Us Versus Iraq

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker@1 June 2003 - 02:14
Things like that only happen here in the sad, benighted,mongrel US, never in wise, enlightened, culturally mature Europe.

i feel your pain.

[sArA]

Ahhhh clocker.....the sad but true thing is that my example is correct...and that Britain is becoming less and less free.....(my sources are sound I suggest you check yours)

As for the UK as a mongrel nation how about our mixture of......Roman, Saxon, Norman......Indian, African, Bangladeshi, Polish, Arab....etc, etc,

Of course, as kissing cousins of the US, the UK are often considered in the same breath anyway....

Cultural maturity does not necessarily lead to sociological wisdom and it could be considered that the immaturity of the US is analogous to the senility of Europe.....and to take it one step further...how many adults and teenagers agree, and if considered from one step back, it is often easy to see both sides of the same argument.

Perhaps we should consider a more enlightened culture....say....Vulcan????

[clocker]

Live long and prosper, Sara.

[Rat Faced]

Sarah's Bill

For those that like reading Double Dutch.........

[j2k4]

Originally posted by sara5564@31 May 2003 - 20:42
Ahhhh clocker.....the sad but true thing is that my example is correct...and that Britain is becoming less and less free.....(my sources are sound I suggest you check yours)

As for the UK as a mongrel nation how about our mixture of......Roman, Saxon, Norman......Indian, African, Bangladeshi, Polish, Arab....etc, etc,

Of course, as kissing cousins of the US, the UK are often considered in the same breath anyway....

Cultural maturity does not necessarily lead to sociological wisdom and it could be considered that the immaturity of the US is analogous to the senility of Europe.....and to take it one step further...how many adults and teenagers agree, and if considered from one step back, it is often easy to see both sides of the same argument.

Perhaps we should consider a more enlightened culture....say....Vulcan????

Wait until next month when your vote is rendered moot as Mr. Blair signs you on for full membership in the E.U.; if you think you are aggravated now.....
Mr. Chirac's inane statements as regards the E.U.'s "business" will assume a whole new dimension.

[myfiles3000]

New York Times
June 2, 2003
Behind the Media Ownership Rule and Its End, One Man
By STEPHEN LABATON

ASHINGTON, June 1 — Nearly 30 years ago, a young Republican lawyer named Richard E. Wiley led the Federal Communications Commission as it approved a landmark regulation that restricted a company from owning both a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city.

On Monday the F.C.C. is expected to repeal that rule in more than 100 cities as part of the most significant overhaul of media regulations in a generation. The change would be the culmination of a long campaign by the nation's biggest media conglomerates, which are intent on entering new local markets and expanding in those where they already have a presence. And it would come despite objections from an array of politically liberal and conservative critics who fear broad consolidation in the news and entertainment businesses.

But those objections were no match for big media, whose top lawyer and chief Washington strategist is none other than Mr. Wiley, now 68 years old, and by all accounts the most influential media and telecommunications lawyer in the country.

To critics who would accuse him of selling out the very public-interest safeguards he helped put in place as F.C.C. chairman during the Ford administration, Mr. Wiley says simply that his policy views are now different because the industry is different....

[clocker]

Yeah, I know. Blows doesn't it?

[j2k4]

I must say-I find such turns-about disturbing.

To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum's character in the movie "Jurassic Park":

'They became so enamored of the fact that they could, they never stopped to consider whether or not they should'.

[myfiles3000]

none of what i have said about the media is relevant without keeping in mind that the presence of a free media is a pillar of democratic philosophy. You can't have a people deciding how to run society if they aren't well informed. Originally, media were non-profit and highly political, with fractured markets of dozens of competing papers. Then publishers realized how much money could be made from classified ads ("slave for sale..."). And we now have the system before us.

I'm not rejecting the idea of for-profit media in a democracy, but its important to recognize the inherent tension between making money and preserving democracy, they are not the same thing: politically, there is one vote per citizen; economically there is one vote for dollar. Since the distribution of wealth is not even close to a level playing field, the media often exhibits anti-populist, anti-democtratic tendencies.

For example, a generation ago, shows like the beverly hillbillies were hugely popular and garnered a big chunk of the viewing audience for its time slot, easily out-performing time slot rivals. Unfortunately for the business people, the KIND of people who watched were overwhelmingly rural, not particularly affluent, and therefore largely irrelevant to advertisers. the show was cancelled, and CBS (?) came up with shows much much better, ie more profitable, demographics. which they sell to advertisers for a profit.

the point of this example is simply to show that "popular" success is not the same thing as business success. this basic feature shapes media content, and influences which stories are emphasized and which are largely ignored.

Today, the vast majority of popular shows are designed to attract a young, affluent, urban crowd. Ever hear seniors complain about nothing to watch on tv? its no coincidence: they are not the hyper-consumers that their grandchildren are, they've already got more crap than they need, and seniors are not particularly interesting to advertisers. Of course, this is starting to change in a big way as baby boomers age.

And so the corporate media, for profit business, have a vested interest in certain kinds of content: why in the name of god would they produce a documentary about the evils of GE's defence contracting businesses, if GE is their #1 customer? And, in the case of NBC, it would be a bad career move for any news producer to focus on the distasteful side of corporate america, like, say, GE's contractor businesses. So instead you focus on issues that don't directly undermine your customers (who also happen to be your bosses, depending on the corporate structure...)

[j2k4]

Myfiles-

You have given here an impeccable exercise and example in logical thought.

Just thought I'd let you know.