RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 11:18:19 AM

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

No, I'm not saying *anything* about Artificial Legal Entities. I am saying that YOU should be able to go to Ramsey Electronics, or wherever, and purchase yourself a transmitter, set it up, and broadcast freely, without restriction and regulation.

Okay. I am now officially confused. First you were saying that corporations have to toe the FCC line and fuck ‘em if they don’t like it. Now you are saying that anyone should be able own a transmitter. Which is it. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said earlier. It sounded like you were all for the FCC and regulations (I’ve said several times that we seem to be in agreement that some regulation is necessary, and you never contradicted me) and that our disagreement was on what those regulations should be. Now, I’m not sure what you’re saying.

quote:

You are the one saying that not having a FCC Equals anarchy and chaos.

I am saying that freedom is not the absence of laws, rules and regulations – a definition some people apply to freedom. Either because they are nutball anarchists or because they are asshole authoritarians who want to discredit the very notion of freedom.

quote:

That is the position of the Special Interest, profiting from the Status Quo. I think it would be SELF-REGULATING, myself.

No. Special interests prefer government regulation – when it helps them and hampers the competition. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it is a myth that businesses and corporations love the free market – they hate it. They hate it because the free market allows competition which would force them to make sure they (and not the competition) better serve the public if they want to stay in business. The free market is self regulating but only if it operates with a reliable, consistent, and fairly applied body of law. (Sigh, I know, but we are talking theory here). One person’s freedom ends where the next person’s rights begin. It could be argued that traffic laws violate our freedom of movement and should therefore be abolish. But then driving to work would no long be routine but an exercise of terror and carnage.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to farglebargle)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 11:44:50 AM

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Why don't you just say that freedom doesn't exist and has never existed and what is called the free market is the power of money in action.

Because that would be wrong. If your definition of freedom is the absence of all laws, rules, and regulations, then I reject it categorically. In such an atmosphere, there would be no checks and balances to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak. There would be no freedom. One person’s freedom ends where other’s rights begin. To ensure this, we need a body of law applied fairly and neutrally to protect our rights from those who would abuse them. We each have the right to hop into our car and drive across the country if we want to but we still have to stop for the red lights because the other guy also has the right drive without being side-slammed by a selfish jackass. Unfortunately, the only thing better for the powerful than no laws is laws that they control (this is why electing lawyers to write laws is incredible stupid). That is where it falls to all of us who are decent people of good will to stay informed and press for laws that serve everyone equally. Eternal Vigilance.

quote:

From what I have seen of western media is that the more power the 'free' market has, the less intellectual, less broad, more popular and more dumb the media is. The one thing people with money want (and they are the ones that run the media in the free markets) the less informed they want the public because it is in the interests of money for the plebs not to ask pertinent questions. Therefore it is not in the interests of the free market to have a 'free' and 'wide ranging' media.

The free market doesn’t have interests – it simply is or is not. It is those who are operating within a free market that have interests. You are right in that the big media corporations slant their output to their favor, but who doesn’t? Without a free market, there is nothing to counter them. Within the free market, alternate voices have options. If they can’t make themselves heard on television, there is the radio, print media, and now the Internet.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 12:10:52 PM

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Farg, but where in the constitution is the Gov allowed to regulate political content or speech of anything.

The reality is the "fairness doctrine" is a purley ideological construct. It is purley about supressing ideas. IF Clear channel or any ALE, corparation, ect has too much power, there are Anti trust laws for remedy.

fargs construct is nonsense. All Media and speech passes through public domain (even the vibrations of a voice passing through air) at some point, hence compete gov ability to do anything whatsoever (including censoring ideas). Which is nonsense. The Gov does have the right to regulate broadcasting. It should not do so for political content. It is not like Bandwidth is refused to left or alternative views, there is plenty of it (except in large cities, where the left and alternative views have plenty of stations).

