Monday, August 25, 2008

Media Monopolists




(Click title above.)

Rat Racing Media Monopolists:

Few families still converse at church, dinner tables, or anywhere else concerning important issues about spiritual, political, social, cultural, artistic, or moral ideals.

Rather, the mass education and political indoctrination of American youth and voters has been turned over to global business media owners and advertisers, aided by hired and trained allies in academia, entertainment, virtual reality, and journalism.

Result: Traditional families are being re-fitted and sub-divided into ICU's (individual consumption units) and debt slaves (much like Matrix "batteries").

I doubt a media "Fairness Doctrine" could slow or reverse such process. After all, the same monopolists who control media would simply influence the politicians and judges who would decide fairness issues. Indeed, a "Fairness Doctrine" would likely become doublespeak for excusing unfairness. Indeed, I doubt monopolists are conditioned to want "fairness."

Rather, in many respects, media monopolists pretend to oppose one another. In reality, they themselves are conditioned to engage with an emerging, unholy alliance, bent on keeping the hoi polloi confused, divided, race-baited, and volatile --- all the better to keep us running and turning the grindhouse water (rat) wheel.

The media that may help individuals retain a grasp on freedom and dignity seems to be the Internet --- assuming it does not accelerate its devolution towards erasing all speech that is "hateful" (i.e., opposed to monopolists).

For preserving freedom and dignity, there are some things thoughtful "Red Asses" could do, in respect of laws, protests, and examples.

Some "No-Brainer" Moderate Examples:
1a) Reform the Federal Reserve;
1) Protect American borders, defend America;
2) Fight for a line item veto against corrupt legislative earmarks;
3) Promote tax incentives for developing alternative energy sources;
4) Promote free trade that is fair;
5) Stop tolerating politicians' race-baiting games of victim-mongering;
6) Promote a progressive consumption tax;
7) Regulate or bust up monopolies;
8) Promote family values that are fundamental to sustaining civilization;
9) Agree to manage a sustainable population (environmental stewardship would therewith become much simpler);
10) Forcibly rehabilitate dangerous public addicts;
11) Banish Ivy League fleece artists from governmental "service;"
12) And restore and respect a general notion of spirituality and/or morality.

Congressmen, long ago, should have enacted commensurate measures, but, being reduced to status as handmaidens to lobbyists and monopolists, have been grossly and corruptly derelict in failing to do so. Now, Responsible Moderates need to get the "Red Ass" and energetically reassert adult supervision! Otherwise, we shall fall together into the indignity of an abyss of tyranny.

*****


Media Monopolies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership;
http://www.benbagdikian.com/;
http://www.corporations.org/media/.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

See also:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/CommunCartel_Bagdikian.html.

* The country needs easy, inexpensive licensing of low-power, city- and neighborhood-range radio and TV stations. Japan has them and so can the United States. As it is, local communities and ordinary local businesses have been effectively excluded from the air by national broadcasters and advertisers.


* Paid political advertising should be banned from American broadcasting, as it is in most democracies. In the two months before elections, every station should be required to provide prime time hours for local and national candidates, with fifteen-minute minimums for presentations to avoid the slick sound biter without content that now dominate broadcast election campaigns.


* Teach serious media literacy in the schools, using independently created curricula. Some already are available and others are being developed. The average American child will spend more time in front of a TV set than in front of a teacher. The young are targets for slick materialism. They need to know how this important element in their lives operates and how it can be analyzed.

See also
http://filmtv.eserver.org/media-monopoly.txt
.

*****


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
Re ---
Surrender of Manuel Noriega:
“The troops guarding it instead used psychological warfare, attempting to force the defeated ruler out by using the continuous noise from a low flying helicopter and playing hard rock music and The Howard Stern Show outside the residence.
The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise.”




14 comments:

Dlanor said...

GOD OF FARCE AND TRAGEDY:

In Western Civilization, we tend to be taught to idealize as if we are nations governed under the rule of law, rather than the rule of men. However, given practiced creativity of lawyers, it becomes difficult to imagine the twist or perversion that could not, depending only upon who is the judge, be rationalized and “justified” under law and our “living Constitution,” especially during this “age of toleration.”

As we profess that the Constitution "lives," but that God does not, so reigns Evil.

