Does Mega Media Control 90% of Content?

smitty777 writes "FastCo has an intriguing article on the vast control of our media by the mega corporations. In the article, Cliff Kuang disputes such claims by the the Frugal Dad that the revenue for the Big Six was over $275.9 billion, and that these companies are in cahoots to control our viewing. Just how much do these companies control?"

Comments

"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[tomhudson]

and that these companies are in cohorts to control our viewing

... too bad they're not in cahoots to help improve the use of the English language.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

You don't understand -- the companies are in cohorts which makes sense in context of "the fugal dad" -- clearly a reference to a father playing the flugelhorn with his cohorts. It's very high-level stuff here. When slashdot hires editors someday the puns will be even more brilliant.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[pushing-robot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugue_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_(military_unit)

I think the summary is great entertainment. Why do you read Slashdot...to be informed?

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[ackthpt]

and that these companies are in cohorts to control our viewing

... too bad they're not in cahoots to help improve the use of the English language.

Moot point when you don't even watch TV because it's so awful.

The shame is, with the merger between XM and Sirius, the satellite radio is gravitating toward utter and complete awfulness, too.

Small wonder big media, via the representatives they own in Washington continue to wage war against public broadcasting. Not satisfied with 90% of the market, they want that last morsel, too.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Curunir_wolf]

Small wonder big media, via the representatives they own in Washington continue to wage war against public broadcasting. Not satisfied with 90% of the market, they want that last morsel, too.

Not sure why they would care. NPR is compromised and caters to their corporate sponsors just as much as the rest of the main stream media. They've even started inserting ads in the middle of their stories, just like the other stations. The only real difference is that the Federal government is also a sponsor, so they have to cater to them, too.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its more like 98%, fuking neocon bastards.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[NeutronCowboy]

You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.

Too hard? Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a solution, rather than just whine.

For your reference, Public radio stations (at least mine) are approximately 30% compromised by corporations, 8% by the state government, 2% by the federal government, and 60% by the listening public.

To paraphrase Asimov, to think that corporate media and public radio are equally compromised is to be more wrong than if you'd think just one of them was compromised.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Anonymous Coward]

PBS and NPR are not public. You can't submit a show there! The only place you can submit a show is at Public Access.
PBS has big corporate sponsors like Monsanto. There is NOTHING public about PBS, other than them getting money from both Corporations and the Public.
NPR is basically the same.
Both ought to be renamed CBS (Corporate Broadcasting System) and NCR (National Corporate Radio) to reflect their true intent.

The ONLY public broadcast is public access, and that's on CABLE.

It don't matter how much espresso is in your coffee, or how nice your tv, speakers and coffee cup are, facts are facts.
Saying the "P" in PBS or NPR is public is like saying the D, or R means there's any difference with their foreign agenda of AIPAC, PNAC, CFR, UN, TC, etc.
These organizations are what makes them the same.

Big media airs corporate programming on more than 90% a small amount goes to PEG programming (which includes public access programming)

And if you want to talk about raw spectrum (you know the big chart everyone loves) only a small amount goes to military use, the rest of the public spectrum is corporate owned frequencies. AT&T, Lockheed Martin, and Motorola fixed this for us, back when you wanted those cheap sat phones.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[anyGould]

The ONLY public broadcast is public access, and that's on CABLE.

And as such, is owned wholly by the cable company - even further from public, in my opinion.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies can be Cohorts in controlling media content regardless if they are in cahoots to help improve on the use of the english language.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[NeutronCowboy]

One thing I find interesting: the amount of arguments that boil down to "oranges and apples are identical, so they all do the same thing". I don't know whether those arguments come more from laziness, stupidity, or just mental gymnastics to justify apathy.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Quiet_Desperation]

I dunno... some of the things I've seen on public access leads me to believe they just leave the studio unlocked during the day, and anyone can walk in and do a show.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Curunir_wolf]

You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.

That would be pretty self-defeating, since they'll take my money and simply use it to create programming full of lies and corporate propaganda. I don't have enough money to buy air time like the corporations they are catering to. And I certainly don't have the kind of money to buy advertising presented as news stories like this.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[NeutronCowboy]

Wait - so according to you, the only time that money buys advertising is when it comes from a corporation? But that money from any other source is just funneled into their personal propaganda fund? I wasn't aware that corporations use special money that gives them somehow more influence. Furthermore, you do realize that individuals provide twice as much money as corporations?

So either you are arguing that public radio is the only institution that can escape the basic rules of capitalism, or that there's something special about the money that comes from corporations. There's also the third option that you're just engaging in mental gymnastics to justify your position, but I'd just be repeating myself.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Curunir_wolf]

Wait - so according to you, the only time that money buys advertising is when it comes from a corporation? But that money from any other source is just funneled into their personal propaganda fund?

Why the straw man arguments? My point is that NPR is compromised, and not better than any other mainstream media outlet. You denied that, and suggested I "donate more", which obviously would do no good in improving NPR's integrity.

I wasn't aware that corporations use special money that gives them somehow more influence.

Well whatever they are doing, it's apparent that NPR likes that corporate money and will do whatever a major sponsor tells them to. They even blatantly seek it out. I think I've demonstrated it pretty clearly. Do you still deny it?

Furthermore, you do realize that individuals provide twice as much money as corporations?

Not sure if I believe that. And in any case, it's irrelevant, because that funding comes with no strings, because all those individual donors still get NO influence in the programming, and the NPR producers DO NOT CARE about them, and ONLY listen to what their corporate sponsors want.

So either you are arguing that public radio is the only institution that can escape the basic rules of capitalism, or that there's something special about the money that comes from corporations.

There is something "special" about it. It buys influence in the programming. And advertisements. And even "news segments" that do nothing but sell their products. It's not "escaping rules of capitalism", it's just that one entity with many thousands of dollars can buy whatever programming they want, but lots of people in aggregate just don't have any influence or voice whatsoever, and are left screwed out of the pittance they've donated.

There's certainly no reason for you not to understand that, and there are only two reasons why you would claim ignorance: either you are a shill for NPR, or you are stupid.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[NeutronCowboy]

My point is that NPR is compromised, and not better than any other mainstream media outlet.

So far, the only thing you've done is claimed a point. Your internal logic is contradictory, and you're lacking evidence. I'm sorry I'm neither convinced nor impressed.

Well whatever they are doing, it's apparent that NPR likes that corporate money and will do whatever a major sponsor tells them to.

[Citation Needed]. Accepting donations is not the same as work for hire.

Not sure if I believe that.

There's no need to believe. http://issuu.com/kqed/docs/kqed_annual_report_2010 The report is in an obnoxious format, but check near the graph near the end.

And in any case, it's irrelevant, because that funding comes with no strings, because all those individual donors still get NO influence in the programming, and the NPR producers DO NOT CARE about them, and ONLY listen to what their corporate sponsors want.

[Citation Needed][Logic Failure][Economics Failure]
If donors stop donating, public radio goes under. Donors stop donating when programs don't appeal to them. Therefore, public radio has to cater to what the donors want to hear. Especially since no public radio station can survive on ads alone. The donation comes with the string of "if you don't keep providing the content I want, I will stop donating."

It's not "escaping rules of capitalism", it's just that one entity with many thousands of dollars can buy whatever programming they want, but lots of people in aggregate just don't have any influence or voice whatsoever, and are left screwed out of the pittance they've donated.

And again, you're claiming that NPR is the only entity in the world that is completely impervious to the wishes of the majority of its paying customers. Plus, thousands of dollars for a radio spot is a pittance, compared to the endowments that come from the various Hewlett and Packard foundations.

There's certainly no reason for you not to understand that, and there are only two reasons why you would claim ignorance: either you are a shill for NPR, or you are stupid.

Glass houses, first stones, and all that. You're the one who thinks that the group contributing 30% to an organizations bottom line has more pull than the one contributing 60%. Not to mention I'd rather be stupid than willfully ignorant. One's a genetic flaw, the other is a character flaw.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Curunir_wolf]

So far, the only thing you've done is claimed a point.

No, I posted their "advertise with us" marketing page, catering to corporate sponsors just like any other media conglomerate, and I posted the "story" that was basically nothing but an advertisement for a corporate sponsor. There are many other similar examples, but if you're just going to ignore everything, not much point in posting more links, is there?

There's no need to believe. http://issuu.com/kqed/docs/kqed_annual_report_2010 [issuu.com] The report is in an obnoxious format, but check near the graph near the end.

"obnoxious format" is putting it mildly. But, it tells nothing. They lump "contributions and membership fees" all in one big category, no telling where any of it is coming from. Besides which, that's only for a single affiliate, not for the "national treasure" we were talking about. this one is a little better, and perusing the IRS filings is quite enlightening.

If donors stop donating, public radio goes under. Donors stop donating when programs don't appeal to them. Therefore, public radio has to cater to what the donors want to hear. Especially since no public radio station can survive on ads alone. The donation comes with the string of "if you don't keep providing the content I want, I will stop donating."

That's entirely irrelevant, and, again exactly the same model as the other media outlets. Fox News will not remain on the air if people stop watching. So Fox News is full of honest integrity because they have an audience that watches them? NPR's model only asks for donations because they provide less air time for their sponsored messages. Otherwise - same - same.

Glass houses, first stones, and all that. You're the one who thinks that the group contributing 30% to an organizations bottom line has more pull than the one contributing 60%.

You keep making that claim, but, quite simply, they whatever-percent-you-claim-it's-60 that contributes is only influencing ONE thing: keep running the programming. What goes INTO the programming, they don't have a say in, are never asked, and cannot influence. Instead, that comes from the corporate sponsors, advertisers, benefactors and foundation contributors. It's really simple. Kind of like how there are millions of people voting for representatives in the US congress, AND providing small contributions to campaigns, but somehow the only ones influencing legislation are the 1% with access and BIG contributions.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[NeutronCowboy]

No, I posted their "advertise with us" marketing page, catering to corporate sponsors just like any other media conglomerate, and I posted the "story" that was basically nothing but an advertisement for a corporate sponsor. There are many other similar examples, but if you're just going to ignore everything, not much point in posting more links, is there?

Shocking. An organization is providing information on how to give them money. Where do they come up with those ideas? They should just run on rainbows and unicorn farts. The key part to your claim is how much money the organization gets overall. Otherwise, you might as well argue that even if they got $10 for mentioning Joe the plumber's business during the traffic check, Joe the Plumber is controlling their material.
The link you provided was to an mp3 on some random blogger's site. Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that, especially since most NPR stories have transcripts.

They lump "contributions and membership fees" all in one big category, no telling where any of it is coming from.

How does it go? Better be quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it? Contributions and membership fees are from individuals. Underwriting is from corporate sponsors. English and donation-lingo fail.

That's entirely irrelevant, and, again exactly the same model as the other media outlets. Fox News will not remain on the air if people stop watching.

Wait - consuming free content is the same as paying for it? Holy crap, you just went off the deep end. In one case, the audience is paying cold, hard cash to keep content on the air. In the other.... they aren't. Which is which? I know, it's a hard question, I'll give you some time. Maybe ask your mom for some help.

Kind of like how there are millions of people voting for representatives in the US congress, AND providing small contributions to campaigns, but somehow the only ones influencing legislation are the 1% with access and BIG contributions.

1) Provide a breakdown of who provides how much cash. I'll concede the point if you can show me a winning campaign where there is an accounted 2:1 ratio between private donors of less than $500 and corporate donors, or individuals contributing more than $500. Winner must have a record where decisions break more than 1:2 in corporate favor. Include SuperPACs as well, along with groups running ads supporting the candidate by name.
2) Access is key. Compare and contrast how lobbyists access politicians, and how corporations access NPR program managers. Provide citations from some organization with a research arm. I'll accept a blogger who can support their claims with documentation.

Yeah, Real life is hard. Suck it up and support your claims.

Anything short of that, and you're making some pretty significant claims with zero backing. Which, I guess, I should expect by now.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[NeutronCowboy]

Nevermind, looks like you're a Randian, with some white, christian persecution complex thrown in. Nothing good's going to come from continuing the discussion.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Curunir_wolf]

Shocking. An organization is providing information on how to give them money.

I think you missed the part about where they calling it - in big, bold type - ADVERTISING. Just like all the other media conglomerates. They even talk about the "ROI" on your marketing dollars. Note that if you're an NPR listener, they are selling YOU to their corporate sponsors.

Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that, especially since most NPR stories have transcripts.