Real Conservatives are not Anarchists

(in reply to Marc2b)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 12:24:21 PM

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Hello Marc; Maybe this is a hair line difference... etc.

I think I see where your coming from and I don’t completely disagree (the free market is about competition, after all – there will be winners and losers) but it is up to you (and indeed each one of us) to scrutinize and then decide to accept or reject an advertiser’s claims. We do seem to have different definitions of "free market," but then, you could ask a thousand people to define "free market," and get a thousand different responses. I see the free market as the right of people to negotiate with each other over the price of goods and services (this would include employment) with the absolute minimum of government interference. If you truly want to get a better understanding of how I see the free market and economics in general the best I can do is recommend a book: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Ignore the snide remarks you may hear from others. People of a left-wing, socialist bent hate Sowell because he refutes them so easily.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to dragone)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 2:51:21 PM

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

I hope you do see my view, and interpetation. Yes, the theory of Free Market should be competition, offer a quality product, and one should be successful...well, not entirely so.

While you can have a better product, that does not mean 'success'; From that product, you must be able to have the funds to promote, advertise; and this is where the rub comes in. You are limited to the money you have to invest in advertisement of your product or service. That alone, will stop you dead in your tracks, I know. Then...it's the crowd you run with, are aligned with; all want a piece of the action; those in the power circles grant their favor, but they extract a price.

I've done a lot of promotions, and when I meet a novice advertiser, I always ask how they intend to promote their product. You would be amazed at the people who want a direct mail campaign, and never give a thought as to postage. Simple as that, they spend money on brochures, printing, and have nothing left for postage. So they mail out 50 to 100 pieces at a time, with no follow up; no media adverts, no trade show events; and blame me for the failure of their effort.

It's all about money, the bigger you are,... like Disney, you can sell a bunch of Mickeys, worldwide. You have the money to create any media vehicle you wish, even to purchasing a news outlet; then you can decide what you want to send out on the airwaves; the news, as you see fit; slant it any way you desire, use it to create more of a market for your product, a Rubert Murdoc syndrome; and if any other enity wishes to advertise on your network, you can charge through the nose, thus prohibiting any competition; because you own the network and the license. However, if the competition is willing to pay, and do so, then I would say your definition is correct, the free market exists.

The more viewers your news outlet gets, the more other advertisers want in, and the government wants it share of 'propaganda' value; so you have a venue that is created to sell products, even the government has a product to sell...that being their agendas. This Iraq war, was a product, which was sold through every media vehicle available. Money was involved, No, you say...in a word; Haliburton.

The rights to Mickey Mouse and a host of other Disney properties were due to expire, I forget just when, about 15 or so years ago. Disney properties bring in millions if not billions; and the copyrights were due to run out. Thousands of firms were poised to flood the market with Disney products, as it was to become public domain. Disney, petitioned the government to extend the copyright law, granting another 25 years, or, I think, it's 100 years now, but has been amended to be forever, I'm not sure.

So, by virtue of their extrodinary position in the world ecomomy, they got done, what you, or I could never have gotten done. They had the government ammend a law, so their property would be protected; and in doing so, everyone else just recieved the benifit thereof. But, if I petitioned the gov. for additional protection, I'd be more of a laughing stock than I am here on CM.

Now, I say what I say from a perspective of the common guy; not from an intellectual's classroom theory position, nor from the corporate elite. It has always been a 'mouse that roared' situation.

I'm going to get that book, count on it.

Hey, thanks for the discussion.

(in reply to Marc2b)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 3:27:38 PM

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Hello Luckydog; I must add to your comment of "All media and speech passes through public domain"......I do believe you are mislead here.
Anything that is seen, spoken, viewed in any media is not public domain; someone owns the copyright to the content, no matter what form that content takes. There are certain instances which fall into the public domain area; however, by and large, everything is someone's property, physical and intellectually.

