|
Zeroisanumber posted:Huffington Post and Salon.com come to mind, though they're not nearly as influential amongst liberals. For good reason in my opinion. Liberals generally are far more versed in critical thinking and are more likely to want to throw media sources under the bus even if at first they're inclined to agree with them. I'd say liberals are more open to the idea that people saying agreeable things at a surface level can nonetheless be horribly corrupt and disingenuous. Or, to put it another way, liberals are more easily disappointed. Not that they're wrong to be disappointed by Salon or Huffington. Huffington routinely tramples on workers rights and makes a mockery of leftism while Salon shamelessly runs valid media criticism (see: David Sirota) right next to vapid Democratic cheerleading.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Why does the Fox News ...Are you suggesting that possibly the  BIAS ALERT could be biased? I've been watching this thread, and gonna vent a bit here since I'm one of those progressive socialist communazis forced to listen to Bill O'Reilly and Fox News daily. One of my roommates watches the poo poo religiously, so I have to hear it. One of the most infuriating things I continually hear is basically spinning the arguments against them against the people using them. One of O'Relly's talking points that makes me annoyed with the sheer stupidity is that the Dems vote and act on 'emotion', and the Repubs act on 'reason'. No, I didn't typo that. 'Reason' is the party of Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann, voting for Romney because black and gay people are scary, the idea that white people aren't the majority anymore is terrifying, and a twisted view of the idea of fair is rich people paying no taxes. Completely reasonable and founded on facts. Apparently flipping out about equal rights for all citizens, not wanting countless wars, trying to get numbers for tax plans that work, and not wanting people to suffer because they can't afford artificially expensive healthcare makes Lefties vote solely on emotion above all else. Actually, it does make me emotional, in a gently caress you Bill O'Reilly fashion. I do think the people that view it tend to have a 'decide first' response to the world. When a question enters the world, they make their decision, and stick with it no matter what evidence to the contrary appears. Fox News is comfort food - it feeds them reassurance that their first thought about the world, that their deepest beliefs are correct. I have had two fairly close people in my life be Fox News drones, so very small sampling size, but they both exhibit these 'decide first' traits and apply them to everything. I see this in so many ways beyond politics too. This thought-style spills into other parts of their life, and it makes it really hard to discuss ANYTHING with them, because they don't seem to function on the same logic that you do - instead of the facts determining an opinion, the opinion determines the facts. As an example of how I'm starting to think the mind of the right wing media consumer mind works, I can't really discuss VIDEO GAMES with said roommate anymore. Why? He's convinced video games have been ruined forever since Microsoft entered the hardware market and are out to make a monopoly of the industry, and harsh business practices have destroyed everything, irregardless of Sony or Nintendo using same tactics throughout their business careers. No good is allowed to be said about Microsoft, even their indisputably 'good' additions to the industry, like allowing indie companies to get exposure with the 'Indy Games' program(although I will admit there are flaws there). I'm no console warrior, but it gets frustrating when you might as well be talking in another language at times when talking to these people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Wheresmy5bucks posted:...Are you suggesting that possibly the This is actually a part of their overall strategy, one that the left has sadly accepted and reacted to. The right understands that people generally think emotionally. Thus they want to deny that ground to the left so they attack the left saying that the left has nothing but emotional appeals to which the left instead of saying "gently caress off you fascist prick" instead goes all wonky and nuanced. Also something I've definitely noticed over my life is that what ever the GOP is accusing the Democrats of doing, you can be pretty loving sure that the GOP is actually doing that thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
