← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 16790 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2005-02-16
2005-02-16 13:57 | User Profile
Sycophantic Media Abandons Professional Standards
By Paul Craig Roberts
The conservative media will never recover from its role as Chief Sycophant for the Bush administration. Journalists who demanded that Clinton be held accountable for a minor sex scandal (Monica Lewinsky) and a minor financial scandal (Whitewater) now serve as apologists and propagandists for the Bush administrationââ¬â¢s major war scandals.
The Republican House of Representatives saw fit to impeach President Clinton for lying about sex. The same Republicans defend to the hilt Bushââ¬â¢s lies that launched America into an unjustified war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, ruined Americaââ¬â¢s reputation, and lost forever the hearts and minds of Muslims.
No decent or sensible person can have confidence in journalists and politicians who take partisanship to such extreme lengths.
There is plenty of room in journalism and politics for arguments over issues and policies. But two solid years of lies is beyond the pale.
Conservative journalists and Republican politicians not only lie through their teeth, but also seek to destroy everyone who utters a word of dissent or truth.
For example, Tom Frank of The New Republic (once considered to be part of the hated "liberal press") recently expressed his thoughts in that unfortunate magazine. Frank wrote that dissenters from Bushââ¬â¢s gratuitous war should be beaten and even killed. He expressed his wish that Arnold Schwarzenegger would punch Stan Goff in the face. He wrote that seeing Arundhati Roy taken out with a "bunker buster" would be a satisfying experience. As for Sherry Wolf and other dissenters, "I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation." [Ball Fake, by Tom Frank, TNR Online, Jan 21, 2005]
What have Stan Goff, Arundhati Roy and Sherry Wolf done to inspire Tom Frank to reveal his brownshirted inner self?
A former Delta Force soldier, Goff joined up with Military Families Speak Out. Roy penned a defense of the right of Iraqis to resist military occupation, and Wolf agreed that Iraqis have a right to resist Bushââ¬â¢s occupation of Iraq. Frank views beatings, arrests, interrogations, torture, and death as appropriate responses to these peaceful expressions of dissent.
Conservatives regard dissent as a serious offense, but they think it is treasonous to give the public real information, as contrasted with Fox "News" propaganda. Former Newt Gingrich operative and current Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley believes Americaââ¬â¢s premier investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, should be arrested for treason and perhaps shot for warning Americans about the Bush administrationââ¬â¢s plans to start a war with Iran.
"Conservative" talk radio hosts and Republican politicians are foaming at the mouth over Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor of ethics. The professorââ¬â¢s crimeââ¬âand the crazed Republicans mean the word literallyââ¬âis to have stated that the US should apply to itself the same standards it applies to other countries.
Those conservatives who have not joined the New Brownshirts might ask themselves why the mighty Bush apparatus and its legions of propagandists and sycophants feel so threatened by a few expressions of dissent, a few facts, and a simple ethical statement. Could it be that they know that their edifice of lies will come crashing down if anyone is allowed to utter dissent or a word of truth?
The conservative media has blown its great chance to gain credibility by holding Bush accountable as it did Clinton. Instead, the conservative media and talk radio have shown themselves to be political partisans who fight against truth. Justify Bush at all costs is their operative rule.
At least the German press and the Soviet press were forced into these roles by Hitler and Stalin. The American conservative media willingly adopted the role on its own.
The function of a journalist is to speak truth to power and to hold accountable those with power. Abandoning this role, the conservative media cheerleads for war, incompetent leaders, and a police state.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Paul Craig Roberts is the author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelowââ¬â¢s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
[url]http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050215_media.htm[/url]
2005-02-18 02:09 | User Profile
... With all due respect to honest working girls.
Media whores are nothing new, check out this article circa 1880:
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
[url]http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9401[/url]
This information provided by The Federal Observer, [url]http://www.federalobserver.com[/url] Edwards: The Worldââ¬â¢s Most Repulsive Job
By Alan C. Edwards
Have you ever thought about what might be the most low-down, disgusting, and dishonorable job in the world? I mused about it one evening while sitting in my swing smoking my pipe and enjoying an adult beverage. I first thought of the man who cleans out septic tanks as having a really disgusting job, but certainly not a dishonorable one and one of practical necessity. Then I thought of the circus sideshow geek who would eat disgusting things to horrify his audience. Certainly disgusting and of no practical value, but the geek did no harm to anyone other than make some people nauseated. Then I thought the worldââ¬â¢s most disgusting and dishonorable job would involve treason with as much death, destruction, and injury to as many people as possible.
The action of Gen. Benedict Arnold at Saratoga was a pivotal point in American history. The American Revolution might never have succeeded without Arnoldââ¬â¢s brave leadership at Saratoga. While his name has become synonymous with traitor, had he died of his wounds at Saratoga he would be regarded today as one of Americaââ¬â¢s greatest heroes. He sold out his honor only once with a single act of treason. But who, I ask myself, sells out their country, their culture, and their race day after day. Then I think I have the answer I am looking for, newspaper editors.
Newspaper editors along with their counterparts in other media have created an artificial matrix world of lies and deception. The naked savage in the Brazilian jungle knows nothing of how the world really works but is closer to the truth than those who read newspapers and watch television. Those whose minds are filled with destructive propaganda and actually know less than nothing. Omitting vital facts and spinning others to create the illusion of knowledge in the mind of an unsuspecting public is the job of the newspaper editor. The following story was taken from the rense.com website from a participant on the inside of this matrix of fraud.
One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honor at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
If Swinton thought things were bad back then, he should see them now. Swinton died in 1901. I wonder what he would have to say about the present day media corruption and their pandering to the most evil, treasonous, and depraved elements of humanity. I think he would find the outrageous degeneracy beyond his comprehension. Sir John Harrington wrote, "Treason doth never prosper, whatââ¬â¢s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." It is prospering and the editor who blue pencils the truth is a traitor.
(c) 2005 Alan C. Edwards
2005-02-19 03:30 | User Profile
The elitist's agenda:
[url]http://www.etherzone.com/2005/sart021705.shtml[/url]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A BBC article on the Bilderberg group:
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm[/url]
Bilderberg: The ultimate conspiracy theory By Jonathan Duffy BBC News Online Magazine
The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.
Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world, the Bilderberg group doesn't go a bundle on its switchboard operations.
Telephone inquiries are met with an impersonal female voice - the Dutch equivalent of the BT Callminder woman - reciting back the number and inviting callers to "leave a message after the tone".
Anyone who accidentally dialled the number would probably think they had stumbled on just another residential answer machine.
Leiden Leiden in Holland, the inauspicious base of the Bilderberg group But behind this ultra-modest façade lies one of the most controversial and hotly-debated alliances of our times.
On Thursday the Bilderberg group marks its 50th anniversary with the start of its yearly meeting.
For four days some of the West's chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.
What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.
Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.
The shadowy aura extends further - the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.
DISCREET AND ELITE This year Bilderberg has announced a list of attendees They include BP chief John Browne, US Senator John Edwards, World Bank president James Wolfensohn and Mrs Bill Gates
In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
In Yugoslavia, leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.
And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.
A former journalist, Mr Gosling runs a campaign against the group from his home in Bristol, UK.
"My main problem is the secrecy. When so many people with so much power get together in one place I think we are owed an explanation of what is going on.
Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, is led away from court Timothy McVeigh was among those who believed the conspiracy theory Mr Gosling seizes on a quote from Will Hutton, the British economist and a former Bilderberg delegate, who likened it to the annual WEF gathering where "the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide".
"One of the first places I heard about the determination of US forces to attack Iraq was from leaks that came out of the 2002 Bilderberg meeting," says Mr Gosling.
But "privacy, rather than secrecy", is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role.