It's a story from an NPR story on one of their radio broadcasts. If there's a transcript, you find it. Frankly, I've heard lots of stories on NPR that I could never find a transcript for, and can even find broadcasts on their site that have no transcript.

Contributions and membership fees are from individuals.

WRONG! "membership fees" defined by NPR themselves:

NPR is a membership organization. Stations send NPR around $70 million per year in membership fees and dues and directly help NPR raise another $30 million per year by creating audiences for national sponsorships.

1) Provide a breakdown of who provides how much cash.

Unfortunately, NPR is not required to provide that information in their 990 filings, and I don't have the cash to pay for the information request.

That would be doing something too much like real journalism, something many suckers expect for their contributions to NPR, but very rarely actually get.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Curunir_wolf]

Nevermind, looks like you're a Randian, with some white, christian persecution complex thrown in. Nothing good's going to come from continuing the discussion.

Cute. Not sure what your racist comment is about, I'm no Randian but have significant libertarian leanings, pagan if religious at all. Somehow I enjoy defending anyone being persecuted. So you're as bad a judge of people as you are discerning of media PR.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[gmanterry]

XM and Serius radio are another perfect example of the main problem with the government allowing companies to buy out their competition and control the media stream 100%. There were two of them and they competed. Competition is good for the consumer. The government allowed them to merge into one and now there is zero competition. Besides that there is zero regulation. I had a complaint and I was informed that no one regulates XM/Serius. My problem was that I was paying for three XM radios. I wanted to cancel one as I sold the car that had XM radio. They would not cancel the account. They then auto renewed it. I ended up canceling the credit card and all the accounts. I wouldn't deal with them now for anything.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Anonymus]

There are many great television shows, both educational and entertaining. Cutting yourself off from an entire medium because a lot of it sucks is as bad as cutting yourself off from books or music because most of them suck... which is true for every medium in human history.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Dog-Cow]

Wow. Sounds like you're pretty ignorant about these credit card thingies. Cancelling the card is rather extreme when you only had to tell your bank to refuse charges from XM.

Re:"Cahoots", not "cohorts"

[Jeruvy]

Kettle, meet pot.

My credit card company's treats ANY complaints about charges as fraud and replaces the card immediately.

There is no other option.

No he doesn't

[esocid]

He disputes that there is some big agenda. He admits that a few companies have consolidated almost all media outlets, but like most people, doesn't think there's some agenda to pour out crappy media. Those companies do it just fine independently.

Re:No he doesn't

[mcgrew]

Indeed. There's no agenda to put out crappy media, but the vast consolidation gives them an oligopoly. With only five competetitors, and all of them producing dreck, there's no need to produce anything BUT dreck.

In the end it'll bite them in the ass; the RIAA companies are already obsolete, and as the price of video equipment comes down and the quality goes up, the same will happen to the movie/TV industry.

Meanwhile, has anybody noticed how more pervasive advertising is than it was before all the consolidation? Three minutes of content followed by four minutes of commercials. It's insane and obscene. I've never seen as much advertising in my whole life as I have in the last ten years. And these people complain they can't make any money? Gomme a break!

Re:No he doesn't

[Archangel Michael]

Well, many of us don't like the MSM, and are now getting our news raw and unfiltered. I don't care that the MSM controls 90% of the content, because it is the same old crappy content they've always controlled. With the internet, there is a whole new world of content waiting to be discovered. Singers that can sing without autotune, bands that can play instruments, actors that can actually change personality to suit the role, and artists that can create lasting works of beauty, with subtle messages on the human condition, and chefs that can make a gourmet meal out of twinkies and a can of beans.

The 90% of the people can't really appreciate the finer nuanced artistic works, let them have the MSM.

Re:No he doesn't

[LWATCDR]

Pretty much. They all play and or show what is most profitable. Thing is that what is most profitable is usually not what is best.
The other issue are the cable companies. I live in a town of over 200,000 people. We can got only a single network OTA we get about 10 other stations that are religious and or none english but only one network. The reason is that the cable companies are pulling in the network stations from bigger markets near by. Before cable the other stations in my area would have been snapped up to be affiliates. Now the networks see no reason to do that. They get just as many viewers but from fewer stations.
It isn't some great evil plot other than a plot to make as much money as possible.

Re:No he doesn't

[tepples]

In the end it'll bite them in the ass; the RIAA companies are already obsolete

For one thing, notable record labels provide promotion on commercial FM radio to reach people without smartphones capable of using Internet radio. Not every town has a college radio station that plays all genres. For another thing, even if the RIAA is obsolete, that doesn't mean NMPA, Harry Fox, ASCAP, BMI, and other trade associations of music publishers are obsolete.

as the price of video equipment comes down and the quality goes up, the same will happen to the movie/TV industry.

Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting. Furthermore, a movie needs a soundtrack, and licensing diegetic music for use in movies set after 1922 can exceed and has exceeded (e.g. Clerks) the rest of the cost of the film put together.

Re:No he doesn't

[betterunixthanunix]

doesn't think there's some agenda to pour out crappy media

Crappy media is secondary to the real agenda: convincing everyone that they should keep buying things. That is why none of the big entertainment companies* were willing to advertise this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day

* Feel free to insert remarks about news being a form of entertainment, Mr. Murdoch.

Re:No he doesn't

[Captain Splendid]

I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

Robert Rodriguez, Shane Carruth and hundreds of others would like to have a word with you.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

the RIAA companies are already obsolete

Slight hyperbole? They're growing each year, the money they pull in is almost $300bn/year. That's hardly obsolete. I'm sure almost all companies around the world would love to be considered obsolete with almost 1/3 trillion dollars, and rising, coming in each year.

Re:No he doesn't

[vlm]

With only five competetitors, and all of them producing dreck, there's no need to produce anything BUT dreck.

You make it sound as bad as domestic car companies. Or banks. Or fast food "restaurants". Hmm. I think we're on to a pattern here...

Re:No he doesn't

[Hatta]

Meanwhile, has anybody noticed how more pervasive advertising is than it was before all the consolidation?

That would be a great chart. Number of media companies vs advertising time per hour.

Re:No he doesn't

[Ihmhi]

I know, I'm very happy to be in my mid-twenties during the age where the Internet is really exploding and realizing its power. There's are some *fantastic* people who create entertainment on their own and it comes out way better and more interesting than a lot of the crap on the telly. freddiew and Monty Oum come to mind as a couple of standout examples. Then there's there's loads of fun projects like SMBC Theater and 5 second films. There's even more "Mainstream" stuff (Internet-wise) like CrackedTV, CollegeHumor, and FunnyOrDie making original videos. I think in 5 years we'll really be at the point where the stuff on the Internet is as good as (if not more interesting than) the stuff on television.

The only barrier that needs to be broken is the duration of videos. Most of these places will put out 1-10 minutes of content a week. There's very little cohesive shows (like sitcoms or dramas) that I've found that can consistantly produce 20+ 22-minute episodes once a year.

Last recommendation: Next Time on Lonny.

If anyone else knows of any good shows, dramas, whatever hosted online (I'm particularly fond of stuff like Penny Arcade Television as well), please post them here in a reply. I'd love to check out some new stuff. I've almost entirely phased television out of my life.

Re:No he doesn't

[nine-times]

there's no need to produce anything BUT dreck.

Worse, there's no *motivation* to produce anything but dreck. When you have a small number of competitors, then everyone is looking for the lowest common denominator, and nobody is really looking for the niche.

On the other hand, there is some real non-dreck out there. There are shows like "Breaking Bad" and "Louie", which are, in my opinion, amazing. God only knows how "Louie" got on the air.

Re:No he doesn't

[the eric conspiracy]

I am 60 years old so I grew up in the era of there being only 3 TV channels and a educational TV station showing classroom style programming. The message of consumerism was far stronger and less diluted then than it is now.

This was far less diverse than what is available today, and yet when the time came we were ready to rise up in protest.

I really don't see an issue with the media today. The breath of opinion and education available is staggering in comparison to what is was.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you know, they'll have TV shows with names like "General Electric Theater" or "Goodyear Television Playhouse" or "The Alcoa Hour"

Re:No he doesn't

[eclectus]

The quote from Jobs pretty much sums it up well.

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." - Steve Jobs, Interview in WIRED magazine (February 1996)

Re:No he doesn't

[Lumpy]

"and as the price of video equipment comes down and the quality goes up, the same will happen to the movie/TV industry."

I suggest you look up the Tv show "Pioneer One" Oh hell, here.... http://vodo.net/pioneerone for you lazy people.

Also explore what else is there on Vodo.net.

It's already happening, Hollywierd is doomed.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Crappy media is secondary to the real agenda: convincing everyone that they should keep buying things. That is why none of the big entertainment companies* were willing to advertise this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day

The real reason no one will advertise this is because over half of the population is women.

Re:No he doesn't

[dzfoo]

Is the MSM related to the FSM?

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there's a finite number of them and they operate the state, I'd say yeah, they're related to the Finite State Machine ;)

Re:No he doesn't

[Lumpy]

"Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting. "

I do. Actors that get $2.2mill per movie are going away. I see a LOT of indie films that are better than hollywood flicks made for far less and the actors not getting paid obscene amounts of money.

Padre Nuestro was made with cheap acting and cheap writing and directing.
Brokeback Mountain was made with cheap acting and cheap writing and directing.
Requiem for a Dream, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc... all for examples of RECENT films made without paying insane money to writes, directors and Actors.

In fact many of the Best films in history were low budget and not outrageous cost.

In fact Robert Rodriguez makes some of the absolute best films ever for less than the catering bill for many of the Hollywood "block busters"

Re:No he doesn't

[betterunixthanunix]

The message of consumerism was far stronger and less diluted then than it is now.

Perhaps you should take a look at what your grandkids and their friends are watching. I have trouble believing that you could push the consumerism message much stronger than this crap:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_girl
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_the_city
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN (no, really, this is not just about sports)

Today's methods of advertising and convincing people to buy things are less overt than they were in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but they are far more effective. Popular TV shows, and especially shows whose target audience is the 13-24 age, are designed to cultivate a desire to buy things -- clothes, soft drinks, video games, fast food, music, etc. The whole point of MTV, from its inception, was to be a 24/7 advertisement to teenagers, and there has been an effort to maximize the amount of advertising that can be squeezed into every minute.

Today's message is this: buy things. Period. You are not supposed to be a participant in a capitalist system, exchanging your skills and goods for some other person's, you are just supposed to buy things that other people made.

Re:No he doesn't

[mcgrew]

For one thing, notable record labels provide promotion on commercial FM radio to reach people without smartphones capable of using Internet radio.

I don't have a smartphone, but I have two computers, each capable of listening to any internet station out there. My 80 year old dad is one of a very few people I know without a computer. I don't know anyone who has a smartphone and no computer.

Not every town has a college radio station that plays all genres.

No, but almost all of those stations stream over the internet. My favorite is WQNA, you can have either an AAC or MP3 stream from them. Jazz, rock, blues, ska, raggae, punk, hardcore, even belly dancing music (Wednesday nights).

Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

Have you seen Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning? funny as hell, far better acting, writing, and directing than any Hollywood B movie, and it cost them a couple thousand bucks for a feature length movie.

Furthermore, a movie needs a soundtrack, and licensing diegetic music for use in movies set after 1922 can exceed and has exceeded (e.g. Clerks) the rest of the cost of the film put together.

All it takes is one talented musician with a synthesizer to produce a sound track; writing music isn't hard. There are thousands upon thousands of such talented people mostly playing in bars. There is no shortage of people with any talent you need.

What you don't need is multi-million dollar actors and directors and musicians. Actors, directors, and musicians are a dime a dozen these days.

Re:No he doesn't

[tepples]

I see a LOT of indie films that are better than hollywood flicks

Who is going to get them shown in theaters or otherwise promote them in the United States other than the big six MPAA studios?

Requiem for a Dream

You're right: Lionsgate isn't in the MPAA. Yet.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Distributed by Focus, part of NBCUniversal, part of the MPAA.

Re:No he doesn't

[AddictedToCaffine]

"The whole point of MTV, from its inception, was to be a 24/7 advertisement to teenagers"

My recollection is that MTV didn't even have commercials when it first started. But otherwise your point is valid. It didn't take them long to change their tune. ba-DUM-bump.

Re:No he doesn't

[mapkinase]

Also, I challenge everybody to take 6 top companies in any industry and see how much of the market they control.

Re:No he doesn't

[bws111]

You mean the 'big entertainment companies', whose income is derived either from directly selling their own products, or by selling advertising for other products, don't support 'Buy nothing day'? Shocking!!! What's next? Oil companies not supporting 'don't drive week' or labor unions not supporting 'exploit your workers month'?

