Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:But then I read a thread like this. Where people are reading suggestions of tax breaks and removing of market controls* and processing that as the government planning to take over news media.

I for one welcome our new entertaining overlords...

Orkeosaurus wrote:The article didn't actually say that Waxman was trying to give them tax breaks and remove anti-trust laws; just that "lawmakers and policymakers" were considering them. It did seem to imply that Waxman doesn't think the laws against owning multiple forms of media are causing the problem.

So we should be worried because the proposal is in such an embryonic state that the proposed terms can be ignored and replaced with something more sensationalist?

Plus, a government could still gain undue influence on an industry through money/tax breaks/special favors.

There is already a direct relationship between favourable coverage and industry favours. In the lead up to the Iraq war every single Murdoch newspaper in the world just happened to individually come to the conclusion that the upcoming invasion was just. And in the wake of the invasion the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all initiated efforts to reduce media ownership controls, just like Murdoch had been campaigning for.

But personally I'm not too worried about FOX news suddenly becoming a Democratic mouthpiece, because Murdoch wants a tax break.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sebster wrote:But then I read a thread like this. Where people are reading suggestions of tax breaks and removing of market controls* and processing that as the government planning to take over news media.

Yeah, Berlesconi is corrupt, and used his dominance of Italian media to come to power. But Murdoch couldn't do the same as he isn't a naturalised citizen, and the only exception to that is if you're a black Kenyan

sebster wrote:So we should be worried because the proposal is in such an embryonic state that the proposed terms can be ignored and replaced with something more sensationalist?

No, I was just trying to clarify who's doing what.

There is already a direct relationship between favourable coverage and industry favours. In the lead up to the Iraq war every single Murdoch newspaper in the world just happened to individually come to the conclusion that the upcoming invasion was just. And in the wake of the invasion the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all initiated efforts to reduce media ownership controls, just like Murdoch had been campaigning for.

So all the more reason to be watchful of favors to the industry in the future, right? I mean, that war didn't turn out so well.

But personally I'm not too worried about FOX news suddenly becoming a Democratic mouthpiece, because Murdoch wants a tax break.

Well, FOX is kind of an awkward example, as they can't really be biased much further.

Orkeosaurus wrote:No, I was just trying to clarify who's doing what.

Fair enough. But you can see my point that debate in this thread has been a bit over the top?

So all the more reason to be watchful of favors to the industry in the future, right? I mean, that war didn't turn out so well.

Sure, but it has to be taken into the context of every industry having some level of government involvement. Simply noting that there is a proposed change to government regulation doesn't mean the editors of Pravda are going to start receiving calls about the best tricks for running newspapers.

Well, FOX is kind of an awkward example, as they can't really be biased much further.

The guy who owns FOX is the guy behind this proposal...

sebster wrote:Fair enough. But you can see my point that debate in this thread has been a bit over the top?

Well, there were some posts that were more of a response to the title of the thread than the article itself, some ranting about newspapers being outdated, and some meme spam.

So it seems like your average "response to a news article on the Off Topic Forum" to me.

Sure, but it has to be taken into the context of every industry having some level of government involvement. Simply noting that there is a proposed change to government regulation doesn't mean the editors of Pravda are going to start receiving calls about the best tricks for running newspapers.

Alright, that's fair. I'm still a little suspicious over the "changes to the tax codes" though. As far as things the government can do for industry go, cutting taxes for them is pretty straightforward.

The guy who owns FOX is the guy behind this proposal...

He's behind those "Free Press" guys at any rate. He's always doing this kind of thing though, it's the other news stations I'd be worried about.

(Ah who am I kidding, I don't watch the news anyways.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, there were some posts that were more of a response to the title of the thread than the article itself, some ranting about newspapers being outdated, and some meme spam.

So it seems like your average "response to a news article on the Off Topic Forum" to me.

"North Korea is best Korea"
"Hurm... the government more strictly regulating the media... What can possibly go wrong?"
"All you need is a substantial and devastating event to occur to confuse the people and perform the switch"
"I for one welcome our new pseudo-Korean overlords."
"I think McCain/Feingold are is bad enough. It's a restriction on the First Amendment and gives the government control of political speech during election periods. This is even worse."
"So, now we can get Pravda at any ole' newsstand?"

All of that, over an article about a guy saying news is important and we're considering tax code changes and removing market regulation to help traditional news recover.

He's behind those "Free Press" guys at any rate. He's always doing this kind of thing though, it's the other news stations I'd be worried about.

(Ah who am I kidding, I don't watch the news anyways.)

That's fair enough. As long as it sucks as bad as it does right now, I don't think anyone should. They'll have our viewership when they get competent.

And, yeah, I'm just as worried about the other news stations as I am about FOX. FOX is very, very biased but that isn't why they suck. They suck because they're not worried about accurate, informative news. This is something they share with the other stations.