A program radio station content is copyrighted, it is just not verbally stated, sometimes it is, but not always; However the station's license, by laws, corporation manifesto, state & city charter of the company states the content is copyrighted. Sports programs on TV, ie" the Super Bowl, is copyrighted; every publication is copyrighted. Even the videos you rent has the FBI warning, and it further states you are libal for copyright infringment even in the case of no monitary gain. Every photograph is copyrighted, virtually, everything you see, is copyrighted with only few exceptions which are public domain, public political images, some real estate, and there, if you are going to use any image of the real estate, you must obtain written permission from the owner or corporate owners. If that image is published in a commercial venue you run the risk of copyright infringment. To photograph in some state parks, you must have a license to do so. Now, you can photograph, such as a tourist would, however, bring any pro equipment onto the field, even just a tripod, without acquiring the necessary license, then you are subject to expulsion from the area, and fine. If you hire a photographer to take your picture, that photographer owns the image, not you, and can use that image, sell that image to whomever, and you can do absolutely nothing about it. Vanessa Williams nude expose' in Penthouse Magazine; case in point. Every photographer has a model release, which gives the photographer full rights to the image, unless other arrangments are made.

Harley Davidson attempted to copyright and own, the SOUND of their Electraglide MC. It failed. Corning attempted to copyright and own the color PINK, if failed.

BTW the US government outlawed the CPUSA with the communist control act in 1954

(in reply to luckydog1)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 9:40:54 PM

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Dragone, I agree the term Public Domain has a paticular legal meaning, and that was not what I was arguing. I was making a rebuttal to farg. He is asserting that since broadcast goes through the Em field, and we own the Em field collectivley, the Gov can make ANY regulation they want on the content of broadcasts. My point was that all Communication passes through publically held mediums, which I incorrectly termed "public domain". This includes the air that carries the vibratrions of our voice. a Newspaper travels over our public streets. Cable lines cross our public lands. Most Cable and Telephone is broadcast or bounced off a sattalite at some point in the process. I disagree with fargs argument, and do not see the government as empowered to police and determine the ideological content of speech, perhaps you do.

I will split the difference with you. The Communist Controll Act attempted to outlaw the CPUSA, but the orginization continued to exist, and the laws was never actually implemented. Individuals within the CPUSA were prosecuted for violations of the Smith act. But I was incorrect.

(in reply to dragone)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 10:01:44 PM

DrgnLdyCatherine

Posts: 22
Joined: 11/14/2004
Status: offline

He who controls information, controls the world. Or something to that effect. And you better believe it's true. I suggest treating the media as it was meant to be - as ENTERTAINMENT only. That's what it is. If you use the media to stay on top of what's going on around you, and you take it at face value, there's a problem. It's been drilled into our heads from practically the cradle... go to the news for information about what's happening... Well, to be quite blunt, it's bull shit. There are some elements of truth in all of them, but more often than not, they are twisted and scewed to support someone's agenda. It may not be the reporter that reports it, it may not be the writer who writes it... the people in charge, the ones that you don't see in your face, the ones who's names are not on the articles are the ones calling the shots, people. Read the news... fine. But treat it as entertainment as it should be. If you want to know what's really going on, go to the source.

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 10:30:12 PM

Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-John F. Kennedy

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
-Thomas Jefferson

"A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad."
-Albert Camus

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
-Thomas Jefferson

"In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude."
-George Washington

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-George Orwell

(in reply to DrgnLdyCatherine)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/3/2007 10:35:45 PM

Posts: 333
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

He who controls information, controls the world. Or something to that effect. And you better believe it's true. I suggest treating the media as it was meant to be - as ENTERTAINMENT only. That's what it is. If you use the media to stay on top of what's going on around you, and you take it at face value, there's a problem. It's been drilled into our heads from practically the cradle... go to the news for information about what's happening... Well, to be quite blunt, it's bull shit. There are some elements of truth in all of them, but more often than not, they are twisted and scewed to support someone's agenda. It may not be the reporter that reports it, it may not be the writer who writes it... the people in charge, the ones that you don't see in your face, the ones who's names are not on the articles are the ones calling the shots, people. Read the news... fine. But treat it as entertainment as it should be. If you want to know what's really going on, go to the source.