Re:No he doesn't

[betterunixthanunix]

My recollection is that MTV didn't even have commercials when it first started

What do you think music videos are? The point of MTV was to advertise music to teenagers, and they gradually became a platform for advertising everything else.

Re:No he doesn't

[mapkinase]

What advertisement? The only advertisement I see nowadays is the one modded up to the top of the front pages of social networks, under the title "cool advertisement" or something like that.

Thank you, ADP and NS.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising that Jobs said that, given that Apple gives their customer base what they want (that is, shiny fashionable crap).

Re:No he doesn't

[Nadaka]

And unfortunately now there is now no more music on MTV.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Though banks are easy to go to credit unions as the competition. Going your direction, Corporations are exclusively profit-driven (by law) and are all will cause this situation if they can.

Re:No he doesn't

[Stoopiduk]

I'd be quite confident at guessing your age from that reply.

Re:No he doesn't

[niko9]

I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

Robert Rodriguez, Shane Carruth and hundreds of others would like to have a word with you.

The same Robert Rodriguez who had sumbit to medical research studies to come up with funding for his first film?

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rodriguez#Career

Link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=iceweasel-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&ei=2zPmTs_kMMT00gGT98X9BQ&ved=0CDAQvwUoAQ&q=robert+rodriguez+medical+research+studies&spell=1&biw=1320&bih=696

Re:No he doesn't

[mcgrew]

Hey, thanks for the link! Haven't heard of that one, will check it out (on the 42 inch screen the computer's plugged into) when I get home.

Re:No he doesn't

[asdbffg]

Before we rush to blame big media consolidation for the flood of crappy content, let us consider that "Mall Cop" made more money than "Inglorious Basterds,"District 9," and "Up in the Air ". The Hurt Locker has a box office ranking of #116 for that year. "Star Wars: Episode III" is the top film of 2005. The #2 film of 2010, "Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen," has grossed over $400 million.

As long as people keep paying for crap, crap will continue to be made. It's a no brainer.

Re:No he doesn't

[Curunir_wolf]

Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

Not to mention the cost for a commercial MPEG license, required for anything you film with that HD camera.

Re:No he doesn't

[Attila Dimedici]

Even with the price of HDTV cameras plummeting, I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.

Well, since I don't see the companies in question employing competent writers, directors or actors, I don't see how the cost of such has any impact on those who might attempt to compete with them.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is nowhere near obsolete. In fact, they are more powerful than ever.

You have to remember -- these guys have been doing DRM since before the turn of the century... as in 1899-1900. They are still one of the strongest lobby groups worldwide.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 38, a software dev, and have been "computing" since the days of the TRS-80. Your point?

Re:No he doesn't

[kent_eh]

Indeed. There's no agenda to put out crappy media, but the vast consolidation gives them an oligopoly. With only five competetitors, and all of them producing dreck, there's no need to produce anything BUT dreck.

The less competition there is, the less work they have to do to compete.
Which means, the less they have to come up with new ideas. They just default to the same behaviors that all big companies do: playing it safe.
And in entertainment, that means more of the same.

More Jersy Shore clones.
More "housewives of..."
More fake drama applied to "reality" situations.

And more fake outrage and opinion force-feeding trying to pass for journalism.
Bleah
The last time my cable company increased my rates, I dropped to a smaller package (causing a net reduction in the bottom line on my bill). And I still only watch a couple hours a week max.
There's just not that much on that can hold my interest enough to sit thru the commercial break(s)

Re:No he doesn't

[quintus_horatius]

Who is going to get them shown in theaters or otherwise promote them in the United States other than the big six MPAA studios?

Umm... Youtube? Netflix? Facebook? Talking?

• Almost 3 million people have watched "Jesus Christ in Richmond Park", a random video about a dog chasing some deer, with NO promotion except word of mouth and social linking (i.e. no paid promotion).
• Netflix has shown me suggestions for some pretty good movies that I had never heard of prior to the suggestion - movies that were not promoted in any meaningful way (or if they were promoted, the money went into a black hole).

Oh, and word-of-mouth still works between me and my friends for music, movies, and what-have-you. You should try it sometime.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always Robot Rampage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lWuda8E__8&list=LLSeVyZ0eP6Cv6OjjHrnG3Uw&feature=mh_lol

Re:No he doesn't

[Score Whore]

MSM is the anglicized name meaning "Mandarin Spaghetti Monster." The non-anglicized, but loosely translated version, is "Flying Lo-Mein Monster" aka FLMM. It's the Chinese aspect of the one true pasta lord.

Re:No he doesn't

[tepples]

Youtube?

I thought YouTube was for 15-minute (formerly 11-minute) short subjects, like the less than 1-minute "Jesus Christ in Richmond Park", not feature-length films. Once the trailer's on YouTube, where does the feature go? Oh, I get it, one is supposed to start by creating shorts before attempting a feature. And even in that case, how does one recoup costs for a short film distributed on YouTube, which as I understand it is free to watch for anyone with broadband?

Netflix?

There appears to be nothing obvious on Netflix's web site about getting an indie film onto the service. This article makes me think it's "don't call us; we'll call you once you've won a film festival."

Oh, and word-of-mouth still works between me and my friends for music, movies, and what-have-you.

Word of mouth doesn't help when the film isn't Now Playing In A Theater Near You because a big distributor hasn't picked up the film.

Re:No he doesn't

[Lumpy]

"Distributed by Focus, part of NBCUniversal, part of the MPAA."

Distributed. you do realize they dont distribute a movie until AFTER it has been made? They did not pay those actors more than a normal working mans salary.

Just because that distributor offered up a large sum to buy it does not mean the actors, writers, and director got paid millions.

Re:No he doesn't

[Lumpy]

Vodo.net

Did you even look?

Re:No he doesn't

[tlhIngan]

I do. Actors that get $2.2mill per movie are going away. I see a LOT of indie films that are better than hollywood flicks made for far less and the actors not getting paid obscene amounts of money.

They're already gone. Very few people care about the big stars.

Check out the cast list sometimes of the big blockbusters. They almost always feature unknown people these days. Maybe one headliner, but that's it. Having a movie with more than one celebrity is getting rarer and rarer. Most sport several unknowns who only become celebrities because of one movie or a wildly popular series (think Transformers which probably raked in close to $3B across all films - the cast was basically all-new actors). And hell, a lot of movies have CG faces replacing the face of whatever actor is there, and it's happening more and more. Expensive actors are pricing themselves out and Hollywood's already saving expense with the vast field of no-names.

And consumer gear is cheap enough for movie filming - the same gear "the pros" use can be had off the shelf for a few thousand dollars (dSLRs are really popular). Hell, RED's got a $10,000 2K camera coming out soon. And their 4K with "120fps slo-mo" (RED Epic) is only $60k.

For indies being better - your selection might be the best movies in the lot, but as YouTube shows, there's a ton of crap out there as well. It's just like indie music and indie games - there's a lot of games out there better than the big studios, but there's even more crap. You can see this with the Apple App Store and the Google Marketplace as well - most of the indie stuff is crap, though there are plenty of gems as well.

The real issue is filtering through the stuff.

Re:No he doesn't

[hitmark]

Or more like "what they put up with" then "what they want".

Then again i also suspect that the "better horse" quote can rather be interpreted as lack of a means to describe what one want then actually wanting a better horse. When your trying to explain something that do not really exist yet, do you go with making up words or try to root it in existing words and objects?

Re:No he doesn't

[tepples]

you do realize they dont distribute a movie until AFTER it has been made?

My reply to that would have to depend on the terms of the typical distribution contract for an indie film. Google film distribution contract didn't help me figure out what those are. For example, who owns the sequel rights, the book/game/etc adaptation rights, etc.?

Re:No he doesn't

[Shatrat]

I would have guessed mid-fifties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer

Re:No he doesn't

[kheldan]

I doubt there isn't an agenda, but not to make 'crappy media' -- that's just retarded. The 'agenda' is to influence the hearts and minds of the American public. Steer thought away from 'dangerous' thoughts, like how corrupt the government is, the fact that we're living in a police state, that democracy is just an illusion, and that our policiticians are just sock puppets, with the big corporation's hands up their backsides, etc etc etc. Meanwhile they give us bread and circuses and shiny baubles, in the hopes of lulling us into a false sense of security.

Re:No he doesn't

[cyberchondriac]

Meanwhile, has anybody noticed how more pervasive advertising is than it was before all the consolidation? Three minutes of content followed by four minutes of commercials. It's insane and obscene. I've never seen as much advertising in my whole life as I have in the last ten years. And these people complain they can't make any money? Gimme a break!

Yeah, it's disgusting. Every channel is turning into the "commercials and advertisements" channel. Also, now any sports arena that goes up has to have a financial backer's name in it. Everything is branded and logo'd. I'm far from anti-capitalist, but these corps need to show some restraint. Carnival barkers have more class.

Re:No he doesn't

[anyGould]

All it takes is one talented musician with a synthesizer to produce a sound track; writing music isn't hard.

Just going to stop you there for a Bullshit - writing "music" isn't hard, in the "hit the chord buttons and whack a table a few times". But something of quality that works takes some actual talent, so let's not pretend that you can snap your fingers and John Williams is going to jump out of the bushes with your soundtrack.

The situation for musicians is about the same as it is for actors and writers and cameramen - there are some talented amateurs out there, and some professions with the spare time to help you out, but you're going to have to put some work into finding them. And it probably helps if you've done some smaller stuff first to establish that you are talented enough to be worth helping out.

Re:No he doesn't

[Squiggle]

That is a strange quote from Jobs, who is known for successfully giving us what he wants. "What we want" isn't always what is good for us, which isn't depressing, but simply our genetic/cultural legacy. Culture is our tool to deal with much of that legacy. The goal for a truly profitable business is to find, multiply and distribute the stuff that we want that makes us all richer, and by enriching those around you they will enrich your life. If you exploit others around you you may temporarily gain personally but a poorer culture will never deliver the riches that a rich one can, even to the wealthiest amongst them. That is why designing and making things that you want, that make you richer for having it in you life, is a good bet to make others richer as well.

The media "conspiracy" certainly isn't the one imagined, but it is seems common for "smart" executives think that other people are stupid and thus present them with material that makes them stupid. This has a lot of synergy with getting people to worship idols, buy things they don't need, and making other stupid decisions that are profitable for the executive. This synergy can be mistaken for conspiracy, but it is just a detection of a poorly designed/functioning market.

Markets with too little competition and too large competitors (i.e. plagued by dictatorships, risk aversion, bureaucracy, NIH, status quo, etc) are problems. In a healthier market those "smart" executives would have enough competition to wipe them out or displace them to the role of parasites preying on the most vulnerable.

Re:No he doesn't

[PCM2]

Check out the cast list sometimes of the big blockbusters. They almost always feature unknown people these days. Maybe one headliner, but that's it. Having a movie with more than one celebrity is getting rarer and rarer.

Care to cite an example? Most movies tend to have at least a male and female lead.

Anyone should have been able to tell that New Year's Eve would be a dud, if not the disastrous bomb it turned out to be, and they went ahead with, what? Eight name celebrities on one bill?

Re:No he doesn't

[tbannist]

I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. It sounds like he's willing to do the job for considerable less than some other people.

Re:No he doesn't

[anyGould]

It's not that they want to produce dreck - it's that they want to produce consistency.

McDonald's would happily make you a quality hamburger, if they could find a way for all their staff across their worldwide empire to make that burger at a decent price. But studies have shown that what customers want is consistency - they're happy to be able to walk into any Mickey D's in the world, order a Big Mac, and get the exact same burger, whether they're at home or halfway around the world. So the menu is reduced to lowest common demoninator - what can all these McJobbers consistently produce?

Radio has gone the same way - one bad side of the Internet is that Joe Jockey can do the morning show in City A, the lunch-hour in City B, and the drive-home in City C, all from one booth. But to do that those three stations need similar formats (so the DJ's all fit), so you end up with three stations all playing the same format. (Actually, radio has even started franchising the formats - anyone care to guess how many "Joe" stations there are, all playing the exact same rotation?)

I suppose it could be worse, though - until they had to divest, we had a company own TV, radio, and newspapers in my market - so you could hear the Official Spin no matter where you looked.

Re:No he doesn't

[bjwest]

...Furthermore, a movie needs a soundtrack.