I begin to think that, absent underlying assimilation of common spiritual values, there is little hope for a multicultural citizenry to achieve cohesive governance merely through rule of law. Absent some sort of assimilation of moral values, relying merely upon enactments of law soon becomes, first, a joke, then, a tragedy. To those who believe, “We don’t need no stinking God,” I say, “Yeah, right!”

LAW:

Without a common appreciation for that which is most highly valued or sacred, every argument about property rights or law eventually reduces to emotional epithets.

For evidence, look at the sort of “arguments” that are most relied upon by our competing politicians. For winning lay votes from electors and jurors, do not politicians and lawyers most often find it necessary to resort to arguments based on displays of emotion, grounded in body language? To that extent, are not words reduced to ambiguous filler, mainly devoid of meaning, except as pumped by emotional content?

Without “God,” what word or logos, is there, really? "In the beginning was the word" (John 1:1-3, 10-14). Without God, we “come-let-us-reason-together” as shallow, emotional toddlers, viz: “did too; did not; you’re ugly; my dad can lick your dad; I know I am but what are you; na na-na na-na na; etc.”

Professing atheists who demand “reasons” for all choices, apart from respect for “God” (Source of Enlightened Empathy) lead us first as jokes, then as calamities.

Those who SEE in their intuition a Source of Enlightened Empathy “see” that each of us is expressive of Something more than a mere self playing symphony or mouthpiece for a media monopolist.

Anonymous said...

Regarding silencing of speech by Media Monopolists:
See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/please_remove_his_distorted_an.html.

Anonymous said...

Meaningless Words:

Snippets from George Will, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obama_should_address_russian_a.html:

When Barack Obama feeds rhetorical fishes and loaves to the multitudes in the football stadium Thursday night, he should deliver a message of sufficient particularity that it seems particularly suited to Americans. One more inspirational oration, one general enough to please Berliners or even his fellow "citizens of the world," will confirm Pascal's point that "continuous eloquence wearies." That is so because it is not really eloquent. If it is continuous, it is necessarily formulaic and abstract, vague enough for any time and place, hence truly apposite for none.

....

But the fact that Obama lost nine of the final 14 primaries might have something to do with the fact that when he descends from the ether to practicalities, he reprises liberalism's most shopworn nostrums.

....

Russia, a third-world nation with first-world missiles, is rampant; Iran is developing a missile inventory capable of delivering nuclear weapons the development of which will not be halted by Obama's promised "aggressive personal diplomacy." Yet Obama has vowed to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."

....

Furthermore, as Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute notes, Democrats will eventually embrace missile defense in Europe because they "will have nowhere else to go short of pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities."

....

His dreamy certitude that "alternative" fuels will quickly become real alternatives is an energy policy akin to an old vaudeville joke: "If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham."

Anonymous said...

From http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304903854626161 :

Crowning Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: The biggest surprise of the Democratic convention? The spectacle of journalists applauding Barack Obama's acceptance speech. OK, maybe not the biggest surprise. But certainly one of the biggest disgraces.
Andy Barr reported on The Hill's blog that "several members of the media were seen cheering and clapping for" Obama as he accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday.
"Dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd," Barr also noted, adding that "two members of the foreign press exchanged opportunities to take each other's picture while wearing an Obama hat and waving a flag" while "several others nearby screamed 'woo' during some of Obama's biggest applause lines."
IBD's own reporters covering the convention confirm Barr's reporting.
Barr did not name names, but he didn't have to. Who can forget MSNBC's Chris Matthews gushing about "this thrill going up my leg" and the "feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech"?
On Thursday night, Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, lashed out at an Associated Press reporter because he wasn't pleased with his coverage of Obama's speech. According to the trade journal Editor & Publisher, Olbermann "was outraged that the AP's (Charles) Babington had written, in his analysis of the speech, just off the wire, that Obama had tried nothing new and that his speech was lacking in specifics."
Olbermann finished his tirade by insisting that Babington "find a new line of work."
The we-must-get-Obama-elected agenda isn't limited to a couple of TV personalities. The bias runs the media gamut.
Time magazine has featured an Obama cover story seven times this year while McCain has made the front twice. From June 4, the day Obama clinched his party's nomination, through Aug. 17, a little more than a week before the convention began, the Washington Post carried three times as many front-page stories on Obama as it did on McCain. And in July, the New York Times refused to publish McCain's rebuttal to an op-ed written by Obama.
So the response to Thursday's historic speech really comes as no surprise. It's quite clear the national media are focused singularly on ensuring that Barack Obama is coronated on Jan. 20, 2009.

