No, nationalized media is not the answer. It never has been the answer. The media, in order to be effective, must operate independently of the state.

leases their use to private for profit organizations. We should take our airwaves back and publically fund them without corporate funds.

Namely, the accomplice, the corporate state.

This is a stupid argument. No one in their right mind assumes the free press can survive when the state doles out access.

Thanks for the thread, TheMastersNemesis.

One nationally owned newspaper and total control of all other media.

We could call it Pravda.

*DU doesn't need trolls to make this place look nutz, you're doing just fine.*

I remember Murrow and Huntley and Brinkley. I remember Pravda. What we have now is hardly that different from Pravda. Look at Fox. It could not exist 40 years ago those reporters would have been run out of the country they are so bad now.
Obviously you may be too young to understand or you lack some sort of insight. With that I will say good by.

to reach out, free of charge and instantaneously, to everyone in the world who has an internet comnection, in order to complain that only a handful of companies control the media and we need to take it back.

If everyone got all their news from 3 over-the-air channels then I could see your concern. But Fox News is just one out of hundreds of cable channels.

Republicans are willing to be bullies. They talk over liberals when they're on the air together. They shout them down. They toss out any lie, knowing it can't be checked until after the show is over. In fact, just making up shit means that there's no chance of someone coming up with the evidence to shoot them down. And when they decide they've been insulted, they raise holy hell until the network backs down and apologizes, just to make the problem go away.

I'm not suggesting that Democrats and liberals pull the same kinds of crap -- but they do have to get better about standing up to it. They have to not let themselves be walked over. They have to be willing to say, "I don't believe that. What's the source of your facts?" They have to demand apologies when their own toes are stepped on. If possible, they should practice being outraged when the usual false equivalence claims come through.

The mainstream media are a disaster -- but even given the lay of the battlefield, there are a lot more things that liberals could be doing to protect themselves.

The idea that if you play nice and polite the public will see how bad THEY are is strategically unsound. In today's environment progressives look weak and ineffectual. People want to see Dems fight back and even attack the host or challenge them.

I would not be reluctant to tell one of these assholes to shut up to their face and even call them out for what they are. If they are making racist or quasi racist remarks I would just call them a racist.

No thank you.

I don't watch FAUX and the other crazy channels.

Netflix and after the fact web viewing.

I let Air America people watch right wing telly so I don't have to.

AM950 MN

IF you are providing INaccurate information 75% of the time, you can't call yourself a News Source.

And anti-trust laws to break up media monopolies.

The Fairness Doctrine will probably not be reinstated with today's courts.

I don't think that would happen in this, or any parallel universe where the Earth's sky is blue.

Going back to what had already worked for 200 years. More realistic.

The GOP is more likely to take over the media if they ever got to where they got dictatorial control.

I don't understand your reply. You call for nationalization of the media and then say the GOP is more likely to take over if they got control. That would seem to be a strong argument against you OP.

The Fairness Doctrine and media diversity worked rather well to prevent a monopoly of ideology. Bringing them back is not easy politically, but so was reversing the endless dogma of more and more tax cuts for the rich. The conservatives are losing - bit by bit.

Nationalization is not going save the media, especially if the GOP gets even a temporary hold on the executive branch again - it will be 100% GOP Pravda, all the time. A diverse, independent, free media is what we need.

For example, should it apply to DU?

As I understand it, The Fairness doctrine applied to broadcast media because the broadcast radio spectrum is limited and belongs to the public domain. The government can regulate it in the public interest.

That would not apply to websites.

not to cable channels such as Fox News?

The major area where it would make a difference: Talk Radio.

But nationalizing the media isn't the answer. It needs to be broken up into smaller groups. Also, TV/newspaper companies shouldn't own other media outlets, as used to be the law. The Fairness Doctrine needs to come back, money needs to get out of politics, period.

The Raygun destruction set the stage for the mess we have today.

Then again the MSM acts like it is a nationalized medium. For the most part you see the same kinds of practices you would see at a nationalized media. Fox is the worst. But the other networks give cover to the GOP in so many ways. The GOP talkers put out lies and distortions and are almost never challenged. False equivalency reigns on most stations even at the local level. The same talking points usually reactionary or ultra conservative appear on almost all the media.

It's been so many decades since Washington busted monopolies I don't think they even know how to anymore...

Good By

We should break up all big finance, media and energy companies.

that involved Kentucky. I read somewhere Bush never once challenged a merger the entire time he was Prez. That's some toothpaste that will never go back in the tube.

a particular product market. What is the relevant market? News? There are more national news outlets than at any time in our history. One can't bring an antitrust claim based on the idea that the market for a particular point of view is a relevant market.

I like a little free thought in my media, even if the opinions are uninformed. I would rather not have 24/7 government propaganda channels blasting that take orders from the Pentagon.

As I have said it may be private but it has a nationalized flavor because RW rhetoric is 90% of it. That includes all the efforts of NBC, CBS, and ABC who go out of their way to help GOP.

The only people that will keep the repugs in the House is us if we don't gotv in 2014.

As much as I hate to say it, running all other viewpoints off but ours is wrong.

I'm afraid your thought is a bit too cryptic for me. I know what each of the words mean but strung together the way they are the sentence makes no sense. Perhaps you could explain? I ask because it appears there is something there, but I just can't see it and I'm much interested in your thought.

Journalists don't dare engage in investigative journalism anymore.

Government Surveillance Is Crippling Press Freedoms, Report Shows
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/10/committee_to_protect_journalists_report_shows_government_surveillance_hurting.html

than start rounding up people you disagree with. Yikes.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]