Our Treasonous Media Is a Clear and Present Danger

[Silver Pines]

Am I missing something here?  It seems to me @Oceander stated the Constitutional definition of a free press...correct?  And a few pages later, anyone who agrees with that is being accused of approving of liberal media domination?

[DiogenesLamp]

@Oceander

It's the old "if you aren't good enough to compete, and the people don't want your product, we have to have the government step in and protect you" line of the Left, using such things as tariffs and handouts. 

You still don't grasp the lesson of Standard Oil.    No one would have ever been able to catch them in the marketplace.   

[driftdiver]

The Left says it was a "problem".  You say it was "unfair".

The consumer says, "It gave me a good deal on a product."

I suppose Google succeeded only because of the government.  Same with Microsoft before it.

Its really kinda curious as to how they both became so dominant.   Both engaged some really anti-competitive practices.    Both also had some really nice govt contracts. 

So if you were the NSA saw these developing what would you do?   Would you funnel money to facebook?   An organization which had no revenue but grew explosively.   Google which is really an advertising company and a govt approved monopoly?   Would you pay microsoft to leave certain vulnerabilities unpatched?

We know the govt has secret deals and secret systems with the telecom providers to monitor users.  Why would they stop there?

Google controls what you see on the internet.  Just like the mainstream media controls what information most of the population sees.    They also happen to be in sync, an   amazing coincidence.

[driftdiver]

Am I missing something here?  It seems to me @Oceander stated the Constitutional definition of a free press...correct?  And a few pages later, anyone who agrees with that is being accused of approving of liberal media domination?

.

@CatherineofAragon
He and apparently you are making the faulty assumption that we have a free press.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

.

@CatherineofAragon
He and apparently you are making the faulty assumption that we have a free press.

 

[driftdiver]

[DCPatriot]

Its really kinda curious as to how they both became so dominant.   Both engaged some really anti-competitive practices.    Both also had some really nice govt contracts. 

So if you were the NSA saw these developing what would you do?   Would you funnel money to facebook?   An organization which had no revenue but grew explosively.   Google which is really an advertising company and a govt approved monopoly?   Would you pay microsoft to leave certain vulnerabilities unpatched?

We know the govt has secret deals and secret systems with the telecom providers to monitor users.  Why would they stop there?

Google controls what you see on the internet.  Just like the mainstream media controls what information most of the population sees.    They also happen to be in sync, an   amazing coincidence.

    Great post! 

[jmyrlefuller]

Putting all of the other outlets aside, are you now suggesting that government must guarantee equal access to media broadcasting outlets?  That the equal time rule must apply to everything, including news stories that don't focus on a particular candidate?  Are we now going to advocate for reviving the now-dead fairness doctrine?

Well, consider that much of media is driven by FCC licensing. The FCC has slowly squeezed out the amount of available broadcast spectrum (from 67 channels down to 48) while at the same time grossly expanding the number of stations a company can own. Under must-carry rules, FCC licenses ensure a crucial spot on a cable and satellite lineup, which is the main value in them these days.

These actions have ensured an oligarchy; by making that shared spectrum more scarce, the FCC has driven up the cost of licenses far beyond what most organizations can afford, so that only the behemoths can afford them. Most of the new entries into television are companies that scavenge the few licenses (not even the stations themselves anymore; thanks to digital subchannels, they can now flout station limits even further) that have to be spun off under already loose ownership limits when behemoths like Nexstar and Sinclair (and for all this talk of Sinclair being conservative, they still affiliate their stations with the same ABC, CBS and NBC networks as the rest of them) gobble up as many stations as they can buy.

Harder limits on the quantity of stations a company can own, or better yet broadening the spectrum to allow more stations, would help loosen the grip, lower prices and open up opportunities to establish something new. Thankfully, production costs are actually way down because of the rise of digital TV.

[txradioguy]

Am I missing something here?  It seems to me @Oceander stated the Constitutional definition of a free press...correct?  And a few pages later, anyone who agrees with that is being accused of approving of liberal media domination?

@CatherineofAragon nope you didn't miss anything.

[Rivergirl]

What I find so confounding is why supposedly conservative spokes folks turned against every value, every principle, and decided to defend the most corrupt person ever to run for public office.
This man had a long history of unethical, immoral behavior and yet he is revered by many.

[Bigun]

Well, consider that much of media is driven by FCC licensing. The FCC has slowly squeezed out the amount of available broadcast spectrum (from 67 channels down to 48) while at the same time grossly expanding the number of stations a company can own. Under must-carry rules, FCC licenses ensure a crucial spot on a cable and satellite lineup, which is the main value in them these days.

