Boy, this one wins the "Have you stopped beating your wife??" BigSoccer prize for the week. And that's saying something, since so many around here indulge in this kind of jejune, sophomoric, and supercilious rhetorical ploy. Here's what I want: I want a news outlet that gives me the facts with precision and clarit, and gives me analysis/context and, in their editorial voices, arguments that reflect reality and sound positions as closely as possible. I am not interested in muckraking for muckraking's sake; wonder if Dan Rather and the BBC understand why I feel that way. You think they do??
By the way, did you say the same thing to Fooshino, who threw the first high hard one in this particular thread?? Oh, that's right, you didn't, because you're only interested in hypocrisy when you accuse someone else of it.
OK, so I'm still not sure how the BBC relates in the least to a discussion about the essential (from a news provider POV) consolidation of two media giants. And they are giants. Since you seem to have an issue with the term "corporation", I'll try something equivalent in meaning, but using a different word... "Actually, Karl, we all lose. Monolithic single-provider-run media is only good for the provider." The issue is media consolidation. And that's a BadThing, if just because it reduces the discussion space dramatically. I like blogs, but in no way are they a reputable, reliable news source.
Sorry to interrupt here but do you really see a media consolidation? If you look at the addition of cable news channels, there are more choices now than ever before. While I agree with you that bloggers are not, in and of themselves, a credible SOURCE of news, they do serve a very valuable watchdog role on larger news groups.
Is anything YOU post different from a broken record?? Of course not, since it's impossible for you to recognize when you've been out-argued, out-thought, and out-debated.
More choices? Of different channels from the same news source? Let's see... which of the 4 clear channel radio stations should i listen to today? hmmmmmmmmmm
I've no idea who Dan Rather is, so I can't comment there. How many examples of "muckraking for muckraking's sake" can you aim at the BBC, or any other of the completely independent news channels here? If there's a story they'll follow it up. That's a world away from the tabloid journalism you are implying. Curious how attacking the most left wing of Britain's major parties is seen as liberal bias. So who do you think gives the most objective unbiased news output - the BBC or FOX?
Actually, if anything, the NATIONAL news media is more diverse than ever. We have 3 national t.v./radio networks with news coverage (CBS, ABC, NBC) We have several independent national radio news providers (Bloomberg, AP) We have 3 major all news cable networks (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC/CNBC) We have at least 4 newspapers with a national reach (Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal) We have PBS-tv, NPR and Pacifica The internet gives easy international reach to other newspapers Blogs, don't forget the guys in pajamas! The problem is that we are losing diversity in local news sources. But that is overstated. It used to be that local stations would have a news department. But in most cases, the news department was focused on local news. National and international news would be provided by either a provider like AP or the now practicaly defunct UPI, by the the network, if you were a local affiliate, or by a correspondent in the location (who might be working for several newspapers). So in reality, when it comes to news gathering and disemination, not much has changed. What has changed is that instead of the local papers and stations being locally owned, they now may be owned by a large corporation.
Considering that the vast majority cable channels are owned by one of the following companies... Time Warner News Corp NBC Universal Disney Comcast Viacom ...I don't really see how you can say that there are more choices now that ever before. And this really isn't a left or right issue. The NRA has been grousing about how they can't get their message out in the corporate-dominated media. Basically, a big problem for them (and for other advocacy groups) is that more local TV and radio stations are not locally-owned but are owned by the network. So while a particular ad or paid program may not be particularly controversial in a particular market (for example, if the NRA wanted to run a weekly program on a Dallas station), those decisions aren't made locally, but in New York or LA or wherever their corporate masters are based. For the sake of example, let's look at my local stations, the ones in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market: WFAA (ABC affiliate) - Owned and operated by Belo Corp., based in Dallas KTVT (CBS affiliate) - CBS O&O (owned and operated) KXAS (NBC affiliate) - NBC O&O KDFW (Fox affiliate) - Fox O&O KERA (PBS affiliate) - Owned and operated by North Texas Public Broadcasting KTXA (UPN affiliate) - UPN O&O KDAF (WB affiliate) - WB O&O KDFI (Independent) - Owned and operated by Fox KPXD (Pax affiliate) - Pax O&O KFWD (Independent) - Owned and operated by HIC Broadcast KMPX (Independent) - Owned and operated by Liberman Television KUVN (Univision affiliate) - Univision O&O KSTR (Telefutura affiliate) - Telefutura O&O KXTX (Telemundo affiliate) - Telemundo O&O KDTX (TBN affiliate) - TBN O&O 15 full-power stations here in D/FW and of those, a grand total of four are not owned by a network. As for the other 11, two are O&O by News Corp., two are O&O by Viacom (who owns CBS and UPN), two are O&O by Univision (who owns Univision and Telefutura), and two are O&O by NBC Universal (who owns NBC and Telemundo). The other three are owned by the Tribune Company (who owns the WB Network), Paxson Broadcasting, and TBN. Some media choice, and you can see why the NRA and other advocacy groups are having trouble getting their messages out into the mainstream media, even in markets where those messages would not be so controversial -- because those sorts of decisions aren't completely local decisions! And this is not too uncommon. Just look at who owns YOUR local stations. The thing is that it didn't used to be this way. Until the mid-'90s, the FCC had very stringent ownership limits and more TV and radio stations nationwide were owned by more people. And some were even owned by -- gasp! -- small businesses. Yes, conservatives, I know. This started under Clinton's watch. But Bush's boy Michael Powell tried to relax the ownership limits even further, until that idea was slapped down by the Senate.
Just because they are owned by a corporation doesn't mean they all approach news in the same fashion. For example, CNN has a far different view than Fox. And the Big 3 have proven themselves vulnerable as both CNN & Fox, along with CNBC/MSNBC have been able to find a niche in the market as a result of the Big 3 not filling all the viewer needs. Let's see how this plays out in 5 years.
That's right. Lots of newspapers in chains have their own editorial policy. But I would point out that despite it all, local newspapers and radio stations have always relied on a natinal news provider for national and international news. When one considers that 20 years aago, there were 2 main such providers in the US (AP and UPI) whereas today, national news is available through many other sources.
You still don't understand what it's about, do you? ...It is in fact better to fight to save the soul than to blind oneself and live soulless life in an imperial country. It's a certain way of being in the world, a certain bearing witness; even if you're unable to bring about the kind of changes you want in your generation, somebody will know ten years from now, twenty years from now, fifty years from now that you bore witness; you tried to speak the truth and expose lies such that you can then bequeath that legacy to them. Tradition is not something you inherit, T.S. Eliot says, you have to fight for it in order to actually gain access to your tradition; you can't keep a tradition of struggling for freedom and democracy alive without people willing to bear witness, even in a bleak moment when they know they will never see the positive results in their lifetime. That's part of our challenge today. That's part of our challenge this historical moment... - Dr. Cornel West speaking at an event sponsored by the Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico on June 25th Now, if you still don't understand, you might as well give it up. But if you do understand then you understand that your commitment to be a proponent, an Agent, of this system, and addressing that, could not be less central for me. Like I said, it's a good thing that you don't matter. My kids are inheriting a legacy, and it's about taking that forth and passing that down, because there will always be people like you, and, more importantly, there will always be those who know how to effectively use people like you to get you to stand behind (note, not in front of, not in the firing line, but behind) empire and its comcomitants; the attack and murder and the Orwellian truncation of freedoms that constitutes Executive government today.