1) Kind of hard to be sadly mistaken as I did not take issue with your statement pointing out what most already know about the consolidation of ownership- I was amazed though that you A) attempt a connection between the 1996 Act and an increase in political rancor/name calling and B) claim that the act has served to dumb down the public. It may have dumbed down TV news but that is not the same as dumbing down the public since the public has alternative outlets it didn't have then. Television news and newspapers are fading in influence as their audience recedes. And that audience is going elsewhere for information. Talk radio is booming and while not technically journalism, it does serve to shine a light on issues that otherwise are often ignored or deemed unimportant to traditional media. The ports debacle and the killing of Bush's immigration reform come to mind and there are many others. Computer/internet information sources continue to proliferate and audience is increasing exponentially. The Act allowed traditional media consolidation. But the information medium has since expanded beyond television and newspapers.
2) I never said "that CNN, Fox news and other Cable news outlets offer QUALITY news programming"- only that they came onto the scene to compete against the traditional networks, thus diversifying the pool of television news outlets.
3) The majority of us DO vote in federal elections, despite your declaration to the contrary- see the link. The highest percentage of voter turnout in 2004(almost 57%) since the 1972 election.
4) If Obama has to use Oprah to garner attention, so what? Oprah has a huge audience and loyal fans. If he believes she can put butts in the seats to hear his message then he'd be a fool to pass that up. Politicians have always pandered to any and every audience they can get in front of. Oprah simply brought her audience to him. Why does Hillary bring Bill along so often? He draws a bigger crowd. Politicians have historically traveled the back roads of their districts appearing at every county fair, barbeque, crawfish boil or country church. Anywhere there are/were voters, they go. The only difference here is that Oprah brought the voters to him.
There has always been political rancor. It comes in peaks and valleys. You must be too young to remember the 60's, Vietnam followed shortly thereafter by Watergate. All the way back to the most rancorous time in our history when we went to war against ourself in the 1860's. This Act in 1996 most certainly consolidated traditional media ownership. But political rancor and name calling has always been part of the body politic. And the proliferation of the new online media is the wave of the future.
and partisanship rancor occurred with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In fairness, political discourse in American history has not always been gentlemanly and provocative as the Lincoln - Douglas Debates would have us believe. This country did fight a violent and deadly Civil (nothing civil about it) War, after all.
What I have noticed though over the course of the past ten years is a decline of the American body politic being informed on the issues affecting our everyday lives. Thoughtful and intelligent discussion is lacking on the issues of the environment, economics, education, energy policy, immigration, land use, taxes, our civil infrastructure, the War on Terror with the accompaniment questions of liberty vs. security or rather liberty vs. order etc.
Granted our education system and our individual choices share the blame for our incivility. Nonetheless, in my opinion, I assign the biggest culprit for our political blasé and partisanship on the disintegration of a diverse and vibrant press. It is the solemn duty of the press to inform the citizenry on the important topics of the day. Both Gen. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower spoke eloquently for the need of an informed citizenry and the promotion of those organizations and activities that support a free and open representative Republic.
Since the passage of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, the media consolidation has concentrated to where six companies control 90 percent of all media sources in this country. Monday Night Football is more about celebrity quests than about the football game. Why? Because ESPN owned by Disney wants to promote a movie or a television program on ABC.
Reality television has replaced good story telling and News Analysts (with their tired opinions) have replaced gumshoe journalism not because of ideology but because it’s cheaper. It’s also cheaper to fill airtime with car crashes and chase scenes rather than interviewing and collaborating witnesses and evidence. The list goes on, as Doctor Gonzo alluded to, Clear Channel owns most of the radio stations and we are left with Limbaugh and overproduced corporate garbage noise they call music.
We allow this to happen because what has transpired before our eyes is that market capitalism has been replaced by regulatory capitalism. Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service. The only way we the citizens know what our politicians and their lawyers are up to is by the well being of our fourth estate –the press. When people know more about Paris Hilton than General David Howell Petraeus then I know this country is in trouble.
God Save our Republic.
Are you kidding? You think we had a "diverse press" prior to 1996? We had owners all toting the same line. Kind of like NFL owners. Lot's of teams but all singing virtually the same song.
Media is fluid. Until the 1980's TV news was controlled by 3 networks all of whom got their leads from the NY Times which set the "media agenda" on their front page and editorial pages. Talk radio became the antedote for many and a different perspective has drawn a wide audience. Cable news also came on the scene, "diversifying" the spectrum even further.
You talk of the changing TV programming like it matters. The television age has matured. The fluidity of media has taken us to the internet. The future is not TV, it is computer related media. Newspaper readership is down as people demand instant information making their morning paper more of a habit not a necessity. TV viewing is down. TV executives are like the horse and buggy dealers of yesteryear trying every gimmick to get attention in order to hang on as automobile sales soar. Radio listenership is the only of the old media that is thriving and that has a lot to do with driving habits and radios on at work.
But all roads lead to the internet and computers. And the free market always finds its way. I, like many Americans, do not watch TV much anymore unless it is a live event or something serious is happening which warrants my attention. There are so many places to find information on the web. Foreign news sources, blogs, and if you like, all US media outlets are represented on one little screen.
The press continues on. Just morphing into newer avenues of presentation. If you want to be an informed citizen, the information is there moreso today than at anytime in our history. And it is more accessible than ever. All you have to do is look. Many of today's best journalists are in places other than the NY TIMES, the networks or cable.
cross ownership between the radio, Television and print media is now has been passed the FCC. While it is true years ago we only had three networks, these networks were not permitted to own broadcasting stations. These stations were mainly locally owned.
These locally owned stations and newspapers would provide locally focused content. Nowdays these same radio and TV Stations are programmed from New York City or as the case with Clear Channel from San Antonio.
