Who Owns and Controls the US Media? And Why?

[Rapier]

Is the US populace being manipulated to and fro?

[David M]

Given they are all corporations...the shareholders own the media. The real question is who controls the content? Simple, the people elected by the Board of Directors to run the corporation on a daily basis. Who provides the content?...reporters and other news agencies such as Reuters. Any bias comes from how reporters choose to report the story and relevant facts they choose to leave out. As for the print media, another factor is where they choose to place an article in the paper and with the TV media whether they even bother to report the story and is so, with what emphasis. There are certainly other forms of bias.

It really is that simple. There is nothing nefarious about it.

I have just learned to accept that there will always be bias in the news because reporters not only want to do their jobs well, they want to change the world to their way of thinking....which of course means biasing a story so it does not become too obvious. Sometimes it becomes so obvious that it is laughingly so. Dan Rather with those obviously faked documents comes to mind here.

[mbossman2]

Editors have the day to day tactical control of news content and, traditionally, the editors are supposed to be free from influence by the BOD (whether that is wishful thinking/naive is open for debate)

[Kuch]

All media and news agencies are a business and their job isn’t to report the news; they want to make money while reporting the news (there is a distinct difference).

When Nielsen ratings, commercial sponsorship, and time slots come into play, whether or not the news is slanted to the left, the right, or totally inaccurate falls pretty low on the totem poll.

[Rapier]

All media and news agencies are a business and their job isn’t to report the news; they want to make money while reporting the news (there is a distinct difference).

When Nielsen ratings, commercial sponsorship, and time slots come into play, whether or not the news is slanted to the left, the right, or totally inaccurate falls pretty low on the totem poll.


You are missing the big picture. If a group controls the news it doesn't make any difference who has the higher ratings. The group, no matter how loosely connected or associated, collects all the revenue.

Of course it makes a difference to the minions. They amuse the group by sweating their dangling asses off with budgets, ratings and political correctness. Kinda like a few of the original Star Trek episodes. Political correctness because the group insists on having the image of political correctness. Heaven forbid should anyone be given a reason to question what they are up to.

[Kuch]

You are missing the big picture. If a group controls the news it doesn't make any difference who has the higher ratings. The group, no matter how loosely connected or associated, collects all the revenue.

Of course it makes a difference to the minions. They amuse the group by sweating their dangling asses off with budgets, ratings and political correctness. Kinda like a few of the original Star Trek episodes. Political correctness because the group insists on having the image of political correctness. Heaven forbid should anyone be given a reason to question what they are up to.

You're making an assumption one group controls all the media. I don't agree with this. I think the media is controlled by a number of groups where money, not accuracy of reporting or integrity is the real bottom line.

We will probably never know for sure whether either of us is correct.

[mbossman2]

The web and individual bloggers have put a significant dent in the mainstream media's quasi-monopoly on the news content decision and it will continue to do so as this conduit continues to develop. The traditional media has been struggling on how to cope with them and so far their biggest shot is the one that, in some areas, has blocked the status of "journalist" (and some of the attendant protections that come with that label) from being applied to bloggers.

Of course bloggers are a double edged sword in that the web offers a significant level of anonymity (sp?) so other than being branded by the community as an idiot, there are little recourses available in case of abuse.

[themistocles]

Too nebulous a group to generally characterize. If you consider all forms of media, it becomes pointless to do so.

[Rapier]

Too nebulous a group to generally characterize. If you consider all forms of media, it becomes pointless to do so.




Nebulous?

Star with these six.


News Corporation


Time Warner


Viacom


Bertelsmann



Disney


Vivendi

[Rapier]

Given they are all corporations...the shareholders own the media. The real question is who controls the content? Simple, the people elected by the Board of Directors to run the corporation on a daily basis. Who provides the content?...reporters and other news agencies such as Reuters. Any bias comes from how reporters choose to report the story and relevant facts they choose to leave out. As for the print media, another factor is where they choose to place an article in the paper and with the TV media whether they even bother to report the story and is so, with what emphasis. There are certainly other forms of bias.

It really is that simple. There is nothing nefarious about it.

I have just learned to accept that there will always be bias in the news because reporters not only want to do their jobs well, they want to change the world to their way of thinking....which of course means biasing a story so it does not become too obvious. Sometimes it becomes so obvious that it is laughingly so. Dan Rather with those obviously faked documents comes to mind here.




Controlling our media has little to do with bias, it has to do with an agenda, plebiscite by proxy so to speak, to keep the plebeians busy.

[seabee69m]

The web and individual bloggers have put a significant dent in the mainstream media's quasi-monopoly on the news content decision and it will continue to do so as this conduit continues to develop. The traditional media has been struggling on how to cope with them and so far their biggest shot is the one that, in some areas, has blocked the status of "journalist" (and some of the attendant protections that come with that label) from being applied to bloggers.

Of course bloggers are a double edged sword in that the web offers a significant level of anonymity (sp?) so other than being branded by the community as an idiot, there are little recourses available in case of abuse.
Money controls everything. they have set a bill in place to bring the
internet under control of one corporation. read,look, inquire stop being led
by the nose. :eek:

[Kuch]

they have set a bill in place to bring the
internet under control of one corporation. read,look, inquire stop being led
by the nose.
Which bill do you speak of?

[mbossman2]

the dreaded ICANN. The US has objected to putting DNS and naming services under the control of the UN as ICANN is adequately represents the internation community based upon its rotating board memberhsip. The UN feels that ICANN, being on US soil, has been showing undue favoritism to US corporate interests in assigning names and extensions.

Congress introduced a bill, last year I think, ruling that ICANN would be the main source of internet address and name assignment and rejecting the request the european request in the UN.

[Kuch]

Boss,
That question wasn't for you; I was testing to see if the mention of the bill was part of "the sky is falling" rhetoric spewed by others on this site or if they actually knew about ICANN.

Besides, as good argument for keeping ICANN around is that only 4 of its 15 voting members or Americans; the rest are from 6 other countries, which kind of refutes the UN’s claim that we have a monopoly on domain names.