Slashdot Mirror

Not really. Compare the numbers if you want.

Fox's stake in New York also makes it a pretty big influence. That's my take at least.

Independently owned is streching it a bit, they aren't owned by the same media conglomerate, but they aren't owned as an independent entity either,

TNN is owned by Viacom - Other Viacom interests
Scifi is owned by Vivendi (USA Networks) - Other Vivendi interests

Independently owned is streching it a bit, they aren't owned by the same media conglomerate, but they aren't owned as an independent entity either,

TNN is owned by Viacom - Other Viacom interests
Scifi is owned by Vivendi (USA Networks) - Other Vivendi interests

A good little place to keep up with the mergers and conglomerations in the media world is at Who Owns What.

The Columbia Journalism Review keeps good tabs on such things.

To see what exactly the AOLTW empire owns, check out Who Owns What

AOL/Time Warner is very bad but there are 6 coprorations that is considered to own pretty much all media the average american gets. AOL/Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., Disney, General Electric and Bertelsmann are the companies in no order. 5 years ago it was about 10 companies and 20 years ago there was 50. You can find a list of who owns what in the world of big business. Just look at the freakishly long list that is owned by only Viacom.

It makes me glad i dont watch tv. Although slashdot is no suppliment for an all enclusive news source it sure fills the most time of my news reading in a day.

AOL/Time Warner is very bad but there are 6 coprorations that is considered to own pretty much all media the average american gets. AOL/Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., Disney, General Electric and Bertelsmann are the companies in no order. 5 years ago it was about 10 companies and 20 years ago there was 50. You can find a list of who owns what in the world of big business. Just look at the freakishly long list that is owned by only Viacom.

It makes me glad i dont watch tv. Although slashdot is no suppliment for an all enclusive news source it sure fills the most time of my news reading in a day.

A Nation of Thieves?

Something happened on the way to the 21st century. Media and entertainment companies started "converging" and "shareholder value" became far more important than customer service and respect for company employees ever managed to be. Compensation packages for company executives hit the stratosphere -- while holding them accountable for their company's results became nearly impossible.

These executives are indeed very naïve if they think that people haven't noticed.

People are noticing that something isn't quite right -- that something is indeed very wrong. After a decade during which the stock market gained apparent respectability as a legitimate, sensible form of investing, the recent slew of huge corporate scandals reveals that it is still what it has always been: a sick place where neurotic, puerile gamblers get their kicks off the backs of millions of "anonymous" workers and individuals, who have no control over what happens to their hard-earned retirement savings.

Yet this is the place that most company executives feel is much more important to watch than the actual people for whom they produce their goods and services. This is the place where the fate of thousands of employees is decided every day by people staring at computer monitors showing ever-changing, meaningless lists of numbers and charts. And if you happen to personally hold shares in a company that has just announced that it is "restructuring" in order to improve its bottom-line and thus increase its "shareholder value", don't kid yourself: When the company is talking about "shareholders", it's not talking about you and your measly couple of thousands of shares. It's only talking about big shareholders -- i.e. other companies that own a more significant share of its market value.

This is a world where "hostile takeovers" and government-approved "mergers" are feeding a never-ending cycle of fewer and fewer executives wielding more and more power on a multinational scale. Soon enough, the "World Company" and George Orwell's 1984 will no longer be the stuff of satire or fiction -- but prophetic descriptions of a very real "New World Order" gradually unfolding before our eyes.

A Little History

Let's start with a simple list: America Online, Time, Life, Warner Bros., Fortune, Elektra, Sports Illustrated, HBO, Turner Broadcasting, CNN, Cinemax, Entertainment Weekly, New Line Cinema, In Style, Warner/Chappell Music, Time Warner Cable, WBN, ICQ, Warner Music Group, Netscape, People, Reprise, Rhino, Atlantic, WEA, TNT, MapQuest, WinAmp, In Demand, Erato, Moviefone, Road Runner, etc.. All owned by the same corporate giant (AOL Time Warner).

And another one: Universal Music Group, Verve, Nathan, Canal+, Impulse!, Cegetel, USA Networks, Decca, Interscope, Geffen, A&M, Barclay, Armand Colin, L'Express, Universal Studios, Larousse, Sierra, MP3.com, MCA Records, Deutsche Grammophon, Cineplex, etc.. All owned by the same corporate giant (Vivendi Universal).

And yet another one: Disney, ABC, ESPN, Hyperion, Miramax, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, A&E, The History Channel, E! Entertainment, RTL-2, Buena Vista, Mr. Showbiz, Wall of Sound, Mammoth Records, etc.. All owned by the same corporate giant (Walt Disney).

Need we say more? See for yourself... There's already only 7 of these corporate giants in total -- and how long will it be before there are even fewer?

It all began innocently enough. Young entrepreneurs in the early 20th century started up new companies with a mix of creative ambition and business acumen. Then these companies grew bigger and bigger, and whatever entrepreneurial vision was present at their birth became more and more diluted and less and less relevant. Then corporate accountants suggested merging with or taking over other companies -- and it all became an all-too-real game of Monopoly.

Then the Internet and "new technologies" came about, and the accountants' next big idea was convergence -- i.e. the merging of "content" providers and "access" providers in order to control everything from the inception of a "cultural product" to its ultimate consumption by the unsuspecting masses.

