|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2007 : 18:42:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Mycroft:
Sure. Let me start.
I see no similarity at all.
Oh come on Mycroft. Certainly you can see that too few owners of much of the media would have a chilling effect on free speech, while at the same time allowing for the promotion of a limited point of view to be broadcast over most of the media?
I see it as a hypothetical possibility. I don't see any evidence that it's a real problem.
A conspiracy theorist is someone who imagines something that could happen and takes that as proof that it has happened. That's what's happening here. Sure, in theory it's possible that if all our known media were owned by a small group of people that those people could collaborate to keep information from the public, true.
But is it inevitable? Is it even likely? Is there any evidence, beyond conjecture, that it's become a problem?
I don't see it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Propaganda is propaganda, whether it's government or corporate sponsored.
Sure, but corporate propaganda is known as “advertising.” We see a lot of it and we recognize it for what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by KilCapitalism or communism isn't the issue here. Control of the message is. When the message is in too few hands, it becomes centralized. And that is bad for the people, no matter where they live.
Except it's not-so-centralized. Each of these half-dozen media conglomerates are in direct competition with each other, and each offers dozens to hundreds or even thousands of different magazines, books, movies, cable channels and so on, each to suit the sensibilities of every imaginable person. Their profit motive is to appeal to everyone of every possible viewpoint.
Further, new technology makes the soap-box available to more and more people. For fifty bucks and a computer, anyone can now start their own website or blog. Internet advertising can even makes these ventures profitable, supporting the person who chooses to put their viewpoint on the Internet. Where once a citizen could only respond to the media with a letter to the editor (which the editor might not print) now knowledgeable people can comment on major media, pointing out flaws, omissions and biases. This trend will only grow, media is becoming interactive, where the audience can now participate at levels never before imagined.
So spare me your conjecture. If you want me to believe corporate media control is a problem, show me the proof. And I don't mean 30 year-old anecdotes about a tobacco story that was killed (look what the media is doing to big tobacco today!), show me proof!
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 19:34:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
Each of these half-dozen media conglomerates are in direct competition with each other, and each offers dozens to hundreds or even thousands of different magazines, books, movies, cable channels and so on, each to suit the sensibilities of every imaginable person. Their profit motive is to appeal to everyone of every possible viewpoint.
Which is precisely why Clear Channel broadcasts both Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh.
And it seems to me that the "doomsday scenario" for media consolidation - a single corporate entity owning all radio and TV stations, as well as all cable companies, ISPs and newspapers - won't change that profit motive itself. To get revenue from the largest possible audience would mean that single media company should broadcast shows that draw in the Republicans as well as shows that draw in Democrats.
But beskeptigal has a point about media consumers not knowing that they're being fed a line of crap. I'm not sure if it's ignorance or laziness, but there's a distinct possibility that, for example, if the single media company is run by a neocon, he/she would devise programming to draw in liberals, but at the same time feed them nonsense, and they wouldn't know any better.
Of course, setting limits on media ownership won't actually fix that problem. Because the problem is a citizenry that refuses to go out and hunt down reliable sources of independent information. Every TV executive since the end of World War II has known that for the average viewer, it's far easier to not change the channel after your favorite show has gone off the air. They've counted on it for ad revenue for news programs, even these days, when remotes are ubiquitous.
Limiting media ownership won't fix that problem, because media monopolies didn't create the problem. Media monopolies can take advantage of the problem, though, if they're intent on getting only particular political messages out to the public.
But ensuring an informed citizenry won't happen through just the limiting of ownership, nor through Net Neutrality. The citizenry has to actually care about getting good, reliable information. But if one compares Al Franken's ratings to Rush Limbaugh's, it may indicate that most citizens don't care. And that seems to me to be the more serious and alarming problem, the one that should be getting more attention.
Media consolidation, in that light, must take a back seat. Because once the citizens give a damn, media monopolies will be broken up, just like we did to Ma Bell (which is busily reforming itself nowadays).
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 20:31:48 [Permalink]
|
So you trust 6 mega-corporations to control just about every single media outlet in the US and you think competition between them will work its capitalists wonders with no ill effects on the American people?
Big corporations are unlikely to cooperate with one another.  If you want to call that a conspiracy then it is. I think there's a history of such cooperation between businesses once monopolies are the norm. Why compete when you can all rake in the billions?
These certainly aren't examples of big corporate co-ops. The testimony all in unison must be mere coincidences.
Five top oil company executives appeared at a Senate hearing yesterday to defend their high profits and spikes in gasoline prices and to beat back calls for punitive action.
