Who owns the media? - Where art thou democracy?

[peaccenicked]

A breakdown of US media ownership. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/index.html)

[Tkinter1]

and..

[Kehoe]

Who owns the media? ... your consumer and tax dollars pay for its operation and maintenance but the government controls it ... next question. - Karo

[Tkinter1]

The government does not control the media.

[Kehoe]

Comrade Tkinter1 ... how wonderfully fantastic that you cleared that up for us ... now while youre on a roll ... tell us just where exactly is the body of Jimmy Hoffa? ... your grasp of reality is truly astounding. - Karo

[KickMcCann]

There's freedom of the press, but no freedom FROM the press. Can we really consider news and information truthful and accurate if it all comes from the same corporate mouth-piece?
If I piss off Rupert Murdoch or AOLtimearner, does that mean they could make a news headline in all of their media forms, labelling me a member of Al Queda?

(Edited by KickMcCann at 2:21 am on Nov. 26, 2002)

[Tkinter1]

"...the government controls it ... next question."

I can't think of a more fitting response(then what I said) to that.

"your grasp of reality is truly astounding."

Coming from a paranoid dillusional like yourself, thats not saying much...But thanks anyway :)

And may i ask why you end every post you make with a 'karo', as if we don't know it's you posting.
___________________________________

"If I piss off Rupert Murdoch or AOLtimearner, does that mean they could make a news headline in all of their media forms, labelling me a member of Al Queda?"

I think thats called slander, you could file charges.

[Kehoe]

Comrade Tkinter1 says,"Coming from a paranoid dillusional like yourself, thats not saying much...But thanks anyway", ... just think of the therapy sessions youve saved me with that professional diagnosis->(extreme sarcasm)!As for your question and personal observation,"And may i ask why you end every post you make with a 'karo', as if we don't know it's you posting", ... its really quite elementary my dear Watson for you see Karo is my name ... therefore were I to end each post with the name William,Eric,or some other I d be lying and we shan t have that sorta thing and besides,its really quite customary for writers of letters and such to attach their names at the end. ... Were you to have any other enquiry by all means do inform me and I will make every effort so as to enlighten you ... and as you may well have guessed here comes that dreadful tag at the end of this post that has perplexed you so. - Karo

(Edited by Kehoe at 3:09 am on Nov. 26, 2002)

[Kehoe]

Theres one other thing I need to add ... though I consider it a silly little thing I think this one time I ll indulge myself ... so here goes ... LOL . - Karo

[Pete]

The Mainstream media is Owned Controlled and Edited by Big Corporations. It is an accepted fact.
The Governmnet here control the CBC and the CRTC and thats about it. TVO and the provincail ones aswell, but a majority is privately owned and operated by large corporations. No wonder no TV station will air 'buy nothing day' ads on there stations

[Stormin Norman]

I am getting conflicting information here. Crazy Pete says, "The Mainstream media is Owned Controlled and Edited by Big Corporations", but Karo says, "Who owns the media? ... your consumer and tax dollars pay for its operation and maintenance but the government controls it ... next question." Which is it. I see one link provided by Peace dick that supports Crazy Pete's assertion, but I don't see a source that backs Karo's position.

I have another question for Karo. Isn't government ownership of the media the very idea that you support by proclaiming support for communist theory? Why then would you gripe about such a relationship between media and government? It seems as though you aren't being consistent here.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:23 am on Nov. 27, 2002)

[Exploited Class]

I have no problem with a government, tax dollar paid media outlet. Much like PBS should have been.

No commercials on it, so there is absolutely no penetration by big business. A guaranteed budget that can not be altered by congress, congressmen can not increase the budget to hopefully get out of a bad news article, nor threaten to remove the budget. The people that run it should be nominated and can not retire nor be removed from their position, 5-year positions.

Something like this would help out the media bias industry a lot.

[Pete]

I believe a different way putting Karo's point is that the Media relates back to the government intiatives. In the United States, a far right government is in power. If you look at CNN (as I do when I want to get angry) they are extremely biased by their ruling elite's position. They want to appease the plutocrats so that they will be allowed to do more of what they like.

Also Karo may not be from North America, and may live in a country where the ideal of non-advertising media is realized. I donot know if that is in existence anywhere, but if it is felicitations to them.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:22 am on Nov. 26, 2002
The Mainstream media is Owned Controlled and Edited by Big Corporations. It is an accepted fact.
The Governmnet here control the CBC and the CRTC and thats about it. TVO and the provincail ones aswell, but a majority is privately owned and operated by large corporations. No wonder no TV station will air 'buy nothing day' ads on there stations


corporate ownership of media sources is a fact, however,they still compete against each other and are not unanimous in their voice. They often report incidents that run contrary to government interests. There are also radio, newspapers (national and local press) and the internet, as well as local libraries, and public television and radio.

