BuzzMachine... by Jeff Jarvis

August 05, 2004

Media control freaks

: John Kerry speaks to minority journalists and sucks up on the topic of media control, saying he wants the government to keep controlling it:

...Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said he would reimpose the ban on same-city ownership of broadcast stations by daily newspapers.

“I’m against the ongoing push for reducing restrictions on media concentration,” Kerry said, echoing the question by Forbes Senior Editor Brett Pulley. “It’s contrary to the greater goals of democracy for the country.”

Well, damnit, I'd say that government regulation of free speech and media is downright contrary to the greater goals of democracy for the country! Whether that control is the FCC saying what you can say or what you can own, it's none of the government's damned business.

Kerry said he understands that all media have more competitors, but that cross ownership is “a concentration of power that, I think, remains a serious issue.”

“Look, I don’t know how many of you have seen ‘Outfoxed’ or some of the other things that are circulating out there, and I’m not going to make this a critique of media,” he said. “But look at the conventions, I thought Barack Obama (the Democratic senatorial candidate in Illinois) gave a brilliant speech -- America missed it. ... Ron Reagan speaking on stem cells. My wife, I think, gave a superb speech, but the networks chose not to (broadcast live) that night. These are issues for a strong democracy.”

So, what, you're going to tell the broadcasters they have to broadcast your wife's speeches?

Over at Slate, meanwhile, Jack Shafer pricks Ben Bagdikian's hot-air balloon regarding media concentration:

Today he writes, "In 1983 there were 50 dominant media corporations; now there are five," pointing his finger at Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, Disney, and Bertelsmann. Only one of the "Big Five" (his term), News Corp., publishes much in the way of newspapers—and its only U.S. title is the New York Post.

In typical overstatement, Bagdikian writes, "These five corporations decide what most citizens will—or will not—learn." Yes, the Big Five own or control four major movie studios, nearly threescore cable channels, five broadcast TV networks, a satellite TV operation, a thousand or more radio and TV stations, a big chunk of the publishing industry, and enough magazines to start a paper drive. But the Big Five determine what the majority learns only in those places where the newsstand sells only the New York Post and Time and where TV receivers have been doctored to accept signals only from CNN, ABC, CBS, and the Fox News Channel—which is to say nowhere.

If anybody decides what most citizens learn, it's the agenda-setting editors at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. The TV news would go dark if it couldn't crib from the Big Four Newspapers. NPR's Morning Edition would fall mute....

In the long run, competition and the dynamism of markets keep any five media conglomerates from dictating "what most citizens will learn." But corporate ownership of media so rankles Bagdikian that I doubt the variations of who's on top and who's slid into corporate oblivion make much difference to him. I'm sure my testament that for all the news media's faults, its quality and variety have never been greater, sounds Panglossian to Bagdikian. But I challenge him to name a time in America's history when the news media did a better job than it does today. Who longs for the days of William Randolph Hearst? Of three broadcast networks? Of the days before the Internet?

The real issue, you see, isn't media monopoly. It's media hatred. People don't like media (and media should be worrying about that) and they will go after it by whatever route is easiest... and these days, the route of least resistance is the FCC and the government.

But when media becomes truly deconsolidated and deconstructed -- when media is everybody and everybody is media -- then a very dangerous precedent will have been set: The government will be controlling media. It will say that you can't say. It will say what you can't own. And that is dangerous.

LINK | Comments (18)

Clinton's value

: One of the radio stories about Clinton's book signing said a few people were getting the books signed to sell on eBay. The price of a signed My Life seems to be running between $200 and $400.

LINK | Comments (4)

They love him, they really love him

: Another Canadian media note:

The lead story on radio through the day here was President Bill Clinton's book signing in Toronto. Thousands starting lining up yesterday afternoon for this morning's signing. They love him.

LINK | Comments (4)

More Canadian media notes

: And today, as I drove back to Toronto, I was listening to the CBC and they spent a full half-hour talking to two soldiers who'd just returned from Haiti, where, they said, pretty much nothing happened.

Aw, to live in a country with little or no news. It's oddly comforting.

LINK | Comments (0)

Canadian sex

: Oxymoron? Apparently not.

I was driving up north yesterday, flipping through the dial, when I came upon a talk show on the University of Toronto station with a guy with the creepy voice of an exhibitionist -- well, not that I've ever seen one or heard one, thank goodness, but I imagine this is what one sounds like -- talking to a young woman on the phone about her sex life.

She uses the F word and there's no bleep.

She then goes on to talk about being invited to a sex party. The host says he thinks that's just wonderful. He thanks her for sharing. He asks his fellow hosts what they all think about this and they all think it's wonderful.

And then, without an ounce of irony, he says that when the next station pledge time comes, he wants to offer a ticket to a sex party as a prize.

And this country had a problem with Howard Stern?

LINK | Comments (14)

Back (kind of)

: Just got back online; the host was down for sometime; it's back now; I'm hungry; see you soon.

LINK | Comments (1)