3rdnlng Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 Since most on here have assumed (or accused) me of being a liberal through the years, I'll chime in. GG already provided an excellent post answering as to why this issue isn't the end of the world as it was argued in the WSJ piece -- and how they missed the real issue of import -- so let's start with that. But I've always been a big-picture guy, to my detriment sometimes, and from that perspective the FCC or government is no more of a threat to the press than what we have right now. Right now six companies control 90% of the US media*. The WSJ and Fox News are the same company. Despite the fact that we're living in an age where we have more and more access to information through technology, the content creators and media companies are now controlled by fewer and fewer. That's a problem. As much of a problem to me as the FCC or big-brother government entity taking over it all. It's the same ending, just a different villain. Reference: http://www.businessi...-america-2012-6 You don't often make me laugh, but when you do I have to give you credit. Well done. This also made me laugh, but not as much as Dante's eager (and I think sincere?) response... Changing your screen name doesn't let you off the hook in the debate contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 It's too bad you don't understand the definition of irony, if you did, you'd know why this post is so hilarious. Thank you for continuing to bring reason to every thread you participate in. Not sure what it means then when Hollywood constantly lobby for big government candidates and policies and then turn around and ask for relief from said policies. What word defines that? I mean, besides being aholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 http://hraunfoss.fcc...A-13-1214A1.pdf Is this from the same Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism at USC that George Soros has contributed millions to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Given what we know about this administration, this looks like nothing other than trying to get one over on FOXNews, which Barry has said is a thorn in his side. The only outcomes of the study are a) to do nothing or b) to change the news outlets whether by content or ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Since most on here have assumed (or accused) me of being a liberal through the years, I'll chime in. GG already provided an excellent post answering as to why this issue isn't the end of the world as it was argued in the WSJ piece -- and how they missed the real issue of import -- so let's start with that. But I've always been a big-picture guy, to my detriment sometimes, and from that perspective the FCC or government is no more of a threat to the press than what we have right now. Right now six companies control 90% of the US media*. The WSJ and Fox News are the same company. Despite the fact that we're living in an age where we have more and more access to information through technology, the content creators and media companies are now controlled by fewer and fewer. That's a problem. As much of a problem to me as the FCC or big-brother government entity taking over it all. It's the same ending, just a different villain. Reference: http://www.businessi...-america-2012-6 Take the same advice I gave B-Man, do your own research. The Business Insider article is wrong, not only because it's two years old and the landscape changed - Newscorp doesn't own WSJ & Fox News any longer. GE is out of the picture. And while there is a large concentration of content creation by the traditional big Hollywood studios, that hasn't changed in generations. The only thing that's changed for them are the ownership groups. I wish I could have kept the diagram that Broadcasting & Cable used to show every year in the '80s and '90s of the interlapping ownership of content and distribution. It looked very similar to the sinister case that Business Insider is trying to make. I doubt that Ashley Lutz was even alive when those graphics were created. There has been a huge change in distribution of that content, and I think that is what the FCC study attempts to address in a very awkward way. I think you see what's going on in your world. There are a lot more opportunities now for talented content creators to bypass the traditional model to get their voices heard, so the fears of media concentration around a small cabal are, as always, greatly overblown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts