Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-02-2004, 12:51 PM   #1 (permalink)
Loser
 
Big Media + Government = Death of Democracy

Copyrighting the President

Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha.
By Lawrence Lessig

The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is "free." But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?

Full Article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 12:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
We have a whole rights and clearances department.

You want footage of when Clinton was on MTV: Choose or Loose? You'll have to pay for it. And like Mr. Greenwald found, the request may be denied. But that's the same for ANY archival footage for any person. If I own the rights, I can decide if or how I want to release it.

As for it being a vested interest in just protecting President Bush? Hardly, it's about appeasing the current administration, as the same things happened with President Clinton.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 01:28 PM   #3 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
As for it being a vested interest in just protecting President Bush? Hardly, it's about appeasing the current administration, as the same things happened with President Clinton.
That's probably why the article is titled "Copyrighting the President" and not "Copyrighting Bush".

But there is little doubt that the current administration has leveraged this situation more effectively than any in the past. The sheer lack of press conferences means that a larger portion of his comments are copyrighted by some company.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 01:47 PM   #4 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
That's probably why the article is titled "Copyrighting the President" and not "Copyrighting Bush".

But there is little doubt that the current administration has leveraged this situation more effectively than any in the past. The sheer lack of press conferences means that a larger portion of his comments are copyrighted by some company.
While that is true that they could be more copyrighted since Bush has made more private appearances than Clinton did, that doesn't mean that the footage is unaccessible. It's just that it can't be transmitted or reproduced.

Also understand that at a majority of the functions that are attended there are usually press tents available for the press to attend and shoot their own footage from outside. The reporters are usually allowed inside but not always. After that happens then the new footage is property of whatever news agency. Also keep in mind that is one of the reasons that CSPAN exists is to help balance out that role. CSPAN is funded by the cable industry itself.

It's also for the most part been like that since as long as I can remember, unless of course something like the Zapruder family donates the footage to the government.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 02:05 PM   #5 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
It's also for the most part been like that since as long as I can remember, unless of course something like the Zapruder family donates the footage to the government.
The article is accurately pointing out the escalation of the implications of copyrights + politics.

Yes, we have had copyrights since before you can remember. I'm not sure what that has to do with how the affects of copyrighting political information on the ability for people to access that information. Assuredly you don't believe it would be practical or even possible for political criticism to continue if more and more references to the statements of politicians must be requested by every individual as opposed to disseminated by means of third parties?

President Doe does not really believe what he now claims. We can't show you the video footage that demonstrates this because it is copyrighted. But you can go to NBC and request a copy of the information by filling out paperwork and you should receive a clip of it in the mail in 4 to 8 weeks. If they agree to let you look at it.

Last edited by OpieCunningham; 09-02-2004 at 02:07 PM..
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 02:24 PM   #6 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Do understand that while I do work for one of the largest media congloms on the planet, I do agree that there are some issues when it comes to ownership of large libraries, stations, media outlets etc.

One of the reasons that there is so much material out there for interviews etc, is that most handlers request that in order to grant such interview there are criteria to be met.

I do not think for one moment that they footage of a belief or gaffe of a political figure isn't going to die isolated on the shelf of some media conglom's library. There will always be leaks, there will be copies. The internet has proved that time and time again. Even with the technology of the broadcast flag to help minimize digital piracy, there will be workarounds and it will see the light of day.

As far as it being able to be composed into some sort of docudrama ala Moore, I'm all for it because it's heavily edited out of context to the point of screenplay as opposed to documentary.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 02:25 PM   #7 (permalink)
Insane
 
Bodyhammer86's Avatar
 
Location: Mattoon, Il
more crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit courtesy of the tinfoil hat brigade.
__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/
Bodyhammer86 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 02:28 PM   #8 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86
more crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit courtesy of the tinfoil hat brigade.
unless you meant this to be in a different thread, I think that you'll have to back that up with some more information.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 02:38 PM   #9 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I do not think for one moment that they footage of a belief or gaffe of a political figure isn't going to die isolated on the shelf of some media conglom's library. There will always be leaks, there will be copies. The internet has proved that time and time again. Even with the technology of the broadcast flag to help minimize digital piracy, there will be workarounds and it will see the light of day.

