Dean says 'bust em up'!

[Liberty]

Curious,

Whoopee.

CBS refuses to air an hour and a half long toy commercial (Barbie in the Nutcracker) and Mattel threatens to pull advertising.

Its called "Capitalism."

Just because I've written a book doesn't mean that a publisher must print it.

Here's the problem with the article. With broadcast media, there is a limited amount of frequency space. There is no such restriction with cable. "Snapping up cable stations" is a strawman. They can snap up all they want. But, if they don't pull in the viewers, its not going to work and they'll lose money. Some would call it a self-correcting mechanism.

As for good ol' Rupert, I'm not the one with the fixation. You need to have a talk with Hollings about that.

It's not only about Rupert. It's also about that liberal tycoon Sumner Redstone, about that terrible liberal CNN's parent company Time Warner, and the other media monopolists who want to shut out all other players from the picture so they can control this industry with no upstarts.

Of course that's what they want to do. That is a part of Capitalism. I want to crush my company's competitors, too. What you don't seem to understand is that is what makes the product and services better. If they try to do it by flinging money, its not going to work. They are going to have to do it by providing a superior service and product. No matter how much of the market they own, without that people are going to buy the other guy's stuff. That is how AOL crushed CompuServe and that is how AOL is now losing marketshare.

In the beginning, AOL provided that superior product. Now other companies are providing a superior product and service and AOL is losing marketshare in an ever expanding industry.

The same will happen to Microsoft someday. Wait and see.

.

[curious]

Well, Liberty, we'll just have to see if your utipian visiion of how free markets work holds true.

Those who autimatically are against "government regulation" seem to have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing that media is a diferent situation. For many reasons, broadcasting is not the "free market." It's not an open competition or an open-to-anyone service industry or widget company.

""Deregulation" of media is actually a con-job these mega-media companies are usoing to manipulate government regulation for their benefit -- they are not freeing the "invisible hand" of the market.

But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagre. I'd rather not put absolute faith in a handful of owners steeped in the New York/Washington/LA elite and the amoral ethic of corporatism with have a government-sanctioned stranglehold on our news, information and entertainment and cultural values.

[curious]

Txnavy and Hemi,

I won't repeat what I wrote in the posts above about how liberals are not given the same leeway as consrvatives in talk radio or cable news. But I refer you to them in response.

Nor will I divert from the original topic in terms of whether liberals are a small minority these days. If you would like to debate that in anotehr thread, happy to.

But to address the subject at hand. TxNavy, I am under no illusions about the history of journalism. It's always been a mixed bag. But at least under the old guidelines, broadcasters were expected to seperate news from the moneymaking aspects of the business, and treat it seriously as a public service....The Beverly Hillbillies were seen as a different role than the news. IMO, we should go back to that.

But today, news is treated just like any otehr commercial division, and thus we get News as Show Biz. IMO a network that actually tried to take the news seriously again, and was truly balanced and unbiased could find a business niche too.

Once again, let me make this clear. I don't begrudge Fox News anything. I have no problem with it except that it is misleading how it is labeled, that they label themselves "Fair and Balanced" and pretend to be objective, while actually being a conservative channel.

Also, I also would not draw too many larger political conclusions from Fox's success. Fox serves a particular audience, but politically it is not a voice of the mainstream in terms of its poilitical agenda....A lot of Fox viewers are not diehard conservatives. Much of its ratings is because Fox makes the news "fun" with their flashy graphics, loud music and drums and heated style of debate. And by hyping stories like Michael Jackson and Lacy peterson. It's tabloid TV in style. I watch it sometimes for entertainment.

Again they're welcome to do that. The problem is the other networks are4 trying to play copycat. CNN is trying to be "fun" too but it's so badly done that they lose viewers. MSNBC doesn't know what it wants to be, so it comes out as a jumble.


---------------
To answer Hemi's questions about MSNBC ratings, Scartboro had an audience this summer of 254,000 viewers. It's up slightly since then, but still relatively tiny.

October 22, 2003
Fox News Win Ratings For 10/21
From Drudge, cable news ratings for 10/21:
10:00 pm
FOX GRETA 0.8
CNN AARON BROWN 0.7
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.4

----------------

According to this article below from a newspaper in Fla, MSNBC says it has given him him three years to improve the ratings. What did Donahue get to cultuvate an audience?...Something like seven months?

