Who Owns What ~

Columbia Journalism Review ^

[Zacs Mom]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the mainstream press have become 'information brokers' who present very specific information in a manor which meets a very specific agenda. "Baghdad Bob" serves as an example even a casual viewer can understand of the crucial role control of the news media and the dissemination of propaganda plays in the ability to gain and maintain control of an entire nation. Yet here in the US, where we treasure our heritage of a free press, we've have hardly seemed to notice that ownership of vast media entities has been consolidated into the hands of just a few mega-media conglomerates.

Does one of these transnational mega-media conglomerates owns your local newspaper, all your television and radio stations, your cable system, your Internet service provider, several of the national networks that serve you, your local video stores and movie houses, many of the magazines and books you read, and all of the sports teams in your area? You probably should check and see.

To the detriment of us all very little hard news about anything having negative impact on these company's stockholders and/or advertisers (or on the company itself, for that matter) is shared with the general public and, whenever negative information actually does see the light of day, damage control is immediately initiated.For example: Tim Robbins has been given carte blanche, in the press and across the networks, to continue to drive home his anti-bush rhetoric under the guise of a deep concern for First Amendment Rights and the fear McCarthism/blacklisting. This type of "news coverage" has caused the line between information and propaganda to become so blurred that the unwary fail to even realize when they are being manipulated. For the millions of people without access to the internet television and the printed word are their only source of news and information. How biased is their impression likely to be when everything they read or see, every opinion, every image, and every jot of information they receive has been filtered through just a handful of corporations.

"Media companies continue to grow, and a shrinking number of them shape what we view and read. What does that mean for journalists -- and for the nation?"
Columbia Journalism Review's "Who Owns What"

The above web page provides an opportunity to see for yourself why and how the current 'Media Monopoly' is able, through an abysmal deluge of disinformation, misinformation and lies by omission, to deliberately and manipulatively form, project and reinforce an illusion of "public opinion".

Take a look at what these few companies own or have vested interests in: Viacom, Disney, AOL-TimeWarner, News Corp, G.E.

[Zacs Mom]

Since I'm totally familiar with all of FReep's areas yet I'm not sure under which 'topic/topics' this post actually belongs ~ so I took a guess and listed it under "business, culture, misc, unclassified, vanity, editorial, extended, wot"..... please add or delete as needed

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the mainstream press have become 'information brokers' who present very specific information in a manor which meets a very specific agenda.

This article is from the Columbia Journalism Review and they use the wrong homonym?

Journalism is about words, and these guys don't have respect for words, so I doubt they have respect for the truth either.

[Larry Lucido]

and they use the wrong homonym

They teach their writers not to be homophobic.

[Fifth Business]

And then there's this (emphasis mine): Does one of these transnational mega-media conglomerates owns your local newspaper,

I don't think Columbia Journalism Review wrote it.

[meenie]

It's alright to be homosexual though.

[Fifth Business]

I lost count after forty companies. In what sense is this a monopoly?

Anyway, I don't get much of my news any of them.

[Fifth Business]

Nice homepage, by the way.

[Billthedrill]

This might have been a real problem as recently as, say, ten years ago. We are all reading the reason it is less so these days - the internet. Talk radio was another end-run around a broadcast media that were becoming monolithic in a political sense, or who were at least perceived to be doing so.

Of course, JimRob could be Rupert Murdoch. I notice we never see the two of them together... ;-)

[GovernmentShrinker]

Scary, isn't it. Guess we ought to know by now that we can't expect any better from Columbia. Think I'll go give them a little cyber-freep now.

[GovernmentShrinker]

And a little further down:

Does one of these transnational mega-media conglomerates owns your local newspaper

I guess proofreading is regarded as an old-fashioned waste of time by these hip 21st Century J-school hotshots.

[3AngelaD]

I couldn't find the actual copy that you've quoted on the site in the link. Which headline is it?

[Zacs Mom]

I am sorry about the grammatical errors ~ and I am sorry, too, about the confusion.....I wrote the intro to this piece. In no way did I mean to give the impression it was written by anyone from CJR and I regret this misunderstanding.

The purpose in the post and the intro I wrote was only meant to draw attention to the fact, although it appears that news and information is available from an infinite number of sources, a large portion of America receives all of their information from a small pool of information brokers. BTW, I am the grandmother of six and, while I make every attempt to articulate my thoughts in an intelligent manner, I am not a professional writer and have a limited grasp of finer points in writing. I'm embarrassed that my lack of writing skills has rendered me unable to communicate. Please excuse me.

[Fifth Business]

Please don't let it discourage you. We can be petty about things sometimes. You have to be thick-skinned to post anything around here because you'll definitely get some flack even without grammatical errors. And heaven help the poor soul who puts a spelling error into the title of a post! Those threads get up into the hundreds of responses, containing nothing but mockery.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They teach their writers not to be homophobic.

Hahaha.

It was pseudo-educated people like the editors of The Columbia Journalism Review who invented the very non-word "homophobe," which from it's Latin roots means someone who fears human beings.

Ironically enough, given the true etymological meaning, the word "homophobe" actually applies best to its inventors.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I read our post that you wrote the introduction.

I thought your intro was from the Review, which should have editors.

Since you wouldn't have an editor, your typos are totally acceptable and I apologize for making a big deal about them, but it would have been best if you had posted the article or the first few paragraphs in the "article" textbox and your intro in the "comments" textbox when you posted.

Then there would have been no confusion.