Media

News and events of the day
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Media

Post by Drak »

Mikel Jollett Verified
@Mikel_Jollett
1h
On the left: The NY Times the day after the smoking gun PowerPoint presentation leaked of Trump's plan to overthrow American Democracy.

On the right: The NY Times the day after some new Clinton emails were found that turned out to be nothing.

Our political media is BROKEN.


https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/statu ... 3814200321

-----------------------------------------

The stories about Trump's coup should be headline news all over the place. But they're not. They MSM is complicit.

I'll put the images in here, with the left image being at the top and the right at the bottom.


Image

Image
Bludogdem
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:03 pm

Finally, while journalists are (on average) as about as liberal as Americans with the same level of education, editors and publishers who have the final say on what stories get run, are usually as conservative as people of their socio-economic background.
Speculative at best.
gounion
Posts: 4013
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Media

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 1:51 pm Speculative at best.
My experience shows that Prof is probably correct.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Libertas »

gounion wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:03 pm My experience shows that Prof is probably correct.
If it is between a very smart and very honest professor and a known liar, well how simple can it get!
Image
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Media

Post by ProfX »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 1:51 pm Speculative at best.
What is speculative? The statement about journalists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bia ... ted_States

According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 38.8% of US journalists identify as "leaning left" (28.1% identify as Democrats), 12.9% identify as "leaning right" (7.1% as Republicans), and 43.8% as "middle of the road" (50.2% as independents).[82] [83][84][85] The report noted that the fraction of Democrat journals in 2013 was the lowest since 1971, and down 8 percentage points since 2002; the trend is for more journalists to be politically non-aligned. The study also noted "The emergence of the problem of “fake news" and propaganda that is made possible by the dark underbelly of the digital age has combined with the Trump-driven hostility toward journalists to make the focus of this article even more timely."

[snip][end]

I can point you to other data that shows they tend to be about as liberal as anyone with a 4 year college degree, which of course most journalists have (namely a bachelor's degree in journalism). And not any more so.

Or was it the statement about editors and publishers? I think you're not disputing my point that they are the ones who make final decisions on what stories are run. Also, do you find it shocking they are about as conservative of people from similar socio-economic backgrounds? Is that so hard to believe? I can get you some data on that also.

https://electricliterature.com/corporat ... ublishing/

For Bagdikian, who feared more than corporate profits and domination, “the gravest loss is in the self-serving censorship of political and social ideas.” In truth, the occasions of official censorship by executives like Sarnoff are rare and “most of the screening is subtle, some not even occurring at a conscious level,” Bagdikian writes, “as when subordinates learn by habit to conform to owners’ ideas.” Taking one area of media, he cites an American Society of Newspaper Editors survey, which found that 33 percent of editors admitted they wouldn’t publish criticism of their parent company.

[snip][end]
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Media

Post by ProfX »

Perhaps you have a problem with Lumen Learning?

Media Bias
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bound ... edia-bias/

The most commonly discussed forms of bias occur when the media support or attack a particular political party, candidate, or ideology; however, other common forms of bias exist, including advertising bias, corporate bias, mainstream bias, sensationalism, and concision bias. Advertising bias refers to when stories are selected or slanted to please advertisers; corporate bias refers to when stories are selected or slanted to please corporate owners of media; mainstream bias refers to a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to avoid stories that will offend anyone. Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers.

[snip][end]

You may note I pointed to some of these issues earlier. I do not have a degree in journalism, but I DID take some graduate work in mass communications research. But, in the interests of full disclosure, I DID write for my college undergraduate newspaper.

Both Zowie and I discussed sensationalism bias.

These biases are something other than 'simply' ideological.

Note that advertiser and corporate bias can only be exercised by executives making decisions about which stories to run, not the journalists writing the stories.

Advertising Revenue and Media Bias
https://www.informs.org/Blogs/ManSci-Bl ... Media-Bias

The authors document that newspapers bias their coverage in favor of car manufacturers that have advertised with them. In particular, newspapers reduce their negative coverage of the manufacturer's recall event more for manufacturers that have more advertising spending over the previous two years. This effect exists despite consumer-driven pressures pushing coverage in the opposite direction, as recalls are covered more in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with higher rates of ownership of the recalled vehicle.

