[Demosthenes]

[Yet] Another concern is that consolidated media is not flexible enough to serve local communities in case of emergency. This happened in Minot, North Dakota, in 2002, after a train filled with anhydrous ammonia derailed. None of the leading radio stations in Minot carried information on the derailment or evacuation procedures, largely because they were all owned by Clear Channel Communications and received automated feeds from the corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas. 1600 people were injured and one died

Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some crucial issues that may affect them. If the only media outlets in town refuse to air a story, then the question becomes, who will?

A more in-depth look at the issues surrounding the concentration of media ownership can be found: Here


With all this in mind, I then call for all media coorporations, companies, and individuals to be required to sell off all mutliple media holdings except one individual outlet. From the point in time that this regulation would be enacted onward an owner, be they individual, coorporate, company, or any other form, may only hold ownership over one media venue, be it radio, television, newspaper, internet, or any other yet-to-be developed media outlet.

In this way, we are able to avoid the pitfalls listed above, and can be a little more assured that it won't only be coorporate interests that are served by any given media outlet.

Interested in who owns your local media outlet?
Click here to find out!

[HoniSoit]

Very interesting article, Demo!

With all this in mind, I then call for all media coorporations, companies, and individuals to be required to sell off all mutliple media holdings except one individual outlet. From the point in time that this regulation would be enacted onward an owner, be they individual, coorporate, company, or any other form, may only hold ownership over one media venue, be it radio, television, newspaper, internet, or any other yet-to-be developed media outlet.

I agree with most of the points you are making. Though I would also add that given the nature of 'corporate' media, namely the revenue of which would come substantially from selling ad time to other mostly big businesses, it's unlikely that even if size of a particular media outlet is much smaller, the problem of skewing news coverage and opinions to the tune of big business will simply go away.

Would you see that as a problem, and if so how would you propose to counter it?

[Demosthenes]

Very interesting article, Demo!

Thank You!

I agree with most of the points you are making. Though I would also add that given the nature of 'corporate' media, namely the revenue of which would come substantially from selling ad time to other mostly big businesses, it's unlikely that even if size of a particular media outlet is much smaller, the problem of skewing news coverage and opinions to the tune of big business will simply go away.

Would you see that as a problem, and if so how would you propose to counter it?

Of course it is, short of services that are paid based on subscritption or complete nationalization of the media (Which is waaaay too risky going the other direction), you have no choice (That I can see) but to accept some bias based on advertising sponsorship.

The hope is that because each station, outlet, etc...has as different owner, that none of them would en mass, rely on the exact same advertisers.

Ugh...I'm open to suggestions though.

[HoniSoit]

Of course it is, short of services that are paid based on subscritption or complete nationalization of the media (Which is waaaay too risky going the other direction), you have no choice (That I can see) but to accept some bias based on advertising sponsorship.

I agree that complete nationalisation would give too much sway to the government which isn' quite desirable.

With regard to subscription, I think one problem may be that unless the subscription fees are relatively high or there is really a huge number of subscriptions, any slightly large media outlet would be unable to sustain itself - unless with revenues from advertising.

It's a distant goal - but why not some form of non-state collective ownership based in communities so that ordinary folks like you and me could have more say?

Just my two cents.

[Dan]

With all this in mind, I then call for all media coorporations, companies, and individuals to be required to sell off all mutliple media holdings except one individual outlet. From the point in time that this regulation would be enacted onward an owner, be they individual, coorporate, company, or any other form, may only hold ownership over one media venue, be it radio, television, newspaper, internet, or any other yet-to-be developed media outlet.

I kinda like this idea.

But I think it will become irrelevant in the next decade or so; the MSM is dying. The newspapers are taking a beating and are in their death throes, even the NYT had to be bailed out. TV is already taking a hit and will continue to decline. Talk radio is strong enough, but is very concentrated to a specific audience (ie. conservatives in the US, liberals [CBC] in Canada). Barring some really crappy future legislation, the internet is too free for ownership of web pages to matter much. Viva la internet! It will destroy the MSM and all shall rejoice.

Also, I think you ignored the problem of press agencies (like the Associated Press). These are by far and away the most destructive and centralizating force in the news business today. If you want to prevent consolidation you can not ignore these; they would have to be destroyed.

It's a distant goal - but why not some form of non-state collective ownership based in communities so that ordinary folks like you and me could have more say?

Then one or two folks (or groups of folks) in the community will become dominant and their bias will hold sway. It will happen no matter what; the best way is to simply keep media as free, diverse, and fractured as possible, so that a multiplicity of views can exist.

Also, Demo, why do you spell it "coorporations" with two o's? I've seen you do it in multiple places, so I don't think it's a simple typographical error.

[Average Voter]

The internet is the solution. People interact and talk on it just like this forum. People link knowledge to each other of how untrustworthy American media is. But, would you really want to censor or regulate the internet? That is the only option if you are to consider this:

From the point in time that this regulation would be enacted onward an owner... may only hold ownership over one media venue, be it... internet, or any other yet-to-be developed media outlet.

[Demosthenes]

Also, Demo, why do you spell it "coorporations" with two o's? I've seen you do it in multiple places, so I don't think it's a simple typographical error.

*gulp*

I just caught that myself about a half hour ago...dammit, I've got nothing. I have no idea why I kept doing that.

I plead...burnout...or...something...

Anyway, addressing the AP/Reuters is a very good point. A very good one. I'll have to give it some real thought.