Arlong Park Forums

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Users
    • Groups

    FCC loosens media ownership restrictions

    General Discussion
    9
    18
    5408
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • G
      GaryPotter
      last edited by
      G
      spiral
      GaryPotter
      spiral

      This morning, the FCC's three Republicans voted to allow cross-media ownership. What this means is that companies are now permitted to own both newspapers and television stations in the same media market. They are already permitted to own two television stations and any number of radio stations in any given market. The reasoning they gave is that this will allow stations to get financial assistance to compete as advertising and readership quickly migrates to the Internet.

      Now, we all know that's a load of bullshit. The REAL reason is that they want to allow large corporations to "buy out" whatever competition still exists for them. I'll give you an example: here in So Cal, when the rule was changed in 2001 to allow a company to own 2 stations, News Corp immediately bought KCOP-13, the prime competitor of their own KTTV-11. KCOP's operating budget was slashed in half, their news was cut to a half-hour, and most of their sitcom reruns disappeared in favor of infomercials. What was once a strong healthy network quickly became a barren wasteland of trash. The same thing happened all over the country, effectively cutting in half the choices for viewers and killing off the market for first-run syndication, as very few stations had enough money left to support such risky ventures.

      So you can imagine what will happen if this new ruling survives a court challenge. The Los Angeles Times could potentially be bought and turned into another New York Post. Truly a dark day indeed.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • *Meh*
        *Meh*
        last edited by
        *Meh*
        spiral
        *Meh*
        spiral

        Considering most corporations with any interest in this thing going through would have kept news such as this silent, where did you learn of this? I am interested to know what news group still has any sense of journalistic integrity left, so that I may support them until Disney/Viacom/AOL-Time-Warner/Comcast buys them out.

        I'm like Hisotensoku: Not here to preserve peace, nor to destroy it. I certainly can't move mountains. Mostly, I'm just full of hot air.- Meh

        G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • G
          GaryPotter @*Meh*
          @*Meh* last edited by
          G
          spiral
          GaryPotter
          spiral

          @_Meh_:

          Considering most corporations with any interest in this thing going through would have kept news such as this silent, where did you learn of this? I am interested to know what news group still has any sense of journalistic integrity left, so that I may support them until Disney/Viacom/AOL-Time-Warner/Comcast buys them out.

          I've been following it on C-SPAN 3. Also it was featured on dailykos.com

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • Greg
            Greg
            Envoy
            last edited by
            Greg
            spiral
            Greg
            Envoy
            spiral

            The Los Angeles Times could potentially be bought and turned into another New York Post. Truly a dark day indeed.

            I can't believe anyone actually reads, watches, listens to any news source and thinks that's all there is to the story. When you take all the collective right and left leaning news ventures into perspective, sift through the thick bullshit, and put the bits and pieces of information contained within together, you get a story.

            But it's much eaiser to go on CNN News , read the headlines, go, "That's bullshit.", then go over to Fox News, read the exact same headlines, go, "That's bullshit too.", and then head out to work with a smile on my face and a song in my heart knowing just how much bullshit is going on in the world.

            No matter where you go, there you are.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • *Meh*
              *Meh*
              last edited by
              *Meh*
              spiral
              *Meh*
              spiral

              Yes, and so long as that option exists- to read the exact same headlines on two different news sources- I won't have too much of a problem with it. It is when we are reduced to only having one place to go to read the headlines that the quality of the bullshit changes: There's less of it, but somehow it stinks more.

              I'm like Hisotensoku: Not here to preserve peace, nor to destroy it. I certainly can't move mountains. Mostly, I'm just full of hot air.- Meh

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • Cap'n Carter
                Cap'n Carter
                last edited by
                Cap'n Carter
                spiral
                Cap'n Carter
                spiral

                you're not so smart

                the bigot who thinks being an asshole is actually worth shit

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • Gorlom
                  Gorlom
                  last edited by
                  Gorlom
                  spiral
                  Gorlom
                  spiral

                  Enlighten us oh great Captain. Why is he not so smart?

                  Originally Posted by Ivotas

                  What the…? Holy smurf am I slow! Until this statement of yours I never even realized that an octopus is actually serving octopusballs. Talk about not seeing the forest because of too many trees. facepalm

                  *Meh* 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • *Meh*
                    *Meh* @Gorlom
                    @Gorlom last edited by
                    *Meh*
                    spiral
                    *Meh*
                    spiral

                    @Gorlom:

                    Enlighten us oh great Captain. Why is he not so smart?

                    No need, just read his signature. That alone provides all the enlightenment anyone would ever need about him.

