And I would like to add to BRussell's point by saying that even though there may be one or two high profile anchors or editors that have a slightly left of right bent, the very form of major network television is itself more influential than any opinionizing in the shows... opinions and commentaries that get sandwiched between the commercials.
The very form of commercial television is one where what is really being sold, at all times, is not the programing, but is the desire of/for consummer potential That means that whatever slightly liberal asides a commentator might have, it is swallowed by the larger impact of the form of commercial television, the form which reinforces a consumer market orientation, and reinforcing and prescribes the parameters within which all of the thinking on television (and outside it) takes place.
This is how media works: it might say this or that, but everything it says is housed in a larger structure of consumer/corporate market values.
And even if you can't see this as true (which it is) the fact that the bottom line for programming is still viewership and selling commercials.... which means pandering to the most common denominator --gaurantees that those behind the scenes are operating with attitudes in line with business: and large networks equal attitudes in line with large business. Its very simple: the media is made up of the same kind of "big evil corporations" that the lefties always moan and groan about . . . and even PBS panders to this constituency, for many of the same reasons . . . if you don't think so, then answer me why each day here in Pittsburgh, there is three hours of Business and stock news sandwiched between operas and/or pledge drives?
The recent consolidation of media, specially after the (horrendous) FCC Act in 1996 has the effect of dumbing down 95% of what Americans see and hear. On news shows, so many stories have been replaced by sound bites (usually crimes by minorities or police chases) and far more time is given over to arbitrary incidentals, mindless trivia, "cutesy" content and weather forecasts. I live in Southern california, where the weather, specially at this time of year, barely varies between sunny and hot to partly sunny and hot, with perhaps a bit of morning low cloud and fog on occasions, yet my local station still manages to somehow keep the weather forecast going for between 5 and 7 minutes, that is not counting the weather forecast preview! Isn't there anything happening here, or anywhere else? Also, some stories are picked on seemingly arbitrarily and milked to death, such as the recent kidnapping in Salt Lake City. Yes it is a horrible, horrible event, but there are kidnappings every day in America, all horrible. What's the bigger deal with this one?
I was talking with my uncle the other day who is a journalist. His reflections are quite scary: Some 15 years back, there were some several thousand smaller independent newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, etc nationwide. Now, there are but 6 huge multi-nationals controlling the vast bulk of what Americans see, hear, and consequently learn about the world. Many of the directors of these huge companies also sit on each other's boards; in effect the free media has been taken over by a single privately owned cartel, effectively a centralized monopolistic news-dissemination and censoring service very similar in operation to the Government controlled news services what is seen in totalitarian regimes such as Pravda/Isvestia/Tass network from the old Soviet Union.
Radio is another example. Not 10 years ago, there were many hundreds of independent radio stations with a handle on local and community affairs. Now, much of the whole shebang is owned and controlled by one corporation, Clear Channel. When you listen to your 'local' radio, the chances are that it is not local at all, but being piped in from a remote location, identical to what people are hearing anywhere else, the same tiny playlist of favored tunes, the same news items, the same opinions, from Florida to Alaska, barring local news and those pesky weather forecasts of course! The airwaves are supposedly owned by the People, but in 1996 the FCC gave away those rights to big business; at the same time, anyone attempting to set up community radio, such as microwatt stations etc. encounter massive bureaucracy in setting up a transmitter, to the extent that red-tape makes it all but impossible, so folk end up risking small 'pirate operations'; if caught they are handed extremely, disproportionately heavy penalties and get their equipment confiscated, and a huge fine or jail. So much for free speech.
I'm not talking about conspiracy here, in case the kneejerkers predictably start muttering 'paranoia'. It is a symptom of the gradual replacement of free enterprise by big-box capitalism. This is the age of the dinosaur, where a small number of businesses get so massive, powerful and unpoliceable that their jurisdiction and power exceeds that of states, or nations, and they only answer to major shareholders; employees and communities take the proverbial hike.
However, dinosaurs are lumberingly inefficient, react slowly, and liaison between the parts is often fraught with miscommunication and errors. Being the eternal optimist, I believe that when the big guys get so big as to be out of touch with their surroundings, it gives the grass a chance to grow between their feet, and small startups with smart ideas get a foothold.