Why does a movie need a soundtrack? Because thats the way it's been done since the days of silent movies? There are only two places where silence might need to be filled. 1) During the beginning credits, and those can be unobtrusively displayed during the action, as has been done before, and 2) during the ending credits, which, without a professional crew of 5000, won't be ten or fifteen minutes long, and no one watches anyway,

No, a soundtrack is really not needed for a movie. If the director/producer/whoever decides these things decides it needs a soundtrack, there are plenty of indi musicians out there that will be more than happy to do it at a reasonable price.

Re:No he doesn't

[HornWumpus]

Now that Beavis and Butthead are back you get a video or two per show.

Re:No he doesn't

[anyGould]

Next thing you know, they'll have TV shows with names like "General Electric Theater" or "Goodyear Television Playhouse" or "The Alcoa Hour"

(Well played) snark aside, I'd prefer that - if you're going to advance your agenda, at least have the balls to be up front about it. It's when they hide behind layers to obfuscate that it's the same parent telling WSJ and Fox what to say that I get cranky.

Re:No he doesn't

[Nadaka]

From what I have heard the new B&B is now mocking reality shows instead of music video's, but I have not seen any of the new episodes.

Re:No he doesn't

[tqk]

I've never seen as much advertising in my whole life as I have in the last ten years.

It's (the money) just spread more thinly. *Everything* has ads slapped on it these days, meaning each ad goes for less cash, meaning you can afford to slap ads (and more of them) on damned near anything.

My city's considering selling namespace on rapid transit stations next year. I wonder when they'll start naming streets after them.

Re:No he doesn't

[the eric conspiracy]

I agree that the shows that you are citing are undiluted crap. However in the context of current TV where there are hundreds of channels of alternatives many of which are not anywhere as bad, plus the availability of the internet do a great deal to ameliorate the situation.

Imagine a time where there was no internet and there were ONLY three channels, all belonging to the national networks.

Re:No he doesn't

[Cro Magnon]

Now we have 3,000 channels, but they still belong to 3 entities. :P

Re:No he doesn't

[mcgrew]

But something of quality that works takes some actual talent

That is correct, but again, there are lots out there with both talent and training.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. They're not really thinking about that stuff, except maybe tangentially, and certainly not intentionally conspiring about it. They all just have the same goal: to make every cent they can. Symbiotic systems may accidentally, organically grow between competitors that makes them more money (and screws people over / distracts them, etc.), but it's not a plotted, planned conspiracy. Human beings just aren't that good at working together. Corporations, in some ways, may be kind of like a software virus that runs on the hardware of human society. Think about it...

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the commenters are missing the bigger picture here.

A few decades ago media outlets were Independent, with a capital "I". That means news, shows, general media, etc, were not permanently aligned with particular products, corporate biases, or political agendas. Old school media prided itself on unbiased reporting. And if particular a news outlet published some bias or misinformed BS, other independent operations would call them out on the BS.

Fast forward to present time, now that media is pouring out of a few massive conglomerates, most people are exposed to a small, bias subset of what’s really going on in the world. And don’t think you’re safe because you get all your news from the web, the source of all news is now coming from a select few rather than getting cross-reported by an army of independents. These days, major problems are rarely addressed by politicians or the public majority because they are buried under the latest Britney Spears news, fast food plug, or opinionated/false reporting. Media outlets are now politically aligned with big money conglomerates which is a major problem! Believe it or not, but six huge media companies have a lot in common when it comes to buying off politicians and passing laws that promote profits over the public. They all have subsidiaries to think of after all.

Back in the day, media outlets didn’t have a fleet of lobbyists running around behind the scenes. They didn’t have a chain of command that started and ended with Super Sizing your fast food. Try to think about the bigger picture before you start pointing fingers at the conspiracy theorists with their tin hats on.

Otherwise, feel free to another spoonful of CNN: Global warming... is it real? Regulations... they don't work. On the stock market today, everything is bad... nope, false alarm it' ok now. P.S... buy this product. In other news... look at this puppy. Back to you skinny, hot blonde haired lady.

Re:No he doesn't

[Fned]

They alternate between music videos and reality TV. Which still means they're showing way more music videos during Beavis and Butthead than they do throughout the rest of the programming day..

Re:No he doesn't

[tepples]

I don't even know how to look. Google is good for finding pages that contain specific words, not necessarily for finding what is the best practice in a given case.

Re:No he doesn't

[vlm]

It's not that they want to produce dreck - it's that they want to produce consistency.

McDonald's would happily make you a quality hamburger, if they could find a way for all their staff across their worldwide empire to make that burger at a decent price. But studies have shown that what customers want is consistency - they're happy to be able to walk into any Mickey D's in the world, order a Big Mac, and get the exact same burger, whether they're at home or halfway around the world.

I call bogus on that.

What makes it apparently trivial for 500 Culvers burger joints to produce really tasty food consistently (I've traveled the midwest and eaten at a good fraction of the 500, and they're all really good).

There was a gyro place in my hometown that had two sites, one local, and one 10 miles away, and the 10 mile away site sucked. Supposedly it should be easier to be consistent with a whopping two sites, but they just couldn't pull it off.

I'm just not thinking its a scalability problem. You can apparently execute "dish make a good burger" across the whole cluster of restaurants in a heck of a lot less than polynomial time.

Re:No he doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there an article not long ago describing how nearly -every- camera, still and motion, had patents covering the storage of the content, via MPEG assn or such, that allowed them, at their discretion, to block, bar, sue, collect, etc on just about anything you video, photograph or produce?

Re:No he doesn't

[mcgrew]

They've had ads on the busses here since before I moved here in 1986.

Re:No he doesn't

[tqk]

My city's considering selling namespace on rapid transit stations next year.

They've had ads on the busses here since before I moved here in 1986.

Note the progression: they had ads inside buses here since I was a kid. Then they bolted placards onto the outside of them too. Now they have full ad exterior paintjobs, even covering the windows.

Our sports arena was called the Saddledome. Now it's the $megacorp Saddledome. Ditto $othermegacorp Science Centre. The city saw that happening, and now want to sell namespace on transit stations, not just on buses and trains.

Nice Editing

[Anonymous Coward]

So I clicked on the Fugal Dad [sic] link, and instead of an article on mega media controlling content, I got an obvious Dell advertisement disguised as a poorly written blog post. Was this some sort of meta humor?

LMFTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

...such claims by the Frugal Dad...

Changelog:
- recurring "the" removed
- link corrected
- spelled "Frugal" correctly.

Fugal?

[Sez Zero]

Fugal should be Frugal and should not link to an advertisement for a Dell laptop coupon.

Re:Fugal?

[Trepidity]

This is where I try to type something like, "ugh, this kind of shoddy editing job would never have happened back when CmdrTaco was in charge!" while trying to suppress chuckles...

It's true!

[UngodAus]

Anyone who doesn't believe it, try youtubing from a company other than one of the majors. Moving recently to Germany has highlighted just how little there is that isn't claimed by the big 4. Seriously, 7/10 videos I click through to display "Unfortunately, this -music-content is not available in Germany because GEMA has not granted the respective music publishing rights.". In this case, it was UMG. Surprise surprise. On of all things, a Rammstein video. What?!

Re:It's true!

[Mister Whirly]

So don't tell them where you are coming from. Find a proxy server in the US and watch all the youtube you want.

Re:It's true!

[k6mfw]

use http://hidemyass.com/

Correction...

[brian0918]

"Just how much does the FCC help these companies control?"

There, I fixed that for ya.

Re:Correction...

[spidercoz]

lol, you're cute

Re:Correction...

[Bucky24]

Does the FCC regulate the major media producers? Aren't they charged with regulating the content DELIVERERS? Or do the main media producers deliver their own content to consumers? Seems to me like the FCC would be dealing with Dish Network, DirectTV, Comcast, ect, rather then the major media conglomerates that actually produce the content.

The Medium is the message

[arcite]

Sure, 'OLD' media controls the advertising and programing, content, what we see and hear throughout our day....but it is increasingly user generated content that is beyond big media's grasp. Websites, blogs, instant messaging, it's all User generated and unfiltered (for now). Everyone in the world today has the technology to block 99.9% of all advertising, tracking software, bypass firewalls, to have greater control over their own exposure and experiences. To be sure, the corporate and governmental PsyOps to control our buying and media consumption habits are pervasive and unrelenting, however each of us has the power to take control. The choice is ours.

... and claim ownership of the remaining 10%

[gmuslera]

All your comments are belong to them

bittorrent is your friend

[arcite]

The information wants to be free!

Re:bittorrent is your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

> The information wants to be free!

Which actually means "information will seek a path by which it can become public".

Films and music are not "information" by any stretch of the imagination.

He's justifying the consolidation,

[cmv1087]

not disputing it. By asserting that profit margins are thin (so the incentive to take risks is lower), that media companies are messy businesses (apparently, he believes organized media output is a myth), and that the corporations listed are so large that controlling all departments is a tall order, he doesn't seem to think the consolidation is anything to worry about. His fact checking is minimal, mostly constrained to making fun of some math gone wrong and telling everyone that his bullshit detector is going off. The infographic itself is pretty neat, but the post criticizing is hardly worth reading, much less linking.

MEGA MEDIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah... Kimble is just a criminal.. Bittorrent is still the undisputed #1 in controlling (my) content...

Now excuse me.. I want to read this interesting article.. lol...

Re:MEGA MEDIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... much... fail...

This doesnt surprise anyone, does it?

[james_van]

Let's think about how business works - if there are 10 companies doing a particular thing, at any given time, 1 or more will decide that they want to do more of the particular thing. They will then use leverage/bribery/corporate espionage/collusion/etc to acquire 1 or more of the others. Over time, this will continue until the original 10 are consolidated to the lowest number possible to avoid anti-trust/monopoly actions. And, during all of this time, they will continue to produce whatever thing that the general public will most readily consume. This usually entails things of medium to low quality (high quality is expensive and, in the case of tangible products, has a low replacement rate), dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator and mass marketed with loud, brightly colored advertising. This has been the way of things for many years, this will be the way of things for many years to come. There are a few different models that have managed to squeak by briefly, but theyre rare and often not much better.

Re:This doesnt surprise anyone, does it?

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the internet is negating the middle man. the arcade fire won a grammy, and radiohead and m.i.a. are on independent labels. sure, to reach international fame, some part of the old media system is still being used (publishing, magazines, promotion, concert venues, etc); however, the trend is quickly happening that the big six are no longer needed. I'm thinking specifically of the music industry. Right now, teenagers are producing studio quality music in their bedrooms with bottom dollar computers and putting it up on bandcamp for free. These are artists doing it for themselves and their friends. Facebook and blogs catch on, and within a year, some kid now has a lifelong career playing small venues and releasing CDs that he makes with a computer in his living room. Their popularity will most likely never garner platinum selling records, but they have found a stasis point of needing fewer fans and fewer people to help them make their art, and earn a comfortable enough living doing so. As a spare time musician/producer/engineer, I find this new system incredibly exciting. It's weeding out the assholes who do it for the money, and flowering the true artists who do it for the love. You still have to network, but the new generation is excited about collaboration. Bands and engineers offer discounts and pro bonos for the right project. Kickstarter helps finance tours and record pressings. Goodbye big six. We always hated you.

Re:This doesnt surprise anyone, does it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd also like to point out the growing number of artists that consciously choose this path. Mount Eerie (the Microphones) is my favorite. He hand makes everything in his garage in a small town in Washington. The man is a certifiable genius and no doubt turned down the option of signing with many different subsidiaries of the big six. He began on a mid size label that operated like the old system, paying up front for studio sessions, large pressings of records, international tours, promotion, etc. When success started to come, instead of moving up to larger labels, distributors, and venues; he went the opposite. He started spending less money on recordings and tours, quit his label, changed his band name, and stopped playing the regular tour circuit venues in favor of art galleries and impromptu places like abandoned warehouses and empty parking lots. As a fan, I thank him for taking the hard road.

turn it off

[anonieuweling]

You control that TV.
You can turn it off.
Online news can be so refreshing.

Re:turn it off

[bbhorrigan]

Online news has recently taken a step towards the emptiness and dishonest practices of big media lately as well. The biggest news archives are still controlled by the same media. Look at the biggest news sites, Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC etc: I mean, look what has happened to YouTube. 4 years ago, it was owned by bloggers and people with original content, and then capitalism hit. Now it is whoever has the best music video, sad really.

Misleading title

[marcosdumay]

The title is misleading, and so is the article. The problem is that (what 90% of people see) is different from (90% of what people see).

