I heard someone suggest tonite that the antics of news programs like those on CBS and FOX are dry runs for "State Controlled News Media".
Conspiracy theory, or something to worry about?
Conspiracy theory, or something to worry about?
Conspiracy theory?
- Thread starter Cryozombie
- Start date
Just to play devil's advocate, I think that state run news sources are not that bad of an idea. At least you know the bias. I think, to often people are distrustfull of the news, but in this case you at least know the states position, and can then judge it against alternative news sources. Right now its chaos. I find the BBC the best place to learn of global affairs.Technopunk said:
Sean
michaeledward
Grandmaster
When you cite 'CBS' and 'FOX', you are missing the point. The correct citation is 'Viacom' and 'NewsCorp'.Technopunk said:
CBS = Viacom
NBC = General Electric
ABC = Walt Disney Company
FOX = NewsCorporation
When we are not aware who is providing us information, we can not be on guard for stories from their point of view. As the 'news' division of these broadcasts companies became 'profit centers' for the accountants, there has been a push in the sensationalism of reported news stories. The premise is that the more people watching the 'news', the more money that can be generated with advertisements.
Additional items for consideration, the Federal Communications Commission has increased the number of radio stations a single entity can own. Currently, Clear Channel has a presence in most major markets in the country (much to the detriment of the music industry). Also, don't neglect the concentration of ownership in the news print media.
The United States public is being served an ever narrower spectrum of ideas because of media ownership. This is succesfully 'State Controlled Media'; because the big corporations, through their lobbyists have access to the levers of power in Washington and the State Houses, there designs are acted upon, often against the designs of the public.
Michael Powell should be removed as head of the Federal Communications Commission. If for no other reason, because of his last name.
so long as state run news sources are not the ONLY form of news, I don't have a problem with them... I think the money is better spent elsewhere, though.
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Nightingale said:
The cool thing about funding these sources is that it usually comes out of user fees (such as licenses, in England and Japan) rather than general revenues.
Don't want to fund state sources? Simple, don't use a TV or radio.
America wants Britney Spears, Reality TV, Funniest Videos.... or else the ratings wouldn't back up the prices that corporate media charges for advertising time. If the 'state controlled media' were in place under the 'conservatives' it would be bible tv all day every day with "Life with the stereotypical Republican Hero" as the prime time viewing.michaeledward said:
What we are getting now is exactly what Americans are willing to pay cable viewing/satellite memberships to watch: Melodramatic presentations of humanised problems set in pecular locations to hold the viewers attention. News that is presented like drama instead of information. Information that is presented in sound bytes instead of comprehensive and contextual settings.
If anything the Hurst family and their strangle on things like "Citizen Kane" were indications that we are under the influence of Corporatised media and not State media
Similar threads