Whoever controls the media control the people, and create the history. Right now, the direction of the media is in the hands of maybe 100 or (so?) very powerful and well-connected people in entertainment, military, government, banking, etc etc and, organized crime as well perhaps. And, don't forget that the direction of the media is shackled to what is deemed acceptable by their biggest sponsors, namely corporate America And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of those folk are absolutely not liberal in their political and ideological viewpoints.
The whole idea of a "liberal" media, either in a literal sense (ie "free, from the latin 'Liber'), or in a political sense, namely left of center, is a total myth. To put it more bluntly...BS.
BTW, would you say that Republicans are conservative fiscally?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some are. Some aren't. It also depends on what you mean by fiscal conservatism. For a lot of people it just means balanced budgets. They aren't too picky about how they're balanced. They'll go along with higher taxes to get there and they'll even believe that they're doing something courageous by raising taxes! My definition of fiscal conservatism is 100% focused on the spending side. And I'm willing to sacrifice a balanced budget for higher growth. (Speaking to broader economic issues beyond fiscal policy I'm a supply-sider.) That probably makes my fiscal conservatism suspect to some. Oh well. I can live with that.
It's enough to say some i agree with some i don't. There is a bit of one sidedness to it that is very liberal biased, and i'll try to leave it alone.
My main contention comes in with the last sentence. Your contention is that in any given frame of reference that is large enough to give a decent average the media is more in favor of the Conservative view than the Liberal?
I have to say that that is a bogus statement both on the face and with reflection on; the issues touted for dicussion, the people brought forward to discuss them, the frame of reference from which they are taken, and the fact that most issues are based these days on the incredible over sensitivity of all people in the US. I posted an article showing a view of liberalism being predominant. I can post more and even find some in the fair.org list that will show the issues dealt with are based on a liberal mindset and conservatives are targeted as guests for rebutle. There are lines drawn and we can percieve them without the aid of propaganda from either camp.
I like best the statement of BRussell, where he/she says that it is about the media being more liberal than i am. Given that context i'd have to conclude that your more liberal than they and therefore see them as unbiased or to the right. Is that a fair assumption?
I swiped this from the FCC act of 1996:
SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP.
(a) NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The
Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47
C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number
of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by
one entity nationally.
(b) LOCAL RADIO DIVERSITY-
(1) APPLICABLE CAPS- The Commission shall revise section
73.3555(a) of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) to provide
that--
(A) in a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio
stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 8
commercial radio stations, not more than 5 of which are in
the same service (AM or FM);
(B) in a radio market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive)
commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or
control up to 7 commercial radio stations, not more than 4
of which are in the same service (AM or FM);
(C) in a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive)
commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or
control up to 6 commercial radio stations, not more than 4
of which are in the same service (AM or FM); and
(D) in a radio market with 14 or fewer commercial radio
stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 5
commercial radio stations, not more than 3 of which are in
the same service (AM or FM), except that a party may not
own, operate, or control more than 50 percent of the
stations in such market.
(2) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding any limitation authorized by
this subsection, the Commission may permit a person or entity
to own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in,
radio broadcast stations if the Commission determines that such
ownership, operation, control, or interest will result in an
increase in the number of radio broadcast stations in operation.
Unless i read it wrong it says that the mutlinationals or nationals can own as many as they want across the country But, and this is the part i think you glazed over a bit, not more than the prescibed number in any given market. The question i will try to answer for future posts is how big is a market.
It also seems to be full of the term competition. I think it's pretty clear that the big corporations were knocking at the door of monopolist practice until this was put in place or at least getting close to causing a scism within the country (geographic proliferation of ideas central to the ownership of the market media).
Here's an excert from the complete document.
150
(3)(A) The Commission shall establish rules and procedures to
ensure that, in the administration of any system of random selection under
this subsection used for granting licenses or construction permits for any
media of mass communications, significant preferences will be granted to
applicants or groups of applicants, the grant to which of the license or
permit would increase the diversification of ownership of the media of mass
communications. To further diversify the ownership of the media of mass
communications, an additional significant preference shall be granted to any
applicant controlled by a member or members of minority group.
I believe the intention is to give it back to the people. It maybe hard work and yes corporations pay people to do all that stuffy paperwork but no one ever promised an easy time in this world no matter what your after.
Huge post most of it the act, but i have to question the ownership theory and find a source that can show the diversity in my "market". I'll do that and try to narrow down the size of a market.
