Capitalism, Journalism, & the Misguided Masses

[Sunshine]

For any democratic society to work, there needs to be journalism.
Journalism is what keeps the public informed on issues and conflicts, so the public can then go out and vote accordingly to fix these problems.

In American capitalistic society, journalism is a business like any other.
This means that the news is an industry, free to be owned by any business that can afford it.

Take the big 3 news networks: ABC, NBC and CBS.
We'll discount Fox, because..well..their slant has been discussed enough.

But what about these 3?
ABC is owned by Disney.
NBC is owned by General Electric.
And, worst of all, CBS is owned by Viacom.

Why does this matter?

Well, think about it. Giant corporations that own news channels probably wouldn't want their news channels bashing their products/other things they own.
General Electric is the number one military contractor, meaning they supply the world with tank engines and jet engines.
It wouldn't be in their best interest, then, to allow NBC to report world peace, or make it seem as if there were alternatives to war. It would be better for them to portray the world as a scary, war-ridden place.

Viacom owns a stupid, stupid amount of ****. MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, Sundance, Paramount, the Gap, Old Navy, over 50 music production companies, a very large number of well-read magazines, the Atlanta Braves [wtf?]...and the list just keeps going.
It wouldn't be in their best interest to allow CBS to portray any of their outlets in a negative light..that's a lot of potential news left untouched.

Advertisers also have a hand in controlling the slant of the media. If McDonald's has an ad on a news station, that station isn't going to run a story about the effects of McDonald's on one's health.

Now.
Does any of this matter?
Who are you supposed to trust?
Should something be done to stop this? Could something be done?

With these giant mega-conglomerates buying everything in sight, how long is it until one takes it all? What happens to democracy?

[griftadan]

ehh i'd say reporting negatively about the war would see them much more money then they would potentially lose out on by loosing military contracts

also the internet will free us all

[siva_chair]

ehh i'd say reporting negatively about the war would see them much more money then they would potentially lose out on by loosing military contracts

also the internet will free us all

Which some people think they do just that: Report negatively on the war for some sort of agenda.

There does seem to be an awful lot of discrepancies between what soldiers who have actually been there have to say and what the media tends to report.

[mph4ever]

web 3.0 is going to enslave users of the internet, not free them up

as for the above, thats just the way it is, you can't escape it and you can't change it

[Sunshine]

web 3.0 is going to enslave users of the internet, not free them up

as for the above, thats just the way it is, you can't escape it and you can't change it

So it's ok with you then?
If, say, Viacom goes and buys up the rest of the market, controlling everything?
Just going to sit back and watch?

[McP3000]

stop being so apocalyptic and conspiracy mongering

[1338 h4x0r]

stop being so apocalyptic and conspiracy mongering

Well, is she wrong?

If you'd seen the alternatives, you'd know that corporate-owned news is such hardcore bullshit.

[mph4ever]

So it's ok with you then?
If, say, Viacom goes and buys up the rest of the market, controlling everything?
Just going to sit back and watch?

i am the ultimate nwo iluminati conspiracy theory believer, i want it all to be true and i reckon most of it is. the only thing that works is organised direct action but all the pussies are afraid to get caught, they want to protest from behind their computers.

apathy is everywhere, and i can't see any mobilising force coming around any time soon, kids are programmed to death, nothing we can do about it, everything is corrupt. if you bring kids in to this world then you have a responsbility to educate them about how the system works and to stay off the radar, outside of that there is nothing you can do. people are good, people want the right things to happen, they just couldn't be bothered doing anything about it, so why should we?

[McP3000]

Well, is she wrong?

If you'd seen the alternatives, you'd know that corporate-owned news is such hardcore bullshit.
im talking about her thinking that one company will all of a sudden own the entire media

[jaredong]

well i wouldnt worry about it. i think theres definitely some balance of power issues. If A gets too big, smaller B/C would join up to ensure A doesnt own everything. Sure A could gobble up B/C. However, i think theres a bunch of anti-monopoly laws set to ensure that A cant own X% of the market share.

now, in terms of news, theres plently o sources. You dont *have* to only watch the big ones. And even if 1 company owns everything, doesnt mean they dont allow specific shows to dissent all the time. Simpsons makes insults at fox, family guy insults a ton of stuff. Im sure some big corporation owns comedy network yet they've got jon steward/colbert/south park on all week long.

anyways, interwebs are always good for alternative stuff.

[Smokey D]

I think it's important to point out that as a general rule countries with the most capitalised, market oriented media also have the most robust democracies.

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't think it matters who owns what.

