Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sho Nuff
The consolidation of television and movies is disconcerting but because it is a high overhead and thus advertising driven medium, it is inevitable without government intervention. I view television as 95% entertainment anyway and I put very little stock into network or cable news. PBS documentaries are about the only source of consistent quality journalism I have found on TV.
What is more alarming to me is the consolidation of print news. Print should be the last bastion of pure journalism but the increasing commercialization of print media is following in the path of television. Last I heard the New York Time, LA Times and Washington Post were the only print publications with journalists on the ground in Iraq and the LA Times was being pressured by investors to pull out.
THE NEWS SHOULD NOT HAVE INVESTORS
Internet may soon be the only reliable source for news. Even with the thousands of yahoos posting mostly nonsense, I see very little difference between that and tv news. Hopefully, serious, dedicated journalists will turn to the internet as an alternative to corporate news houses to preserve relevant and uncensored journalism.
|
I highlighted and raised the one fact that stands out most to me.
Doesn't matter if you break up "the corporate" ownership to the media. Truly doesn't.
What already has happened in the media industry and almost every industry is you have the same people investing in the whole industry, not just one company.
So (just an example), Ted Turner may own x number of shares of stock in AOL-Time, however, he also owns less than 5% in NewsCorp, Disney, NBC/Vivendi, Tribune, etc. Then the mutual funds, the corporate, institutional investing arms that Turner is vested in, probably own huge chunks of each. The same goes for Murdoch and Redstone and politicians, political party bigwigs, Wal*Mart, Bill Gates, anyone who needs to use the media to "make sure" the have some form of safety netting.
See here's the thing, they say they are "driven by advertising dollars". Ok, but how many of us truly let advertising affect what we buy? If we did we'd be out changing shampoos, dish soaps, toothpastes daily.... doesn't happen. Most people are very brand oriented or look to find the best bargain. Sometimes an ad may help the person make up their mind but not really.
So why do companies spend BILLIONS every year? Why will one company spend MILLIONS for (1) 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl?
Because, the people who own the company advertising have money in the media and it helps the bottom line on the media side. Because the people who own the company advertising and paying big bucks expect a return, (i.e. favorable stories, bad stories that will affect business brushed under, etc.)
As for print media, it was never as "free" as people make it to be. The reason most cities had at least 2 papers were because they each biased and slanted the stories to their political views. TV and radio just ate into their advertising revenue and forced mergers, consolidations and closures. The print also always relied on "the wire services" again controlled by the few.
Actually, I think this day and age could make newspapers great again, they can become more independant, and use the internet more, rely less on the wire services and find a renaissance.
But those are just my ramblings....