• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American media ownership.

Manc Skipper

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
31,130
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's well known that the American media is almost entirely owned by six mega-corporations. One of those six is Murdoch's News International.
they are currently bidding to buy "Time Warner" another of the six. here's what that will do to the ownership figures.

BtZ7oxICMAAKK20.jpg:large
 
So? I mean, what difference does it make? I'm not a Murdoch fan, but again, what difference does it make?
 
Beaudreaux said:
So? I mean, what difference does it make? I'm not a Murdoch fan, but again, what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Well, you wouldn't want one person to own it all. How much is one guy allowed to own?
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's well known that the American media is almost entirely owned by six mega-corporations. One of those six is Murdoch's News International.
they are currently bidding to buy "Time Warner" another of the six. here's what that will do to the ownership figures.

BtZ7oxICMAAKK20.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Wow.

And?
 
"Whoever controls the media, controls the mind."
 
Forgive me for what is perhaps nothing more than misguided conjecture, but most discussions about media ownership, at least in my experience, usually include conspiracy theories or, in the case of straightforward discussion without malignant undertones, other ridiculous and unfounded assertions. I can't help but think you fall into one of these two cases - presumably the latter. Mass media will always be considered a propaganda machine of the highest order by rancorous opponents of the agenda being pushed, and that would occur regardless of who specifically is "controlling" the media. What do you propose be done? Craft the assortment of news being presented to fit your agenda, perhaps?

It would be preferable if the media was devoid from any opinion whatsoever and only presented facts, but that's simply unfeasible in an age of democratic desires and saccharine rhetoric. All we can do is simply acknowledge that mass media in a democracy is by definition propaganda by any account, and move on.
 
Beaudreaux said:
So? I mean, what difference does it make? I'm not a Murdoch fan, but again, what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Do you know how negative the effects of a monopoly are on a free market?
 
joG said:
Well, you wouldn't want one person to own it all. How much is one guy allowed to own?
Click to expand...

As much as he can afford to own, and as much as the FCC and the SEC allow him to own under current law, specifically anti-monopoly laws and the FCC's laws. Both have to approve the merger/purchase.

I have a serious problem restricting a person from advancing as far as they possibly can advance - both the poor and the rich. No one should be held back, regardless of wealth or lack thereof.

That said... No, I wouldn't want one person owning everything.
 
The problem with Murdoch is that he uses his media outlets to promote his own political agenda. His domination of British media for decades lead to corruption at the highest level that is still being cleaned up in to this day. His business practices are also criminal and he abuses his market position to prevent competition.

A good example is BSkyB in the Uk. While he does not own it 100%, he is the biggest shareholder. This company was in a big fight with ITV in the 1980s-90s over pay tv/satellite tv in the UK. Murdoch used industrial espionage and criminal activities to ultimately push ITV to its knees. He hired Israeli hackers to hack the encryption system that ITV used, and then via bulletin boards (yes it was that far back) sold/gave away the codes so that people instead of buying the legal version, bought the pirated cards at car boot sales for next to nothing. At the same time because he controlled most of the bulletin boards that distributed information about pirated cards, he also prevented his own system to be hacked and that information to come out.

When he was outed after the fall of ITV, the company behind the encryption system sued Newscorp in New York. What did Murdoch do to avoid the bad press? Buy the company of course and silence the critics.

Murdoch and his businesses are a threat to free trade and democracy pure and simple. The company should be nationalized and sold off and not be allowed to grow.
 
PeteEU said:
The problem with Murdoch is that he uses his media outlets to promote his own political agenda. His domination of British media for decades lead to corruption at the highest level that is still being cleaned up in to this day. His business practices are also criminal and he abuses his market position to prevent competition.