Heard a Hannity segment on the radio today. He had a former Obama supporter who said she was disappointed and would be voting for the Green Party. She disagreed with drones (Hannity disagreed politely.) and then talked about racial division that's simmering despite his promise to heal it. She didn't say Obama was fostering it, just that it was happening. Yes, it's Obama's loving fault that Gringrich gave speeches at the primaries about lazy black people and that one Romney supporter wore a "Put the 'White' back in the White House" shirt. How dare Obama force me to hold the sign with a picture of him as a tribal shaman! Then she used the phrase "Stalinist takeover" to describe Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:one Romney supporter wore a "Put the 'White' back in the White House" shirt. This is a nice example of how right and left are both inclined to use human-scaled, anecdotal stories of zero significance to prop up their conceptions of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:I have to force myself to get out of the Drudge / Washington Times / National Review whirlpool much like my liberal friends who I discuss politics with have to get out of the DailyKos / Washington Post / ThinkProgress circle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
Wheresmy5bucks posted:I have had two fairly close people in my life be Fox News drones, so very small sampling size, but they both exhibit these 'decide first' traits and apply them to everything. So, what, say you go to a movie together and you keep telling them the movie they want to see is going to suck, but they've already made up their mind. Then you go to see it and it sucks and they find a way to blame you both for the two of you going and for the movie sucking? Something like that? I'm really curious as to how this mentality is applied to everyday life. I imagine it must be incredibly frustrating. I think maybe I'd seen a LITTLE of that from my dad, who is a Fox drone. Having to tell him "I told you so" after every home improvement project where he couldn't see the thing for himself (he's disabled) but was still insistent about how it needed to be done. When presented first-hand with the facts of the situation, though, he has a tendency to conform his beliefs to reality. Maybe there'd be hope for people like him when it comes to economic and social issues, but they're mostly never going to see firsthand what happens to people less fortunate, or how those more fortunate may be exploiting their situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 10:49
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I'm really curious as to how this mentality is applied to everyday life. I imagine it must be incredibly frustrating. Read Yahoo! comments sometime. I think he's talking about how those types see a liberal conspiracy in everything, like how Avatar has a leftist environmental agenda or The Muppet Movie was ragging on oil companies. Also, how Michelle Obama's nutrition initiatives are some sort of government mandate on food. poo poo like that. His Microsoft example was weird though because his objection was based on them being a monopoly, when really, it seems FOX News types love that sort of stuff ("success").
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 12:20
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Read Yahoo! comments sometime. I think he's talking about how those types see a liberal conspiracy in everything, like how Avatar has a leftist environmental agenda or The Muppet Movie was ragging on oil companies. Also, how Michelle Obama's nutrition initiatives are some sort of government mandate on food. poo poo like that. Oh, I thought he meant more generally, deciding things with inadequate information, not just presuming everything to be a liberal conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Remember back at the beginning of his term when Obama was saying that Limbaugh is the unelected leader of the Republican party? And some GOP congressman denied that, but within 48 hours offered profuse apologies to Rush for any perceived disrespect? I wish the president had kept bringing that up. I didn't see any further discussion about this which is a pretty large misrepresentation of the truth. It was Michael Steele the head of the RNC at the time  edit for Fox retarded content: I was at the gym earlier in the week and was watching FOX news because I hadn't seen it in forever. They had a former chief of staff for Reagan on and he was talking about "the real" women's issues for the election. Soccer moms having to pay more gas at the pump, women of the house realizing that inflation is actually a thing when they have to pay more for groceries and moms being sick of having their kids live at home after college. Bronsonite fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Oct 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
Bronsonite posted:edit for Fox retarded content: I was at the gym earlier in the week and was watching FOX news because I hadn't seen it in forever. They had a former chief of staff for Reagan on and he was talking about "the real" women's issues for the election. Soccer moms having to pay more gas at the pump, women of the house realizing that inflation is actually a thing when they have to pay more for groceries and moms being sick of having their kids live at home after college. Maybe this is why conservative media gets so defensive when they get called out on other antiquated thoughts (subtle-racism). They get used to spewing bias, stereotypes and poo poo and don't know when they cross the line. Yet I know that If I had said that last sentence in public there would be plenty of people accuse me of being sexist and asking me why the woman has to work at home. They'd say "what the woman doesn't have to worry about gas to her JOB?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 12:57
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:This is the sort of thing I hope to do with this thread. Media matters is a good resource for staying on top of this sort of thing. For example: Fox Graphic Sets Fire To An Image Of Candy Crowley Here's the picture.  Reminds me of something...  Of course as far as the reactionary distraction engine is concerned, Media Matters (or MEEEEDIA MAAAATERS as O'Reilly invariably refers to it) is just a Soros glove puppet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I'm genuinely curious -- What examples from the "DailyKos / Washington Post / ThinkProgress circle" do you consider as misleading or false as what comes from Drudge or Fox? What did Obama say during the second debate that you feel is objectively as misleading and vacuous as the things Romney said (allowing for the fact that politicians will speak in generalities on topics they're uncomfortable with)? My point was, not that Drudge is more or less false or misleading than DailyKos. It's that reading news from only certain sources reinforces one's viewpoints. Bias isn't just a slant in the articles, it's also shown in what's being reported. For example, Drudge will almost always report on some TSA malfeasance or government waste or misdeed. Even if both examples are entirely accurate and not slanted I'll still never read about the carried interest tax credit on Drudge. I won't read about how Bush seriously relaxed the rules on non-hedge trading speculation. WaPo will carry that. MotherJones will carry a feature on prison privatization. When my friend and I discussed the debate, he and I agreed on the points scored, we just couldn't remember the specifics for the other guy's points. In my opinion, because of myside bias. Zeroisanumber posted:Huffington Post and Salon.com come to mind, though they're not nearly as influential amongst liberals. Yeah, I have to read HuffPo more often. I watched the second debate on Huffpo's streaming. Also, if I don't respond it's because I will be on my motorcycle for the weekend with no internet access. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
I'd let Huffington Post influence me more if their business practices weren't so sleazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:No, that's what makes us "the left" - valuing things like truth, honesty, sourcing, verification, confirmation and facts in news reporting. Adopting the tactics of the opposition would be a huge mistake and destroy whatever credibility we have. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless the left becomes dis-honest lying scumbags, then we deserve what we get. I think that's absurd and counter-productive on nearly ever level. I have huge issues with this, and I think it exemplifies a poisonous trend that's infected the American left. Retaining the moral high ground has become the above-all goal, and credibility comes from this false sense of superiority rather than actual results. When confronted with the right's media hegemony, the left is happy to set up a false dichotomy between their 'moral' media tactics and the tactics of the opposition, then at best adopt a milquetoast counter-strategy. It strikes me as more immoral to give implicit consent to the destructive right, by refusing to engage them on the level of the spectacle, than to adopt their rhetoric and propaganda techniques. The left has the facts on their side; we don't fix things by lying as much as the right, we just need to adopt their messaging. 'Calling out their bullshit' and being a 'little more vocal' is such a loving weak suggestion I'm literally pulling patches of my beard out. The left needs to quit playing defense, especially if they believe they've got the moral high ground. The 2012 election has shown that the right folds like a chair when challenged, even if the challenger is a center-right neoliberal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Why does the Fox News Because Fox is a propaganda arm of the Republican party that people take seriously as news for some reason. It should be taken less seriously than Russia Today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Read Yahoo! comments sometime. I think he's talking about how those types see a liberal conspiracy in everything, like how Avatar has a leftist environmental agenda or The Muppet Movie was ragging on oil companies. Also, how Michelle Obama's nutrition initiatives are some sort of government mandate on food. poo poo like that. It's basically making a snap judgment and assuming that snap judgment is right no matter what the evidence says. It doesn't matter if it's self-contradictory. IE: The Dems primarying Lieberman in 2006 was a massive betrayal of the party, but