If you're going to claim to be a news outlet, you are automatically subject to a "theoretical mandate of neutrality." That's what news is, anything not neutral is supposed to be relegated to the Op-Ed page or equivalent thereof. And, if you paid any attention to some of Murdoch's programming - "fair and balanced" - he does claim to be under such a mandate. Yet he isn't.
I made no value judgments about whether Murdoch is right to be so one-sided, I am simply pointing out that Murdoch doesn't have any more power than his customers give to him. Yes, he claims neutrality but does not practice it. But if you remember, there was no such thing as "conservative" media before Murdoch. There were a few talk shows and The National Review, but beyond that all of the major networks and newspapers were at best moderate. Conservatives felt as though they had no voice, and as such there was a clear niche in the market that Murdoch readily exploited it. If FOX was to be more neutral, people wouldn't go for it. They'd either go find some other outlet that tells them what they want to hear, or go for a more professional news organization like the BBC. (The Simpsons aren't that funny anymore so I don't think they can carry the network.)
He (and most other news corporations) violate the public trust of the media by giving them what they want, rather than what they need.
So who decides what it is people "need"? The pre-Hearst papers used to claim that role. Editors would go on and on about what people should be thinking and publish story after story proving themselves right. While Hearst did not exactly elevate the public discourse, (most of his stories were sensationalism pure and simple), he changed the dynamic and made people realize that they could expect their news to be a reflection of what was on their mind, not what was on the mind of the editor. This resulted in an explosion of small papers that catered to specific audiences and attitudes.
Pulitzer and Hearst are not viewed by the public as "good examples" of business; just because they caused a paradigm shift doesn't mean they were right.
You're missing the point. The paradigm shift was due to the fact that people did think it was a good thing. You're confusing people's opinion of Bill O'Reilly and Jerry Springer with their opinion of demographically driven news. What is Slashdot but an outlet designed to appeal to the interests and perspective of a particular group of people. We come here because we know that the content will reflect something we're interested in. We don't come here to be preached to by a blow-hard editor. People turn to FOX for a similar reason. They want to know what is going on with the fight to stop gay marriage or the struggle to keep people behind the war. NY Times readers want to read about those things from a different angle, and PBS watchers from yet another angle. What goes on in the world is reported by all of them. It's all about how it's spun. And you can't make people believe what they don't want to.
I do think certain news organizations should take on the role of "national educators", but that has always been an awkward one for private outlets - due mainly to the risk they take that no one will actually listen. And now that the number of outlets has risen exponentially, there are only a few that can hope to survive with such a high and mighty title (Frontline, Nova, The News Hour, 60 Minutes, to name a few). Beyond that, thoughtful people will investigate the world for themselves (Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, etc.).
Murdoch wields no real political power because he's preaching to the choir. He certainly inflames those who share his opinion, but that is not the same thing as wielding power. The definition of "power" is the ability to make someone do something they wouldn't normally do. No one is going to watch Bill O'Reilly and suddenly feel compelled to change their beliefs. O'Reilly is a chee
I agree that one person having so much influence over so many without being an "elected official" is a problem regardless of that person's ideological leanings. But I disagree about the nature of Murdoch's influence.
His publications are not successful because people read them and say, "I don't agree with any of this". They read them and are comforted that other people "out there" hold the same opinion. It doesn't matter if that opinion holds any water, it only matters that people think that way. So, in effect, his publications are a pretty good reflection of people's political leanings. And in that way those publications are also a reflection of the democratic process. Sales=Votes
If we were talking about PBS or the BBC, it would be different, because those outlets are defined by their (theoretical) mandate of neutrality. So if the president of the BBC's news division was dictating the way in which stories were covered, I'd cry foul along with you. But FOX is supported solely by the whims of the market, and has no obligation to give people anything but what they want.
One must remember that the "modern era" of journalism began when W.R. Hearst, someone Murdoch is often compared to, made obsolete the old system in which papers published "what we ought to know" and by printing "what we want to know". Fox is an almost perfect example of this change.
I wonder if they are given a bit too much credit for "jumping" and "escaping". Isn't it more likely that they simply developed these jaws for the hunting, and never really had to control the accidental discharges that send them flying into the air? I suppose if there were some way to see them actually escaping from something, then it would make sense. Nothing in the article about that though.
Without a tremendous initial investment in the recording, marketing and distribution of their material, (and in many cases the purchasing of actual material for a performer to perform), many of the artists would never have made ANY money in the biz. The Backstreet Boys were a completely manufactured enterprise - essentailly a product - who made their money as salaried employees. And when an artist who actually writes their own material makes the CHOICE to trade the rights to that material in exchange for the financial backing of a big corporation, they should not expect to receive any more than a deal with the devil will give them.
