Subject:
|
Should we be concerned?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 May 2003 20:18:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
124 times
|
| |
|
|
While file-sharing enthusiasts debate the draconian powers of the DMCA, and
while slack-jawed-America-at-large watches the Laci Peterson case and an
avalanche of pro-war journalism, a minor piece of legislation is being prepared
for a vote on June 2, 2003. The primary impact of the legislation would be the
relaxing of the FCC's anti-monopoly restrictions on corporate media ownership,
allowing, in essence, a half-dozen companies to take 100% ownership of (i.e.,
control of) every media source in the country. The likely impacts will be a
homogenizing of programming, a huge reduction in reporting of dissenting
viewpoints, and an enormous increase in pro-corporate (and therefore generally
pro-Conservative) media agendas. Is anyone concerned?
Critics of regulation claim (with a straight face) that this unprecedented
monopolizing of all media will in some way lead to an improved state of
journalism and correspondence. Does anyone believe that? If so, I'd like to
hear the argument that demonstrates how less variety leads to a better field of
informed choices. Even proponents of the free market must recognize that this
will in no way approximate such a market and will instead foster a tiny number
of huge mega-multi-national companies.
Interestingly, the "liberal" media don't seem to be offering much coverage of
this enormous issue. Here are the results of a search on various online news
outlets for "FCC" and "JUNE" (excluding op. ed. pieces)
Name Relevant Hits
www.cnn.com 3
www.foxnews.com 3
www.washingtontimes.com 0
www.washingtonpost.com 6
www.newyorktimes.com 1
www.latimes.com 1
Meanwhile, each of these fine news sources has several dozen Laci Peterson
stories, as well as a whole bunch of articles about Annika Sorenstam, Bob Hope,
The Matrix part deux, and the rest.
Is this a classic case of bread and circuses, or are we simply so confident that
monolithic corporate profit-machines are really the best way to handle the
dispersal of information in a 21st-century democratic society?
As always, www.theonion.com has hit it right on the head, though about a
different piece of legislation:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3920/terrifying_bill_passed.html
Oh, well.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) I am a bit concerned, and agree with you here. I think programming has long been homogenized. However, I rarely see the pro conservative agenda being advanced. My main concern is the lack (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) I am not particularily concerned, because even if that worse-case scenario were to come about, the control wouldn't affect the WWW, where IMO the future of the exchange of information lies. Let's face it, any news source is biased whether they (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