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/...al/ST001.shtml

Excerpt:

"Ratings so far are mixed. According to Hollywood Reporter, Fox News Channel was the only cable news service in August to increase viewership from a year ago. By comparison, CNN decreased 9 percent in primetime and total day, while MSNBC lost 21 percent in primetime and 11 for the day. The good news for MSNBC is that its viewership increased 4 percent from July.


"Scarborough Country" attracted 254,000 viewers in August, according to Nielsen Media Research. That's an increase from last year's low-rated "Ashleigh Banfield" shown in the same time slot, but far from impressive."Look at it like this: If they lit up the homes on a map of those who were watching Joe's show, there would be a dotted light in the Pensacola area," says Pensacola's Kenneth Lamb, a local radio talk show host and free-lance journalist. "The rest of the country would be black."

Scarborough's not obsessed with ratings. He knows his show isn't a quick fix. MSNBC brought him in as part of a three- year plan. He thinks it'll get there. The show's only in its fifth month. Give it time.....

Contnued

[DoctorDoom]

Since long lists are impressive to libs...

ABC network TV stations

Alabama

Birmingham: WJSU (Ch. 40)
Dothan: WDHN (Ch. 18)
Huntsville: WAAY (Ch. 31)
Tuscaloosa: WJSU (Ch. 33)

Alaska

Anchorage: KIMO (Ch. 13)
Fairbanks: KATN (Ch. 2)
Juneau: KJUD (Ch. 8)

Arizona

Phoenix: KNXV (Ch. 15)
Tucson: KGUN (Ch. 9)

Arkansas

Fayetteville: KHOG (Ch. 29)
Ft. Smith: KHBS (Ch. 40)
Jonesboro: KAIT (Ch. 8)
Little Rock: KATV (Ch. 7)

California

Bakersfield: KERO (Ch. 23)
Eureka: KAEF (Ch. 23)
Fresno: KFSN (Ch. 30)
Los Angeles: KABC (Ch. 7)
Redding: KRCR (Ch. 7)
Sacramento: KXTV (Ch. 10)
San Diego: KGTV (Ch. 10)
San Francisco: KGO (Ch. 7)
San Jose: KNTV (Ch. 11)
Santa Barbara: KEYT (Ch. 3)

Colorado

Denver: KMGH (Ch. 7)
Grand Junction: KJCT (Ch. 8)

Connecticut

New Haven: WTNH (Ch. 8)

District of Columbia

Washington: WJLA (Ch. 7)

Florida

Ft. Myers: WZVN (Ch. 26)
Gainesville: WCJB (Ch. 20)
Jacksonville: WJXX (Ch. 25)
Miami: WPLG (Ch. 10)
Orlando: WFTV (Ch. 9)
Palm Beach Gardens: WPBF (Ch. 25)
Panama City: WMBB (Ch. 13)
Pensacola: WEAR (Ch. 3)
Tallahassee: WTXL (Ch. 27)
Tampa: WFTS (Ch. 28)

Georgia

Atlanta: WSB (Ch. 2)
Augusta: WJBF (Ch. 6)
Columbus: WTVM (Ch. 9)
Macon: WPGA (Ch. 58)
Savannah: WJCL (Ch. 22)

Hawaii

Honolulu: KITV (Ch. 4)

Idaho

Idaho Falls: KIFI (Ch. 8)

Illinois

Carterville: WSIL (Ch. 3)
Chicago: WLS (Ch. 7)
Decatur: WAND (Ch. 17)
Moline: WQAD (Ch. 8)

Indiana

Evansville: WEHT (Ch. 25)
Ft. Wayne: WPTA (Ch. 21)
Indianapolis: WRTV (Ch. 6)

Iowa

Cedar Rapids: KCRG (Ch. 9)
Des Moines: WOI (Ch. 5)

Kansas

Topeka: KTKA (Ch. 49)
Wichita: KAKE (Ch. 10)

Kentucky

Bowling Green: WBKO (Ch. 13)
Lexington: WTVQ (Ch. 36)
Louisville: WHAS (Ch. 11)

Louisiana

Alexandria: KLAX (Ch. 31)
Baton Rouge: WBRZ (Ch. 2)
Lafayette: KATC (Ch. 3)
Monroe: KAQY (Ch. 11)
New Orleans: WGNO (Ch. 26)
Shreveport: KTBS (Ch. 3)

Maine

Auburn: WMTW (Ch. 8)
Bangor: WVII (Ch. 7)

Maryland

Baltimore: WMAR (Ch. 2)
Salisbury: WMDT (Ch. 47)