To answer the question (why is it a question? The article states as a fact), yes big media controls 90% of what is actualy distributed as old style media. That is different from saying that it owns 90% of the content, and much nearer to saying that a huge proportion of the people will only see what big media shows them.

That is still a problem, but a different problem.

Re:Misleading title

[nine-times]

That is different from saying that it owns 90% of the content, and much nearer to saying that a huge proportion of the people will only see what big media shows them.

Well you have a point, but the real problem is that "big media" owns most of the distribution channels, and that's why most people will only see what big media shows them.

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, US old style media, not worldwide

Re:Misleading title

[marcosdumay]

Indeed, at my country just one company controls what 90% of the people see. It varies, but I bet it is universaly bad.

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a lisp programmer?

You are using parentheses wrong.

Re:Misleading title

[goose-incarnated]

Looks good to me. What do you see as wrong?

Worse in Canada

[Droog57]

I have no way to get solid numbers, but going by the standard rule of thumb for Canada/USA comparisons (10% of US numbers for Canada), we are in a similar boat on media, except that here there are only three major media corporations, and they also control 90% of Internet access as well. The CRTC (Canadian version of the FCC) has been in bed with these three under the guise of "protecting Canadian content" for over 40 years. And Bell Canada along with Rogers Communications own 90% of the Canadian Cell network and just got together to purchase the most lucrative sports franchise in the world, the Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Club (worth almost double what the Yankees are worth at 1.3 billion for 75% of the Franchise. So weep not, my American friends, you have it good down there...

Re:Worse in Canada

[danomac]

You forgot to mention that the CRTC is sort of government controlled and sort of not. They're held at arms length and the actual goverment itself has no control over what the CRTC does. While the government can make recommendations the CRTC is not really obliged to listen.

Then factor in the CRTC is run by ex-bosses of the big Tel/Cable companies (gee, just a slight conflict of interest there!) and it gets bleaker.

Apologist

[betterunixthanunix]

Just another corporate apologist trying to convince us that everything is fine and that we should just go on with our lives.

It is not that these companies are conspiring to make our entertainment crappy just for some lulz. They want to convey a particular message and manipulate the population in a particular way. The major media companies refused to air a commercial that encouraged people not to buy anything for just one day -- even though they were being offered the standard rate for airing commercials. The popular shows are just the cheapest possible way to mold everyone's minds, from preschool through adulthood.

The conspiracy is this: condition everyone to believe that they should buy as many things as possible, and that the ultimate goal in their lives should be to make enough money to do so. Popular entertainment exists to convey that message, with a few hints about what to buy (MacDonald's, diamonds, cars, video games, etc.).

Re:Apologist

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want." -Steve Jobs
 
And before anyone cries about it, no, I'm not a fanboi but I found it one of the few things I think Steve and I would really agree on.

Re:Apologist

[Anonymous Coward]

You must really be out of the loop if you think it's spelled "MacDonald's"

Re:Apologist

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one loop I'm perfectly content not to be in.

This is why

[arcite]

I refuse to watch TV channels with commercials.

Re:This is why

[BlackSnake112]

Which is why I DVR the TV shows I like and watch them later while skipping the commercials. One hour TV shows are like 40 minutes (and getting shorter) now. I would add in commercial skip, but it messes up sometimes. I"ll edit the commercials out for the shows I want to keep.

Re:This is why

[Edzilla2000]

They are all usually 42 minutes long.
Torrenting my shows means I never ever see a commercial.

Re:This is why

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why i stay 3 years behind the current fad, and watch them when released on netflix

Re:This is why

[GaratNW]

That is, of course, perfectly valid, but refuse it for long enough, and given the entitled "media should be free" attitude of the last 20 years.. Pretty soon, you should assume there will be no more high quality productions. No commercials, and most people completely unwilling to pay for anything because they're somehow entitled to it, and.. You'll have a lot of YouTube reality TV and some random indie projects of mixed quality from people who do it just for the love of it. But all other programming will go away.

I hate advertising as much as the next person, but unless a pay to own model comes out that meets the needs of helping a show make money to pay for the next show, and the sometimes reasonable, sometimes insane, demands for "complete and total control over my media! I own it!!!".. We're killing our own entertainment avenues.

Re:This is why

[tbannist]

So be it.

My time is worth more than $1.5 an hour (last time I check that was approximately what TV stations sell viewer time for). I'm willing to pay for good channels with commercial free content (one exception: they're allowed to advertise their own shows).

Re:This is why

[nolife]

I watch most of my TV shows through Comcast on Demand. They seem to have about 1/2 the commercials compared to the broadcast version. I can still skip through them but I'm sure they can prevent me from doing that in the future. Similar to what I've seen on Hulu, a 30 second commercial here and there

Re:This is why

[GaratNW]

But that's my point. What you're suggesting there would work, if everyone signed up for it and agreed to it. Possibly the only way to really change it - because yes, the current model is broken all to hell - is a couple steps:
- Buy DVDs to the shows you actually like. Don't download them from Pirate Bay
- Access them via Netflix - It's a small amount comparatively, but Netflix makes sure the owners get some profit based on how much they're watched
- Convince Netflix, and other streaming sites like it, that they should start making their own shows, that are not beholden to the existing networks. Screw the Nielsen outdated ratings, allow limited free viewing, but utilize smart use of subscription models and "pay per episode" ownership for people who like the show enough to watch it.
- But as part of that, the content consuming public as a whole needs to stop robbing the content creators blind through sites like the Pirate Bay. Today, Pirate Bay has a valid function. In many cases, it's actually almost impossible to get a hold of TV episodes in a reasonable time frame or even get some more obscure shows. But to really make a transition to a healthy, affordable digital marketplace, people need to stop stealing and pretending it's not. There is, however, a serious cart before the horse conundrum that consumers have every right to be very skeptical of.

Re:This is why

[TheSpoom]

Time Warner Cable has begun making it impossible to fast forward through ads on some of their On Demand channels now (the box refuses to fast forward at all on such protected content). Fair warning.

Re:This is why

[TheJediGeek]

You were making sense until the BS about piracy "robbing the content creators blind." Unless you ONLY get TV content from the internet and/or an OTA antenna, they've got you paying (in a sense) both ways. Cable and satellite services pay the networks to carry their channels. We pay subscription fees AND have to see the advertising. The networks are getting revenue from ad space and from the cable and satellite providers carrying their channels. They are NOT some poor and destitute artists creating these shows on a shoestring budget out of the goodness of their hearts. They're making cash hand over fist. The programming is crap because there's no reason to make anything but crap. If the unwashed masses will put up with it, they'll continue making crap. Some of us may complain about the system, but for every one of us there's thousands that will happily watch Dancing With the Stars with all the commercials and pay Comcast for the privilege.

Don't try to say that the system is the way it is because they can't afford to change it. The system is the way it is because they're making TONS of money this way and have no financial reason to change it.

Re:This is why

[grcumb]

[R]efuse it for long enough, and given the entitled "media should be free" attitude of the last 20 years.. Pretty soon, you should assume there will be no more high quality productions.

That's just not valid. People have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to pay for content. What they object to is DRM'ed, broken, zone-locked, un-saveable, unusable-on-any-other-device content. So, when the best (or only) alternative is bittorrent, that's what they use. But as soon as reputable players start offering a convenient, easy-to-use service (like Amazon, the App Store or iTunes), they flock to it en masse.

People hate commercials. People hate DRM. People hate being treated like criminals. People hate anything that stands between them and their enjoyment. But none of those statements mean that people do not ascribe value to the things that entertain them.

Re:This is why

[GaratNW]

Well, everything you said is pretty compatible with what I was trying to get across. I think I just needed to caveat it a bit more. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the current cable monopolies, including crap services like Hulu. It's taking the new, non-scummy models, like Netflix, DVD purchases, episode purchase and rentals, and making those the predominant distribution model.

However, if you're trying to say that, if you have the choice to buy a DVD of a show you love, and instead chose to download it off the TPB and try and dress it up as anything other than out and out theft.. well, there we part ways. I don't think that's what you're saying, I'm just trying to draw a very clear line in the sand about piracy as a legitimate means to an end (Non-availability or excessively unreasonable availability - draconian DRM, or monopolistic distribution channels), and piracy because it's free and damnit, I deserve to own every show ever made for free.

Re:This is why

[Omestes]

Pretty soon, you should assume there will be no more high quality productions. No commercials, and most people completely unwilling to pay for anything because they're somehow entitled to it, and.. You'll have a lot of YouTube reality TV and some random indie projects of mixed quality from people who do it just for the love of it. But all other programming will go away.

Half in jest: Is that a bad thing? I'm not terribly invested in television though, if it completely disappeared tomorrow I probably wouldn't care too much. No, I'm not putting that forward as a serious suggestion, I just sometimes wonder why it seems so unthinkable to people. The future, in all seriousness, is probably pay-per-view. I would love to be able to just pay a small (sensible) yearly fee for access to a single show. Or even just a "roll your own" solution to cable.

As it stands I don't watch cable or broadcast television because of the ads. I'll be a year behind and just buy the season on DVD, or wait for it to hit Netflix. I'm sick of ads. I find a scorched earth policy towards them completely reasonable since they have completely corrupted the world. If my refusing to watch ads kills your favorite show, sport (I also gave up on those after the 2001 baseball playoffs, pausing the live, in person, game so the audience at home could watch commercials), or webpage dies because I'd rather not be brainwashed by corporate sponsors... I won't cry.

Hell, I'd rather not use the internet at all, than use a browser without adblock. Its worth the sacrifice.

And, for the per-season and roll-your-own solutions, piracy will happen. It's reality. Corporations will just have to live with it, since if they make consuming their content and giving them my money harder than me reading a book or going for a nice walk, they are screwed. Most people don't pirate, some people always will, tough shit. Live with it. I don't care if you get every cent you think your entitled to. So.. My media IS my media. I bought it. I will rent it (Netflix), or I will buy it. That is it. There is no middle ground, since my enjoyment and convenience trumps any corporate profit margin.

Re:This is why

[JohnnyBGod]

I was actually impressed when a Universal DVD I recently bought had a "Thanks for supporting the film industry" message, instead of the "You wouldn't steal a car" piracy crap. The really ironic thing is that I wouldn't even have memorized that the film was from Universal if it weren't for that fact, which makes me wonder what the hell the other companies are thinking.

Re:This is why

[coolmadsi]

Which is why I DVR the TV shows I like and watch them later while skipping the commercials. One hour TV shows are like 40 minutes (and getting shorter) now.

There is a TV show made by the BBC that my girlfriend likes to watch - it is about an hour long. As it was popular, a USA based series of the show was made in the USA. When shown in the UK (on the BBC), it was half an hour long (and a noticable portion of it was just repeating what was said in the last scene).

A simple question to a bigger answer.

[3seas]

How many of you that watch only mainstream media (and slashdot of course) have heard of Occupy Wall Street? And for those that have what have you heard about it?

I think the answer to this question also answers the much bigger question of how many girls has charlie sheen slept with...

Re:A simple question to a bigger answer.

[Lumpy]

I heard about it weeks before the talking heads did. Cripes if you read ANY online news you are usually 48-72 hours or MORE ahead of the worthless idiots on FOx news or CNN.

Re:A simple question to a bigger answer.

[PRMan]

I don't know where I stand as far as him being president (we could probably do worse), but Ron Paul has been completely ignored by the Big 6 Media. Despite being considered a winner in some debates and winning some polls, he is still not mentioned at all. Now, he's no longer in the list of favorites as the media talks endlessly about the other Republican candidates. This is the problem with the ownership situation. It's too easy to silence a voice.

Numbers never lie... But they do mislead.

[jellomizer]

Simple obvious fact one: The larger company will have a larger market share.
Simple obvious fact two: The smaller company will have less market share.

So if some companies are bigger then they will have more Market Share and control then the others.

So if the top 6 companies (assume they are all equal) own 90% share then each one only has 15% market share. Which is big but no means a monopoly.

Percentages are a way of summarizing real data. However by grouping and summarizing the summary. And clustering data in a particular way you can prove anything you want.

Think the 99%ers vs. the 53%ers they both choose different measurements and summarize and group values differently to prove their point.

Re:Numbers never lie... But they do mislead.

[Aladrin]

I think the point wasn't that any of them have a monopoly, even though it's possible 1 of them has over 50% while the rest have considerably less and still add to 90%.

The point was that with only 6 major companies competing, it's easy for each of them to create garbage because none of the others are bothering to do better. They are technically competing with each other, but they aren't driven to do so.

