news. And those that do mostly go to the websites that are run by the same guys who own the tv stations.
I am all for frtee enterprise. And part of free enterprise is not to allow monopolies. However, we are encouraging monopolies in how we get our news.
This ain't a Republican or a Democrat thing. Both parties are corrupt and are allowing this to happen.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevied,

i am posting this article in case you haven't seen it. as i mentioned in my previos post, i agree with you that we have to make sure that the media isn't going to be controlled by a few.



FCC Proposal Eases Media Ownership Rules


By DAVID HO
The Associated Press
Monday, May 12, 2003; 7:38 PM


WASHINGTON - Companies could own combinations of newspapers and television and radio stations in the same city and any one company could control TV stations reaching nearly half of U.S. homes under broad changes to media ownership rules proposed Monday.

The proposal by the Federal Communications Commission staff was delivered to the five commissioners. They have until June 2, when a vote is scheduled, to consider the recommendations.

The proposal was not released to the public, but two government officials who saw it described the contents to The Associated Press.

Among the proposals is one to allow a single company to own TV stations that reach 45 percent of U.S. households instead of the current 35 percent. The major networks favor eliminating any cap.

Two existing "cross-ownership" rules - one preventing a company from owning a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city and another involving ownership of radio and TV stations in the same market- would be rolled into a single rule that lifts most of the existing restrictions, the officials said.

Cross-ownership would be allowed in large and medium markets, but would face restrictions or bans in small markets.

The FCC is required by law to consider changes to the decades-old rules. Critics question whether restrictions intended to promote diverse viewpoints in the media still are needed in a market changed by satellite broadcasts, cable television and the Internet that have given consumers far greater access to information.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the two other Republican commissioners support easing regulations and allowing individual companies to hold a greater stake in local and national media markets.

Consumer groups said Monday that local newspaper and broadcast markets already are highly concentrated. They said more mergers will occur if the changes are approved, hurting competition and stifling diversity by leaving a few huge companies in control of what people see, hear and read.

"Merging the dominant local newspaper with a major local TV station is dangerous to our democracy because it combines the key watchdogs who keep an eye on each other," said Gene Kimmelman, public policy director for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine.

A rule preventing mergers among the four major TV networks - NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox - would remain in place under the proposal, the officials said. The FCC eased that restriction in 2001 by allowing the major networks to combine with newer networks like WB or UPN.

Another rule limiting radio ownership to eight stations in a market also would remain largely unchanged, the officials said.

The Newspaper Association of America and media companies such as Tribune Co. and Gannett Inc. have sought the repeal of the newspaper "cross-ownership" rule, saying it limits combinations that can improve the quality and quantity of news and local information.

Viacom Inc., which owns CBS and UPN, and News Corp., owner of Fox, stand to benefit from the higher national ownership rule because mergers already have left them above the 35 percent cap. Those companies along with NBC persuaded an appeals court last year to reject the current cap.

Smaller broadcasters and network affiliates worry that a higher cap will allow the networks to gobble up more stations and limit local control of programming.

A 1996 law requires the FCC to study ownership rules every two years, but many proposed changes have remained unfinished or were sent back to the agency after court challenges. Last year, the FCC combined reviews of a half-dozen rules into the single effort now under way.

Lawmakers, musicians, academics and consumer groups have asked Powell to delay the FCC's vote to allow more public comment. Other lawmakers, mainly Republicans, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans have urged Powell to stay on schedule.

The FCC's two Democratic commissioners - Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein - say Powell is rushing through an important process that few in the public know about. Powell has said there is no need to delay because the agency has already conducted studies and gathered extensive public comment.

Copps and Adelstein traveled around the country in recent months to get public comment on the review. Powell refused their repeated requests to have more than one public FCC hearing.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,892
2,470
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
Oh puleeeeze!

Oh puleeeeze!

when this Great Democracy was Founded, and many years after, the only media were a handful of scurilous newspapers which printed stuff that would make the "National Enquirer" blush Alabama Crismson with shame.


that was the Free Press Necessary for Democracy our Founding Fathers so stoutly defended.


There were no weeklies, not national paper, no tv, no radio, no schools of journalism, and (I believe) no internet. Even if all owned by one guy.



yet somehow folks today find the reason and time to fret over a lack diversity in media!
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
StevieD:
Sorry - I guess this forum wasn't around when you were crying foul in 96 about media consolidation. Since I didn't know you were against the issue as a whole, I was out of line in calling you a hypocrite. I am against any monopolization of anything. Competition breeds a free and fair market. I am glad to see that there have surfaced conservative news shows. Do I watch any of them blindly? No. But ABC, CBS and NBC have had a liberal bias for years and now a lot of the democractic pundits are crying about it. I'm glad to see both sides of the issues receive press time. Most newspapers are still slanted left, the Wall Street Journal being the obvious exception. As for Limbaugh? I think he is an opinionated egomaniac. If the Democrats could find someone of his like to spout about Democratic issues, great. However, for some reason, they can't. O'reilly I find entertaining but as for fair and balanced coverage, that has slipped to the right side. O'Reilly does tackle some hard issues and I applaud him for that but sometimes he crosses the line in his interviews and is overwhelming.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
It has gone bad because of the rating games. They all seem to tell half truths. Or they declare they have the inside story. Or like O'Rilley who I like some times. Well he thinks he talks for all of us. And a slow news day he goes back and druges up some old chit.
Hey it works for him. Half his audiance is white woman. Who likes gossip more then woman.
Stevie I am one of the few here can relate to the 50/60 news.
1/2 hour each night national news that was it. 1/2 hour local news. Once in a while maybe a speical. How refreshing to go back to that. Lots of good reading then. And you are correct. They kept a handle on who owned what. Much of the 24 hour news seems more for entertainmant. Has very little value.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top