Suffer the little children.....

[prole]

I expect this kind of asinine hyperbole from FW and Kojak, you can do better.

[Jim]

That the State, populated as it is by lobbyists and corporate in-and-outers, has given over the public airwaves entirely to the corporate megaphone without regard for its monopolistic practices would suggest that some are more entitled to an audience than others.

 

And you advocate the same thing, but have a different message (that few care to listen to). Bugger off.

indeed - and who the hell gets their tv through the public airwaves these days anyhow?

 

Hey - I resemble that remark! The only benefit of the converter box is that channel that shows the bicycle races. The downside - 6 Christian channels and limited reception when it's windy.

[Kimmo]

Sounds like eliminating constitutional checks and balances in exchange for turning over every third channel to C-SPAN is a one-way ticket to utopia.

 

 

?

 

please explain the constitutional violations committed by a US government that allows for increased public access set-asides on public airwaves.

 

 

[j_b]

Enough straw men for many cornfields in the last page. I still fail to see how providing all the relevant information so that the public is informed is a nebulous concept. The news of the day (including all the relevant facts) and the important issues that analysts should discuss in any given period is a very tangible concept and not very subjective.

 

Nobody wants to take Murdoch's free speech away but many want to take away his ability to manipulate the flow of information over so much bandwith. Wealth shouldn't confer such a disproportionate ability to model public discourse. It is imo a basic tenet of representative democracy. I find it rather amazing and quite sad that people would willingly settle for corporations to determine what citizen should and shouldn't know.

[ivan]

No, not "indeed". I think as a society we can stand some more Paul Ron and Ralph Nader and a lot more besides. The greatest check to political power is an informed and engaged citizenry. The function of independent journalism is to inform the population and the media's a means to transmit it. Providing more bandwidth to this function, a forum for diverse views, and more transparency for the processes of governance free from the pressures of profit-making would be the goal, not State control over content.

i do want to understand your argument - are you just saying you want the goverment to pick up the tab for more cspan/pbs type channels and have some democratic body for determining their content?

[ivan]

I find it rather amazing and quite sad that people would willingly settle for corporations to determine what citizen should and shouldn't know.

i guess what we're saying is that it's sad you think that all we know or can think about is what corporations broadcast - i get essentially zero of my news analysis from the t.v. and the majority of it from conversations w/ other people who's intelligence or experiences i find interesting

[Kimmo]

I find it rather amazing and quite sad that people would willingly settle for corporations to determine what citizen should and shouldn't know.

 

then don't buy from those corporations, silly. everyone knows it's the consumer who's in charge.

 

 

funny tid-bit on the news yesterday: corporate interests talking about how the citizens weren't on board with some resource extraction scheme in india. corporate dude: "we need a tv in every household!".

[j_b]

The control of the flow of information and mass culture by corporate oligopolies would be at the very top of his list IMO. THE major invention of the 20th century was TV. Nothing has done more to change the way so many people perceive reality.

 

It's more than a bit strange that these corporate media oligopolies have seemed to have so little interest in using the uncheckable array of powers at their disposal to manipulate the public into consuming enough of the print media that they generate to allow the said media outlets to stay in business. Seems like if they can subvert the "public interest" at will and subvert it to their own ends that'd be job one.

 

 

You are confusing medium and content. Nobody is going to be able to change the fact that print media is becoming obsolete because other media have taken its market share (and the complementary media to print media, the internet, isn't really profitable) and, to a lesser extent because it lost credibility with the very population likely to keep buying print media (people serious about news). Murdoch may still purchase newspapers but it is probably not with the goal of making them very profitable, as shown by the ~40 million dollars he has sunk in the New York Post over the last few decades, but rather with the idea of cornering his competitors such as the NYT.

[j_b]

I find it rather amazing and quite sad that people would willingly settle for corporations to determine what citizen should and shouldn't know.

 

then don't buy from those corporations, silly. everyone knows it's the consumer who's in charge.

 

I can't tell if you are being serious but I very rarely watch TV news. In fact, I have been boycotting most things corporate for decades. Yet corporate power has never been greater, which points to some short-coming in your reasoning: people will keep watching TV so you have to make good TV to reach them.

 

 

funny tid-bit on the news yesterday: corporate interests talking about how the citizens weren't on board with some resource extraction scheme in india. corporate dude: "we need a tv in every household!".

 

classic.

[Kimmo]

not too serious.

[j_b]

No, not "indeed". I think as a society we can stand some more Paul Ron and Ralph Nader and a lot more besides. The greatest check to political power is an informed and engaged citizenry. The function of independent journalism is to inform the population and the media's a means to transmit it. Providing more bandwidth to this function, a forum for diverse views, and more transparency for the processes of governance free from the pressures of profit-making would be the goal, not State control over content.

i do want to understand your argument - are you just saying you want the goverment to pick up the tab for more cspan/pbs type channels and have some democratic body for determining their content?

 

The array of public media could clearly be expanded either through entire channels or time slots on private channel in exchange for free use of the broadcast band. If the brits can afford 8 BBC channels, I wager we can do a little better than we are currently especially since PBS is quite stogy and something racier should be available for the younger crowd.

 

No need for additional institutions to decide content, just make sure journos and producers are truly independent.

[prole]

No, not "indeed". I think as a society we can stand some more Paul Ron and Ralph Nader and a lot more besides. The greatest check to political power is an informed and engaged citizenry. The function of independent journalism is to inform the population and the media's a means to transmit it. Providing more bandwidth to this function, a forum for diverse views, and more transparency for the processes of governance free from the pressures of profit-making would be the goal, not State control over content.

i do want to understand your argument - are you just saying you want the goverment to pick up the tab for more cspan/pbs type channels and have some democratic body for determining their content?

 

That could be a key component of media reform, a more rigorous application of anti-trust law to break up media conglomerates could be another. Independent bodies insulated from commercial and political interests charged with maintaining free and fair access to those outlets would be very important, programming and control over content would need to be as decentralized as possible with filmmakers and journalists themselves having the most say. But I don't have a problem with government helping to fund content. The Film Board of Canada and Swedish Television for example, have helped produce many films and programs of lasting significance. The same could be said of PBS. The crucial point to all of this however is that freeing a substantial chunk of the media (and journalism especially) from the pressures imposed by the quest after profit and the lowest common denominator can represent an increase in diversity and higher quality.

Edited September 29, 2009 by prole

[Kimmo]

The crucial point to all of this however is that freeing a substantial chunk of the media (and journalism especially) from the pressures imposed by the quest after profit and the lowest common denominator

 

not to mention overt politicization.

[j_b]

Seems like a timely moment to trot out one of the better passages on the perils of prohibitionism, be it of speech or drugs:

 

and

 

I'm not sure how one can logically equate the threats posed by manufacturing consent via media to be more significant than manufucturing obedience via the power to ban, seize, imprison, etc., all of which are subject to being co-opted to serve private interests in the name of safeguarding the public interest.

 

Perhaps, some day you'll explain to us how you get to prohibition, banning and manufacturing obedience when people are talking about diversity and independence. Especially since loss of freedom occurs as surely through corporate hegemony as it would though direct government control as is very apparent today (fact that you have yet to acknowledge). You seem to operate in a manichean world where there is no alternative to corporate and/or government oppression.

Edited September 29, 2009 by j_b

[prole]

Something about controlling "the mob" aka "the rest of us" while maintaining the basis for profit-taking, I expect.

Edited September 29, 2009 by prole

[j_b]

The most amazing part of that rhetorical trick is that it seems to work: rattle the big government puppet when people question corporate control of our lives and somehow, corporate over-reach becomes acceptable? wtf ...

[ivan]

The array of public media could clearly be expanded either through entire channels or time slots on private channel in exchange for free use of the broadcast band. If the brits can afford 8 BBC channels, I wager we can do a little better than we are currently especially since PBS is quite stogy and something racier should be available for the younger crowd.

 

No need for additional institutions to decide content, just make sure journos and producers are truly independent.

alright, well this hardly sounds insane - good luck getting the funding though, as you know pbs makes the conservos insane - i don't see the need to break up fox or any other current news provider however, but taxing mega-corps to help fund your more public channels might work - the current lineup of pbs shows already has a # of snoozers though, so it'd be challenging to find much of quality to fill the time - seems like it'd mostly be wayne's world knock-offs

[prole]

The most amazing part of that rhetorical trick is that it seems to work: rattle the big government puppet when people question corporate control of our lives and somehow, corporate over-reach becomes acceptable? wtf ...

 

Corporations and corporate power don't really exist, only free producers and consumers endlessly meeting in a series of mutually beneficial exchanges. Verum est, Amen.

[el jefe]

The array of public media could clearly be expanded either through entire channels or time slots on private channel in exchange for free use of the broadcast band. If the brits can afford 8 BBC channels, I wager we can do a little better than we are currently especially since PBS is quite stogy and something racier should be available for the younger crowd.

 

No need for additional institutions to decide content, just make sure journos and producers are truly independent.

alright, well this hardly sounds insane - good luck getting the funding though, as you know pbs makes the conservos insane - i don't see the need to break up fox or any other current news provider however, but taxing mega-corps to help fund your more public channels might work - the current lineup of pbs shows already has a # of snoozers though, so it'd be challenging to find much of quality to fill the time - seems like it'd mostly be wayne's world knock-offs

 

ivan, taxing mega-corps simply isn't an option and you know that. corporations and wealthy individuals are extremely delicate and fragile entities and raising their tax rates might make it difficult for them to purchase the congressmen and senators necessary to sustain their existence.

 

if this sort of pie-in-the-sky democracy shit is going to be paid for, then we are going to have to do it with spending cuts...just remember that defense spending is off limits...

[Mal_Con]

[video:youtube]

[ivan]

[video:youtube]

now why can't i use this in my classrom?

[j_b]

The array of public media could clearly be expanded either through entire channels or time slots on private channel in exchange for free use of the broadcast band. If the brits can afford 8 BBC channels, I wager we can do a little better than we are currently especially since PBS is quite stogy and something racier should be available for the younger crowd.

