Dean says 'bust em up'!

[45semi]

DEAN VOWS TO 'BREAK UP GIANT MEDIA ENTERPRISES'

If elected president, Howard Dean vows to "break up giant media enterprises" out of a concern "how deeply media companies can penetrate every single community" in America.

The Dem hopeful made the comments on GENERAL ELECTRIC-owned MSNBC during HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS.

"The essence of capitalism, which the right-wing never understands -- it always baffles me -- is, you got to have some rules," Dean explained to Matthews and students at Harvard.

MATTHEWS: Well, would you break up GE?

(APPLAUSE)

DEAN: I can`t -- you...

MATTHEWS: GE just buys Universal. Would you do something there about that? Would you stop that from happening?

DEAN: You can`t say -- you can`t ask me right now and get an answer, would I break up X corp...

MATTHEWS: We`ve got to do it now, because now is the only chance we can ask you, because, once you are in, we have got to live with you.

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: No.

MATTHEWS: So, if you are going to do it, you have got to tell us now.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?

DEAN: Yes, we`re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn`t mean we`re going to break up all of GE.

What we`re going to do is say that media enterprises can`t be as big as they are today. I don`t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration.

Dean explained how "11 companies in this country control 90 percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. That`s wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions in every community. We don`t have that because of Michael Powell and what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC."

Matthews continued:

"Would you break up Fox?"


Somehow I knew his targets were Fox and talk radio...call me psychic!

Matt Drudge

[The Finman]

[curious]

I wouldn't trust Chris Matthews as far as I could throw him. He's Mr. "Bend with the wind and turn on a dime" personified.

I saw that echange on Hardball. Matthews was, as usual, aiming for a "Gotcha" by grilling with questions, but not allowing Dean to answer.

I don't think Dean will actually go so far as to actually break up the Media Monoplolies. But I damn sure wish he would iof he were elected.

It is appalling how over the last 20 years we have gone from a media mix of many small and medium sized independent broadcasters and publishesrs (with a few big networks thrown into the mix) to an environment where a handful of conglomerates own and conrtrol almost every form of mass communication, from TV to radio to movies to books, magazines and newspapers.

These corporations make Citizen Kane look like a piker.

And, for the most part, they haven't done it by creating new outlets, but by buying up existing ones. (Yes Murdoch created Fox, but much of his empire was built by buying up existing media properties.)

Among the otehr impacts is the sleazy popular culture that conservatives are always complaining about. It's not just the "Hollywood liberals" that are cheapening our culture and forcing slime down our throats. It's the corporate sharks in suits who run companies like Viacom, Time Warner and who have no sense of social responsibility except to make a buck.

[45semi]

It is appalling how over the last 20 years we have gone from a media mix of many small and medium sized independent broadcasters and publishesrs (with a few big networks thrown into the mix)

Funny, I remember it differently...

There still are, and have always been, locals news channels, and in fact, there are more nowdays...different local news stations, that is.

So far as national news, 20 years ago, and farther back, there was just NBC, ABC & CBS

Nowdays, theres CNN & Fox for TV...
and USA Today, and others for dead-tree news.

Postscript: You do have a point...I personally was appalled when Roadrunner was merged with/into AOL-Time-Warner.

As a broadband addict, I dont want anything named AOL associated with any internet I use.

[curious]

Originally posted by 45semi:
Funny, I remember it differently...There still are, and have always been, locals news channels, and in fact, there are more nowdays...different local news stations, that is.
So far as national news, 20 years ago, and farther back, there was just NBC, ABC & CBS.
Nowdays, theres CNN & Fox for TV...
and USA Today, and others for dead-tree news.
Postscript: You do have a point...I personally was appalled when Roadrunner was merged with/into AOL-Time-Warner.As a broadband addict, I dont want anything named AOL associated with any internet I use.

One problem is that it's not just the big media that has been affected by this. In books, for example, over the past 20 years, independent publishing houses were first bought up by larger publishing houses. Then those mega publishing companies were bought up by the same companies who own Big Radio and TV and movie stidios. So where you had a diverse competative situation where there were many publishing companies, now there are very few and they are owned by the same people who determine what we see on TV, hear on radop etc.

And this is not a process that has stopped. These mergers and swallowing up are continuing, so the number of companies continues to grow smaller and smaller.

CBS, for eample, used to be a big radio and television network, and they had a record company, but that was it. Now CBS is part of Viacom, which also owns a gazillion cable channels, a huge number of radio stations, an increasing number of television stations, Paramount studios, etc. etc.

And,in the example of broadband,the same people who create the products also own the distribution systems.

This is a bad situation, and should be of concerns to conservatives as well as librals.

[Liberty]

It would be except...

We have more "choice" than ever before.

If our options were limited, then I'd say "yes, bust'm up."

452 channels and there's nothing on.

[curious]

Originally posted by Liberty:
It would be except...

We have more "choice" than ever before. If our options were limited, then I'd say "yes, bust'm up." 452 channels and there's nothing on.

Uh-oh, Liberty quoting that wild-eyed liberal Bruuuuce Springsteen.

But seriously, it depends on what you want to call choice. THere may be 452 (or however) many channels, but it's not really a lot of choice when they are owned by the same companies. And the big companies swallow up the smaller ones.


In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. according to Ben Bagdikian's book The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he pointed put that "fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. And the consolidation has continued.

