wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to qworster
Re: What have YOU been smoking?
Um, perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote? Newspapers are not in the shitter, BTW. Their average profit margin is higher than that of the Fortune 500.
Again, I think consolidation on a large scale is a bad thing. On a small scale, not so much. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Ulmo
Re: Get rid of the funding...
Monopolization of any industry, be it Telecom, Energy, Media, Manufacturing, Agriculture etc is always bad for the majority of people while very profitable for those who own the monopolizing entity.
The trick is balancing out the freedom of capitalism and the right to make money with the public interest of not wanting to be enslaved 
Right now, the balance is clearly tipped towards the interests of big business.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
2 edits | reply to wierdo
What have YOU been smoking?
I'd sure like some of that weed you are smoking!
How many minutes do you thiunk will transpire before newspaper staffs are slashed and the newspapers go out of business? Want an example? Look at Cincinnati, where the Enquirer there has owned WCPO-TV for years. Guess what? the newspaper is going out of business in a few weeks!
Newspapers are in the shi^^er; this is nothing but a paid for bone to give their owners money for nothing!
BOY are you gullible! |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| reply to Mike
Re: Get rid of the funding...
said by Mike  :The entire idea behind the ban is that no one company has complete control over all forms of media. Also tiny media businesses are being absorbed by larger ones ect. So more or less it's the idea of Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch not having a lock on the entire market. I agree that it is good to stop monopolizing the media, so at least we can have multiple points of view from the market. Regulating that when necessary is a good thing, however, regulations have a bad habit of being just wrong enough that they quickly get outdated (all those little imprecisions grow and multiply with time), and then they have a bad habit of not properly fixing them -- just adding more crap. So, the whole process is a mess, but at least they're attempting to prevent bad media complexes. I don't give them a free pass with my money and vested powers, but I do at least appreciate them attempting to do some good. For instance, I like being able to listen to Dr. Savage, but at the same time, I wonder what it would be like without him and furthermore what it would be like with him and more options than we have now than just him and the few we already have. (Today I tuned in and had trouble finding anything I could listen to without losing interest -- and I often try both sides of many fences.) |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to Mike
I get that, hence my saying I think the cross ownership rule should remain.
I don't have a huge problem with the idea of modestly sized newspaper chains (Stephens Media, who owns our local paper has never given me reason to think they shouldn't), nor of modestly sized radio or TV chains. The problem comes in when the chains grow too huge, or as you point out, the chain controls all the media outlets in a market.
I do think that enormous conglomerations of media outlets, like Time Warner, are sub-optimal to say the least. I'm all for capitalism, but like almost everything, it is only healthy in moderation. |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:  
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
Host:
Site Tools
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Alltel Axcess
| reply to wierdo
The entire idea behind the ban is that no one company has complete control over all forms of media.
Also tiny media businesses are being absorbed by larger ones ect. So more or less it's the idea of Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch not having a lock on the entire market. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to wierdo
Both groups work toward the same end of power and control, and are interrelated. No one thinks for themselves any more, their opinions are spoon fed to them. Minitrue is forming, welcome to Oceania. I used to think I was just paranoid ...
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to grandpinaple
said by grandpinaple :And hopefully never give it back... the FCC just needs to go away. They are an outdated entity. A simple entity for regulating interfering signals is all that is needed. I disagree, and I think that the cross ownership rules are a good thing. There's already too much media consolidation as it is, and what's more, the arguments put forth by the newspapers as to why they need to be able to own radio and TV stations in the same markets (and vice versa) don't make any sense.
The newspapers claim to be losing money, so why would a TV or radio station want to buy in? The radio stations obviously aren't making much since Clear Channel is getting rid of many of their stations, so why would newspapers want to get into that if they're already losing money?
They're basically being lying scumbags and expecting us to believe the horse shit they're feeding us. They seem to be taking their cue from another prominent sack of lying criminals. (although the media companies, by and large, aren't actually criminals like the folks they're emulating) |
|
