Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-31-2006, 08:31 AM   #61
Against Miik!
Registered User
 
Against Miik!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Athens
Posts: 19,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tway
anybody who didn't value economic stability over attractiveness would have to be pretty damn stupid anyway
Not really. I say anybody who feels the other way around is stupid.
Against Miik! is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 08:47 AM   #62
DBoons Ghost
Banned
 
DBoons Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 19,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danish
What are your thoughts on the media today?
The media is a business as much as any other. They are in the business of making their marks, increasing their ratings, and making you want to watch them day after day after day.

Keep that in mind at all times.

I don't know what hijack you guys are talking about now though..
DBoons Ghost is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 10:11 AM   #63
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by YDload
Danish, I am really surprised that you are not familiar with Marshall McLuhan. Not only is he a famous Canadian intellectual (much like yourself ), but he coined the phrase "The medium is the message." I'm sure you've got lots to say on this topic besides just starting the thread, and you'll probably find plenty of info from McLuhan's works and his followers (like Neil Postman).
I'm not familiar with that Marshall McLuhan. I'm in the midst of a paper on this topic, so you're right, I do have a lot to say on the topic other than just starting the thread. I'm just too busy writing to put together a good post. I also didn't want to use the thread as a pulpit, as they say.

So far, the person I agree with the most in this thread is... Dboon. Media corporations are just that - corporations. They are in the business of making money, not growing a healthy democratic society (which is what the media ought to do).

So, I'd like to pose another question (it's a bit of a trick question):

What do media companies sell?
Danish is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 10:14 AM   #64
Chrysostom
Palace player
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 7,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by YDload
Not only is he a famous Canadian intellectual.
Oxymoron anyone? I kid I kid.
Chrysostom is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 10:14 AM   #65
-1up!-
Hypermodern
 
-1up!-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 2,069
They sell excitement, shock images, material susceptible to make us react strongly. Media companies sell entertainment, voyeurism?

edit: responding to Danish

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom
Oxymoron anyone? I kid I kid.

Last edited by -1up!-; 05-31-2006 at 10:18 AM.
-1up!- is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 10:16 AM   #66
Chrysostom
Palace player
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 7,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by -1up!-
I said I was kidding.
Chrysostom is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 11:23 AM   #67
Reaganista
ill be ur dog
 
Reaganista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: come to u when u call me
Posts: 29,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleDagger
Whoa who said I was having kids? :O
then why would you get married?

Quote:
Originally Posted by i am miik
Not really. I say anybody who feels the other way around is stupid.
well we all know that you yourself are in fact stupid, so your opinion is useless except in serving to reinforce my point.

Quote:
What do media companies sell?
they either sell programming or access to programming

Last edited by Reaganista; 05-31-2006 at 11:25 AM.
Reaganista is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 11:24 AM   #68
SubtleDagger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tway
then why would you get married?
Who said I was getting married? >_>
 
Old 05-31-2006, 11:27 AM   #69
Reaganista
ill be ur dog
 
Reaganista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: come to u when u call me
Posts: 29,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleDagger
Who said I was getting married? >_>
then why would you interject your opinion into a disscussion about marriage?

if you want a **** buddy you should value looks, if you want a friend with benefits you should value personality, if you want a spouse you should value money.

but that's not to imply that you shouldn't put any weight on other factors.
Reaganista is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 11:31 AM   #70
SubtleDagger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Marriage isn't necessarily a definite outcome for any of my relationships, though all of my relationships will be mainly built off of how we relate personally, so in essence if I ever do get married then yes, I'll base getting married off of that.

Of course, I don't consider it being "friends with benefits". In my opinion, if you are actually best friends with a partner who you find exceptionally attractive, that's when that dirty word "love" comes into the picture.
 
Old 05-31-2006, 12:01 PM   #71
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
If you want to talk about marriage, start a new thread.
Danish is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 12:40 PM   #72
Iskandar
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 21,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danish
What do media companies sell?
Nomially, information; but whether it's useful, relevant information or trite bilge depends on the paper.

One could also argue that they sell opinions on information, though; and that's where it gets interesting.
Iskandar is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 12:51 PM   #73
nowhesingsnowhesobs
__
 
nowhesingsnowhesobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
They are in the business of making money, not growing a healthy democratic society (which is what the media ought to do).
How exactly can the media promote the growth of a healthy democratic society?
nowhesingsnowhesobs is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 01:21 PM   #74
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowhesingsnowhesobs
How exactly can the media promote the growth of a healthy democratic society?
I'm so glad you asked!