Massachusetts

Needham: WCVB (Ch. 5)
Springfield: WGGB (Ch. 40)

Michigan

Battle Creek: WOTV (Ch. 41)
Calumet: WBKP (Ch. 5)
Detroit: WXYZ (Ch. 7)
Lansing: WLAJ (Ch. 53)
Traverse City: WGTU (Ch. 29)

Minnesota

Alexandria: KSAX (Ch. 42)
Austin: KAAL (Ch. 6)
Minneapolis-St. Paul: KSTP (Ch. 5)

Mississippi

Biloxi: WLOX (Ch. 13)
Greenville: WABG (Ch. 6)
Jackson: WAPT (Ch. 16)
Meridian: WTOK (Ch. 11)

Missouri

Columbia: KMIZ (Ch. 17)
Joplin: KODE (Ch. 12)
Kansas City: KMBC (Ch. 9)
Kirksville: KTVO (Ch. 3)
Springfield: KSPR (Ch. 33)
St. Joseph: KQTV (Ch. 2)

Montana

Butte: KWYB (Ch. 18)
Great Falls: KFBB (Ch. 5)
Missoula: KTMF (Ch. 23)

Nebraska

Omaha: KETV (Ch. 7)

Nevada

Las Vegas: KTNV (Ch. 13)
Reno: KOLO (Ch. 8)

New Hampshire

Manchester: WMUR (Ch. 9)

New Mexico

Albuquerque: KOAT (Ch. 7)

New York

Albany: WTEN (Ch. 10)
Binghamton: WMGC (Ch. 34)
Buffalo: WKBW (Ch. 7)
Elmira: WENY (Ch. 36)
New York: WABC (Ch. 7)
Rochester: WOKR (Ch. 13)
Syracuse: WIXT (Ch. 9)
Utica: WUTR (Ch. 20)
Watertown: WWTI (Ch. 50)

North Carolina

Asheville: WLOS (Ch. 13)
Charlotte: WSOC (Ch. 9)
Durham: WTVD (Ch. 11)
New Bern: WCTI (Ch. 12)
Wilmington: WWAY (Ch. 3)

North Dakota

Fargo: WDAY (Ch. 6)

Ohio

Cincinnati: WCPO (Ch. 9)
Cleveland: WEWS (Ch. 5)
Columbus: WSYX (Ch. 6)
Dayton: WDTN (Ch. 2)
Toledo: WTVG (Ch. 13)
Youngstown: WYTV (Ch. 33)

Oklahoma

Lawton: KSWO (Ch. 7)
Oklahoma City: KOCO (Ch. 5)
Tulsa: KTUL (Ch. 8)

Oregon

Eugene: KEZI (Ch. 9)
Klamath Falls: KDKF (Ch. 31)
Medford: KDRV (Ch. 12)
Portland: KATU (Ch. 2)

Pennsylvania

Harrisburg: WHTM (Ch. 27)
Johnstown: WATM (Ch. 23)
Philadelphia: WPVI (Ch. 6)
Pittsburgh: WTAE (Ch. 4)
Scranton: WNEP (Ch. 16)

Rhode Island

Providence: WLNE (Ch. 6)

South Carolina

Charleston: WCIV (Ch. 4)
Columbia: WOLO (Ch. 25)
Florence: WPDE (Ch. 15)

South Dakota

Rapid City: KOTA (Ch. 3)
Sioux Falls: KSFY (Ch. 13)

Tennessee

Chattanooga: WTVC (Ch. 9)
Jackson: WBBJ (Ch. 7)
Kingsport: WKPT (Ch. 19)
Knoxville: WATE (Ch. 6)
Memphis: WPTY (Ch. 24)
Nashville: WKRN (Ch. 2)

Texas

Abilene: KTXS (Ch. 12)
Amarillo: KVII (Ch. 7)
Austin: KVUE (Ch. 24)
Beaumont: KBMT (Ch. 12)
Corpus Christi: KIII (Ch. 3)
Dallas: WFAA (Ch. 8)
El Paso: KVIA (Ch. 7)
Houston: KTRK (Ch. 13)
Lubbock: KAMC (Ch. 28)
Lufkin: KTRE (Ch. 9)
Tyler: KLTV (Ch. 7)
Waco: KXXV (Ch. 25)
Weslaco: KRGV (Ch. 5)

Utah

Salt Lake City: KTVX (Ch. 4)

