TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Media Regulations - opinions?

Media Regulations - opinions?

today I was suprised to actually read a good article in the opinion section of our campus newspaper. It got me thinking about the topic and i wanted to post it here to get feedback from some of you...

quote:

OWNING THE NEWS Scott Monk April 24, 2003 America is witnessing one of the most anxious and critical times in all its 227-year history, and although affairs overseas happen to be the topic of the month, pressing domestic issues do not just roll over and play dead during times of war. Arguably, the decision that will shape the American way of life in coming years will be made by late June, when the Federal Communications Commission will decide whether to eliminate or modify six seemingly innocuous media ownership rules. The impact could be colossal. Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, has made it known that he favors eliminating these restrictions, which would usher in a new wave of massive media mergers by striking down long-standing safeguards against media monopolization. Up for reevaluation, according to www.pbs.org/now, are the following six rules: the Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975), which bans ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same market; the National Television Ownership Rule (1941), stating that a broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35 percent of the nation's homes; the Dual Network Rule (1946), which prohibits any entity from owning more than one major television network; the Local Television Ownership Rule (1964), prohibiting a broadcaster from owning more than one of the top four stations in a single market; the Local Radio Ownership Rule (1941), limiting the number of radio stations any one entity can own in a single marke, and the Television-Radio Cross-Ownership Rule (1970), which limits the number of television and radio stations a single entity can own in any given market. If these rules are struck down, democracy cannot survive without the diversity of ideas presented by a truly free press. According to United States Senators Wayne Allard, R-CO, Susan Collins, R-ME, and Olympia Snowe, R-ME, it may not. In a letter to Powell calling for a broader public debate in the FCC's media ownership review, the senators contend, "the mass media provide the news and information that the citizens of this country use to participate in our democratic society. A fully functioning democracy depends on media sources with diverse voices and opinions as well as content relevant to local communities." According to the media watchdog group "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting," America's once diverse media are increasingly being monopolized through mergers and media consolidation. Six companies -- Disney, AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Corporation, General Electric, News Corp and Viacom -- now own a hefty majority of media outlets. Deregulation will only give these corporate giants uninhibited rule over the marketplace and severely limit the ability of journalists to be independent. As America's window to the world grows increasingly narrow and falls into the hands of fewer people, independent, objective and unbiased journalism will get squeezed out of the picture, and society's perception of reality becomes severely distorted. A glaring example is the war coverage around the globe. The media tend to mirror the stance of their respective government, sifting out information not conforming to that view. Thus, several different wars were being fought at one time; depending on what country and on what channel it was being watched. On Feb.17, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a non-partisan research group, in collaboration with Princeton Survey Research Associates, released a five-year study on media consolidation and quality. It concluded, "Overall, the data strongly suggest regulatory changes that encourage heavy concentration of ownership in local television by a few large corporations will erode the quality of news Americans receive." Of course, to pay for the staggering costs of mergers, media moguls must bombard consumers with a barrage of cross-media promotions, and as their pervasiveness into every facet of our lives intensifies, so too does their influence on government, politics and pop culture. Fortunately, the FCC has allowed a public comment period up until June 2, during which it has requested the public weigh in on the issue. Public comments can be made on the FCC Web site, at www.fcc.gov/ownership. It will use the public opinion as a deciding factor in its decision. If all of this is news to the public, think about it. Shouldn't the public be aware of it? The very media responsible for providing everyday Americans with information important to their daily lives have a valuable stake in not letting the public know this. http://www.thebatt.com/vnews/displa...4/3ea78fb66abab

Now obviously this has to do with the regulations imposed on the media here in the USA. my question is whether you agree with the article or not? are you for the current media regulations which promote diversity or are do you favor a more laisse fair approach which promotes complete freedom of press. im still kinda on the fence but since in economy i prefer laisse fair, i might be tempted to agree with Michael Powell in removing the 6 government regulations.
what do you guys think?

Though the proposed changes in legislatures won�t affect me, I�m against this. The idea of a few media giants owning the whole of the media quite frankly scares me. Yes, I know the situation is practically like that now, but there is no need to make it any worse. On the whole, the general public believes what ever the media wants it to believe. Yes I know there are exceptions to this rule, but as a generalisation, it�s fairly accurate. With the control of the media in smaller and smaller groups this has the danger of narrowing the world view considerably. This is a very bad idea.

