Suffer the little children.....

[j_b]

Diversity is part of the mission of the FCC: "The Nation's media regulations must promote competition and diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery"

 

what is it that so difficult to understand about promoting diversity in media coverage? or are you just splitting hair? I am guessing the later.

[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.

 

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.

 

shouldn't you first explain "how you get to prohibition, banning and manufacturing obedience when people are talking about diversity and independence". Because handing out assignments is fine but you shouldn't forget to turn in your copy as well when requested.

[JayB]

I think you missed the point there. I wasn't saying that enforcing whatever limited programming mandate that a claque of leftist media-chaperones wanted to force the American public to bypass with their remotes and TiVo's would lead straight to any of the above.

 

I was simply stating the fact that the array of coercive powers at, say, Ron Popeil's disposal are considerably less imposing than those available to the government. Given the track record of various private interests and motives distorting the operation of the same, if you're going to worry about a particular entity imposing a "manufactured" agenda on the public, the locus of your concern is puzzling and invites a logical justification.

[j_b]

I think you missed the point there. I wasn't saying that enforcing whatever limited programming mandate that a claque of leftist media-chaperones wanted to force the American public to bypass with their remotes and TiVo's would lead straight to any of the above.

 

classic anti-intellectual demagoguery. If you were better informed, you'd know that independent/public productions and media are immensely popular where they are properly funded. I'll just let you ponder the example of the BBC.

 

I was simply stating the fact that the array of coercive powers at, say, Ron Popeil's disposal are considerably less imposing than those available to the government. Given the track record of various private interests and motives distorting the operation of the same, if you're going to worry about a particular entity imposing a "manufactured" agenda on the public, the locus of your concern is puzzling and invites a logical justification.

 

as if it was needed to prove that today, corporations control politicians and policy. We have seen 100's of examples over the last few years and I have yet to read you contest any of it. Until then, you denial that corporate power is unchecked is mildly amusing, if not tragic.

[ivan]

anyone else watch ken burns national parks documentary on pbs the last few nights?

[Kimmo]

I was simply stating the fact that the array of coercive powers at, say, Ron Popeil's disposal are considerably less imposing than those available to the government. Given the track record of various private interests and motives distorting the operation of the same, if you're going to worry about a particular entity imposing a "manufactured" agenda on the public, the locus of your concern is puzzling and invites a logical justification.

 

indeed, because, through the many examples of government impositions on business and cultural activities that JayB will now tout out in support of his paranoias, all will be revealed.

 

All Will Be Revealed.

 

ALL WILL BE REVEALED!

[j_b]

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

 

what are you trying to say? that it takes longer than a ~decade for monopolies to evolve in completely new economic sectors like internet based activities? is that supposed to be a revelation?

[JayB]

I was simply stating the fact that the array of coercive powers at, say, Ron Popeil's disposal are considerably less imposing than those available to the government. Given the track record of various private interests and motives distorting the operation of the same, if you're going to worry about a particular entity imposing a "manufactured" agenda on the public, the locus of your concern is puzzling and invites a logical justification.

 

indeed, because, through the many examples of government impositions on business and cultural activities that JayB will now tout out in support of his paranoias, all will be revealed.

 

All Will Be Revealed.

 

ALL WILL BE REVEALED!

 

Don't take my word for it. Peruse the tax code, an appropriations bill, or any legislation that has any bearing on the above at your leisure and draw your own conclusions about the extent to which the conduct of public affairs is driven by private motives, and the extent to government's interventions in the media marketplace will be free from them.

 

 

[JayB]

I think you missed the point there. I wasn't saying that enforcing whatever limited programming mandate that a claque of leftist media-chaperones wanted to force the American public to bypass with their remotes and TiVo's would lead straight to any of the above.

 

classic anti-intellectual demagoguery. If you were better informed, you'd know that independent/public productions and media are immensely popular where they are properly funded. I'll just let you ponder the example of the BBC.

 

I was simply stating the fact that the array of coercive powers at, say, Ron Popeil's disposal are considerably less imposing than those available to the government. Given the track record of various private interests and motives distorting the operation of the same, if you're going to worry about a particular entity imposing a "manufactured" agenda on the public, the locus of your concern is puzzling and invites a logical justification.

 

as if it was needed to prove that today, corporations control politicians and policy. We have seen 100's of examples over the last few years and I have yet to read you contest any of it. Until then, you denial that corporate power is unchecked is mildly amusing, if not tragic.