[snip][end]

Cliff Notes Summary: correlation -- the more advertising revenue a particular car manufacturer spent on advertising in their publications, the less likely the publisher was to run stories that focus on adverse or negative coverage, notably manfacturer safety recalls.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:41 pm What is speculative? The statement about journalists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bia ... ted_States

According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 38.8% of US journalists identify as "leaning left" (28.1% identify as Democrats), 12.9% identify as "leaning right" (7.1% as Republicans), and 43.8% as "middle of the road" (50.2% as independents).[82] [83][84][85] The report noted that the fraction of Democrat journals in 2013 was the lowest since 1971, and down 8 percentage points since 2002; the trend is for more journalists to be politically non-aligned. The study also noted "The emergence of the problem of “fake news" and propaganda that is made possible by the dark underbelly of the digital age has combined with the Trump-driven hostility toward journalists to make the focus of this article even more timely."

[snip][end]

I can point you to other data that shows they tend to be about as liberal as anyone with a 4 year college degree, which of course most journalists have (namely a bachelor's degree in journalism). And not any more so.

Or was it the statement about editors and publishers? I think you're not disputing my point that they are the ones who make final decisions on what stories are run. Also, do you find it shocking they are about as conservative of people from similar socio-economic backgrounds? Is that so hard to believe? I can get you some data on that also.

https://electricliterature.com/corporat ... ublishing/

For Bagdikian, who feared more than corporate profits and domination, “the gravest loss is in the self-serving censorship of political and social ideas.” In truth, the occasions of official censorship by executives like Sarnoff are rare and “most of the screening is subtle, some not even occurring at a conscious level,” Bagdikian writes, “as when subordinates learn by habit to conform to owners’ ideas.” Taking one area of media, he cites an American Society of Newspaper Editors survey, which found that 33 percent of editors admitted they wouldn’t publish criticism of their parent company.

[snip][end]
Editors, Publishers.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Media

Post by ProfX »

Dealt with.

They tend to have the same views as people of a similar socio-economic status and background. (Just like journalists. But their general affluence and background tends to be wealthier/higher.) That peoples' ideological views reflect their SES has been known in sociology for a good century or more.

Likewise, they face pressures that the journalists themselves don't, like from advertisers, people who might sue, and interests on their corporate boards for their orgs.They are very reluctant, as noted above, to publish stories on parent companies.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Media

Post by ZoWie »

> It's not just about ratings.

True. It's also about ad agency media buys, though these tend to follow ratings. It would be more accurate, though, to say that media coverage follows research, as supported by corporations seeking to increase profits to the share holders.

Somewhere, way, way below all this, practically invisible, we find political orientations as a factor. My own experience is that the actual grunts making the news copy or footage are more liberal than average, but they don't assign the stories or edit the results. That's done by a diffuse array of corporate and politically beholden gatekeepers, who as usual are shielded by the various layers of business management.

In media gatekeeping and planning, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but most of the squeak is generated by the need to maximize the bottom lines and the share prices of corporate parents.

In general, the product that we call news is pretty much governed by the same factors that would govern the making and marketing of hair spray, automobiles, fast food franchises, prescription drugs, and fashions. It's the Golden Rule. The people with the gold are the ones making the rules.
Apathy leads to tyranny. There's no stasis on a moving train.
Bludogdem
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:32 pm Dealt with.

They tend to have the same views as people of a similar socio-economic status and background. (Just like journalists. But their general affluence and background tends to be wealthier/higher.) That peoples' ideological views reflect their SES has been known in sociology for a good century or more.

Likewise, they face pressures that the journalists themselves don't, like from advertisers, people who might sue, and interests on their corporate boards for their orgs.They are very reluctant, as noted above, to publish stories on parent companies.
Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, NYT, Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Nation, The New Republic, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Week, Harpers,Newsweek Premium, the New York Times Review of Books,Vice, New Statesman, Huffington Post, Slate, Solon ….

Not likely a conservative influence from editors or publishers.
gounion
Posts: 4013
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Media

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:08 pm Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, NYT, Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Nation, The New Republic, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Week, Harpers,Newsweek Premium, the New York Times Review of Books,Vice, New Statesman, Huffington Post, Slate, Solon ….

Not likely a conservative influence from editors or publishers.
Your obvious exclusions are HILARIOUS!

At least you quit pretending to be anything but a far-right ideologue.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Media

Post by ProfX »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:08 pm Washington Post,
Without getting into the current owner, Msr. Bezos, we could discuss a previous publisher/owner, Katherine Graham.

Describing the paper as "liberal" is common, as is describing her, but ...