"The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian," he says. "It's not an executive body; no decisions are taken there."
As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis Healey, who went on to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four founding members of Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954).
Crowds gather in Davos The alternative - the WEF welcomes journalists His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a shadowy hand on the global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness. "Crap!"
"There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion," says Lord Healey.
Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes.
"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.
"In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published."
That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.
"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.
"Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful organise things in their own interests. It's called capitalism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But of course, we know that all of the above is nothing but bunkum. And why do we know this? [url]http://www.adl.org/rumors/bilderberg.asp[/url]
2005-02-25 01:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The conservative media will never recover from its role as Chief Sycophant for the Bush administration. Journalists who demanded that Clinton be held accountable for a minor sex scandal (Monica Lewinsky) and a minor financial scandal (Whitewater) now serve as apologists and propagandists for the Bush administration’s major war scandals.
The Republican House of Representatives saw fit to impeach President Clinton for lying about sex. The same Republicans defend to the hilt Bush’s lies that launched America into an unjustified war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, ruined America’s reputation, and lost forever the hearts and minds of Muslims.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that insanity, compounded by stupidity, cannot be reasoned with. The same people now claiming that conflict between Islam and the West was "inevitable" because "it has been ongoing for a thousand years" conveniently forget that this threat was [I]so [/I] all-pervasive that neither Gore nor Dubya bothered to address it during the 2000 Presidential campaign...save for whenever they wre goosed into making some soundbite on "the peace process" by Jews....and certainly neither one gave any hint that Apocalypse was so close at hand that the avenue of diplomacy was now obsolete, and actually a hindrance towards a "solution".
Similarly, these same people, so incensed by the idea of "mass murderers" like Hussein and Assad wielding power, fail to acknowledge that when a leader sets wars into motion - not for misguided or mistaken reasons, but on deliberately doctored and fraudulent 'evidence', and on the say-so of dual citizens extra-cautious never to be caught dead in uniform themselves - he is [U]perpetrating mass murder[/U]. The dead of Enduring Freedom, both US and Iraqi, are not casualties: they are [I]murder victims[/I]. As that aggregate total is nearing 100, 000, I would say that while Bush (aided and even directed by Perle and Wolfowitz and Cheney) is no Pol Pot yet, he's made a great start - pushing pikers like Idi Amin right off the All-Pro First Team.
But like I said - it's hard enough talking sense to the stupid; when they're insane [I]besides[/I], it's a mathematical impossibility.
2005-02-25 05:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Those conservatives who have not joined the [B]New Brownshirts[/B] might ask themselves why the mighty Bush apparatus and its legions of propagandists and sycophants feel so threatened by a few expressions of dissent, a few facts, and a simple ethical statement. Could it be that they know that their edifice of lies will come crashing down if anyone is allowed to utter dissent or a word of truth?[/QUOTE]
I always look forward to a PCR commentary, but why use the "New Brownshirts" tag to describe people who don't even know the first thing about National Socialism and even more, are Zionist sympathizers to boot? It's kind of sleight-of-handish, IMO. I just don't like those analogies, but it's an otherwise great commentary by PCB.
2005-02-25 05:40 | User Profile
I have noticed that Roberts has gotten much more radical and outspoken in the past year. My response is "Sing it out, Brother!" But what is the response of Sally Freeper and Joe Dittohead? Is he casting seeds of doubt about the wisdom of Emperor W and his neocon handlers, or are they dismissing him as a kook who went over the edge?
2005-02-25 10:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I have noticed that Roberts has gotten much more radical and outspoken in the past year. My response is "Sing it out, Brother!" But what is the response of Sally Freeper and Joe Dittohead? Is he casting seeds of doubt about the wisdom of Emperor W and his neocon handlers, or are they dismissing him as a kook who went over the edge?[/QUOTE]
Roberts is regularly smeared as a "hater" or "foil-headed whacko" on the neo-con boards...nearly as reviled as Charlie Reese; Sam; Pat and Joe.