If we're operating under the premise that people can't think for themselves and will simply believe whatever the media tells them, why waste our time with a democracy at all?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is simply alarming. The media has practically become a fourth part of our government in the checks and balances system. Consolidation of the media would make a major blow to not only Capitalism, but Democracy as well. I am wholehartedly against getting rid of these rules. Although I'd like to believe that people have independent minds, life experience has told me that the overwhelming majority does not. The media is an EXTREMELY powerful thing, and if left abused and unchecked, it could lead to disaster.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If we're operating under the premise that people can't think for themselves and will simply believe whatever the media tells them, why waste our time with a democracy at all? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

People can�t though. What does Democracy mean? � rule of the people. No one lives in a true democracy, we live in representative democracies. We choose people to represent our interests because as a whole people aren�t too sharp (I don�t mean individuals I mean the public as an entity of it�s own).

Secondly, democratic means were introduced long before the media ever had the word mass associated with it. I�m not saying they could suddenly say on TV, �This from now on is going to be a dictatorship� and everyone suddenly thinks the same. It�s a gradual, slow and subtle change that takes place. If you don�t think that it tries to and does actually change the way people think and act, then just what the hell is advertising?

Besides, power structures also have a lot to play. Both the people who end up becoming our politicians and the people who run the media form a powerful elite. Yes, I grant you others make up the group too and not all politicians come from here but they will certainly become influenced by the elite when they get any sort of power as politicians. Because we elect them, this legitimises their position. If the media can convince the masses that what the politicians are doing is in our best interests, they can get away with practically anything that they want.

Basically what I�m trying to say is that the elite can create an illusion through the media that what they do through the politicians is legitimate because of the way it has been elected by the people. So in final answer to your question; the false consciousness of democracy is self serving and in the best interests of them if the people think that they really have a say in the running of a country and what they do is in their benefit. It's not us who are having the cake and eating it, it's the powerful elite who are doing all the eating.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor People can�t though. What does Democracy mean? � rule of the people. No one lives in a true democracy, we live in representative democracies. We choose people to represent our interests because as a whole people aren�t too sharp (I don�t mean individuals I mean the public as an entity of it�s own). Secondly, democratic means were introduced long before the media ever had the word mass associated with it. I�m not saying they could suddenly say on TV, �This from now on is going to be a dictatorship� and everyone suddenly thinks the same. It�s a gradual, slow and subtle change that takes place. If you don�t think that it tries to and does actually change the way people think and act, then just what the hell is advertising? Besides, power structures also have a lot to play. Both the people who end up becoming our politicians and the people who run the media form a powerful elite. Yes, I grant you others make up the group too and not all politicians come from here but they will certainly become influenced by the elite when they get any sort of power as politicians. Because we elect them, this legitimises their position. If the media can convince the masses that what the politicians are doing is in our best interests, they can get away with practically anything that they want. Basically what I�m trying to say is that the elite can create an illusion through the media that what they do through the politicians is legitimate because of the way it has been elected by the people. So in final answer to your question; the false consciousness of democracy is self serving and in the best interests of them if the people think that they really have a say in the running of a country and what they do is in their benefit. It's not us who are having the cake and eating it, it's the powerful elite who are doing all the eating.

Agreed ... although a pure democracy may seem the most idealistic system of self government it isn't. There needs to be a superior system in place to regulate and prohibit an absolute concentration of power. Think about it ... if an absolute domocracy were in place wouldn't that ensure the rule of the majority over the minority? It's funny to see some people bash government "infringements" on civil liberties when these "infringements" are in place to ensure the rights of the minorities. At any rate government intervention is fully warranted when it involves a fair representation and consideration for all segmeents of society.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor People can�t though. What does Democracy mean? � rule of the people. No one lives in a true democracy, we live in representative democracies. We choose people to represent our interests because as a whole people aren�t too sharp (I don�t mean individuals I mean the public as an entity of it�s own). Secondly, democratic means were introduced long before the media ever had the word mass associated with it. I�m not saying they could suddenly say on TV, �This from now on is going to be a dictatorship� and everyone suddenly thinks the same. It�s a gradual, slow and subtle change that takes place. If you don�t think that it tries to and does actually change the way people think and act, then just what the hell is advertising? Besides, power structures also have a lot to play. Both the people who end up becoming our politicians and the people who run the media form a powerful elite. Yes, I grant you others make up the group too and not all politicians come from here but they will certainly become influenced by the elite when they get any sort of power as politicians. Because we elect them, this legitimises their position. If the media can convince the masses that what the politicians are doing is in our best interests, they can get away with practically anything that they want. Basically what I�m trying to say is that the elite can create an illusion through the media that what they do through the politicians is legitimate because of the way it has been elected by the people. So in final answer to your question; the false consciousness of democracy is self serving and in the best interests of them if the people think that they really have a say in the running of a country and what they do is in their benefit. It's not us who are having the cake and eating it, it's the powerful elite who are doing all the eating.

In general, I agree. However, from a dialectical standpoint, trying to find a "middle ground" where we give the average person some influence, but then try to manipulate the circumstances which influence their decisions isn't really consistent.

In short, "the people" either are qualified to govern or they are not. If they are, then such regulations would be unnecessary. If they are not, then democracy is the rule of the unqualified.

In theory, a representative democracy is instituted to reduce the direct influence of the people because they are, to a degree, unqualified. However, if the people aren't qualified to make the decisions themselves, what makes one think they are any more qualified to select the people to make those decisions? Especially when the people select the decision-makers on the basis of the decisions they say they will make?

I think it's fairly clear at this juncture that democracy, including representative democracy, doesn't work as a political system. The difficulty, of course, is defining a viable alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The difficulty, of course, is defining a viable alternative.

though something tells me you have an idea or two up in your mind


i see your guy's point, but i dont see it as that pessimistic if such regulations are removed. i dont think there would ever be a monopolized media outlet just because of the 'flow of nature'. here's what i mean:
one could generalize that up until a few years ago most media was left/liberal stanced, this created a opening for a conservative based channel - enter FOX news, which now has the highest viewer rating for news channel in america. same could be said for al-jezeera. the lack of american biased news outlets made al-jezeera sky rocket in popularity when word got around about it.
So using these examples one could say that there will always be a action - reaction in terms of media (ala hegel). Who's to say that when one media outlet attains supra mass audience, that a competitor with opposing views will emerge... maybe even one with an equal balance of both will succeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If we're operating under the premise that people can't think for themselves and will simply believe whatever the media tells them, why waste our time with a democracy at all? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's just one problem. Your decisions, while being free, are based on the information you gain. And the media is usually responsible for the majority of information gained by an individual. And there really isn't a secure way of verifying those informations are true or not. For all we know, war in Iraq might not have happened at all. The reason you know about war in Iraq is because the media told you so.

quote:

In short, "the people" either are qualified to govern or they are not. If they are, then such regulations would be unnecessary. If they are not, then democracy is the rule of the unqualified. In theory, a representative democracy is instituted to reduce the direct influence of the people because they are, to a degree, unqualified. However, if the people aren't qualified to make the decisions themselves, what makes one think they are any more qualified to select the people to make those decisions? Especially when the people select the decision-makers on the basis of the decisions they say they will make?

It's easier to choose a good leader than to be one. For example, you don't have to be very smart to see a leader of a country has doubled the economic growth. However, you do have to be smart to do such a thing yourself.

quote:

So using these examples one could say that there will always be a action - reaction in terms of media (ala hegel). Who's to say that when one media outlet attains supra mass audience, that a competitor with opposing views will emerge... maybe even one with an equal balance of both will succeed.

Unless that one media gains enough money to buy all opposing media companies as soon as they are created. Think of Creative's Sound Blaster and Aureal 3d. Aureal was a better card with better effects, but Creative bought the Aureal company very soon, and stopped all further development of that technology. Same could happen with media if it's left unmonitored.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Unless that one media gains enough money to buy all opposing media companies as soon as they are created. Think of Creative's Sound Blaster and Aureal 3d. Aureal was a better card with better effects, but Creative bought the Aureal company very soon, and stopped all further development of that technology. Same could happen with media if it's left unmonitored.

Agreed. Look it's quite simple. Simply view the media as an industry. In as much as we have anti-trust laws to prevent say Microsoft from forming a monopoly in the software market, we need anti-trust laws in the media to prevent a monopoly from forming that could easily annihilate any other companies or newcomers to the market.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 There's just one problem. Your decisions, while being free, are based on the information you gain. And the media is usually responsible for the majority of information gained by an individual. And there really isn't a secure way of verifying those informations are true or not. For all we know, war in Iraq might not have happened at all. The reason you know about war in Iraq is because the media told you so.

Barring a global monopoly, the ease of worldwide communications renders any such national monopoly impotent to control the flow of information to those who don't already exhibit a high degree of apathy.

quote:

It's easier to choose a good leader than to be one. For example, you don't have to be very smart to see a leader of a country has doubled the economic growth. However, you do have to be smart to do such a thing yourself.

I would have agreed with you, before the American people selected George Bush. Now I think otherwise. The campaign process is a methodical and deliberate process of deception on a massive scale. It is those individuals most adept at such deception, those individuals who are precisely most contemptible and the worst kind of leaders, that naturally rise to power under such a scheme.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The campaign process is a methodical and deliberate process of deception on a massive scale. It is those individuals most adept at such deception, those individuals who are precisely most contemptible and the worst kind of leaders, that naturally rise to power under such a scheme.

Couldn't agree with you more. I think alot of people realize this, and just don't vote. Of course, this only adds to the problem. Unfortunately, instead of being proactive, people just sulk and don't care anymore. The problem is this:

Say you're an honest candidate, and you make reasonable promises. How is the voter going to believe you over the next guy who is lying, but making more attractive promises? Either voters think all candidates are liars, and don't vote; or they believe whatever you say and vote for the liar, since his promises are more appealing.

What this country needs is a strong, independent organization holding political candidates accountable for the actions they take. Perhaps a third party would do. There is a huge block of people not voting, so there is the possibility of voter support. What this party needs to do is base their campaign strategy on honesty and integrity, and enforce it. If a candidate from this party is a liar or a cheat, they will get kicked out of the party, loose funding, etc... They need to keep their image clean, and review the progress of each candidate as far as promises kept, etc. This would have to be highly organized, but it could be done. Kind of like running a political party like an army, instead of a beach resort (DemoPublicans). Candidates will make good on their promises, and they can use this as fuel for future elections.

The political stance could be very moderate, yet their diferentiation from other parties will be in the form of responsibility. Name it the Responsibilocrat party or something. There is enough frustration about politics out there that this might actually work! You could easily get some defections from other parties, like John McCain, Russ Feingold, etc.

The only problem I see with this is funding. Because the party would not serve interest groups, it would be impossible to get lobbyist money, etc. But then again, the people who support this kind of thing don't need crappy yet expensive ads to win their vote. Campaigns could be organized from the grassroots level, and pent up frustration could be the fuel. Potential voters do need to believe that the party is credible, though, and some high level defections could make that happen. Even if the party does not win major elections, it would put pressure on the other two parties to clean up their act at least a ltiile bit.

Anyways, just a thought...

nice idea cougar... im in
its kinda depressing to hear about how democracy is turning into a failure. i still think optimisticly about the future... anyways...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Agreed. Look it's quite simple. Simply view the media as an industry. In as much as we have anti-trust laws to prevent say Microsoft from forming a monopoly in the software market, we need anti-trust laws in the media to prevent a monopoly from forming that could easily annihilate any other companies or newcomers to the market.

i agree with you that there needs to be anti-trust laws however i dont see how that really implies to the current regulations. im not a lawyer but i think the basis for anti trust laws are to ensure other companies have a possible outlet for their product (meaning they arent unethically bought out or not given an opprotunity - like windows bundling its software in its OS case). I would wish anti trust laws would still apply to media. so lets analyze the 6 regulations:

" the Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975), which bans ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same market; "

if im in the media business, why cant i have the freedom to do both newspaper and TV... i dont see a threat of anti trust monopolization here.

"the National Television Ownership Rule (1941), stating that a broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35 percent of the nation's homes;"

first of all in todays market this rule seems very outdated. with internet channels, satellites and cable TV i bet most all TV stations reach well over 35% of the homes.
secondly, why an arbitrary number such as 35%
thirdly, why have a limit at all, even if a company reaches 90% as long as its not committing any illegal monoplization activites (buying out smaller entities, not allowing competition a platform) then why cant the business be rewarded for its success and lawful practice.

the Dual Network Rule (1946), which prohibits any entity from owning more than one major television network;

huh? i dont get this one, i thought ABC and ESPN which are two major TV networks are owned by one entity, Disney.

the Local Television Ownership Rule (1964), prohibiting a broadcaster from owning more than one of the top four stations in a single market;

wait isnt clear channel radio almost a monopoly by now? they're giving me great service - im not complaining

the Local Radio Ownership Rule (1941), limiting the number of radio stations any one entity can own in a single marke;

agian why cant a business conduct as it like as long as it doesnt commit any unlawful behaviour as a monopoly (as i explained above)

the Television-Radio Cross-Ownership Rule (1970), which limits the number of television and radio stations a single entity can own in any given market.

why? is a business' freedom denied? are they automaticly declared guilty now of potential future monoploy crimes?


OR is media an exeption and needs to be heavily regulated.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Barring a global monopoly, the ease of worldwide communications renders any such national monopoly impotent to control the flow of information to those who don't already exhibit a high degree of apathy.

That is partially true. But aside from the internet which is visited by only about 50% of the population, there isn't any other way for an average guy somewhere in the midwest to get information that isn't offered by one of the large media companies.

quote:

I would have agreed with you, before the American people selected George Bush. Now I think otherwise. The campaign process is a methodical and deliberate process of deception on a massive scale. It is those individuals most adept at such deception, those individuals who are precisely most contemptible and the worst kind of leaders, that naturally rise to power under such a scheme.

Well, the people infact did make a good choice (imo) since they chose Al Gore as the leader. It's the faulty system that screwed that up.

Anyway, I must agree that these laws are rather obsolete. However, I do not think they should be abolished. Instead, those laws should be restated and brought up to date, so that they have some relevance in the modern world..

quote:

The only problem I see with this is funding. Because the party would not serve interest groups, it would be impossible to get lobbyist money, etc.

I think corporate donations to parties should be forbidden.

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 What this country needs is a strong, independent organization holding political candidates accountable for the actions they take. Perhaps a third party would do. There is a huge block of people not voting, so there is the possibility of voter support. What this party needs to do is base their campaign strategy on honesty and integrity, and enforce it. If a candidate from this party is a liar or a cheat, they will get kicked out of the party, loose funding, etc... They need to keep their image clean, and review the progress of each candidate as far as promises kept, etc. This would have to be highly organized, but it could be done. Kind of like running a political party like an army, instead of a beach resort (DemoPublicans). Candidates will make good on their promises, and they can use this as fuel for future elections. The political stance could be very moderate, yet their diferentiation from other parties will be in the form of responsibility. Name it the Responsibilocrat party or something. There is enough frustration about politics out there that this might actually work! You could easily get some defections from other parties, like John McCain, Russ Feingold, etc. Anyways, just a thought...

OMG that's one of the best thoughts I've heard in weeks if not months!!! I would completely vote for such a party as long as they aren't extremes on either end of the spectrum. I think our country definetely needs a lot of campaign finance reform

Go Green Party! The only political affiliation whose platform includes campaign finance regulations against corporations and regulating corporate influence over the media. Unfortunately, this stance will never get them enough money to win federal offices. Bastard media.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider OMG that's one of the best thoughts I've heard in weeks if not months!!! I would completely vote for such a party as long as they aren't extremes on either end of the spectrum. I think our country definetely needs a lot of campaign finance reform

I wish someone else would do this, as I am powerless right now (student). Perhaps if things are still the same, and I own a house, car, and my future kids are through college, I can devote some time into reforming the system. If not nationally, than statewide. If it's one state that this would work in, it might be Wisconsin. Perhaps that will start a chain reaction (I know Minnesota is very independent, too). Plus, Russ Feingold (my favorite senator) could join forces with me! I admire him and McCain (my original choice for president) for their efforts at trying to clean up the system. Maybe someday our country will see the fate of Rome and decide that it's time to clean house in the government.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.