The Danger of the Mainstream Media

[Accountable]

I have no idea though it would be better surely coming as a decision from the people... though it's a chicken and egg thing, you'd need the mainstream media to inform them to take that decision to abolish the mainstream media... hmmm... can't see that working somehow...

Perhaps maybe legislation, limiting the amount of time each broadcaster has... splitting channels up maybe.... but then who'd trust the govt to do that and not use rules like that for their own agenda...

Ok, need help with this one, any ideas?

That was tried here once before. I'm drawing a blank on what it was called, but it required that talk shows, political opinion shows, etc give equal time, not necessarily balance but time, to both sides. The liberal media have been trying to get it reinstated because they can't get a popular talk show on radio.

When you try to force someone to give equal time to all sides, it becomes equal time to two sides only: their side and any opposing side that sounds insane by comparison. And it's equal time, not equal passion, balanced presentation, or even time of day. Thirty minutes of "our side" during prime time, thirty minutes for them at 1am.

Of course, you're not only asking the mainstream media to inform us to take that decision to abolish the mainstream media, you're asking the legislature they support to enact law to share airtime with the enemy. They'll figure out a way, if they have to, to pass a law with the right name and the right general words, but the end result will surely be something to further entrench the status quo.

No, direct competition is the way to get the right ideas in the right way to the right people. Forcing people to do things not in their own best interest will yield a result that meets the absolute minimum of the written standard, at best.

 

[edgray]

That was tried here once before. I'm drawing a blank on what it was called, but it required that talk shows, political opinion shows, etc give equal time, not necessarily balance but time, to both sides. The liberal media have been trying to get it reinstated because they can't get a popular talk show on radio.

When you try to force someone to give equal time to all sides, it becomes equal time to two sides only: their side and any opposing side that sounds insane by comparison. And it's equal time, not equal passion, balanced presentation, or even time of day. Thirty minutes of "our side" during prime time, thirty minutes for them at 1am.

Of course, you're not only asking the mainstream media to inform us to take that decision to abolish the mainstream media, you're asking the legislature they support to enact law to share airtime with the enemy. They'll figure out a way, if they have to, to pass a law with the right name and the right general words, but the end result will surely be something to further entrench the status quo.

No, direct competition is the way to get the right ideas in the right way to the right people. Forcing people to do things not in their own best interest will yield a result that meets the absolute minimum of the written standard, at best.

I see your points.

I have to be honest here I'm stuck with this: I see the need, but I can't see how it can be done.

Competition isn't helping right now though, the MSM all but ignores the very standard views of the 2 main political parties but I do see what you're saying about forcing people...

I confess I need help with this, it's a real noodle scratcher...

 

[Alien Allen]

That was tried here once before. I'm drawing a blank on what it was called, but it required that talk shows, political opinion shows, etc give equal time, not necessarily balance but time, to both sides. The liberal media have been trying to get it reinstated because they can't get a popular talk show on radio.

When you try to force someone to give equal time to all sides, it becomes equal time to two sides only: their side and any opposing side that sounds insane by comparison. And it's equal time, not equal passion, balanced presentation, or even time of day. Thirty minutes of "our side" during prime time, thirty minutes for them at 1am.

Of course, you're not only asking the mainstream media to inform us to take that decision to abolish the mainstream media, you're asking the legislature they support to enact law to share airtime with the enemy. They'll figure out a way, if they have to, to pass a law with the right name and the right general words, but the end result will surely be something to further entrench the status quo.

No, direct competition is the way to get the right ideas in the right way to the right people. Forcing people to do things not in their own best interest will yield a result that meets the absolute minimum of the written standard, at best.

Fairness Doctrine

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

 

[Alien Allen]

That was tried here once before. I'm drawing a blank on what it was called, but it required that talk shows, political opinion shows, etc give equal time, not necessarily balance but time, to both sides. The liberal media have been trying to get it reinstated because they can't get a popular talk show on radio.

When you try to force someone to give equal time to all sides, it becomes equal time to two sides only: their side and any opposing side that sounds insane by comparison. And it's equal time, not equal passion, balanced presentation, or even time of day. Thirty minutes of "our side" during prime time, thirty minutes for them at 1am.

Of course, you're not only asking the mainstream media to inform us to take that decision to abolish the mainstream media, you're asking the legislature they support to enact law to share airtime with the enemy. They'll figure out a way, if they have to, to pass a law with the right name and the right general words, but the end result will surely be something to further entrench the status quo.

No, direct competition is the way to get the right ideas in the right way to the right people. Forcing people to do things not in their own best interest will yield a result that meets the absolute minimum of the written standard, at best.

Fairness Doctrine

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

 

[Accountable]

I see your points.

I have to be honest here I'm stuck with this: I see the need, but I can't see how it can be done.

Competition isn't helping right now though, the MSM all but ignores the very standard views of the 2 main political parties but I do see what you're saying about forcing people...

I confess I need help with this, it's a real noodle scratcher...