the Tea Party doing the same to Dick Luger and countless other Repubs is democracy and something that needs to be done. The Movie Example would be, seeing the poster and deciding the movie is awesome/awful right there, actually seeing said movie, then holding onto that opinion regardless if the movie is Citizen Kane or Gigli. I really think the Microsoft thing is a console warrior thing taken too far(The Wii has ruined gaming forever too, just not as much as M$). Yes, it is incredibly frustrating. Back in 2006, Stephen Colbert ran his show off the idea of the word 'Truthiness' - it seems true to me, so it must be, against all logic or evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Media Matters was actually started by David Brock, a guy who spent the 90's on the wingnut welfare train before deciding that everybody he knew was a scumbag. He wrote books poo poo-talking Hillary Clinton and Anita Hill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Skex posted:Also something I've definitely noticed over my life is that what ever the GOP is accusing the Democrats of doing, you can be pretty loving sure that the GOP is actually doing that thing. It's 'Attack their Strength' loud and proud.  Obama has no Agenda! What about Agenda 21!?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
McDowell posted:It's 'Attack their Strength' loud and proud. I also think its a preemptive false equivalency strike. GOP "The Dems do X" DEMs "GOP does too" Media "he said, she said" 3rd party "They're just the same vote for us" I am getting sick and tired of this whole "Obama has no agenda" nonsense the media keeps giving a pass to. Of course he's got an loving agenda we've seen it for 4 years in action and it's actually loving working. Plus the remaining parts of the jobs bill plus what ever other positive investments he can get through congress. But I digress. On the main topic from the Presidential Election Thread Right lying about Vilerat's Mom They really know no shame. As many have expressed and I have in others. Vile's mom gets a pass as does pretty much any grieving parent, but the way the right is handling the Benghazi attacks borders on the line of treason in my eyes. There are plenty of legitimate reasons that mixed signals have been sent from the Administration regarding the Libya attacks. I still halfway suspect that they're running a Canary trap with it. But even if we go with the most mundane explanation it's pretty much just that it takes time for information to filter through large bureaucracies and the Administration doesn't want to give her details because they're still trying to get a full handle on the situation. I think it's probably a mistake for the Administration to have not provided some sort of feedback but given the number of things on their plate it's kind of understandable. There is nothing they can do to change what happened in Benghazi so the priority is and should be on what went wrong and if there is or even should be anything that could be done to prevent a repeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Wheresmy5bucks posted:
Just wait a few minutes for O'Reilly to have one of his trademark  momments. Then point out to your room mate how "emotional" O'Reilly's arguement is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
joedevola posted:Of course as far as the reactionary distraction engine is concerned, Media Matters (or MEEEEDIA MAAAATERS as O'Reilly invariably refers to it) is just a Soros glove puppet. Which is hilarious considering the site's most prolific writer/copy-paster is a right-wing hack named Noah Rothman. edit: oops I got sites that begin with media mixed up 
Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Oct 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:Yeah, I have to read HuffPo more often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I'd let Huffington Post influence me more if their business practices weren't so sleazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
McDowell posted:It's 'Attack their Strength' loud and proud. Is that the one where he has all the Jedi killed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Which is hilarious considering the site's most prolific writer/copy-paster is a right-wing hack named Noah Rothman. Haha I knew that name sounded familiar. Worked with him briefly and he's what I imagine a young Reince Preibus was like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It doesn't help that the nonsense memes and celebrity stuff seems to be increasing its presence on their homepage more and more. It's funny how one of the most long-lived right-wing talking points about the left has been the left's alleged moral relativism. If the left actually had that to the extent that the right does, perhaps we'd be better at uniting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:It's funny how one of the most long-lived right-wing talking points about the left has been the left's alleged moral relativism. It's my experience that most people use "moral relativism" to mean "disagrees with me".
