We've been watching Solar power mature since the first Energy Crisis.
It's time has come.
All the hoopla, legislating and hype about ethanol, hydrogen and nuclear needs to be shown to the door. Solar is poised to take off, and hopefully, in the coming decades, we can transform our infrastructure to an environmentally friendlier one.
What will be really interesting in the coming months is how the Solar FUDers will respond to this and the other advances in Solar tech that are coming on line. Apparently there is a large percentage of Americans who still think of Solar technology in 1970's terms...
The precedents set in the last seven years won't go away. There will be no "class of '74/Watergate Babies" that will come in and even attempt to to be cleaning house. Anyone who thinks that when the next president gets elected they will voluntarily give up those powers is definitely no student of history. Democrats want those over reaching powers just as much as Republicans do. They are biding their time, and when Hillary gets elected, she will use those powers how she deems fit. And what will be the ultimate hillarity (pun/sp intended) is when The Right will bitch and moan to high heaven about how "our rights are being trampled on", etc;, etc;,
People seem to forget the outrage at Clinton/Reno during the 90's. The Right was drenched in conspiracy theories of how Clinton would "put people in camps if they prayed at school", etc;.
Interesting how the shoe is on the other foot, except now, The Right got exactly what they decried in the 90's...
The rest of us will be living it up in our new (or retrofitted) environmentally friendly, off-the-grid homes. We'll be driving electric cars, and loving every minute of it. Technology is a wonderful thing, eh?
Yes, I was waiting for the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman in the film and was sorely disappointed. Whats worse are the Jackson apologists who rationalize all these plot changes and additions... You sum it up perfectly with the phrase arbitrary changes.
It's one thing to slightly change a plot or have one character use another's dialog, but adding plot changes is a whole other matter. The Two Towers had the worst of this problem.
1. Faramir takes Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath. This was utter and complete bullshit. Beyond the fucking pale as far as I'm concerned.
2. Aragorn falling off the cliff while fighting the Warg's. Yes, I'm afraid this is more utter bullshit. What is this, a Saturday morning kids show?
3. Last but certainly not least was when Frodo tells Sam to leave and go home while they are on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol.
This problem would appear to be hampering the economic development of rural areas, specifically in regard to things like call centers or other "warm body" like enterprises that korporate America could take advantage of. The cost of doing business in rural areas would be significantly lower than in metro areas, especially where wages are concerned. Commute times and quality of life would factor in also. Why aren't our rural areas leveraged for their labor?
You would think that rural economic development entities would be trying to encourage broadband...
Perhaps states and counties could encourage broadband expansion into rural areas via incentives.
I remember when they passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and there was all this talk from Congress and the media about this sort of thing. The legislation was supposed to "free us" and let us choose from a wide array of competitive content providers, which would lower prices and generate higher quality content, etc;... What happened? Pricing goes up, while the competition goes down.
How many cable providers are there really? It's the same with Direct TV, et al.
Wattenberg has as much of an agenda as anyone else. He comes from the American Enterprise Institute, remember...? Sure, Europe and Japan's populations will decline, but the rest of the world, including the U.S., will continue to rise. Resources for the increasing population will be strained to the breaking point, especially with Climate Change in the mix.
You're using Rove-esque reasoning, similar to the Bush administrations policy on climate change.
Why should we do anything if (insert country here) isn't doing anything
The U.S. should set an example of honor and dignity, not disgrace and vindictiveness.
Not only was he an incredibly insightful author, as in the "emperor has no clothes" school (Ed Abbey, Hunter Thompson, et al), but he was funny as FUCK!
I can't remember which book it is, but there is one part where a rabid dog is coming at the character in the book (I think it's himself he's writing about) and he says something to the effect of, "he was so scared, that his testicles retracted up into his body like the landing gear on an aircraft". I was on the bus when I read that, and I laughed out loud, with everyone on the bus looking at me!
The company I work for decided a few years ago to move many users to a Citrix environment. In a laboratory, a pc's footprint can be too large, and the software and security maintenance of many individual pc's is cumbersome. Users access the shared desktop via HP thin clients, which itself has been secured. The Citrix desktop is locked down via Group Policy and some Citrix policies. All web traffic is directed to a secured web proxy, so that angle is secure and monitored also.