As far as it being able to be composed into some sort of docudrama ala Moore, I'm all for it because it's heavily edited out of context to the point of screenplay as opposed to documentary.
There is a large jump in faith to presume that an important piece of information owned by a media conglomerate is going to reach the full audience that would be interested in viewing it simply because of a leak via the Internet (or something similar).

Even if you throw out the issue of trust - do you have relatively more trust in NBC or some random link on the Internet? - the simple fact is that any one piece of information on the Internet is not going to reach the audience of a documentary or the audience of a media outlet not owned by the owners of the copyrighted information.

We could get into a discussion over the ability for any documentary (Moore's or anyone's) to have an objective truth which seperates it from a screenplay, but that would be a very different discussion.

The issue is essentially that the media and the government are effectively (if not actually) collaborating to dispense with bothersome issues created by Democracy - in the case of the media, they want perpetual ownership of material they were involved in creating. In the case of the government, if they screw something up, they would prefer as few people as possible to know about it.

There is no back-room secret society which gets together and decides that certain regulations are going to be enacted to kill Democracy - rather, it is self-preservation of both parties.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 02:45 PM   #10 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
There is a large jump in faith to presume that an important piece of information owned by a media conglomerate is going to reach the full audience that would be interested in viewing it simply because of a leak via the Internet (or something similar).

Even if you throw out the issue of trust - do you have relatively more trust in NBC or some random link on the Internet? - the simple fact is that any one piece of information on the Internet is not going to reach the audience of a documentary or the audience of a media outlet not owned by the owners of the copyrighted information.

We could get into a discussion over the ability for any documentary (Moore's or anyone's) to have an objective truth which seperates it from a screenplay, but that would be a very different discussion.

The issue is essentially that the media and the government are effectively (if not actually) collaborating to dispense with bothersome issues created by Democracy - in the case of the media, they want perpetual ownership of material they were involved in creating. In the case of the government, if they screw something up, they would prefer as few people as possible to know about it.

There is no back-room secret society which gets together and decides that certain regulations are going to be enacted to kill Democracy - rather, it is self-preservation of both parties.

I don't think it too large a jump of faith, bit torrent is a good example of that, there's plenty of stuff that has aired over broadcast that people archive themselves albeit for the moment it's Friends, Alias, et. al. It's not such a far leap to think that people if denied access will archive news footage. I don't doubt there to be a gap or hole until that happens.

IIRC there's footage in CSPAN libraries of several politicians that have gaffed in some capacity forgetting that the ever present eye is there. Jerry Brown picking his nose comes to mind.

I also do think that in the future there will be a dedicated ENG crew (laymans terms: camera man, sound guy, interviewer) that will be following the president ala the Military Video pool, because there has to be some sort of independent source for the people. IMHO that stuff being censored via top secret or classified will be the most damaging.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 03:13 PM   #11 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I don't think it too large a jump of faith, bit torrent is a good example of that, there's plenty of stuff that has aired over broadcast that people archive themselves albeit for the moment it's Friends, Alias, et. al. It's not such a far leap to think that people if denied access will archive news footage. I don't doubt there to be a gap or hole until that happens.
I guess I do not have as much faith in you in regards to the Internet being the great balance to media conglomerates - or the general populace is just not smart enough (the impact of the Swift Boat Vets vs. the impact of the AWOL charges comes to mind - the former took off due to the media, the latter was primarily disseminated via the Internet).

