Your thoughts on media ownership - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Kylie
#1193075
In Kylie's perfect world, the media would not be owned by large corporations that own tiny corporations, etc. etc. nor by the government.

As I've stated in a previous thread, I think the media is the perfect "bullshit detector" (for lack of a better word) to see through political sophistry, and if the media was owned by the government, then I don't think it would have the freedom to do that.

Also, the media in the United States is controlled by a few large corporations that own smaller corporations, and in many ways, that controls and dictates what the media can produce and supply as forms of information to the general public.

In essence, I think Konulu makes a great point when he says the independant media is a forced to be reckoned with. They really have nothing to 'gain' or to 'lose' by the information they produce. I also support public television, like PBS, which is essentially owned by the people and for the people. Henceforth, no commercial advertising. This is in a perfect world, of course.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1193637
Mister Bill wrote:Free subsidized media. No ads.

I agree with the "no ads" stipulation.

But how to finance media will be the challenge. Perhaps government money could be made available, but more importantly, perhaps the production costs could come way down so that virtually anyone could afford to produce TV WITHOUT the perverting hand of the state or a private company.

Letting powerful interests control our information is stupid serf-like social behavour. The powerful tyrants of the world should NEVER be allowed to educate the public with their slick propaganda. Media is only useful for finding the truth when it comes from a variety of sources.

the media owner creates programming to make money through advertising -> Viewers (ie. the public) watch what they want

If viewers watch "what they want," how come they are offered such a narrow spectrum of programming and narrative points of view?

Where are the working-class oriented political action shows, Dan? All I see are the fascism-promoting CSIs and the socially backwards "reality" crap.
User avatar
By NYYS
#1193690
In essence, I think Konulu makes a great point when he says the independant media is a forced to be reckoned with. They really have nothing to 'gain' or to 'lose' by the information they produce.

The only place we see media with nothing to gain or lose is the internet, and we all know what a reliable source xXxDragonSlayer7892xXx is. A media with no restrictions on it (social restrictions of course, not legal ones) is the same media that airs whatever batshit crazy ideas pop into any individual journalist's head. I'm all for free speech, but a media that the public at large will be viewing (like TV media) needs to have something that gives it a sense of journalistic responsibility.

If viewers watch "what they want," how come they are offered such a narrow spectrum of programming and narrative points of view?

Where are the working-class oriented political action shows, Dan? All I see are the fascism-promoting CSIs and the socially backwards "reality" crap.

Then you're not watching (which doesn't surprise me, since, like we discussed in some other thread, you have a pathological need to be different, and, since most people like watching TV, QatzelOK needs to not watch TV).
User avatar
By Dan
#1193709
perhaps the production costs could come way down so that virtually anyone could afford to produce TV WITHOUT the perverting hand of the state or a private company.

Impossible.

Although, the internet can come pretty close for news distribution, the collection of geographically far-ranging news by any one person or small group of people would be near impossible to lower into low enough production values.

If viewers watch "what they want," how come they are offered such a narrow spectrum of programming and narrative points of view?

Because that's what they watch, it's what they want to watch.

Where are the working-class oriented political action shows, Dan?

2 things:

1) For the most part the working class does not care about politics. There is no working-class oriented political action shows because the working class does not care.

2) The working class (at least in North America) tends to be one of the more conservative elements in society. So they would not be involved in the political action you seem to think they would want to be. That type of action exists mainly in the upper-middle class.

All I see are the fascism-promoting CSIs

:roll:

Do you even give the tiniest care to maintaining at least some credibility?
User avatar
By Kylie
#1193735
I'm all for free speech, but a media that the public at large will be viewing (like TV media) needs to have


This is why I would promote things such as public television, it's paid for by the people and for the people. There's a degree of responsibility and integrity that is involved with that. I *believe* to some degree, public television is supported by the government via grants and such, but for the most part, I don't think they directly interfere too much with public television stations (like PBS).
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1194388
Describing me, YankSux wrote:pathological need to be different


I think you could probably learn more by examining the average TV-viewers pathological need to be the same AS WHAT HE SEES ON TELEVISION.

That is what gives media so much power.

Always judging from my own self, I would never tr[…]

Yes, I suspected the video was that old (1995) be[…]

Afterall, for the survival of a nation, sometimes […]

Succession in a monarchic system

Well, it's pretty simple. The king is a king, mean[…]