Most of the time it works great, but there are some issues. Firefox running on Citrix sometimes gets confused, actually quite often. It can crash. Other apps can crash and bring the whole server down, or requiring a reboot, which isn't fun when there are 50-75 people logged on. Some apps work fine in a multi-user environment, while others don't.
I think the first time I ever saw how ridiculous packaging was, was either a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 media kit my dad bought at Costco. The cardboard box that contained the install cd, EULA, manual, etc;, was encased in a thick plastic "bubble" that was extremely difficult to open. We used a serrated knife and scissors and it took us about 10 minutes, because we were trying not to damage the cardboard box with the cd in it.
It's not just consumer electronics and such that are overwrought with packaging. Many packaged foods are also very difficult to access. I remember when you could get into breakfast cereal just using your hands. Now you needs scissors to get into most packaged foods. Some are very difficult, and it's also possible to wreck the food or product you're trying to get to because of the packaging.
The worst packaging is for computer accessories and such. The thickness and strength of the plastic used is absolutely ridiculous. It's obvious no consumer pre-market testing ever takes place. I've seen this develop in the past 20 years and it's gotten completely out of control. I wonder how it is for the elderly and disabled to get into many household goods and such.
I've also wondered about why it has come to pass. I understand the need for keeping food fresh and products safe from damage, but I feel the current packaging "paradigm" is way out of control and needs to be reigned in.
Some other interesting things to ponder is that all this packaging is made from plastic, derived from oil, and will end up in a landfill, and take quite a few years to decompose. So in effect you have an extremely inefficient use of resources and energy to protect products and food that is also very detrimental to the environment.
"They were discussed"
You discussed nothing, you simply dismissed all the links I posted including the Columbia Journalism Review link. What about the interview with Ted Turner. I guess the opinion of a media entrepreneur of his caliber doesn't merit any respect from you, eh? I'm glad you know more about the "myth" of media consolidation than someone like him, or say Bill Moyers. But there it is again, those darned links. You have brought nothing to the table except your "world is flat" dismissals.
"Looking at the definition of "consolidation", this would appear to fall short. As does the ludicrous idea of Clear Channel "consolidating" control by only having 8% of stations."
When you consider that Clear Channel used to own a paltry 41 before the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and has now ballooned to over 1200 stations. That is media consolidation whether you want to admit it or not. The only thing ludicrous is your pseudo-libertarian ideology that all regulation must disappear. Like communism, libertarianism is a fantasy in the real world.
"Clear Channel owns a majority of the stations in the US".
Sure, its easy to point to Clear Channel, as they are the biggest, but there are several others who have gobbled up television and radio stations and newspapers in markets all across the U.S. By focusing on one company you miss the point of the general trend. The trend since 1996 has been cosolidation because the FCC relaxed the rules on how many media outlets a particular company could own. This is fact.
"Ted Turner's CNN is one of the examples that proves the myth of media consolidation wrong. 30 years ago, it did not exist. It was a new voice that sprang up from nowhere. In Turner's realm, a small sort of media proliferation has occured instead of a consolidation."
Apparently you didn't RTFA. Turners position is that with the consolidation he has seen since his early days at WTCG, there is very little possibility of someone like him now doing what he did then. This is because it is too easy for large corporations to leverage their buying power now and purchase more and more. From TFA:
When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace. They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV. They wanted independent producers to thrive. They wanted more people to be able to own TV stations. They believed in the value of competition.
"However, unlike you I recognize the fact that this is a subjective matter, not for the government to decide. Thankfully, the First Amendment does not distinguish between someone's idea of "good" journalism and "bad" journalism."
Actually, unlike me you can't stay on topic. The debate here is whether or not media consolidation is happening or not. More vacuous rhetoric about the First Amendment will get you nowhere. This is all about whether the FCC will allow competition to be stifled due to more and more media outlets (television stations, radio stations, newspapers) to be owned and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of corporations.