Quote:
I also do think that in the future there will be a dedicated ENG crew (laymans terms: camera man, sound guy, interviewer) that will be following the president ala the Military Video pool, because there has to be some sort of independent source for the people. IMHO that stuff being censored via top secret or classified will be the most damaging.
There will never be an ENG crew following the President around indiscriminantly. Nor should there be. If the President talls an ENG crew to leave while he conducts an interview with NBC, the ENG crew will leave.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 04:48 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Copyrighting the President

Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha.
By Lawrence Lessig

The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is "free." But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?

Full Article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5

Very interesting article.

Have you read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky? A fascinating account on how the US uses, both directly and indirectly, the media to shape public opinion. Maybe not so groundbreaking a concept in today's world but very topical at its time and still eye opening.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:06 PM   #13 (permalink)
Loser
 
I have not read Manufacturing Consent. It's on my list, but I expect I'll probably just jump straight to the cliff notes version.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:10 PM   #14 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
no no no--cliff notes suck--dont do it....

btw i am a bit confused about the focus on this thread...is the point here that there is something anti-democratic about copyright law in general, about the notion of intellectual property in general (i might agree, but i'd like to see what is really goin on here first) or are you talking about the specific convergence of copyright issues and the coverage or noncoverage of political issues, in the way the wired article discusses? in which case, this is a thread about copyright being used as a wedge for privatizing censorship?

i am a bit dullwitted tonight...a firealarm malfunction at 2:30 am is to blame. maybe.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:18 PM   #15 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
I guess I do not have as much faith in you in regards to the Internet being the great balance to media conglomerates - or the general populace is just not smart enough (the impact of the Swift Boat Vets vs. the impact of the AWOL charges comes to mind - the former took off due to the media, the latter was primarily disseminated via the Internet).

There will never be an ENG crew following the President around indiscriminantly. Nor should there be. If the President talls an ENG crew to leave while he conducts an interview with NBC, the ENG crew will leave.
I don't think that it's a balance, it's more of a chink in the armor, a hole in the dam. I don't think it will be balanced because if Viacom spent the money to produce the show, then Viacom should have all rights to the show. Unless congress acts and makes it like the Olympics thing (which yes, I understand was violated as stated in the other thread) where all footage of the president is "owned by the people."

I don't think the ENG crew would follow the POTUS indiscriminantly, more like the Official Military Video Pool where there are strict guidelines as to where and when it can shoot video. We already own all his emails and phone converstations, (which getting to access to read those has it's nuances as well.) I don't see it too far a stretch to encompass video.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:32 PM   #16 (permalink)
Loser
 
But as long as the President (or any politician, no need to focus on any one) moves away from what is considered public material and towards private interviews, the more damage is done to the dissemination of information.

And as long as the government official manipulates the media to potentially withhold access if the media does something the official doesn't or won't like (like releasing information that is unfavorable - even information that is unfavorable which does not contain the likeness of the official) the more likely the media will not provide access to that information.

Media is becoming more and more in a position of subservience to the Gov't.

At this point, there is little pressure on the media to push back on the Gov't. As long as media continues to get bigger and more powerful, there will be no reason for them to push back. Gov't helps create a bigger and more powerful media by allowing such degrees of consolidation and ownership of information.

Assuredly there is no simple solution, but accepting the situation as it is will only eat away more at the principles of freedom of speech and democracy. As you said, the Internet is a marginal fix - I don't see it as a hole in the dam, I see it more as a force that slows down but ultimately fails to stop the current progression.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 12:18 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
I have not read Manufacturing Consent. It's on my list, but I expect I'll probably just jump straight to the cliff notes version.
Hah! I didn't know there was a documentary of the same name. Many thanks for the link. Something to add to my wishlist.

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 01:20 AM   #18 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
I have not read Manufacturing Consent. It's on my list, but I expect I'll probably just jump straight to the cliff notes version.
Indeed, the cliff notes version is extremely thought provoking and well done. I highly recommend it.

http://search.suprnova.org//search.p...derDir%5D=desc

After first "borrowing" a copy, I even bought my own.