                    I'm like Hisotensoku: Not here to preserve peace, nor to destroy it. I certainly can't move mountains. Mostly, I'm just full of hot air.- Meh

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • A
                      amai-mikan
                      last edited by
                      A
                      spiral
                      amai-mikan
                      spiral

                      I don't even want to pick up a newspaper here in Canada, there's really nothing worth reading from Canadian journalists they've all sold their souls to CanWest… er well that or they were fired and blacklisted :silly: And apparently they now control 90% of the newspaper circulations in major Canadian cities? Damn you Leonard Asper.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Malintex_Terek
                        Malintex_Terek
                        last edited by
                        Malintex_Terek
                        spiral
                        Malintex_Terek
                        spiral

                        @GaryPotter:

                        Now, we all know that's a load of bullshit. The REAL reason is that they want to allow large corporations to "buy out" whatever competition still exists for them. I'll give you an example: here in So Cal, when the rule was changed in 2001 to allow a company to own 2 stations, News Corp immediately bought KCOP-13, the prime competitor of their own KTTV-11. KCOP's operating budget was slashed in half, their news was cut to a half-hour, and most of their sitcom reruns disappeared in favor of infomercials. What was once a strong healthy network quickly became a barren wasteland of trash. The same thing happened all over the country, effectively cutting in half the choices for viewers and killing off the market for first-run syndication, as very few stations had enough money left to support such risky ventures.

                        So long as the internet remains unregulated, where servers don't have to spend their time sifting through personal files to find illegal content and we can access info wherever we wish, this could be a good thing.

                        If people with internet access come to the brick-shatting conclusion that television news is biased, they just might dive into the internet to get their news stories. And that's all for the better.

                        MUV-LUV ALTERNATIVE

                        Making Anime and Manga OBSOLETE since 2006

                        PM me for details

                        Gorlom 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Gorlom
                          Gorlom @Malintex_Terek
                          @Malintex_Terek last edited by
                          Gorlom
                          spiral
                          Gorlom
                          spiral

                          @Malintex_Terek:

                          So long as the internet remains unregulated, where servers don't have to spend their time sifting through personal files to find illegal content and we can access info wherever we wish, this could be a good thing.

                          If people with internet access come to the brick-shatting conclusion that television news is biased, they just might dive into the internet to get their news stories. And that's all for the better.

                          why would internet be any less biased then tv or newspapers? Here people can hide behind usernames and remain anonymus.

                          just look at wikipedia.

                          If noone gets payed for beeing accurate how are we going ot get anything but bullshit?

                          Originally Posted by Ivotas

                          What the…? Holy smurf am I slow! Until this statement of yours I never even realized that an octopus is actually serving octopusballs. Talk about not seeing the forest because of too many trees. facepalm

                          Malintex_Terek 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • Malintex_Terek
                            Malintex_Terek @Gorlom
                            @Gorlom last edited by
                            Malintex_Terek
                            spiral
                            Malintex_Terek
                            spiral

                            @Gorlom:

                            why would internet be any less biased then tv or newspapers?

                            Because the information available to any simpleton is so much greater. On normal television, the number of news channels is limited, as it is with cable - people have great power when it comes to framing and priming the stories for an audience.

                            On the internet, where we have (or had) "uncensored" sites like Ogrish, frequently story/niche news websites like /n/, slashdot, ANN, tons of blogs and government/PAC/NGO official websites, economic data repositories like the Penn World Tables.

                            Anyone who does a little digging beyond "CNN DOT COM" or whatever can be an extremely well informed person, and driving people away from faux news on television (Colbert and O'Reilly both) is a good thing.

                            @Gorlom:

                            Here people can hide behind usernames and remain anonymus.

                            Which allows them to be more open about what they think.

                            @Gorlom:

                            just look at wikipedia.

                            What about Wikipedia? Anything can go on there so long as there are solid, hard sources that can be verified. If you're referring to the GNAA article's deletion, it was removed not because it advertises the GNAA, but because all the info couldn't be verified beyond personal statements of those involved, which couldn't be put on a credible source.

                            Stormfront is worse than the GNAA and I see its article is still there.

                            @Gorlom:

                            If noone gets payed for beeing accurate how are we going ot get anything but bullshit?

                            Because more people nowadays place value on entertainment than on accurate news - you should know this, since the era of credible journalism has eroded away with the dawn of cable television and the digital format of presentation.

                            Sins such as "fornication", "vanity" and "gossip" have evolved into values like "love", "beauty" and "news". Greed has consumed and poisoned the American heart, and the Islamic boogeymen have scared some Christian Fundamentalists so badly they're trying to cast the world back into the Dark Ages.