Anonymous said...

From http://www.powerlineblog.com/:

GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.

That is, of course, John McCain's position, and NATO has already said that it intends to admit Ukraine and Georgia one day. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, it's probably Obama's position, too.

....

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of Israel, and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we didn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

....

GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

....

GIBSON: You said recently in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

PALIN: That's a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words, when he said, first he suggested, never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak god's words, but what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was, let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war, or any other time. But let us pray that we are on God's side. That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.

....

What's happening here is that America's least respected, least talented and least honorable interest group, our reporters and editors, are trying to ram their choice for President down our throats. The AP directs its "news" account, which might as well be an Obama campaign press release, toward the ignorant, that is, those who weren't able to see or read the interview, or otherwise judge for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Snippets from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/politicalplayers/main4442492.shtml:

Ex-Clinton Aide: Media Tougher On Palin
Political Players: Former Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn Argues The Press Has Lost Its Credibility
Sept. 12, 2008

Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

Anonymous said...

Banned Books? -- http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

Democrat Hypocrisy --- http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009616.php

Anonymous said...

Snippets from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/mccains_big_advantage.html:

The Democrats know very well that their strength lies in voters' feelings rather than analysis, and so they choose slogans and labels aimed at creating fear of 'mean-spirited' Republicans or 'domestic spying' on ordinary Americans, and avoid directly addressing specifics of policies. They create positive images of the government "taking care of people," and, above all, reject close examination of the outcomes which could be expected given the realities of human nature. The very format of most television, with no room for rational back-and-forth discussion or critical analysis, enables the flinging of labels.

Republican conservatives have generally been far less sophisticated at this game. By its very nature, conservatism is based on reflection and a due regard for the complexities of change and the flawed nature of the human creature.

As a result, Democrats and their allies have paid close attention to image management, and with the help of their friends in the entertainment industry, they have become extraordinarily skilled at it. In many ways, Barack Obama's candidacy, built mostly on image, and employing more expensive and large scale theatrics (a political rally with a location shoot in Berlin and 200,000 extras would make Cecil B. DeMille green with envy), is the apotheosis of this image strategy of political persuasion.

....

For their part, the Democrats are already arguing that unbridled capitalism is at fault, and besides everyone knows the Republicans are the party of Big Business, and that Bush = McCain. This is an image strategy, which often works when people aren't paying close attention, and also when the other side's argument cannot be heard.

Finally, the media's accelerating loss of credibility, exacerbated by the treatment accorded Sarah Palin, has engendered a level of public skepticism toward the media in even those paying little attention to politics. This factor also diminishes what is normally a slam dunk advantage for the Democrats.

Anonymous said...

SNL skit: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/saturday-night-live-sketch-actually-bashed-nyt

Anonymous said...

The Real Thought Censors:

Someone needs to get Palin ready to slam this back at 'em, when she is asked at upcoming debates about her alleged library censorship:
See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/you_tube_pulls_a_popular_antid.html:

Burning Down The House:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/you_tube_pulls_a_popular_antid.html
See http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
"Burning down the house":
http://www.darkskiesblog.com/2008/09/28/easy-to-understand-video-explanation-of-what-and-who-caused-the-financial-meltdown-video-embed/
I found two videos on youtube. "democrats covering up fannie ........."
one from nakedemperornews and the other from themouthpeace
http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/watch-this-video-before-youtube-obamites-censor-it/.

Anonymous said...

MEDIA WHORING:
From http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/:
david calling
Friday, October 17, 2008
Who's Isn't for Sale?
What part does bribery play in politics? The buying and selling of opinions and decisions is almost entirely invisible, and the glimpses we obtain into this murkiness are usually not to be trusted. But it happens. When I was writing about the German occupation of France in the world war, a collaborating editor from that time explained to me how the Germans had secretly subsidised the French press. In France, he said, free speech was always for sale. The Soviets were to pay similar subsidies in the Cold War. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB defector, revealed for instance that Moscow had given money to the left-wing paper Tribune, (which has just closed after a long and misguided ideological run). An excellent French investigative journalist, Jean Montaldo, one day came across heaps of bank documents that were being discarded in Paris, showing the secret payments that Moscow was making to all sorts of Frenchmen whose Communist affiliations were otherwise unknown. A former member of MI6, the British intelligence service, once told me how his wartime job had been to suborn the government of an important country to keep it from joining the German Axis — I had better not say which country. In detail, he described transporting boxes of gold sovereigns packed in straw, and how he had handed them out. By the end of the war, he said, he had every single member of that government on the take.

