Fox to Provide News to Clear Channel 12.06.2004, 11:34 AM Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio station operator, has picked Fox News Radio to be the primary source of national news for most of its news and talk stations, officials announced Monday. The five-year agreement initially covers more than 100 radio stations. Fox will provide a five-minute top-of-the-hour newscast, a nightly news broadcast, and around-the-clock dedicated national news coverage. In return, Fox News Radio will have access to news produced by San Antonio-based Clear Channel's news network. No terms of the deal were disclosed. But Fox, a unit of News Corp., says if all options in the agreement are exercised, its radio service could have more than 500 affiliates by the middle of next year. Brick by brick...
Isn't there a conflict of interest in here somewhere? I'm pretty sure the local Air America station is run by clear channel..... ??? (columbus)
Actually, Karl, we all lose. Monolithic megacorporation-run media is only good for the megacorporation.
Was that an attempt at humor? Because I'm having a hard time seeing the connection between a news outlet that apologizes for misinformation and leads to the resignation of its anchor, to a news organization that apologizes for nothing, despite more erroneous/slanted news coverage... But then again, Fox is much like the Bush administration itself... Fvck up? Not a problem, you were a good Soger, so we'll give you a promotion.
Anyone see The Simpsons last night? Early in the show, there's a "media circus" outside City Hall as apparently Mayor Quimby knocked up 27 women. Anyway, they show Kent Brockman reporting, and in the background, the Fox News truck rolls in, blasting Queen's "We are the Champions" and the side of the truck is painted, in huge letters, "We Won! Bush/Cheney 2004".
hey man... Dan didn't apologize until a week later and only for this incident! I want an apology for every lie which Dan voiced and that, my friend, will keep Dan on his knees for weeks!
The local station that carries Dr. Laura, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, is an ABC affiliate. Is that "fair and balanced?"
That's right, let's mandate that everyone in American watch the BBC. We know they've got their government sources straight, and of course, do these compelling interviews with corporate spokesmen. Yep, that's the ticket. No "megacorporation" there!!
Is that what I said? [Hint: no.] You really are dense. A variety of independent news sources > 16 flavor variations of the same news source. But, I guess you are willing to trust a single news source accountable to no one. I'm not.
given the choice, what would you rather have - a news channel which questions the govenment (and opposition) or one that toes the party line with no objectivity at all? Seems to me you'd rather have the latter.
I don't think you will have to worry about a single news source here in the US. With as many cable news channels as we now have to compete with the Big 3 networks, in addition to C-SPAN, to say nothing of all the bloggers all over the map constantly looking to dig up the dirt on the "other guy," I would suggest that any concerns about a lack of credible news are vastly overplayed.
What liberal media? And so what if it's liberal or conservative now? When you control the media it really doesn't take much to switch from being extreme liberal to being extreme conservative. Just look at the neocons.
Political discourse in the USA has been reduced, by and large, to 'He said, She said.' The Republicans will not accept much or anything put forward by the Democrats and the Democrats eschew any ideas from either Capitol Hill or the White House. There's very little, if any bi-partisanship and that looks to be the future for quite some time. Both sides play it and both sides are guilty. Maybe the Republicans indulge in it more these days, but the Democrats were gulity of exactly the same excesses when they had their foot on the pedal. Pots and kettles and the color black. What, therefore, is all the more important is a press that is less of a cheerleader for either ideology, but is more willing to scrutinize the ideas, utterances and plans of both sides. Unfortunately that's not the case. Too often, the press has become more editorial and less factual. Support and cheerlead the ideology of your side, right or wrong, is way more important than actually examining the ideology of your side. And everyone then gets his or her information from the press source which most closely mirrors his or her own ideology. People like to believe they are right and therefore swallow those positions which confirm their own beliefs. And everyone loses. So everyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken only sees the world in those terms. And when you have big corporations controlling the news and information, they are going to put forward the spin which is best for them, for their bottom line. Honest discourse is sacrificed on this altar and any attempt at evenhandedness goes out the window. And we all lose. If the big corporations reduce themselves to media entity mirrors of the Republican and Democratic parties, then information will be sacrificed to viewpoint. So, for example, if the Bush White House decides to privatize Social Security, it is vital that this be explored from all sides. No doubt that the Republicans can almost do what they want at the moment, and in the absence of a political check and balance, the role of the press becomes even more vital. And sermonizing from the Left and the Right in the press does not check excess nor balance fairness, but contributes to an overall polarized atmosphere where everything is filtered through the prism of politically ideological compliance and adherence to political agendas. And we all lose.
I beg to differ. The Democrats and the Republicans are very alike in fact nowadays. The big picture consensus is all worked out behind the scene. Of course they'll put on their costumes and fight cracking fights on fringe issues, all for us viewers' entertainment. Jolly good people really they all are.
Actually there ARE still some very important checks in place though there are also some things out of whack. The 60 vote requirement for court appointments is a very significant check as first Clinton, and now Bush, have learned. If you can't convince 60 Senators, your guy doesn't get in. I would suggest that is the most important check currently with the activist role that many judges have chosen to take overriding the law of the land. Also see my post above. There are more news sources now, from a greater range of perspectives, than ever before. The biggest difference in media right now is that the average consumer must now surf around to a couple of different stations if they are to get their news. In the past there were only 3 and you got what you got. Now you can hear VERY different reports from the various cable stations in addition to the major networks. PLUS, you can chase down many of the bloggers. But then that may require someone to do some work on their own.
Of course you didn't, but you blanketly condemn "mega-corporations" (read: mega news corporations with a rightist slant, actually, though you never said THAT), implying that non-mega corporations are better. Well, then I turn around and give you a non-mega corporation, and one not without a few warts of its own, and you balk. Didn't mommy tell you that you can't have your cake and eat it too?? Apparently not, since you clearly didn't learn anything in the debating courses you took. Me?? Dense?? You give new meaning to the word. Go to Google, and click on the News link. Go to google and enter in Political Blogs. If you can't find enough variety to satiate your extraordinary appetite, then you're not dense; you're in the ozone.