The Art of Manipulation

It is easy to guess what got lost along the way... Creativity. Artistry. Independence. Critical objectivity. Uncontrolled access. The ability to "break through" cultural barriers. Cultural diversity. Innovation. Freedom. Real music. Real art.

Juggling between art and commerce is a delicate balance at the best of times... and these are definitely NOT the best of times.

So now we have a so-called magazine "reporting" on the latest new blockbuster movie with a 10-page, full-color spread -- as if the reporters weren't aware that the same company that produced the movie also owns their magazine... Yes, this is still called a "magazine". These are still called "reporters". And this is still called "journalism"... And yet millions of people are gleefully letting themselves be had.

Maybe we should stop calling this "art", or even "entertainment" for that matter -- for what is so entertaining about being involved in a collective hallucination? Maybe we should start calling it what it really is, i.e. unfettered MANIPULATION.

In 1995, Clear Channel Communications owned 43 radio stations. Now it owns more than 1,200 -- and its army of so-called "independent promoters" are letting legalized payola dictate what you get (or rather don't get) to hear on the radio.

Everywhere you look, the story is the same: more and more money, less and less choice, less and less freedom of access, fewer and fewer companies. How far will this have to go before a big shift in people's attitude causes this commercial hubris to collapse onto itself and implode?

Power Struggles

The first major cracks in this highly concentrated corporate world have, of course, already begun to appear, in what has been making the headlines in the past few months, i.e. shady accounting practices involving enormous amounts of money -- enough to shake the economy of the most powerful nation of the world. And the hysterical stock markets have of course been swayed by this news, at the expense of tens of thousands of workers worldwide and millions of small investors who thought that their holdings had nowhere to go but up.

The value of AOL Time Warner's stock is now a quarter of what it was at the time of the merger between AOL and Time Warner, and this decline forced the company to take a $54 billion writedown earlier this year. And now it too is being investigated about its accounting practices. The story at Vivendi Universal is similar. Disney shares are near an 8-year low. And there is little doubt in people's mind that the problems are similar everywhere, in every big conglomerate that has become utterly out of touch with the reality of everyday work and the essence of human creativity.

In addition, people also realize all too well that governments have little -- if any -- power left when it comes to regulating these multinational monsters. Governments have much more power when it comes to regulating the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens -- and they use and abuse this power as a way to distract people's attention from how much control the conglomerates have over what we get to hear, watch, read, eat, drink, buy, and generally experience as "free" citizens of the world.

One of the areas where this struggle is most acutely felt is, of course, the online world -- a sprawling, anarchic community that is still in its infancy and whose exponential development in the last decade took everyone by surprise. And nothing exemplifies the struggle between government, big business, and individual rights better than the highly controversial issue of "peer-2-peer" file sharing and its many digital variations.

A Nation of Thieves?

Will the media/technology giants recover from the latest stock market slump? They probably will -- but at what cost? In all likelihood, the cost will be more "restructuring", more layoffs, more executive shuffles and golden parachutes, causing even further alienation from their own employees and customers. And this, in turn, will further encourage the very behaviors that they claim are illegal and want punished by criminal law -- all the while preserving their own impunity as they continue to carelessly flounder a capital that they do not own.

Napster may have gone bankrupt and become a closed chapter in the Internet's short history, but its death is by no means a reflection of a decline in peer-2-peer (P2P) file sharing, quite the contrary. If anything, P2P has grown even further -- but since it's becoming totally decentralized, there is no easy way to measure its significance.

What is for sure, however, is that, in spite of its many claims to the contrary, the recording industry has yet to provide evidence that P2P is actually detrimental to music making as an artistic endeavor, and even as a commercial venture. It is worth remembering, for example, that sales of music CDs actually increased when Napster was at its peak, and declined after Napster was abruptly shut down. Even economists who thought that file sharing "should be" hurting the recording industry are now expressing their doubts, based on what they say is simply not happening.

More importantly, many well-respected artists have sided with Internet users against corporate greed and actually use the Internet to promote alternative ways to distribute their music and reach out to a non-captive, legitimate audience of authentic music lovers.

This does not mean, of course, that all forms of file sharing are equally innocuous. There is little doubt that, when people use the Internet as a substitute for radio, i.e. as a way to discover new music, it can help promote the work of artists. But when a young junior high school student downloads tracks off the Internet and makes CD-R copies of them that he then sells for $5 in the schoolyard, it hurts sales of the original CD and it's disrespectful of the artist -- regardless of how small a cut of the actual CD price the artist actually gets after all the executives and the middlemen in the recording industry have taken their piece of the pie.

Still, can we really go as far as to say that digital technology is creating a "nation of thieves" who no longer recognize the just value of art?

Protecting the Product

It is worth noting, to begin with, that the recording industry itself is far from having distinguished itself by recognizing the true value of art. Instead, it has consistently fought to be allowed to deprive many artists of their most fundamental rights. It has allowed popular artists to go bankrupt even though their albums were selling by the millions. It has reduced the artists' cut of the album sales pie to a ridiculously small portion of the actual income generated by these sales. It has consistently pushed commercial musical products at the expense of real musical artistry.

This hardly entitles the recording industry to lecture anyone about recognizing the just value of art.

