"We're Going to Break Up Giant Media Enterprises"
Brian Doherty | December 2, 2003, 2:29am
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says he's going to follow the rules of capitalism, which are, Dean-style, that he gets to decide how big a business enterprise can be.
He tells Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, according to this transcript via Drudge, that Rupert Murdoch's Fox interests will have to be broken up. He's cagier, though, about whether GE, owner of the network on which he speaks, will specifically be targeted, saying, "Yes, we`re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn`t mean we`re going to break up all of GE. What we`re going to do is say that media enterprises can`t be as big as they are today. I don`t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration."
It will be interesting to see how this affects the way these media conglomerates report on him. My suspicion is that it will make no noticable difference.
Dan | December 2, 2003, 9:31am | #
Reporters may lean left, but the real power leans right.
There are10 major players - http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html- in the US media.
How many Americans know that the Bush Family has long standing ties to the Bin Laden family via business deals ( the Carlyle Group, etc….) ? How many Americans know about the Bush Family’s long standing ties to the Saudi Royals? Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (can you say Coup?) are the largest supporters of terrorism in this world, and yet somehow they are our buddies. How many Americans know that Prescott Bush, our President’s Grandfather, was convicted under the Trading with the enemy act? He was a director in a bank, and other business, that financed and supplied war materials to Hitler, even after it was well known that Hitler was killing Jews by the millions? Can you say, “We were just making money”? http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm
How many Americans know that George W. Bush - according to “Special” agents - told the "Special” agents (aka the FBI) to “Back off the Bin Ladens” soon after he came to office? Just search for “Back off the bin Ladens”.
Even if the Bushes are totally innocent and honest in their dealings shouldn’t, the mostly TV viewing, people of this country at least know about these connections, actions, and orders? Well most people don’t. Why? Well, I think it is because it does not serve the interests of people who make money off of war, death, and destruction for the people of this country to actually consider these facts. Even if they are non-facts we should at least hear them so we can decide if they are false or not.
But people don’t know these things precisely because you never hear about them, at all, via the major media. The major media does not repeat these things to us over and over until it is pounded into our heads,,,,, but everyone knows alll about Michael Jackson, Laci, Kobe and Bill Clinton’s blowjob. Shit that makes no difference to the well being of this world is splashed all over the front pages and leads on Cabal, uh. Cable News programs. Meanwhile, our tabloid media gives us no real information about events and facts that are truly life and death matters. It’s no wonder we don’t know why “they” hate us, hell, the major media doesn’t even do a good job of informing us who our leaders are or what they really do around this world.
fyodor | December 4, 2003, 10:41am | #
"Smaller stations know they can get by with a smaller audience share, so they don't fall into these traps."
And the evidence for this statement is...?
Logically it seems that anyone trying to make a buck will try to maximize income and minimize cost. For news media, this means reaching the largest possible audience within the limits of your potential (dictated by technology, your business plan, etc.). There's no reason why a larger audience would not benefit a locally owned TV station just as it benefits a global giant.
Having said that, I will concede the following. The larger and more diverse and impersonal (as in, they don't know each other) the
ownership of a business is, the more I would expect that ownership to operate on the lowest common denominator of profit maximization. Now, work with me a moment here. Just about everyone in the world agrees with the following statement: All other things being equal, I desire greater material wealth. And that's the primary reason any business is started and continued. OTOH, no one but a few sociopaths have no interest in anything BUT material wealth. We all have a great multitude of other interests. Now here's the key: the larger and more diverse and impersonal the
ownership of a business is, the more I would expect the prominence of their one common interest, making money, to be in their common decision making process versus other concerns and interests that the owners may have individually. (I haven't seen this issue studied, so I admit it's based purely on my own reasoning. I think it would be a great topic for some econ prof somewhere to research!)
The solution? Partly grin and bear it, but also remove third party liability protection and perhaps other advantages that corporations enjoy, which Kevin probably has a litany of. But also remember before you go hog wild that the efficiency of the corporation helps prop up the standard of living that we all (well most of us) enjoy.