So,freedom of information from varying sources is better today than it ever was

Leftist gadflys, don't use corporate media ownership to support the ludacrious notion that somehow we lack information, as in fact we have access to more information, and more varied information from independent sources, than any other nation on earth.

Or need we be reminded that it is only in socialist/communist nations in which the state controls and censors the media directly?

[j]

"No commercials on it, so there is absolutely no penetration by big business."

Exploited-this is not true of PBS (or NPR). These companies get huge sums of money from corporations. I am an advid fan of PBS and NPR (thats the radio equivalent of pbs) and they are less biased than the mainstream media. However, you also need to take what they say with a grain of salt (although one much smaller than the one you need to take when watching Fox News).

When the corporate controls the media in America we have a problem. The problem exists because the corporate is also the one who is in power in government. What did George W. do before entering politics? That's right he worked for corporations. Look at the majority of politicians--they used to be CEOs and VPs and such. This is where the line gets blurred between the corporate and the political. You then take into account how much money it takes to run a political campaign and how much a corporation makes. Things begin to get sticky. Politics is plagued by money in this country. The partnerships of the corporate and the political are growing everyday.

So, no, the government does not control the media. But the line is definitly blurred when its hard to tell politician from CEO. They flip flop positions often. The corporate elite control the media in this country. It is an unfair monopolization. The tragic fact is that millions of americans believe the media are accurate or tell the truth. The corporations--through the media--sway american opinion. Its like this--we can all agree that there are perpretators of all kinds out there. These perps form on line groups of similarly minded people and then think what they believe is somehow OK. They believe this because of the non stop attention paid to it. Its the same with the news. If we hear things like how evil palestinians are we tend to start believing it. (BTW-did you know that at least 1/4 of all palestinians killed by israelis were children? I don't mean to digress but who are the real terrorists?).

CI-we don't lack information. If we want it we can find it. But that's what's wrong. If I want to hear about how awful the Palestian Suicide bombers are I can just turn on Fox News. But if I want to learn about Israeli atrocities I must dig and dig and dig. I must go to indie news sources when I want to find out what REALLY happened. Not many people are able or willing to do that. Its much easier to pick up the remote and listen to some talking head then really research anything. It would be OK if that talking head gave an unbiased opinion BUT HE DOES NOT!!! That is the part we are fighting.

Strict government control of anything is bad. That's right my comrades, its bad. I am a socially progressive thinker but government control, a government of elites (either bougeious or proletariat) controlling information puts us in Orwellian 1984.

When government and corporations are bed with each other we have de facto governmental control of the media. This is no better than Stalinism. At least in the USSR, Cuba, etc. people knew/know that their media was controlled by government and not to believe everything they see or read. In this country we do not have that inate skeptism because we blind ourselves with the untruth that freedom of press means the main stream media are wholly unbiased.

j

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from j on 10:04 pm on Nov. 26, 2002
"No commercials on it, so there is absolutely no penetration by big business."

Exploited-this is not true of PBS (or NPR). These companies get huge sums of money from corporations. I am an advid fan of PBS and NPR (thats the radio equivalent of pbs) and they are less biased than the mainstream media. However, you also need to take what they say with a grain of salt (although one much smaller than the one you need to take when watching Fox News).
j

Did you read what I wrote, I said,

Much like PBS should have been.

I didn't say Much like PBS is.

[Kehoe]

First,I think every contributor to this thread has given accurate information in one sense or another ... everyone,including SN & CI.When I said the government controls the media I was referring to the mainstream commerical media and this control isnt thundered clear as day but is by more subtle means.Comrade Crazy Pete has pointed out that big corporations control the media;however,we must bear in mind that government and corporations are two sides of the same coin.There are independent sources of public information and the internet itself has opened up the floodgates and has become an avenue for unlimited information.Still,the main source media is that which is corporate sponsored and as such it follows recognized guidelines that are laid out and updated by federal commissions and operates in a manner so as to promote only those issues which benefit the existing government and those corporations whose finances support them both.In this sense one can recognize a trinity composed of corporations,government and media each protecting and promoting the other.Government controls the media by means of legislation and federal communication committees while corporations control the media both directly through sponsorship and indirectly through government ... overall,corporations are the true puppeteers,the government is Punch&Judy ... and the media brings you the show. -Karo

[Jaha]

the media is just a collection of rumors that the consensus believes. trust as much of it as you want. but i doubt you can ever trust all of it.

who cares who controls it? in the end, someone controls it and it is as bad under one mans control as the next's.

[Pete]

the media is just a collection of rumors that the consensus believes
The best sources are the ones that you can cross-reference from the rightest news (CNN) to a more moderate news (CTV) the paper (Toronto Star) and the House of Commons (CPAC). But we don't have time to do that. It's a pain in the ass anyways. I just hope that it isnt like 1984, where if one thing 'changes' everything is changed so it says the same.