It is also interesting to note that the cultural products that seem to be the primary concern of the industry giants are those that are already the most popular ones, and that things such as CD copy protection are being experimentally used mostly with items that will sell millions regardless of whether they are copy-protected or not.

So are most citizens really being completely disrespectful of the value of art and the need to provide appropriate compensation to the artists for their works? We've said it before and we'll say it again: the rise of digital technology and peer-2-peer file sharing has little to do with people's intrinsic respect for art and artists, and everything to do with the cynical attitude of big industry conglomerates, which have consistently pushed for more and more commercial, highly profitable products at the expense of authentic art and respect for artists.

If people do not feel enough guilt to prevent them from making digital copies of the latest episode of a popular TV show or hit pop song, it is precisely because the industry giants have succeeded in making these works purely commercial products, with little or no consideration for their actual artistic value. It is precisely because these companies have been consistently promoting commercial products at the expense of artistic works.

The fact that actual works of art still manage to seep through the cracks of this huge profit-driven industry does not change anything about the fundamental equations that have been driving and still drive the industry, today more than ever -- i.e. that art = money, artists = money-makers, and art lovers = consumers.

As a simple example of how little music is valued as an art form by the industry, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of music ever recorded is currently available -- and, of this 20 percent, what proportion is actually readily available to music lovers? What proportion is not the current 100 top albums on the SoundScan charts?

It simply appears that the instinctive reaction of the lover of art (be it music, TV shows, movies, or other forms of art) is such that, if the industry has no respect for his or her identity as an appreciator of art, then he or she has no reason to have any respect for the industry as a purveyor of art. By making digital copies of so-called cultural products, many people are not demonstrating their lack of respect for art and for artists, but are expressing -- consciously or not -- their frustration with the way the entertainment industry profits from art at the expense of both art makers and art lovers.

The consumers of the commercial products of the entertainment industry are only as cynical as the industry has deliberately made them, by dumbing down their products, by exploiting artists, by making profit-driven choices and decisions, and by providing their own kind with obscene compensations and legal impunity that are completely out of touch with the real world of ordinary people.

Don't Get It Twisted

That being said, the whole debate about file sharing and digital piracy is, most of all, a convenient way for industry conglomerates to deflect attention from their own shady business practices and dubious alliances.

For example, it is worth noting that the Warner Music Group is heavily involved in the recording industry's fight against piracy, but that its own parent company, AOL Time Warner, is directly benefiting from file sharing, as a provider of Internet access to millions of Internet users worldwide. When AOL Time Warner repeatedly flaunts its ever-increasing number of members (34 million and counting) and the billions of hours that they spend online, is there any doubt that a good part of this growth involves the "unlawful" exchange of computer files at the detriment of recording artists?

In other words, the real "thieves" are not necessarily those that are currently getting the blame... Rather than a "nation of thieves", the current situation looks, to us, much more like an "elite of thieves".

And the real victims of this thievery are very much, as usual, the recording artists themselves, who will never get their share of AOL's profits as an Internet access provider, even though these profits are partly based on the content that they originally provided. And the real victims also include authentic music lovers, who already suffer from restricted access to the full range of music that they would like to explore, and who are also likely to suffer from technological restrictions that will soon prevent them from making legitimate copies of the works that they have lawfully purchased for their own enjoyment.

Make no mistake: the entertainment industry (including TV, movies and music) might be big, but the technology industry is even bigger. Remember that it is AOL that bought Time Warner, and not the other way around. Remember that Sony makes much more money in electronics and computer equipment than it does in record sales...

If the technology industry ends up implementing technological limitations that prevent users from lawfully enjoying their purchases -- as it is threatening to do -- the beneficiaries will not be the artists whose works are thus being allegedly "protected". And it will certainly not be the art lovers whose enjoyment of art will thus be restricted. No, it will simply be, once again... the industry conglomerates, who will have yet another generation of incompatible media and devices to sell to us under the guise of "technological improvement".

Conclusion

The technology and entertainment industries are simply to big for us to expect any overnight changes. The industry giants will continue to do their best to deflect people's attention away from their own wrongdoings and to blame falling profits and commercial failures on piracy at the same time that they are encouraging their customers to adopt the very technologies that make piracy possible. Artists will continue to be lured by unrealistic promises and contracts with big numbers and lots of small print.

How long, however, before a critical mass of established artists realize that it is in their best interests, both artistically and commercially, to leave the system for good? How long before a critical mass of young aspiring artists become aware of the enslaving aspects of the system and are careful not to get involved in it without a maximum of precautions? And how long before a critical mass of art lovers get together to provide these artists with a real, valuable, legitimate, truthfully enthusiastic alternative audience that completes the process of rendering the existing system artistically irrelevant?

It all depends on us -- and it all depends on you.

[Ed: original used "2" for both "to" and "too" -- grammatical errors in that department are my fault. Only changes should be related to spelling, formatting and links preserved. Various Unicode characters translated to ASCII for the benifit of Slashdot. "Peer-2-peer" is kept as original.]

In case anyone in the Washington area missed the story, the author spent several minutes this morning discussing the highlights of his article -- omitting any semblance of fairness -- on a local cable television news channel ("News Channel 8"). Here's the RealVideo file.

Segal: The world of pirated online music is still alive--
Channel 8 Talking Head: Like huge!
Segal: Yeah, huge.