As I'm sure you're aware, the Dixie Chicks(sp?) made a comment about the president back in 2003 while on tour in London. Even though they are still around and touring, this comment cost them dearly, and they later found out that radio DJ's were fired because they played their music. They were blacklisted by corporate media. Get it? There was a corporate mandate "from on high" that dictated that none of the stations would play thier music after their comment. They also found out that corporate execs (Cox?) admitted this, and that all the other country stations would "fall in line". That is the kin
"My mind is made up because of the facts."
Well then, lets see some of your data to backup that statement. As I've stated earlier, I've included links, that you glibly avoid discussing, to support my point. You simply make a statement as if it's a fact without proof. Here is another link to support the fact of media consolidation. Lets look at what media consolidation is, it is when more and more media outlets, whether they are television, radio, newspaper, etc;, are owned and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of corporations. If you had been paying attention for the last ten years, you would already have known this. Obviously your too busy playing WOW or watching Survivor... I don't know which is worse.Here is an article by Ted Turner where he discusses the folly and danger of media consolidation, terming it a "Loss of democratic debate". Remember when you said media consolidation had nothing to do with Democracy?
"they'll tell you what you want to hear"? That's merely media being responsive to the public interest.
I disagree strongly. "Responsive to the public interest."? Give me a break. Good journalism is supposed to make people question and think, not blindly accept as the dittohead's do. Also, the vast majority of talk radio is spouting this type of right wing jingoistic krap (theres that word again), and guess who owns the stations that play them? Thats right, Clear Channel, Cox, and the rest of the consolidaters. The only real place to find voices of dissent or questioning is on public or "free" radio, those stations not controlled by corporations.
"and I probably watch "Democracy Now" (something that would not exist if "media concentration" claims were true) more than Fox News."
I find that hard to believe, because if you did watch or listen to Democracy Now then you wouldn't have the "world is flat" opinion about media consolidation that you have. Check this link for details. I dare you.
"The studies get "tilted" into meaninglessness when those who make the claim that there is media concentration basically fake their case by not counting most of the media voices. So EASY to make a case that there are too few voices when you arbitrarily toss out most of the voices from being counted."
Thats a good one. You are using that methodology now. As I stated earlier, you are taking the tack that the Bush administration takes when a scientific study comes up they disagree with. They simply dismiss it because they don't like how the data came out. Thats what you are doing here. The internet is full of examples and proof of this. The fact that you argue the point makes me think that you're either:
A) A corporate shill getting paid to post this krap on/.
OR
B) Someone too scared of the truth to research anything, knowing they won't like what they find.
Which is it?
Also, what specifically do you mean by "voices"? Being vague and rhetorical are the weapons of politicians, why don't you run for office?
"rather than clobbering those who dare to be too popular."
As in this entire debate, your arguments go nowhere. What does this mean, "those who dare to be too popular"? If you're referring to the FCC clobbering someone, it sure isn't clobbering the media corporations, who have been treated very well by Michael Powell and have been allowed to purchase more and more media outlets.
"They intentionally cook or tilt their "studies", doing things like only counting popular voices, etc."
Well then you could say that about anything you disagree with. In the U.S. it's popular to take pride in the fact that we landed men on the Moon. Could that be cooked or tilted studies? Your argument is the one used by the Bush administration when it doesn't agree with a particular scientific study.
"I understand exactly what it is. That is why I know it is not happening."
It sounds like your mind is made up, regardless of the facts. Thats ok, keep watching Fox and listening to O'Reilly. They'll tell you what you want to hear. The interesting thing is that many conservative groups have aligned themselves with groups on the left in opposing media consolidation. Thats because they know it affects everyone, especially those with less funds, lobbyists and lawyers to push their agenda.
"How do the "pamphleteers" of today get hindered in any way?"
My comment about Thomas Paine was in reference to your comment that media has nothing to do with Democracy. I would completely disagree with that sentiment. Media, and the dissemination of information plays an incredibly important role in our Democracy.
"Not until we have a President who could actually pronounce "Optimus Prime."
Hey, we agree on something!
"I can see now that you failed to look past this mocking reference and see that I meant expansion of Internet access and "backbone.""