And the remaining 10% don't have enough fans to make anything popular and upset the status quo.

I think some people would tell you that it's impossible for the little companies to make worthwhile content, but that's bunk. I watched a show from New Zealand called 'This is Not My Life' and it was some of the best scifi/drama I've seen in a while. I didn't even know New Zealand had TV shows of their own. It came completely out of nowhere.

Re:Numbers never lie... But they do mislead.

[Bob9113]

Simple obvious fact one: The larger company will have a larger market share.
Simple obvious fact two: The smaller company will have less market share.

Simple obvious fact three: There is still a valid point being made here.

The point being made is that it is not 600 or 6,000 companies that own the lion's share.

Why is that worth considering (not necessarily good, or bad, but worth considering)? Because, that means we have foregone the opportunity to have 600 small entrepreneurial companies each making 1/100th of what the 6 majors are making. Maybe that would be better, maybe it would be worse. It has some obvious upside (more diverse approaches to the business of making and distributing content being tested, for example), and some obvious downside (less opportunity for big-budget content, for example).

The fact being raised is not that ninety percent of the content is owned by X companies. It is that six companies is a small number, particularly for such a big market. The author says this is bad. He may be wrong, but it is a point worth considering as we move through the massive upheaval that is happening in information production and distribution. This is particularly important given that we are passing a great deal of new legislation that grants the government more power to interfere in the information marketplace by extending the duration and force of fiat monopolies on production and distribution of particular information.

It may all be a good thing, but we would be fools not to contemplate the foregone opportunity to have a larger number of smaller enterprises. Healthy analysis of opportunity cost is critical to maximizing economic productivity, especially in such a heavily government influenced market as information production and distribution.

Re:Numbers never lie... But they do mislead.

[jellomizer]

I am not disagreeing with the assumption but they way they bastardize math to show it is my rubbing point.

Some better math... Show how many Standard Deviations away from the median these companies are.

These percentages distort the truth by forcing the assumption that the rich have equal wealth to the poor, to the reader to get them riled up.

There are a lot of ways to do this. Perhaps there is one company who has 80% and the rest of the Top 6 are really low and of more equal footing as the other say 100 companies and then the rest are Mom and Pop media.

The message is the message

[betterunixthanunix]

The message of the big media companies is that you should be out buying your way to happiness. The medium is irrelevant, the old media executives will find a way to take control of everything -- already, they are finding ways to turn blogs, Facebook, and other "new media" concepts into new vehicles for their message.

Everyone in the world today has the technology to block 99.9% of all advertising

Technology that is going unused by the masses. If it is not the default, it is not going to be used by more than a minority of people.

each of us has the power to take control. The choice is ours.

If the proles knew their strength, they would have no need to conspire. Except that the proles need someone to show them their strength, and they only pay attention to the very mainstream media that will never do such a thing.

Manufacturing Consent

[Anonymous Coward]

For a thorough analysis of the topic and a proposition of the "propaganda model" for the mass media, I recommend Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman.

Re:turn it off, all of it

[Cragen]

If I could, I would turn it all off. (Being a developer, it's a bit hard.) I got sent overseas 30 years ago for a year. (Pre-Internet! lol) We usually got all non-ridiculous news in 3 - 4 days. So, I kicked my news habit. (There was no English TV either, so I also quite accidentally kicked my TV habit.) So, really, how much does this "news" really affect your life? No much, really. Have a nice day. Cheers!

pretty lame article

[Lluc]

Why is this even posted on the main page of Slashdot? He makes one good point: lumping the entire revenue of GE into the revenue of the big size media companies is disingenuous because GE does way more than run a media industry. The rest of the article is just Cliff Kuang saying, "Are the Big 6 media companies a big conspiracy??! I don't think so!"

The main point of the Frugal Dad Infographic stands: consolidating our audio and visual media (+the broadcast / network industry) into a few companies is going to continue driving everything toward the lowest common denominator drivel. Our future is staged-reality TV shows where celebrity* lawyers and police force investigate crime prisoners to sing to determine their punishment. We will call it Law and Crime Scene X-Factor. {*Note: by celebrity I mean semi-attractive wealthy people who are famous because of sex-tapes they release online.}

Re:pretty lame article

[vlm]

to determine their punishment

And if you've seen the "classic" movie "running man" you can pretty much guess what this is going to be. Maybe for the somewhat less severe offenders it'll be more like "survivor" challenges, or "ow my balls" from idiocracy.

Still better then legislated...

[Anonymous Coward]

behind the scenes and away from much needed discretion.

You guys were really left out of the loop, eh?... like 20 years behind in some ways... lol (still probably same source)... frigging rebels... lol

Really? Opinions are all you'll get...

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think we are going to be able to answer that question off the cuff, that isn't all opinion? It would take months of research to determine an intelligent, factual answer to that question. Even after all that research, there may not be a solid answer, but really just an estimation of the whole. And, in the end, does revenue determine control? It would appear there are many other factors that determine control, other than just revenue. Blog sites that are controlled by people who are not connected to larger media companies still get their sources of information from smaller pieces of those large media companies. There is little content that is created anymore that is totally original ideas from the mind of just one person.

Look at the ease at which information is disseminated. If one source puts the information in an email or website, and provides code or links for other sites to distribute that information, then it becomes really easy for that information to be spread across the world. Then, if that information is spicy enough, or intriguing enough, that link goes through social networks like Twitter and Facebook, and suddenly, we have a trending topic. When you look back on popular trending topics, do you think the term "Kardashian" has been in the forefront of the public for so long because it is controlled by the "Big 6", or because it is easy to provide content related to it that ends up creating bottom line revenue?

Seriously?

[koan]

This is only news if you live under a rock, if you want to fully understand this look at who control that 90%.

Quality, not quantity

[Stoopiduk]

It's all very well owning The Sun, the largest newspaper in Europe (or whatever was claimed) but you could fill that whole damned rag with ads and pictures of kittens; as long as you had one story about a football (soccer) scandal and one story about a soap opera, everyone would go about their lives as normal.

With the internet in its current state, we can rely on educated people to find their own sources of information, check their reliability and make their own conclusions. Yes it would be nice to have the Sun readers thinking for themselves, but it's not about to happen. Let them have their crappy media, as long as they're happy with it. We still have plenty of room to go out and find the information we need. Just because 90% of published media is crap about X Factor doesn't mean I'm spending my 90% of my time reading crap about X Factor, that's for sure.

90%?

[Anonymous Coward]

By 90% does that assume that the remaining 10% is the sum of all of the 15 frames of black between segments/spots?

Trumped-up charges of plagiarism

[tepples]

Well, many of us don't like the MSM, and are now getting our news raw and unfiltered.

Provided they have the time to sit in front of a computer desk. A lot of people have trouble giving up the MSM for video because they don't want to buy another PC for the HDTV or worse yet both buy a PC and replace the SDTV in the living room with an HDTV. Other people have trouble giving up the MSM for music because only smartphones can play Internet radio in the car or on the bus, and they aren't willing to pay for smartphone service.

I don't care that the MSM controls 90% of the content, because it is the same old crappy content they've always controlled. With the internet, there is a whole new world of content waiting to be discovered.

Until the MSM starts suing Internet artists on trumped-up charges of plagiarism.

The 90% of the people can't really appreciate the finer nuanced artistic works, let them have the MSM.

Are you sure that we'd want that? If 90 percent have the MSM, then 90 percent are letting the MSM tell them for whom to vote and on which issues to choose a candidate. For example, which MSM source has thoroughly covered opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act?

Re:Trumped-up charges of plagiarism

[Lumpy]

"....MSM for video because they don't want to buy another PC for the HDTV..... "

Then they are stupid looking at buying a PC, a $99.00 roku box solves this. IF you are so poor that you balk at buying a $99.00 device but cling to your $130 a month cable TV bill, you are mentally challenged...

Hell even 6 months of CableTV will buy you a super high power HTPC that looks like a high end piece of stereo gear.

Re:Trumped-up charges of plagiarism

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy answer: "What's the Stop Online Piracy Act? It must be good 'cuz we don't like online piracy!"

Speaking of media-controlled politics, does anyone remember seeing/hearing about any negative coverage of Obama when he was first running for POTUS? Hell, "Joe the Plumber" got more of a background check in a week then Obama got during the entire election. And apparently Palin was running for POTUS as well... that old McCain guy might as well have been one of her aides as far as actual campaign coverage went. I know we already tend to discard FoxNews (and, well, just about anyone who doesn't fall in line with the majority viewpoint) on this site, but seriously, other than there, who else actually had any negative coverage of him during that whole thing?

Big Biz is the Default, and We Keep the Default

[mtrachtenberg]

Here's the problem in a nutshell. We have access to information and analysis from gazillions of people, but most of us pay attention only to those who are presented as the default choices. Those who are presented as the default choices inevitably represent the opinions of those who own them.

This is the herding mentality responsible for financial bubbles -- people follow those who are perceived as successful regardless of the lead cow's intelligence and common sense or lack thereof. (Goldman Sachs. QED.)

The challenge is to restore diversity in what is heard, not just diversity in what is available to be heard. That, unfortunately, is a distributed problem, and cannot be solved by just adding a few voices.

It should be noted, however...

[vikingpower]

...that although this is not an idiosyncracy of the sole US media landscape, it is still a particularity that the media landscapes in e.g. many European do not exhibit. Allright. I relativated it. Now what ?

Re:FOR WORKERS REVOLUTION!

[spidercoz]

Aren't you about 100 years late with this?

umm..

[Truekaiser]

he just took a info graphic from another blogger who did all the research while he did not do any and called it bull-crap. because 'he' personally thinks those companies are not out to control what the media reports, despite all the evidence on how murdoch for example runs news corp and all that he owns? or how the news companies G.E. owns were downplaying the whole nuclear crisis in japan because *gasp* they make reactors themselves?
and he was given top billing on a slashdot article that made the front page? http://www.flickr.com/photos/70805309@N00/319047856/ and yes i know the irony involved in posting that picture.

An appalling misstatement of fact

[Scareduck]

The word "Internet" appears nowhere on that infographic, which appears designed to rile up the lefty animals. Presenting "media" as one monolithic entity fits right in with that blinkered worldview and confirms it, but it is only that: bias confirmation for people inclined to wave blue flags.

Re:An appalling misstatement of fact

[Stoopiduk]

Don't look at his anti-smoking infographic, your head will explode.

For reference, I am anti-smoking (and anti the word "infographic") but there are some very cheap tricks in there. The kind of tricks you might get away with if you rely on mass media reading sheep (and those stupid enough to buy Dell laptops on your say so).

Re:An appalling misstatement of fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Lefty? Huh? I thought it was righties that hated the liebrul media.

Re:An appalling misstatement of fact

[Stoopiduk]

I think he's talking rile up as in agitate them to fight with the author on an anti-mega media crusade.

My part in the mega media wars can be summed up by the number of times I have misread Mega Media in the title as Megavideo...

Re:turn it off, all of it

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I kicked my news habit.

The cognitive dissonance in you is strong considering where you posted this.

Re:turn it off, all of it

[Stoopiduk]

Either that or he/she correctly filed many of the recent stories on /. as "not news"

NEWS

[WillgasM]

the real problem is the news. Almost every news outlet is regurgitating the exact same story handed down from some corporate office. There is no more journalism, because journalists aren't allowed to think for themselves. Their opinions have already been written for them and entered into the teleprompter. If you'd like a laugh, google "conan o'brien push the envelope" and you can watch newscasters from across the country reading the exact same dialogue. Every corporation has an agenda. Be it product placements or rigging elections, those who control the media will use it to their advantage.

Re:NEWS

[justsayin]

Ok, I searched for "conan o'brien push the envelope" and all I got was hits on gay marriage. Whatcha trying to do here? Misslead us like the media. Seriously thought I would like to see Conan showing that clip. Got a link for it handy?

Re:NEWS

[WillgasM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEAY445h7uw

Killian!

[Pope]

I'll be back.

Re:But They Control 0%...

[masternerdguy]

Actually they can. They can have mandatory prescreening of all comments and prevent the first post from being posted.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

What percentage of the people know about building 7? Who here knows why a birth certificate containing 12 layers of images could be very important?
If you don't know what I'm talking about then your media has failed you.

Mainstream media, where truth is mere coincidence

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The only uncontrolled content at the moment can be found on blogs. These will eventually be subverted too, but at the moment, many blogs are not. Zerohedge.com, for all it's sensationalism, does report on real economic events, as does nakedcapitalism.com. Yahoo and MSNBC, of course, are happy-talk propaganda rags designed only to keep consumers/voters distracted from real events and buying stocks and schlock.