A persistent rumour from the world war is that Winston Churchill was bribing the Spanish to stay out and not become allies of Nazi Germany. It makes sense. Had General Franco, the Spanish dictator, allowed the German army into the country, and then to capture Gibraltar, the British could have been shut out of the Mediterranean, losing Egypt and the oil coming through the Suez Canal, and might well have lost the war. In October 1940 Hitler met Franco at Hendaye on the frontier with France in order to pursue this strategy. Franco haggled, and Hitler afterwards said he would rather have teeth pulled out than go through that negotiation again. All Franco would eventually allow was landing rights to Axis aircraft, access to ports for submarines, and spying look-outs near Gibraltar. Most oddly, in the middle of the war Churchill caused a rumpus by telling parliament that Franco was “a gallant Christian gentleman.”

In 2005 the British writer Richard Bassett published a life of Admiral Canaris, Hitler’s spy master, saying that Churchill was paying Franco. Now Pere Ferrer, a Spanish historian, goes further in a biography of a shady Spanish buccaneer by the name of Juan March. It seems that a British officer called Alan Hillgarth advised Churchill that the Spanish generals were so poorly paid that they could be bribed. Among the evidence is a letter from a U.S. agent, Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Solberg, to his boss Wild Bill Donovan then in charge of a proto-CIA intelligence outfit, telling him that March had been chosen as the conduit for payment. Ten million dollars were paid into a New York bank, and as many as 30 Spanish generals were approached and received up to half that sum. Just to add to the confusion, Ferrer thinks that March may also have been in the pay of the Germans.

The facts may have been invented to fit the conspiracy, of course, or the conspiracy invented to fit the facts.

Anonymous said...

See: Death of Journalism, at http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html.

COMMENTS:
MSM is not investigating Obama because it deems no investigation necessary. MSM already knows who Obama is. He is what they are — a sold out puppet, who will say anything for gain. He is the rot they have been waiting for.

After all, the same people running Obama are the same people who own and run MSM.

Working Americans, on whose backs American products and defense are carried, focused on earning livelihoods, have allowed rot, little by little, to come to bedevil every public institution.

Soon, there will be no choice but to confront the rot. Until then, during the next four years, we will be eating rot pie — and incurring an enormous price for it.

It is a rot pie carried high by Boomers, financed by Soros, et al, and dished by Obama and fellow travelers.

For all who have been clamoring, screaming, crying to touch a hot stove, it appears now we must let them.

Having ignored the pace of rot in our physical infrastructure, why be surprised at the pace of rot in our spiritual infrastructure?

Anonymous said...

Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html:

Re: "Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. "

Even Bill Clinton has occasionally noted the importance of developing a "worldview" and reasoning in respect of it --- even with regard to local issues. Obviously, talk radio relates to worldview.

However, I can see how idiots and control freaks could argue that discussions about national or world topics cannot serve local concerns.

There may be "fairness" in requiring some time to be dedicated to discussion of local issues. To require more than that is to impair the exchange of ideas among folks who listen to talk radio on their way to work. That is, to enfeeble communication among those of us who are actually responsible enough to have real world jobs.

Way to go, libs! Bite the ankles of those who are trying to ensure for you a decent country!

Anonymous said...

Suppose a foreign government wanted to subvert and demoralize America. In what way would they behave any differently than our MSM? Our established press, whether out of ignorance, corruption, or disloyalty, have become agents not just against truth, but against America. Often in unison, they distort context, publish our secrets, hamstring our defenses, undermine our morals, dissolve our traditions, and dis-inform our electorate.

Now, we are so demoralized, we routinely see treason in our media, but have no hope that any authority will call them on it. Indeed, to do so would incite yelps of political incorrectness, hate speech, invasive personal abuse, or investigations unleashed by the secret service.

Meanwhile, our leftists seem to think this is just great, because "America is evil," "capitalism has failed," and "Bush and the neo-cons have it coming."

There comes a quickening, and there appears no way to avoid it. Either leftist minions, to consolidate the rule of thier owners, will eliminate the independent intelligentsia, or all who think more with their brains than with their hearts must rise to speak and act truth to ravening idiocy.