![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I Wanna Like Him, But He Does Scare Me...
Dec. 2nd, 2003 11:36 amEvery time I see something that endears me to Dean, he follows it up with something that freaks me out.
For example:
As a radio guy, I yearn to see the Clear Channels, Cumuluses, and the like separated from some of their stations. I just don't like the fact that one company can own 3+ stations in one market. Let alone 3+ stations in practically every market in the US. It stifles competition...and John Smith would tell us that lack of competition is bad. However, Dean seems more interested in the actual content supplied by the corporate media companies than the marketplace mechanism that caused this consolidation of the media market. While on a Draconian hyperbole a "corporate voice" is a bad thing, I don't think that people are being any more hood-winked by the media than we have ever been. The history of yellow journalism and the nation's previous dependence of news from only 3 TV networks for example. That most cities now only have 1 paper is another related issue but not one I'll address now (despite the merging of newspapers and broadcast media).
IMO, the govt (namely the FCC) should pay very little attention to content. Let the local market be the deciding factor on content. The govt should merely be making certain that the local interest is of the highest priority of the media in a market. I agree that if elected president that I would replace Mike Powell. He's spineless and often seems naive about the industry he is regulating. However, I will never vote for someone to be president that would "appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one." There is no need for formatic affirmative action in the media. After all, what exactly is he saying? Is he trying to say that opinions were more diverse before Fox News? Or does he want each station/network to have diverse opinions? Viewers have determined (via ratings) that they want their news presented by Fox News rather than how CNN and MSNBC do it. Are you going to deprive these people of their choice of news because you chose otherwise? I am constantly disgusted that "liberals" are hypocritical about free speech issues. The speech that needs to be most protected is the kind with which you disagree.
( Dixie Chicks & Rallys for America )
As you might be able to see from the 2 examples I've given, CC didn't coordinate and distribute orders to do these things. BUT, their massive size makes any sort of industry trends appear to be of their design.
Okay, enough on my radio rambling which I doubt that anyone that reads this will actually care about. :)
For example:
As a radio guy, I yearn to see the Clear Channels, Cumuluses, and the like separated from some of their stations. I just don't like the fact that one company can own 3+ stations in one market. Let alone 3+ stations in practically every market in the US. It stifles competition...and John Smith would tell us that lack of competition is bad. However, Dean seems more interested in the actual content supplied by the corporate media companies than the marketplace mechanism that caused this consolidation of the media market. While on a Draconian hyperbole a "corporate voice" is a bad thing, I don't think that people are being any more hood-winked by the media than we have ever been. The history of yellow journalism and the nation's previous dependence of news from only 3 TV networks for example. That most cities now only have 1 paper is another related issue but not one I'll address now (despite the merging of newspapers and broadcast media).
IMO, the govt (namely the FCC) should pay very little attention to content. Let the local market be the deciding factor on content. The govt should merely be making certain that the local interest is of the highest priority of the media in a market. I agree that if elected president that I would replace Mike Powell. He's spineless and often seems naive about the industry he is regulating. However, I will never vote for someone to be president that would "appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one." There is no need for formatic affirmative action in the media. After all, what exactly is he saying? Is he trying to say that opinions were more diverse before Fox News? Or does he want each station/network to have diverse opinions? Viewers have determined (via ratings) that they want their news presented by Fox News rather than how CNN and MSNBC do it. Are you going to deprive these people of their choice of news because you chose otherwise? I am constantly disgusted that "liberals" are hypocritical about free speech issues. The speech that needs to be most protected is the kind with which you disagree.
( Dixie Chicks & Rallys for America )
As you might be able to see from the 2 examples I've given, CC didn't coordinate and distribute orders to do these things. BUT, their massive size makes any sort of industry trends appear to be of their design.
Okay, enough on my radio rambling which I doubt that anyone that reads this will actually care about. :)