The Washington Post has an extensive content deal with NBC (General Electric) and Microsoft, but is owned primarily by the Graham family and Warren Buffet.

In case anyone in the Washington area missed the story, the author spent several minutes this morning discussing the highlights of his article -- omitting any semblance of fairness -- on a local cable television news channel ("News Channel 8"). Here's the RealVideo file.

Segal: The world of pirated online music is still alive--
Channel 8 Talking Head: Like huge!
Segal: Yeah, huge.

The Washington Post has an extensive content deal with NBC (General Electric) and Microsoft, but is owned primarily by the Graham family and Warren Buffet.

Both KGO and KSFO are Disney affiliates and sister stations.

It's Disney pandering to the extremists on all sides.

I have no doubt that all these DJs are good friends off mike.

Read How to Read the Times in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Read How to Read the Times in the Columbia Journalism Review.

AOL/Time-Warner owns CNN along with nearly 300 other ventures.

This sounds eerily just like big radio, ie
emmis, clear channel,
and others, wanting record companies to payola them under the table for the privelege of playing music that the advertisers deem fit.

The internet is like a road. Most content and traffic comes from the US, but that will not be true forever (this is just a guess, dont mod me or flame me down). India is a developing country, but they shouldnt charge major companies access to their country. Are they going to act like China now and try to block it all off?

The internet should be toll free. Or, if India does not like that, their burgeoning programmer base should try to replicate this services on their own.

This sounds eerily just like big radio, ie
emmis, clear channel,
and others, wanting record companies to payola them under the table for the privelege of playing music that the advertisers deem fit.

The internet is like a road. Most content and traffic comes from the US, but that will not be true forever (this is just a guess, dont mod me or flame me down). India is a developing country, but they shouldnt charge major companies access to their country. Are they going to act like China now and try to block it all off?

The internet should be toll free. Or, if India does not like that, their burgeoning programmer base should try to replicate this services on their own.

My copy of 1984 includes an excellent essay preceding the novel. I forget the author at this point. However, his main point was that when George Orwell was not just targeting Facist or Communist regimes with his book.

If I remember correctly, the original version included a preface by Orwell in which he discussed the UK's goverment increasing monitoring of its own citizens. This edition was CENSORED in the UK and the book was not allowed to be released in the UK until the preface was removed. This in a supposedly "free" western republic.

As a Rage Against the Machine lyric goes, "They don't need to burn the books, they just remove them."

If you check out Who owns what you can see that huge major media conglomerates control just about everything you read/hear/see.

I certainly don't think we have "progressed" to the state that 1984 predicts, but if anyone doesn't think it's possible just because we are a "democracy", they are sorely mistaken.

Well, duh... think of who owns CNN... AOL/Time/Warner also happen to own Atlantic, Rhino, Elektra, (of course) Warner Bros. Records, Maverick and Reprise; all of which are members of the RIAA.

Not a big surprise when it's all put in perspective, eh?

Well, duh... think of who owns CNN... AOL/Time/Warner also happen to own Atlantic, Rhino, Elektra, (of course) Warner Bros. Records, Maverick and Reprise; all of which are members of the RIAA.

Not a big surprise when it's all put in perspective, eh?

For example? (serious question)

I highly recommend Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein by Adrian Havill. (It's is out of print according to Amazon.) It's part biography of Woodward and Bernstein and part discussion of Deep Throat. (Havill concludes Deep Throat was a composite character.)

The most amusing example from the book is the origin of the Deep Throat code name. Bernstein claims that he went to see Deep Throat in Washington, D.C. to evade a subpoena. Havill documents conclusively that Deep Throat wasn't showing anywhere in or near Washington, D.C. Not only was their source fake, the source of their fake source's nickname was also fake.

There are more examples in the Columbia Journalism Review article linked above or in today's gossip column on MSNBC.

InitZero

Ahh.. but you forget who owns Miramax. (hint: Sen. Hollings constituency).

They're one of the Bad Guys(TM) here.

While the article talks about Clear Channel's massive amount of stations, I don't think most people realize just how many stations they have until they see a list of them.

So, on that note, check out the list of stations that Clear Channel owns:
http://www.cjr.org/owners/clearchannel.asp

Go ahead, pick out the stations in your town. There are 5 in mine, and all of them are just awful; they play the same songs on an almost daily basis.

Not to side with the RIAA (shudder), but Clear Channel is a pretty ugly company. You probably listen to them now and don't even know it. There's a station list available at http://www.cjr.org/owners/clearchannel.asp

I would tend to disagree.

The press has always been responsible for it's own failure or success. You can't expect people to regulate it, or steer it in the right direction, when people can only possibly learn of it's misdeeds and mistakes through *gasp*, THE PRESS! The media dips into sensationalism because it allows itself to be driven by profit and whatever it's ratings are, they're NEVER enough. Not ALL people are going to care about what's on the news, it's as simple as that. You can't ruin the news trying to cater to idiots who don't care what's going on outside their small world, and yet, that's exactly what's happened. Sept. 11th should've been a wake up call for the media, as well. I don't know how people could stand for that kind of coverage. Anyone who's watched serious news like the BBC might agree. It was no less than 20 minutes after the planes hit, that NBC had created a 'music video' for the tragedy, with slides of fire, explosions, and people covered in ash flying across the screen as corny, dramatic music played in the background. Despite everything that was happening, it still made me want to turn off the television.