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKgrahamK.htm

n 1946 Eugene appointed Katharine's husband as associate publisher. He eventually took over business side of the newspaper's operations. He also played an important role in the paper's editorial policy. It is claimed that Philip Graham had close links with the Central Intelligence Agency and it has been argued that he played an important role in Operation Mockingbird, the CIA program to infiltrate domestic American media. According to Katherine, her husband worked overtime at the Washington Post during the Bay of Pigs operation to protect the reputations of his friends who had organized the ill-fated venture.

[snip][end]

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article ... biography/

[snip]

Graham also suggests that the Post began to turn against the war in 1968. That is simply not the case. She supported Nixon over Humphrey throughout the 1968 election (not with a formal endorsement, which was never done at the Post, but with even more valuable editorials) precisely because Nixon was planning to continue the war (“he recognized that…the new president had to hold out for some kind of honorable settlement”). In 1969, the Post ran an editorial about the impending Moratorium demonstrations, a piece that is now famous for making the Post one of the last major newspapers to support the Vietnam war. “It is becoming more obvious with every passing day,” the editorial said, “that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969…and what a wonderful chapter it would make for Volume 2 of ‘The Breaking of the President.’”

Incredibly, Graham had still not turned completely against Nixon by the time of the 1972 election, after publishing the Pentagon Papers and after the Watergate stories had started to come in, because she preferred his stand on the war to that of George McGovern, the peace candidate.

[snip]

More to the point, her interest in profits and respectability in the eyes of Wall Street and the political establishment caused the Post to almost completely move away from meaningful investigative reporting after Watergate, particularly during the Reagan years, when the Post’s coverage of the Iran-contra scandal was late and reluctant. (The only mention in her entire book about Iran-contra comes when she says that it seemed to be bothering George Schultz, her tennis partner.) Her new position is best exemplified by a speech she gave before CIA officials at Langley on Nov. 16, 1988. “Government has a right to keep certain information secret,” she told them. “Democracy flourishes when it can keep its secrets.”CP

[snip][end]

We could talk about Msr. Bezos, but I preferred to note what is now known about Graham. Also in that article is how she eagerly crushed the pressmen's union at the paper in 1975.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:17 pm Without getting into the current owner, Msr. Bezos, we could discuss a previous publisher/owner, Katherine Graham.

Describing the paper as "liberal" is common, as is describing her, but ...

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKgrahamK.htm

n 1946 Eugene appointed Katharine's husband as associate publisher. He eventually took over business side of the newspaper's operations. He also played an important role in the paper's editorial policy. It is claimed that Philip Graham had close links with the Central Intelligence Agency and it has been argued that he played an important role in Operation Mockingbird, the CIA program to infiltrate domestic American media. According to Katherine, her husband worked overtime at the Washington Post during the Bay of Pigs operation to protect the reputations of his friends who had organized the ill-fated venture.

[snip][end]

That was then, this is now. From my perspective Bezos seems hands off.

Add The Guardian, Esquire, GQ. The landscape has changed. Aside from distinctly conservative publications like The National Review if the owner/publisher is or leans conservative they keep their hands off.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Media

Post by ProfX »

Again, you seem to be missing the point I made earlier.

I don't think that editors or publishers are always explicitly self-identified conservatives advocating ideological conservativism.

Just as BTW I honestly think, outside of the Nation or Salon or some others you named, journalists are rarely self-identified liberals heavily involved in movement/ideological liberalism.

I said, "they tend to be as conservative as people of their SES," and I repeat, there's plenty of evidence for this, the author I highly recommend on this topic is Ben Bagdikian - who yes wrote for the Post.

I also think their bias is corporate, influenced by advertisers, shareholders, members of their corporate board, other business leaders they golf with, and fear of being sued, which can lead to a lot of self-imposed self-censorship by the publisher. Too afraid to run stories that could lead to loss of advertisers, investors, lenders, etc.

That might be quite different from being explicit advocates of movement conservativism. However, it is why, for example, just about every "mainstream" paper in this country, including NYT and WaPo, has a Business section, but not a Labor section.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Media

Post by Drak »

Don't have time to go through thee entirety of that small cherry picked list of papers at the moment. But The NYT has done it's share of skewing with reporting to benefit Conservatives. For instance, the "But Her Emails" example I gave earlier, but not reporting the breaking story that Mark Meadows accidently sent a coup PowerPoint Presentation to the J6 committee. That story should be all over the place. Reporter Maggie Haberman is in constant communication with Trump, is writing a book on him, and spend his entire presidency writing fluff pieces about Ivanka and Jared. In fact, Maggie Haberman seems to have a lot of access and inside scoops about Trump. Gee, I wonder why. Her mom was also worked at a PR for Trump. Rolling Stone is owned by Penske family. Roger Penske received the medal of honor is 2019 from Trump.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Libertas »

1960's, couple of reporters come back from Vietnam with true stories, including Dan Rather.