But regarding standards, Paul's copywriter should have written "...Media Abandon"... rather than "abandons". That subject/verb thang, dawg.
2005-02-25 12:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I have noticed that Roberts has gotten much more radical and outspoken in the past year. My response is "Sing it out, Brother!" But what is the response of Sally Freeper and Joe Dittohead? Is he casting seeds of doubt about the wisdom of Emperor W and his neocon handlers, or are they dismissing him as a kook who went over the edge?[/QUOTE] I think PCR realized that since he had already been ostracized over his anti-'Free Trade' views, that there was no point in following the party line in other areas, as well.
2005-02-25 13:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But regarding standards, Paul's copywriter should have written "...Media Abandon"... rather than "abandons". That subject/verb thang, dawg.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, Howard; as "media" is the plural of "medium", [I]abandons [/I] is technically correct. Not that I think it matters, as "media" is one of those subjects in which either the singular or plural verb is acceptable.
2005-02-25 14:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Sorry, Howard; as "media" is the plural of "medium", [I]abandons [/I] is technically correct. Not that I think it matters, as "media" is one of those subjects in which either the singular or plural verb is acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, Ragman, but Howie is correct, and for exactly the reason you state.
Media is plural, and so demands the third person plural form, which is SANS the "s."
Third person singular is the only instance that demands the "s".
One would say, for example, using the third person singular "he abandons his wife." One would NOT say, using the third person plural, "they abandon[B]s[/B] their wives."
See?
2005-02-25 15:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]One would NOT say, using the third person plural, "they abandon[B]s[/B] their wives."[/QUOTE]
What about, "Dey be abandonin' dey wives"?
2005-02-25 15:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]What about, "Dey be abandonin' dey wives"?[/QUOTE]
Word, homedawg. Git jiggy wit' it. Fo' sho'!
2005-02-25 15:41 | User Profile
The rules are quite simple: when the subject is a collective noun, e.g. media, it maybe treated as singular or plural dependant on the premise of the sentence or the effect the writer wishes to convey. If the group is acting as, or displays the attributes of, a single entity than treat it so and vis versa for it's constituents.
Singular: the platoon marched into its camp. Here the men are acting as a body and the use of singular enforces than impression.
Plural: The platoon jumped for their weapons. Creates the impression that the individual soldiers are reacting in a variety of ways even though the ultimate effect of their action is the same.
However the logic of the premise should take priority over any stylistic considerations. Roberts' essay is trying to convey the fact that the media acts in a monolithic way so the singular use of "abandons" is completely appropriate.
2005-02-25 16:14 | User Profile
"Medium" is the single noun, (the word) "Media" is the plural form. Platoon, like school, team, group, bevy and pride is a single noun denoting a collectivity.
I know that grammatical critique is a losing battle and somewhat off-topic. Let's say I'm pressing the point in memory of Dr. Sam, whose style was always above reproach...
2005-02-25 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]"Medium" is the single noun, (the word) "Media" is the plural form. Platoon, like school, team, group, bevy and pride is a single noun denoting a collectivity.
I know that grammatical critique is a losing battle and somewhat off-topic. Let's say I'm pressing the point in memory of Dr. Sam, whose style was always above reproach...[/QUOTE]
There you have it, then.
We need to think up fitting pennance for the transgressing Ragman.
2005-02-25 16:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]"Medium" is the single noun, (the word) "Media" is the plural form. Platoon, like school, team, group, bevy and pride is a single noun denoting a collectivity.
I know that grammatical critique is a losing battle and somewhat off-topic. Let's say I'm pressing the point in memory of Dr. Sam, whose style was always above reproach...[/QUOTE] I'd like to say I hate to be pedantic but that would make me a liar ;)
Medium is a noun for a substance which provides a mean of conveyance; media(1) is its plural form.