These actions have ensured an oligarchy; by making that shared spectrum more scarce, the FCC has driven up the cost of licenses far beyond what most organizations can afford, so that only the behemoths can afford them. Most of the new entries into television are companies that scavenge the few licenses (not even the stations themselves anymore; thanks to digital subchannels, they can now flaunt station limits even further) that have to be spun off under already loose ownership limits when behemoths like Nexstar and Sinclair (and for all this talk of Sinclair being conservative, they still affiliate their stations with the same ABC, CBS and NBC networks as the rest of them) gobble up as many stations as they can buy.

Harder limits on the quantity of stations a company can own, or better yet broadening the spectrum to allow more stations, would help loosen the grip, lower prices and open up opportunities to establish something new. Thankfully, production costs are actually way down because of the rise of digital TV.

Big business and big government have long been in bed with each other and the use of governmet regulations as a method of limiting competition is widespread.   I'm sure that many of the regulations currently in place were promulgated for that specific purpose alone.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, consider that much of media is driven by FCC licensing. The FCC has slowly squeezed out the amount of available broadcast spectrum (from 67 channels down to 48) while at the same time grossly expanding the number of stations a company can own. Under must-carry rules, FCC licenses ensure a crucial spot on a cable and satellite lineup, which is the main value in them these days.

These actions have ensured an oligarchy; by making that shared spectrum more scarce, the FCC has driven up the cost of licenses far beyond what most organizations can afford, so that only the behemoths can afford them. Most of the new entries into television are companies that scavenge the few licenses (not even the stations themselves anymore; thanks to digital subchannels, they can now flaunt station limits even further) that have to be spun off under already loose ownership limits when behemoths like Nexstar and Sinclair (and for all this talk of Sinclair being conservative, they still affiliate their stations with the same ABC, CBS and NBC networks as the rest of them) gobble up as many stations as they can buy.

Harder limits on the quantity of stations a company can own, or better yet broadening the spectrum to allow more stations, would help loosen the grip, lower prices and open up opportunities to establish something new. Thankfully, production costs are actually way down because of the rise of digital TV.

Excellent post.   I was going to make the point about the scarcity of licenses and such,   but you did a better job of it than I would have done.   


Yes,  it's a massive hurdle to attempt to break into this protected racket. 

[DiogenesLamp]

What I find so confounding is why supposedly conservative spokes folks turned against every value, every principle, and decided to defend the most corrupt person ever to run for public office.
This man had a long history of unethical, immoral behavior and yet he is revered by many.

The topic is what a threat to Democracy is one party control of the Broadcasting systems.   It is not about Trump.   It was never intended to be about Trump,   I don't think I've even mentioned Trump in any of the discussion so far,   and I don't see why you feel the need to drag Trump into this.   

Trump is not the topic,  and I would hope you would cease your efforts to make him part of the topic of this thread.   

[Oceander]

Fascinating how many are so willing to throw overboard supposedly fundamental conservative values just because they don't like the fact that the free press currently doesn't favor their political views.

[Oceander]

Excellent post.   I was going to make the point about the scarcity of licenses and such,   but you did a better job of it than I would have done.   


Yes,  it's a massive hurdle to attempt to break into this protected racket. 

One needs to spend millions of dollars to get a license to set up a good website that gets information out?   In this day and age?  With computers and the internet?  I don't think so.  FR does quite well and has a wide reach; it's primary enemies are it's antiquated software and hardware, and managements predilection for witch hunts and purges. 

[DiogenesLamp]

An example of Real Censorship by Mega Powerful Google. 


You might want to look at this (It's from OANN)   before YouTube yanks it like they did her other video. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OajL7n732yM&feature=youtu.be



This is the reality of elite Pro-Government big business left wing censorship.   It exists,  and it needs to be stopped.   

[Bigun]

Fascinating how many are so willing to throw overboard supposedly fundamental conservative values just because they don't like the fact that the free press currently doesn't favor their political views.

 It has been a long term and frequently stated goal of the communist international to gain control of mass media in this country.  The fact that they have been able to do that in the marketplace lends great weight to Lenin's observation that "a capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with!"

[DiogenesLamp]

Fascinating how many are so willing to throw overboard supposedly fundamental conservative values just because they don't like the fact that the free press currently doesn't favor their political views.

It isn't a free press,  it is a f***ing Big Business/Government Cronyism cartel that needs to be smashed apart with a nuclear sledgehammer.   


That you keep calling this socialist behemoth a "free press"  indicates you have no grasp of what that idea (as expressed in the fist amendment)  actually means.   


There is only one party control of the airwaves.   There is no "balance"  from voices on the other side.  All access to the public is controlled by Socialist big government minded people.   The existing Media is effectively a "sock puppet" of the Deep State and those who profit from it. 