That's the problem with today's society imo. It's been something like 60 years that the MSM has been in charge. They're part of the culture now. It's not going to get fixed 'right now.' It might not get fixed in our lifetimes, but the fight has to start right now if it's ever going to be won.

The answer seems to be in the internet. As long as we can keep gov't from taking control of it (after all, we need protection from ourselves, don't we?) then that's our way in. That's our pry bar to start dismantling this hollywood set.

 

[Accountable]

I believe there has been a lot of consolidation in media corporations. In essence this is bad, as Ed said, you have a few vs many voices controlling the conversation. NewsCorp is the prime example of how this is bad...

Why'd you pick #2? Why didn't you pick the biggest? It wouldn't be that ABC fits your ideology and Fox doesn't, would it?

 

[Minor Axis]

Why'd you pick #2? Why didn't you pick the biggest? It wouldn't be that ABC fits your ideology and Fox doesn't, would it?

Although ABC is palatable and I can't stand Fox (that IS why I mentioned it) , I still stand by the premise, more voices are what we want in a democracy, not less.

 

[Accountable]

Although ABC is palatable and I can't stand Fox (that IS why I mentioned it) , I still stand by the premise, more voices are what we want in a democracy, not less.

No doubt. :nod:

 

[edgray]

That's the problem with today's society imo. It's been something like 60 years that the MSM has been in charge. They're part of the culture now. It's not going to get fixed 'right now.' It might not get fixed in our lifetimes, but the fight has to start right now if it's ever going to be won.

The answer seems to be in the internet. As long as we can keep gov't from taking control of it (after all, we need protection from ourselves, don't we?) then that's our way in. That's our pry bar to start dismantling this hollywood set.

Totally agree, sir. But the internet is way too democratic in the eyes of our govts... it worries me when you've got people over in this thread (link) happily conceding their privacy rights for a little protection from the media's latest boogy man...

I suppose it's just a case of waiting for the internet to take over, which I'm sure it will

 

[Accountable]

Yup, but only if we protect it.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Why'd you pick #2? Why didn't you pick the biggest? It wouldn't be that ABC fits your ideology and Fox doesn't, would it?

News Corporation operates all around the world, being much larger than any of their American competitors. In Australia, they control a very large chunk of our print media. In fact, where I live (Queensland), the only choice of newspapers to read are the Courier Mail (State daily, owned by News Limited), and The Australian (National daily, also owned by News Limited). The other large print media company here is Fairfax, which dominates the Sydney and Melbourne Metro markets, their reporting is generally more accurate and news-worthy, when compared to their News Corp counterparts.

Our broadcast news industry is more diverse, though. And we always have our public broadcaster, the ABC, which is the most trustworthy news source in the country.

 

[Tangerine]

I have said on many occasions - and stand by this statement - that the most powerful person in the world is:

The Assignmnent Editor of the Associated Press.

Think about it.

 

[Meirionnydd]

I have said on many occasions - and stand by this statement - that the most powerful person in the world is:

The Assignmnent Editor of the Associated Press.

Think about it.

Considering that most news organizations are too lazy or cannot afford to post journalists around the world, and are increasingly relying on the AP to provide news services, there is some truth to that statement.

But, aren't there multiple assignment editors for the AP, depending on the region? Also, couldn't the same argument be made for other news organizations like the BBC or Reuters?

 

[Tangerine]

Considering that most news organizations are too lazy or cannot afford to post journalists around the world, and are increasingly relying on the AP to provide news services, there is some truth to that statement.

But, aren't there multiple assignment editors for the AP, depending on the region? Also, couldn't the same argument be made for other news organizations like the BBC or Reuters?

I don't think any other organization has as much global influence on what stories are being reported. Yes, BBC and Reuters are powerful as well, but have exponentially fewer followers down the line.

I'm sure there are multiple assignment desks around the globe, but there is one top-level AE who sets the tone and parameters for what is reported on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Minor Axis]

News Corporation operates all around the world, being much larger than any of their American competitors. In Australia, they control a very large chunk of our print media. In fact, where I live (Queensland), the only choice of newspapers to read are the Courier Mail (State daily, owned by News Limited), and The Australian (National daily, also owned by News Limited). The other large print media company here is Fairfax, which dominates the Sydney and Melbourne Metro markets, their reporting is generally more accurate and news-worthy, when compared to their News Corp counterparts.

Our broadcast news industry is more diverse, though. And we always have our public broadcaster, the ABC, which is the most trustworthy news source in the country.

Thank you, that's why I picked NewsCorp.

 

[Accountable]

Thank you, that's why I picked NewsCorp.

I'm pretty sure it's a different ABC, Minor.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm pretty sure it's a different ABC, Minor.

Actually I'm really torn up about Newsweek being up for sale. Another moderate source of news, possibly down the drain...

 

[Accountable]

Every large corporation should be dismantled. It would do far more good than harm.

 

[edgray]

Every large corporation should be dismantled. It would do far more good than harm.

spot on :thumbup