And through interlocking ownership of channels, when many "competors" actually share ownershp of many properties it becomes even more murky and monopolistic.

The names of the networks are different, but the sources and tone of programs are similar.

For example, sensatonalist Liberty Media bought the Travel Channel, which had a lot of good travel programs. Immediately, Liberty changed it to become a sensationalist clone of TLC (the former Learning Channel, which Liberty had earlier changed from educational shows to sensationalist reality programs like 50 Greatest Car Crashes and and Enquirer style junk documentaries like "Was Jesus a Space Alien?). So now the Travel Channel does endless shows on Las Vegas and the Hottest Bikini Beaches and Vacation Spots of the Space Aliens.

For an overview, here's a webpage that lists what the major companies own. For exampe, click on Viacom or AOL Time Warner. (I'd include it here, but the list of Viacom holdings is way too long.)

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

If you don't want to believe a whacky liberal, here's a couple of columns by a conservative who I usually disagre with, Brent Bozell. But in this case, he sees the same dangers.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20030528.asp
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20030801.asp

[Liberty]

THere may be 452 (or however) many channels, but it's not really a lot of choice when they are owned by the same companies. And the big companies swallow up the smaller ones.

Irrelevant. Do I have more choices of what I watch? The answer is "Yes".

Now, if they were all showing the same thing I would agree with you, but they're not. As for TLC and the Travel Channel, I like the changes. They were rather boring before. TLC could have been mistaken for just another PBS station before the change.


The simple fact is that there is a bit of an irrational fear where large companies are concerned. The simple fact is that if they don't produce programing that people want to watch, they are going to lose viewers, advertisers and money.

And I don't buy into the "monopoly" scare either. Monopolies tend to colapse under their own weight and become slow to respond to customer demand. Look at what happen to CompuServe in the early 90's. A little upstart company beat the crap out of them, became huge, merged with another media powerhouse and is now in deep doo-doo. I'll give you three guesses who that company is and the first two don't count.

AOL.

Sorry, but history proves me right.

take IBM and the computer industry for example. Monster computer monopoly at one time. They tried to break in the CPU market with the Cyrix chip. It flubbed. Along comes AMD and now they have a near equal share of the market inspite of Intel.

As for "the Media", who are they talking about busting up? Fox. Yet, there is no mention of busting up ABC, CBS or NBC. All of whom have bigger shares of the market.

This talk about breaking up media is smoke and mirrors. What they are really concerned is about stifling speech. Who owns these companies is irrelevant.

Take a look at Clear Channel Communications. Do you really think it matters who owns Rush Limbaugh's show? Do you think it would be any different if someone else owned it?

.

[curious]

Originally posted by Liberty:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />THere may be 452 (or however) many channels, but it's not really a lot of choice when they are owned by the same companies. And the big companies swallow up the smaller ones.

Irrelevant. Do I have more choices of what I watch? The answer is "Yes". Take a look at Clear Channel Communications. Do you really think it matters who owns Rush Limbaugh's show? Do you think it would be any different if someone else owned it?</font>[/quote]If you would prefer to enable a handful of monopolistic fatcats to totally control what you see and hear and read in the media, then we just have a perception difference that is so great it will never be reconciled.

I would agrue that monopolies and concentration among a few big players, is bad in any industry.

But it is especially bad in mass communications, because it is the what we rely on for information and is the basic glue of democracy and the "town commons" of society. It's not just a business, and it is dangerous to allow the business interests and sensibilities of a handful of owners to dominate this important resource.

Breaking up the Big Media doesn't mean eliminating those companies or putting them out of business. It just means getting them back to reasonable size, opening it up to more people and businesses and restoring some semblance of the real competition and diversity and opportunity that you conservatiuves are always touting.

Also, broadcasting and communications are not just any industry because they are not (and physically cannot be) totally free enterprises for technical reasons.

The number of TV or radio stations has to be limited because there are only so many frequencies available. So those who have the licenses have a protected status. I could build a radio station, but I'd get arrested if I tried to broadcast without a license....And when licenses become unregulated commodities traded among Big Media, the little guy can't afford to enter the bidding.

Given that, regulations are needed to at least ensure that the broadcasters are operating in the public interest, and also to limit the number of outlets any one company can have.

The same applies to cable and the Internet and otehr distributions in a different way. While the number of websites in unlimited, for example, If AOL Time Warner controls all te means of getting them into your home, they ultimately have the power to control what enters your home.

As for choice, you may prefer to watch endless shows about Las Vegas strippers on the "new and improved" Travel Chennel (I like to watch some of that myself. ). But what about those who prefer to watch real travelogues or to actually learn about other things. Sure it's all a matter of taste. But different tastes and interests are not being served whan the same handful of people are controlling all of the sources and they are going for the big bucks with cheap thrills lowest-common-denominator programs.

And politically, this is not about breaking up Fox News. It's the whole media environment that is an Elite Oligopoly. Actually, even though I don't like Fox, I think its' existance is a good thing because it does add more voices to the mix. But the only reason there is a Fox is because one of the Media Monopolists decided to back it. It wasn't a grassroots effort, and Fox is ultimately just as beholden to the interests of the elite as any other network.....Same with Rush. The only reason he got out of being a small-time local host was because the Monopolists saw something potentially profitable there. Your opportrunity to hear him is is totally dependent on the good graces of a handful of people at the top.

[Liberty]

How much of "the Media" worldwide do you think Rupert Murdock owns?