[DCPatriot]

What I find so confounding is why supposedly conservative spokes folks turned against every value, every principle, and decided to defend the most corrupt person ever to run for public office.
This man had a long history of unethical, immoral behavior and yet he is revered by many.

Uhhhhhhh......because Hillary is a ***king Totalitarian Communist?

[DiogenesLamp]

One needs to spend millions of dollars to get a license to set up a good website that gets information out?   In this day and age?  With computers and the internet?  I don't think so.  FR does quite well and has a wide reach; it's primary enemies are it's antiquated software and hardware, and managements predilection for witch hunts and purges.

You are not even in the same comprehension universe as the rest of us who are looking at this problem seriously.   


ABC News reaches millions of people every night.   Free Republic reaches a few thousand,   and of those it reach,  most are already dedicated political partisans.   It has virtually no reach into the vast world of normal people who don't eat politics for breakfast lunch and dinner.   

In other words,  it has virtually zero effect on the people who decide elections.   

[XenaLee]

An example of Real Censorship by Mega Powerful Google. 


You might want to look at this (It's from OANN)   before YouTube yanks it like they did her other video. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OajL7n732yM&feature=youtu.be



This is the reality of elite Pro-Government big business left wing censorship.   It exists,  and it needs to be stopped.

Excellent vid.  She's a pistol, isn't she.

I just downloaded the video for posterity....lol.

[Oceander]

It isn't a free press,  it is a f***ing Big Business/Government Cronyism cartel that needs to be smashed apart with a nuclear sledgehammer.   


That you keep calling this socialist behemoth a "free press"  indicates you have no grasp of what that idea (as expressed in the fist amendment)  actually means.   


There is only one party control of the airwaves.   There is no "balance"  from voices on the other side.  All access to the public is controlled by Socialist big government minded people.   The existing Media is effectively a "sock puppet" of the Deep State and those who profit from it. 

"Airwaves"??  Is that what this is all about?  This isn't the 1940s and we aren't in an industrial era struggle with the Soviet Union. 

Get real.  You don't need an FCC license and a multi million dollar broadcasting facility to reach people these days. 

What you do need, however, is the willingness to put a lot of personal effort and some personal sacrifice into it, and I see no evidence that those complaining the loudest here have done either.  In fact, one poster who has tried to do something by creating his own conservative newspaper was derided for his efforts.

How pathetic.  Nobody here is willing to actually do anything other than dream up how to sicc the government on their political opponents in order to silence them. 

[driftdiver]

"Airwaves"??  Is that what this is all about?  This isn't the 1940s and we aren't in an industrial era struggle with the Soviet Union. 

Get real.  You don't need an FCC license and a multi million dollar broadcasting facility to reach people these days. 

What you do need, however, is the willingness to put a lot of personal effort and some personal sacrifice into it, and I see no evidence that those complaining the loudest here have done either.  In fact, one poster who has tried to do something by creating his own conservative newspaper was derided for his efforts.

How pathetic.  Nobody here is willing to actually do anything other than dream up how to sicc the government on their political opponents in order to silence them.

Why are you so intent on stifling free speech.  Posting on this site is an example of free speech and yet you condemn it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Excellent vid.  She's a pistol, isn't she.

I just downloaded the video for posterity....lol.

Yes she is,  and what she is saying could not possibly get on the air on any of the broadcasting channels owned by the left.  (which is all of them.)   


This is exactly what I mean when I refer to the Media censorship.   They simply won't allow certain ideas to be discussed on the airwaves.    They censor content that is offense to left-wing orthodoxy.   

This is how they have kept the abortion mill running since 1973.   50 Million murdered babies are the consequence of the existing media censorship. 

[DiogenesLamp]

"Airwaves"??  Is that what this is all about?  This isn't the 1940s and we aren't in an industrial era struggle with the Soviet Union.

Get real.  You don't need an FCC license and a multi million dollar broadcasting facility to reach people these days.   

Yes you do.   You are naive if you think you can reach the undecideds on backwater internet sites. 

What you do need, however, is the willingness to put a lot of personal effort and some personal sacrifice into it, and I see no evidence that those complaining the loudest here have done either.  In fact, one poster who has tried to do something by creating his own conservative newspaper was derided for his efforts.

Rightfully so.   You talk about the 1940s,  than offer a solution from the 1600s?   

How pathetic.  Nobody here is willing to actually do anything other than dream up how to sicc the government on their political opponents in order to silence them.

That's all you are hearing,   but i'm pretty that isn't what very many people have been saying.    A government initiated breakup of the cartel might be necessary,   but it isn't the only possible solution.   I'm perfectly interested in hearing ideas that don't require the government to implement them.   


My thinking is that first people need to recognize the severity of the problem,  and then resolve themselves to do something about it.