Good grief. Do you lie constantly in your job, DrgnLdyCatherine?

Me neither. And I don't write entertainment, I write hard news, every day, and edit the copy of others who do the same.

Maybe the important lesson here comes out of a small grammar whoopsie above. "Media" remains plural (although there are some cheapo dictionaries now that accept the illiterate use of the word.) That's important because using it as singular tends to lead you to some sweeping generalizations.

Here's the problem. You can't go to the source. You can't talk to the guy who was killed on Route 3, you can't talk to people who were there when the mayor said what he said, and you can't ask Dubya what the hell he was thinking.

What someone can do, if they want an alternative to your suggestion...is spend enough time figuring out which media you believe. It won't be Fox, and it probably won't be the blow-dried Action Eyewitness Today News4 Centre Newsteam.

That leaves lots of media. You might have to do some homework.

Or you can declare it all bullshit, bury yer head in the sand, and gawd help us, vote.

Geez.

< Message edited by mcbride -- 7/3/2007 11:20:16 PM >

(in reply to DrgnLdyCatherine)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 1:00:05 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Why don't you just say that freedom doesn't exist and has never existed and what is called the free market is the power of money in action.

Because that would be wrong. If your definition of freedom is the absence of all laws, rules, and regulations, then I reject it categorically. In such an atmosphere, there would be no checks and balances to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak. There would be no freedom. One person’s freedom ends where other’s rights begin. To ensure this, we need a body of law applied fairly and neutrally to protect our rights from those who would abuse them. We each have the right to hop into our car and drive across the country if we want to but we still have to stop for the red lights because the other guy also has the right drive without being side-slammed by a selfish jackass. Unfortunately, the only thing better for the powerful than no laws is laws that they control (this is why electing lawyers to write laws is incredible stupid). That is where it falls to all of us who are decent people of good will to stay informed and press for laws that serve everyone equally. Eternal Vigilance.

You have to look at who is making the laws, rules and regulations! Originally in this thread it was proponents of the 'free' market that were complaining about regulations such as making talk radio broadcasts balanced. I have never argued for a world with no laws, rules or regulations but a recognition that laws, rules and regulations do exist and should be used to enable access to all media by a wide ranging views and not limited to views of people with money and power, who are the very people that make the laws, rules and regulations. The very people who are the proponents of the 'free' market because their version of the 'free' market (which we have established in not free) is in their interests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The free market doesn’t have interests – it simply is or is not. It is those who are operating within a free market that have interests. You are right in that the big media corporations slant their output to their favor, but who doesn’t? Without a free market, there is nothing to counter them. Within the free market, alternate voices have options. If they can’t make themselves heard on television, there is the radio, print media, and now the Internet.

To say the free market doesn't have interests is a nonsense when a prerequiste of operating in the free market (broadcast and press) is to have money enough to operate, which leaves out the majority view of people. The free market is based on money, taking part is neither free in monetary terms or polical terms because government police the licencing of outlets! To suggest the free access to the internet is a viable alternative to TV is disingenuous, especially when politicians are constantly trying new ways of controling it. The west relies on free speech as a safety valve but when desenting voices have no outlet, free speach is a mute point. To believe the 'free market' is 'free' is an American ideological position, it is not the reality of the situation. It is a no better position than forcing people into a free trade market where the people who have the power are forcing you to trade on their terms, it isn't free trade. The irony being as we are seeing now, the proponents of free trade in America don't like it when other people begin to arrest that power from them, to them the market is being corrupted, as though it wasn't corrupted all along. As in all things in western society, money rules, it is the measurement of western values, even free speech.

As Chomsky put it “The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control / ''indoctrination',' we might say / exercised through the mass media.”

