Topic: Corporate Control of the Media
started by: Botto 82
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 30 2010,9:17 am
I defy you Hannitized dittohead Glenn Beck fans to find fault with anything Al says here: Posted by OEF_Soldier on Jul. 30 2010,10:06 am
Well he has the people in the Senate and House to keep this merger from happening or to put some seriously tight rules down in order for it to happen. The questions are... Will they put in place those very rules that will keep the net neutrality issue from happening or will they deny the merger completely on Anti-Trust laws? Will they be milquetoast rules that permit the merger to happen and look good at face value with no meat to them at heart or will they be rules that can actually be enforced?Mergers are the nature of the beast in business but I do have to say that I do not necessarily agree with a merger such as this one. This kind of merger can be dangerous to more issues than just net neutrality.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 30 2010,10:10 am
I suppose that's why Obamy decided to be on The View with Joy Behar instead of addressing the Boy Scouts at the National Jamboree as previously scheduled.I'm not going to point out that this is a good thing, but the liberals crying in their koolaid makes me sniffle a little. Conservatives have had to put up with the left-sided media for years.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 30 2010,10:42 am
How can a media giant truly be deemed "liberal" when it's owned by a mega-corporation? Doesn't that seem a little counter-intuitive?
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 30 2010,10:53 am
Which ones are you referring to, Time-Warner or Walt Disney-ABC?
Posted by OEF_Soldier on Jul. 30 2010,11:27 am
QUOTE
How can a media giant truly be deemed "liberal" when it's owned by a mega-corporation? Doesn't that seem a little counter-intuitive?
QUOTE
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,"
< UCLA Study >
Most people find that the majority of networks tend to lean left where the network newscasts are concerned. FNC gets derided for being right wing while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and the former big 3 all lean left.
This merger isn't so much about what the conservatives have had to deal with for years MD. This merger could pave the way for a Big Brother screwing of the 1st Amendment. Censorship is perhaps the biggest issue with this merger. If it is allowed to go through with no rules in place to guard against infringement of the 1st Amendment then it only stands that future mergers of a similar nature would do the same. Net neutrality would be out the window.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 30 2010,11:50 am
Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 30 2010,2:07 pm
(OEF_Soldier @ Jul. 30 2010,11:27 am)
QUOTE
Most people find that the majority of networks tend to lean left where the network newscasts are concerned. FNC gets derided for being right wing while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and the former big 3 all lean left.
Fox News lean's so far right, they should be called the "far far right republican-lieing-teabaggin-kookaroonies" channel. They do have pretty women..
CNN goes a little left at times and a little right at times.
MSNBC on Channel 27 leans left.
Posted by Montyman on Jul. 30 2010,9:15 pm
Actually watched some faux news last nite and it wasn't too 'bad'.They must be up to something-Mwa-Ha-Ha!
M
Posted by nphilbro on Jul. 30 2010,9:44 pm
I get so tired of this topic- the commercial "media" has no political agenda. They don't care about the issues or you. As long as you watch the tube while they are talking they win. They are only accountable to their shareholders. Not any of us. I wish everyone would get over the idea that what you see on TV is supposed to be representative of truth. They feed you what you want so you'll watch again tomorrow. If media is liberal it's because more viewers like it that way. If it's conservative, same deal. Now it's just sensational and with even less context because that's what we like. Television and radio are nothing more than a conveyance medium for advertisors.
As long as you watch the commercials for cars, soap, and tampons- it doesn't matter what the buffer is between commercials.
I wish someone would challenge me on this.
Posted by grassman on Jul. 30 2010,10:00 pm
It's all for the dollar. NOBODY really cares about YOU! Capitalism has become 'the end justifies the means.' Just remember that those that seek the world will perish. Greed will conquer here but what about later? Remember what "Just do the right thing", meant?
Posted by grassman on Jul. 30 2010,10:01 pm
Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 31 2010,5:56 pm
Botto--thanks a LOT! Now I won't be able to keep anything down, after watching FrankenFraud! 
So Stuart Smalley doesn't like a Comcast/NBC merger? Given NBC's dismal performance, what's the difference?
NBC, CNBC, and PMS-NBC aren't exactly setting the world on fire the way they are! Here's the Neilson ratings for July 29.Cable News RatingsRSS feed for this sectionCable News Ratings for Thursday, July 29, 2010
Posted on 30 July 2010
| Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for July 29, 2010
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,089,000 viewers
CNN – 435,000 viewers
MSNBC – 383,000 viewers
CNBC – 164,000 viewers
HLN – 302,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,042,000 viewers
CNN – 643,000 viewers
MSNBC –742,000 viewers
CNBC – 150,000 viewers
HLN – 577,000 viewers
It would seem to be like somebody "merging" with Franken's Air America! And Franken is WORRIED about that?
