This can't be good for democracy.
- Thread starter Little Raven
- Start date
That's free speech. It's allowed in any democracy. However the first right of any democracy is an educated population. Sadly that's not the case. When you have a company (Sinclair Broadcast Group) owning the majority of TV airwaves that's not education. It's propaganda.
We're the puppets. Who's the puppetmaster?
We're the puppets. Who's the puppetmaster?
KaNick
Deity
Forcing the 62 stations to air it is the only thing that disturbes me here. But there is enough propaganda on all sides already, this is nothing new...
I am the puppetmaster...
Dance my pretties.
I am the puppetmaster...
Dance my pretties.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
earth said:
And, being an American, you are obviously qualified to talk about our media and our population.
Oh wait...you're from Toronto! Oh well. Guess you're just going to have to make do with stereotypes, then.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
KaNick said:
They own all 62 stations. Are you arguing that people do not have a right to order their property and their hired inferiors around?
KaNick
Deity
Not at all...
SeleucusNicator said:
Where was the stereotype? For that matter what makes you think it's only an issue with America? All over the world we're seeing uneducated populations. Why else do you think there are voting turnouts of 51% in Canada? #1 reason for not voting? "I don't know the candidates enough".
We're too much concerned in having our media fed to us than we are of hunting for it ourselves.
Hence in America you have a nation living off Fox News.
In Canada you have a nation living off of the CBC.
In Britian you have a nation living off the BBC.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
For starters, airwaves do not belong to any company. They are leased to companies with the condition that they serve the public good. Part of that is the rule of equal time. I'm failing to see how Sinclair is meeting these guidelines. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Second, television stations receive federal subsidies. They pay nothing for Federal protection of their frequencies, and they receive massive tax breaks to encourage use of the airspace. So by turning its stations into a propaganda arm of the GOP, Sinclair is effectively siphoning federal money into political campaigns, which is the biggest no-no of all. (Fox can do this because Fox is a cable company that pays its own way, but Sinclair is a broadcast company.)
Third, in an era of massive media consolidation, this kind of behavior sets a deeply upsetting precedent. Already there are only a handful of players in the media market. Do we really want 5 CEOs determining which political candidate gets what kind of coverage? How does society benefit from that?
EDIT: On the plus side, this should go a long ways towards putting the 'liberal media' myth to bed once and for all.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
What would give you that idea?andvruss said:
The problem is not the particular candidate that this behavior is supporting. The problem is the behavior itself. Even if you think Bush is the second coming of Christ incarnate, you should still be worried by this. Because once the precedent is set, it stays, and Bush won't always be on the ticket.
The thing I like least, is all the mud slinging, and this television show will more than likely be more of that.
Such a campaign is better suited to a Donald Duck vs. Mickey Mouse best animated character award, not serious politicians aiming to become the Head of State. If the show was unbiased, and regarded policies, then it wouldn't be so bad.
Such a campaign is better suited to a Donald Duck vs. Mickey Mouse best animated character award, not serious politicians aiming to become the Head of State. If the show was unbiased, and regarded policies, then it wouldn't be so bad.
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
But y'see, there's this thing called a free market, where people can do what they please with their businesses and the government only steps in when they break a law.earth said:
(But wait, you're a socialist.
)But what would be wrong is if this company were bribed/blackmailed into broadcasting this program. (Uh-oh. I think I hear the rumble of a stampede of conspiracy-theorists.
)
Little Raven
On Walkabout
But the broadcast television market isn't free. There's only so much bandwidth to go around, and guess what? It's all taken already. That's why we have government regulation. We recognize that sometimes the free market doesn't work. Broadcast television is a perfect example. How can the free market function when new players cannot enter the market?Amenhotep7 said:But y'see, there's this thing called a free market, where people can do what they please with their businesses and the government only steps in when they break a law.
Amenhotep7 said:But y'see, there's this thing called a free market, where people can do what they please with their businesses and the government only steps in when they break a law.
I understand. But that begs the question of why are independant media sources such as Democracy Now in such dire need of airplay + funding yet media such as FOXnews have more than enough. Someone is deciding what we can, and can't watch + listen to.
If someone wants the truth they shouldn't have to search endlessly for it, yet that's what we have to do.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
I would rather be absorbing CBC news than Fox news anyday. Say what you will about public broadcasting, but it is of far higher quality than Fox. They actually have a show on Sunday sometimes where they criticize themselves. (the CBC that is)
But true enough still, people in Canada do not do take enough effort to go out and learn for themselves. It is a pan-North American problem. I just don't think it is fair to compare the relatively objective CBC to the blatantly cheerleading Fox news.
But true enough still, people in Canada do not do take enough effort to go out and learn for themselves. It is a pan-North American problem. I just don't think it is fair to compare the relatively objective CBC to the blatantly cheerleading Fox news.