One of the most famous events depicted in the motion picture "The Insider" was the videotaped testimony of the "7 Dwarves" (as they were described by Dr. Wigand) -- the 7 CEOs of Big Tobacco. Their "nicotine is not addictive" testimony, part of the Waxman Hearings,
And this story certainly shows how competition has served the public so well as long as there are 6 or 8 companies competing with eachother.
The Seven Sisters, The Great Oil Companies and the World They Made; Anthony Sampson; 1975 - Book Excerpts
As to, "so what?"
The overwhelming amount of information on the concerns about media consolidation leave me not knowing where to even start.
You have price issues with every monopoly. Capitalism works best when competition keeps prices low. Take away the competition and you get companies that charge whatever the market will bear. That means as high as the public will tolerate, not as low as the competition will allow. When it comes to the airwaves we the people own, why should we allow 6 big corporations to charge as much as we will possibly pay?
Effect on radio from Bill Moyers' web site
quote:
KARR: Fey says that means consumers pay more for tickets. For instance, he says he bid against Clear Channel for an upcoming Denver concert.
FEY: We sent in our offer, for Bonnie Raitt ... $100,000. That's what the agent asked for. Our ticket price was $30.
KARR: According to Fey, Clear Channel countered with an offer of a quarter million dollars.
FEY: Now here that extra $150,000 is gonna be borne by 9000 people paying $15 extra.
KARR: Bottom line here is Clear Channel came in, outbid you, and consumers pay 50% more for the tickets?
FEY: That's correct. Correct.
KARR: Were consumers willing to pay that much?
FEY: Well they don't know they're paying 50% more, they don't know I was going to charge them thirty and they're going to have to pay forty-five.
KARR: Barry Fey says of course Clear Channel has the right to outbid him. And of course Bonnie Raitt was right to take the higher offer. But a windfall for the artist, he says, is bad for consumers:
MOSS: Well, I'm saying that Chase Radio, as well as some other corporations were put together, to get Clear Channel obvious penetration in markets, and fly under the radar of the Justice Department. This was a tactic to get around the laws. So that they can control markets.
KARR: Moss says Clear Channel's size gives the company an unfair advantage.
MOSS: I am locked out of ... of media buys, by national advertisers. Because Clear Channel can cluster their stations together, and add up all of the Arbitron ratings, and go to Mr. As a result and say look, we've got, you know, 65 share in the market. Or 70 share in the market. Or 80 percent share in the market. And you don't even go shop anywhere else.
Then you have the milk toast version of everything from news to TV programs and radio broadcasts. You claim Mycroft, these big 6 companies have little branches filling every market so they can compete. No they don't. Because much of their monopolies are wide swaths of territory where they own everything in it. They don't need to put radio programming on for small markets. They can fill the airwaves with muzak if it gets the biggest following.
quote:
T-BONE BURNETT: Radio in the last ten years certainly hasn't been a friend of music. It hasn't been helping to spread or build community or any of the things that we thought it did in the past.
KARR: Burnett put together the rootsy, even old-fashioned music on the soundtrack to the film O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU... which won five Grammy Awards this year. He says the record's sold five million copies because the film was a great ad for the music. None of the thanks go to radio.
KARR: Why didn't it get played on the radio? I mean why didn't the radio stations play it?
BURNETT: Well, I mean, the reality is it didn't test well.
KARR: The Future of Radio is tested on consumers like any other product — say, toothpaste ... or soft drinks. Burnett says marketing consultants play snippets of songs for potential listeners in focus groups. They're looking for music that won't prompt anyone to change the station ... and miss an ad. Music that's safe. And once they've found it, they put it on the air in heavy rotation from coast to coast. There's no room for experimentation in the Future of Radio. (No room for local flavors.)
KARR: Burnett says radio still helps sell millions of pop records. That may be good for the music industry, he says, but it's terrible for music: Some performers have started to second-guess their muses ... and try to make their music safe enough to fit into the formats ... on stations owned by Clear Channel and other big chains.
BURNETT: You start using these words like "programming" and "formatting" and demographics and all that stuff. And you get really far away from what we all liked about music in the first place,
BURNETT: The FCC is supposed to insure that radio broadcasting and television broadcasting are governed in such a way that the public's interest is served.
Well, I think the FCC has its work cut out for it then. You know? Because that is not happening. If I may be so bold as to say that the public's interest in not being served by the modern day radio establishment.
effect on your cable bill
quote:
MOYERS: Consumer advocates fear it's going to get worse, especially with the impending merger of cable giants AT&T Broadband and the Comcast Corporation.