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
I didn't see it in the thread, but I think its important to mention Clear Channel. They're a large media/advertising company who, through various subsidiaries controls a lot of the right wing programming. I didn't know this, but they were bought out by Bain a few years ago. I'm curious as to how conservative-minded the owners of that company are, and I'm sure that plays a part in the large disparity b/w progressive and conservative media. I might do an effort post on them in a day or so, if I've got time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
They loving destroyed commercial radio in general. They're big into billboards, and many of their billboards are illegal. (They ought to all be loving illegal, like in Alaska...one of the few things I miss about that place.) A couple more points to cover about them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
In the 1990s the law that limited the number of radio stations one company could own was repealed, which led to companies like Clear Channel buying most of them and filling them with right-wing nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:In the 1990s the law that limited the number of radio stations one company could own was repealed, which led to companies like Clear Channel buying most of them and filling them with right-wing nonsense. Right wing nonsense AND homogenized, anaesthetized music radio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:They loving destroyed commercial radio in general. They're big into billboards, and many of their billboards are illegal. This is why Clear Channel has always been a difficult name for me to wrap my head around when it's mentioned in the context of radio. I can't think of them as anything other than the company that owns almost every billboard in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
Minghawk posted:This is why Clear Channel has always been a difficult name for me to wrap my head around when it's mentioned in the context of radio. I can't think of them as anything other than the company that owns almost every billboard in the UK. They own most of them in the US, too! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Those are all excellent points. I knew about their billboards and all the lawsuits stemming from them (sup, ex-Alaska Goon! I'm in Fairbanks), but I didn't realize they were prominent in the UK. I should have figured as much. Most of my work focuses on the distribution of goods and services, and I see the distribution of information being a key factor in what influences our political culture. It's not that there isn't a market or an audience for progressive media, it's that the progressives do not control any means of distribution. And media covers a lot of territory such as radio, television, and advertising. It's good business for any multimedia company be involved in as many aspects as you can, such as Clear Channel. Between that ruling Flamingliberal mentioned as well as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, it became much easier for the moneyed elite to control the flow of information. And now that I've got a back injury and will be incapacitated for awhile, I'll be able to make an effort post detailing the company and its tactics. Or goto TCC and do a trip report on some wicked painkillers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Because Fox is a propaganda arm of the Republican party that people take seriously as news for some reason. It should be taken less seriously than Russia Today. RT seems to have some interesting content though at least, and i don't find it that biased.. if you 'unskew' (can't think of a better word) the obvious pro-Russia opinions or little digs at certain groups in what they choose to report on then i think it's good, although i've only been watching for a short time. Fox is just straight up powering nonsense into your face all day and being dishonest about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:In the 1990s the law that limited the number of radio stations one company could own was repealed, which led to companies like Clear Channel buying most of them and filling them with right-wing nonsense. Clear Channel is a piece of work. Thanks to Bain and friends they've gone from a company worth 8 billion to being 16+ billion in the hole by doing things like extracting "management fees" or forcing the Outdoor billboard division, which is a cash cow, to send billions to Clear Channel proper forcing them to borrow cash for operating expenses. Best guess is they only have a few more years to live thanks to a 14 billionish loan payment coming due unless they can find a Comcast like company to swoop in and buy them out if the cant refinance. The Mays family that built Clear Channel were old school Texas republicans but these days the company is far more concerned with running things cheaply vs. pushing ideology. They may syndicate Rush, Beck, and Hannity but that's just part of their operation, they also produce shows from Randi Rhodes, Jesse Jackson(!), Leo Laporte, and my personal favorite....The Jesus Christ Show. It's all about cheap content for their 800 stations to put on instead of live human beings. To give you an idea of how they work, sometime in 2008 they decided to eliminate over 1800 jobs, but waited until innauguration day 2009 to pull the trigger on all of them in hopes the news would be drowned out. More rumors are out there saying another 1000 or so employees are dead men walking and Bain is waiting until after the election to avoid any potential blowback for Romney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:They loving destroyed commercial radio in general. They are in the process of destroying where I work - the station was purchased in August by Clear Channel for $40 million (while at the same time they are trying to renegotiate loan payments....that alone should signal to the