Skip to comments.Let’s nationalize Fox News: Imagining a very different media
Posted on 01/19/2014 8:14:17 AM PST by Libloather
Excerpted from "Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA"
Imagine a world without the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and countless other tools used by the 1 percent to rule and fool.
In a socialist society run by and for the working people it represents, the mega-monopolies like Walmart, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the corporations that run the tightly controlled mainstream media will be a thing of the past.
Its not news that the major US media are run by and for big business, or that the major media companies are themselves big businesses. Twenty years ago, thirty corporations controlled 90 percent of US media. Today, it is a grand total of six mega-corporationsRupert Murdochs News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, and Comcast. Besides accumulating their own profits, the media are daily trumpets for the rest of the corporate worlds advertising.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
This is already on his Transform America plan, right after nationalizing health care.
very little thought or effort in their ideas
There’s no point in nationalizing businesses that are willing to do what the gummint wants done for free. FNC is only a little better than the rest.
I have a better idea. Let’s move all socialists to countries like Venezuela where they can live in the type of ‘utopia’ they want to force on the rest of us.
FOX be used like in The Truman Show, with Ø in the role of Truman Burbank. Except, of course, he knows he’s on live TV all the time, and loves it. It would be beamed across the globe, with appropriate ad placements to pay for it [operators are standing by...]. The Foremost Mission of NASA would be changed once again, from muslim outreach, to sole coverage of FOXHaven, as the network gets a fresh name.
The Mooch playing the role of Meryl, naturally. Reggie Love as Sylvi... I mean Lauren.
How is it going to End?
The author and commenters muze on what the media would look like if there were no money involved. Several observations.
The NYT is presumably operating on that basis. Money can’t be an issue to them, since it hasn’t made a profit in years. Ditto CNN, MSNBC if viewer numbers mean anything.
Nothing is stopping him or his commenters from going out there, for free and for gratis, and setting the world straight. Likewise on healthcare. Take the money out of it. Go for it, dude. Just do it for free. Nobody is stopping you and your ilk.
I can’t believe someone this stupid was given any platform to write this nonsense.
Thesis (Part “A”)... That the Media is corporate-driven. OK, I buy that bit from Salon Magazine. But their thesis should include the fact the THE VAST MAJORITY of corporations share Salon’s liberal world view. Instead they focus on Ruppert Murdoch & Fox News... who are the exception to the rule.
its not news that the major US media are run by and for big business.
Your point? I suggest you move to a third world country and try to be happy there.
Surprise. Surprise. The only news outlet that needs to be nationalized is Fox - all of the others are already on their side.
Please tell me where that has happened. I am not aware of any truly Socialist country where the people actually rule, only some oligarchy pretending to be "working people".
Liberals truly believe in pie-in-the-sky, it's what keeps their rank-and-file in line.
So he doesn’t like the media being controlled by big, evil corporations and would rather it be ran by the government.....who is controlled by the big, evil corporations?
You know I’d rather imagine leftists learning from history, but I’m not holding my breath.
I thought that 5 times a day, we could all face in the direction of Washington, DC and bow and pray 5 times daily.
Not quite to the extent that the others are.
Get back to be right before the mid-terms.
Typical. Can’t hope to compete so, have the government take them over and demand that they spread the “correct” propaganda. Gee, how original.
The rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in a orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus, their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.
If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government doesn't want printed.
But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of the press. It totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.
So, you are concerned about big corporate entities controlling news. Therefore, your solution is to create one big corporate entity that controls everything. Socialist logic.
I’m getting less and less surprised that when the lefties get the least bit comfortable, the curtain comes off, and the yawning chasm of totalitarianism is laid bare.
The author Fred Jerome has to be a teenager living at home, one who has suffered a public school "education," and has no real world experience.
This is the stupidest article I have read in a couple of decades.
With that reported statement, they have just urinated on every fallen GI’s grave, in every national cemetery, and of those that fought for freedom, from the beginning.
He wants one super-mega-monopoly to take over all the mega-monopolies, and he sees no disconnect.
How about we encourage capitalist to open up reserves wherein, for a small percentage of the gross, would be socialists can live in their collectivist dream world. Admittedly there wouldn’t be much profit to divvy up but the recurrent failure of these communes/collective might be instructive. Might be, assume these moron can learn anything.
The USSR and Red China are two large-scale examples that this has never worked. No one needs further proof if they are honest with themselves. There’s the rub.
They wont, Commie loves are smart enough to know that if they move to Commie countries it will be hell for them..instead they want to turn America into their Commie utopia but still keep all their moolah and Govt goodies
Like the so-called Fairness Doctrine, gov’t takeover of media is a dealbreaker.
Point being, this proposal is nothing other than the government taking over Fox News. Solon wouldnt be nearly so enthusiastic about a non-socialist government taking over The New York Times or any other propaganda organ, because there is actually scant difference between a journalism which promotes a socialist government because it wants to, and one which promotes a socialist government because it has to.
As to the declaration that journalism is corporation-controlled, practically all of journalism is socialized. That is, all major journalism institutions are members of the AP, and all major journalists work to the guidelines of the AP. The result of that is that all major journalists go along and get along with each other, by claiming that all journalists are objective. If I say you are objective and you say I am objective, that is no different from me claiming that I myself am objective. Thus, tho AP journalists do not get paychecks from the government, all major journalists belong to the same society - which is the origin of the term socialism for the concept of an all-encompassing monopoly by that name.
Whatever can be said for trying to be objective, claiming to actually be objective is no different in meaning or intention from claiming to be wise. That is, it is a way to suppress dissent. After all, if I am wise - or if I am objective - and you are not, what business do you have disagreeing with me?
Salon is still the center of moron propaganda.
Big business does a much better job of proselytizing for socialism-ie government dubsidizing of consumer spending- than government itself can do.
The funniest part of course is the notion that government media would represent ‘the people’ instead of the government.
A democratic, accessible-to-all media will move to center stage in a socialist USA. In some ways this democratization of the media is already happening on the Internet. But the governments ability to spy on and even turn off the Internet belies any real democracy. In a socialist democracy, working people will control the political process, the way in which they make a living, and collectively and individually, they will influence mass culture. The Internet will be a powerful and democratizing tool in this effort.Sheer fantasy. Socialism is incapable of allocating resources rationally, and - as F.A. von Hayek showed half a century ago and more, socialist governments always devolve into dictatorships and the worst always get on top because ruthlessness is embedded in the internal logic of the system.
Its not news that the major US media are run by and for big business. . . and you are so dead set against big that you want the whole of society to be operated under central, unified command.
Youre so in favor of the little guy that your system is to try to make sure that the little guy stays little - and doesnt get uppity.
Well, it's Salon magazine; a totally liberal rag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.