[j]

You're right exploited, I mis-read. My fault.

j

[vox]

For a good analysis of how the corporate media serves as an organ of propaganda for the ruling class, check out Necessary Illusions (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/) by Chomsky.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

I am headed straight to my local library to get a copy before someone beats me to it. Unfortunately, Amazon was clean out of copies. They must be in large demand, because they are selling like hot cakes.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:24 am on Nov. 27, 2002

the media is just a collection of rumors that the consensus believes
The best sources are the ones that you can cross-reference from the rightest news (CNN) to a more moderate news (CTV) the paper (Toronto Star) and the House of Commons (CPAC). But we don't have time to do that. It's a pain in the ass anyways. I just hope that it isnt like 1984, where if one thing 'changes' everything is changed so it says the same.


CNN rightist? Oh, come on!!!

[mentalbunny]

The media is too powerful, it can control the minds of those not strong enough to think for themselves and in that it is highly dangerous and a risk to anyone with good ideas but little influence. If there was some way of succesfully curbing the media it would be great, but it appears impossible.

Through the media we get things like Diana being voted thrid greatest Briton on the BBC. This is truly pathetic, she was quite a good woman, she raised awareness about landmines and AIDS but she's not even up in the top 50 in my opinion, let alone the top 3.

The media has to be allowed to be free, in reality it own itself, and even seems to own the minds of its weakest victims. Papers like "The Daily Mail" brainwash its idiotic readers, I know, I've witnessed it, and I wish it would stop but this relies on the empowerment of the people through the TRUTH and it just isn't going to happen anytime soon. We're fed so much bullshit, so much rhetoric and the facts are kept hidden behind government spin and editor's opinions.

[Pete]

CNN rightest? Oh, come on!!!

Have you ever watched CNN? Espeacilly when they have those debate shows like Cross Fire or whatever. Everytime the 'Leftist' makes a good point they cut him/her off and allow the 'Rightist' to slam that point until the next commerical. Compared to Canadian TV News Media sources, CNN is extremely Reactive. Atleast CBC played the exert of the Prime Minister offering an alternate reason for Sept 11 2001. CNN would not even hear of it. "One sided stories for years and years and years" as Zach de la Rocha said.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 6:50 pm on Nov. 26, 2002
I believe a different way putting Karo's point is that the Media relates back to the government intiatives. In the United States, a far right government is in power. If you look at CNN (as I do when I want to get angry) they are extremely biased by their ruling elite's position. They want to appease the plutocrats so that they will be allowed to do more of what they like.

Also Karo may not be from North America, and may live in a country where the ideal of non-advertising media is realized. I donot know if that is in existence anywhere, but if it is felicitations to them.


And how can these "plutocrats" stop the media from reporting what they want?

AGAIN, THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMERICAN MEDIA, NEVER HAS!! ONLY IN COMMUNIST NATIONS IS THE MEDIA STATE OWNED AND OPERATED (AND CENCORED FOR CONTENT AS WELL, SOMETHING THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO)!!!

OFTEN TIMES MEDIA REPORTS RUN CONTRARY TO GOVERNMENT INTERESTS!

[Tkinter1]

"AGAIN, THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMERICAN MEDIA, NEVER HAS!! ONLY IN COMMUNIST NATIONS IS THE MEDIA STATE OWNED AND OPERATED (AND CENCORED FOR CONTENT AS WELL, SOMETHING THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO)!!!

OFTEN TIMES MEDIA REPORTS RUN CONTRARY TO GOVERNMENT INTERESTS!"

Why do all the leftists on the board fail to realise this??? They won't be happy until it's 'all leftist, all the time on CNN

[Som]

The government and corporate censorship are quite a bit subtle really, but they do control the media.

Theres a few ways this happens. One way the government manipulates the media is that since the media trusts government officials as a reliable source, these government officials will often potray the news to their benefit, when the report it, they may use words like freedom fighters, or terrorist depending on their motives.
They also present friendly governments, dictatorial often, as trusting sources, and for unfriendly governments theyre more likely to trust non-government sources, refugees and the like.
Another way they use their power as a reliable media source is that they may flood the news with certain stories as a diversion.
Theres also many corporate forces at work, that will back and push forward american policy interests, putting pressure through advertising or other investments, because these policy interests are often corporate interests, like promoting or not speaking out against certain third world countries that these corporations are heavily invested in. Stations that say, present a documentary on corporate pollution often have their funding pulled by their corporate investors. The media advertisers are in the same vein of things more interested in doing buisness with those that have the same interests as they do, so again the more liberal media will make less money, and would either change their slant or continue to lose money. It's quite a rare idea that they'd let themselves slide out of existence and would likely take the more pro-buissness attitude.
Since the main media companies are interested only in profit, they will not do anything that risks losing any advertising funding or investment.

Theres also several right-wing pressure groups involved in generating pressure to the media corporations, these groups are maintained, supported and funded by large corporations. They use to supposed 'liberal media' label to help stop anything critical of the major corporations.

