Okay, Media Monopoly. What do you think?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Shera
After rereading your posts, I think your assumptions (Mycroft and Drooper) were that that he based his article on rumor?

No, I make no such assumptions.

I recognize that in this specific case, the reporter may actually be causing the catastrophe he's warning against. Even if we assume the reporters information is rock solid, we still have a tricky ethical dilemma where the correct resolution may not be to simply print what you know and let fate sort it all out.

To use the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy in freedom of speech, shouting fire may be the wrong thing to do even if there really is a fire if the ensuing panic causes even more people to die.

 

[CBL4]

Shera,

Let's assume that Bagdikian has basically reported the story accurately. What does this mean?

There are over 10,000 newspapers in the country. One of them fires a reporter because he pissed of a prominent businees. All this means is that the Dallas Morning News once acted very badly and against the public interest. It does not really mean anything in regards to the media as whole.

That is my problem with the book. There are lots of anecdotes which I tend to believe are true example of media mistakes - some of them major mistakes by reputable papers. But he has failed to convince me that the mistakes are representative.

Why? For me there are basically three reasons.
1) I do not trust him. He has discredited himself by using innuendo too often (e.g. his hatchet job on Murdoch). He also presents some facts in very misleading manners e.g. the fact that number of newspapers in a town has declined means that people has less access to the facts disregards the rise of radio and TV. (I am going to start a thread on this.)
2) I disagree with his bias. He has an anti-capitalist slant to his writing.
3) It just does not feel "right" to me. My bias is the opposite of his. To convince me, he would have to array a large amount of facts in a logical manner. He does not. Perhaps he the facts but he does present them in this book.

CBL

 

[Kaylee]

No, I make no such assumptions.

I recognize that in this specific case, the reporter may actually be causing the catastrophe he's warning against. Even if we assume the reporters information is rock solid, we still have a tricky ethical dilemma where the correct resolution may not be to simply print what you know and let fate sort it all out.

OK, we disagree then. My understanding is that the banks that failed would have failed anyway. And also that financial ratings, publicly available financial statements and newspaper articles provide more incentive for employees, officers and directors to handle their duties responsibly -- not only for banks but for all publicly traded corporations also. Many people unfortunately do not have an internally driven sense of ethics.

To use the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy in freedom of speech, shouting fire may be the wrong thing to do even if there really is a fire if the ensuing panic causes even more people to die.

I disagree with using this analogy also.

FWIW, I was always told this was an example that not all speech is protected. The example I was given was of someone calling fire in a crowded theatre when there was not a fire.

In real life when people have to mass exit a building, its unavoidable that they know the reason why. And people don't always panic in an emergency. For a very dramatic example -- per the newspaper reports about 9/11 in NYC -- people did not push and shove each other while exiting the World Trade Centers --- they were exiting in an orderly fashion and there were a lot of reports about people helping each other, even strangers, in the stairwells. (While many died, more were able to leave …). The people leaving the WTC knew why they were leaving the building.

And, I do realize that is not always the way people react. I do recall reading about unfortunate cases where people stampede out of a stadium or dance club because of an emergency and some people ended up getting hurt. But, especially in the dance club situations that I read about, these situations occurred because the occupancy rule was broken by management. So the real reason people got hurt was because the ones responsible for following common sense rules and guidelines did not do so...

BTW, I'm not editing my post as much as I would like to...
My days are getting a little busy again ... so I'm a little short on how much time I have to spend in the forums... I just wish there were 48 hours in a day!

 

[Kaylee]

Shera,

Let's assume that Bagdikian has basically reported the story accurately. What does this mean?

There are over 10,000 newspapers in the country. One of them fires a reporter because he pissed of a prominent businees. All this means is that the Dallas Morning News once acted very badly and against the public interest. It does not really mean anything in regards to the media as whole.

Could very well be. I think it would be interesting if there was another author that wrote a book showing how much the average person's access to accurate information has improved since the early or mid 1900s, and it would be interesting to see how strong their case was. I don't know if such a book exhists.

That is my problem with the book. There are lots of anecdotes which I tend to believe are true example of media mistakes - some of them major mistakes by reputable papers. But he has failed to convince me that the mistakes are representative.

Why? For me there are basically three reasons.
1) I do not trust him. He has discredited himself by using innuendo too often (e.g. his hatchet job on Murdoch).

Murdoch doesn't get a lot of pages in the 6th edition -- so I can't comment on that.

He also presents some facts in very misleading manners e.g. the fact that number of newspapers in a town has declined means that people has less access to the facts disregards the rise of radio and TV. (I am going to start a thread on this.)

Also the internet I would assume.

2) I disagree with his bias. He has an anti-capitalist slant to his writing.

I wonder if this is new to the 7th edition? So far I haven't picked up an anti-capitalist slant -- but I have picked up an anti monopoly slant which I don't think is quite the same thing. I am still in chapt 8 though -- I'll try to read some more of the book this weekend.

 

[Zep]

You need to be extremely careful.

You're an Aussie of, let's say, a certain maturity. You must remember the bits that hit the fan when John Laws made this very mistake

I was about to get to that point, actually.

My suggestion at that time was that if the financial institution can show that they were actually viable before the negative reporting, then the reporter/publication should face charges of "institutional libel" (or is it slander...). That is, public reporting aimed purely at destroying the good reputation of that institution. However, if the reportage was shown to be true, then it would be deemed fair and accurate reporting, with no comeback. Therefore the onus would be on the reporter to ensure that the facts were really in and checked, Jimmy Olsen, and that it was not some sneaky game-playing by the opposition institutions (the big end of town doesn't "play fair" at all - believe me! It's really down and dirty in the high boardrooms!).

Since then, I've had some reservations about how this type of check-and-balance might be exploited and misused, but still I think there needs to be some accountability on both sides when it comes to airing the dirty laundery of the financial institutions.

In the John Laws case, I thought that he really thought he was beyond reproach in publicly airing some street gossip he heard third or fourth hand from one of his mates in a restaurant.* I could imagine the pitter-patter of feet running away from him at the time!


*For the USAins, John Laws is a long-term, reactionary, right-wing (and enormously rich) Sydney radio announcer, who has a permanent audience of "fans" who cannot believe he says anything wrong, ever. He has a habit of buying cars he doesn't need, and spending his lunch-afternoons in the swankiest restaurants in town...just because he can. He has influence merely because people believe he has influence. Personally, I think he's lucky he can get his big head through doorways - I find him insufferable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Laws

 

[crimresearch]

While I was waiting to meet with someone last winter, I saw an obscure newspaper in their office's waiting room and perused it. One of the articles talked about how Google had won a contract to build a search engine in Chinese from the mainland government. If I remember correctly, the article complained that Google (in order to get the contract) completely sold out and agreed to have their search engine not show certain types of stories and web sites in their search results. The newspaper's review of this almost reminded me of the scene in Orwell's book 1984 where the main character spends his work day going back and eliminating certain people from the newspaper archives and books at Big Brother's request (because these people as a result of certain memos had never existed.)

I wish I could remember the name of the paper. But my point is, that presumably if the search engines available on the internet become fewer in number, that type of problem could even become an issue in democracies. Large corporations would literally have the power to control what could be recalled from the past.

But how do you envision that the internet could change in the near future?

To continue what you have cited above, there is the changing face of international law, blurred by the manner in which the Internet crosses borders.

One hypothetical scenario:
If China becomes Google's best customer, and they want to read all of the emails of an American citizen with an eye toward trying a US citizen in a world court for violations of Chinese laws, who do you think Google will listen to? US privacy wishes?

But more likely is that as the mergers of Yahoo/SBC with Google, with TimeWarnerAOL, with MozillaDeutschSony continue, is the 2 tier Internet...with any worthwhile content, such as academic journals, government statistics, and library archives costing a significant fee per visit. Or perhaps requiring Patriot Act clearance to access?

The current 'free' Internet may become merely the repository for the left over opinions and rantings of anyone with access to a computer, while facts and useful data will be hidden behind a gate of elitiism.

Just a thought...the people who control those corporations *might* all turn into selfless philanthropists overnight.