SCHWARTZMAN: Absence of competition brings monopoly power and the kind of cable television service we've all become used to. "If you don't like it, forget it. Because we're the cable company!"
effect on the news coverage
quote:
Approximate |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2007 20:36:42 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 20:41:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...Of course, setting limits on media ownership won't actually fix that problem. Because the problem is a citizenry that refuses to go out and hunt down reliable sources of independent information....
That may be at the very core of the problem, Dave. But I and my son have to live in the same country those lazy citizens vote in and influence the make up of. I would like to have at least some chance of making it harder for those lazy citizens to be led by nose by people not going in my direction. People like me want to be heard as loudly as a corporate giant. So while you're blaming the consumer, I'm talking about making sure there are a few more microphones to go around.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2007 20:42:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 22:37:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
That may be at the very core of the problem, Dave. But I and my son have to live in the same country those lazy citizens vote in and influence the make up of. I would like to have at least some chance of making it harder for those lazy citizens to be led by nose by people not going in my direction. People like me want to be heard as loudly as a corporate giant. So while you're blaming the consumer, I'm talking about making sure there are a few more microphones to go around.
Well, there's obviously no more point of me trying to engage you, beskeptigal. Three different times in three different threads, I've tried to show you the reasons why I think your approach will be ineffective, and all you've done is made up crappy strawmen about me, accused me of having a libertarian streak, accused me of being confused and now you've resorted to simply re-asserting that what you're trying to do will indeed be effective. You're obviously unwilling to discuss these things.
And I really wish you'd change your mind about that. I don't expect you'll change your mind about your goals or your politics, I just wish you'd actually discuss them instead of getting all snarky when someone challenges your ideals. If you cannot find it within yourself to communicate the logic and evidence that led you to your conclusions on a rational, reasonable level, then frankly I'd prefer you not have your "microphone," and instead let someone else who can talk about these things without getting hyper-defensive have it.
I mean, I'd point out the utter irony of one of the points you made in your large post to Mycroft, above, if I thought it would get through to you, but I no longer think it would. Especially since you blew off my question to you about 270 independent stations owners protesting together (in the Washington Times thread). You seem to have effectively turned yourself into a one-way information pipe, making all your talk about the "free flow of information" just so much hot air. Trying to go against your flow any longer would simply be futile. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 23:04:11 [Permalink]
|
We have different views of this, Dave. But you miss as much of what I've said as you claim I miss of what you have said. I have also been posting on this stuff for hours now so the fact I didn't give one of your posts enough personal attention is some pretty petty stuff there.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 00:28:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Me:
Certainly you can see that too few owners of much of the media would have a chilling effect on free speech, while at the same time allowing for the promotion of a limited point of view to be broadcast over most of the media?
quote:
Mycroft:
I see it as a hypothetical possibility. I don't see any evidence that it's a real problem.
A conspiracy theorist is someone who imagines something that could happen and takes that as proof that it has happened. That's what's happening here. Sure, in theory it's possible that if all our known media were owned by a small group of people that those people could collaborate to keep information from the public, true.
But is it inevitable? Is it even likely? Is there any evidence, beyond conjecture, that it's become a problem?
I don't see it.
quote:
Dave:
Limiting media ownership won't fix that problem, because media monopolies didn't create the problem. Media monopolies can take advantage of the problem, though, if they're intent on getting only particular political messages out to the public.
I'll respond first with what I don't know. I don't know if the airwaves are full of right leaning talk shows because of corporate ownership. I just know that there are a lot of them while there is only one Talk America. I know that conservative talk on KFI in Los Angeles is owned by Clear Channel. Some of the programming is local and some is syndicated, like Rush and Coast to Coast. However, I am not necessarily suggesting that there is a conspiracy among the big owners to control the message. I am more speculating on the possibility that it is in their corporate interest to, shall we say, lean to the right because the left is less hospitable to the goal of more deregulation of the airwaves and laissez-faire capitalism. It may not be a conspiracy but perhaps a result of having too few and very powerful owners. Again, I dunno. But I see the danger.
Here is what I do know. Politics is not the only problem. Corporate ownership of a very large numbers of stations has hurt the music industry. It is almost impossible anymore for an independent label to get anything on a major station because they can't afford the cost of marketing to a company like Clear Channel. They simply can't compete with major labels. So the diversity of what is being played on most stations has been in a steep decline since deregulation of station ownership happened in 1996. And there are other problems with the deregulation.
quote:
Radio Station Ownership Consolidation
Shown to Harm Musicians and the Public, Says FMC Study
Senator Feingold Commends Future of Music Coalition for Report that Examines
how Concentration in Radio Industry has Affected Competition, Localism and Diversity
WASHINGTON, DC - The rapid consolidation of the commercial radio industry that followed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has led to a loss of localism, less competition, fewer viewpoints and less diversity in radio programming in media markets across the country, according to False Premises, False Promises:A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry, a report released today by the Future of M |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 03:44:05 [Permalink]
|
I agree with you, Kil. I think the deregulation has been a multifaceted disaster. Cultural and political diversity are enhanced by more diverse, more local, and less concentrated ownership, and less one-size-fits-all corporate control of programming.