Most folks who claim that they are "fiscally conservative" but "socially liberal" are really just confused or intellectually dishonest. They might "believe" in affirmative action, for example, but they'd never take their kid to a doctor who got through med school because of the "group" that the doctor belonged to when applying. The mark of someone's political identity is their behavior. The media in this country, regardless of what they SAY about themselves, behaves as though they're on the left in the language they use and the content they stress to the public.
But, as I've said before, if you can't see this after watching for a little while, then you will probably never understand what's going on.
Damn, sjpsu, slow down being BRussell's toadie, he'll think you have a crush.
Political talk shows are almost always going to be conservative, they couldn't really be any other way. They are for the masses and the masses are conservative.
As far as the "bias in media" bit, it's almost 100% subjective. I'm disgusted by FoxNews damn near all the time because they are just as smarmy as any CNN leftist and they don't even attempt to follow journalistic principle. I see their interviewers interrupt the interviewees constantly (did these morons even go to college?) and find themselves completely unable to comprehend anything the interviewee says.
It's a pathetic "news" channel. Infotainment at its most brazen. But that's what I get for turning on the television, always a stupid idea unless there's a specific show to watch.
[/end rant]
God love 'ole Charlie. I'll take him over Barbara any day of the week and twice on Sunday (or "Sundee" as Charlie would say). A wise country-boy sage.
I went to Charlie's website and clicked on the "Soapbox" section, where there are TONS of articles/opinion pieces, dating back a good year or so (he must write them weekly because there were A LOT of them).
You know, like it or not, I like a lot of what he writes and says. Very unpolished and perhaps not the most subtle writer to ever come down the lane. BUT, it's heartfelt and "real" and I get the sense that he's doing it for himself and being honest. Which is more than I can say for some other, more visible and highly paid commentators and pundits.
I'd rather read his stuff than any diatribe by O'Donnell or Ted Danson.
finboy, you make up these examples, or little anecdotes, to make a point . . . except that these anecdotes are pure fantasy:
[quote] for example, but they'd never take their kid to a doctor who got through med school because of the "group" that the doctor belonged to when applying. <hr></blockquote>what the hell... do you know these people, the "they" that you are reffering to?!?!? You just pulled them out of your head, out of the image bank of them liberal hypikrauts! that you keep stored in fantasies and which misinform you as to who other people really are.
You wouldn't understand anyone who would call themselves 'fiscally conservative but socially liberal' because you have conservative colored glasses on. These glasses make you demand that in order for one to claim the sanctified status of 'conservative' they think just as you do.
As far as the media sounding like they are on the left . . . it is clear that almost anybody who merely describes any situation with reference to either sex, race, class, or the environment, irregardless of what they say about those, would be considered 'left' by you. . . they would be considered 'left' even if they merely acknowledge these as issues to be recognized or that they are issues in other people's eyes. And since the 'media' might report on issues involving race, or sex, or the environment (but hardly ever class) then you assume that that makes their position with regards to the issue 'left'.
Also, I would just say that your last sentence is the classic appeal to our "false consciousness": which means that you think that it is only you who see through the ideological tissue of lies that encase us all . . . only you are the seer or the Truth. . . I think, obviously, that au contrair, you too are hornswogled . . .and especially by your missguided belief that you alone are "principled" and anyone with a different sensibility is not. Its not true that only the liberals among us have a false relationship to real conditions you do as well . . . even if you measure your ideas by 'simple' truths . . .( I would say especially because you measure your ideas by "simple truths") The reality of mutual false consciousness is one of the main reasons that we have a bipartisan system . . . for which I am glad . . . and the reason why debate seems endless . . . its when the answer is agreed upon by everyone that's when you should start to get suspicious . . .
BUT, it's heartfelt and "real" and I get the sense that he's doing it for himself and being honest. Which is more than I can say for some other, more visible and highly paid commentators and pundits.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's the difference? I hardly think Doris Kearns Goodwin, a frequent guest commentator on PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and NBC networks (until her recent scandal of course), feigns her commentary. David Gergen the same. I can say quite more about these two (especially the latter) than what I can say for Charlie Daniels. (Although he does have much more to say than O'Donnell and Danson, they are not really "commentators or pundits on political issues."