And I think a lot of people are sick and jaded by the nature of our news media, but it's hard to say if anyone will ever know how big this problem is because, again, they'd have to hear about it from the news media.

Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post Company, which has managed to stay relatively independant compared to say Time. They do own six TV stations, but don't appear to have any movie studio or record label affiliations. You can see the details at the Columbia Journalism Review

It doesn't seem to be a fluke, since this week they have an article bagging on the DMCA and specifically the Skylarov case. As a news company, perhaps they realize that the DMCA threatens their ability to easily quote material from digital sources. Who knows. It is nice to see at least some news outlets are willing to present the real story on things like the DMCA.

Ah, yes, but it's not just the entertainment industry that you have to deal with. They have lots of ties.

A very good point. Indeed, these companies are far bigger than many of us imagine. If you want to see a full list on what companies own what, take a look here:
http://www.cjr.org/owners/

Especially check out Clear Channel, it's amazing how many stations they own. Also, it's odd that under Disney, it shows that they have an investment in TiVo. Isn't Disney part of the same people trying to outlaw those types of technologies?!

In the boxing match that is MS vs AOL... I'm cheering for AOL.

Why is this? AOL Time Warner supports the DMCA, the SSSCA and was against DeCSS this is besides the fact that they are the primary source of information for millions of people via their ownership of Time magazine, CNN, Warner Brothers movies and records, TNT, TBS, the WB televison network, Sports Illustrated, NewLine Cinema, as well as their online ventures which means they are the influencing the lives and actions of millions of people around the world.

I can see where one may dislike a company becoming the primary provider of software related goods and services but don't see why that same person would not be even more wary of another company becoming the primary provider of information related goods and services from internet access to the news we read and watch.

Disclaimer: The opinions in this post are mine and do not reflect the opinions, wishes, intentions or strategies of my employer.

My rant on this topic, and the US government.

Yes this is very 1984ish. When this law passes "Big Brother is watching" gets that much closer to reality. You have your 1984 TV that spreads the propaganda, the propaganda that only they can produce. And it watches you (let's see what MS will build into its OS), and you can't turn the device off (The DMCA Thought Police will get you).

Someone supposed to be representing the people has actually been paid by a couple of corporations to promote their own interest. The idiot Hollings is only after money, but isn't that politics nowadays, money and public opinion, I believe Bush knew more about Enron than he's saying, come on Bush and Cheney were/are in the oil business goddammit!

Why are we only attacking the evil that is SSSCA, not the evil that is the corruption that is running the government? I believe a revolution is overdue. And it won't be televised, because guess who owns the media? Why haven't we seen anything on CNN? Or Time Magazine?

Furthermore, I can't believe what is happening to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Yes they are being refused prisoner of war status, they are on hunger strike, last I read. They are ready to die for their beliefs, and hell no the US Govt isn't going to let them die, but if they die anyway, who's going to prosecute the US? Imagine if those are US soldiers being held captive in Iraq. Bush would be nuking Saddam's ass and he (Mr. Hussein) would be Milosevic's cellmate in no time, but no, the US Govt is running the show here. As much as I hate extrimist who kill innocent people, I hate the idea that Bush is getting away with what otherwise would be "crimes against humanity" simply because he's the one bossing the world. Double standards for you, yeah life isn't fair, tough.

But all empires fall in the end. This one has covered basically the whole planet, what will happen when it falls? Just because the provider of its "entertainment" corrupted the congress that runs the planet itself.

If the SSSCA bill pass through, I'd like to see what kind of a country the US would be in a couple of decades, if not the world. People who don't like the idea would stop using computers and technology. The idea of Amish society doesn't seem so bad after all, live simpler lives without Disney crap that you don't need anyway. We could return to music making with real analog instruments and public performances of real artists, performances for donations, recorded using a pencil on music sheets. As for the internet, I can imagine that they would try to monitor all forms of data communication next. Non-certified publishers (aka servers) will not be allowed to serve content. Only AOL Time Warner will be left, serving you, yet again, crap, the internet turned into a TV, like a slashdotter has said. The "greatest thing after the industrial revolution" lived to a ripe age of 25 (born 1975) and died a slow painful death.

I can go on, but am I still coherent?

Oh, by the way, one company in that mix controls the majority of concert promotions too (Clear Channel Communications).

Clear Channel controls a lot more than just concert promotions. Check out a list of all the Radio Stations, TV Stations, and other things they own here: http://www.cjr.org/owners/clearchannel.asp.

It's really quite scary. No wonder smaller artists cant get played on the majority of radio stations...

Who Owns What, the list keeps getting smaller and the entries get longer.

Always a good time to see who owns what

You are correct in that the media is made up of humans, and prone to make mistakes. But I think you misrepresent the entire situation with this statement, in implying that human error is the most significant factor in misreported news.

If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.

If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.

I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):

Independent Media

DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media
ZMag: Left Wing media resources
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage
Guerrilla News Network
Project Censored: Censored news stories
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement"
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity
Pacifica Network News
The Onion: Media Satire

Media Analysis

"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information"

LS

You are correct in that the media is made up of humans, and prone to make mistakes. But I think you misrepresent the entire situation with this statement, in implying that human error is the most significant factor in misreported news.

