Should the next Dem president breakup media monopolies?

But rather insure that they serve the communities again.

L-

Media monopolies scare me.

First on the List.

If by 1st on the list you mean multibillionaire neo-con propagandists that've made the most money shilling for war, then yes, Rupert Murdock is first on the list.

DUs agree on two things, now.

1. Republicans, especially Bush Republicans, suck by every conceivable permutation.
2. The media sucks, too, and should have their little monopoly party broken up.

It's good to have these moments of togetherness.

:rofl:

Will the next Dem president break up media monopolies?

Answer: Nope. Not unless it's someone "unelectable."

At least one front-runner will be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds her

But I guess it's just us loony leftsters that are fightened that almost all media is controlled by five media giants.

It's not a "sexy" issue. It's probably essential into bringing democracy back to America, but they won't be able to get people interested in it. It would take a major media malfunction, like Fox News reporting that Kansas City was demolished by a nuke (then later claiming this misreporting was an "accident") for enough people to be interested in breaking up media monopolies.

Or, maybe, if media monopolies were broken up as a general breakup of all kinds of business monopolies. That won't happen either. The candidates are getting too much money from those guys to fight them.

There ie far too much power and control in too few hands.

but I sadly don't see a break up of the media monopolies.

I know Im in the minority here, but I tend to err on the side of the 1st amendment. I dont like the idea of the government telling stations what they can and can't run and where. I understand both sides of the issues, but this is one of the few issues I break with the Democratic Party on. I absolutely do not support the fairness doctrine. But then again I dont support FCC "decency" standards either. I say its best to leave the government out of the media in every single way.

broke up Standard Oil...

In the past few years we've gone from about 50 big media companies to 5. Most of us think that's BAD for free speech.

I realise the problem of monopolies, and most of the time, I agree that breaking up a monopoly is good thing. Yes there about 6 media companies that control about 80 percent of the media. That is a bad thing. But it is my opinion that the media should be completely free of government influence, as the first amendment says. Media should be allowed to run what they want, from hardcore porn to the "KKK newshour" to Leave it to beaver. I just dont think the government should force a media company to air something they dont want to or tell them they can't run "indecent" material. Keep in mine that with the fairness doctrine not only would the right wing radio stations be broken up, so would Air America. Imagine if the government forced Air America to give Sean Hannity Equal time... not a good thing. The internet has been copmpletely free of the government telling them what to do, and as a result, the internet is excellent.

you think we should let that be because it's a media monopoly and hence protected? :shrug:

But my position isn't exactly right wing. I dont think the government should give any media any money, and keep fair access to the internet, and If a cable or internet company is allowed to run wires in a city, they should be forced to allow any media company to use their wires to broadcast their own program. I dont support a government supported monopoly in that way.

And I also believe that the press is not just like any old business. Things are way way out of line. The Fairness Doctrine has been controversial, but a one sided conversation does not benefit the country.

And most of the time Im in favor of braking up monopolies such as the big oil companies or "ma bell" I just see media as something different, a place where someone can give his or her opinion, and I dont like the government regulating speech of any kind. I understand the problem is causes, mergers and big media, but I just dont think its the role of the government to tell media companies what they can run. I guess on 1st amendment issues, I almost always take the Libertarian side.

It comes down to an issue of whether you think money equates to freedom of speech or not. To large media companies, money and speech are synonymous.

during the final weeks of the election?

This should be disturbing... :scared:

By virtue of the fact that essentially Republicans own the media. There is essentially no other voice but that for war.

When the military complex owns the media the way it does, there is no alternative voice to their message.

That's how we got into this mess in the first place. Remember all of the 9/11, Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, wmd's, wmd's, wmd's, twenty four seven? That's all we heard. And the American people drank it up.

All we have are tiny outlets like LinkTV. Barely even known by most people in the country.

So really, if you're for people having the ability to voice their opinions, then you are for breaking up the strangle hold on the media by the conservative military oriented corporations.

Edit- Actually, it's worse than that. I've read somewhere recently that the government has a hand in formulating some of the news that is broadcast from some of the stations. In other words, it's not news. It's propaganda.

90% of the media communications in the hands of a few massive corporations.

There are a lot of reasons why we're not all at the same level. Denial. Misunderstanding. Allegiance to party instead of truth. I'm very slow in some avenues. But this media thing was always obvious to me. This is what this forum is about. Brining the truth to the surface.

Despite what some FUX Noise sycophants might think. :D

...but that won't happen until big money is taken out of the elections and the legislative process.

Public financing of elections and limiting the influence of lobbyists are only the crucial first steps to changing all else that is broken with government.

I don't know how this could actually happen in a country in which the courts have determined that money equals speech and corporations have all of the rights, but none of the legal responsibilities of persons.