Media(2) is collective noun for publishing and broadcasting bodies.
Media(1) and media(2) are different nouns ââ¬â homonyms to be precise. Roberts was clearly using media the collective noun.
2005-02-25 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile] Medium is a noun for a substance which provides a mean of conveyance; media(1) is its plural form.
Media(2) is collective noun for publishing and broadcasting bodies.
Media(1) and media(2) are different nouns ââ¬â homonyms to be precise. Roberts was clearly using media the collective noun.[/QUOTE] NGIG, They are not different nouns. A newspaper is a 'means of conveyance' for information, for example, so it is a print medium, as a television station is a broadcast medium. All of these individual 'means of conveyance' taken collectively, comprise 'the media.' The media, in your definition #2 above, does mean publishing and broadcasting bodies, but only in the sense that they are all 'means of conveyance' of information.
2005-02-25 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]We need to think up fitting pennance for the transgressing Ragman.[/QUOTE]
I'm way ahead of ya, Yannis; I've taken Petr off my ignore list. Anything beyond this would surely constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
"Media" being a relatively recent word whose meaning (in common usage) is fungible...ie, most people refer to "media" as a single entity, by preceding it with the article "the", even though technically it isn't ...you'll find the subject-predicate laws relating to "media" suspended more often than not.
By the way, Mr Linguistic Inquisitor, it's "penance".
2005-02-26 10:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]By the way, Mr Linguistic Inquisitor, it's "penance".[/QUOTE]
Hell, shoulda run the spell checker.
Hoist on my own petard yet again.
2005-02-26 12:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]There you have it, then.
We need to think up fitting pennance for the transgressing Ragman.[/QUOTE]
How about having him translate "The Eensy Weensy Spider" into Pig-Latin? :D
2005-02-28 13:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]NGIG, They are not different nouns. A newspaper is a 'means of conveyance' for information, for example, so it is a print medium, as a television station is a broadcast medium. All of these individual 'means of conveyance' taken collectively, comprise 'the media.' The media, in your definition #2 above, does mean publishing and broadcasting bodies, but only in the sense that they are all 'means of conveyance' of information.[/QUOTE] Of course Quantrill, Roberts wrote his article bemoaning the abandonment of professional standards by cathode ray tubes and printing presses :whstl:
Fortunately Bartleby clarifies the issue much better than I have:
[url]http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0206.html[/url]
People also use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like ââ¬Åthe press.ââ¬Â Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning. If the point is to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the press, a plural verb may be more appropriate: The media have covered the trial in a variety of formats. Quite frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: The media has not shown much interest in covering the trial. This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning.
Remember that you canââ¬â¢t use the singular medium as a collective noun for the press. You canââ¬â¢t say No medium has shown much interest in covering the trial, which would suggest that the lack of interest is in the means of communication itself rather than in its practitioners. [emp. mine]
Note the last paragraph, "means of communication" is 'media' plural noun and "its practitioners" is media collective noun - different nouns.
2005-02-28 14:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Of course Quantrill, Roberts wrote his article bemoaning the abandonment of professional standards by cathode ray tubes and printing presses :whstl: [/QUOTE] The word implies the writers, broadcasters, etc. who produce the content, but the word itself refers to the 'means of conveyance,' which is how it came into use. It is not really a different noun; it is just used with a different emphasis. I can see the argument for using the third-person with 'media', but that quote you gave also endorses its use for 'data', and with that I cannot agree.
2005-02-28 16:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The word implies the writers, broadcasters, etc. who produce the content, but the word itself refers to the 'means of conveyance,' which is how it came into use. It is not really a different noun; it is just used with a different emphasis. [/QUOTE] In context the word doesn't imply, by accepted usage it quite clearly labels. Thus a sentence like "the [color=DarkRed]media[/color] now utilises both old (print and radio) and new [color=DarkBlue]media[/color] (the Internet and CD-ROM) to distribute its message" - while badly in need of a synonym - makes perfect sense. The reader can distinguish, by context, that [color=DarkRed]media[/color] is a different concept from [color=DarkBlue]media[/color]. They are related but different things not merely different aspects of the same thing, anymore than artist is the same concept as art. Sure in a better, safer and cleaner world the [color=DarkRed]media[/color] would be called mediaists or mediagogues or somesuch, but thanks to the [color=DarkRed]media[/color]'s repeated self-referencing we're stuck with label.
