Suffer the little children.....

[Pete_H]

Yet another example of your liberal racism.

[prole]

He's the Octobroho.

[j_b]

bitching about the purveyors of news is hardly new:

 

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

 

-Thomas Jefferson

 

Yes, it isn't new but communication, technology and media consumption habits have changed a little since Jefferson. Today few read books (even fewer non-fiction books), the TV is on many hours a day, news "analysts" are lobbyists and/or entertainers, there is little investigative reporting, and from 35 major media organizations 50 years ago we are down to 5 conglomerates that mostly regurgitate conservative talking points framed by Fixed News.

Edited September 28, 2009 by j_b

[j_b]

Interview with Nicholas Johnson, former FCC Commissioner:

"You now have the phenomenon of the single owner paying money to the writer of the novel in the form of book advance and royalties, and then paying the screenwriter to write the feature film which is produced at the owner's Hollywood studio. The owner's magazine does features about actors, producers, directors and other celebrities and otherwise promotes their movie, while the same person or corporation owns a television network that has the late night talk show on which these folks appear as guests; they own the theaters in which the movie is shown; they own the cable networks on which the rerun is provided; they own the pay-per-view services where people watch it in hotels; and they own the video rental stores where others go to rent it. So, you have created the possibility of an incredible multi-media, multi-national hype of a product which left on its own might very well have gone nowhere. More and more, this dominates what we're going to be reading in books, seeing in feature films, reading in magazine articles and so forth."

 

Much more here: Media Monopoly

[billcoe]

...is that known as the "single payer system"?

 

ps, to follow up on what jb is saying Ivan: I don't think that the Pentagon had 28,000 people hired with the sole duty of sending out positive public relations releases about the US and our glorious military back when Jefferson was President like they do now. Nice quote too.

 

That's Twenty Eight Thousand...hmmmm lets say average cost is $50,000 per employee for that PR "group", "Swarm" or "gaggle" That's $1,400,000,000 a year in cost to you. Are you getting your moneys worth for this?

[ivan]

i'm sure all this shit will get straightened out when the mayan gods come down to party in 2012

[billcoe]

i'm sure all this shit will get straightened out when the mayan gods come down to party in 2012

 

about time....

[ivan]

the human animal hasn't changed an iota in the past 1000 years - we're still, as a collective group, no more interested in the here and now then what's minimially required to get our next snack and our next lay

 

and yes, bill, i'm quite sure jefferson would be shitting himself if he came back for a brief visit today, though his list of concerns might not put this particuliar issue that high at the top (possibly lower than "holy shit, sally hemming's kids get to come to my fucking party every year!?!")

[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.

[ivan]

okay maybe your right - he probably would plop down in front of espn for a couple of hours and watch the williams sistas have at it

 

seriously though, jefferson was an elitist (perhaps not so different from yourself?) - he thought the vast majority of mankind was incapable of intelligent thinking anyhow, unfit to vote or be a part of the political system, and therefore of course he'd expect their idiotbox to do nothing to render them more enlightened or cosmopolitian - intelligent people educate themselves and are free thinkers, and immune to propaganda (i imagine he'd say) - fuck'em if they can't see past the b.s.

[j_b]

Jefferson was well aware of what corporations could do if given the chance: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

 

You are mistaken about me: even if my cultural upbringing is different, I don't think average folks are necessarily more sheepish than cultural elites. In fact, it seems to me that in most cultures, common folks have a much reasonable picture of reality.

 

 

[ivan]

Jefferson was well aware of what corporations could do if given the chance: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

 

You are mistaken about me: even if my cultural upbringing is different, I don't think average folks are necessarily more sheepish than cultural elites. In fact, it seems to me that in most cultures, common folks have a much reasonable picture of reality.

 

nah, i'm plenty elitist meself, plus i went to mr jefferson's university, so it was hardly an insult

 

yeah, jefferson wanted america to be something like gandhi wanted - a big happy self-governing agriculture based commune - whoops, i guess hamilton won afterall

[Fairweather]

Jefferson was well aware of what corporations could do if given the chance: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

 

You are mistaken about me: even if my cultural upbringing is different, I don't think average folks are necessarily more sheepish than cultural elites. In fact, it seems to me that in most cultures, common folks have a much reasonable picture of reality.

 

nah, i'm plenty elitist meself, plus i went to mr jefferson's university, so it was hardly an insult

 

yeah, jefferson wanted america to be something like gandhi wanted - a big happy self-governing agriculture based commune - whoops, i guess hamilton won afterall

 

Don't bother trying to explain American history to a post, post, post revisionist who gets his facts exclusively from Huffington and various websites that end in .org.

[ivan]

Don't bother trying to explain American history to a post, post, post revisionist who gets his facts exclusively from Huffington and various websites that end in .org.

i long ago figured it was pointless trying to convince anyone of my take on history - can you think of one person on this board for example who will ever concede a point or change their mind on even the most trifling issue? spraying is da interweb equivalent of fiddling while rome burns

 

can you, for example, admit the slightest bit of intelligence and insight in mrs. huffington? i've heard her talk a bunch of times, and while the greek accent thing is a bit annoying, she's hardly a fool, certainly less full of shit than, say, rush.