The main people involved at the higest level of the 24 major media sources are all rich powerful people with other motives, a huge percentage of these people are also former government employees.

Since the interests of the wealthy elite, and the government are very often the same thing, these methods and others effectively filter out any real voice of dissent, or any challenge to the coporate hegemony.

The times that media interests go against government interests are quite rare, and are generally of little importance.

[Tkinter1]

"Theres a few ways this happens. One way the government manipulates the media is that since the media trusts government officials as a reliable source, these government officials will often potray the news to their benefit, when the report it, they may use words like freedom fighters, or terrorist depending on their motives."

and... What government doesn't do this. This isn't controlling the media.

"They also present friendly governments, dictatorial often, as trusting sources, and for unfriendly governments theyre more likely to trust non-government sources, refugees and the like.
Another way they use their power as a reliable media source is that they may flood the news with certain stories as a diversion."

Hm, friendly governments as trusted sources, I dont see the logic either....And what dictatorial governments do you see the US backing often? And show me a flood diversion please.

"Since the main media companies are interested only in profit, they will not do anything that risks losing any advertising funding or investment."

Which has nothing to do with the government controlling the Media.

"The main people involved at the higest level of the 24 major media sources are all rich powerful people with other motives, a huge percentage of these people are also former government employees."

Which has nothing to do with the government controlling the Media.

The media usally only gets opinions from the government, and gets its own stories by going right to the action. The media uses many sources, and usally isn't afraid to pry right into anything, despite the consequences.

(Everything else you posted that I didn't address had nothing to do with the government controlling the media.)

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 10:20 pm on Nov. 29, 2002)

[Som]

"and... What government doesn't do this. This isn't controlling the media. "

Beyond the point, it doesn't make it a good practice, and i was establishing that the since the government is used as a major source of information, so they can manipulate and selectively give certain stories to the media. This is a major source of power to manipulate the news.

"Hm, friendly governments as trusted sources, I dont see the logic either....And what dictatorial governments do you see the US backing often? And show me a flood diversion please. "

Modern day examples would be countries like saudi arabia, or a more easily viewable example of Isreal in the occupied territories, though not a dictatorship, it is an occupation, and in america they show more of a one-sided story, trusting the government line and usually not even reporting palestinean accounts.
In the past the accounts have been alot more numerous, many of the latin american ditators and rebels, the U.S. has supported the lines of many of those dictators, for example in the cold-war era, while they would follow the lines of dictators like augosto pinochet, and ignore other accounts, they would report the stories of polish refugees, and ignore the party line.

"Which has nothing to do with the government controlling the Media. "

It doesn't matter, i wasn't talking about just government control, i said government and corporate censorship.
Either way, generally speaking, corporate interests and government interests are the same.

"The media usally only gets opinions from the government, and gets its own stories by going right to the action. The media uses many sources, and usally isn't afraid to pry right into anything, despite the consequences. "

If the consequenses are losing money, slightly irritating investors, or being attacked by pressure groups, they are very afraid, which happens whenever they report something contrary to corporate and government interests, they are very afraid.

[Tkinter1]

"Beyond the point, it doesn't make it a good practice, and i was establishing that the since the government is used as a major source of information, so they can manipulate and selectively give certain stories to the media. This is a major source of power to manipulate the news."

Again it's not usally used a source, more just to get opinions from. And nobody with a mind blindly follows what the government tells them is true.

"Modern day examples would be countries like saudi arabia, or a more easily viewable example of Isreal in the occupied territories, though not a dictatorship, it is an occupation, and in america they show more of a one-sided story, trusting the government line and usually not even reporting palestinean accounts."

So you can't name me a dictaorship which the US backs often, ok. But to say it's one sided is wrong. The US media doesn't support any group unconditionally, it calls things how it sees them. And I remeber just the other night on CNN they had a whole program on palestinians and arabs speaking out, and voicing their opinions.

"In the past the accounts have been alot more numerous, many of the latin american ditators and rebels, the U.S. has supported the lines of many of those dictators, for example in the cold-war era, while they would follow the lines of dictators like augosto pinochet, and ignore other accounts, they would report the stories of polish refugees, and ignore the party line."

Past events are irrelevant, especially the cold-war era.

"If the consequenses are losing money, slightly irritating investors, or being attacked by pressure groups, they are very afraid, which happens whenever they report something contrary to corporate and government interests, they are very afraid."

They're not afraid to expose anything they can their hands on. They do not succumb to every government interest, they never have. Infact, they expose alot of governmental failures and injustices. If you can remember a while back they had a whole program on 'The US not landing on the moon' aired on fox. Tell me how the media gains fans by telling the American public which has believed for years that the US has landed on the moon that they haven't. Tell me how exposing this story is good for governmental interests. And tell me how this gains investors.



(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:25 am on Nov. 30, 2002)

[Pete]

So you can't name me a dictaorship which the US backs often

my comrade named countries that the US supports often (Suadi Arabia). Another one would be their own colonial possessions of Peurto Rico and in the Pacific Islands.