Fundamentally, the most important element of a democratic society is freedom of information. In order to be politically engaged, one must have access to information about the world outside of their immediate surroundings. Likewise, interaction with others and discussion about issues promote political activity. A wide, open discourse is absolutely necessary for a healthy democracy.

There is this concept in democratic political theory called "the town square." It harks back to the days of Ancient Athens, when citizens would gather in the public marketplace to debate and discuss the issues of the day. Every democratic society in history has had their public squares (ie. the Bostonian Town Hall, etc.). In a country like Canada, with 30 million people spread across a vast landmass, such a national public meeting place can only be achieved through broadcasting (the same is true in the US). This is only compounded by the expansion of globalization and international affairs, where events taking place on the other side of the world definately involve us.

A free and open media can and must be that town square. In Canada, this is (arguably) fulfilled by the CBC; in Britain, the BBC. As the only window to the outside world, the media is crucial to our understanding of our society.

I'm sure this will be of no suprise to any of you, but I think the media in Western society fails dismally to fulfill this role. Instead, a privately-owned media that is utterly dependent on advertising revenue presents a worldview that doesn't democratize, but narrows the discourse and presents an ideology favourable to maintain present power structures.

Last edited by Danish; 05-31-2006 at 01:24 PM.
Danish is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 01:36 PM   #75
DBoons Ghost
Banned
 
DBoons Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 19,561
The moons must be aligned with Venus, and the skies are now falling, because I totally agree with Danish on all points of Western Media.
DBoons Ghost is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 01:40 PM   #76
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBoon's Ghost
The moons must be aligned with Venus, and the skies are now falling, because I totally agree with Danish on all points of Western Media.
I've always thought we're pretty close on issues, I just get the feeling that you're way more cynical than I am.

I'm going to post more about the media, but I have to get this paper done! Why do papers have to be so looong?!
Danish is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 02:02 PM   #77
DBoons Ghost
Banned
 
DBoons Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 19,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danish
I've always thought we're pretty close on issues, I just get the feeling that you're way more cynical than I am.

I'm going to post more about the media, but I have to get this paper done! Why do papers have to be so looong?!

Me? Cynical? Nooooo way!

It aint my fault. It's that Woody Allen NYC thing.

You know what they say.. there's NYC, California, and all those useless states in between.

Besides, I'm bitter for all those years I fought the good fight and lost, and now I've succumbed and adapted.. and you can too! It makes me feel better about myself in the end..
DBoons Ghost is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 03:06 PM   #78
nowhesingsnowhesobs
__
 
nowhesingsnowhesobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
A free and open media can and must be that town square. In Canada, this is (arguably) fulfilled by the CBC; in Britain, the BBC.
I'm still a little uncertain what shape this media 'town square' would ideally take. What about the BBC do you think of as positive?
nowhesingsnowhesobs is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 03:53 PM   #79
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowhesingsnowhesobs
I'm still a little uncertain what shape this media 'town square' would ideally take. What about the BBC do you think of as positive?
I don't really know a lot about the BBC, so I can't comment about it directly. I do know, however, that the CBC was built on the British model (BBC).

The CBC, as a public broadcaster, is able to serve the needs of Canadians regardless of profitability. For instance, where it would be highly unprofitable to put a TV or radio station in a remote town of 500 in the Yukon, the CBC can because they have institutional principles and responsibilities that don't include the bottom line.

However, things are getting harder and harder for the CBC. Over the past 16 years, their budget has been slashed significantly and they now rely on advertising revenue for 1/3 of their budget, seriously compromising their ability to focus on their principles.

I suppose PBS/NPR in the US has had a similar experience, though the corporate media there is much much more power. I would like to note, though, that Canada has perhaps the worst media ownership concentration in the industrialized world.
Danish is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 07:31 PM   #80
-1up!-
Hypermodern
 
-1up!-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 2,069
I concur. In Quebec a lot of medias are concentrated under Power Corporation and Quebecor Media. In the last few years, also, I've been hearing about Astral Media and Corus (Corus is from Alberta, Astral is based in Montreal)
-1up!- is offline  
Old 05-31-2006, 08:03 PM   #81
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quebecor is one of the big 5, along with Bell, CanWest Global, Rogers, and Torstar(I think).
Danish is offline  
 


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 AM.