Virginia

Harrisonburg: WHSV (Ch. 3)
Lynchburg: WSET (Ch. 13)
Norfolk: WVEC (Ch. 13)
Richmond: WRIC (Ch. 8)

Washington

Kennewick: KVEW (Ch. 42)
Seattle: KOMO (Ch. 4)
Spokane: KXLY (Ch. 4)
Yakima: KAPP (Ch. 35)

West Virginia

Charleston: WCHS (Ch. 8)
Oak Hill: WOAY (Ch. 4)

Wisconsin

Eagle River: WYOW (Ch. 34)
Eau Claire: WQOW (Ch. 18)
Green Bay: WBAY (Ch. 2)
La Crosse: WXOW (Ch. 19)
Madison: WKOW (Ch. 27)
Milwaukee: WISN (Ch. 12)
Wausau: WAOW (Ch. 9)

Would you care to see the equally long lists of CBS, NBC and PBS stations?

I will be the first to say that they are not all owned by a few corporations. However, they are the slaves of the left, marching in lockstep with the libleft political ideology. Peter Jerking, Dan Blather, Tom Lockjaw and whoever the talking hairdo is for PBS say the same thing on their respective affiliate stations no matter who owns them, and their "news" is spun exactly the same way no matter which network is involved. Viewers of any of the four named networks are given exactly one viewpoint on the news, the official libeRAT party view.

Murdock's ownership of all those companies is nowhere near as dangerous to the country as the libleft's "Our way or no way" death-grip on the major news media.

Dean is PO'd at Fox because it is alone in refusing to grovel obsequiously at the feet of the RATs and parrot every word that issues from the spinmeisters in the hallowed halls of the DNC. And he detests talk radio for precisely that same reason.

[Melissa]

[curious]

Originally posted by DoctorDoom:
Since long lists are impressive to libs...

ABC network TV stations...Would you care to see the equally long lists of CBS, NBC and PBS stations? I will be the first to say that they are not all owned by a few corporations. However, they are the slaves of the left, marching in lockstep with the libleft political ideology. Peter Jerking, Dan Blather, Tom Lockjaw and whoever the talking hairdo is for PBS say the same thing on their respective affiliate stations no matter who owns them, and their "news" is spun exactly the same way no matter which network is involved. Viewers of any of the four named networks are given exactly one viewpoint on the news, the official libeRAT party view. Murdock's ownership of all those companies is nowhere near as dangerous to the country as the libleft's "Our way or no way" death-grip on the major news media. Dean is PO'd at Fox because it is alone in refusing to grovel obsequiously at the feet of the RATs and parrot every word that issues from the spinmeisters in the hallowed halls of the DNC. And he detests talk radio for precisely that same reason.

Boy you conservatives have a real blind spot in this. You sound like a variation of Al Frankin's famous line "But of course it all is ultumately about me." Instead for you this is yet anotehr liberal plot "But ultimately it is all about Rupert and Fox."

Rather than bang my head against this wall one more time, Doctor, I will simply point out that my long list of his holdings was in answer to a question about Fox's holdings. In terms of size in the American market NewsCorp is NOT, NOT, NOT the biggest offender.

This will -- as usual -- go in one ear and out the other (or perhaps remain stuck in the right ear) but I will say it one more time. I am NOT defending the growth of ABC's power in the media. This is not about liberals versus conservatives. I agree with wild eyed leftists like Trent Lott and Kay Baily Hutchenson anbd Brent Bozell on this issue.

It is about how much dominance over the media a handul of oligarchs are going to have. I don't care if they are supposedly liberal oligarchs, conservative oligarchs or simply greedy apolitical oligarchs.

It's also about the goal of having a MORE open media to all viewpoints.

(But if you want to talk about it in political terms, I would point that the awful liberal empire of ABC Disney is also the prime backer of Hannity, Rush, Steve Marlburg, et' al, and they operate some of the biggest right-wing talk radio stations in the country.)

And as a liberal rat (in your enlightened view) I can guarantee you that the mainstream media is not in our pocket by a longshot. The Democrats hardly feel that the media is following their marching orders.

[DoctorDoom]

am very well aware about the reason for broadcast licenses. I used to work in radio (back in the Dark Ages). But it IS corporate socialism, regardless of the reasons. It is not like the restaurnt business where anyone can compete.

For one who claims to have been in radio (doing what?), you seem oblivious to the realitiies of broadcasting. It's not a matter of corporate domination, but rather of who has enough cash to buy the necessary equipment, hire the necessary personnel and compete for the available channels in a given area.