 

You've pretty much given the game away here by conceding that granting the government the powers over the media marketplace that you are fantasizing about will, in practice, wind up granting more power to whoever can most successfully lobby the government to rig the game on their behalf. Are you sure that your journo/filmo editorial collective is going to prevail in that contest forever?

 

 

[j_b]

Faulty logic. Having the fox in charge of the hen house doesn't imply that we don't need a hen house or rules to decide who gets to patrol the hen house.

[prole]

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.

 

Pure horseshit. The entire history of the television medium can be read as an exercise in sales. Selling people on new programming: the sitcom, the game-show, the police procedural, the reality-show. But more importantly, television as it exists is purely and simply an advertising delivery device. Programming is a secondary consideration, the name of the game is getting someone to the commercial break. In any given hour, somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of programming is dedicated to giving viewers precisely what they don't want: advertising. Providing content is a net loss, the television industry makes money selling ads by delivering the lowest common denominator. (In a context where a large portion of the population can't put Canada on a map, anyone can guess where quality is headed.) Don't even mention the state of journalism in this environment.

The crisis in media from Tivo and the internet (both lauded by consumers for their ability to insulate themselves from overbearing commercialism) stems from falling ad revenue, how to make money, not finding content. HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers. Product placement is not good enough anymore. Reality TV allows producers to reduce budgets, easily place product, and turn consumption into a main attraction, if not the entire show. Cribs or American Chopper anyone?

Again, simply freeing a substantial portion of television bandwidth from the constraints imposed by the profit imperative (no claques, central planning, death panels, etc.) would lead to greater choice, more diversity, higher quality and lead viewers to discover previously unknown outlets for "what they want". It would certainly be possible to minimize politicization in the provision of the space to do and guarantee fair access as with other public utilities.

Edited September 30, 2009 by prole

[Kimmo]

 

Don't take my word for it. Peruse the tax code, an appropriations bill, or any legislation that has any bearing on the above at your leisure and draw your own conclusions about the extent to which the conduct of public affairs is driven by private motives, and the extent to government's interventions in the media marketplace will be free from them.

 

 

you make the assertion, you do the homework, friend.

 

but i'll make it easy on ya: just list three of your best examples.

[ivan]

HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers.

why set hbo aside? it's practically the only tv i do watch, and the shows are generally really good, including the documentaries and bill maher's talk show (though skin-a-max does own them when it comes to yer late night options ) hbo's a fine example of being able to get quality programming, sans advertising, if you're actually interested in that sorta thing.

 

people who are inclined to sit through commericial breaks were hopeless fools long before murdoch built his empire.

[prole]

HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers.

why set hbo aside? it's practically the only tv i do watch, and the shows are generally really good, including the documentaries and bill maher's talk show (though skin-a-max does own them when it comes to yer late night options ) hbo's a fine example of being able to get quality programming, sans advertising, if you're actually interested in that sorta thing.

 

That's the point. HBO operates less through ad revenue so is insulated from the lowest common denominator imperative and has more freedom for determine content free from commercial advertisers. Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" don't sell Cocoa-Puffs, yo!

[ivan]

HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers.

why set hbo aside? it's practically the only tv i do watch, and the shows are generally really good, including the documentaries and bill maher's talk show (though skin-a-max does own them when it comes to yer late night options ) hbo's a fine example of being able to get quality programming, sans advertising, if you're actually interested in that sorta thing.

 

That's the point. HBO operates less through ad revenue so is insulated from the lowest common denominator imperative and has more freedom for determine content free from commercial advertisers. Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" don't sell Cocoa-Puffs, yo!

but hbo's doing fine business, and if folks want more good channels like that, the market will produce it. i don't have that much time for tv, so 1 hbo type provider is fine for me.

[prole]

if folks want more good channels like that, the market will produce it.

 

So the public has clearly been clamoring for crappier shows all this time? Wrong. The vast wasteland of shite that comprises today's "must see TV" landscape is a direct result of chasing advertising dollars, cutting production values to maintain profit margins, and striving to appeal to the lowest common denominator in a context of lowered educational expectations. This creates a climate in which content producers are highly risk-averse and more likely to follow an already established formula than go out on a limb. This sheds light on the proliferation of copycat programming and blows holes in the argument that corporate media provides greater diversity.

Edited September 30, 2009 by prole

[ivan]

if folks want more good channels like that, the market will produce it.