                            Personally, I blame the Baby Boomers for their moral failures, and have great hope (I'll have to) that Generation Y can usher in a new era of sensibility (Generation X - no offense guys - seems to be little better than the BB's). Changing the minds of people who have already had their neural pathways sealed off is impossible - the best we can do is hope nature kills them off soon enough and their children inherit the world and cleanse it of the malignant filth.

                            MUV-LUV ALTERNATIVE

                            Making Anime and Manga OBSOLETE since 2006

                            PM me for details

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • Gorlom
                              Gorlom
                              last edited by
                              Gorlom
                              spiral
                              Gorlom
                              spiral

                              Because the information available to any simpleton is so much greater. On normal television, the number of news channels is limited, as it is with cable - people have great power when it comes to framing and priming the stories for an audience.

                              On the internet, where we have (or had) "uncensored" sites like Ogrish, frequently story/niche news websites like /n/, slashdot, ANN, tons of blogs and government/PAC/NGO official websites, economic data repositories like the Penn World Tables.

                              Anyone who does a little digging beyond "CNN DOT COM" or whatever can be an extremely well informed person, and driving people away from faux news on television (Colbert and O'Reilly both) is a good thing.

                              Where does theese sites get their information from? Are they hobby journalists? Or does the ad revenue generate enough to pay for real investigating reporters?

                              Which allows them to be more open about what they think.

                              … This is not a good thing for unbiased accurate information imo.

                              Because more people nowadays place value on entertainment than on accurate news - you should know this, since the era of credible journalism has eroded away with the dawn of cable television and the digital format of presentation.

                              wow the news in america must really be fucked up if that is your view on things. isnt this just popular journalism? cant you find decent news channels and papers if you ignore the tabloids and such?

                              Originally Posted by Ivotas

                              What the…? Holy smurf am I slow! Until this statement of yours I never even realized that an octopus is actually serving octopusballs. Talk about not seeing the forest because of too many trees. facepalm

                              E Malintex_Terek 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • E
                                Earthworm Zim @Gorlom
                                @Gorlom last edited by
                                E
                                spiral
                                Earthworm Zim
                                spiral

                                @Gorlom:

                                wow the news in america must really be fucked up if that is your view on things. isnt this just popular journalism? cant you find decent news channels and papers if you ignore the tabloids and such?

                                LKho8RM-BSY

                                No, I don't think they can.

                                no jared

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • TakinawaTonfa
                                  TakinawaTonfa
                                  last edited by
                                  TakinawaTonfa
                                  spiral
                                  TakinawaTonfa
                                  spiral

                                  It should be noted that FOX is in fact the lowest rated news channel over here. 😕

                                  People always make fun of the whole "fair and balanced" crap.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • Malintex_Terek
                                    Malintex_Terek @Gorlom
                                    @Gorlom last edited by
                                    Malintex_Terek
                                    spiral
                                    Malintex_Terek
                                    spiral

                                    @Gorlom:

                                    Where does theese sites get their information from? Are they hobby journalists? Or does the ad revenue generate enough to pay for real investigating reporters?

                                    They're called "pajama politicians" or something, people who have earned enough money in the real world to not have to work, so they do political muckraking as a hobby. Or people who are just interested in news stories and discussing them.

                                    As for the sources, like I said, people on the internet usually provide a source with what they say, otherwise it's "source or GTFO". On TV, the only kind of source-citing we get is, "According to…"; it's far limited.

                                    Bloggers are an important news source, since their online journals can chronicle events most people wouldn't know is happening.

                                    And I don't understand your fixation on advertising as a insurance for credible jouornalism. If anything, advertisements raise demand curves more when the journalism is entertaining, not accurate or precise.

                                    Example, "soft news" like JAMIE LYNN SPEARS IS PREGNANT results in higher household reach for an ad than the media curbing you brought up in this topic. At least on this side of the pond.

                                    @Gorlom:

                                    This is not a good thing for unbiased accurate information imo.

                                    It's a two way street. Websites identifying themselves like the "Central Intelligence Agency" have to be accurate, their crediblity is at stake if the CIA Factbook is wrong, for example. But people who post anonymously can be more true about their feelings, so opinions are less constrained on the internet.

                                    Did you know a lot of Islamics in England support Jihad on a skewed view of what exactly Jihad is? It's like people supporting Barack Obama or Ron Paul based on their name and popularity alone rather than their substantive issues; youth are too lazy to think in this day and age uniformally across first world countries!

                                    @Gorlom:

                                    wow the news in america must really be fucked up if that is your view on things. isnt this just popular journalism? cant you find decent news channels and papers if you ignore the tabloids and such?