And, whichever group gets the nod, the final factor in a station's success is the size of the audience, which determines the advertizing rates it can charge (NPR being the exception here). If a station decides to broadcast a "different" POV (e.g., liberal) and no one listens to the station, it goes under. That's business for you. If you have no customers, you close your doors.

If you want an example of socialism, consider forcing stations to broadcast programming that will have no audience.

And if you want to get literal, with more than one company it may be a oligopoly rather than a monopoly. But the dynamics are the same. And even if there are hundreds of signals coming over the air, if they are all broadcasting a handful of the same programs, it really isn't much of a choice.

You are denying the dynamics of broadcasting. What drives the programming is the bottom line. It is well known in broadcasting that certain types of programs are universally attractive to audiences and others are marginally accepted or flatly ignored. If there is a sameness to what's on the air, it is because market forces have dictated that people listen to what is being heard.

Your starry-eyed socialist utopia might mandate "choices" but it can't dictate to the people that they must listen to them.

[curious]

Dr., anyone can put together a few thousand bucks and set up a trensmitter, mike, mixing board and recorder and transmit a radio signal. Many "pirate" broadcasters have done exactly that.

But it is illegal without an FCC license. And when these mega media companies push up the price of getting those licences into the millions of dollars, THAT is the only stumbling block to more people being able to do it.

And in the modern world, radio and TV are the main ways people get news, hear or express opnions and otherwise communicate on a large scale level.

So don't give me this nonsense about how radio is a free market, and that the only obligation of broadcasters is to serve the bottom line.

Broadcasteres have a socialistic government oligopoly, and they are trying to bend the rules in their favor. The supposedly "conservative" companies like Clear Channel are just as socialistic as ABC in that sense. They want to totally escape their other obligations as caretakers of a limited public resource. They want their cake (a sanctioned monopoly) but they want to eat it too (behave only as a business with no related obligations to the public).

As I said above, maybe in five or ten years, if Internet streaming becomes as univeraally accessable and available as radio and TV, this may not be an issue. But at the moment, that is not the case.

My starry eyed utoipia does include such boring things as real, responsible news that isn't hyping the Michael Jackson story over more important issues. And maybe violence and T&A grab more viewers than the boring details of issues that affect people's lives.

But if you want to return to the Roman days of bread and circuses, be my guest.

[DoctorDoom]

Rather than bang my head against this wall one more time, Doctor, I will simply point out that my long list was an aswer to a question about Fox's holdings. In terms of size in the American market NewsCorp is NOT, NOT, NOT the biggest offender.

Dean, the topic of this thread, said this:

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."

What Dean thinks he can do to insure "a wide variety of opinions in every community" without blatant government interference in the private sector is unknown. But, he's a RAT and thus believes that government is THE answer to everything.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the mere existence of "a wide variety of opinions in every community" is NOT going to ensure that anyone will want to hear them.

"The real value of freedom is not to the minority that wants to talk, but to the majority that does not want to listen."
-- Zechariah Chafee, 1885-1957, American legal scholar, libertarian, in The Blessings of Liberty, 1956

[curious]

I will repeat once again, ad nauseum, this is not about wanting a more "liberal" media. It is simply wanting a media that takes the news seroiously, and also allowing many different opinions on the air to allow the interplay of ideas that is necessary for a healthy, dynamic society.

A free exchange of ideas is what makes for politics and democracy. That means including a wide variety of opinions, including those who don't reflect what people want to hear at the moment....Often, ideas that strart at the margins become mainstream.

I would use the history of your own conservative movement as an example of why it's necessary to give access to viewpoints that are out of step.

Back in the days when conservatives felt like they were "in the wilderness" because the supposedly "liberal media" shut them out, I suspect you might have seen it a lot diffeently.

You all used to whine "Oh we can't get our message out, because those big bad liberals won't let anyone hear what we have to say. And nobody takes us seriously or wants to listen to us because that mean old liberal media distorts what we have to say."

But conservatives were able to eke out airtime, and eventualkly get your message out. But if your criteria was used, you would have never been able to get that ball rolling in the first place.

I would say the same thing for culture. Ideas and artforms that are on the margins are what push a culture ahead. The things that are challenging are what enriches a culture and feeds the more pop culture eventually.

Many of the graphic elements of Fox News, for example, started out on the margins of visual art and media.

But when these things are prevented from being seen, we end up with a culture that becomes stifling and inbred.