General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary's First Move - Break Up The MSM And Enforce Anti Trust Act.
If we don't break up the media the hate against hlllary will be be worse than it has been under Obama. The media is now a national security risk.
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)"I don't like what I think you're going to say, so I'm putting you out of business" ?
Cayenne
(480 posts)It would not have been a 1A conflict if Time-Warner would not have been allowed to swallow all the little fish.
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)There are some stocks that I want to buy.
onenote
(42,700 posts)And I don't think you know what a monopoly is.
unblock
(52,205 posts)that said, any legal/enforcement action against the media would certainly be painted as an attempt to control its content and message, and therefore would be a political disaster.
aside from that, i don't think the media reaches the legal requirements for antitrust action. there appears to be reasonable economic competition, even if there isn't intellectual or political competition.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)In fact it isn't even a punishment, legally speaking. A mandated breakup is a legal/regulatory remedy available when the government determines that a trust or monopoly harmful to the American people exists.
It's telling big monopolistic corporations "You have to break up into two or more smaller corporations."
The pieces of the former monopolistic media mega-corp can still exercise their First Amendment rights.
All Clinton has to do is enforce pre-existing law.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Plus, that whole separation of powers thing...
onecaliberal
(32,844 posts)still_one
(92,183 posts)the mass media mergers have essentially created a monopoly, where a few corporate media outlets control the flow of news and information, especially since there is no equal time requirement or fairness doctrine
Igel
(35,300 posts)With less revenues, foreign correspondents are harder to maintain. With less circulation, fixed costs become prohibitive.
The other side is that there are many, many more media sources. If you just look at broadcast media, there are only a few news sources. Add in cable, and there are more. Add in domestic written sources (now available over the Internet), there are more. Add to those international written sources, and it's scary. Pitch in social media, and there are still a lot more.
I drown in all those media sources, to be honest. It's easy to pick and choose just those that you like.
If you have no Internet and no cable, then you have far fewer sources.
still_one
(92,183 posts)channel set the agenda, which doesn't always match the demographic they serve. A perfect example is the San Francisco Bay area. There used to be a good variety of voices from all view points heard. That is now predominately filled with a conservative agenda. The cumulus broadcasting takeover of KGO was the final straw.
Yes on a national level there can be found sources that present progressive voices, but those are extremely small fish.
As far as broadcast media in general, such as local channels, yes they present a more neutral voice, but most have very little national coverage.
As for CBS, ABC, and NBC they are owned by huge corporations that influence the agenda. While most realize the blatant distortions of Fox News, some may not be aware of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group which announced plans to FORCE its affiliate stations to preempt regularly scheduled programming and air the anti-Kerry documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal", just days before the election involving many critical swing states such as Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.
http://www.alternet.org/story/20208/sinclair's_shame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Honor
The WMDs which were propagated by 95% of the media, and provided public support for the invasion of Iraq based on a lie, is another
onenote
(42,700 posts)than it has in the law.
Or economics.
There are vastly more sources of information today than there were in the past.
sarisataka
(18,627 posts)* and Winston Smith shakes his head as he goes to work
Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)the Economist, and MSNBC. And yet somehow there is a media "monopoly" that urgently needs to be broken up? Ridiculous.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Thanks, Bill!
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Telecom '96 was a GOP piece of legislation designed by the media types. Still do not understand why Clinton supported it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Are some of you completely oblivious to the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
What is it about that amendment don't you understand?
melm00se
(4,991 posts)all amendments/protected rights are viewed is:
It's a right to be protected only if I agree with it.
you can easily find this attitude around the 1st and 2nd amendment. Kind of makes you question why they have their Progressive card at all.