If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.

If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.

I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):

Independent Media

DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media
ZMag: Left Wing media resources
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage
Guerrilla News Network
Project Censored: Censored news stories
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement"
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity
Pacifica Network News
The Onion: Media Satire

Media Analysis

"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information"

LS

I cannot believe a company of this size and scope has not aroused more attention of anti-trust investigators than it has. The AOL/Time Warner corporate viewpoint can reach nearly every facet of American culture. Take a look (credit: Columbia Journalism Review):

Online Services

America Online - over 30 million subscribers
CompuServe Interactive Services
Digital City
AOL Europe
ICQ
The Knot, Inc. - wedding content (8 % with QVC 36% and Hummer WinbladFunds18%)
MapQuest.com - pending regulatory approval
Spinner.com
Winamp
DrKoop.com (10%)
Legend (49% - Internet service in China)

Other

Netscape Communications
AOL MovieFone
iAmaze
Amazon.com (partial)
Quack.com
Streetmail (partial)
Switchboard (6%)

Joint ventures with the following companies:

Hughes Electronics Corp.
3Com
eBay
Eastman Kodak Co.
General Motors
VarsityBooks.com
Hewlett-Packard
PurchasePro.com
VeriSign Inc.
Citigroup
Ticketmaster Inc.
Movietickets.com
Homestore
Infospace
American Greetings

Time Warner - Books

Time Life Books
Book-of-the-Month Club
Paperback Book Club
Children's Book-of-the-Month Club
History Book Club
Money Book Club
HomeStyle Books
Crafter's Choice
One Spirit
International
Little, Brown and Company
Bulfinch Press
Back Bay Books
Little, Brown and Company (U.K.)
Warner Books
Warner Vision
The Mysterious Press
Warner Aspect
Warner Treasures
Oxmoor House (subsidiary of Southern Progress Corporation)
Leisure Arts
Sunset Books
TW Kids
Leisure Arts

Time Warner - Cable/DBS

HBO
HBO Home Video
HBO Pictures/HBO Showcase
HBO Independent Productions
HBO Downtown Productions
HBO NYC Productions
HBO Animation
HBO Sports
Cinemax
Time Warner Sports
HBO Asia
HBO en Espa-ol
HBO Ole (with Sony)
HBO Poland (with Sony)
HBO Brasil (with Sony)
HBO Hungary
Cinemax Selecciones
HBO Direct (DBS)
Comedy Central (50% owned with Viacom)
CNN
CNN/SI
CNN International
CNN en Espanol
CNN Headline News
CNN Airport Network
CNN fn
CNN Radio
CNN Interactive
Court TV (with Liberty Media)
Time Warner Cable
Road Runner (high speed cable modem to the Internet, with MediaOne Group, Microsoft, and Compaq)
Time Warner Communications (telephone service)
New York City Cable Group (largest cable cluster in world - over 1.1 million)
New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC)
Time Warner Home Theater (Pay-Per-View)
Time Warner Security (residential and commercial security monitoring)
Kablevision (53.75% - cable television in Hungary)
In Demand (with AT&T, Comcast and Cox)

Time Warner Inc. - Film & TV Production/Distribution

Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. Studios
Warner Bros. Television (production)
The WB Television Network
Warner Bros. Television Animation
Hanna - Barbera Cartoons
Telepictures Production
Witt - Thomas Productions
Castle Rock Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Warner Bros. Domestic Pay - TV
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution
Warner Bros. International Television Distribution
The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia - Pacific, Australia, Germ.)
Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries)

Time Warner Inc. - Magazines

Time
Time Asia
Time Atlantic
Time Canada
Time Latin America
Time South Pacific
Time Money
Time For Kids
Fortune
Business 2.0
Life
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated Women/Sport
Sports Illustrated International
SI for Kids
Inside Stuff
Money
Your Company
Your Future
People
Who Weekly (Australian edition)
People en Espa-ol
Teen People
Entertainment Weekly
EW Metro
The Ticket
In Style
Southern Living
Progressive Farmer
Southern Accents
Cooking Light
The Parent Group
Parenting
Baby Talk
Baby on the Way
This Old House
Sunset
Sunset Garden Guide
The Health Publishing Group
Health
Hippocrates
Coastal Living
Weight Watchers
Real Simple
Asiaweek (Asian news weekly)
President (Japanese business monthly)
Dancyu (Japanese cooking)
Wallpaper (U.K.)
Field & Stream
Freeze
Golf Magazine
Outdoor Life
Popular Science
Salt Water Sportsman
Ski
Skiing Magazine
Skiing Trade News
SNAP
Snowboard Life
Ride BMX
Today's Homeowner
TransWorld Skateboarding
TransWorld Snowboarding
Verge
Yachting Magazine
Warp
American Express Publishing Corporation (partial ownership/management)
Travel & Leisure
Food & Wine
Your Company
Departures
SkyGuide

