Thank God, there was way too much indie radio before.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-03 11:23am

WTF is this supposed to be?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-03 01:19pm

My guess it's about the legislation yesterday passed allowing companies, Clear Channel specifically, to own more radio stations.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-06-03 01:36pm

Durran Korr wrote:My guess it's about the legislation yesterday passed allowing companies, Clear Channel specifically, to own more radio stations.

Yep, the FCC approved the relaxation of rules prohibiting large media companies from owning too many stations in a single market. Unfortunately, about the only group of people this move benefits are the large media companies, who can now go about buying up even more stations and consolidating to become even larger media companies.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-03 07:13pm

The law should say that while its possible, only two or three big corps can own a radio station at any given time, so that all but three frequencies are independent. And big corps would mean a company owning companies involved in 2 or more other forms of media.

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2003-06-03 08:40pm

It's a good thing radio sucks. Long Live private listenings.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-06-03 09:43pm

Well this is the worst move for free media and freedom of speech that i know of short of the robbery of the digital spectrum from the population by congress and the media industry.

Any company having mass control of the media in a particular market is a dangerous force to democracy and the most important principle to any free society, the free flow of ideas.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-03 09:57pm

Doesn't bother me too much. Clear Channel has never bothered me.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-03 09:58pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Well this is the worst move for free media and freedom of speech that i know of short of the robbery of the digital spectrum from the population by congress and the media industry.

What digital spectrum?

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-06-03 10:51pm

Clear Channel, ugh. As if they weren't powerful enough in their industry already. Talk about a powerful lobby. Corporations directly owning the news media and controlling their content out in the open. When it doesnt have to be done subversively, you know there's a problem.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-03 10:54pm

Corporations directly owning the news media and controlling their content out in the open.

As opposed to state-owned media?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-03 11:15pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Corporations directly owning the news media and controlling their content out in the open.
As opposed to state-owned media?

Far better than unregulated ownership of the media.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-03 11:17pm

Well, we're not moving towards unregulated ownership, in any case; the FCC still artificially keeps the amount of radio stations in localities low.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-03 11:17pm

Durran Korr wrote:Well, we're not moving towards unregulated ownership, in any case; the FCC still artificially keeps the amount of radio stations in localities low.

I should have said de-regulated instead of un-regulated. Sorry.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-06-04 05:16pm

Vympel wrote:WTF is this supposed to be?

Er, yea, what they said. The ":roll:" was a link to a story about it.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-04 08:35pm

Durran Korr wrote:As opposed to state-owned media?

That worked rather well for the people of Britain, did it not?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-04 08:40pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:As opposed to state-owned media?
That worked rather well for the people of Britain, did it not?

No.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 08:51pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:As opposed to state-owned media?
That worked rather well for the people of Britain, did it not?
No.

How not?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-04 08:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:That worked rather well for the people of Britain, did it not?

No.[/quote]

Ever heard of the BBC? The most widely respected broadcasting service in the world? Does it ring a bell at all?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-04 09:03pm

The BBC certainly has a leftist bias (the coverage of the Iraq war was undeniably biased against the United States, but that's to be expected, given the greater amount of anti-American sentiment in Britain). Not to mention the BBC is involuntarily funded - if you want a TV, you have to pay for the BBC's right to existence.

And even if the BBC is god's gift to media, it is an anomaly; you still have to account for just about every other state owned media conglomerate of the 20th century which tended to be mouthpieces for the government. I never have understood why owning media is a proper function of government, anyway.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 09:11pm

Durran Korr wrote:The BBC certainly has a leftist bias (the coverage of the Iraq war was undeniably biased against the United States, but that's to be expected, given the greater amount of anti-American sentiment in Britain).

Leftist and anti-american because they called out the US on their lies? The supposedly liberal american media were cheerleaders throughout the entire war, and rarely (really, who wants to listen to Colmes when some obnoxious co-star who shan't be named here

only shouts him down) asked the tough questions.

Not to mention the BBC is involuntarily funded - if you want a TV, you have to pay for the BBC's right to existence.

the horror

And even if the BBC is god's gift to media, it is an anomaly; you still have to account for just about every other state owned media conglomerate of the 20th century which tended to be mouthpieces for the government.

Really? Do tell! Name these "every other"'s

I never have understood why owning media is a proper function of government, anyway.

That's because Fuhrer Rand tought you that gov't is bad. Always. All the time.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-04 09:11pm

Durran Korr wrote:The BBC certainly has a leftist bias (the coverage of the Iraq war was undeniably biased against the United States, but that's to be expected, given the greater amount of anti-American sentiment in Britain).

I disagree. I thought the BBC reported the war in Iraq better than American media.

Not to mention the BBC is involuntarily funded - if you want a TV, you have to pay for the BBC's right to existence.

If you live in Britain and own a TV, you're probably going to watch the BBC. Not many people exclusively watch foreign stations.

And even if the BBC is god's gift to media, it is an anomaly; you still have to account for just about every other state owned media conglomerate of the 20th century which tended to be mouthpieces for the government. I never have understood why owning media is a proper function of government, anyway.

The BBC is an example of how a publicly funded media conglomerate can be made to work, and I don't have to account for the other state-owned conglomerates failed because they existed primarily in totalitarian states. The BBC is more like the Federal Reserve in concept; it's a government entity that is only peripherally beholden to government interests.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-04 09:26pm

Leftist and anti-american because they called out the US on their lies? The supposedly liberal american media were cheerleaders throughout the entire war, and rarely (really, who wants to listen to Colmes when some obnoxious co-star who shan't be named here only shouts him down) asked the tough questions.

Oh, come on, even the most fervent BBC advocate can't deny that the BBC had an undeniably anti-American bias during the war (read a Fisk column, for God's sake).

the horror

Yes, the horror. No American company believes so fervently in its right to exist that it forcefully demands a contribution from anyone who owns a TV set.

Really? Do tell! Name these "every other"'s

Don't be stupid; you know that the media in communist 20th century nations was state-owned and nothing more than a mouthpiece for state interests.

That's because Fuhrer Rand tought you that gov't is bad. Always. All the time.

I will not address that strawman.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-06-04 09:36pm

How about instead of state owned media, we leave it the way it was where a company has limited abilities to control media in any given area, thus insuring a plurality of companies at least and very likely a plurality of ideas being shown.

ohh and NPR is working quite well in the US, and yea from a rabidly "US and Bush can do no wrong and would NEVER lie to the public" point of view, the BBC is liberal and antiamerican, from a realistic point of view they may have a slight left of center leaning but all media has some leaning and anything to the left is better than hatemongering fundamentalist anti-liberty rightism.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 09:43pm

Oh, come on, even the most fervent BBC advocate can't deny that the BBC had an undeniably anti-American bias during the war (read a Fisk column, for God's sake).

Again, you are confusing truthtelling with automatic unamerican bias.

Yes, the horror. No American company believes so fervently in its right to exist that it forcefully demands a contribution from anyone who owns a TV set.

For a public system that everyone can have access to, a fee must be paid. It's no big deal.

Don't be stupid; you know that the media in communist 20th century nations was state-owned and nothing more than a mouthpiece for state interests.

You first. Virtually all of these mouthpieces operated under DICTATORSHIPS.