 

No need for additional institutions to decide content, just make sure journos and producers are truly independent.

alright, well this hardly sounds insane - good luck getting the funding though, as you know pbs makes the conservos insane

 

That was before they got what they wanted (even if they still like to rant about "big government": "A new study of news and public affairs programming on PBS stations has found that the voice of business is much louder than all others -- a troubling finding for a broadcast system established to "provide a voice for groups that may otherwise be unheard." Four years after Congressional leaders failed to "zero out" public TV, the study suggests that the cost of survival has been increasing commercialism, a persistent elite bias and the marginalization of many of the groups in society that the system was intended to serve."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/pbs-release.html

 

(and matters have gotten worse since the study)

 

- i don't see the need to break up fox or any other current news provider

 

why? government broke up radio, RCA, prevented ITT from buying ABC, broke up movie studios from theater chains, ... all in order to maintain diversity and independence of the media from corporate interests. Concentration across multiple media is a lot worse today than it ever was. What has changed that we shouldn't break up monopolies that control public discourse and most cultural production?

 

however, but taxing mega-corps to help fund your more public channels might work - the current lineup of pbs shows already has a # of snoozers though, so it'd be challenging to find much of quality to fill the time - seems like it'd mostly be wayne's world knock-offs

 

it doesn't have to be and is likely the result of underfunding. Many public TV channels in other countries produce quality programming.

[JayB]

No, not "indeed". I think as a society we can stand some more Paul Ron and Ralph Nader and a lot more besides. The greatest check to political power is an informed and engaged citizenry. The function of independent journalism is to inform the population and the media's a means to transmit it. Providing more bandwidth to this function, a forum for diverse views, and more transparency for the processes of governance free from the pressures of profit-making would be the goal, not State control over content.

i do want to understand your argument - are you just saying you want the goverment to pick up the tab for more cspan/pbs type channels and have some democratic body for determining their content?

 

That could be a key component of media reform, a more rigorous application of anti-trust law to break up media conglomerates could be another. Independent bodies insulated from commercial and political interests charged with maintaining free and fair access to those outlets would be very important, programming and control over content would need to be as decentralized as possible with filmmakers and journalists themselves having the most say. But I don't have a problem with government helping to fund content. The Film Board of Canada and Swedish Television for example, have helped produce many films and programs of lasting significance. The same could be said of PBS. The crucial point to all of this however is that freeing a substantial chunk of the media (and journalism especially) from the pressures imposed by the quest after profit and the lowest common denominator can represent an increase in diversity and higher quality.

 

Good lord. Diversity and quality as defined by who, exactly? As if there wouldn't be a whole raft of "undemocratic" political considerations that warped the distribution of programming amongst the filmo/journo collective at the heart of this fantasy that warped the distribution of content and constrained access in ways that are at least as severe as those that determine what happens on the commercial airways.

 

It should go without saying, but it apparently doesn't, that they crank out content that's entirely consistent with both "the public interest," in the most literal sense. That is, what the public is actually interested in watching. You may not like it, but your hallowed majority votes with their remotes every night and the grant-dependent paean to pacific vegan horticultural collective in Southern Vermont and loses to the WWE every time. No amount of publicly funded browbeating by a claque of self-annointed media governesses is going to change that.

 

Anyone who wants to can find that particular full length documentary on the internet, which pretty much negates the basic premise of this conversation and the purpose of the "People's Media Collective" being fantasized about at length here. The fact that people are lamenting the barriers to information in the present, and romanticizing some vague golden past in the age of manual typewriters is just astonishing.

[JayB]

Seems like a timely moment to trot out one of the better passages on the perils of prohibitionism, be it of speech or drugs:

 

and

 

I'm not sure how one can logically equate the threats posed by manufacturing consent via media to be more significant than manufucturing obedience via the power to ban, seize, imprison, etc., all of which are subject to being co-opted to serve private interests in the name of safeguarding the public interest.

 

Perhaps, some day you'll explain to us how you get to prohibition, banning and manufacturing obedience when people are talking about diversity and independence. Especially since loss of freedom occurs as surely through corporate hegemony as it would though direct government control as is very apparent today (fact that you have yet to acknowledge). You seem to operate in a manichean world where there is no alternative to corporate and/or government oppression.

 

The claim in bold is fascinating, and I hope that you'll expand on it at length. Choose your favorite corporate hegemon (Starbucks?) and take it from there.

[JayB]

The array of public media could clearly be expanded either through entire channels or time slots on private channel in exchange for free use of the broadcast band. If the brits can afford 8 BBC channels, I wager we can do a little better than we are currently especially since PBS is quite stogy and something racier should be available for the younger crowd.

 

No need for additional institutions to decide content, just make sure journos and producers are truly independent.

alright, well this hardly sounds insane - good luck getting the funding though, as you know pbs makes the conservos insane - i don't see the need to break up fox or any other current news provider however, but taxing mega-corps to help fund your more public channels might work - the current lineup of pbs shows already has a # of snoozers though, so it'd be challenging to find much of quality to fill the time - seems like it'd mostly be wayne's world knock-offs

 

I certainly hope someone intervenes soon, or AOL will control all new media and AltaVista will irreversibly consolidate their dominance in search.