Magazines listed under Warner Brothers label

DC Comics
Vertigo
Paradox
Milestone
Mad Magazine

Time Warner - Music

Warner Music Group - Recording Labels
The Atlantic Group
Atlantic Classics
Atlantic Jazz
Atlantic Nashville
Atlantic Theater
Big Beat
Blackground
Breaking
Curb
Igloo
Lava
Mesa/Bluemoon
Modern
1 43
Rhino Records
Elektra Entertainment Group
Elektra
EastWest
Asylum
Elektra/Sire
Warner Brothers Records
Warner Brothers
Warner Nashville
Warner Alliance
Warner Resound
Warner Sunset
Reprise
Reprise Nashville
American Recordings
Giant
Maverick
Revolution
Qwest
Warner Music International
WEA Telegram
East West ZTT
Coalition
CGD East West
China
Continential
DRO East West
Erato
Fazer
Finlandia
Magneoton
MCM
Nonesuch
Teldec

Other Recording Interests

Warner/Chappell Music (publishing company)
WEA Inc. (sales, distribution and manufacturing)
Ivy Hill Corporation (printing and packaging)
Warner Special Products

Joint Ventures

Columbia House (w/Sony - direct marketing)
Music Sound Exchange (w/Sony - direct marketing)
Music Choice and Music Choice Europe (w/Sony, EMI, General Instrument)
Viva (w/Sony, Polygram, EMI - German music video channel)
Channel V (w/Sony, EMI, Bertelsmann, News Corp.)
Heartland Music (50% - direct order of country and gospel music)
MusicNet (with RealNetworks, EMI, and BMG)

Time Warner - Online/Other Publishing

Road Runner
Warner Publisher Services
Time Distribution Services
American Family Publishers (50%)
Pathfinder
Africana.com

Time Warner - Merchandise/Retail

Warner Bros. Consumer Products

Theme Parks

Warner Brothers Recreation Enterprises (owns/operates international theme parks)

Time Warner Inc. - Turner Entertainment

TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television (TNT)
Turner South
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network in Europe
Cartoon Network in Latin America
TNT & Cartoon Network in Asia/Pacific

Film Production

New Line Cinema
Fine Line Features
Turner Original Productions

Sports

Atlanta Braves
Atlanta Hawks
Atlanta Thrashers
Turner Sports
Good Will Games
Philips Arena

Other Operations

Turner Learning
CNN Newsroom (daily news program for classrooms)
Turner Adventure Learning (electronic field trips for schools)
Turner Home Satellite
Turner Network Sales

An interesting resource guide to what the major media companies own.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.

Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:

-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$

-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$

-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$

-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$

-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$

God bless America.

Fox is owned by News Corporation, CBS was once itself, known by the name 'Westinghouse', and is owned by Viacom-Infinity.

Fox is owned by News Corporation, CBS was once itself, known by the name 'Westinghouse', and is owned by Viacom-Infinity.

Maybe not many - but those that do will be those that gain. I care about the "average user" - the problem is the "average user" doesn't care about me, let alone himself. We need to show these users that they should. It is becoming more difficult to do this each passing day. We are letting it slip through are fingers. I don't know the answers to how to acheive this level of education.

Today I took a look over at Columbia Journalism Review - Who Owns What - and you know what - it is fucking depressing. So depressing, somehow I half-ass expect to dig deep enough and find CJR is 0wn3d by one of the very entities it exposes...! It really is _that_bad_.

What I was trying to point out with Fidonet is the fact that things might go underground. I propose we tear down the old first, though - why should they have it - we were first, we built it - why do they get to set the rules - fuck 'em...?

I'm not talking about what Stossel says. If you read my post, I'm advising to listen to what the *kids* said. Their responses prove my point, not his reporting.

Um, did you even read the letter from the parents of the children that were interviewed, in which they described Stossel as "ask[ing] leading questions to get [the children] to say what [he] wanted"? That immediately and irreparably destroys the credibility of anything the children might have been portrayed on screen as saying; given Stossel's track record, it's very easy to believe that he simply edited out the children that didn't say anything he could use.

On a side note, he does not have a dubious track record, as you say, [...]

*blink* Wow, can I get the address of the cave you've been living in these past few years? Perhaps you just missed that incident last summer, when Stossel was caught faking test results on organic foods and had to apologize on air. And that's just the one he got caught on; he does this sort of thing consistently nowadays. Particulary notable, for instance, was his April`94 20/20special on the environment; two of the three producers resigned in protest after Stossel and the third producer systematically threw out evidence that refuted the ideological position they wanted to present.

Do you also not put much credence in network news and CNN, given their track records?

(shrug) Granted, CNN's demonstrated pro-establishment, pro-corporate, anti-liberal bias does give me pause (as does the fact that they're owned by AOL/Time-Warner). And no, the rest of the mainstream media isn't much better.

You won't read any of these links, of course, as you probably didn't in my previous article -- or perhaps you'll read just enough to convince yourself that they're just "a load of leftist whining" and can therefore be dismissed out of hand, without any need to actually try to refute them or anything.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;

Centralization of information is not a good thing. Choosing convenience over one's own responsibility to better themself leads to Time Warner, News Corporation, or Microshit filtering the world down into 60 second news flashes and 'smart tags', that give me all the information that corporate profiteers see fit to give consumers; it makes life easier by removing any need to think for yourself.

