From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: The Media Monopoly (part 14 of 14)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:27:26 GMT
Keywords: treachery trickery deceit deception

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:


>I haven't commented on any of this, but just a few things caught my
>eye so I thought I say a couple of words:

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> For example, "Time Warner, formed by merger of Time, Inc. and 
>> Warner Communications, is the largest media corporation in the 
>> world. It has more technical communication power than most 
>> governments."
>> 

>Isn't that a good thing - private media rather than government
>media?


Yes, I think private media is better, however if you have been
following the series you will recall that its argument was that
so-called private, independent media had become unreliable due
to the increasingly centralized control of same by giant corporations.
This is suggested in the title of the series, the media *monopoly*
which implies that the problem is a lack of competition.

>> "The new global giants are doing more than expanding their 
>> control over the technological instruments that issue news, 
>> information, and entertainment. They and their subsidiaries are 
>> also gathering up world copyrights of earlier information and 
>> popular culture... Much of what used to be free in libraries or 
>> inexpensive for the average consumer is rapidly growing in cost, 
>> thanks to exclusive corporate ownership."
>> 

>How is that true?  LIbraries are still there and there is more
>information available not less.  Once there were no video tapes,
>no microfilm.  All this technological advances have made it more
>available.  In some formats (ie. CD-ROM) it is more expensive
>and not as available than books, but the books are still there.
>How are they buying up culture?

I emphasize that the series entitled "The Media Monopoly" is
only a *synopsis* of the book by Ben Bagdikian. There is no
way that I could include all the data which he uses to support,
explain, his arguments. For a detailed answer to your question,
I suggest you obtain a copy of the book and read it.

>> 		     -- Materialism --
>> 
>> There is "...another American tradition [besides the 'technical 
>> skill and positive accomplishments of American broadcasting'] 
>> that the rest of the world is now inheriting and could do 
>> without. Underlying the growth of commercial television around 
>> the world has been the promotion of materialism... Television, 
>> even more than print, is best at selling goods that are marginal 
>> to basic needs -- cosmetics, for example, rather than education."
>> 

>And yet all these things,and rampant materialism, existed before
>TV.  LIke so many things that are blamed on TV, they pre-date it.

I do not think the author is blaming *all* materialism on TV. I
think rather that he is arguing that TV has greatly increased 
materialism.

>> 
>> 	      -- Noncommercial Television --
>> 
>> "An enemy of commercial television is noncommercial television, 
>> since those audiences reduce the audience for commercial 
>> television. Noncommercial broadcasting also reminds the public 
>> that there is an alternative to the heavy doses of sex-and- 
>> violence, fantasy advertising, and programs designed primarily to 
>> create a 'buying mood.' Noncommercial broadcasting can deal with 
>> public issues and controversies in ways avoided by commercial 
>> broadcasters whose advertisers, understandably, do not wish their 
>> products associated with public controversy."
>> 

>This one is totally wrong.  The enemy of "commerical TV" is
>pay TV (i.e. Cable, Satellite).  Non-Commercial TV is dying
>and is constantly begging for donations and Government funds.
>It is often quite good, but it is no "threat" to anyone.  Look
>at who the networks are fighting, not PBS but the cable 
>operators.  It's true that commercial TV is often dumbed down
>but that is also because of the "free" and open nature of the medium,
>anyone can tune in.

You obviously have not read (or have not understood) the entire
series. I suggest you re-read it as an answer to your assertions.



Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."