[color=DarkRed]Media[/color] is directly descended from [color=DarkBlue]media[/color], and [color=DarkBlue]media[/color] is directly descended from the latin [color=DarkGreen]media[/color] still extant in scientific terminology. Theyââ¬â¢re three different labels meaning three different things. That's the wacky mutable nature of language.
2005-03-05 02:40 | User Profile
[url]http://www.freepress.net/media/tenthings.php[/url]
Media Monopoly Made Simple
A handful of companies dominate. Five media conglomerates ââ¬â Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp. and NBC/GE ââ¬â control the big four networks (70% of the prime time television market share), most cable channels, vast holdings in radio, publishing, movie studios, music, Internet, and other sectors. [Consumers Union/Parents Television Council]
Big Media are a powerful special interest in Washington. Media companies intent upon changing the FCC media ownership rules have spent nearly $100 million on lobbying in the last 4 years. FCC officials have taken more than 2,500 industry-sponsored junkets since 1995, at a pricetag of $2.8 million. [Common Cause, Center for Public Integrity]
Consolidation fosters inferior educational programming. After Viacom purchased the independent KCAL in Los Angeles, children's programming plunged 89%, dropping from 26 hours per week in 1998 to three hours in 2003 (the minimum requirement set by Congress). TV stations air programs like NFL Under the Helmet and Saved by the Bell, claiming they meet educational programming requirements. [Children Now, FCC]
Cable rates are skyrocketing. Cable companies lobbied for and won deregulation in 1996, arguing that it would lower prices. Since then, cable rates have been rising at three times the rate of inflation. On average, rates have risen by 50%; in New York City, they've risen by 93.7%. [US PIRG]
Big Media profit from a money-dominated campaign finance system. In 2002, television stations earned more than $1 billion from political advertising ââ¬â more than they earned from fast food and automotive ads. You were four times more likely to see a political ad during a TV news broadcast than an election-related news story. [Alliance for Better Campaigns]
Big Media use the public's airwaves at no charge. The total worth of the publicly-owned airwaves that U.S. broadcasters utilize has been valued at $367 billion ââ¬â more than many nations' GDPs ââ¬â but the public has never been paid a dime in return. And the broadcasters claim they can't afford to be accountable to the public interest! [Alliance for Better Campaigns]
Independent voices are fading. Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have disappeared, and one-third of independent television owners have vanished. Only 281 of the nation's 1,500 daily newspapers remain independently owned, and more than half of all U.S. markets are one-newspaper towns. [Writers Guild of America, East; Consumer Federation of America]
Consolidation is killing local radio. The number of radio station owners has plummeted by 34% since 1996, when ownership rules were gutted. That year, the largest radio owners controlled fewer than 65 stations; today, radio giant Clear Channel alone owns over 1,200. [FCC]
Consolidation threatens minority media ownership. Minority ownership ââ¬â a crucial source of diverse and varied viewpoints ââ¬â is at a 10-year low, down 14% since 1997. Today, only 4% of radio stations and 1.9% of television stations are minority-owned. [Writers Guild of America, East]
The free flow of idea and information is being stymied. No copyrighted work created after 1922 has entered the public domain ââ¬â an incubator for new ideas ââ¬â due to corporate-sponsored legislation extending copyright terms. If laws being considered today had been in effect a few generations ago, you wouldn't have access to products such as VCRs and copy machines. [U.S. Copyright Office, FCC, Electronic Frontier Foundation]