Nixon and cronies and GOP launch war on the media for telling the truth and label them LIBERAL...America has been disappearing ever since.

Liberal

https://www.google.com/search?q=liberal ... e&ie=UTF-8

willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Similar:
tolerant
unprejudiced
unbigoted
broad-minded
open-minded
enlightened
forbearing
permissive
free
free and easy
easygoing
laissez-faire
libertarian
latitudinarian
unbiased
impartial
nonpartisan
indulgent
lenient
lax
soft
Opposite:
narrow-minded
bigoted
noun
1.
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2.
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Of course most reporters are liberal, you would hope so. Has nothing to do with what people with very low IQ's think it is, like board con who actually thinks we are socialists and commies.

But people or lots of them are stupid and they were convinced that the word "liberal" was a pejorative, and not the thing you should aspire to.
Image
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Media

Post by Drak »

Image
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Media

Post by Libertas »

Drak wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:04 pm Image
And now you know why I am such a pessimist. Right now GOP in red states are preparing to not certify any election they lose, and using gerrymandering and voter suppression to make sure they dont lose in the first place, and nobody is talking about it in the MSM and since we cant get rid of filibuster, voting rights are gone.

VERY bad days ahead.

If Garland isnt preparing indictments for all these people right now, no way they dont destroy the country in Nov.
Image
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Media

Post by ProfX »

Drak wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:58 pm Don't have time to go through thee entirety of that small cherry picked list of papers at the moment. But The NYT has done it's share of skewing with reporting to benefit Conservatives. For instance, the "But Her Emails" example I gave earlier, but not reporting the breaking story that Mark Meadows accidently sent a coup PowerPoint Presentation to the J6 committee. That story should be all over the place. Reporter Maggie Haberman is in constant communication with Trump, is writing a book on him, and spend his entire presidency writing fluff pieces about Ivanka and Jared. In fact, Maggie Haberman seems to have a lot of access and inside scoops about Trump. Gee, I wonder why. Her mom was also worked at a PR for Trump. Rolling Stone is owned by Penske family. Roger Penske received the medal of honor is 2019 from Trump.
If you are a fan of Chomsky - I am, but I have to say I can't completely agree with him, either on all his political views or just his academic ones on sociolinguistics, but anyhoo, he has written some great stuff about how the NYT covered - or didn't as the case might be -- the Vietnam War, and later stuff like the massacres that happened in Indonesia.

Of course, there have been many critiques of how the paper basically let one of its editorial team cheerlead for Bush II's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and all the attendant disinformation, like the metal tubes, etc.

I really like the work of Project Censored, which operates out of Sonoma State University. Anyway, each year they go into the stories the media FAILS to cover - and more importantly what interests and conflicts are involved with WHY.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
ap215
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:41 pm

Re: Media

Post by ap215 »

Anti-Vax Republican Who Refused to Certify Biden’s Michigan Win Dies of COVID

A Michigan election official who bought into election conspiracies and temporarily refused to certify President Joe Biden’s win last November, died of COVID-19. It’s unclear if he was vaccinated, but he repeatedly downplayed the severity of the virus and compared vaccine mandates to Nazi Germany.

William Hartmann, one of two Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, died at the age of 63 on November 30, the Detroit Free Press reported earlier this month. Hartmann’s sister said in a mid-November Facebook post that he was “in ICU with COVID pneumonia and currently on a ventilator,” according to the Free Press.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4awx5p/ ... s-of-covid
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Media

Post by ZoWie »

Iraq II was the low point. The bush crime family did a full court press in the media, and after 9/11 it was considered un-American to dissent. I don't know where to start with examples of media abuse in that one. Fake pictures, rabble rousing speeches, the blind compliance seen in the UK, and a resulting 20 years of war that barely addressed the underlying issues at all. Sure, several years in we got a real president, and he personally authorized the Navy SEALS to zap Bin Laden, but otherwise most of our response did little to change the Middle Eastern factions that created the climate for the original attacks. One of them just took over Afghanistan after that country's army essentially capitulated. The media almost unanimously blamed the president who had inherited the mess that said media helped create over a period of decades.