Franken wants to "fight" "corporate takeover" of the news--this, from the party that favors taking over CORPORATIONS! Franken and company are in favor of GOVERNMENT being in control of the news--like every good revolutionary, the first thing they take over is the media--but this time, Obambi nationalized the car companies , banks, finance companies, and the health care system FIRST!
How did that government control of the news media (Tass, Pravda, and the broadcast media) work for the COMMUNIST countries?
Posted by jimhanson on Jul. 31 2010,6:44 pm
Where was the liberal outrage from Stuart Smalley and the "usual suspects" liberals when Microsoft and NBC created MSNBC? How is that different than Comcast/NBC? IS MSNBC all right with liberals BECAUSE IT IS LIBERAL? Where is the outrage from the liberals over the Obamunist request to let the FBI have access to your internet records?
QUOTE
The Washington Post reported on its website Wednesday night that the administration wants to add to the list of items that can be obtained without a judge's permission any "electronic communication transactional records."
The report said this new category of information could include e-mail addresses, times and dates that e-mails are sent and received, and possibly an Internet user's browser history.
The report said this new category of information could include e-mail addresses, times and dates that e-mails are sent and received, and possibly an Internet user's browser history.
Here's a link to the entire article < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...41.html >
null< My Webpage >
The same "usual suspects" who were so incensed over monitoring telephone calls overseas from suspected terrorists are strangely silent over the Obamunist request to have the FBI able to monitor EVERYBODY'S Internet information.
Posted by hairhertz on Jul. 31 2010,7:19 pm
let all of the "slants" have their own tv news, that'd be fun
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 31 2010,11:20 pm
QUOTE
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
Funny how the right wing nuts get all bent out of shape on something they know little or nothing about. If looking at a possible terrorist's viewing habits online saves American lives then I'm okay with it.
Makes you wonder what some people are looking at online.
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 31 2010,11:26 pm
QUOTE
Black is white. Peace is war. Up is down.
Michele Bachmann is now asserting that the issue of Internet network neutrality, known as "net neutrality," is an evil Obama administration plot to censor the Internet.
But it's exactly the opposite:
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic.
She told Sean Hannity last night -- unchallenged:
"So whether they're attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV or whether it's Internet sites, I mean, let's face it, what's the Obama administration doing? They're advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet. This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them. Despite the fact that they continue to have much of the mainstream media still providing cover for all of these dramatic efforts that the Obama administration is taking. So they're very specifically and pointedly going after voices that they see are effectively telling the truth about what the Obama administration is trying to do."
An evil plot to censor the Internet.
How stupid would one have to be to believe that story?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 01 2010,1:17 pm
Liz Cheney: Obama should ask Iceland to shut down Wikileaks, and if they won't, "shut it down ourselves"
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 01 2010,3:18 pm
(Liberal @ Jul. 31 2010,11:20 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
Funny how the right wing nuts get all bent out of shape on something they know little or nothing about. If looking at a possible terrorist's viewing habits online saves American lives then I'm okay with it.
Makes you wonder what some people are looking at online.
Libbies were outraged that INTERNATIONAL calls by suspected terrorists might be monitored--yet hardly a peep from the "perpetually outraged" over this issue. Liberal USED to be against government intrusion when the Bush Administration implemented it (with the approval of Congress), but now even goes so far as to DEFEND it, with
QUOTE
If looking at a possible terrorist's viewing habits online saves American lives then I'm okay with it.
The same groups that were "outraged" that people's library book and film records might be subject to government examination are now FOR
QUOTE
Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history.
And they see no hypocrisy in that--coming as it does from the Administration that has nationalized more industries and attempted to put more controls on Americans than any since FDR?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 01 2010,3:26 pm
QUOTE
Glenn Beck took his audience into the realm of his imagination today in a segment on the Obama administration's efforts to alter a law in order to help the FBI more easily obtain internet records that might be pertinent to investigations on terrorism. Introducing the topic, Glenn Beck stated that the Obama administration is trying to change "four words" in the law that "stops people from going in and seizing internet records."
Beck's first sentence was technically true: The administration is seeking to add "electronic communication transactional records" to a list of the types of information the FBI may request without a judge's permission -- although it should be noted that this includes things like times, dates and addresses of emails but not the content of messages.
