Reply to Rox pt. 1

[bhuston]

Are you aware that socialism has failed in every society that has embraced it?

You're right! Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, all have had successful socialist governments or movements in place, many times democratically elected, destabilized by the USA, overthrown by the CIA, coup d'tats orchestrated by the US, leaders assisinated by the CIA or School of Americas grads, faced with economic sanctions or restructuring, trade embargos, restructuring farming from subsistience to crops for global export, etc.If the US version of capitalism is so great, and socialism so unstable, why do we have to expend such effort and military force to squash socialism when it arises? A: because one example of successful socialism would disprove everything we've been taught in state school? So we squash it with whatever force it takes.

That socialism has led to totalitarianism in every society that has embraced it?

This is a fact that I question. If you mean the "tyrrany of the majority", that's what we have a constitution/bill of rights for, to assert and protect individual rights, even of minorities.

Capitalism allows people the freedom to pursue a life that they determine for themselves, not a life set by the "collective".

Capitalism is Freedom is Apple Pie. You sound like a Milton Friedman disciple.I have come to believe in something different: Capitalism (the version we have) is not freedom, it is enslavement; profit is exploitation; and property is theft. I will be happy to expand on any of these if you desire.

Ours is a society of opportunity.

The opportunity to have your labor stolen at $7/hr at McDonald's or WalMart because the capitalists have moved all the factories to the countries with the cheapest labor. (Strange: it's "communist" China --really a fascist regeme where the people have no rights-- Wasn't the dream of the capitalists to wipe out the communists from the face of the earth? How strange that our economy is so bound to China's!)We have the opportunity to piss in a cup, submit to a background check, a credit check, a polygraph test. The opportunity to get in line and shut up and do as we are told. Slavery is opportunity? You could be Orwell...

You talk about "far away capitalists". In truth, most of us are capitalists. If you own any stock, you're a "far away capitalist". If you have a retirement plan, you're a "far away capitalist". If you pay taxes, which are invested for varying amounts of time until they're needed by the government, you're a "far away capitalist.

That is like saying, "most of us are masters, not slaves", or "most of us are above average". It just doesn't work like that. It doesn't make sense to say "most of us are capitalists" because this would be like a world where everyone is a wealthy Amway distributer, and there is no one left to buy any soap.There are capitalists, whom largely make their money by vitrue of the fact that they already have wealth, and make money by exploitation of nature and workers. Then, there are the rest of us, the workers. The system requires many workers and very few capitalists.When you say "I'm a capitalist" you are really saying "I want to be the exploiter, rather than the exploited". Whereas I reject all systems of exploitation and class. I believe that all persons were created equal. I'm an egalitarian and I believe in democracy, values which are antithetical to capitalism.The capitalist system requires a class disparity. The fact of the matter is, that capitalism does not benefit the vast majority of people. It benefits a tiny minority of people who own property and stock. There is no way for capitalism to benefit everyone.This is why it is SO IMPORTANT for our media to have a different operational model rather than commerce, selling commodities, funded by advertising, etc. Because it is quite natural then that our capitalist media (structured to benefit the rich) then promotest the idea that "capitalism is a tide which raises all boats". OF COURSE THEY TELL US THIS! And of course they censor or marginalize any information which is critical of capitalism.My point about "distant capitalists" is that most of (e.g.) Citadel's stockholders live outside the community where the business operations occur. As I point out in my petition, there are mutually exclusive interests: Citadel's stockholders and Citadel's advertisers on one side, and the listening public on the other. I argue that these interests cannot both be met, because they are in direct opposition.

I, for one, am unwilling to trade opportunity for government regulation.

We are used to thinking "the government" as being something repressive, corrupt, and unresponsive. But in an ideal democracy, the government is "we the people". It works in our interest because it is us.And we've come to think that "de-regulation" means the government getting out of the way of business. But this is false. There are mountains of regulations! De-regulation is really a misnomer for regulation in the interests of the corporations, and not in the public interest.It should be clear to anyone that deregulation of media has been bad for Binghamton. We could talk about radio, cable, broadcast TV, the digital mandate, you pick.