 

[Kaylee]

To continue what you have cited above, there is the changing face of international law, blurred by the manner in which the Internet crosses borders.

One hypothetical scenario:
If China becomes Google's best customer, and they want to read all of the emails of an American citizen with an eye toward trying a US citizen in a world court for violations of Chinese laws, who do you think Google will listen to? US privacy wishes?

Good point. And it's possible that Google (whose head office is located in California) could create subsidiaries incorporated in foreign countries to facilitate their working around USA law. There are precedents for American companies doing that when they wanted to work around American laws. I've loaned out a book with good examples, I'll try to get it back by the weekend in case anyone is interested in cases where this has occurred.

BTW, I've been told that people have noticed that the ads on their google e-mail web pages vary depending on the content of their e-mail. I've decided not to get a "free" google e-mail account for that reason alone. I just find that whole concept very disturbing -- I would at least like the e-mail provider to pretend that my e-mail is private.

But more likely is that as the mergers of Yahoo/SBC with Google, with TimeWarnerAOL, with MozillaDeutschSony continue, is the 2 tier Internet...with any worthwhile content, such as academic journals, government statistics, and library archives costing a significant fee per visit. Or perhaps requiring Patriot Act clearance to access?

The current 'free' Internet may become merely the repository for the left over opinions and rantings of anyone with access to a computer, while facts and useful data will be hidden behind a gate of elitiism.

I've been trying to figure out why this hasn't already happened. Certainly certain companies have wanted this to happen such as AOL and Microsoft through MSN. I'm very glad it hasn't happened, but I'm at a loss to understand why not.

Just a thought...the people who control those corporations *might* all turn into selfless philanthropists overnight.

lol

 

[CBL4]

I've been trying to figure out why this hasn't already happened. Certainly certain companies have wanted this to happen such as AOL and Microsoft through MSN. I'm very glad it hasn't happened, but I'm at a loss to understand why not.

I think the reason so much of the internet is still free is because of it chaotic history and the fact that it is virtual free to post your ideas.

The whole idea of blogging is a very powerful force for independent media. I can, at virtually no cost, set up my own web page with my own opinions. If I am interesting (e.g. Drudge), I can turn into a sensation that draws millions of people a day which is more than most than a local columnist can ever hope for. And I can do it simply by writing my own silly opinions. This incredibly low entry cost will always keep the internet more independent that past media.

CBL

 

[Ed]

I've been watching the evolution of american media for some time and am pretty negative about where it is going. I really don't fear the political impact of centralization as much as I fear vanillaization.

Case in point: Clearchannel owns a gizillion radio stations. The playlists are defined by management according to their research and the result is bland sameness across the dial. The objective of clearchannel (who might axe Howard Stern or the Dixie Chicks too, for profit's sake) is to make money.

I have heard that news organizations are being made part of the entertainement divisions (was it CBS recently?) The only reason for this is to jazz it up and accrue higher ratings.

Having reports all over the world is expensive, using parttimers at the Jocko trial is cheap. They all seem to be doing it with the obvious result :all Jocko, all the time. That, in my humble opinion, sucks.

A good analogy is beer.

Skipping the early history, we ended up with 4 or so mega breweries that produced product that was efficient to produce and didn't kill outright. I was all the same. I submit that news and entertainment is well along the same path.

As part of this discussion, might I suggest that the film Network be viewed? Prescient and errie.

 

[crimresearch]

"I have heard that news organizations are being made part of the entertainement divisions (was it CBS recently?) The only reason for this is to jazz it up and accrue higher ratings."

A cynical view might suggest that it was also done to provide a layer of legal insulation for inaccurate reportage.

 

[Ed]

"I have heard that news organizations are being made part of the entertainement divisions (was it CBS recently?) The only reason for this is to jazz it up and accrue higher ratings."

A cynical view might suggest that it was also done to provide a layer of legal insulation for inaccurate reportage.

Like when the WWF had to finally admit wrestling was "entertainment" not a sport?

 

[CBL4]

I am not happy with mainstream media but I cannot find any evidence to believe it was ever any better. I do not believe in a golden age. I think that with the internet, we are close to golden as we ever have been.

CBL