                                    Yellow journalism. And yes, there are some credible papers out there, but they're poorly circulated and funded; most people can't afford to go digging for stories in Indonesia when the reach of their paper is only about a couple hundred people.

                                    MUV-LUV ALTERNATIVE

                                    Making Anime and Manga OBSOLETE since 2006

                                    PM me for details

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • Gorlom
                                      Gorlom
                                      last edited by
                                      Gorlom
                                      spiral
                                      Gorlom
                                      spiral

                                      I don't understand your fixation on advertising as a insurance for credible jouornalism

                                      Fixation? wow… Where did that come from?
                                      I jsut wondered what kind of compensation theese guys got. I find it hard to belive accurate and neutral information pop up on the internet by itself. Especially from people that havent studied journalism (as all those people would be working at the stationes that spurt out crap.)

                                      How do you know theese "pajama politicians" do not have a political agenda with whatever they publish?

                                      Or people who are just interested in news stories and discussing them.

                                      wouldn't they have a motive for discussing them? the news theese guys bring forth is likely to be highly opinionated and conform to what they belive in. you wouldnt get a very broad insight if you only listened to them. (unless im missing something)

                                      Bloggers are an important news source, since their online journals can chronicle events most people wouldn't know is happening.

                                      sure they can bring you news but its highly coloured by their opinion and might not be entirely accurate.

                                      Rereading all of this I think both of us are missing the other ones point. reading that thing about my fixation definetly made me realize you dont understand what I'm saying.

                                      Originally Posted by Ivotas

                                      What the…? Holy smurf am I slow! Until this statement of yours I never even realized that an octopus is actually serving octopusballs. Talk about not seeing the forest because of too many trees. facepalm

                                      Malintex_Terek 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • Malintex_Terek
                                        Malintex_Terek @Gorlom
                                        @Gorlom last edited by
                                        Malintex_Terek
                                        spiral
                                        Malintex_Terek
                                        spiral

                                        @Gorlom:

                                        Fixation? wow… Where did that come from?

                                        Sorry, I saw "G" and thought you were GaryPotter, the OP, responding to my post.

                                        @Gorlom:

                                        I jsut wondered what kind of compensation theese guys got. I find it hard to belive accurate and neutral information pop up on the internet by itself. Especially from people that havent studied journalism (as all those people would be working at the stationes that spurt out crap.)

                                        Tell me about it.

                                        The system administrator of an old forum I go to is one of those "Silicon Valley" political guys who have their livelihoods built on the internet and thus are concerned with the law, so they research a ton of stuff and become pseudo-experts. His knowledge/work ethic and background is similar to Jonas, but he's got this liberal axe to grind and won't let up when he makes a weak argument or a contradiction (though I admire some of what he says).

                                        What I said isn't to imply bloggers aren't biased; they sure are, but journal-type blogs, like those guys in Iraq who report the mass murder, the rape, the destruction and their fear/terror and being shot at is news most people don't know. And parents don't know either because the military folk don't want their families to worry - those soldiers can be truthful over the internet and blog stuff in real time.

                                        You are correct in believing neutrality can only come from accountability, and I agree. But in today's American political news sphere, people don't care about neutrality/moderation anymore! Rather than negotiate with another side to get some of what they want, they're willing to go all or nothing (in the primaries, anyway).

                                        @Gorlom:

                                        How do you know theese "pajama politicians" do not have a political agenda with whatever they publish?

                                        wouldn't they have a motive for discussing them? the news theese guys bring forth is likely to be highly opinionated and conform to what they belive in. you wouldnt get a very broad insight if you only listened to them. (unless im missing something)

                                        sure they can bring you news but its highly coloured by their opinion and might not be entirely accurate.

                                        They do, of course. When the objective isn't to build a blog around being neutral/unbiased, their reputation precedes them. But keep in mind that just because blogs are "neutral" doesn't mean that it's 100% accurate, either - one needs to get info from liberals with a vested interest in liberal affairs, conservatives with a vested interest in conservative affairs, and neutrals who are disinterested in either to get full information, as omae said.

                                        That is many, many times easier on the internet than on television or in newspapers. The world (and most of human kind)'s knowledge is at our fingertips here!

                                        …

                                        This video pretty accurately summarizes the news situation in the US. I'd embed it, but I'm waiting on a number of things so yeah…

                                        MUV-LUV ALTERNATIVE

                                        Making Anime and Manga OBSOLETE since 2006

                                        PM me for details

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                                        • 1 / 1
                                        • First post
                                          Last post
                                        Powered by NodeBB | Contributors