(Disclaimer: This is not a personal attack. You said something publicly that I disagree with- hence my public disagreement)
Actually (and you'll be pleased to learn this, sjpsu), I was referring to ACTUAL commentators like Limbaugh, Liddy, North (CONSERVATIVES, no less!) and other loudmouth types who - I feel - often say things for shock effect, ratings or to simply stir the pot.
But, I also can say the same about Paul Begalla (what an overbearing little smart-ass!) and James Carville (who's just weird-acting and difficult to watch, no matter what you think of his politics).
Sometimes, I just get the feeling that the "big guns" (people who make a living going on TV shows to represent a viewpoint or opinion) seem to lay it on thick, for the benefit of the camera, viewers, ratings, "good TV", etc.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel more inclined to believe "real people" and perhaps those who don't make a career out of running their yap on TV every night. When someone who I see as more like a "regular person" (someone not particularly slick, TV savvy and laden with a gazillion degrees and on-air credits) speaks their mind, it appeals to me more. That's just me, I guess.
That's all. I never would've suspected this redneck fiddle player to be so vocal and passionate. Took me by surprise, I guess.
[quote] WHAT in the hell did you just say? <hr></blockquote>
I basically said three things:
1. Finboy uses anecdotes to make points. And in these anecdotes he uses fictional 'liberals' . . . these are fictions... they do not exist. These fictions that people his anecdotes come from a whole host of simplistic stereotypes of what Finboy imagines 'liberals' to be doing and what he imagines them to be like.
These stereotypes may get in the way of seeing real people for the complex creatures that they are.
2. "conservative colored glasses"... this is a metaphor . . . as rose colored glasses make everything seem happy, 'conservative colored glasses make everything seem like the conivings of a vast liberal agenda. It is because he wears these blinders that everyone that thinks slightly differently, or uses a different set of catch phrases, is labeled a liberal . . . hence, that is why the media seems to have a liberal bias for Finboy.
Why? because the media might address such taboo issues as race, class, sex and the environment . . . .
as a side note, I made reference to the fact that the media need only acknowledge that other people might be addressing one or more of these issues for the likes of Finboy to therefore call it's bias liberal.
3. Also: Finboy is saying that if we don't see the liberal bias in the media, it is because we live inside of false consciousness . . . . we live with Liberal colored glasses.
At this point I said that that may be true but that there is not a "true consciouseness" which Finboy alone understands, but that we, all of us, live amidst "false consciuosness" --meaning that none of us has the truth in our back pocket . . and that that is the reason that we have debate and a multi (two) party system with checks and balances (hence the wisdom O founding group of dead white men )
I also made some minor points, about previouse post by Finboy, where he states that his ideas are right (and principled) because they are simplistic...I mean simple
I think Paul Begala is extremely funny! He makes smart ass comments for sure, but puts more emphasis on "smart" than "ass." He's witty, fun to watch, entertaining, and I think even his co-hosts Tucker and Bob like him too.
1. Finboy uses anecdotes to make points. And in these anecdotes he uses fictional 'liberals' . . . these are fictions... they do not exist. These fictions that people his anecdotes come from a whole host of simplistic stereotypes of what Finboy imagines 'liberals' to be doing and what he imagines them to be like.
These stereotypes may get in the way of seeing real people for the complex creatures that they are.
2. "conservative colored glasses"... this is a metaphor . . . as rose colored glasses make everything seem happy, 'conservative colored glasses make everything seem like the conivings of a vast liberal agenda. It is because he wears these blinders that everyone that thinks slightly differently, or uses a different set of catch phrases, is labeled a liberal . . . hence, that is why the media seems to have a liberal bias for Finboy.
Why? because the media might address such taboo issues as race, class, sex and the environment . . . .
as a side note, I made reference to the fact that the media need only acknowledge that other people might be addressing one or more of these issues for the likes of Finboy to therefore call it's bias liberal.
3. Also: Finboy is saying that if we don't see the liberal bias in the media, it is because we live inside of false consciousness . . . . we live with Liberal colored glasses.