Again it's not usally used a source, more just to get opinions from.And nobody with a mind blindly follows what the government tells them is true.

people usually believe what the media tells them. when the media uses extremely biased cases the public adopts the bais. the majority of our society is a mindless herd that will do this. the media, therefore, in promoting these biases, and they do support the american government, leave the wrong immpression on the mallible minds of the masses

[Tkinter1]

"my comrade named countries that the US supports often (Suadi Arabia). Another one would be their own colonial possessions of Peurto Rico and in the Pacific Islands."

But he didn't name me a dictatorship, and neither did you.

"people usually believe what the media tells them. when the media uses extremely biased cases the public adopts the bais. the majority of our society is a mindless herd that will do this. the media, therefore, in promoting these biases, and they do support the american government, leave the wrong immpression on the mallible minds of the masses"

What biases? And what makes you think international sources are unbiased? You trust them blindly. Just because it's anti-American doesn't make it true you know.

[Som]

"But he didn't name me a dictatorship, and neither did you. "

Does it really matter that technically its a monarchy? A monarchy is still a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia. off of electionworld.org

"Elections in Saudi Arabia
Al-Mamlaka al-Arabiya as-Sa'udiya (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

Executive:
King and prime minister: Fahd Ibn 'Abd al'Aziz Al Faysal Al Sa'ud (1982)

Parliament:
Saudi-Arabia has no parliament. A Majlis as-Shura (Consultative Assembly) with 90 appointed members with only consultative tasks exists. No parties are allowed in Saudi-Arabia. "

Another recent one would be Musharraf of Pakistan, the U.S. said very few negative things about the cooperative dictator who came to power through a military coup. Modern day dictators are fewer, this is true, but there are still many governments which have a vastly different line than certain aspects of their population.
An example being the extremely biased view of the coup in venezuela in april. Never reported as a coup as it went on, and then reported as it was right to overthrow a democratically elected leader.

"Past events are irrelevant, especially the cold-war era."

I disagree, they are not irrelevent at all, the U.S. continues to use the exact same propaganda model.

"They're not afraid to expose anything they can their hands on. They do not succumb to every government interest, they never have. Infact, they expose alot of governmental failures and injustices. If you can remember a while back they had a whole program on 'The US not landing on the moon' aired on fox. Tell me how the media gains fans by telling the American public which has believed for years that the US has landed on the moon that they haven't. Tell me how exposing this story is good for governmental interests. And tell me how this gains investors. "

Did you by any chance watch that show? it wasnt presenting it as truth, it was presenting it in the same way cases as roswell are presented, as mere conspiracy theories. Its not threatening in any way.
Thats the nature of these things, they'll show only so much as they could get away with, which will lend to the occasionally dissenting view, but the forced rightwinged bias doesn't allow this too often. I'll maintain that generally the media are cowards when it comes to any sort of pressure and the risk of losing funding.

"Again it's not usally used a source, more just to get opinions from. And nobody with a mind blindly follows what the government tells them is true. "

Again, it is very often a source, as well as corporate parties to this sort of information. Since it is supposed to be their job to know, what they say will be accepted as news, and be reported as such. Its often very much easier then actually sending correspondents and the like. They are sent only to the areas which are common areas of interest, leaving a large amount of stories up to the buerocrats to give them information on.

[Tkinter1]

"Does it really matter that technically its a monarchy? A monarchy is still a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia. off of electionworld.org"

Well dictatorship has a negative connatone, and monarchy doesn't. I see what you're getting at though.

"Another recent one would be Musharraf of Pakistan, the U.S. said very few negative things about the cooperative dictator who came to power through a military coup."

I'm not sure what you mean. Pakistan is a federal republic, not a monarchy or 'dictatorship'.

"An example being the extremely biased view of the coup in venezuela in april. Never reported as a coup as it went on, and then reported as it was right to overthrow a democratically elected leader."

Obviously there's more to that story than that. But that still has nothing to do with the government controlling the media.

"I disagree, they are not irrelevent at all, the U.S. continues to use the exact same propaganda model."

What propaganda model?



"Did you by any chance watch that show? it wasnt presenting it as truth, it was presenting it in the same way cases as roswell are presented, as mere conspiracy theories. Its not threatening in any way."

But if the government owns the media, why would it even let something like this air? What good is it for the people to know this? The program implied that the government was covering it up, gave logical reasons why they would, and made NASA look like a bunch of assholes. Why would the government want this aired?

"Thats the nature of these things, they'll show only so much as they could get away with, which will lend to the occasionally dissenting view"

As apposed to which media source? I'd have to say the US media gets away with much more than any other.

"I'll maintain that generally the media are cowards when it comes to any sort of pressure and the risk of losing funding."

So then why isn't the news blarring with "us is great, no companies are corrupt, everyone is for the war, our ghettos are lookin great, economies looking wonderfull, everyone is happy, everything is perfect!" If they’re such cowards than why is the evening news dedicated to reporting violence, and corruption.

"Again, it is very often a source, as well as corporate parties to this sort of information. Since it is supposed to be their job to know, what they say will be accepted as news, and be reported as such. Its often very much easier then actually sending correspondents and the like. They are sent only to the areas which are common areas of interest, leaving a large amount of stories up to the buerocrats to give them information on."

Then that’s the media's fault, not the governments. If the media is too lazy to send correspondents and the like, then that is their own loss.

[suffianr]

OK, here's the deal:

For at least the past dozen years or so, the ownershipt of the Malaysian media, both print and electronic, has been in the hands of component parties of the ruling coalition; essentially, the three biggest ethnic-based parties, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) have been influencing the objectivity of the Malaysian press, as the top executives in most of those government-owned newspapers and TV stations are affiliated to certain political parties. And so are the main shareholders.

The government only allowed a commericial station to broadcast in the mid-Eighties, TV3, an entirely Malay-run network began transmission in 1984, and has always been equated with the support of government propaganda, which is something that has always been the domain of the two existing governemnt-owned TV channels, RTM1 & RTM2.

The top-selling English dailies are effectively shared between UMNO & MCA, whilst all the 4 main Malay newspapers are owned people with connections to UMNO's inner-cirlces of leadership.

Alternative news is available on the Internet, mainly at malaysiakini.com, where I used to work, but also in the form of independent newspapers sponsored by the Opposition parties. These print publication must comply with the Home Ministry's guidelines for content or they get their printing licenses revoked. Apart from that, you can get arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) if you publish "seditous" content.

So, who owns the Media? ;)

[Tkinter1]

suffianar, where does Malaysian media come from? What does this have to do with the US government owning the media?

[suffianr]

I'm sorry, I forgot this was an American message board. I just wanted to add some global perspective. I'm sorry, I'll only talk about America stuff from now on. :biggrin:

[Tkinter1]

No you were off topic, and still are. I mean, you come out of nowhere talking about Malaysian media

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 11:31 pm on Nov. 30, 2002)

[suffianr]

It's called "making a comparison" as in c-o-n-t-r-a-s-t-i-n-g and "s-e-e-i-n-g-i-f t-h-e-r-e-i-s-a-d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e".

My understanding was that a discussion on the topic of the ownership of the American media could be, uh, diversified to the point of examining the conditions in other countries. I was not explicitly told that I could only talk about American media, and not attempt to make a brief comparative analysis based on domestic situations. In doing so, I have knowingly impeded in the continuity and general flow of communication, and I am indeed very ashamed of myself. Goddamn it, tell me next time! :biggrin:

[Tkinter1]

OK, it would have been better if you had said, 'on an unrelated note'... Instead of 'heres the deal'

[Pete]

I think it has been established that the American Government does not control their media.

It has also been established that the American media is at the whims of the big corporations. I believe there are only 6 or 9 news providing agencies left in America.

What has not been established is whether or not the American media is heavily or only moderately influenced by their current government.

That was extremely objective of me. Subjectivity hear I come.

"Well dictatorship has a negative connatone, and monarchy doesn't."

That is the problem with American media. It uses negatively charged expressions to connatate it's nations enemies and positively charged ones to connatate it's allies.

"The program implied that the government was covering it up, gave logical reasons why they would, and made NASA look like a bunch of assholes. Why would the government want this aired? "

Fox aired, or released, a statement that said they doctored the 'proof' to have an interesting tv show. That is another problem with American media. They are capable of fabricating 'information' for profit and don't always tell the truth.

" If they’re such cowards than why is the evening news dedicated to reporting violence, and corruption. "

Haven't you noticed that is almost all the news contains. With the one human interest story. It is presenting the minor problems. This keeps the peoples eyes away from such things that there is proof that George W. Bush is a sociopath uncapable of compassion, humility, and kindness. Want proof? Here is a Canadian media article from a newspaper that does not support the current government 100%.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...epath=News/News (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774887712&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News)

"I'd have to say the US media gets away with much more than any other. "

I'll just quote head lines and give you the Newspaper.
Toronto Star:Hamas added to terror list; Hezbollah omitted
Tories vow to bury controversial pension bill
Anti-Kyoto radio ads to air in Ontario
Avoid budget deficit, MPs tell Manley
Privatization isn't the answer, Ontario warned
That is TODAYS headlines in only 3 of the sections. That is in our most accepting news paper.
Globe and Mail: Decade of blood and tears haunts B.C.'s Indo-Canadians
I hate that paper, it isn't as wide spread as the Star, but I will give you the National Post as my last example.
National Post:On our list of rights, religion comes last
RCMP officer felt 'set free'by killing woman
Obstruction of justice alleged against Alberta Minister
West to East
Since the Globe and Mail and the National Post don't have an 'Ontario' section they have less anti-government articles, but that is still a large collection, with out going into editorails, of semi-anti-governmental headlines. Tell me the big three American papers have more.