If I had made that gaffe I would have expected the same response. I appreciate that you've come clean with your Corporatist values
"wanting legislation to stop) "the press" from "controlling and shaping" its own editorical content"
I never said I wanted legislation to stop the press from "editorical(sp) content" That is your bizarre interpretation of what I said. What I want (at least I know) is for the FCC to do their job and regulate the media conglomerates. You know, the way they used to before Congress was bought off in 1996. Nevermind, I'm sure you weren't paying attention then, as you aren't now.
"However, by objective measures (the counting of independent voices owned by different "publishers", it is not happening at all."
What objective voices are you referring to? I have supplied many links to analyses of media consolidation, and I could supply more. I think your problem is you don't even understand what media consolidation is, let alone if it's happening.
"2) This matter has nothing to do with democracy."
Wow, I almost want to think your baiting me with this one. But if you are being sarcastic, you're hiding too well, so I assume your serious. Theres a country called North Korea you would feel really at home at. How do you think the fomenters of dissent during the American Revolution got their message across? It wasn't telepathy. It was media, like Thomas Paines 'Common Sense' pamphlet.
"Zod of government and give up their Constitional right to "control and shape" (your words) their own publications."
Nice, pulling a DC Comics analogy to debate media consolidation. Whats next, Optimus Prime for president?
"encourage the creation of additional tubes in the Internets"
I see you and Ted Stevens are good friends. Can we have Chutes and Ladders too?
"Don't censor the existing ones. Instead, make it easier for new voices to enter."
Media consolidation is a form or censorship, by allowing control of media content to a smaller and smaller group of people.
Your missing the point. When more and more media is controlled by a smaller amount of corporations, the content of the media, regardless of the 1st amendment, can be controlled and shaped as per the editorial decisions of the corporation. The fact that I even have to explain something so obvious speaks volumes of your ignorance of this topic. So what you're saying is it's okay with you that media consolidation continue, even though all manner of unbiased academic studies indicate it's bad for American democracy in a variety of ways.
Why don't you count how many radio stations are now owned by the same large corporation across the US? There used to be tighter restrictions on how many radio and television stations a single company could own, as well as how many newspapers a company could own in a single market. Do your research before you spout such krap.
WTF does an increased number of "national news TV outlets" have do with the who controls the content of media. Take a journalism class sometime nitwit. The point is, media consolidation is bad not only for smaller markets, but the general reliability of news and information from the media. Also, the percentage of people getting their news from television shrinks every year. This is media were talking about, in all its forms.
As an example:
Study Shows FCC Media Ownership Rule Changes Would Harm Local Florida Communities
It always fascinates me when people spout such utter krap.
I mean, do you ever read anything besides Linux Journal? Please, do yourself a favor and research topics before you post.
Where you're going with this statement:
"more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago". What do you mean by "television media". Can you be any more vague?
If you had been paying attention to media in the last ten years, notably the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Media Ownership Rules changes of 2003, you would see that the content, the substance of what is being delivered is governed and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of people. Do you understand this? If not, please don't waste our time with your trivial bullshit.
A few years ago Michael Powell had a study commissioned on the effects of local news coverage by large media consolidation. The study, done by the FCC came back with results indicating that large media consolidation had a detrimental effect on local and small market media. What did the FCC, and your good buddy Michael Powell do?
Slashdot Mirror
We've been watching Solar power mature since the first Energy Crisis.
It's time has come.
All the hoopla, legislating and hype about ethanol, hydrogen and nuclear needs to be shown to the door. Solar is poised to take off, and hopefully, in the coming decades, we can transform our infrastructure to an environmentally friendlier one.
What will be really interesting in the coming months is how the Solar FUDers will respond to this and the other advances in Solar tech that are coming on line. Apparently there is a large percentage of Americans who still think of Solar technology in 1970's terms...
My friend, you're right on the money.
