US media

[Rob Lister]

What lightweight answers. Where is, "The media (mainstream in the USA) is a commodity and makes no attempt to be accurate"?

The media is a commodity and makes no attempt to be accurate.

There, I found it for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what about the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice (Antitrust Division). Don't they have to regulate the monopolies power if they're getting too mighty?

Why, because they're successful? Nope, not a good enough reason. They punish antitrust violations, but being big and powerful isn't an antitrust violation.

 

[Oliver]

The FCC has some power in that regards, but it's only applicable in regards to broadcasts (since the airwaves are considered public property). Internet and cable are becoming much more important, and the FCC can't step in there without violating the first ammendment. But while there's this worry about "big media cooperations", the fact is we've got a more diverse media than we've ever had before.

Oh, and nothing about antitrust law (which is what it's called) prohibits comapanies from becoming monopolies. All it does (and all it should do) is restrict it's ability to create barriers to entry for any new competitors which might emerge.

That's a nightmare. What constitutes a "misuse"? Who gets to decide what is a misuse, and what powers will they have to punish such misuses? Why would any media organization with contrarian viewpoints ever allow itself to be punished by such a panel? And how the hell do you prevent the panel from devolving into enforcement of whatever ideological party line manages to gain control of the panel? I actually know the answer to the last question: you can't keep it from happening, you can only hope it doesn't. Which isn't good enough.

Honestly, I consider Murdoch's power as a threat for every competitor because he simply buys them if he doesn't like their attitude.

Some might argue that economical freedoms are holy by constitutional right, but I guess the protection of democracy might be more important.

Well, the "Misuse" question is simple. If someone tells lies, obviously pushes politicians or distorts the facts, punish them with a fine. And for the next perpetration, an even bigger fine - and so on. But as I said - it's pretty theoretical until I have the full Picture of "forces" involved.

The party-line question is puzzling, I agree. That's because the mainly two-party system. This wouldn't be such a problem if there were more political parties involved. I have no Idea yet how to regulate this - maybe with a panel of green party members. But kidding aside - I have to think about it.

 

[Rob Lister]

Sure, you report everything that is happening ...

Everything!? !?

If not, who decides?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you show the law that America passed that blocks al Jazeera from broadcasting here?

Well, it starts with licensing rules. And since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed those licenses to be consolidated into the hands of "the big 6" of which there is a definite conservative, pro war bias:

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

I'd say the chances of al Jazeera coming to a station near you soon may be technically legal but regulations and the system make it virtually impossible.

You tell me which of those corporations above are likely to broadcast al Jazeera or through which back door you think al Jazeera could slip in through?

 

[RandFan]

Some might argue that economical freedoms are holy by constitutional right, but I guess the protection of democracy might be more important.

So you would protect deomcracy by limiting and regulating it? Sounds like the DDR.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..... But while there's this worry about "big media cooperations", the fact is we've got a more diverse media than we've ever had before.....

Would that be planet X or someplace other than the USA you are speaking of? Because if you think the broadcast media has diverse programing, I'd say you need to get out and see the world. You don't know what you are missing.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, the "Misuse" question is simple. If someone tells lies, obviously pushes politicians or distorts the facts, punish them with a fine. And for the next perpetration, an even bigger fine - and so on. But as I said - it's pretty theoretical until I have the full Picture of "forces" involved.

Sure. you'd have no problem with me deciding what's a lie or distortion, right?

No chilling of free speech there.



I have to ask, as I did when you cited the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of a friendly negotiation without economic or military sanctions applied -- are you just joking?

 

[Oliver]

So you admit that when you said "America is blocking them from telling the other side of the story" you were lying?

I wasn't lying - I was quoting:

Why Al Jazeera English is blocked in the U.S.
http://tojou.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-al-jazeera-english-is-blocked-in-us.html

Anyway: Did you watch the Docu yet? They make this claim, too. But once again, you actually don't really care. So why are you arguing at all?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Would that be planet X or someplace other than the USA you are speaking of? Because if you think the broadcast media has diverse programing, I'd say you need to get out and see the world. You don't know what you are missing.

I cannot speak for him, but I think he is not limiting his "media" point to "broadcast media."

 

[WildCat]

Well, it starts with licensing rules.

No, the reason al Jazeera can't get on cable here is because no one wants it. They are already on some systems, so they have whatever licenses they need. But I did find this very interesting:

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

Did you catch that Oliver?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If there is a monopoly then break up the monopoly. I think this is a fair concern but I think regulation the worst solution possible.
....

And your suggestion for how to break up the monopolies without regulation is?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, the reason al Jazeera can't get on cable here is because no one wants it. They are already on some systems, so they have whatever licenses they need. But I did find this very interesting:

Did you catch that Oliver?

Do you see your local broadcast station on this list of stations they own?

 

[Oliver]

Sure. you'd have no problem with me deciding what's a lie or distortion, right?

No chilling of free speech there.

I have to ask, as I did when you cited the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of a friendly negotiation without economic or military sanctions applied -- are you just joking?

Well, how does the Law defines a lie or distortion? A panel could use the same definitions, couldn't they?

Anyway; If everyone can talk and broadcast whatever they want without any truth whatsoever, what have you won? Free speech is cool, but where's the line between free speech and anarchy?

And I have to say that you're speech isn't really free from what I've learned so far.

 

[WildCat]

If this link doesn't work for someone, let me know:
http://www.aljazeera.com/

Works for me, despite the fact that it is apparently banned in the USA according to Oliver. But maybe my NWO computer is different...

Well?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I cannot speak for him, but I think he is not limiting his "media" point to "broadcast media."

If you include the Internet, reading and movie theaters, then I agree, there is more than ever. What did the thread poll intend to ask about?

 

[WildCat]

Do you see your local broadcast station on this list of stations they own?

You seem to be construing "media" to mean only over-the-air broadcasts. That is not what it means.

 

[Oliver]

Sure. you'd have no problem with me deciding what's a lie or distortion, right?

No chilling of free speech there.

I have to ask, as I did when you cited the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of a friendly negotiation without economic or military sanctions applied -- are you just joking?

I wasn't joking. Both sides stopped their ignorance when they learned how "thin the Ice was". The final Agreement was productive instead the aggressive politic that resulted in the Crisis. That's what I call friendly if you consider the parties involved and their mistrust against each other, wasn't it?

Anyway: It's an off-topic issue.

 

[RandFan]

Well, how does the Law defines a lie or distortion? A panel could use the same definitions, couldn't they?

And stiffle speech with a lot of minutae.

Anyway; If everyone can talk and broadcast whatever they want without any truth whatsoever, what have you won? Free speech is cool, but where's the line between free speech and anarchy?

?

Who says that there is no truth whatsoever?

And I have to say that you're speech isn't really free from what I've learned so far.

Please to explain? If in an absolute sense then there is no such thing and never will be. However people accross America are expressing their opinions on the internet on any and ever subject. Our political leaders are excoriated (google Bushitler, Bushchimp, hell, just google "incompetent").

If the government is supressing speech it's doing a lousy job. We have liberal media, conservative media, etc., etc.

So, again, please to explain?

 

[mr rosewater]

Cable companies have to pay the provider,(cnn, fox, etc) a fee per customer, channel placement is always an issue. Al Jazeera may be demanding to high a fee, or they may have no channel space.