FCC that they don't have the money to run the station right). They purchased us to make sure that Premiere syndicated programs have a place in market #1, and to keep all the revenue to themselves (why share the local avails with anyone else when you can keep that to yourself). The only thing that makes me think that I'll keep my job is that I record/produce/edit paid programming, and that can't be automated from Cleveland like most other things. Deregulation once again is to blame - Reagan (and Clinton with the Telecommunications Act of 1996) gutted the FCC ownership cap rules, along with many of the other regulations (Fairness Doctrine) that made sure stations served the local community along with the public interest. So what we are left with is Wall Street run amok - Clear Channel has over 800 stations, a boatload of debt, ad revenues in the toilets, and as a result they are running things on the cheap - stations that used to be live & local are now run mostly on syndicated programming (Beck from 9 to Noon, Limbaugh from Noon to 3, Hannity from 3 to 6, etc) with the music stations taking feeds from "Premium Choice" where the major market talent tracks shows that are sent to local stations automation computers over the company intranet. CC's founders (Mays Brothers) have a political right wing bent, but now it's just about the bottom line and serving Wall Street. This Salon article (old, but the corporate culture is still the same) spells it out nicely http://www.salon.com/2001/04/30/clear_channel/ I hate what Clear Channel has done to radio - but unless the FCC suddenly gets religion and starts re-regulating, nothing will get better. This is why outlets like NPR are so important to make sure that there is more than Hannity and Limbaugh on the dial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
Bronsonite posted:I didn't see any further discussion about this which is a pretty large misrepresentation of the truth. Soap Bat Derby posted:That was Michael Steele and he said Rush was just an entertainer. Then he had to come back a few days later and apologize for not saying what he meant, And claimed that Rush was one of the great leaders of the party. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:The Mays family that built Clear Channel were old school Texas republicans but these days the company is far more concerned with running things cheaply vs. pushing ideology. While I agree that they'd rather run things cheaply, I think that's because it has become much easier for them to push their ideology. That conservative mentality is doing great on its own and doesn't need much more help in spreading, although that's not to say Clear Channel is just sitting on the sidelines. They lobby for further deregulation/privatization of the airwaves, they've supported SOPA and PIPA, extended the Bush tax cuts, and helped ruin the USPS. And this has just been in the last few years alone. The Mays' personal donations go to the likes of Romney and Perry. The majority of the PAC spending has gone to Repubs this year, but 2008-2010 they gave more to the dems. You ask me, they're hedging their bets by sticking with establishment republicans and democrats. Before all of that was able to occur, a lot of our laws regarding media had to change. This is especially true in the 90s, because as we all know that's when Al Gore created the internet. So in 1996 the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed and signed into law. The idea was to foster competition by deregulation, and allow companies to emerge in the dot com era. What it actually did was give the large media companies a chance to become media empires. The large national companies bought out the smaller, local broadcasting stations in order to save money with syndicated shows that had a national appeal. This also cut costs by nixing local programming, or at least cutting it down to just local news. Another piece of legislation that played an important role in shaping our media culture is the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC used this to ensure that opposing views on controversial topics would get equal airtime by broadcasters. While technically violating first amendment rights, its intention was to force broadcasters to inform the public on both sides of an issue, instead of just hearing what the broadcaster wants to say about it. For example, I couldn't just say abortion is evil, I'd have to allot time for someone who said abortion is okay. It is much more cost effective to have one person speaking on one side of the issue than having two people with opposing views. This law was gutted in 1987 which paved the way for the right wing rhetoric we see today. So now you have media companies that can say whatever they want, and are able to use a variety of platforms from which to get your attention. This is when and how Clear Channel put itself on the national stage. In addition to buying out local affiliates and replacing their programming with syndicated shows such as Limbaugh and Friends, they were acquiring the outdoor advertising companies such as ABC and Universal Outdoor. Then in 2001 they purchased a conglomerate of billboard companies owned by GE and renamed it to Clear Channel Outdoor. So if you are listening to some am talk radio on your way to work and being bombarded by outdoor advertisements you are not only hearing what clear channel has to say, but you are looking at what they want you to see. As been said before, a lot of these right wing commentators were radio hosts before, and are most likely doing their current gigs solely for the money. I think due to the ability for companies like Clear Channel and Fox to control the streams of information, we are hearing what the heads of those companies think. Unfortunately, forcing them to speak honestly or to have a critical discussion violates their god given rights to be dipshits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 23:10
|
|