|
August 3rd, 2004 | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 324
|
Important Ted Turner comments on media consolidation
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...07.turner.html
How government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me By Ted Turner In the current climate of consolidation, independent broadcasters simply don't survive for long. That's why we haven't seen a new generation of people like me or even Rupert Murdoch--independent television upstarts who challenge the big boys and force the whole industry to compete and change. Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent. In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own. Unless we have a climate that will allow more independent media companies to survive, a dangerously high percentage of what we see--and what we don't see--will be shaped by the profit motives and political interests of large, publicly traded conglomerates. We need a new set of rules that will break these huge companies to pieces. Even before the repeal of fin-syn, I could see that the trend toward consolidation spelled trouble for independents like me. It's difficult to survive when your suppliers are owned by your competitors. I had tried and failed to buy a major broadcast network, but the repeal of fin-syn turned up the pressure. Since I couldn't buy a network, I bought MGM to bring more content in-house, and I kept looking for other ways to gain scale. In the end, I found the only way to stay competitive was to merge with Time Warner and relinquish control of my companies. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable TV stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. Yes, Disney's ABC network has lost viewers to cable networks. But it's losing viewers to cable networks like Disney's ESPN, Disney's ESPN2, and Disney's Disney Channel. The media giants are getting a deal from Congress and the FCC because their broadcast networks are losing share to their own cable networks. It's a scam. The top 20 Internet news sites are owned by the same media conglomerates that control the broadcast and cable networks. Sure, a hundred-person choir gives you a choice of voices, but they're all singing the same song. The FCC says that we have more media choices than ever before. But only a few corporations decide what we can choose. That is not choice. That's like a dictator deciding what candidates are allowed to stand for parliamentary elections, and then claiming that the people choose their leaders. Different voices do not mean different viewpoints, and these huge corporations all have the same viewpoint--they want to shape government policy in a way that helps them maximize profits, drive out competition, and keep getting bigger. When media companies dominate their markets, it undercuts our democracy. Justice Hugo Black, in a landmark media-ownership case in 1945, wrote: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." These big companies are not antagonistic; they do billions of dollars in business with each other. They don't compete; they cooperate to inhibit competition. You and I have both felt the impact. I felt it in 1981, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all came together to try to keep CNN from covering the White House. You've felt the impact over the past two years, as you saw little news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, or CNN on the FCC's actions. In early 2003, the Pew Research Center found that 72 percent of Americans had heard "nothing at all" about the proposed FCC rule changes. Why? One never knows for sure, but it must have been clear to news directors that the more they covered this issue, the harder it would be for their corporate bosses to get the policy result they wanted. A few media conglomerates now exercise a near-monopoly over television news. There is always a risk that news organizations can emphasize or ignore stories to serve their corporate purpose. But the risk is far greater when there are no independent competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants to ignore. This ability to control the news is especially worrisome when a large media organization is itself the subject of a news story. Disney's boss, after buying ABC in 1995, was quoted in LA Weekly as saying, "I would prefer ABC not cover Disney." A few days later, ABC killed a "20/20" story critical of the parent company. Consolidation has given big media companies new power over what is said not just on the air, but off it as well. Cumulus Media banned the Dixie Chicks on its 42 country music stations for 30 days after lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush for the war in Iraq. It's hard to imagine Cumulus would have been so bold if its listeners had more of a choice in country music stations. And Disney recently provoked an uproar when it prevented its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. As a senior Disney executive told The New York Times: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Follow the logic, and you can see what lies ahead: If the only media companies are major corporations, controversial and dissenting views may not be aired at all. Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. But it's not their intentions that matter; it's their capabilities. Consolidation gives them more power to tilt the news and cut important ideas out of the public debate. And it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent. No one should underestimate the danger. Big media companies want to eliminate all ownership limits. With the removal of these limits, immense media power will pass into the hands of a very few corporations and individuals. At this late stage, media companies have grown so large and powerful, and their dominance has become so detrimental to the survival of small, emerging companies, that there remains only one alternative: bust up the big conglomerates. We've done this before: to the railroad trusts in the first part of the 20th century, to Ma Bell more recently. Breaking up the reconstituted media conglomerates may seem like an impossible task when their grip on the policy-making process in Washington seems so sure. But the public's broad and bipartisan rebellion against the FCC's pro-consolidation decisions suggests something different. Politically, big media may again be on the wrong side of history--and up against a country unwilling to lose its independents. |
August 3rd, 2004 | #2 |
......