A good example is BSkyB in the Uk. While he does not own it 100%, he is the biggest shareholder. This company was in a big fight with ITV in the 1980s-90s over pay tv/satellite tv in the UK. Murdoch used industrial espionage and criminal activities to ultimately push ITV to its knees. He hired Israeli hackers to hack the encryption system that ITV used, and then via bulletin boards (yes it was that far back) sold/gave away the codes so that people instead of buying the legal version, bought the pirated cards at car boot sales for next to nothing. At the same time because he controlled most of the bulletin boards that distributed information about pirated cards, he also prevented his own system to be hacked and that information to come out.

When he was outed after the fall of ITV, the company behind the encryption system sued Newscorp in New York. What did Murdoch do to avoid the bad press? Buy the company of course and silence the critics.

Murdoch and his businesses are a threat to free trade and democracy pure and simple. The company should be nationalized and sold off and not be allowed to grow.
Click to expand...

Now he's trying to buy Time Warner Cable here in the US. Our Telecom market is being reduced to a handful of networks Comcast, AT&T, Dish, Direct TV and TWC, which if Murdoch buys will probably try and merge with another brand. There's already very little competition, because the FCC makes the providers split up the areas they're allowed to offer service in.

As much as I hate the company Google, I wish they could lay fiber optic cables everywhere and offer Internet/TV, and give us some decent service and speeds, since we're already paying an arm and a leg.
 
grip said:
Now he's trying to buy Time Warner Cable here in the US. Our Telecom market is being reduced to a handful of networks Comcast, AT&T, Dish, Direct TV and TWC, which if Murdoch buys will probably try and merge with another brand. There's already very little competition, because the FCC makes the providers split up the areas they're allowed to offer service in.

As much as I hate the company Google, I wish they could lay fiber optic cables everywhere and offer Internet/TV, and give us some decent service and speeds, since we're already paying an arm and a leg.
Click to expand...

Well that is because your anti-trust laws are based on the whole US and not so much on an individual state. The fact that a company like Time Warner Cable basically has a monopoly in a geographic area is the problem, and it is a problem that anti-trust laws that broke up AT&T and Standard Oil should be attacking but aint. That in turn means the cost of the consumer is going up and up for lesser service.

There are many sectors where some companies have gotten too big and dominant and are abusing that dominance for their own political gain.. and those are the companies regulators should be targeting.

But one thing the US and Europe should be thinking more and more about is the size of certain companies relative to the economy.. especially in the banking sector and use anti-trust laws to manage the size of said companies so that a negative shock on the companies wont effect the over all economy.

For example, a company like GE, or a bank like BNP in France .. what would the economic impact of them going belly up. If the economic impact is negative.. then downsize.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's well known that the American media is almost entirely owned by six mega-corporations. One of those six is Murdoch's News International.
they are currently bidding to buy "Time Warner" another of the six. here's what that will do to the ownership figures.

BtZ7oxICMAAKK20.jpg:large
Click to expand...
All American media outlets report the same things anyway, so who cares. Besides if he gets to big Congress will declair it a monopoly and order him to brake it all up.
 
PeteEU said:
Well that is because your anti-trust laws are based on the whole US and not so much on an individual state. The fact that a company like Time Warner Cable basically has a monopoly in a geographic area is the problem, and it is a problem that anti-trust laws that broke up AT&T and Standard Oil should be attacking but aint. That in turn means the cost of the consumer is going up and up for lesser service.

There are many sectors where some companies have gotten too big and dominant and are abusing that dominance for their own political gain.. and those are the companies regulators should be targeting.

But one thing the US and Europe should be thinking more and more about is the size of certain companies relative to the economy.. especially in the banking sector and use anti-trust laws to manage the size of said companies so that a negative shock on the companies wont effect the over all economy.

For example, a company like GE, or a bank like BNP in France .. what would the economic impact of them going belly up. If the economic impact is negative.. then downsize.
Click to expand...

I believe our lack of regulating to not allow monopolies of whole industries, by a handful of ultra large players, is because they buy and influence our politicians thru lobbying, new jobs after they've served and campaign fund contributions.