[Tkinter1]

Bottom line, if someone in the US wants to start an underground newspaper, trashing the president, 'exposing lies', and report anything else it wants, nothing will stop them. The press has the freedom in the US. Maybe it's just not exercised well by the mainstream media.

[Pete]

"Bottom line, if someone in the US wants to start an underground newspaper, trashing the president, 'exposing lies', and report anything else it wants, nothing will stop them. The press has the freedom in the US. Maybe it's just not exercised well by the mainstream media."

I agree with that. It is your freedom as an American and mine as a Canadian. I thought this was about the Mainstream. This site is proof of your point though.

[j]

NO. THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE MEDIA.

Thank you. Jesus christ, how many times does it have to be said?

The problem is that the US government has strong ties to the corporations that control the media. It is a kind of corporate censorship. This is the problem. No one would be stupid enough to say that the US government directly controls the mainstream media. But indirectly? Now you may have a point.....

And to the dumbass that said what has happened in the past is irrelevant. What the fuck? Are you really that fucking stupid? The past is ESSENTIAL to understanding the present and controlling the future. If you don't get that go back to school ya big fucking dummy!!!

j

[Tkinter1]

"And to the dumbass that said what has happened in the past is irrelevant. What the fuck? Are you really that fucking stupid? The past is ESSENTIAL to understanding the present and controlling the future. If you don't get that go back to school ya big fucking dummy!!!"

Just want to clear this up.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying the past events that he was mentioning were irrelevant. I realise I worded that poorly, but there's no need to flip out. I definitely was not saying the past is irrelevent in general, or at least it didn't mean it.

[truthaddict11]

Media Monopoly by Ben Badikian I have heard it is excellent.
10 CORPORTATIONS OWN 80% OF THE WESTERN MEDIA!

[j]

Tkinter1-Your whole argument is flawed and then you go on to say that the past doesn't matter. That indeed is reason to flip out.

People, especially right wingers, hate it when the past is brought up. They can't argue with it so they say it doesn't matter. This is the part that I hate. That is how you came off.

It sickens me to talk to people who make no sense. Here is a list of US supported dictators from Third World Travelers.com:

Friendly dictators

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

In more detail from the same sight:

SIR HASSANAL BOLKIAH
The Sultan of Brunei
To illegally fund what they referred to as the "Democratic Resistance" in Nicaragua, Oliver North and Former Assistant Secretary d State Elliot Abrams solicited funds from several authoritarian regimes, including Taiwan, South Korea and the more obscure Sultanate of Brunei Darussalam. Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei, the world's richest monarch, was indeed generous to the Contras -- to the tune of $10 million. But, this generosity was not because of any commitment to democracy in Nicaragua or anywhere else, for Brunei is a monarchical dictatorship, under a State of Emergency since 1982. The Sultan also allows Brunei to be the ClA's ears on the explosive Malaysian-lndonesian border. His Royal Highness was also involved with the infamous Nugan Hand Bank of Australia, a 1960s-70s CIA front for South East Asian drug operations and money laundering. In fact, according to a secret 1978 memo, Nugan Hand submitted a proposal to provide His Highness the Sultan with a bank structure and depository system which he alone can control should any change of government take place. The Sultan lives in a new palace that may have cost as much as a billion dollars, while over 90% of his subjects live in abject poverty. Those who protest such inequalities don't fare well with the authorities. According to Amnesty International, Brunei's jails hold "at least five prisoners of conscience who have spent 25 years in detention without having been convicted of any crime."

RAOUL CEDRAS
General of Haiti
General Cedras seized power in Haiti in 1991 after the election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He ruled with the rod of iron associated with Haiti's infamous former dictators, the Duvaliers -- there were at least 4.000 political assassinations and more than 40,000 fled the country in boats for the US. He fled into exile in September 1994 when the US sent an invasion force under the banner of the UN.
Cedras is now in Panama, the only rival to France as the favorite haven for former dictators -- Juan Domingo Peron of Argentina and the Shah of Iran once took refuge there, and Guatemala's Jorge Serrano is a great success as a racehorse owner. Cedras has a penthouse suite in Panama City's wealthy Punta Paitilla area. He is not short of cash -- the US State Department alone pays him $5,000 a month in rent for his properties in Haiti. Panama University Professor Miguel Antonio Bernal complains: 'Our country is being used as a wastebasket for the political toxic waste of the world.'
CHIANG KAI-SHEK
President of Taiwan
The Chinese civil war pitted Mao Tse-Tung's Communists against Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists. The US-backed Chiang, but when he couldn't do the job they also supported Japanese troops fighting the Communists, even before WWll had ended. Hated for his wanton cruelty, corruption, and decadence, Chiang did not enjoy the support of the Chinese people; entire divisions of the Nationalist army defected and fled to the island of Formosa (Taiwan). A presidential commission appointed by Harry Truman reported after Chiang's arrival there that his forces "ruthlessly, corruptly, and avariciously imposed their regime on the population. Under Nationalist rule, 85% of the population was disenfranchised, but the onset of the Korean War and the anti-communist hysteria of the McCarthy era led the US to declare that the tiny island represented the real government of China. The US was crucial in keeping mainland China out of the UN until 1971. Chiang gave the World Anti-Communist League (an international organization with links to Nazis, drug smugglers, and the CIA) its first home, permitting WACL members to use a military academy there to train troops for Latin American military coups. President Carter tried to cut US ties to WACL, but Ronald Reagan received campaign funds from the group, and WACL became involved with training and supplying contras in Argentina and Taiwan. Chiang Kai-Shek died in 1975, but many of his policies continue in Taiwan.