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,397
|
this is good stuff I am going to copy and print that and put it in my Who Rules America file.
Have you read that also? Notice how carefully he avoided the word JEW.
__________________
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...64&postcount=9 Doppelhaken, Draco, Richard H, ToddinFl, Augustus Sutter, Chain, Subrosa, Jarl, White Will, whose next? Last edited by Sean Martin; August 3rd, 2004 at 12:57 AM. |
August 3rd, 2004 | #3 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
August 3rd, 2004 | #4 | |
......
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,397
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...64&postcount=9 Doppelhaken, Draco, Richard H, ToddinFl, Augustus Sutter, Chain, Subrosa, Jarl, White Will, whose next? |
|
August 6th, 2004 | #5 |
Ausrotter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Walhalla
Posts: 4,018
|
Stepping into a turd is not as bad as falling into a cesspool full of turds.
In other words, it could be even worse. I know that's hard to imagine with a kikeslave like Ted Turner. |
August 6th, 2004 | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
|
Quote:
Sometimes things don't work out quite as we planned, even for Jews. As things deteriorate for the United States it will also adversely affect the Jews. Niggers may stand to gain some tidbits from the Jews, but they too are getting sick of being pawns of the Jews. |
|
August 7th, 2004 | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
|
Quote:
As the Jews feel the heat their tactics will become more extreme and transparent, and the curtain will begin to open.... |
|
August 7th, 2004 | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
|
Quote:
After a while the white tribes could unite worldwide, creating the global white state. Much upheaval, death and destruction will be inevitable, however. |
|
August 19th, 2004 | #9 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
If Turner really was the "Mouth of the South" he would have put ten hundred dollar bills in the mail to such like as our host or some other such capable pro-White anti-Jew propagandist, for twelve solid months with a few clippings of the deal, and let him do his thing. Has the Mouth of the South ever put his money where his Mouth was? Complains about a handful of kikes, ignores the forest for the trees. I think he's a pussy. He whines like a Jew, but he doesnt hit back. Probably off porking buffalos. If Ted Turner disagrees-- all he needs to do is drop the money and the clippings in the mail. The recipient will get the idea and go to fuckin town. Teddy can just kick back and watch em go to town. hey you feckin Jews out there reading this, does it make you wonder how long it will be, before some Richy Rich you've screwed in a deal drops a few millions here and there to folks willing to tell the truth? How long eh? Itz coming. |
|
August 20th, 2004 | #10 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
August 20th, 2004 | #11 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Big shots only name the jew when they're safely on the way out. |
|
August 25th, 2004 | #12 |
Overseer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Cotton
Posts: 2,602
|
Historically, what caused the ousting of the Jews the last 80+ times?
__________________
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." Homer-The Iliad "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
August 25th, 2004 | #13 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
The nations where they resided, to put it bluntly, got fed up with their ways and the leadership decided to put an end to them the only way possible: no jews just right. For a more detailed analysis check the links below. http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-referenc...-900quotes.htm http://www.radioislam.org/quotes/ KNOW YOUR ENEMY. |
|
August 28th, 2004 | #14 |
Overseer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Cotton
Posts: 2,602
|
Maybe I should have worded post #18 a little better.
The sites you give are only quotes and don’t answer my real question Bragi. Bragi, or anyone for that matter, I know the driving force was their actions but what convinced the leaders to come to agreement that it was in their best interests to oust them? Maybe some ideas could come through that could work in this day and age.
__________________
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." Homer-The Iliad "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|