I mean, in the UK you have the Guardian and the Times, which are right and left wings papers, but still generally informative.

I agree with you in regards to the quality of American news media and presentation on cable news, but I find that the major network nightly news, World News Tonight for example, and a good portion of our newspapers, ie the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, are all very good papers, and very informative. Its just my opinion as a journalist....

I honestly don't think the government could do any worse than the shitpile we have now. Hell, they might actually do some fact checking once in a while.

I hope I live to see the day punditry dies. Even if everyone on this planet has to die with it. I'll take my last breath knowing that no infotainment editorial talk block will exist again.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I agree with you in regards to the quality of American news media and presentation on cable news, but I find that the major network nightly news, World News Tonight for example, and a good portion of our newspapers, ie the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, are all very good papers, and very informative. Its just my opinion as a journalist....

Fair point, I was really only thinking of cable news, as we don't get that much access to network news over here. We do get NPR on radio and that is an excellent outlet.

I think I'm mostly still bitter over the debacle that was the reporting of the build up to the Iraq war.

The main problem in the states is the news-o-tainment shows. There is an awful lot of them, but in reality they are no more popular (on an individual basis, FOX excluded on a pretty small margin) than TYT on youtube... which I find particularly funny. The best part about it, is that I can get accurate information on these numbers from Youtube, whereas I have no fething clue about the other numbers.

Now... to the main point. I go to NYT, Huffington post, Etc... etc... post, local papers, on top of NPR occasionally, and the random local newscast every so often. I can safely say that I am not in a minority by doing this, just that the massive amount of hype surrounding cable (nay, the cult surrounding cable tv) has a very strong brand in general. Something I find odd about all of this, is that supposedly, Online news does not pull in very much advertising.

I don't know how the mechanics of advertising works (pricing, etc...), but it seems to me that in time, all of the issues around that will be taken care of. Maybe people need to learn how to plug their giant TV's into their computers... I dunno... . Being used to something is very important, and cable news is not exactly a pillar that we have lived under for all that long. Over the course of this decade alone, I am sure to see some pretty interesting new directions being developed media wise. Looking forward to a real online library of movies... I would pay cash money for that, not so much for cable... at all actually, I get that online .

Oh... and this too, yes, the moving images soothe my fragile mind... ahhh, an Onion too? Why thank y- OMFG IT'S IN MY EYE!!! Nah, I'm fine, and you should be reading the Onion too.

We can all thank Ted Turner for cable news...that bastard...

To be honest, I was not simply referring to the article. This debate has been going on for a while and I did not restrict myself to the article, I was also going by the title/subject matter. I should have mentioned that in my response so no one got confused.

Going off of history, the more government "helps" the more it controls something, and this is typically a very bad thing. With the press it is even worse. For a long time the media has been bad enough, which explains the explosion in alternate news. I'm not talking about the entertainment industry here. That is a whole other issue. I'm talking about how all the major networks were often inaccurate (incompetent or on purpose I can't say) and rarely did any actual investigating.

A big reason a lot of these media outlets are struggling is because they are being exposed for what they are. They are too arrogant to examine themselves for bias and inaccuracy, and just keep on going down with the ship. That is fine. That is what SHOULD happen if they refure to improve. They think locking others out and trying to marginalize news outlets that they don't like will get them back to their glory days when there was no competition and they could say whatever they wanted and it was hard to find out if it was true or not. Like I said before, I am not surprised the government wants to prop up these failing companies--these companies do more to keep them in power than all the campaign contributions these guys take in every year.

Again, this is in response to the general topic, not just the article.

JEB_Stuart wrote:We can all thank Ted Turner for cable news...that bastard...

Him, and Gulf War 1 which saved it when it was almost bankrupt, and everyone who liked to watch it.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about!


http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091202123647.aspx

A little quote from the article:

Phil Jones announced yesterday that he is temporarily leaving his post as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit pending the investigation into the controversial e-mails and documents that started ClimateGate. Yet none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed ClimateGate or the incriminating Jones development since the news broke yesterday. This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal.

And this is how bad it is:

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html

What's sad is this isn't the first time. The old media giants have been outdone repeatedly over the past several years by magazines/outlets that should not (theoretically) be making them look so bad.

Spock, speaking of the Klingons
"They're dying Jim."

Kirk
"Let them die."

My stance on the issue has just reversed dramatically.

I heard NBC news quote the National Enquirer this morning.

...

Ok G-men, step in. It's time to put 'er down.

Kilkrazy wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:We can all thank Ted Turner for cable news...that bastard...

Him, and Gulf War 1 which saved it when it was almost bankrupt, and everyone who liked to watch it.

Hey, that was good TV.

Frazzled wrote:Spock, speaking of the Klingons
"They're dying Jim."

Kirk
"Let them die."

Amen. The idea of actually trying the preserve the current industry? Ugh.