When they allowed, non-investment banks to get into trading securities a few of them became multi trillion dollar corporations, Bank Of America, Citi, Chase, Wells Fargo and I'm sure the portfolio for Goldman Sachs rivals the rest if completely known? They're all too big to literally fail. The effect would be catastrophic on the Markets.

This should've never been allowed to happen for such a concentration of asset valued corporations, involved in the financial sector. Corporations, literally, run the global economy and are the string pullers behind the scenes in most countries gov't.

I wouldn't be surprised, if they eventually lose the ruse of appearing to be separate entities from our national leaderships and just have CEO's, executives and board members making all the decisions directly. People are so enamored by them as a whole anyway, that there's not going to be much resistance.
 
Jerry said:
All American media outlets report the same things anyway, so who cares. Besides if he gets to big Congress will declair it a monopoly and order him to brake it all up.
Click to expand...

Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890, since then a total of about 4 major corporations have been broken up.
 
grip said:
I believe our lack of regulating to not allow monopolies of whole industries, by a handful of ultra large players, is because they buy and influence our politicians thru lobbying, new jobs after they've served and campaign fund contributions.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the issue.. money and buying of politicians. Because of the right wing USC, it is now more than legal to bribe US politicians, which means those with the most money set the agenda.

There should be limits if not bans on companies contributing to political campaigns, but that aint gonna happen with those right wing wackos controlling the USC and the corporations will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo and even try to expand their ability dictate policy.
 
PeteEU said:
That is exactly the issue.. money and buying of politicians. Because of the right wing USC, it is now more than legal to bribe US politicians, which means those with the most money set the agenda.

There should be limits if not bans on companies contributing to political campaigns, but that aint gonna happen with those right wing wackos controlling the USC and the corporations will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo and even try to expand their ability dictate policy.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, I don't believe that ALL corporations do nothing but pure evil, or even actually believe that's what they're about. It's partially due to the 80yr old concept of the 'bottom line' is everything. When that mentality is the prime directive, it essentially drives a group of normally intelligent and talented people to become greed driven sharks. And that emotion is one of the most blinding, ego maniacal ideas there is that causes rational thought and empathy to become dysfunctional.

Our definition of success and economic prosperity is fueled by almost exclusively materialism, technology and growth. And that antiquated and broken system needs to be reinvented, to be more people centric, ecologically friendly and inclusive.
 
`
Unfortunately there is only opinion here and nothing in regards to factual information being presented. The casual and informed reader reader might want to read read further as to who exactly owns what and the real-world ramifications of a information oligarchy. Already in 2004, to quote:

Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. source​

Note: While the source above, Media Reform Information Center, is slightly liberal/progressive, it does list all the various news outlets across the mass media spectrum.

Who Owns the Media? -Summary - Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these companies control everything from initial production to final distribution. In the interactive charts below we reveal who owns what.

If one is so inclined, there is a wiki essay here called Concentration of media ownership which goes into detail as to the length and breath of the corporate owned mass media which includes all telecommunication devices.

To a certain extent, the following things are and always have been true a) corporations have always fought over who owns the communications sources and b) It's all about propaganda.
`
 
Jerry said:
All American media outlets report the same things anyway, so who cares. Besides if he gets to big Congress will declair it a monopoly and order him to brake it all up.
Click to expand...

You'll be drummed out of the right wing betraying such trust in government.
 
Manc Skipper said:
You'll be drummed out of the right wing betraying such trust in government.
Click to expand...
I was never part of the right wing to begin with so I'm if they don't like what I have to say.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's well known that the American media is almost entirely owned by six mega-corporations. One of those six is Murdoch's News International.
they are currently bidding to buy "Time Warner" another of the six. here's what that will do to the ownership figures.

BtZ7oxICMAAKK20.jpg:large
Click to expand...


I signed the petition. I am no fan of mediamatters but at the same time I do not think most of our media should be in the hands of several companies.
 
The German said:
Do you know how negative the effects of a monopoly are on a free market?
Click to expand...

Supposedly, part of the deal was that he would sell CNN so that it wouldn't be a monopoly.
 
I wish he would buy the NYT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom