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first of all in todays market this rule seems very outdated.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.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
Tracks that fuel my dreams:

CM - Dream Universe (Marino's Space Mix)
Illuminatus - Hope (Oliver Lieb Remix)
Virtualmismo - Last Train to Universe
Stefano Libelle - Ascension
Magica - Magica (Ibiza Remixx)