At this point I said that that may be true but that there is not a "true consciouseness" which Finboy alone understands, but that we, all of us, live amidst "false consciuosness" --meaning that none of us has the truth in our back pocket . . and that that is the reason that we have debate and a multi (two) party system with checks and balances (hence the wisdom O founding group of dead white men )
I also made some minor points, about previouse post by Finboy, where he states that his ideas are right (and principled) because they are simplistic...I mean simple </strong><hr></blockquote>
To the extent that my "stereotypes" apply, it's because I've seen this behavior personally. Folks who say one thing and behave in a different manner (left or right) are dangerous. If these people (left or right) influence the behavior of others, they are MORE dangerous. If these folks hold a "monopoly" on the medium, the danger is even greater yet.
I don't think that I'm alone in seeing ANYTHING, I'm just the only one usually wasting my words (here) on folks who can't see it.
"it's because I've seen[...]behavior personally" + "Conservative colored glasses"
= see what you are looking for (stereotypes)
agreed that monopolies on the mind are dangerous: but why is it that the near economic monopolies of the media (actual ownership consolidated into the hands of few super-conglomerates) does not mean that there is also a monopoly on what goes into these media channels?
Perhaps you are willfully sidestepping this reality because it gives you a false boogy man to feel righteuosly indignant about?!?!
Comments
The very form of commercial television is one where what is really being sold, at all times, is not the programing, but is the desire of/for consummer potential That means that whatever slightly liberal asides a commentator might have, it is swallowed by the larger impact of the form of commercial television, the form which reinforces a consumer market orientation, and reinforcing and prescribes the parameters within which all of the thinking on television (and outside it) takes place.
This is how media works: it might say this or that, but everything it says is housed in a larger structure of consumer/corporate market values.
And even if you can't see this as true (which it is) the fact that the bottom line for programming is still viewership and selling commercials.... which means pandering to the most common denominator --gaurantees that those behind the scenes are operating with attitudes in line with business: and large networks equal attitudes in line with large business. Its very simple: the media is made up of the same kind of "big evil corporations" that the lefties always moan and groan about . . . and even PBS panders to this constituency, for many of the same reasons . . . if you don't think so, then answer me why each day here in Pittsburgh, there is three hours of Business and stock news sandwiched between operas and/or pledge drives?
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
I was talking with my uncle the other day who is a journalist. His reflections are quite scary: Some 15 years back, there were some several thousand smaller independent newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, etc nationwide. Now, there are but 6 huge multi-nationals controlling the vast bulk of what Americans see, hear, and consequently learn about the world. Many of the directors of these huge companies also sit on each other's boards; in effect the free media has been taken over by a single privately owned cartel, effectively a centralized monopolistic news-dissemination and censoring service very similar in operation to the Government controlled news services what is seen in totalitarian regimes such as Pravda/Isvestia/Tass network from the old Soviet Union.
Radio is another example. Not 10 years ago, there were many hundreds of independent radio stations with a handle on local and community affairs. Now, much of the whole shebang is owned and controlled by one corporation, Clear Channel. When you listen to your 'local' radio, the chances are that it is not local at all, but being piped in from a remote location, identical to what people are hearing anywhere else, the same tiny playlist of favored tunes, the same news items, the same opinions, from Florida to Alaska, barring local news and those pesky weather forecasts of course! The airwaves are supposedly owned by the People, but in 1996 the FCC gave away those rights to big business; at the same time, anyone attempting to set up community radio, such as microwatt stations etc. encounter massive bureaucracy in setting up a transmitter, to the extent that red-tape makes it all but impossible, so folk end up risking small 'pirate operations'; if caught they are handed extremely, disproportionately heavy penalties and get their equipment confiscated, and a huge fine or jail. So much for free speech.
I'm not talking about conspiracy here, in case the kneejerkers predictably start muttering 'paranoia'. It is a symptom of the gradual replacement of free enterprise by big-box capitalism. This is the age of the dinosaur, where a small number of businesses get so massive, powerful and unpoliceable that their jurisdiction and power exceeds that of states, or nations, and they only answer to major shareholders; employees and communities take the proverbial hike.
However, dinosaurs are lumberingly inefficient, react slowly, and liaison between the parts is often fraught with miscommunication and errors. Being the eternal optimist, I believe that when the big guys get so big as to be out of touch with their surroundings, it gives the grass a chance to grow between their feet, and small startups with smart ideas get a foothold.
Whoever controls the media control the people, and create the history. Right now, the direction of the media is in the hands of maybe 100 or (so?) very powerful and well-connected people in entertainment, military, government, banking, etc etc and, organized crime as well perhaps. And, don't forget that the direction of the media is shackled to what is deemed acceptable by their biggest sponsors, namely corporate America And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of those folk are absolutely not liberal in their political and ideological viewpoints.
The whole idea of a "liberal" media, either in a literal sense (ie "free, from the latin 'Liber'), or in a political sense, namely left of center, is a total myth. To put it more bluntly...BS.
and that too is true!!!!
<strong>
BTW, would you say that Republicans are conservative fiscally?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some are. Some aren't. It also depends on what you mean by fiscal conservatism. For a lot of people it just means balanced budgets. They aren't too picky about how they're balanced. They'll go along with higher taxes to get there and they'll even believe that they're doing something courageous by raising taxes! My definition of fiscal conservatism is 100% focused on the spending side. And I'm willing to sacrifice a balanced budget for higher growth. (Speaking to broader economic issues beyond fiscal policy I'm a supply-sider.) That probably makes my fiscal conservatism suspect to some. Oh well. I can live with that.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Excellent alternate theory to FAIR's findings. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well-written post and look forward to reading your next ones.
-Shawn
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
It's enough to say some i agree with some i don't. There is a bit of one sidedness to it that is very liberal biased, and i'll try to leave it alone.
My main contention comes in with the last sentence. Your contention is that in any given frame of reference that is large enough to give a decent average the media is more in favor of the Conservative view than the Liberal?
I have to say that that is a bogus statement both on the face and with reflection on; the issues touted for dicussion, the people brought forward to discuss them, the frame of reference from which they are taken, and the fact that most issues are based these days on the incredible over sensitivity of all people in the US. I posted an article showing a view of liberalism being predominant. I can post more and even find some in the fair.org list that will show the issues dealt with are based on a liberal mindset and conservatives are targeted as guests for rebutle. There are lines drawn and we can percieve them without the aid of propaganda from either camp.
I like best the statement of BRussell, where he/she says that it is about the media being more liberal than i am. Given that context i'd have to conclude that your more liberal than they and therefore see them as unbiased or to the right. Is that a fair assumption?
I swiped this from the FCC act of 1996:
SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP.
(a) NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The
Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47
C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number
of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by
one entity nationally.
(b) LOCAL RADIO DIVERSITY-
(1) APPLICABLE CAPS- The Commission shall revise section
73.3555(a) of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) to provide
that--
(A) in a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio
stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 8
commercial radio stations, not more than 5 of which are in
the same service (AM or FM);
(B) in a radio market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive)
commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or
control up to 7 commercial radio stations, not more than 4
of which are in the same service (AM or FM);
(C) in a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive)
commercial radio stations, a party may own, operate, or
control up to 6 commercial radio stations, not more than 4
of which are in the same service (AM or FM); and
(D) in a radio market with 14 or fewer commercial radio
stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 5
commercial radio stations, not more than 3 of which are in
the same service (AM or FM), except that a party may not
own, operate, or control more than 50 percent of the
stations in such market.
(2) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding any limitation authorized by
this subsection, the Commission may permit a person or entity
to own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in,
radio broadcast stations if the Commission determines that such
ownership, operation, control, or interest will result in an
increase in the number of radio broadcast stations in operation.
Unless i read it wrong it says that the mutlinationals or nationals can own as many as they want across the country But, and this is the part i think you glazed over a bit, not more than the prescibed number in any given market. The question i will try to answer for future posts is how big is a market.
It also seems to be full of the term competition. I think it's pretty clear that the big corporations were knocking at the door of monopolist practice until this was put in place or at least getting close to causing a scism within the country (geographic proliferation of ideas central to the ownership of the market media).
Here's an excert from the complete document.
150
(3)(A) The Commission shall establish rules and procedures to
ensure that, in the administration of any system of random selection under
this subsection used for granting licenses or construction permits for any
media of mass communications, significant preferences will be granted to
applicants or groups of applicants, the grant to which of the license or
permit would increase the diversification of ownership of the media of mass
communications. To further diversify the ownership of the media of mass
communications, an additional significant preference shall be granted to any
applicant controlled by a member or members of minority group.
I believe the intention is to give it back to the people. It maybe hard work and yes corporations pay people to do all that stuffy paperwork but no one ever promised an easy time in this world no matter what your after.
Huge post most of it the act, but i have to question the ownership theory and find a source that can show the diversity in my "market". I'll do that and try to narrow down the size of a market.
But, as I've said before, if you can't see this after watching for a little while, then you will probably never understand what's going on.
Political talk shows are almost always going to be conservative, they couldn't really be any other way. They are for the masses and the masses are conservative.
As far as the "bias in media" bit, it's almost 100% subjective. I'm disgusted by FoxNews damn near all the time because they are just as smarmy as any CNN leftist and they don't even attempt to follow journalistic principle. I see their interviewers interrupt the interviewees constantly (did these morons even go to college?) and find themselves completely unable to comprehend anything the interviewee says.
It's a pathetic "news" channel. Infotainment at its most brazen. But that's what I get for turning on the television, always a stupid idea unless there's a specific show to watch.
[/end rant]
God love 'ole Charlie. I'll take him over Barbara any day of the week and twice on Sunday (or "Sundee" as Charlie would say). A wise country-boy sage.
You know, like it or not, I like a lot of what he writes and says. Very unpolished and perhaps not the most subtle writer to ever come down the lane. BUT, it's heartfelt and "real" and I get the sense that he's doing it for himself and being honest. Which is more than I can say for some other, more visible and highly paid commentators and pundits.
I'd rather read his stuff than any diatribe by O'Donnell or Ted Danson.
[quote] for example, but they'd never take their kid to a doctor who got through med school because of the "group" that the doctor belonged to when applying. <hr></blockquote>what the hell... do you know these people, the "they" that you are reffering to?!?!? You just pulled them out of your head, out of the image bank of them liberal hypikrauts! that you keep stored in fantasies and which misinform you as to who other people really are.
You wouldn't understand anyone who would call themselves 'fiscally conservative but socially liberal' because you have conservative colored glasses on. These glasses make you demand that in order for one to claim the sanctified status of 'conservative' they think just as you do.
As far as the media sounding like they are on the left . . . it is clear that almost anybody who merely describes any situation with reference to either sex, race, class, or the environment, irregardless of what they say about those, would be considered 'left' by you. . . they would be considered 'left' even if they merely acknowledge these as issues to be recognized or that they are issues in other people's eyes. And since the 'media' might report on issues involving race, or sex, or the environment (but hardly ever class) then you assume that that makes their position with regards to the issue 'left'.
Also, I would just say that your last sentence is the classic appeal to our "false consciousness": which means that you think that it is only you who see through the ideological tissue of lies that encase us all . . . only you are the seer or the Truth. . . I think, obviously, that au contrair, you too are hornswogled . . .and especially by your missguided belief that you alone are "principled" and anyone with a different sensibility is not. Its not true that only the liberals among us have a false relationship to real conditions you do as well . . . even if you measure your ideas by 'simple' truths . . .( I would say especially because you measure your ideas by "simple truths") The reality of mutual false consciousness is one of the main reasons that we have a bipartisan system . . . for which I am glad . . . and the reason why debate seems endless . . . its when the answer is agreed upon by everyone that's when you should start to get suspicious . . .
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>
BUT, it's heartfelt and "real" and I get the sense that he's doing it for himself and being honest. Which is more than I can say for some other, more visible and highly paid commentators and pundits.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's the difference? I hardly think Doris Kearns Goodwin, a frequent guest commentator on PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and NBC networks (until her recent scandal of course), feigns her commentary. David Gergen the same. I can say quite more about these two (especially the latter) than what I can say for Charlie Daniels. (Although he does have much more to say than O'Donnell and Danson, they are not really "commentators or pundits on political issues."
(Disclaimer: This is not a personal attack. You said something publicly that I disagree with- hence my public disagreement)
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
But, I also can say the same about Paul Begalla (what an overbearing little smart-ass!) and James Carville (who's just weird-acting and difficult to watch, no matter what you think of his politics).
Sometimes, I just get the feeling that the "big guns" (people who make a living going on TV shows to represent a viewpoint or opinion) seem to lay it on thick, for the benefit of the camera, viewers, ratings, "good TV", etc.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel more inclined to believe "real people" and perhaps those who don't make a career out of running their yap on TV every night. When someone who I see as more like a "regular person" (someone not particularly slick, TV savvy and laden with a gazillion degrees and on-air credits) speaks their mind, it appeals to me more. That's just me, I guess.