I suggest that anyone who doubts this review these two wiki entries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

Bottom line? The same people who own Goldman Sacks and the banks also own the major media outlets, and the messages are tightly controlled. Subtle propaganda is inserted into popular programs (e.g In a recent "House"episode, a man was determined to be mentally ill because he was preparing for social disorder. House calls him an idiot who thinks the world is going to end.) OWS protesters are subtly presented as fools, without ever showing a real discussion. The fact that ousting them from all encampments at the same time required coordination at a national scale is never mentioned. There are endless examples, if you can stop eating cheetos and ignore "Dancing with the stars."

The only idiots I see are people who believe anything they see on TV or mainstream media news, where truth is merely coincidental.

Liberal media bias, my foot.

[forkfail]

Funny how given the ownership by the few, so many folks still believe that there's a liberal bias to the media.

That's been a lie by the right for years to try to push the window of perceptions to the right by getting folks to think that right wing views are actually left, it shifts folks to the right without them even thinking about it.

And yet, even knowing that the MSM is dominated by a half dozen corporations, folks are still probably going to persist in claiming that the media is somehow part of a Huge Liberal Conspiracy (tm).

(And, yes, MSNBC is allowed to run free. Even Fox had their token liberal (Colmes) so they could claim "fairness"...)

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[NeutronCowboy]

Indeed. Going by the logic of the people who generally put forward the notion that the MSM is liberal, the MSM should actually be wholly conservative. After all, they are owned by profit-making corporations, and therefore should be staunchly for standard conservative platforms: lower taxes, less social welfare, corporate personhood, less regulation, more for the "job-creators", foreign imperialism funded by deficit-spending... but we don't hear that.

Alternatively, there's the argument that the MSM is not interested in the truth, but just in giving the people what they want. If the MSM is indeed liberal, that means that the majority of Americans are liberal.

Either way, conservatives are falling over their own logic if they claim the MSM is liberal.

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how given the ownership by the few, so many folks still believe that there's a liberal bias to the media.

One has nothing to do with the other

folks are still probably going to persist in claiming that the media is somehow part of a Huge Liberal Conspiracy (tm).

I assume by "folks" you mean the Huge Conservative Consipracy(tm); so what you're saying is that reports of a conspiracy is a conspiracy to bias people's perceptions by saying the news is biased. Makes perfect sense to me (adjusts tinfoil hat).

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[forkfail]

Absolutely ownership has significant impact on what gets printed and covered, and how.

Folks like Hirst and Murdoch were and are blatant. But corporations like GE and Disney most certainly have "standards and guidelines" that come from the top. And the folks at the top very much have a vested interest in low tax rates for the top 0.1% (who get half the capital gains these days) and thus tend to push a right wing agenda.

And - I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, exactly. More like a few, extremely powerful entities acting in a like manner to preserve their own self interests. No collusion is necessary.

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[PPH]

Big Business is inherently libertarian. Maybe leaning a bit into the liberal camp. They don't care if you are gay, straight, tatted up, pierced, or wear 3 piece suits. The only color that interests them is green. Money.

Big Religion is inherently totalitarian. Maybe leaning a bit towards Communism (big C, not little c communism). To them, government and business have a duty to enforce morality. Maybe even ahead of making a profit. They are perfectly willing to exclude you from society if you don't drink their KoolAide. Even if you have some potential wealth producing assets to bring to the table.

But both Big Business and Big Religion are minorities in our (USA) political processes. And these political processes must be appeased in order to assure the economic survival of a minority group. So there is an unnatural coalition between the two. In exchange for supporting the Moral Minority's doctrines, Big Business plays social conservative. But not happily. Fix the political appeasement process by fixing the cycle of contributions supporting candidacy and buying political access and Big Business will kick the Jesus Freaks to the curb.

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[forkfail]

In a free market, I'd agree with you.

However, in our monopolistic oriented version, where the invisible hand is a puppet and the corporations pay our legislators to keep the money pipes open to the top, they aren't libertarian. They're neo-conservative, because that's the fastest and most efficient path to even more money for those who already have the lion's share.

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. My brother claims that the Wall Street Journal is part of the liberal media. He is well-educated middle class etc...

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Just to add to that though, big religion is big, because there are allot of followers in the US. The conservatives win votes by pushing "values". It has always amazed me how many people vote against there own interest.

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[tomhath]

Absolutely ownership has significant impact on what gets printed and covered, and how.

True, but AC questioned the assertion that ownership by a few large companies is proof that there's no liberal bias. Whether you think there's bias depends on your point of view. You either think it's National Pinko Radio or you think it's Faux News. Large companies owning large media outlets doesn't prove or disprove bias.

Re:Liberal media bias, my foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been a lie by the right for years to try to push the window of perceptions to the right by getting folks to think that right wing views are actually left, it shifts folks to the right without them even thinking about it.

Actually, the liberal (left-leaning) bias makes sense when you think of it in terms of control. The liberal in the US is generally all-for bigger government, and the MSM is part of that group since it's the government providing them with the protection for that control.

And yet, even knowing that the MSM is dominated by a half dozen corporations, folks are still probably going to persist in claiming that the media is somehow part of a Huge Liberal Conspiracy (tm).

The majority of people get their daily "trusted" news from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the online versions of them. When you're a major media outlet, and you and your buddies control 90% of the common information outlets, and you share the same viewpoint as your buddies, you can collude with your buddies to control what the people see and hear. That's all it takes to make a conspiracy.

When the only notable dissent comes from an outlet you can control, and you've already taken steps to equate that outlet with all of the whack-jobs out there screaming about made-up conspiracies and repression, it's the best way to further the control you and those you favor can exert. All while exclaiming that no such conspiracy can possibly exist because all conspiracies are myths. When 90% of the media outlets all conspire to say that there is no conspiracy, then it's obvious that it must be true that no conspiracy exists, otherwise at least one of the major outlets would have said otherwise by now...

And, yes, MSNBC is allowed to run free. Even Fox had their token liberal (Colmes) so they could claim "fairness"...

When you hold a position or viewpoint that your audience will potentially find objectionable, it's best to point fingers at your opposition and claim that "it's all their doing." And if you can manufacture or otherwise control your own opposition, or at least the way your opposition is percieved, then you can be free to exert even more control.

If Fox is your audience's main source for non-liberal news, and you can control what is presented by Fox, and you put some whack-job in a position of prominence, then all you need to do to further support your liberal viewpoint is to keep equating that whack-job with the rest of the non-liberal information that may be presented on Fox. Instant marginalization of the majority of opposing information achieved.

Re:turn it off, all of it

[Anonymous Coward]

I am also a non news watcher except for checking the BBC on my phone just to see if WW3 has started yet and no one told me. Local news is rubbish and, as you say, knowing it doesn't make my life better in anyway. In fact you could argue watching it would make it worse.

Double play discount

[tepples]

$130 a month cable TV bill

$130? Try an order of magnitude less. I've read in comments to past stories about Internet VOD that some cable companies offer TV for only $5/mo more to their current Internet customers. For another thing, are there any non-MSM sports available over the Internet that would appeal to a fan of NCAA football, NFL, and NHL?

Re:Double play discount

[Lumpy]

Please tell me where people are getting Cable TV for a order of magnitude less.

$13.00 a month Cable TV? Not a chance.

Re:Double play discount

[tepples]

Please tell me where people are getting Cable TV for a order of magnitude less.

You'd have to ask ShavedOrangutan where he or she lives. (I can't because it's been more than two weeks, and Slashdot locks two-week-old discussions.) The cable operator offers Internet for $75 or Internet + TV for $80.

Re:Double play discount

[Patch86]

I hope you're joking, or I will be forced to find the US terrifying in a whole new way.

In the UK, Virgin's cable TV package is something like £12.50 a month ($20 or so). $130 a month (US Dollars?) for TV is scandalous.

Re:Double play discount

[Anonymous Coward]

depending on how stupid you are (not you, but the customer), you can go from paying $10/month to $150/month.

The higher it goes, the more stupid and more of a MSM lover you become.

You can get cable tv for $9.95. Hasn't ever gone away, but people don't purchase it.

Re:Double play discount

[Anonymous Coward]

In Maryland just outside of DC, I've have seen various deals from Comcast, and it seems pretty random depending on how hard they try to get you to join. Previously I had a combo where TV+internet was cheaper by a few dollars than internet by itself, at a total of $40/month. It was an introductory thing, but went on for 2 years by just calling them and acting like I wanted to close the account when the deal was over at the end of the first year. Others I know in the area have gotten $5 or $10 month by getting internet combo packs at the right time. This might be about two years out of date now though. At the moment it looks like Comcast is offering internet and TV at $30/month each, or $70 together in a combo pack...

Re:Double play discount

[anyGould]

I hope you're joking, or I will be forced to find the US terrifying in a whole new way.

In the UK, Virgin's cable TV package is something like £12.50 a month ($20 or so). $130 a month (US Dollars?) for TV is scandalous.

Nope, the bundles are just one more way the cable/phone folks try to reel you in - in my market (in Canada), I get internet and phone from my cable company (but no cable - they're not amused by this, but it amuses me). I thought about cutting my landline phone, but the bundling makes it a net $10/month (30/mth for the phone, -20 for having two services).

It'd actually be fairly cheap for me to add cable as well (depending on the deal, it's often *cheaper* to have all three), but I need cable like I need dynamite down my pants.

Re:Double play discount

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly that's not a joke depending on what packages you buy. Most likely in the authors case though it includes internet access also.

There is an effect on coverage

[GodfatherofSoul]

It's only logical that the media outlets will protect their parents' interests. One example, years ago I was watching John McEnroe's defunct news show on CNBC (?) where he interviewed Robert Kennedy, Jr., a big environmentalist. The conversation took an unexpected turn and RKJr dropped a note about GE, NBC's parent corporation and their poor environmental practices. McEnroe shushed him and the show immediately cut to commercial. When they came back from the break, RKJr was nowhere to be seen.

Finnished, but not finished

[tepples]

I have two computers, each capable of listening to any internet station out there.

Unless one of these is a laptop with mobile broadband service, you still can't listen to Internet radio in a car or bus.

Have you seen Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning?

No. But from what I've gathered on the Amazon.co.uk listing, the film is in Finnish with English subtitles. Notwithstanding The Passion of the Christ, a lot of the market demands a dub as at least an option. And what would they have done had CBS not licensed Star Trek to them?

There are thousands upon thousands of such talented people mostly playing in bars. There is no shortage of people with any talent you need.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "diegetic music". Say a film is set in year 19XX, and the script calls for a scene in a public place with music playing in the background over the public place's speaker system. It's expensive to set the scene with familiar popular music that was likely to have been heard in such a place.

Re:Finnished, but not finished

[Bucky24]

Unless one of these is a laptop with mobile broadband service, you still can't listen to Internet radio in a car or bus.

That's really no longer an issue for many people. Smartphones can easily access internet radio streams, and are much more portable then laptops (note I said many people, not all. I am aware that a lot of people don't have smartphones still).

Re:Finnished, but not finished

[mcgrew]

Unless one of these is a laptop with mobile broadband service, you still can't listen to Internet radio in a car or bus.

There are these things called MP3s.

the film is in Finnish with English subtitles. Notwithstanding The Passion of the Christ, a lot of the market demands a dub as at least an option.

I think if it were dubbed, that would detract from the movie, much like "Passion". Having "light balls" spoken in English wouldn't be nearly as funny.

And what would they have done had CBS not licensed Star Trek to them?

It's a parody. You don't need permission to parody a work, even if Wierd Al asks.

Say a film is set in year 19XX, and the script calls for a scene in a public place with music playing in the background over the public place's speaker system. It's expensive to set the scene with familiar popular music that was likely to have been heard in such a place.

Using non-diegetic music didn't hurt "The Terminator". You don't have to play music that's actually popular, it only has to fit the scene and set. And if copyright lengths were sabe that problem wouldn't exist (and guess who bought the insane copyright lengths?)

Re:Mainstream media, where truth is mere coinciden

[gknoy]

It would have been more helpful if you'd linked those blogs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ .. now to actually look more closely and read them. :) Thanks for sharing!

Re:turn it off, all of it

[Anomalyst]

It's not information, it's not even data, it's NEWS.

This

[ThatsNotPudding]

They all play and or show what is most profitable.

This more than any other reason explains the rise of Idiocracy-style 'reality' shows; you don't need to hire compentent writers; just trawl for the worst examples of humanity and set the voyeur-cams to auto.

