Anti-Boardroom, Meet Anti-Bedroom

Matt Welch | September 8, 2005

Anti-media concentration activists are now reaching across the cultural divide to indecency obsessives, and even have a new study to prove something or other (most likely, that the correlation/causation distinction still needs to be taught in the social sciences). Anyway, I'm just glad to see all the illiberals gathered under one Big Tent; makes it easier to track their movements.

Comments

|9.8.05 @ 1:44PM|#

anti-media concentration = illiberal

That wouldn't make sense to Adam Smith, it would not make sense to Geo. Orwell and it don't to me neither.

Matt Welch|9.8.05 @ 1:49PM|#

Dave -- They want (at minimum) the government to further restrict the already restricted ownership rules of media outlets. They are against the liberalization of ownership rules; ergo, "illiberals."

|9.8.05 @ 1:55PM|#

Wrong again. They are for liberalization of antitrust rules, so they are liberal after all, then.

|9.8.05 @ 1:58PM|#

In the future there will be one channel... and that channel will be 24-hour hardcore porn.

|9.8.05 @ 2:14PM|#

"In the future there will be one channel... and that channel will be 24-hour hardcore porn."

Free, I hope.

|9.8.05 @ 2:15PM|#

If a study contains more pictures than regressions (0, in this case), I'm not sure it qualifies as empirical social science.

Matt Welch|9.8.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Dave -- I guess I missed the part about "liberalization of anti-trust rules" on Creative Voices' Key Issues page.

Phil|9.8.05 @ 2:21PM|#

So, I guess if someone supports the continuous expansion of the drug war to cover COUGH MEDICINE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, then, by Dave's measure, they support "liberalizing the anti-drug laws" and are thus a "liberal." Makes sense.

|9.8.05 @ 2:25PM|#

What do you mean by "liberalization of anti-trust rules"?

If you mean liberalise them as in making them go away, that's a good thing. But somehow I don't think that's what they have in mind.

Here's an interesting quote: "Self-censorship of media is also rampant. With so much at stake for giant media conglomerates in Washington, from broadcast license renewals to merger approvals to favorable trade and tax treatment, these corporations bend over backward to kowtow to policymakers."

So then really liberalise the media industry, and all others, so that they aren't so beholden to the fucking politicians. This is something that just blows me away no matter what industry we're talking about. Think some group or another has too much influence in the gov't? Then take away all the regulations, tax breaks, etc that makes these corps throw so much money around trying to sway decisions.

|9.8.05 @ 2:28PM|#

Yeah, it is sad people don't speak in those terms (or enforce those laws!) anymore. I am no activist and do not understand their mysterious ways.

Would it at least be okay if we liberalized government ownership of the airwaves by returning them to their rightful owners, the individual property owners across the land? That would address a big part of my concerns and would also be the libertarianiest approach to boot. Win-win.

Dave W.|9.8.05 @ 2:35PM|#

Yeah, it is sad people don't speak in those terms (or enforce those laws!) anymore. I am no activist and do not understand their mysterious ways.

Would it at least be okay if we liberalized government ownership of the airwaves by returning them to their rightful owners,* the individual property owners across the land? That would address a big part of my concerns and would also be the libertarianiest approach to boot. Win-win.

FOOTNOTE:

* Actually, I'd prefer that these airwaves remained an unpropertized, unregulated thing with no rightful owners -- everybody a noble savage with a ham radio -- but I'll take what I can get.

|9.8.05 @ 2:38PM|#

"They are for liberalization of antitrust rules"

You guys are using the word "liberal" in different senses.

|9.8.05 @ 2:40PM|#

On purpose, J. The word ain't the thing here.

Jeff P.|9.8.05 @ 3:15PM|#

If there was single 24 porn channel, let's hope it's not run by any managers or programmers from the news networks. If so each day will just feature the same money shot scene over and over and over again.

Dave W.|9.8.05 @ 3:21PM|#

Whatever our differences here, the integrity on the NOLA thread is above and beyond the call of duty. I wish more people (me incl) were capable of that kind of humility.

Dave W.|9.8.05 @ 4:21PM|#

Continuing my-Katrina-related threadjack, but this is kind of media concentration related, too:

Did anyone else get the impression that Katrina stories got (and still get) very little play on GOOGLE news page?

GOOGLE news has been my primary news portal for a long time now, and I just get the sneaking suspicion that they are purposely downplaying the story there. Maybe my impression is wrong and I hope it is wrong.

|9.8.05 @ 4:28PM|#

From their Key issues page: Five giant media conglomerates (Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, GE/NBC, News Corp./FOX, and Time Warner/WB/CNN/TNT) own broadcast and cable outlets that control approximately a 75% share of prime-time viewing, roughly the same share of TV households in prime time as the three broadcast networks did 40 years ago, pre-cable.