That's all. I never would've suspected this redneck fiddle player to be so vocal and passionate. Took me by surprise, I guess.
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
I basically said three things:
1. Finboy uses anecdotes to make points. And in these anecdotes he uses fictional 'liberals' . . . these are fictions... they do not exist. These fictions that people his anecdotes come from a whole host of simplistic stereotypes of what Finboy imagines 'liberals' to be doing and what he imagines them to be like.
These stereotypes may get in the way of seeing real people for the complex creatures that they are.
2. "conservative colored glasses"... this is a metaphor . . . as rose colored glasses make everything seem happy, 'conservative colored glasses make everything seem like the conivings of a vast liberal agenda. It is because he wears these blinders that everyone that thinks slightly differently, or uses a different set of catch phrases, is labeled a liberal . . . hence, that is why the media seems to have a liberal bias for Finboy.
Why? because the media might address such taboo issues as race, class, sex and the environment . . . .
as a side note, I made reference to the fact that the media need only acknowledge that other people might be addressing one or more of these issues for the likes of Finboy to therefore call it's bias liberal.
3. Also: Finboy is saying that if we don't see the liberal bias in the media, it is because we live inside of false consciousness . . . . we live with Liberal colored glasses.
At this point I said that that may be true but that there is not a "true consciouseness" which Finboy alone understands, but that we, all of us, live amidst "false consciuosness" --meaning that none of us has the truth in our back pocket . . and that that is the reason that we have debate and a multi (two) party system with checks and balances (hence the wisdom O founding group of dead white men
I also made some minor points, about previouse post by Finboy, where he states that his ideas are right (and principled) because they are simplistic...I mean simple
I think Paul Begala is extremely funny! He makes smart ass comments for sure, but puts more emphasis on "smart" than "ass." He's witty, fun to watch, entertaining, and I think even his co-hosts Tucker and Bob like him too.
<strong>
I basically said three things:
1. Finboy uses anecdotes to make points. And in these anecdotes he uses fictional 'liberals' . . . these are fictions... they do not exist. These fictions that people his anecdotes come from a whole host of simplistic stereotypes of what Finboy imagines 'liberals' to be doing and what he imagines them to be like.
These stereotypes may get in the way of seeing real people for the complex creatures that they are.
2. "conservative colored glasses"... this is a metaphor . . . as rose colored glasses make everything seem happy, 'conservative colored glasses make everything seem like the conivings of a vast liberal agenda. It is because he wears these blinders that everyone that thinks slightly differently, or uses a different set of catch phrases, is labeled a liberal . . . hence, that is why the media seems to have a liberal bias for Finboy.
Why? because the media might address such taboo issues as race, class, sex and the environment . . . .
as a side note, I made reference to the fact that the media need only acknowledge that other people might be addressing one or more of these issues for the likes of Finboy to therefore call it's bias liberal.
3. Also: Finboy is saying that if we don't see the liberal bias in the media, it is because we live inside of false consciousness . . . . we live with Liberal colored glasses.
At this point I said that that may be true but that there is not a "true consciouseness" which Finboy alone understands, but that we, all of us, live amidst "false consciuosness" --meaning that none of us has the truth in our back pocket . . and that that is the reason that we have debate and a multi (two) party system with checks and balances (hence the wisdom O founding group of dead white men
I also made some minor points, about previouse post by Finboy, where he states that his ideas are right (and principled) because they are simplistic...I mean simple
To the extent that my "stereotypes" apply, it's because I've seen this behavior personally. Folks who say one thing and behave in a different manner (left or right) are dangerous. If these people (left or right) influence the behavior of others, they are MORE dangerous. If these folks hold a "monopoly" on the medium, the danger is even greater yet.
I don't think that I'm alone in seeing ANYTHING, I'm just the only one usually wasting my words (here) on folks who can't see it.
[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
"it's because I've seen[...]behavior personally" + "Conservative colored glasses"
= see what you are looking for (stereotypes)
agreed that monopolies on the mind are dangerous: but why is it that the near economic monopolies of the media (actual ownership consolidated into the hands of few super-conglomerates) does not mean that there is also a monopoly on what goes into these media channels?
Perhaps you are willfully sidestepping this reality because it gives you a false boogy man to feel righteuosly indignant about?!?!
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>