From that point on, however, Beck's commentary on the topic came directly from his imagination. He constructed the following ridiculous hypothetical scenario:
BECK: Let's say my company, Mercury, where we have internet records for all of our business. We also have all of our emails and everything else. Let's just say that the government decides that I'm a threat to the United States and that there's some sort of, you know, well, Glenn Beck has been communicating with a gentleman in Canada. And this gentleman in Canada has ties to a terrorist organization. Remember, they get to define a terrorist organization. Here, let me use a better one. An NRA member uses their gun to shoot something. The United States government decides that they're going to make the NRA a terrorist organization. Don't think they wouldn't do it. They make the NRA a terrorist organization. Now, anybody who has contributed to the NRA could be, in theory, scooped up and held indefinitely without a trial or a warrant. We already have that one going. They're already arguing for these things right now. It's how they define terrorist. So let's say I'm -- because I write a letter to Wayne LaPierre, he writes me back. They say, you know what, Glenn Beck has been in communication with this terrorist organization. With this four-word change, they can now not only go into the NRA without a warrant, no judge involved, on the president's word, they can go and take all internet records and seize them. Plus, this new change in the law would force the NRA or me, my company, to not be able -- we would be bound by law -- we would not be able to disclose the government has done that.
So Beck's fear of persecution hinges on his perfectly legal interactions becoming illegal or suspect through a completely artificial mechanism: The NRA being declared a terrorist organization just because one of its members shot "something." Despite Beck telling his listeners, "Don't think they wouldn't do it," it seems pretty unlikely that the government will rashly declare the NRA to be terrorists unless the NRA actually starts engaging in terrorism on an organizational level.
< http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007290042 >
Beck's first sentence was technically true: The administration is seeking to add "electronic communication transactional records" to a list of the types of information the FBI may request without a judge's permission -- although it should be noted that this includes things like times, dates and addresses of emails but not the content of messages.
From that point on, however, Beck's commentary on the topic came directly from his imagination. He constructed the following ridiculous hypothetical scenario:
QUOTE
BECK: Let's say my company, Mercury, where we have internet records for all of our business. We also have all of our emails and everything else. Let's just say that the government decides that I'm a threat to the United States and that there's some sort of, you know, well, Glenn Beck has been communicating with a gentleman in Canada. And this gentleman in Canada has ties to a terrorist organization. Remember, they get to define a terrorist organization. Here, let me use a better one. An NRA member uses their gun to shoot something. The United States government decides that they're going to make the NRA a terrorist organization. Don't think they wouldn't do it. They make the NRA a terrorist organization. Now, anybody who has contributed to the NRA could be, in theory, scooped up and held indefinitely without a trial or a warrant. We already have that one going. They're already arguing for these things right now. It's how they define terrorist. So let's say I'm -- because I write a letter to Wayne LaPierre, he writes me back. They say, you know what, Glenn Beck has been in communication with this terrorist organization. With this four-word change, they can now not only go into the NRA without a warrant, no judge involved, on the president's word, they can go and take all internet records and seize them. Plus, this new change in the law would force the NRA or me, my company, to not be able -- we would be bound by law -- we would not be able to disclose the government has done that.
So Beck's fear of persecution hinges on his perfectly legal interactions becoming illegal or suspect through a completely artificial mechanism: The NRA being declared a terrorist organization just because one of its members shot "something." Despite Beck telling his listeners, "Don't think they wouldn't do it," it seems pretty unlikely that the government will rashly declare the NRA to be terrorists unless the NRA actually starts engaging in terrorism on an organizational level.
< http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007290042 >
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 01 2010,4:21 pm
Unwilling or unable to respond to the example of liberal hypocrisy, our resident Libbie wanders off into the weeds by creating a straw man to attack. He quotes the far-left Media Matters QUOTE
Despite Beck telling his listeners, "Don't think they wouldn't do it," it seems pretty unlikely that the government will rashly declare the NRA to be terrorists unless the NRA actually starts engaging in terrorism on an organizational level.
Beck tells listeners that HE DOESN'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DO IT (after all, as Donks have discovered, "gun control" was a losing issue for them )Media matters thinks it is "unlikely that the government will rashly declare the NRA to be terrorists." What Media Matters and Libbie missed is that Beck was having fun laughing at the libbies for promoting that very issue! From the reliably liberal Washington Post--read the article--take note of the rhetoric of liberal legislators.
< My Webpage >
Gun control whacko's talk about this all the time < My Webpage >
I don't see this as any different than the proposal to check library books checked out (I'm AGAINST both proposals)--but this time, the libbies are lining up to DEFEND the proposal from the Community Organizer!
That's the advantage of being a liberal--it not only means "never having to say you are sorry" (except for "apologies" for things you were never involved in!) but you can straddle BOTH sides of an issue!
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 01 2010,5:30 pm
QUOTE
Beck tells listeners that HE DOESN'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DO IT (after all, as Donks have discovered, "gun control" was a losing issue for them
)No Beck told listeners, "Don't think they wouldn't do it,".
Well somebody is sure straddling both sides of the issue. When the shrub did this, you all thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. When a Democrat does it, it's an evil plot to take over the internet.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 01 2010,5:33 pm
This is your idea of a source?< http://alligatorreport.wordpress.com/2009...e-facts >
Some whacko blogs on wordpress nearly two years ago and now he speaks for all the liberals?