Anyone want to explain to me how five outlets owning the same amount of media control as three outlets did 30 or 40 years ago constitutes consolidation?

Dave W.|9.8.05 @ 5:28PM|#

dpotts,

"Time" "Warner" "CNN": where do you think these names comes from?

Why are they are consolidated into a single phrase like that?

|9.8.05 @ 5:32PM|#

Remember when there were just the three networks? Remember the neverending stream of smut they put out?

"You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice."
-- Marge Simpson

|9.8.05 @ 6:06PM|#

Whatever our differences here, the integrity on the NOLA thread is above and beyond the call of duty. I wish more people (me incl) were capable of that kind of humility.

Dave W.- Is that irony? The discussions to me look like what is said to have happnened in the Superdome and Hak-a-Gunnels and M1EK hasn't even appeared yet.

Dave W.|9.8.05 @ 6:22PM|#

Herman,
That was addressed to Mr. Welch, personally, not to that thread as a whole. I should have made that clearer. To make things more clear: On the Letter From New Orleans Resident thread, Mr. Welch printed (without comment) a letter that was harshly critical of Mr. Welch. He then made a couple introspective remarks on the thread. That is what I was referring to with my cryptic remark.

Phil|9.8.05 @ 7:26PM|#

Why are they are consolidated into a single phrase like that?

Who cares? Unless you're coming out against corporate mergers in and of themselves, the point is that Time Warner as an entity -- along with the four other large ownership groups -- controls a smaller market share than any of the Big Three did 40 years ago, which isn't "consolidation" at all. And I'm pretty sure, although I'm lazily not looking it up, that there are fewer O&O stations among the networks, too.

Dave W.|9.9.05 @ 2:15AM|#

Phil,
Re-read dpotts question and my answer. You are not getting it, but I think you can. Hint: think outside the (idiot) box.

Phil|9.9.05 @ 6:10AM|#

Don't condescend and play games, Dave. If you have a point to make, make it. If you're referring to the non-television media properties owned by those merged corporations, well, again, duh. I'm really, really, threatened that the same company owns TIME Magazine, Bugs Bunny, the WB and DC Comics.

Dave W.|9.9.05 @ 7:02AM|#

Of course you are not threatened, you haven't spent 15 minutes of your life trying to understand what antitrust law is and why we used to enforce it.

Dpotts' question was whether any consolidation really had taken place since circa 1950. My answer answered that question.

So, now that you see the consolidation, you also see the consolidation as harmless. Dpotts probably does, too. As far as that goes, you may want to consider that playing dumb about the basic fact of consolidation does not exactly bolster your cred when you come back now and argue that the consolidation it was so hard for you to acknowledge in the first place is (surprise!) harmless after all.

Phil|9.9.05 @ 10:32AM|#

Of course you are not threatened, you haven't spent 15 minutes of your life trying to understand what antitrust law is and why we used to enforce it.

Tweeeeet! Mindreading! Fifteen yards and replay of down!!


Dpotts' question was whether any consolidation really had taken place since circa 1950. My answer answered that question.

Well, no, it didn't. Whether some sort of corporate mergers have taken place in the entertainment world might seem like an answer, but is completely irrelevant to the specific matter that:

-- We are discussing television in particular -- you know, the medium that the organization discussed in the post is trying to encourage greater regulation over? -- so the fact the company that owns ABC also owns ESPN Magazine, or the company that owns NBC also owns Universal Studios is less than irrelevant, as neither of these things is governed by the FCC.

-- Not only are the classic Big Three still all owned by separate organizations, but there are now three more such networks, all six with smaller market shares than the Big Three had 30-40 years ago, which, again, when discussing television specifically, is more relevant than whether UPN and Paramount Pictures have the same parent.

So, now that you see the consolidation, you also see the consolidation as harmless.

There has been no consolidation in television network ownership, as noted above. None of the Big Three, and none of the smaller three, share a parent. That the owners of television networks have merged with other companies is, again, irrelevant when we are discussing increased FCC regulation of television outlets.

As far as that goes, you may want to consider that playing dumb about the basic fact of consolidation does not exactly bolster your cred when you come back now and argue that the consolidation it was so hard for you to acknowledge in the first place is (surprise!) harmless after all.

See above. This is why people tend not to take the anti-consolidation ranters seriously. When we're discussing what if anything the FCC should do about indecency on over-the-air television, the question of who owns Batman or Sony Pictures is an irrelevant distraction.

And if you're going to be a condescending asshole, you can consider the conversation closed. If you can grow up and talk like a big boy, then we'll continue.