Artists like Pavement and Fugazi, to name a couple, were never vaulted to the top of the charts by a marketing blitz at the mall, but they actually own their own material and do well enough to be professional musicians - i.e., they do nothing more than play music for a living. Perhaps DMX should have considered such a plan before he signed up to be a slave of the record industry.
One thing to notice is that there are *NO ADS*! So for at least a few weeks, (one would assume that if google leaked the cookie code that unlocks the beta version, it is not far from being implemented), you can view all your search results sans advertisements.
How long would it take for the RIAA and other such institutions to start (openly) using vigilante tactics to go after those who are stealing from them, (according to the written law, if not according to common sense). The only thing stopping them at the moment is the fact that they would be committing a crime to stop a crime.
Make that anger and frustration work for you. Put together a legal posse and ride down to your congressman's office to demand changes to the existing copyright laws.
The American legislative process has been hijacked by lobbyists young Bobby. Go get Zeke, Hoss and Jesse and together we'll get it back. I'll meet you in Washington with some beans and wiskey in two days time...
The future of the cellphone as the primary means of mobile communications is in doubt anyway, as more and more cities are moving towards a "utility" model for their citizenry's broadband access, (i.e., public wireless service), and WiMax seems to offer a solution to the 100ft range of a base station. I recently switched to VoIP myself, and I would have no problem purchasing an all-in-one device that would allow me to use VoIP services via wireless, as well as access my media, (music, video, images, etc), via online streaming services and a more or less direct connection to my personal media server - you know, the thing in the basement that will be running everyone's home in the not to distant future...
With such a platform, these devices could easily be offered with different configurations, (e.g., a greyscale LCD rather than a full color, a smaller flash drive for devices used mainly for phone and streaming rahter than portability, etc.). And unlike the chaos created by each cellphone service providers creating proprietary protocols, the TCP/IP protocol is the a tried and true no-brainer choice for these new devices. (Though I can see the OS battles moving to these "portable laptops" very soon.)
The more I think about it, they sound more and more like the PCs of the future: compact, powerful, mobile, and wired. The only thing one would need is a simple "docking station" with keyboard, mouse and full sized LCD.
The biggest problem I can see would be theft, and if the reports of increased iPod theivery are any indication, this will be a REALLY big problem...
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to claim to be a news outlet, you are automatically subject to a "theoretical mandate of neutrality." That's what news is, anything not neutral is supposed to be relegated to the Op-Ed page or equivalent thereof. And, if you paid any attention to some of Murdoch's programming - "fair and balanced" - he does claim to be under such a mandate. Yet he isn't.
I made no value judgments about whether Murdoch is right to be so one-sided, I am simply pointing out that Murdoch doesn't have any more power than his customers give to him. Yes, he claims neutrality but does not practice it. But if you remember, there was no such thing as "conservative" media before Murdoch. There were a few talk shows and The National Review, but beyond that all of the major networks and newspapers were at best moderate. Conservatives felt as though they had no voice, and as such there was a clear niche in the market that Murdoch readily exploited it. If FOX was to be more neutral, people wouldn't go for it. They'd either go find some other outlet that tells them what they want to hear, or go for a more professional news organization like the BBC. (The Simpsons aren't that funny anymore so I don't think they can carry the network.)
He (and most other news corporations) violate the public trust of the media by giving them what they want, rather than what they need.
So who decides what it is people "need"? The pre-Hearst papers used to claim that role. Editors would go on and on about what people should be thinking and publish story after story proving themselves right. While Hearst did not exactly elevate the public discourse, (most of his stories were sensationalism pure and simple), he changed the dynamic and made people realize that they could expect their news to be a reflection of what was on their mind, not what was on the mind of the editor. This resulted in an explosion of small papers that catered to specific audiences and attitudes.
Pulitzer and Hearst are not viewed by the public as "good examples" of business; just because they caused a paradigm shift doesn't mean they were right.
You're missing the point. The paradigm shift was due to the fact that people did think it was a good thing. You're confusing people's opinion of Bill O'Reilly and Jerry Springer with their opinion of demographically driven news. What is Slashdot but an outlet designed to appeal to the interests and perspective of a particular group of people. We come here because we know that the content will reflect something we're interested in. We don't come here to be preached to by a blow-hard editor. People turn to FOX for a similar reason. They want to know what is going on with the fight to stop gay marriage or the struggle to keep people behind the war. NY Times readers want to read about those things from a different angle, and PBS watchers from yet another angle. What goes on in the world is reported by all of them. It's all about how it's spun. And you can't make people believe what they don't want to.