The point of the media is to get you to watch their news regardless of who owns it. ABC, NBC and CBS do LOCAL NEWS and quite poorly in most cases. Their international reporting is a joke at best, and they do not compete with any of the international agencies who report international news.. CNN, MSNBC and FOX have 24/7 channels which compete with each other. Each have an agenda so it would seem.

Let's not confuse your local nightly news coverage with international news agencies who are on 24/7.

It doesn't matter who owns what and how that affects your stories. They all compete with each other for ratings, which allows them to sell advertising for more money.

I know you want to tie this into some ridiculous monopoly of world media, but you just can't do that with local channels reporting local news.

[<3<3<3]

I don't really think the average consumer is aware of the mass ownerships of the parent companies anyway.

I also think that they care more about attracting news viewers more than weather or not they report on something that would hurt a related company.

For example, say the Braves were involved in a mass murder of little aborigines.

CBS might think "oh snap, our parent company owns the braves! What do we do?", but ABC and NBC will think, "ooh sweet, a juicy story!". So rather than lose potential news viewers, CBS would likely go ahead and cover the story anyway.

At least thats what makes sense in my mind.

[mph4ever]

I think it's important to point out that as a general rule countries with the most capitalised, market oriented media also have the most robust democracies.

i honestly can't think of any, could you name a few?

[Smokey D]

The United States, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, most of Europe all have extensive private media institutions and they all have very robust democracies.

Which isn't to say that private media ownership generates democracy but rather that its pernicious effect is probably overstated or at least mitigatable.

[mph4ever]

oh, i would be more inclined to think that countries with extensive private media institutions would have their populations convinced that they live in a robust democracy

[Give me Beer]

I don't know Smokey, I think our democracy is pretty much a joke. If you do not follow the party lines, you will not get elected next time, because you will be given a spot that is a garanteed loss. I also notice how our media completely bans certain things from the news. Take the VB, now I hate these guys profoundly because in my mind they're nothing more than a bunch of cryptofascist, xenophobic ****s. They do however, have around 20% of the vote. They are by far the largest opposition party we have. Do you think they get coverage? Hell no. If you believed the media, they just sit on their *** all day (granted, a lot of them do,but that's no excuse because that goes for other parties as well, yet they are made out to be the great opposition voices, what a joke).

It was even worse last election for the CAP (left of the socialist party) and the PvdA (Stalinist twats) . The CAP is a new party and was running in the entire country. I think I saw them on the news about 5 minutes during the entire campaign. Dedecker on the other hand, another new party, got extensive, and I mean extensive coverage. To no surprise, the CAP got about 3% of the vote (you need at least 5% if you want to get any seat), and the Dedecker "surprised" everybody by getting more than enough votes to actually be a "new" force in politics.


At least France has some laws to ensure alternatives get aired, but for the rest of the Western World, you're screwed. That's why no 3th party candidate will ever mean **** in the USA.

Down with parliamentary democracy, proportional representation can suck me.

[griftadan]

that wasn't exactly a casual observation, there have been many research efforts done on the subject using non mass media means

[jaredong]

well objectively those countries *do* have pretty good democracies

they've got free, fair elections on a regular basis (as opposed to extensive vote rigging and corruption).

they've got a good amount of civil and political rights.

the rule of law is generally applied to everyone.

compared to lots countries, thats pretty good!

[McP3000]

oh, i would be more inclined to think that countries with extensive private media institutions would have their populations convinced that they live in a robust democracy
:lol:

your head is so filled with angsty, pseudo-eftist bullshit it could make me cry

[mph4ever]

i would rather you laughed

at least explain the error of my ways

[McP3000]

look at your avatar dude

[mph4ever]

all punks hate nazis, goes with the territory

since you're slagging it then maybe you can help

i only just changed it, i can't find any that fit properly dude. i'm not in love with it either. but concensus said that a punks not dead pin is no good around here so being the trsuting person in humanities kindness i decided to change only nothing fits. mine are a little more complicated. and animation doesn't work either. how does yours fit the size limitations or can you can special dispensation?

[Smokey D]

The point is that however deficient the democracy is in the countries I mentioned, and it certainly isn't perfect as Give Me Beer pointed out, it is of considerably better quality than than democracy (or rather, lack of) in many other places in the world. There are many countries where civil conflict prevents meaningful expression or execution of democratic practices. Likewise there are many where the government simply does not allow democracy to take place. When compared with these places, the countries I mentioned are certainly more democratic although for various reasons perhaps including private media (although to be honest I suspect not) they might not be as democratic as we would like.

[mph4ever]

look at your avatar dude

ok, i've chanaged my avatar, lets deal with the issue

explain the error of my ways