The country looked unified right after 9/11, but time revealed how deep the fracture was. Now it's like two countries trying to exist in the borders of one, and not doing a very good job. There's no consensus on anything. People won't even believe they need to get their shots to save their lives, then they die and it doesn't change anyone's mind when they do. Again, where are the media? They count the bodies and report the latest disasters, but I don't see much of substance. They're part of the problem.

A tiny but conspicuous cult lurks on bridges in Dallas, waiting for the Second Coming in the form of the Kennedys rising from the dead to do God's work and declare a 2nd level real estate crook the king of all creation. You just don't get a lot of millennarian cults in the US, or at least you didn't used to. Sure, blame Internet algorithms that create engagement by encouraging this kind of cultish behavior, but these are the work or at least the biases of the same class, once again preventing change.

Obviously, the new media continue to be used by the same dominant class that controls the old media. For the most part, the outlets with real potential to change public opinion across the country are spouting the same old distortions and omissions all over again, serving no one besides the usual owner class. Business is as usual.

------

Now, it really does appear that MSNBC did hit one out of the park last night with its expose of Kanye West and/or his publicist conspiring to spread drumpf election disinfo and rabble rousing in Georgia. Good work, but we all know that when the Internet flap dies down it'll still be the same old lousy Nooz we've all come to know and hate.
Apathy leads to tyranny. There's no stasis on a moving train.
Motor City
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Media

Post by Motor City »

ProfX wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:47 pm Again, you seem to be missing the point I made earlier.

I don't think that editors or publishers are always explicitly self-identified conservatives advocating ideological conservativism.

Just as BTW I honestly think, outside of the Nation or Salon or some others you named, journalists are rarely self-identified liberals heavily involved in movement/ideological liberalism.

I said, "they tend to be as conservative as people of their SES," and I repeat, there's plenty of evidence for this, the author I highly recommend on this topic is Ben Bagdikian - who yes wrote for the Post.

I also think their bias is corporate, influenced by advertisers, shareholders, members of their corporate board, other business leaders they golf with, and fear of being sued, which can lead to a lot of self-imposed self-censorship by the publisher. Too afraid to run stories that could lead to loss of advertisers, investors, lenders, etc.

That might be quite different from being explicit advocates of movement conservativism. However, it is why, for example, just about every "mainstream" paper in this country, including NYT and WaPo, has a Business section, but not a Labor section.
This is PDF from Investigative Reporters and Editors Journal on diversity and inclusion in reporting

https://www.ire.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... iwwvrp.pdf

Our local news has a pro authorities and corporate business bias when they should be neutral and provide us information instead of cheerleading what those in positions of authority and big business want or dont want. also there seems to be some coordination between all the stations in presenting the information in such a way that philanthropy is always generous and authorities are most always in the right because of their strength and militarization and big business and corporations are successful and to be emulated because of the wealth that surrounds them.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X84muuaySVQ
A news report from 1981 about the Internet and receiving an entire newspaper through the phone line.
Image
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Media

Post by ZoWie »

Before that, there was an unsuccessful venture to deliver newspapers in the dead of night by fax over unused TV or radio channels.

When big telecom did happen, it was far more interactive than broadcasting, and it looked promising for a few years at the beginning. Then the same people got hold of it, and it became media, and a product like all the rest.

The actual physical means of distribution have some effect on the content, but it's not as big as the Golden Rule... the guys with the gold make the rules.
Apathy leads to tyranny. There's no stasis on a moving train.
ap215
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:41 pm

Re: Media

Post by ap215 »

Rocking M Media must pay FCC for the same thing that’s frustrated its radio listeners

Rocking M Media’s inability to keep its Wichita-area radio stations on the air full time has frustrated listeners, and the FCC apparently doesn’t like it either.

The company must pay a $7,000 civil penalty by Jan. 1 for failure to meet the FCC’s minimum operating requirements.

Read more at: https://www.kansas.com/news/business/bi ... rylink=cpy
ap215
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:41 pm

Re: Media

Post by ap215 »

Federal Court Upholds Unlicensed Wi-Fi in 6 GHz Band

A federal appeals court has upheld most of the FCC's decision to open the 6 GHz band to unlicensed use.

Wi-Fi--as cable broadband operators and computer companies had supported--saying those challenging the decision had not provided a basis for challenging the FCC's conclusions that that could be done without "a significant risk of harmful interference."

https://www.nexttv.com/news/federal-cou ... 6-ghz-band
Post Reply