 

So the public has clearly been clamoring for crappier shows all this time? Wrong. The vast wasteland of shite that comprises today's "must see TV" landscape is a direct result of chasing advertising dollars, cutting production values to maintain profit margins, and striving to appeal to the lowest common denominator in a context of lowered educational expectations. This creates a climate in which content producers are highly risk-averse and more likely to follow an already established formula than go out on a limb. This sheds light on the proliferation of copycat programming and blows holes in the argument that corporate media provides greater diversity.

gilligans island was quality programmign? howdy-fawking-doddy? the gong show?

[billcoe]

[Bug]

I want to see a remake of "Leave it to Beaver".

[prole]

Did you miss it?

[video:youtube]

[JayB]

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.

 

Pure horseshit. The entire history of the television medium can be read as an exercise in sales. Selling people on new programming: the sitcom, the game-show, the police procedural, the reality-show. But more importantly, television as it exists is purely and simply an advertising delivery device. Programming is a secondary consideration, the name of the game is getting someone to the commercial break. In any given hour, somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of programming is dedicated to giving viewers precisely what they don't want: advertising. Providing content is a net loss, the television industry makes money selling ads by delivering the lowest common denominator. (In a context where a large portion of the population can't put Canada on a map, anyone can guess where quality is headed.) Don't even mention the state of journalism in this environment.

The crisis in media from Tivo and the internet (both lauded by consumers for their ability to insulate themselves from overbearing commercialism) stems from falling ad revenue, how to make money, not finding content. HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers. Product placement is not good enough anymore. Reality TV allows producers to reduce budgets, easily place product, and turn consumption into a main attraction, if not the entire show. Cribs or American Chopper anyone?

Again, simply freeing a substantial portion of television bandwidth from the constraints imposed by the profit imperative (no claques, central planning, death panels, etc.) would lead to greater choice, more diversity, higher quality and lead viewers to discover previously unknown outlets for "what they want". It would certainly be possible to minimize politicization in the provision of the space to do and guarantee fair access as with other public utilities.

 

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

Might also be worth considering the extent to which your arguments apply to televangelists. How'd they manage to acquire such a massive presence on TV?

[Bug]

That was fake.

Fat kids don't eat apples.

 

[JayB]

 

Don't take my word for it. Peruse the tax code, an appropriations bill, or any legislation that has any bearing on the above at your leisure and draw your own conclusions about the extent to which the conduct of public affairs is driven by private motives, and the extent to government's interventions in the media marketplace will be free from them.

 

 

 

 

 

you make the assertion, you do the homework, friend.

 

but i'll make it easy on ya: just list three of your best examples.

 

'Kay.

 

1. Tariffs.

2. Subsidies.

3. Tax exemptions.

4. (Bonus!)Earmarks.

 

Might be fun to start with corn-ethanol if you need a particular example to get things started.

[ivan]

I want to see a remake of "Leave it to Beaver".

Leave It In the Beaver? could star a leper

[prole]

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.

 

Pure horseshit. The entire history of the television medium can be read as an exercise in sales. Selling people on new programming: the sitcom, the game-show, the police procedural, the reality-show. But more importantly, television as it exists is purely and simply an advertising delivery device. Programming is a secondary consideration, the name of the game is getting someone to the commercial break. In any given hour, somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of programming is dedicated to giving viewers precisely what they don't want: advertising. Providing content is a net loss, the television industry makes money selling ads by delivering the lowest common denominator. (In a context where a large portion of the population can't put Canada on a map, anyone can guess where quality is headed.) Don't even mention the state of journalism in this environment.

The crisis in media from Tivo and the internet (both lauded by consumers for their ability to insulate themselves from overbearing commercialism) stems from falling ad revenue, how to make money, not finding content. HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers. Product placement is not good enough anymore. Reality TV allows producers to reduce budgets, easily place product, and turn consumption into a main attraction, if not the entire show. Cribs or American Chopper anyone?

Again, simply freeing a substantial portion of television bandwidth from the constraints imposed by the profit imperative (no claques, central planning, death panels, etc.) would lead to greater choice, more diversity, higher quality and lead viewers to discover previously unknown outlets for "what they want". It would certainly be possible to minimize politicization in the provision of the space to do and guarantee fair access as with other public utilities.

 

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

Might also be worth considering the extent to which your arguments apply to televangelists. How'd they manage to acquire such a massive presence on TV?

 

"Libraries?! Ha, I'm surprised they still exist at all after 30 years of Reaganite assaults. Talk about "moth-ridden mechanisms for social uplift"! Subsidized, parasitical tax drains and potential profit centers for entreprenuers. They should be privatized and pay-per-view! They're meeting places too, hotbeds for "unruly mob" activity. Don't get me started on the internet!"