US propaganda net: Fox-CNN-NPR-ABC-CBS-AP

[sgt_doom]

Five media corporations control the majority of the world's media.

The fact of the matter is that those six (actually five) corporations which control the majority of the American media are so financially interlocked with the top banks and each other that for all intents and purposes it is really just one monolithic corporation in control.

Sure, they have their individual and internecine squabbles, but overall everyone tows the line in their psywarfare perpetrated on the rest of us, which was why many of us gave up on the US myth-media long ago (for me, sometime back in the '90s). Turn on Fox, CNN or NPR and you hear the same wannabe stenographers from Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, the trashy NY Times, the same astro-turf outfits erroneously called "think tanks" who give us the future shills to be our Treasury Secretary, etc., etc., etc. and why ANYONE would ever watch the bottom tier propaganda clown acts of ABC and CBS is beyond a sane person's purview.

Non-psywarfare....

[sgt_doom]

For non-psywarfare:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/maureen-tkacik-the-anti-occupycia-connection.html

http://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/list/releasedate/2011-12-08.html#

Emergence

[bussdriver]

Emergent patterns-- like how geese or ducks fly in a V shape-- there is no planning, no thought, no leadership by the group to pick that shape, its the nature of the situation that produces the outcome.

It is common for humans to think that everything has some sort of master plan or leader or group thinking behind it. Yes this bias heavily shows up in argument for the existence of God(s).

Conspiracy is more common that people "think," that is, than they are socially conditioned to dismiss, because thought is really not part of it for most people on this topic. The word is often incorrectly applied because humans tend to think there is intelligence behind things when there is none (especially something complex.)

Multiple conspiring groups can work together and appear like some bigger conspiracy when they are just ducks in a row. People will tend to jump to the conclusion there are leaders or planned conspiracies at most/all levels -- I've seen people puzzled when 2 opposing groups will join together to protest something; like some master planner suckered the two sides to agree on something when one group may not even have known the other group was coming. It could just be a bunch of different flocks creating emergent patterns.

The mob mentality can come into play as well with no real leader in charge (or if there is just 1 leader) it doesn't function in a way that it can be considered a full conspiracy. Once in formation it becomes easy to keep flying with the group than break away and individuals can end up going places they'd never go otherwise; inhibitions can break down; somebody does something stupid, then the barriers are lowered and others follow in the wake etc..

Understanding of such human group behaviors can be utilized and exploited (if >=2 people plan to do this then that IS a conspiracy) but the group's action is not a conspiracy even though one may be heading it-- and its not really the head of it; just herding the group with a form of working control. This kind of stuff does happen and its easier to spot when you understand how it works.

Re:But They Control 0%...

[Anonymous Coward]

Second Post!

Always knew....

[hesaigo999ca]

I always knew the media was owned by special individuals that had contacts within all the major branches of industry, that they could be bought....
how do you think that the worlds worst natural disaster (BP, gulf oil spill) could be swept under the rug, and no one actually even mentions it anymore....
yet many people had their lives ruined forever by this manmade disaster...

land of the free my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

So we have a controlled media in the land of the free.

Maybe we need to spread some "democracy" in THIS country.
"American Spring" anyone?

Is this proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Corpus Christi, TX and surrounding area will lose NBC station and several spin-offs [ KRIS-TV, KAJA-Telemundo, CW,] at midnight tonight.

Time Warner will no longer *carry* the stations.
This is the same war the pulled about 5 years ago.

Nothing but hoodlums ripping of the people.

TW should pay the station to have NBC as there will be no alternate offered. PIGS !

MSM convenience

[tepples]

There are these things called MP3s.

By "MP3s" I assume that you're referring to buying the MP3s at home and loading them onto a portable music player at roughly 1 USD per track. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, then for one thing, one would need to confine his discover-new-music hours to those few times when he can sit at a home PC with headphones on so that he will know what to buy to listen to in the car. MSM offers the convenience of turning on the radio and getting the top 40 station, the hot adult contemporary station, the classic hits station, the classic rock station, the country station, the rhythmic station, etc., and hearing songs that you happen to like but haven't happened to buy yet, even in the car.

It's a parody. You don't need permission to parody a work, even if Wierd Al asks.

You need permission in order to skip the expense of a copyright+trademark+libel triple-play trial if the owner of copyright in the work that you are parodying disagrees that your work is a covered parody.

Using non-diegetic music didn't hurt "The Terminator".

Avoiding scenes where diegetic music might be played works better for some genres than for others. Comedies, for example, tend to rely more on popular culture.

You don't have to play music that's actually popular, it only has to fit the scene and set.

And if a scene takes place in a grocery store in the United States in the 1980s, the viewer expects to hear what would be heard in a grocery store in the United States in the 1980s.

And if copyright lengths were sabe that problem wouldn't exist (and guess who bought the insane copyright lengths?)

I know, the MSM did. It's called path dependence: incumbents entrench themselves. How is one to work around this other than always making period pieces?

Re:MSM convenience

[mcgrew]

By "MP3s" I assume that you're referring to buying the MP3s at home and loading them onto a portable music player at roughly 1 USD per track.

No, I'm referring to the MP3s you rip from CD, sample from LPs and tapes, and sample from the radio -- even internet radio. Have two computers? You can log in to kshe95.com on Sunday night and sample seven full rock albums, free and legal. You can sample a top 40 station for two hours and have every recent hit.

If so, then for one thing, one would need to confine his discover-new-music hours to those few times when he can sit at a home PC with headphones on so that he will know what to buy to listen to in the car.

No, just sample the stream when you're out. Cutting individual songs from the stream takes but minutes, takes less time than a download.

You need permission in order to skip the expense of a copyright+trademark+libel triple-play trial if the owner of copyright in the work that you are parodying disagrees that your work is a covered parody.

It's an investment -- you will win (there has been enough case law litigated), and your countersuit for abuse of copyright could be quite lucrative.

And if a scene takes place in a grocery store in the United States in the 1980s, the viewer expects to hear what would be heard in a grocery store in the United States in the 1980s.

Nobody in their twenties has a clue what was playing in grocery stoires in the 1980s. Hell, I barely remember, come to think of it. Nobody's going to notice what background music is playing as long as it doesn't sound out of place.

I know, the MSM did. It's called path dependence: incumbents entrench themselves. How is one to work around this other than always making period pieces?

Publically financed elections?

Re:MSM convenience

[tepples]

I'm referring to the MP3s you rip from CD, sample from LPs and tapes

Which, since the Record Rental Amendment of 1984, requires one to have bought the CDs, LPs, and tapes in question. This rules out the use case of discovering new music.

Have two computers? You can log in to kshe95.com on Sunday night and sample seven full rock albums, free and legal.

It doesn't strictly require two computers unless uses some sort of DRM that tries to detect analog reconversion, but again, MSM wins at convenience. How many people are willing to hook line-out into line-in and leave a computer turned on overnight just to be able to listen to indie music in the car?

It's an investment -- you will win (there has been enough case law litigated)

Not everybody has the money to invest in a legal defense. Where does that come from?

and your countersuit for abuse of copyright could be quite lucrative.

Google "abuse of copyright" parody countersuit didn't appear to name any cases on the first page.

Nobody in their twenties has a clue what was playing in grocery stoires in the 1980s.

They were playing what was on the pop charts back then, and anybody who listens to the MSM's 1980s station will have become intimately familiar.

Nobody's going to notice what background music is playing as long as it doesn't sound out of place.

There are entire web sites devoted to nitpicking films. Any diegetic music that was not on the pop charts when the music is set will sound out of place to anybody in their forties.

Publically financed elections?

Any idea how to get that to happen after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC ?

Re:MSM convenience

[mcgrew]

Which, since the Record Rental Amendment of 1984, requires one to have bought the CDs, LPs, and tapes in question

The Record Rental Amendment of 1984 and the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 both amended Section 109 to prevent all owners of phonorecords, and of certain types of computer programs, from distributing them through the acts of rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending unless authorized by the owners of the copyright, with an exemption for non-profit educational institutions and non-profit libraries.

The acts specifically excluded:

A computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or
A computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

From wikipedia's description I don't see how it applies to end-users. It says nothing about recording off the air. However, time-shifting was specifically legalized back in the VCR and cassette days. As to discovering new music, time shifting (and legal, free downloads from independant artists, who have no radio and WANT you to hear them).

It doesn't strictly require two computers unless uses some sort of DRM that tries to detect analog reconversion, but again, MSM wins at convenience. How many people are willing to hook line-out into line-in and leave a computer turned on overnight just to be able to listen to indie music in the car?

I guess you kids are lazy these days. Back in my day we'd record all of our LPs to tape, preventing degradation, and tape the radio, make mix tapes, etc. It's particularly galling to someone who's done this legally all their life for the labels to try to say that all of a sudden it's wrong. Screw 'em. I have the right to record any sound you choose to transmit into my home -- that's MY air you're vibrating.

Not everybody has the money to invest in a legal defense.

If you have a good case (and with a copyright holder trying to sue you for a parody, you can't lose), you won't need any up-front money. The lawyer will take 1/3 of a settlement or 1/2 of a judgement.

They were playing what was on the pop charts back then,

No, in fact they were playing synthesized 1960s schmaltz (Muzak) in groceries then. Things have changed a lot in the last quarter century.

There are entire web sites devoted to nitpicking films.

There are web sites devoted to belly button lint, too. It doesn't mean anybody pays attention to them.

Publically financed elections? Any idea how to get that to happen after the Supreme Court's decision

Constitutional amendmant. Barring that, bloody revolution.

I said diegetic

[tepples]

There are only two places where silence might need to be filled.

The opening credits are not unlike an extended establishing shot. There will be establishing shots throughout a film.

No, a soundtrack is really not needed for a movie.

In a typical real-world store in the United States, popular music will be playing in the background. Having a shopping scene without music would come off as unnatural. That's what I meant by "diegetic".

Think about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about why you consume what they offer. Stop thinking of it as a choice between alternatives and start thinking of it as a broader choice of whether to consume it _at all_.

Not only that...

[Burz]

By asserting that profit margins are thin (so the incentive to take risks is lower), that media companies are messy businesses (apparently, he believes organized media output is a myth), and that the corporations listed are so large that controlling all departments is a tall order, he doesn't seem to think the consolidation is anything to worry about.

These are arguments one could use to justify the business models of Soviet Russia. His thinking on this is really backwards, and I'd also like to point out that his topic of 'conspiracy' is a strawman since that was not in the original infographic.

Boomboxes had tape decks in them

[tepples]

From wikipedia's description I don't see how it applies to end-users.

It applies by drying up the supply of rented CDs or LPs available to end users, so the only way to (lawfully) come into possession of a (non-recordable) CD or LP is to buy it. That leaves time shifting.

and legal, free downloads from independant artists, who have no radio and WANT you to hear them

If indie recording artists give away their product, and they aren't yet in a situation where they can tour, what can they sell?

I guess you kids are lazy these days. Back in my day we'd record all of our LPs to tape

But you'd have to buy the LPs first.

and tape the radio

Boomboxes back in the day had an FM radio and a tape deck in one unit. It was far more convenient for lazy people to tape FM radio then than to record Internet radio to MP3 now because broadcasters had no way to block taping FM radio on the same machine that receives it, unlike now when an Internet radio stream can use e.g. Windows Media DRM to require A. that a recording app not be run at the same time and B. that all drivers in the chain be digitally signed by the operating system publisher so that they don't implement anything like tee(1). True, an Internet broadcaster can choose not to play MSM music and not to apply this DRM, but a growing number of countries have required Internet broadcasters to pay some annual amount to the MSM's collection agency unless they can prove in court that they played zero MSM music for an entire year.

Screw 'em. I have the right to record any sound you choose to transmit into my home

Do lazy people have the right? Yes. The inclination? No, and the MSM relies on this.

Constitutional amendmant.

That has to pass two-thirds of the House (whose election the MSM controls) and two-thirds of the Senate (whose election the MSM controls) before the state legislatures get a chance to ratify it.

Barring that, bloody revolution.

The majority don't care enough to try this, and the MSM relies on this.

Re:Boomboxes had tape decks in them

[mcgrew]

If indie recording artists give away their product, and they aren't yet in a situation where they can tour, what can they sell?

CDs, T-shirts, hats, other what they call "merch", plus door reciepts from the bar they're playing in. Have a listen fo a few of my friends.

But you'd have to buy the LPs first.

Or borrow them from friends.