I do think certain news organizations should take on the role of "national educators", but that has always been an awkward one for private outlets - due mainly to the risk they take that no one will actually listen. And now that the number of outlets has risen exponentially, there are only a few that can hope to survive with such a high and mighty title (Frontline, Nova, The News Hour, 60 Minutes, to name a few). Beyond that, thoughtful people will investigate the world for themselves (Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, etc.).
Murdoch wields no real political power because he's preaching to the choir. He certainly inflames those who share his opinion, but that is not the same thing as wielding power. The definition of "power" is the ability to make someone do something they wouldn't normally do. No one is going to watch Bill O'Reilly and suddenly feel compelled to change their beliefs. O'Reilly is a chee
I agree that one person having so much influence over so many without being an "elected official" is a problem regardless of that person's ideological leanings. But I disagree about the nature of Murdoch's influence. His publications are not successful because people read them and say, "I don't agree with any of this". They read them and are comforted that other people "out there" hold the same opinion. It doesn't matter if that opinion holds any water, it only matters that people think that way. So, in effect, his publications are a pretty good reflection of people's political leanings. And in that way those publications are also a reflection of the democratic process. Sales=Votes If we were talking about PBS or the BBC, it would be different, because those outlets are defined by their (theoretical) mandate of neutrality. So if the president of the BBC's news division was dictating the way in which stories were covered, I'd cry foul along with you. But FOX is supported solely by the whims of the market, and has no obligation to give people anything but what they want. One must remember that the "modern era" of journalism began when W.R. Hearst, someone Murdoch is often compared to, made obsolete the old system in which papers published "what we ought to know" and by printing "what we want to know". Fox is an almost perfect example of this change.
...for the Bob Loblaw Law Blog
I wonder if they are given a bit too much credit for "jumping" and "escaping". Isn't it more likely that they simply developed these jaws for the hunting, and never really had to control the accidental discharges that send them flying into the air? I suppose if there were some way to see them actually escaping from something, then it would make sense. Nothing in the article about that though.
Without a tremendous initial investment in the recording, marketing and distribution of their material, (and in many cases the purchasing of actual material for a performer to perform), many of the artists would never have made ANY money in the biz. The Backstreet Boys were a completely manufactured enterprise - essentailly a product - who made their money as salaried employees. And when an artist who actually writes their own material makes the CHOICE to trade the rights to that material in exchange for the financial backing of a big corporation, they should not expect to receive any more than a deal with the devil will give them. Artists like Pavement and Fugazi, to name a couple, were never vaulted to the top of the charts by a marketing blitz at the mall, but they actually own their own material and do well enough to be professional musicians - i.e., they do nothing more than play music for a living. Perhaps DMX should have considered such a plan before he signed up to be a slave of the record industry.
One thing to notice is that there are *NO ADS*! So for at least a few weeks, (one would assume that if google leaked the cookie code that unlocks the beta version, it is not far from being implemented), you can view all your search results sans advertisements.
How long would it take for the RIAA and other such institutions to start (openly) using vigilante tactics to go after those who are stealing from them, (according to the written law, if not according to common sense). The only thing stopping them at the moment is the fact that they would be committing a crime to stop a crime.
Make that anger and frustration work for you. Put together a legal posse and ride down to your congressman's office to demand changes to the existing copyright laws.
The American legislative process has been hijacked by lobbyists young Bobby. Go get Zeke, Hoss and Jesse and together we'll get it back. I'll meet you in Washington with some beans and wiskey in two days time...
The future of the cellphone as the primary means of mobile communications is in doubt anyway, as more and more cities are moving towards a "utility" model for their citizenry's broadband access, (i.e., public wireless service), and WiMax seems to offer a solution to the 100ft range of a base station. I recently switched to VoIP myself, and I would have no problem purchasing an all-in-one device that would allow me to use VoIP services via wireless, as well as access my media, (music, video, images, etc), via online streaming services and a more or less direct connection to my personal media server - you know, the thing in the basement that will be running everyone's home in the not to distant future... With such a platform, these devices could easily be offered with different configurations, (e.g., a greyscale LCD rather than a full color, a smaller flash drive for devices used mainly for phone and streaming rahter than portability, etc.). And unlike the chaos created by each cellphone service providers creating proprietary protocols, the TCP/IP protocol is the a tried and true no-brainer choice for these new devices. (Though I can see the OS battles moving to these "portable laptops" very soon.) The more I think about it, they sound more and more like the PCs of the future: compact, powerful, mobile, and wired. The only thing one would need is a simple "docking station" with keyboard, mouse and full sized LCD. The biggest problem I can see would be theft, and if the reports of increased iPod theivery are any indication, this will be a REALLY big problem...