Will we ever have media reform?

[DavidDvorkin]

By which I don't mean censorship but rather some kind of breakup of media monopolies.

Will we have independent, competitive media, where fierce competition limits the propaganda effects of big money, or is the war lost?

We have some degree of competitive, independent news sources on the Web, but the majority of Americans still seem to get their news from Fox and similar corporate/plutocratic sources.

[NewJeffCT]

1. It's a generational thing

older folks still like getting their info from TV, radio and the newspaper. The print newspaper is dying out and TV viewership is down. The internet is booming as a source of news, but it will take years for TV to completely fade away.

[RKP5637]

10. I'm older as are many I know and we all get our news from the Internet, so

I don't think it's all a generational thing / stereotype.

[DavidDvorkin]

13. Same here

I'm 66, and I get my news from the Web and have been doing so for years.

[NewJeffCT]

15. But in general

The older generation gets less news from the internets than the younger generations. Obviously, there are exceptions.

[DavidDvorkin]

18. That wouldn't surprise me

But I'd like to see actual statistics. A few years ago, I read that older people were getting online disproportionately, which surprised me.

[NewJeffCT]

21. This article has some statistics...

70% get news from TV, 40% from internet, 35% from newspapers. However, among younger people it was 59% internet & TV and less than 35% newspapers.

http://people-press.org/report/479/internet-overtakes-newspapers-as-news-source

[DavidDvorkin]

26. Interesting. Thanks.

This page shows more about age groups and probably supports the claim that the old get less of their news online than the young do:

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News/Part-3/2-Who-gets-their-news-online.aspx?r=1

(I only say "probably" because it doesn't break down the 50 and above segment, so it's still possibly that, say, 70 year olds get most of their news online. Unlikely, I'd assume.)

[Joanne98]

2. I sure hope so. They SUCK!

[Echo In Light]

3. Media "reform" in the US would be exactly like HC "reform;"

Which is to say, corporations, private tyrannies, have zero interest in sabotaging their chief aim: profit over people

[walnutpie]

4. Only with a return of the Fairness Doctrine

Or a similar setup with an impartial government agency ensuring that which is reported as news is not distorted. There is no way individuals can see through the noise generated by the various corporate outlets. This job is too big and important to leave to the masses.

[RKP5637]

5. Doubtful, there is too much money to be had today with the media monopolies and

in the US money talks, fairness matters little in the NEW US, which sucks.

[el_bryanto]

6. it seems unlikely

A forced break up of meda conglomerates is not in the works; nor is a return to the fairness doctrine. The truth is the media empires have the means to defend themself from any incursions they might face.

Bryant

[walnutpie]

8. I really think it's the only answer

Think of an agency with powers similar to the mods at DU. They could take programming off the air, or redact previously aired shows that violated the principals of truth and honest information.

Broadcasters might get away with flaunting to rule once, but then all the online clips would be subject to government editing. You could really control the message.

Think about HCR and how much easier it would be if the lies and half truths were removed from the conversation. Think about what could be accomplished!

[el_bryanto]

17. who decides?

Consider - Republicans think we are lying knowingly constantly - and we feel the same about them.

Bryant

[joycean]

7. I like to think of the internet as a type of media reform.

But as far as the history of media corruption goes, it goes back to the Spanish-American War, and well before that. Why should we expect that it will change now?

[RKP5637]

12. True, propaganda and mind control have been around since day one! Today, however, there

are sadly better tools and funding to achieve the desired end result.

[Echo In Light]

23. All woven into the static cultural backdrop, ensuring that many more mindlessly assimilate

In this context, what we would call propaganda, or coercive marketing, or brainwashing, many simply perceive as 'normal' since most people within their sphere of influence likewise adopt a similar mindset/perspective. If 'everyone's doing it, it can't be wrong, and the few asking unpleasant questions, and posing unfavorable, objective analysis, surely must be overstating their case b/c they're 'crazy' conspiracy theorists.

[RKP5637]

28. Very sad, but ever so true. n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Media corruption and bias have always been with us

but fierce competition between newspapers, combined with newspapers being independent companies, used to make it more likely that the truth would out eventually.

[Tailormyst]

9. If it's anything like HCR we'd all end up being required to watch Faux.

[Fire1]

11. Not if we don't demand it! n/t

[Spike89]

16. Not really

I'm a huge fan of the Internet, and it does have potential as a "people's" forum. However, the reality is that news isn't something that individuals can really produce and disseminate. It is expensive to staff a newsroom, especially in a globally related world. People will still need/want to go to an aggregate source, one that can report on the fire at their kid's school, and the latest uprising in the middle east.

Too many people fool themselves that we won't need "big media" when we have the Internet. Virtually all the actual news on the Internet today is in fact coming from reporters hired by corporate media. What we have is thousands/millions of people commenting on that news, but DU and its ilk are not news sources. As it has always been, we will depend on people paid to get the stories. Those reporters are going to be paid by the businesses that can convince enough Internet users that their news product is better than the others.

[readmoreoften]

19. You'd need media reform to get public support for media reform.

Basically.

[Lorien]

20. The Fairness Doctrine was never "censorship"; it gave a megaphone to both

parties and one to a non partisan source. Now only the Right has access to the megaphones.

Breaking up the monopolies will have little effect. There are plenty of banks out there, but few of them police themselves effectively. The rich will always own both.

[Jkid]

22. Adopt the now abolished Broadcasting Act 1980 from the UK

We already have a model for media reform, it's called Public Service Broadcasting.

[dkofos]

24. Not with the Corporatists we have running the govt.

[upi402]

25. All else hinges on this, an informed electorate

Now we have a mis-informed electorate. We wont get campaign election reform, or redo NAFTA and GATT unless the propaganda is forcefully stopped.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Not From The FCC...But From The Banks Instead...

I'm very disappointed to see nothing being done about revisiting or repealing Telcom '96 that turned the public airwaves into a private plantation. The greedy corporate in their zeal to dominate and control what we see and hear have piled up massive amounts of debts and driven away listeners (cutting back revenues) that has force several companies into bankruptcy with others with 9 toes over the cliff. The too big to fails are trying to dump properties, but just like the popped real estate bubble, their properties are worth far below what they paid for them and banks are very reluctant to finance any new purchases. They'd rather see the industry go under...sell off the parts for whatever they can get. That will be "broadcast reregulation".

[spanone]

29. i believe it will only get worse.

[madokie]

30. With out it our democracy will not continue to be

And yes it is that simple

[Supersedeas]

31. We'd have to confront the issue of public funding a media sources

Corporations who can afford to advertise can also afford to sponsor 'news' which is nothing less than campaign ads which avoid campaign finance laws.

[DavidDvorkin]

32. If we had the equivalent of the BBC, that would help

We have the CPB, but that doesn't do the trick at all.

[Supersedeas]

33. Neither does NPR

[DavidDvorkin]

34. Doesn't CPB run/direct/control NPR?