The precedents set in the last seven years won't go away. There will be no "class of '74/Watergate Babies" that will come in and even attempt to to be cleaning house. Anyone who thinks that when the next president gets elected they will voluntarily give up those powers is definitely no student of history. Democrats want those over reaching powers just as much as Republicans do. They are biding their time, and when Hillary gets elected, she will use those powers how she deems fit. And what will be the ultimate hillarity (pun/sp intended) is when The Right will bitch and moan to high heaven about how "our rights are being trampled on", etc;, etc;,
People seem to forget the outrage at Clinton/Reno during the 90's. The Right was drenched in conspiracy theories of how Clinton would "put people in camps if they prayed at school", etc;.
Interesting how the shoe is on the other foot, except now, The Right got exactly what they decried in the 90's...
Only goons like you will be living in mud huts.
The rest of us will be living it up in our new (or retrofitted) environmentally friendly, off-the-grid homes. We'll be driving electric cars, and loving every minute of it. Technology is a wonderful thing, eh?
Yes, I was waiting for the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman in the film and was sorely disappointed. Whats worse are the Jackson apologists who rationalize all these plot changes and additions... You sum it up perfectly with the phrase arbitrary changes.
In regard to the difference between the Tolkien and Jackson version of the Entmoot and their decision to go to war (or lack thereof), read this:
http://bourgeoisburglars.blogspot.com/2007/05/another-difference-between-tolkiens-and.html
It's one thing to slightly change a plot or have one character use another's dialog, but adding plot changes is a whole other matter. The Two Towers had the worst of this problem.
1. Faramir takes Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath. This was utter and complete bullshit. Beyond the fucking pale as far as I'm concerned.
2. Aragorn falling off the cliff while fighting the Warg's. Yes, I'm afraid this is more utter bullshit. What is this, a Saturday morning kids show?
3. Last but certainly not least was when Frodo tells Sam to leave and go home while they are on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol.
This problem would appear to be hampering the economic development of rural areas, specifically in regard to things like call centers or other "warm body" like enterprises that korporate America could take advantage of. The cost of doing business in rural areas would be significantly lower than in metro areas, especially where wages are concerned. Commute times and quality of life would factor in also. Why aren't our rural areas leveraged for their labor?
You would think that rural economic development entities would be trying to encourage broadband...
Perhaps states and counties could encourage broadband expansion into rural areas via incentives.
I remember when they passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and there was all this talk from Congress and the media about this sort of thing. The legislation was supposed to "free us" and let us choose from a wide array of competitive content providers, which would lower prices and generate higher quality content, etc;... What happened? Pricing goes up, while the competition goes down.
How many cable providers are there really? It's the same with Direct TV, et al.
Wattenberg has as much of an agenda as anyone else. He comes from the American Enterprise Institute, remember...? Sure, Europe and Japan's populations will decline, but the rest of the world, including the U.S., will continue to rise. Resources for the increasing population will be strained to the breaking point, especially with Climate Change in the mix.
How will the U.S. respond? Well, the Pentago is already looking into it.
You're using Rove-esque reasoning, similar to the Bush administrations policy on climate change.
Why should we do anything if (insert country here) isn't doing anything
The U.S. should set an example of honor and dignity, not disgrace and vindictiveness.
Not only was he an incredibly insightful author, as in the "emperor has no clothes" school (Ed Abbey, Hunter Thompson, et al), but he was funny as FUCK!
I can't remember which book it is, but there is one part where a rabid dog is coming at the character in the book (I think it's himself he's writing about) and he says something to the effect of, "he was so scared, that his testicles retracted up into his body like the landing gear on an aircraft". I was on the bus when I read that, and I laughed out loud, with everyone on the bus looking at me!
Hey, Diebold did their job and delivered Ohio.
Mission Accomplished.
The company I work for decided a few years ago to move many users to a Citrix environment. In a laboratory, a pc's footprint can be too large, and the software and security maintenance of many individual pc's is cumbersome. Users access the shared desktop via HP thin clients, which itself has been secured. The Citrix desktop is locked down via Group Policy and some Citrix policies. All web traffic is directed to a secured web proxy, so that angle is secure and monitored also. Most of the time it works great, but there are some issues. Firefox running on Citrix sometimes gets confused, actually quite often. It can crash. Other apps can crash and bring the whole server down, or requiring a reboot, which isn't fun when there are 50-75 people logged on. Some apps work fine in a multi-user environment, while others don't.