On that note, I'm starting to understand why people don't like John Katz articles. There is a very simple point here, and I feel I pretty much covered it in my first paragraph. I will say that John is a journalist worthy of a TV news network. I can see the MSNBC news coming on -- flashy computer graphics accentuating the importance of the upcoming report that will surely detail breaking news of Earth's impending doom. The faces of well known media icons, complete with concerned looks on their faces, are super-imposed over the computer generated eyecandy as a parade of 3D letters come together to form the sparkling title of tonight's headline story: "The Poverty of Attention" Viewers at home watch intently as the images of importance that surround this story push the details of an earlier 'E! Entertainment News' interview with Tom Cruise out of their bloated pea-brains to make room for the storage of what will obviously be the most important broadcast of their life thusfar. The anchor doesn't let them down of course; even the most insignificant world event can be made to look like a milestone; it just takes a little pontification, and a barrage of buzz-phrases like "technologically-driven ADD" (oooooo), and "Attention Economy" (aaaahhhh) directed at the audience. They'll be locked in place, eyes glued to the television; eating up every tidbit of non-information. And when it's over they'll be dumber because of it.

Centralization of information is not a good thing. Choosing convenience over one's own responsibility to better themself leads to Time Warner, News Corporation, or Microshit filtering the world down into 60 second news flashes and 'smart tags', that give me all the information that corporate profiteers see fit to give consumers; it makes life easier by removing any need to think for yourself.

On that note, I'm starting to understand why people don't like John Katz articles. There is a very simple point here, and I feel I pretty much covered it in my first paragraph. I will say that John is a journalist worthy of a TV news network. I can see the MSNBC news coming on -- flashy computer graphics accentuating the importance of the upcoming report that will surely detail breaking news of Earth's impending doom. The faces of well known media icons, complete with concerned looks on their faces, are super-imposed over the computer generated eyecandy as a parade of 3D letters come together to form the sparkling title of tonight's headline story: "The Poverty of Attention" Viewers at home watch intently as the images of importance that surround this story push the details of an earlier 'E! Entertainment News' interview with Tom Cruise out of their bloated pea-brains to make room for the storage of what will obviously be the most important broadcast of their life thusfar. The anchor doesn't let them down of course; even the most insignificant world event can be made to look like a milestone; it just takes a little pontification, and a barrage of buzz-phrases like "technologically-driven ADD" (oooooo), and "Attention Economy" (aaaahhhh) directed at the audience. They'll be locked in place, eyes glued to the television; eating up every tidbit of non-information. And when it's over they'll be dumber because of it.

Thank god we have AOL/TW to compete against Microsoft -- they're such a wonderful alternative to an obvious monopoly.

And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.

AOL Time Warner accounts for around 1/5 of all media in the country. It's a big deal because in places like my hometown, Time Warner is the ONLY cable provider -- meaning they control EVERYTHING that EVERYONE SEES on TV. I live in Charlotte, NC, population 600,000. But TW-Cable goes beyond Charlotte, and serves most of the 6 million people who live within a 100 mile radius. It's a big deal because people don't hear about things like this if Time Warner doesn't WANT them to. And it's a big deal because they can manipulate people into complacent lazy asses who would defend Time Warner over the rights of their own family and friends. Are there any good reasons to oppose diversity of choice?? And for god sakes, make up your mind. Maybe you just like to argue.

Check out this link to find out what corporations own the media companies. There is another site (sorry, no link) that shows the number of companies who produce virtually all (90%) of the media consumed in the U.S. It used to be over a hundred companies but now is less than six. I think that RICO should be applied to them.

The Dead Kennedy's had something to say about the payola thing back in the day (~1980) that is still relevant today--as all good art is:

And when I'm rich
And meet Bob Hope
We'll shoot some golf,
We'll shoot some dope.
Drool, drool, drool, drool..
My Payola!

There is a little flamewar a few threads up where someone replying to this post says that

Did you ever think maybe the media presents a single sided view of murder? Maybe it's alright too. The meida [ sic ] means nothing in this, YOU know you're stealing and THEY know you're stealing...

There is an appropriate quote, from Wilson I think: "A journalist's job is not to tell the truth. A journalist's job is to write sensational stories that sell newspapers."

Here are a few issues that Big Media chooses to ignore in order to do their jobs:

1. The profit margin on a CD is much higher than on a cassette. Why are they gouging the consumer?
2. When the RIAA goes to court or Washington, they speak endlessly about protecting the rights of the artists. However, when a recording company signs a contract with an artist, nothing could describe the transaction better than the metaphor of anal rape (no lubrication, of course).
3. Music sales are indisputably dropping. Shouldn't that be expected in the time of increasing unemployment and collapse of the dot-bomb industry?
4. For many years there has been an increase in the number of stores selling used CDs. These are bought from individuals (hence the "used" moniker) and sold for a drastically lower price. It is possible now for the same number of CDs to be sold while the sales dollar figure plummets. This can take place in America or Canada.

To further disillusion you, I am providing this link to interesting stories that Big Media censors by under-reporting. Most of these stories are important in the grand scheme of things. Putting these stories on the front page would be detrimental to Big Media's primary goal, which of course is to maximize their shareholders' profit. Bookmark the link and come back to it next year to see what you missed in 2001.

To summarize, the recording industry is no longer needed. Because America is a banana republic, yet with a much more esoteric manner of palm-greasing than your typical banana republic known as "campaign contributions", the industry is not giving its dying breath. Instead it is struggling by any means necessary to outlast its timely demise. Judging by the support in this sid, I think their means are working.