Without intervention to broaden alternative views getting to the majority of people, all that there is is the propaganda of the corporations, the establishments and their political puppets. This is why idiotic and useless wars like Vietnam and Iraq have been fought because 'free speech' in the 'free market' is skewed towards the establishment view.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 7/4/2007 1:03:32 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Marc2b)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 6:13:23 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

But a necessity of the open market is that a business owner make a profit. It is clear that many political views do not seem to be attractive on Talk Radio, just look at Air America and the money it lost. Air America had a huge amount of capital to begin with, and actually paid radio stations to carry it, rather than be paid by the radio station like most other syndications. The opposing views should come from other stations that offer a program that has opposing views. The checks and balance is in the American people, because if they do not like what they hear, then they change the dial or turn the radio off. It will not matter how much money a businessman has, if the radio station loses money, then it will go away. There is no need to call the legislature, protest, vote or anything else, just turn it off and when enough people vote that way, the radio station will change it's format or close. Why is that a bad thing?

A Latino radio station is pushing a latino agenda so I want it to push an irish agenda, so now they must play irish folk songs. This reminds me of parents complaining about the content on TV, because they are too fucking lazy to restrict their kids from the TV, control what they watch or spend time with them. Are people really so lazy they need the government to control all of their lives? Vote with the power of the dollar, it is the easiest vote to cast and you control it directly.

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 6:16:36 AM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

Why can't an individual just set up a competing service, free of the ARTIFICIAL barriers to entry, protecting the interests of the incumbent licensees?

That's my point. As long as the Corporate Interests have complete and total control, free from REAL, OPEN COMPETITION, we're going to continue getting fucked.

Get rid of the FCC, and we'd all be a lot happier.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 8:18:14 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Why can't an individual just set up a competing service, free of the ARTIFICIAL barriers to entry, protecting the interests of the incumbent licensees?

That's my point. As long as the Corporate Interests have complete and total control, free from REAL, OPEN COMPETITION, we're going to continue getting fucked.

Get rid of the FCC, and we'd all be a lot happier.

farglebargle. The whole point of the free market is to restrict freedom. The last thing that corporations, establishments and their political puppets want, is real freedom. They want to keep the masses in a sonambulant state. They want people to turn off stations that require them to think. Keep the plebs educated enough to work but not enough to have them asking the big questions such as 'WHY?'. Politicians must sleep more easily in their beds whenever a serious broadcaster goes under.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to farglebargle)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 8:21:29 AM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

Well, if you're going to look at it as a Class issue, then perhaps you have a point.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 10:12:25 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

I am right with you on that. The FCC has consistantly just been a tool for whoever is in power. I do agree that with limited bandwidth that some licensing is needed, but make it a 5 year license, and make the waiting lists first come, first serve to whoever can buy the equipment. If someone does not like what they hear, then turn the dial or turn it off.

Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Why can't an individual just set up a competing service, free of the ARTIFICIAL barriers to entry, protecting the interests of the incumbent licensees?

That's my point. As long as the Corporate Interests have complete and total control, free from REAL, OPEN COMPETITION, we're going to continue getting fucked.

Get rid of the FCC, and we'd all be a lot happier.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to farglebargle)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 10:13:42 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Define real freedom. To act as you wish, without limitation?

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 10:26:43 AM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

Harley Davidson attempted to copyright and own, the SOUND of their Electraglide MC. It failed.

Heh heh, I just bought that old Japanese bike that was the target of the Harley lawsuit. Nice and cheap, too.

And BTW:

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v46/no2/stamets.html

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 10:27:54 AM

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Orion, that question has been ducked so many times it is considered a settled issue, and is off limits for discussion.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/4/2007 10:32:55 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Damn and I missed that class. Guess I will have to use one of my filters that equates "True Freedom" to mean the opinion of what freedom is to the person that used the term. I hate having to make assumptions.

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to luckydog1)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.094