I think the first time I ever saw how ridiculous packaging was, was either a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 media kit my dad bought at Costco. The cardboard box that contained the install cd, EULA, manual, etc;, was encased in a thick plastic "bubble" that was extremely difficult to open. We used a serrated knife and scissors and it took us about 10 minutes, because we were trying not to damage the cardboard box with the cd in it.
It's not just consumer electronics and such that are overwrought with packaging. Many packaged foods are also very difficult to access. I remember when you could get into breakfast cereal just using your hands. Now you needs scissors to get into most packaged foods. Some are very difficult, and it's also possible to wreck the food or product you're trying to get to because of the packaging.
The worst packaging is for computer accessories and such. The thickness and strength of the plastic used is absolutely ridiculous. It's obvious no consumer pre-market testing ever takes place. I've seen this develop in the past 20 years and it's gotten completely out of control. I wonder how it is for the elderly and disabled to get into many household goods and such.
I've also wondered about why it has come to pass. I understand the need for keeping food fresh and products safe from damage, but I feel the current packaging "paradigm" is way out of control and needs to be reigned in.
Some other interesting things to ponder is that all this packaging is made from plastic, derived from oil, and will end up in a landfill, and take quite a few years to decompose. So in effect you have an extremely inefficient use of resources and energy to protect products and food that is also very detrimental to the environment.
"They were discussed"
You discussed nothing, you simply dismissed all the links I posted including the Columbia Journalism Review link. What about the interview with Ted Turner. I guess the opinion of a media entrepreneur of his caliber doesn't merit any respect from you, eh? I'm glad you know more about the "myth" of media consolidation than someone like him, or say Bill Moyers. But there it is again, those darned links. You have brought nothing to the table except your "world is flat" dismissals.
"Looking at the definition of "consolidation", this would appear to fall short. As does the ludicrous idea of Clear Channel "consolidating" control by only having 8% of stations."
When you consider that Clear Channel used to own a paltry 41 before the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and has now ballooned to over 1200 stations. That is media consolidation whether you want to admit it or not. The only thing ludicrous is your pseudo-libertarian ideology that all regulation must disappear. Like communism, libertarianism is a fantasy in the real world.
"Clear Channel owns a majority of the stations in the US". Sure, its easy to point to Clear Channel, as they are the biggest, but there are several others who have gobbled up television and radio stations and newspapers in markets all across the U.S. By focusing on one company you miss the point of the general trend. The trend since 1996 has been cosolidation because the FCC relaxed the rules on how many media outlets a particular company could own. This is fact.
"Ted Turner's CNN is one of the examples that proves the myth of media consolidation wrong. 30 years ago, it did not exist. It was a new voice that sprang up from nowhere. In Turner's realm, a small sort of media proliferation has occured instead of a consolidation."
Apparently you didn't RTFA. Turners position is that with the consolidation he has seen since his early days at WTCG, there is very little possibility of someone like him now doing what he did then. This is because it is too easy for large corporations to leverage their buying power now and purchase more and more. From TFA:
When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace. They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV. They wanted independent producers to thrive. They wanted more people to be able to own TV stations. They believed in the value of competition.
"However, unlike you I recognize the fact that this is a subjective matter, not for the government to decide. Thankfully, the First Amendment does not distinguish between someone's idea of "good" journalism and "bad" journalism."
Actually, unlike me you can't stay on topic. The debate here is whether or not media consolidation is happening or not. More vacuous rhetoric about the First Amendment will get you nowhere. This is all about whether the FCC will allow competition to be stifled due to more and more media outlets (television stations, radio stations, newspapers) to be owned and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of corporations.
As I'm sure you're aware, the Dixie Chicks(sp?) made a comment about the president back in 2003 while on tour in London. Even though they are still around and touring, this comment cost them dearly, and they later found out that radio DJ's were fired because they played their music. They were blacklisted by corporate media. Get it? There was a corporate mandate "from on high" that dictated that none of the stations would play thier music after their comment. They also found out that corporate execs (Cox?) admitted this, and that all the other country stations would "fall in line". That is the kin
"My mind is made up because of the facts."
/.
Well then, lets see some of your data to backup that statement. As I've stated earlier, I've included links, that you glibly avoid discussing, to support my point. You simply make a statement as if it's a fact without proof. Here is another link to support the fact of media consolidation. Lets look at what media consolidation is, it is when more and more media outlets, whether they are television, radio, newspaper, etc;, are owned and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of corporations. If you had been paying attention for the last ten years, you would already have known this. Obviously your too busy playing WOW or watching Survivor... I don't know which is worse. Here is an article by Ted Turner where he discusses the folly and danger of media consolidation, terming it a "Loss of democratic debate". Remember when you said media consolidation had nothing to do with Democracy?
"they'll tell you what you want to hear"? That's merely media being responsive to the public interest.
I disagree strongly. "Responsive to the public interest."? Give me a break. Good journalism is supposed to make people question and think, not blindly accept as the dittohead's do. Also, the vast majority of talk radio is spouting this type of right wing jingoistic krap (theres that word again), and guess who owns the stations that play them? Thats right, Clear Channel, Cox, and the rest of the consolidaters. The only real place to find voices of dissent or questioning is on public or "free" radio, those stations not controlled by corporations.
"and I probably watch "Democracy Now" (something that would not exist if "media concentration" claims were true) more than Fox News."
I find that hard to believe, because if you did watch or listen to Democracy Now then you wouldn't have the "world is flat" opinion about media consolidation that you have. Check this link for details. I dare you.
"The studies get "tilted" into meaninglessness when those who make the claim that there is media concentration basically fake their case by not counting most of the media voices. So EASY to make a case that there are too few voices when you arbitrarily toss out most of the voices from being counted."
Thats a good one. You are using that methodology now. As I stated earlier, you are taking the tack that the Bush administration takes when a scientific study comes up they disagree with. They simply dismiss it because they don't like how the data came out. Thats what you are doing here. The internet is full of examples and proof of this. The fact that you argue the point makes me think that you're either:
A) A corporate shill getting paid to post this krap on
OR
B) Someone too scared of the truth to research anything, knowing they won't like what they find.
Which is it?
Also, what specifically do you mean by "voices"? Being vague and rhetorical are the weapons of politicians, why don't you run for office?
"The ability to purchase media outlets is part of freedom of the press, not a favor to be granted by the FCC."
The Freedom of the press has nothing to do with creating media monopolies. When a single company owns more media outlets in a given market it gains unfair advantage. You may have trouble understanding this concept... Perhaps you should read up on American history, particulary the beginning of the 20th century during Theodore Roosevelts period. Do you know what a VNR is? That is essentially "fake news" that PR firms create to push a specific point of view of product. These VNR's are then played on local news stations and the average viewer assumes they are "real news" pieces by real journalist
"rather than clobbering those who dare to be too popular."
As in this entire debate, your arguments go nowhere. What does this mean, "those who dare to be too popular"? If you're referring to the FCC clobbering someone, it sure isn't clobbering the media corporations, who have been treated very well by Michael Powell and have been allowed to purchase more and more media outlets.
"They intentionally cook or tilt their "studies", doing things like only counting popular voices, etc."
Well then you could say that about anything you disagree with. In the U.S. it's popular to take pride in the fact that we landed men on the Moon. Could that be cooked or tilted studies? Your argument is the one used by the Bush administration when it doesn't agree with a particular scientific study.
"I understand exactly what it is. That is why I know it is not happening."
It sounds like your mind is made up, regardless of the facts. Thats ok, keep watching Fox and listening to O'Reilly. They'll tell you what you want to hear. The interesting thing is that many conservative groups have aligned themselves with groups on the left in opposing media consolidation. Thats because they know it affects everyone, especially those with less funds, lobbyists and lawyers to push their agenda.
"How do the "pamphleteers" of today get hindered in any way?" My comment about Thomas Paine was in reference to your comment that media has nothing to do with Democracy. I would completely disagree with that sentiment. Media, and the dissemination of information plays an incredibly important role in our Democracy.
"Not until we have a President who could actually pronounce "Optimus Prime."
Hey, we agree on something!
"I can see now that you failed to look past this mocking reference and see that I meant expansion of Internet access and "backbone.""
If I had made that gaffe I would have expected the same response. I appreciate that you've come clean with your Corporatist values
"wanting legislation to stop) "the press" from "controlling and shaping" its own editorical content"
I never said I wanted legislation to stop the press from "editorical(sp) content" That is your bizarre interpretation of what I said. What I want (at least I know) is for the FCC to do their job and regulate the media conglomerates. You know, the way they used to before Congress was bought off in 1996. Nevermind, I'm sure you weren't paying attention then, as you aren't now.
"However, by objective measures (the counting of independent voices owned by different "publishers", it is not happening at all."
What objective voices are you referring to? I have supplied many links to analyses of media consolidation, and I could supply more. I think your problem is you don't even understand what media consolidation is, let alone if it's happening.
"1) Show me one single unbiased study on this"
I guess you didn't hear the one about the FCC doing it's own study, and not liking what they found, so they destroyed it...
"The report commissioned under Michael Powell turned out to undermine his argument that consolidation has no ill effects on local news, and he ordered "every last piece" of the study destroyed."
"2) This matter has nothing to do with democracy."
Wow, I almost want to think your baiting me with this one. But if you are being sarcastic, you're hiding too well, so I assume your serious. Theres a country called North Korea you would feel really at home at. How do you think the fomenters of dissent during the American Revolution got their message across? It wasn't telepathy. It was media, like Thomas Paines 'Common Sense' pamphlet.
"Zod of government and give up their Constitional right to "control and shape" (your words) their own publications."
Nice, pulling a DC Comics analogy to debate media consolidation. Whats next, Optimus Prime for president?
"encourage the creation of additional tubes in the Internets"
I see you and Ted Stevens are good friends. Can we have Chutes and Ladders too?
"Don't censor the existing ones. Instead, make it easier for new voices to enter."
Media consolidation is a form or censorship, by allowing control of media content to a smaller and smaller group of people.
Your missing the point. When more and more media is controlled by a smaller amount of corporations, the content of the media, regardless of the 1st amendment, can be controlled and shaped as per the editorial decisions of the corporation. The fact that I even have to explain something so obvious speaks volumes of your ignorance of this topic. So what you're saying is it's okay with you that media consolidation continue, even though all manner of unbiased academic studies indicate it's bad for American democracy in a variety of ways.
I see you wear your brown shirt proudly.
"For media in all its forms, the idea of consolidation is a joke."
With a statement like that I can assume you are also against Net Neutrality.
Why don't you count how many radio stations are now owned by the same large corporation across the US? There used to be tighter restrictions on how many radio and television stations a single company could own, as well as how many newspapers a company could own in a single market. Do your research before you spout such krap.
WTF does an increased number of "national news TV outlets" have do with the who controls the content of media. Take a journalism class sometime nitwit. The point is, media consolidation is bad not only for smaller markets, but the general reliability of news and information from the media. Also, the percentage of people getting their news from television shrinks every year. This is media were talking about, in all its forms. As an example: Study Shows FCC Media Ownership Rule Changes Would Harm Local Florida Communities
It always fascinates me when people spout such utter krap.
I mean, do you ever read anything besides Linux Journal? Please, do yourself a favor and research topics before you post.
Where you're going with this statement:
"more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago". What do you mean by "television media". Can you be any more vague?
If you had been paying attention to media in the last ten years, notably the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Media Ownership Rules changes of 2003, you would see that the content, the substance of what is being delivered is governed and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of people. Do you understand this? If not, please don't waste our time with your trivial bullshit.
A few years ago Michael Powell had a study commissioned on the effects of local news coverage by large media consolidation. The study, done by the FCC came back with results indicating that large media consolidation had a detrimental effect on local and small market media. What did the FCC, and your good buddy Michael Powell do?
destroy all copies of a draft study that suggested greater concentration of media ownership would hurt local TV news coverage
To say we live in Orwellian times is not hyperbole!
"his mind is not for rent, to god or government"
Should be:
No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Lyrics by Neil Peart and Pye DuBois
we will find out.