I could just cut and paste more, but here's the link
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html)

j

[Tkinter1]

You misunderstood what I was saying again. When I said the past was irrelevant I meant a particular event. You failed to grasp that even when I informed you. Now the reason I say that(the past is irrelevent), is because we learned from the past events, and people tend to bring past events up as present happenings that the US and it's people still support. That is why SOME past events are IRRELEVANT to what is at hand.

And just becuase my argument doesn't agree with yours, doesn't mean it's flawed. That is a common misconception with 'Communists'. They assume that if the logic doesn't agree with theirs, they have some sort of disease, or are flawed. You're whole ideology is massively flawed, and you come at one thing I said.

And whats with this irrelevant information being thrown into the mix?

The US did not support Adolf Hitler, so theres a flaw. and a lot of the countries on this list aren't even third world, making the whole thing flawed.



(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:23 am on Dec. 4, 2002)

[j]

"my comrade named countries that the US supports often (Suadi Arabia). Another one would be their own colonial possessions of Peurto Rico and in the Pacific Islands."

"But he didn't name me a dictatorship, and neither did you. "-Tkinter1

Tkinter1-what I did was name a few dictatorships that were at one time seen as "friendly" by the US. I then pulled a few examples of a few have been supported by the US.

"So you can't name me a dictaorship which the US backs often, ok."-Tkinter1

You said these things right?

I was backing up a few of my comrades with details on dictatorships the US has backed.

You see you said these things and then argued the past doesn't matter. My argument was directly related to your statements of "name me a dictatorship." I named you a few. Then I proceeded to explain why I think you said the past doesn't matter.

How then is my argument flawed?

Now, as for assumptions, did I claim to be a communist? While I believe in the ideals of the concept I am not a communist. If you know so much about my ideals, please list them for me.

Name, specifically one flaw in any of my arguments in the history of this board and I will gladly accept responsibility for any of these flaws.

Here's one of your flaws in this thread: "Name me a dictatorship that the US supports." I name a few. You then ask "whats with this irrelevant information being thrown into the mix?" You ask for something, it is given to you and you get upset. That, my friend, is a flaw.

Sure we have gotten off topic but this is discussion board and discussions don't always stay on topic. But remember, YOU asked for dictatorships, not any one else.

j

[Tkinter1]

I had a whole response typed up but I don't feel like arguing about this anymore, so lets just end this here. I really just don't see where this argument is leading us.

[j]

Why? It will end when you accept the fact that the US has and does support dictators around the world. That was my only point.

As for the orginal thread. I think we initially agreed that the US Government DOES NOT control the media.

j

[Pete]

I'm sorry Tkinter1 I just can't give you closure on this thread just yet. Their was one very flawed point in your last arguement. It's killing me.

"The US did not support Adolf Hitler, so theres a flaw. and a lot of the countries on this list aren't even third world, making the whole thing flawed. "

American and British corportaions funded Hitler's experiments on the Jewish people. They also funded his television and radio research as well. Although this is not the government funding these programs, it is the ruling elite of the nations that funded them. Therefore the wealthy body of Americans supported Hitlers technological inroads which are now used in Media and Medicine around the world.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Who thougt that the govern didnt control the media?
Explain why there are hardly any pictures of afgans/americans who are in a negatif mood. The american press has been "asked" to put no pictures of dead, crying ,desperate ,dying or any other negatif things of americans ,afgans or northern alliance ppl.

[j]

The government DOES NOT CONTROL THE MEDIA. Yes they have massive influence but to say they control it is wrong. If you read back through this thread you will see what I mean. Basically the corporate elites control the media which is means that the almighty dollar controls the media. Yes the corporate and the government go hand in hand but the government is not in control.

It was a media group that sent around the list of "if you play this song then we will pull funding" not the FCC or other governmental agency.

j

[Pete]

To bad the American government power structure is made up of the Plutocrats from the top levels of American Corporations.

[Comrade Gorley]

I always thought the Jews controlled the media. At least that's what all the right-wingers and Stalinists say. Although I think it's more likely that some reject joke writers are REALLY behind the scenes.