I don't trust capitalism to regulate itself due to some kind of mythical inherent self-interest principle that somehow meshes with society's needs. It never has, and never will work like that.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 05:25:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
list of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wiki
Honestly... is this list really for real?
I mean, did they really distribute it?
And did local stations really adhere to it?
I know many Americans went completely nuts after the 9/11 WTC attack, but naďve as I am, I thought there were limitations to the insanity.
Jesus H. Christ in a stick, "banning" John Lennon's 'Imagine'... Bangles "Walk like an Egyptian"?
When I browse the Wikipedia article on 'American Pie' the song somehow seems more appropriate than ever.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 08:02:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Big corporations are unlikely to cooperate with one another. If you want to call that a conspiracy then it is. I think there's a history of such cooperation between businesses once monopolies are the norm. Why compete when you can all rake in the billions?
I know you said a lot more in this post, Beskeptigal, and it was all very well thought out, IMO. I would say that we have seen examples, however, of corporations co-operating with one another at many levels, even when no monopoly exists, or was likely to.
The example that first comes to mind is big Pharma. You and I know that the companies are at each others' throats every day. Even within the bigger companies there is vicious competition among products in the same disease state indication. But look at what has been put together with PHRMA (The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America). These are dozens of companies and their subsidiaries all co-operating at the highest level.
Any time a mutual benefit can be gained by all the companies at once, such as their right to continue to conduct business, they will co-operate. In most cases, I believe it is to save their collective hides from governmental restrictions or policies that they believe will jeopardize business and profitability. In other words, they want to stay in business.
Just my two cents for what it's worth. I can't speak to the internet or communications industries, because I have no experience with them. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 02/19/2007 08:04:26 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 08:36:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mab:
Honestly... is this list really for real?
I mean, did they really distribute it?
And did local stations really adhere to it?
Yes, yes, and for the most part.
quote:
Bad Transmission: Clear Channel's Hit List
The list turns out to be a national phenomenon. Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio chain, distributed it to the more than 1,200 stations it owns. It contained about 150 "lyrically questionable" songs, not counting the entire Rage Against the Machine catalogue. Company president John Hogan told the Atlanta Constitution that the list was merely a suggestion, "never a policy or a directive."
It didn't have to be. Who in a job as highly coveted and easily replaceable as radio DJ is going to defy a "suggestion" from on high about what is "inappropriate"? They don't have to spell out Y-O-U W-I-L-L B-E F-I-R-E-D. The kind of people whose immediate response to such a list would be to blast Body Count's "Cop Killer" four times in a row generally don't get such jobs or keep them very long.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 11:44:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So you trust 6 mega-corporations to control just about every single media outlet in the US and you think competition between them will work its capitalists wonders with no ill effects on the American people?
I did not say that. What I do say is that if you (or anyone else) claims that there is a problem, it is up to you to provide evidence of that problem. Evidence that is stronger than merely suggesting that there could be a problem. So far you have failed to do that with your Big Media Conspiracy Theory.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Big corporations are unlikely to cooperate with one another. If you want to call that a conspiracy then it is. I think there's a history of such cooperation between businesses once monopolies are the norm. Why compete when you can all rake in the billions?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You propose that because big corporations have cooperated with each other in the past that that's evidence that media corporations are cooperating with each other now.
That's not evidence, that's speculation. That's conspiracy woo.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
These certainly aren't examples of big corporate co-ops. The testimony all in unison must be mere coincidences.
Big oil, blah, blah, blah…
Big tobacco, blah, blah, blah…
It's the same. You're not presenting any evidence that there is any problem with media corporations, only that other non-related corporations have done things wrong in the past. Not only is this blatant anti-corporate prejudice, but it doesn't make logical sense either. It's still just speculation that because you can imagine a problem that could be that it's evidence of a problem that is. That's wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You have price issues with every monopoly. Capitalism works best when competition keeps prices low. Take away the competition and you get companies that charge whatever the market will bear. That means as high as the public will tolerate, not as low as the competition will allow. When it comes to the airwaves we the people own, why should we allow 6 big corporations to charge as much as we will possibly pay?
