McClatchy: Analysis: Who should control how we get political news?

Analysis: Who should control how we get political news?
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers


CHICAGO — One of the biggest political battles this summer isn't over the message. It's over the messenger.

From a convention of liberal bloggers here to talk-radio studios to the halls of Congress, people are arguing over who should control the way Americans get information about politics.

Among the flash points: Should the government stop conservative Rupert Murdoch from buying The Wall Street Journal, should the government require that liberals get radio shows to counter the influence of conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and what role should new media such as bloggers and YouTube play in politics?

All this comes as the traditional media landscape is shifting with earthquake force. Newspapers are watching readers shift to the Web. The big TV networks are losing viewers to cable. And among the best-informed viewers are those who tune in regularly to "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central.:D

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18742.html

In addition, it is easier to direct newspapers to have one message if their are fewer owners.

There should be at least one station providing opposing view if not on the same station.

That last paragraph there should be sending the traditional media a message that they better get their act together. If they are not going to provide the truth then they should move their operations to Russia, China or some other country where their methods are acceptable.

It really amounts to a monopoly.

Not going to happen, especially if they are corporatist, right wing media outlets.

:grr:

All the major media outlets are owned by just a few. Sounds like a monopoly to me. How is it different, in your view?

A monopoly is a situation in which there is a single supplier or seller of a good or service for which there are no close substitutes.

in which there were more than one supplier or seller, but it was deemed a monopoly.

I'll look into it, and post my findings later.

or entered into agreements in restraint of trade.

...of the "global economy" that set this all in motion and drove a train over anti-trust laws with this new meme. It all seem to begin in the 80s during the Me, Me, Me generation as Reagan used to like to call it, while all the while he was its biggest supporter. It led to the boom and the later bust (1987) of the stock market. But no one wanted to stop by then. The money that could be made was just too huge to ignore for something as tedious as anti-trust laws.

The problem was then, and still is now, that the owners of the means of production and services then in the old economy, are the same ones that own the means production and services in the global economy. So the pie got bigger, but the slices are the same number. So the pie slices only got bigger for the same few....