Slashdot Mirror
More on Media Consolidation
A few more links on the important FCC decision coming up in a few weeks (see our previous story for more). Common Cause has a good set of background information and advocacy. The Washington Post has a story about the decision, focusing on how independent television stations will be squeezed even harder. This article about ClearChannel is a useful primer about the future of mass media.
From any perspective, Clear Channel is an entirely commercial endeavor. Whenever the corporation isn't promoting "sponsors," Clear Channel attempts to promote labels sponsored by the RIAA. Modern radio is a commercial medium, not an exhibition of artistry. "Corporate America" regards you as a "consumer," not a "customer."
Do you like German cars?
Think yourselves lucky your president doesn't own most of your commercial media.
Over the past few decades or so the U.S. Government has learned many lessons about media coverage and international dealings. The whole dynamic has changed radically from the times of journalism in say Vietnam vs the "inbedded" reporters of this recent action. General Franks and Colin Powell, whos son is pushing he deal, "Cut their teeth" commanding forces in vietnam and they relaize that tight media control is the answer to help the people accept the actions of the government.
This plan is another step in narrowing and refining the information that the public sees. With top political officers havving ties to large corporations, it's hard to tell the lines in which corporate money, goverment money are drawn.
Be afraid.
I just type my sig in the reply form...
All sources of news and culture have their biases. Unfortunately, consolidation means that diversity decreases over time. This is why we don't hear about major international events, and most of our news sources look the same. Thus, even if we have "freedom of the press", the de facto freedom is constrained by commercial interests. The recording industry is getting so cozy with the radio stations that there is little variation in content there as well. I hope that we can fix this, however the economy of scale which drives this process may be very hard to overcome.
...the media companies are working hard at making themselves irrelevant.
News is an important issue, and I get my news from multiple unrelated companies, ideally from different countries. As for entertainment on commercial TV and radio, there ain't none!!!
"Costs are going up, audience is going down, competition is increasing"
Competition increasing is a good thing, and the proposed bills seem to be destroying that aspect. As for the high costs/low audience problem, do you think that spending ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER LEAD CAST MEMBER PER EPISODE on a show as tired and utterly rehashed-to-death as "Friends" might have something to do with that?
Maybe if the media companies started paying their stars less money per weekly episode than most people gross in a decade their costs would go down. Maybe if they spent a TINY amount of money on writers with creative and new ideas, their audience would go up.
But no, it's easier to make money through legislation and monopolies than to actually do your job.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
ok, aside from the monopoly that they seem to be achiving, they are a business, and that's a business's job. To make money.
Guipo
Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
It worries me that it is getting harder and harder for small artists, musicians, television writers etc to get on the first rung due to the lack of competition. And this stifling of culture will be something that once done will be increasingly hard to undo... where are we going...?
I just wish that people cared about new culture and cutting edge performance and writing but it seems they are content to buy re-issued, committee-written comedy, music, drama and film.
Adorno was precient in his forecasts...
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
Yes, this will cause interference on Grandma's old Philco. So?
And what right do YOU have to say that a corporate entity (or any other entity for that matter) should be destroyed simply because you don't like it. If they break the law, then fine, go after them then. But since when, in a free society, are people allowed to destroy someone's livelihood simply because they don't agree with it?
Because we liked the radio more when it was illegal for one company to own all of the stations, perhaps?
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
The old adage is still true...
===
Mass media takes in money for its goods and services. That makes it the supplier.
Advertising agencies, marketing departments, and other corporations pay money to the mass media for its goods and services. That makes it the customer.
Where does that leave you, gentle TV watcher or radio listener or newspaper reader? You are the product.
===
I am even insulted that cable TV, satellite TV, et al propose to take *my* money and yet run commercials and programming that *I* don't get to dictate. Essentially, I am paying them for the privelege of selling me (as the product) to others. Gah!
The best "other industry relationship" to compare the relationship of the TV/radio station and the viewer/listener to? Uh, that would be "prostitute and pimp." The mass media is the pimp. YOU are the prostitute. Does anyone wonder now why we're constantly getting bent over and screwed in ways we don't even want?
Come to think of it, replace "mass media" with "government" and replace "advertising agencies and marketing departments" with "well-funded lobbyists" and you pretty much have the only other use of the pimp/prostitute analogy you need.
--AC101