You should be reminded that the issue isn't even about price fixing (and if it were the price fixing would be largely against corporations and their advertising dollars), it's about control of information, which you have offered very little evidence.
quote:
KARR: Fey says that means consumers pay more for tickets. For instance, he says he bid against Clear Channel for an upcoming Denver concert.
FEY: We sent in our offer, for Bonnie Raitt ... $100,000. That's what the agent asked for. Our ticket price was $30.
KARR: According to Fey, Clear Channel countered with an offer of a quarter million dollars.
FEY: Now here that extra $150,000 is gonna be borne by 9000 people paying $15 extra.
KARR: Bottom line here is Clear Channel came in, outbid you, and consumers pay 50% more for the tickets?
FEY: That's cor |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 11:51:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Then there is this:
Radio's big bully Salon.com
quote:
From article:
Clear Channel, the company's critics say, has been using its size to wrestle away tours from competitors by leveraging its size against record companies and artists.
"Clear Channel comes into markets and says to record companies, 'Don't give that station a concert or band promotion or there will be no business with us across our platform of stations,'" reports Hal Fish, program director at WBZX and WEGE in Columbus, Ohio.
Representatives from two platinum-selling rock bands confirm that their acts were pulled from Clear Channel stations over concert-promotion disputes, and not just pulled locally. The bands were yanked off playlists from a coalition of aligned Clear Channel stations stretching over several states. "It did happen; it was real," reports one label executive.
The groups' representatives spoke on condition the artists' names not be used, for fear of further irritating Clear Channel.
Isn't Salon dot com an example of big corporate media? Wouldn't that make this an example of big corporate media reporting against the interests of big corporate medai, something that wouldn't happen if these big media conspiracy theories were true?
I agree that Clear Channel is wrong in doing this, but Clear Channel also risks a huge backlash in doing this. If these bands had a bit more courage, they could do some serious harm. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 16:46:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
You should be reminded that the issue isn't even about price fixing (and if it were the price fixing would be largely against corporations and their advertising dollars), it's about control of information, which you have offered very little evidence.
And just how could such evidence be gathered?
The list of songs not to be played after the WTC-attack is one of them.
The list is out there, apparently for us to see, and the lack of air-time for the songs could be considered tentative evidence that many DJs conformed. But how can we submit this all of this as evidence? To meet your standard?
This is politics and not hard science where evidence is quantifiable. Politics is subjective.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 16:52:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...something that wouldn't happen if these big media conspiracy theories were true?
Directly after Kil explained how it didn't necessarily had to be a conspiracy. Just that they are working in the same general direction. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 21:25:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
You should be reminded that the issue isn't even about price fixing (and if it were the price fixing would be largely against corporations and their advertising dollars), it's about control of information, which you have offered very little evidence.
And just how could such evidence be gathered?
The list of songs not to be played after the WTC-attack is one of them.
The list is out there, apparently for us to see, and the lack of air-time for the songs could be considered tentative evidence that many DJs conformed. But how can we submit this all of this as evidence? To meet your standard?
This is politics and not hard science where evidence is quantifiable. Politics is subjective.
Exactly what do you think that list proves? That the great and powerful evil mega-Media corporation is out to control our thoughts by controling what we see and hear?
9/11 wasn't that long ago. I remember it clearly as well as the weeks after. I remember that list being made fun of by our local radio stations and the songs on it being played because they were on the list. Far from censoring these songs, the list drew attention to them.
But more importantly is the purpose of the list. It wasn't an attempt at anything sinister. They didn't pull those songs in an attempt to restrict free speech and to shape people's thoughts. They pulled those songs as an attempted act of sensitivity, because they though the lyrics would remind people of the tragedy of that terrible day and they didn't want to exacerbate the pain. It was a knee-jerk response, perhaps ill-considered, but made at a time when the world had been turned upside-down and everyone was unsure of what to do and how to react.
I remember the confusion at my own office. I worked at a mortgage bank. We spent the morning watching the television, business had come to a standstill. After several hours the question was raised; what should we do? Get back to work? Go home? Is it possible to try to sell when in the grips of a national tragedy? Is it a good idea?
Imagine the same thought processes and decision making going on at every business across the states. What shall we do? How do we react? What do we need to do different?
At Clear Channel someone though of filtering the play-lists of songs that might be insensitive. The decision was made during a time of great tragedy, when people's emotions were very strong. Was the decision a good one? Maybe not, but it certainly wasn't anything sinister either.
|
| Edited by - Mycroft on 02/19/2007 21:26:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
