News outlets not reporting lack of news ...

Ovid on 2003-05-29T22:32:47

Unfortunately, people are burying their heads in the sand and keep repeating the "liberal media" myth and somehow forget that mega-corporations and advertising dollars repeatedly dictate what "news" is. I suspect that the FCC changes will in fact take effect because the news industry is not about to alert people to the fact that their already scant choices are in danger of becoming fewer.

sorry...

jdavidboyd on 2003-05-30T13:34:43

We're sorry, but your message has been found to not be in the best interest of the public, and so will be deleted before the deluded masses can be further confused.
(And your credit accounts will be removed, and your existence will be expurgated.)

Oops, wait, we don't have that kind of control yet. Oh well, any day now...

Hm

pudge on 2003-06-02T01:38:57

As might be expected when there's an inherent conflict of interest, news outlets are not bothering to report that their ability to make money and not report news may increase via suggested FCC regulatory changes that not many people know about.

Days after I saw an NBC representative discuss the issue on Newshour, the NBC Evening News did a several-minute story on it (and it was, as is normal for that show, fair and balanced).

They didn't get deep into the debate on either side, as you might expect from any 30-minute national news broadcast, but they did explain each of the two main positions regarding the issue. For example, they mentioned that the networks say they need increased ability to compete with cable stations, and they mentioned that opponents say that the networks will be less likely to focus on local news, breaching the public trust, etc.

I do agree that the issue has not been reported as much as it should be; but I do not agree that the news outlets have not been reporting it. Maybe some of them have not been, I don't know, I don't spend that much time watching the news. :-)

Re:Hm

pudge on 2003-06-02T16:05:17
In addition, This Week With George Stephanopolous (ABC) did a big thing on it yesterday, FWIW.

Re:Hm

Ovid on 2003-06-02T16:28:12

Press coverage certainly did jump significantly after I published that. Unfortunately, despite massive opposition to the plan, the FCC had a party line vote and decided to allow further media consolidation.

Curiously, even Business Week had an article opposing the plan. Amongst the flaming liberals who publically oppose this plan:

The National Rifle Assn.

Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.)

Media mogul Ted Turner, founder of CNN

Entertainment and Internet mogul Barry Diller

Conservative New York Times columnist William Safire

The article further goes on to state that of over 20,000 comments regarding the change in rules, over 99% were opposed to the change. Curious how a change that has such huge opposition managed to get shoved down our throat like this.

Re:Hm

pudge on 2003-06-02T16:40:18
While I am against the change (for the most part ... I have not done enough research on the specifics to be absolutely against it), I don't think that percentage is particularly meaningful. People don't respond in favor of most changes, only in opposition to them, as a general rule.

But yes, it should have been reported earlier, and more.