Granted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not address cable or the internet. Trust me after the 2008 election this will be regulated for the further advantage of Cable and internet providers.
You must be joking that CNN, Fox News and other Cable news outlets offer quality news programming. They have plenty of News Analysts i.e. Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly, Lou Dobbs etc. but they are not journalists.
I agree we must take individual responsibility to be informed citizens but the fact of matter is, we as a nation are not informed. The majority of us do not vote. People show up in Iowa not to listen to Sen. Baarck Obama but Oprah Winfrey.
To quote Bruce Springsteen; we have 55 channels with nothing on.
1) Kind of hard to be sadly mistaken as I did not take issue with your statement pointing out what most already know about the consolidation of ownership- I was amazed though that you A) attempt a connection between the 1996 Act and an increase in political rancor/name calling and B) claim that the act has served to dumb down the public. It may have dumbed down TV news but that is not the same as dumbing down the public since the public has alternative outlets it didn't have then. Television news and newspapers are fading in influence as their audience recedes. And that audience is going elsewhere for information. Talk radio is booming and while not technically journalism, it does serve to shine a light on issues that otherwise are often ignored or deemed unimportant to traditional media. The ports debacle and the killing of Bush's immigration reform come to mind and there are many others. Computer/internet information sources continue to proliferate and audience is increasing exponentially. The Act allowed traditional media consolidation. But the information medium has since expanded beyond television and newspapers.
2) I never said "that CNN, Fox news and other Cable news outlets offer QUALITY news programming"- only that they came onto the scene to compete against the traditional networks, thus diversifying the pool of television news outlets.
3) The majority of us DO vote in federal elections, despite your declaration to the contrary- see the link. The highest percentage of voter turnout in 2004(almost 57%) since the 1972 election.
4) If Obama has to use Oprah to garner attention, so what? Oprah has a huge audience and loyal fans. If he believes she can put butts in the seats to hear his message then he'd be a fool to pass that up. Politicians have always pandered to any and every audience they can get in front of. Oprah simply brought her audience to him. Why does Hillary bring Bill along so often? He draws a bigger crowd. Politicians have historically traveled the back roads of their districts appearing at every county fair, barbeque, crawfish boil or country church. Anywhere there are/were voters, they go. The only difference here is that Oprah brought the voters to him.
There has always been political rancor. It comes in peaks and valleys. You must be too young to remember the 60's, Vietnam followed shortly thereafter by Watergate. All the way back to the most rancorous time in our history when we went to war against ourself in the 1860's. This Act in 1996 most certainly consolidated traditional media ownership. But political rancor and name calling has always been part of the body politic. And the proliferation of the new online media is the wave of the future.
companies and political candidates spend so much money on them? Obviously we differ in opinion. Talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Ward and their ilk shed as much on light on issues as a lava lamp in a cave. They don't report the news they distort the facts.
If you don't think the media companies are attempting to influence the election, look no further than the presidential primary schedule. On February 5, 2008 the tickets for the Republican and Democratic parties will be determined on this date.
The advantage will go to those candidates that have the big money and national political organizational skill to buy airtime on Television and Radio and canvas the nation. Is it possible for a dark horse candidate with a grassroots campaign to win their respective parties of course it is but unlikely.
Remember how Gary Hart beat Mondale in New Hampshire in 1984 and Mondale came back to win? And how Paul Tsongas beat Clinton there in 1992 and Clinton eventually won? And how McCain defeated Bush in New Hampshire in 2000 but how Bush came back to win? Different year. New candidates. Same deal.
The following states will have delegates selected on the presidential primary date of Febuuary 5th 2008:
Alabama, Alaska caucuses, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado caucuses, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho caucus, Illinois, Kansas caucuses, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico caucus, New York, North Dakota caucuses, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
-- Modified on 12/11/2007 12:01:09 AM
1) I didn't say "television and radio has lost it's influence" I said television's influence is receding as it's audience shrinks. As for talk radio, it continues to expand it's reach and like it or not, they do bring issues to light that are often ignored by the establishment press.
2) Media companies sell advertising. And of course, politicos will spend $$ to advertise their message. Much is spent on television but more and more is being allocated for other media as analysts recognize the decline in viewership and a need to reach more voters. Television viewership is declining. I didn't say it was non existent or ineffective. It just doesn't penetrate the voting public as it once did because a lot of the voting public spends less of their time in front of the tv. And since so few people watch television news anymore, they cannot rely on mainstream news coverage for exposure that they used to take for granted. And this trend will continue into the future. There are articles and studies galore you can reference showing a declining percentage of television advertising buys and a corresponding increase in internet and other marketing buys.
3)I don't know what relevance there is in the specific candidates you mentioned as it has no bearing on what we've been discussing. But since you brought it up, Gary Hart got beat because he fucked a chick other than his wife and got caught after daring the media to follow him. Clinton got the nomination in 92 and he hardly qualified as an ESTABLISHMENT candidate- Gov of a no name state, personal issues out the wazoo, draft evasion-- all prominently brought out in the campaign by the media and despite all that got the nomination anyway. I fail to see your point here. Hell, Jimmy Carter, the King of nobodies won in 1976-
4)So the parties will have their candidates selected by march. So what. In the old days, the parties selected their candidate at conventions with back room deals. The primary elections as we know them today, didn't even exist.
What any of this has to do with the 1996 Act, political rancor and name calling is a mystery to me. But, I'm sure you'll figure something out to change the subject again.
"To quote Bruce Springsteen; we have 55 channels with nothing on".
If Springstein would turn one of those channels to Fox he could enlighten his mind..
"Only if he Listens"
-- Modified on 12/12/2007 9:11:25 PM