PS: Same director who made Manufacturing Consent also made The Corporation (see sig).
hammer4all is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 03:20 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
The media is interested in ratings. Basically, the more controversial the President the more the press *should* want him/her to remain in the spotlight.

Look at Clinton and George W. Bush for example. Each of them have been controversial in their own ways. Lots of stories about their beliefs and actions.

Now look at Bush's father. In comparison relatively little scandal or public interest (in spite of a war!). While this situation will likely always be true I don't believe the "Big Media" controls the destiny of the President. Obviously there are plenty on this board who seem to think otherwise.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 08:50 AM   #20 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
This is in today's USATODAY.

Quote:
Election should be a pro for cable, no matter who wins
By David Lieberman, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — President Bush seems to like cable households.
On Thursday he accepted the GOP presidential nomination at Madison Square Garden, owned by Cablevision Systems. Four years ago Comcast hosted the Republican convention at Philadelphia's Comcast Spectacor Wachovia Center.

But no matter who wins the battle for the White House this fall, cable operators probably won't lose. Bush and Democrat John Kerry both have been so sympathetic to the industry that "on an issue-by-issue basis, there isn't much difference" between them, says Legg Mason's Blair Levin.

To be sure, last month Kerry said that he's "against the ongoing push for media consolidation." That's a stark contrast to directions taken by the Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department since Bush took office. And the election could bring big changes for media if it resulted in Republican FCC Chairman Michael Powell being replaced by Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat who favors more regulation.

Yet with that wild card, analysts and advocates say they can't predict how the candidates would differ on key disputes involving cable.

Issues likely to be resolved over the next four years include:

•Should the federal government force operators to offer channels individually to let subscribers order just the ones they want?

•Should basic cable channels be held to the same decency standards that apply to broadcasters?

•Should operators have to carry every channel TV stations offer after their federally ordered switch to digital broadcasting?

•Should state telephone regulators oversee cable's Internet-based phone services — or should the federal government step in to promote phone competition?

"It's very hard to label the issues as Democratic or Republican issues, or John Kerry and George Bush issues," says Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen.

That frustrates some consumer advocates after four years of railing at Bush's pro-cable policies.

For example, the FCC and Justice Department supported the industry this week by asking the Supreme Court to review an appeals court ruling that would require operators to open their high-speed Internet networks to rival service providers. And Justice supported Comcast's $26 billion acquisition of AT&T Broadband.

But they also recognize that Kerry's "past positions in Congress have not been very supportive of consumer concerns," says Consumers Union's Gene Kimmelman.

His group and others slammed the Massachusetts senator in 1992 when he tried to water down a bill to regulate cable rates. Kerry finally voted for the bill, which became law over the veto of then-President George H. W. Bush.

Then, in 1995, Kerry helped to defeat a bill sponsored by leading Democrats — including Massachusetts' Sen. Edward Kennedy and Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman — that would have required monopoly cable operators to keep rate increases in line with systems in markets with local competition.

Many suspect Kerry's positions were swayed by his brother, Cameron, a cable and telecommunications lawyer at a firm whose clients include Cablevision Systems.

Yet Bush has even tighter industry ties. Cablevision Chairman Chuck Dolan was on his transition team in 2001. And this year, Comcast COO Stephen Burke became one of the Bush campaign's "Rangers" — backers who've raised at least $200,000 in donations.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association declined to comment or provide information about its political action committee contributions.









Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...politics_x.htm
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 08:59 AM   #21 (permalink)
Insane
 
Within the frame of this thread I am curious to know if there was INDEED more coverage of the RNC on local news channels than the DNC??

It seemed so to me.
Bookman is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 09:10 AM   #22 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
I'm trying to find that information out as well, but I'd caution that I'd have to also look at the local side from Boston to see the balance there since obviously local news coverage is more pervasive since it directly impacts the viewers.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 09:29 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman
Within the frame of this thread I am curious to know if there was INDEED more coverage of the RNC on local news channels than the DNC??