 

lao tsu had the only practical answer to dealing w/ the ills of godawful human society - it's a shame we've run out of earth to hide in

[Fairweather]

The belief that this is all somehow new is what I find amazing. The media has always been nasty and unbalanced and, largely, left to its own devices Democrat efforts to manipulate the FCC notwithstanding. What IS somewhat new, is this breed of j_bs who feel an overwhelming desire to exert government control over free speech.

[ivan]

What IS somewhat new, is this breed of j_bs who feel an overwhelming desire to exert government control over free speech.

if i understand his position, i think he's saying that free speech is not really possible in a world where massive corporations take up most of the bandwidth - in this sense then, he would see himself as a protector and advocate of free speech in calling for the government to silience the deafening roar of the big boys.

[Fairweather]

What IS somewhat new, is this breed of j_bs who feel an overwhelming desire to exert government control over free speech.

if i understand his position, i think he's saying that free speech is not really possible in a world where massive corporations take up most of the bandwidth - in this sense then, he would see himself as a protector and advocate of free speech in calling for the government to silence the deafening roar of the big boys.

 

Except his fears are unfounded--as you explained to him earlier in this thread. In any event, the Supreme Court has largely decided media "fairness" issues, first--wrongly--in Red Lion v FCC, and later, correctly, in FCC v League of Women Voters.

[el jefe]

What IS somewhat new, is this breed of j_bs who feel an overwhelming desire to exert government control over free speech.

if i understand his position, i think he's saying that free speech is not really possible in a world where massive corporations take up most of the bandwidth - in this sense then, he would see himself as a protector and advocate of free speech in calling for the government to silience the deafening roar of the big boys.

 

"Oh my England

that free speech without free radio speech is as zero

and but one point needed for Stalin"

[ivan]

"Oh my England

that free speech without free radio speech is as zero

and but one point needed for Stalin"

wow - googling this then reading the result made me a little

[j_b]

Don't bother trying to explain American history to a post, post, post revisionist who gets his facts exclusively from Huffington and various websites that end in .org.

 

False accusations as per usual. Do you expect anyone reading spray regularly to not notice that you are a liar?

[j_b]

What IS somewhat new, is this breed of j_bs who feel an overwhelming desire to exert government control over free speech.

 

You are lying as per usual. I never said I wanted government control over free speech. I said that I wanted government to apply existing anti-trust laws and to prevent consolidations, as they were before Reagan came around, to promote diversity and prevent the corporate media from controlling the flow of information as well as framing the issues. Besides gratuitous affirmations (usually false), you certainly don't contribute much to these discussions.

[JayB]

all these conglomerates represent the interests of mega-corporations. ..

sure, okay, of course - they're big businesses themselves so of course they're gonna be pro business, but that's been the case for more than a century, and again, the birth of the internet has substantially improved reporting by the little-man - the bottom line is that it's not the governments place to go and destroy mega-news providers - there is competition both amongst themselves and w/ the blogosphere, and theoritically they all improve one another

 

it is the role of government to ensure the proper use of the public commons (airwaves). Proper use that includes the independence of the 4th estate for a functioning democracy, which requires an informed public. Self-censorship to retain advertisers and access to politicians is the rule rather than the exception. Coverage of all issues show that left wing perspectives aren't available through the corporate media (from the Iraq war, to single payer healthcare, to israel-palestine, and on ...). The blogosphere has a positive role to play but it doesn't have access to most of the public on a regular basis.

 

Example: coverage of ACORN by the corporate media. Most of the info told in this segment has been available on the web for years, but only surfaces in one corporate news program once the damage to ACORN has been done:

 

[video:youtube]zDxm--DyavI

 

Given that "the public interest" is a rhetorical nebulosity capable of accomodating virtually any and every self-serving interpretation that one might care to invent, what's to stop whomever happens to be in power at the time from equating "public interest" with their own personal/political interests and abusing the power thus granted to them accordingly?

 

What about the earmarking/appropriations/tax-exemption/tariff/subsidy track record gives you confidence that private motives won't supercede whatever arbitrary definition of "the public interest" is in play at any given time?

 

[j_b]

The public interest isn't nebulous. It is to be informed so that democracy be possible and it is best served by diversity of speech and ownership, not by media consolidation and oligopolies that serve only the interest of corporations as can be observed routinely in today's media. Are you suggesting that private motives, those of Mr Murdoch for example, don't supersede the public interest today?

Edited September 29, 2009 by j_b

[Fairweather]

 

You are lying as per usual. As per usual.

 

Fell free to simply write "as usual". The per you like to add in each and every reply might make you feel like a thoughtful and reflective academic, but it also makes you appear an intellectual poseur.

[j_b]

 

You are lying as per usual. As per usual.

 

Fell free to simply write "as usual". The per you like to add in each and every reply might make you feel like a thoughtful and reflective academic, but it also makes you appear an intellectual poseur.

 

another content free post ...