It seemed so to me.
I didn't get that impression in my area. You can split hairs about the coverage of each but, in general, I believe they were about equal.

I did see a number quoted in today's USA Today about the number of viewers on Fox that watched the DNC (I think 1.4 million) versus those who watched the RNC (something like 5.2 million). But obviously that speaks more to the political bent of Fox News Channel viewers.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 09:33 AM   #24 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
in general new programming is tilted toward grovelling at the feet of the administration that is in power. whomever is in power becomes part of what is normal, and "news" is perturbations of what is normal.

i.p. law is in general a means of privatization and too often of exploitation at a level that runs well beyond the question of "democracy" in america. think about what it means for american-based agricorporations to be able to patent entire strains of seeds, including not just g.m. material but the originals that the g.m. work has "improved"--put that in the context of local-level farming in a poorer country and add it up. among the many delights this creates is that people who might be engaged in subsistance farming can be sued if they do not buy the same seeds they had been using from time immemorial from america-based agriccorporations, who now "own" the seed based on i.p. law. great stuff, eh? does this mean that i.p. law is in itself an instrument of exploitation?

as a musician, i am kind of caught on the horns of this dilemma---on one hand, i think that existing copyright law is fucked when it applies to music, because it sits on the assumption that what is "real" about music is what is scored--so if you do improvisational music, say, you end up with very little claim to your own work. and i can see that if i were to oppose copyright as such, it would be a position that assumed a situation like my own obtained everywhere--that my source of livlihood did not require that i claim ownership on my work. what would this position mean for people who took the leap and went full time as creative musicians?

as for the privatization of censorship, this fits directly into the general logic of neoliberal privatization moves in general---it is not about efficiency, not about "choice"--it is about removing political responsibility, public accountability from political actions/functions. this is what you get. copyright enforcement then becomes one instrument for the private implementation of public/political acts. but does that mean that the problem is copyright law in itself? or is the problem the uses to which they are being put?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 10:59 AM   #25 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
It seems clear that Cythetiq has nailed the issue on the head. If Viacom or whoever spends the money to produce a show, then they (under current law) should and do own that material. I can see their point in refusing to release an unflattering clip. After all, if the administration begins to see a particular network as a sort of middleman clearinghouse for unflattering material, it could be that the president will appear on that network's programs less often in the future. It might be a good idea to amend the law to say that footage of the POTUS is owned by the people, but I would support a provision that requires compensation for the producing agent (who today would be the owner).

As to what roachboy has said about the implications of intellectual property... I was actually at a party last night where Jack Valenti mentioned that he believed that intellectual property was one of America's most important exports. I think there is some truth to that. Unfortunately, the premises of copyright law have a lot to do with printed mediums. The recent additions and expansions to cover digital and more abstract property are clearly just bandaids over gaping wounds. Much new ground will be broken in this area over the next decade - both through court cases and law making.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 04:55 PM   #26 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman
Within the frame of this thread I am curious to know if there was INDEED more coverage of the RNC on local news channels than the DNC??

It seemed so to me.
I don't know about local, but here are some interesting cable statistics on convention coverage:

Quote:
Media Matters for America found that FOX News Channel aired four hours and 28 minutes of live speech coverage from the Republican National Convention (RNC), 48 minutes more (that's 20 percent more) than the three hours and 40 minutes the network aired of Democratic National Convention (DNC) speeches. CNN showed just two minutes more of RNC speeches than DNC speeches (a 0.7 percent discrepancy), and MSNBC aired 20 minutes fewer of RNC speeches than those at the DNC (a 6 percent discrepancy).

Prior to the RNC, FOX News Channel host Cal Thomas said that, in order to be "fair and balanced," RNC coverage should not differ from DNC coverage.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409030011
Here's the FOX News Channel:
hammer4all is offline  
 

Tags
big, death, democracy, government, media

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360