As far as public interest is concerned, there are ample means for people to express their opinions and air their ideas IF other people are interested in hearing them. As evidenced here, the Internet has become a means of expression available to the majority of our citizens. Printing presses still exist. In fact, it is less expensive than ever to reproduce your thoughts and ideas and disseminate them to the public. Lectures, public presentations, and even phone-in shows are available to most people. Cable access, which is required on most cable systems, offers another venue for multimedia presentations. There are enough stations that carry "brokered" content available to provide an outlet for your "diverse" programming if you can find enough monetary investment from people who subscribe to your point of view.

Cable Access w/o production facilites has a major class divide, as you now need both cash for cameras, and tech abilities, which puts cable access out of many peoples reach. According to a 2004 Nielsen study, the internet is still in only about 75% of all households (where TV and radio reach something like 99%). And broadband internet is less than half of that, or less than 1/3 of all homes. So while the internet is certainly having an effect on things, it is many years away from reaching the numbers of households of broadcasters, and the broadcast media is locked-down to those that can pay, and *even if you can pay*, you are not guaranteed passage (many examples of this, including censored PETA and UCC PSAs during the Superbowl, etc).

What you seem to be avoiding is the thought that most people don't agree with your viewpoint, and choose to ignore you. Your response is to force what you term to be "public affairs" programming onto the airwaves so that it's more difficult for people to ignore your point of view. Let me assure you - they will turn you off in large numbers no matter now many stations you're on.

How do you know what most people think? Did you do a study? The point is here to make a broader range of ideas available to the people, because anything else is propaganda. Democracy cannot flourish amidst the kind of propaganda we live under today.Please read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky, "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" by McChesney, "Toxic Sludge is Good for You!" by Rampton/Stauber, and "No Logo" by Naomi Klein if you do not believe we live in a propaganda state.

 

[bhuston]

you'd be the first to protest "government run" broadcasting if they presented a program that was opposed to your point of view.

I would support a system which presents diverse and antagonistic viewpoints, a system where many viewpoints are represented, including mine. This isn't what we have today.

In fact, it was the monopoly of broadcasting by the BBC that sparked the development of "pirate" radio stations in Britain in order to provide diversity in entertainment and point-of-view. Their dedication to the arts, public affairs, and news are commendable, but not necessarily effective in creating a society that is more informed or engaged in those areas.

I wasn't aware of the British pirate radio movement, but I'll take your word on it.You point in general is well taken. So I might say that we need media with a variety of funding models, b/c when you get a single source (whether state-owned or capitalist-owned) leads to a lack of diversity.

There are not enough hours, or enough channels, to broadcast the 10,000 different minority opinions on any subject.

While I will agree with your theortical argument ("can we ever broadcast every voice?" Certainly not) I vigorously disagree that we can't do any better then what we have.We have 21 broadcast outlets in this area, not including DTV and a couple small religous statons. Out of more than 3,500 possible broadcast hours per week, there is just 105 hours of local news and public affairs programming across 21 analog radio and television broadcast streams. This is about 3% of the total broadcast time. And if you look at the content of that 3%, some of it is weather, sports+cleberties, anchor ad-libs, promos and PSAs, mindless "ask the dog groomer" or "ask the gardener" type PA, and recycled content. The amount of real investigative news, and useful locally-produced public affairs is almost nil. Like if you could show me 10 hours per week (0.3%, three tenths of one percent) anywhere on Binghamton radio or TV (excluding WHRW and public access TV) I would be surprised.Can we broadcast every voice and opinion? No.But can we do MUCH better than we are doing? ......

Fortunately, other means of expression exist. Since there is a limit to the number of hours in a day, and a limit to the number of channels available,

I just want to point out something here.If there exists spectrum scarcity (as you state), the argument from Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969) holds, and public service obligations (like the Fairness Doctrine) holds for broadcasters.But the FCC (under Regan) and the courts disagree with you. In Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the Supreme Court held that spectrum scarcity no longer exists, and that the Fairness Doctrine was in fact having a "chilling effect" on speech, because broadcasters just avoided controversial subjects to avoid triggering the Fairness Doctrine requirement of equal time.So in either ideal (scarce spectrum -> public service obligations or abundant spectrum -> many views represented), we have a rich media presented to the people.I argue that we have abundant spectrum, but it is being squandered on hyper-consolidated commercialist crap. W/o strict public service obligations, broadcasters will seek their bottom line profits, and give us the cheapest crapola which makes them the most money. Period.

the opinions and programming that appeal to the majority will get the largest segment of the broadcast spectrum.

Please see my prior comment to you about why the measure of whether we are living under a First Amendment free-speech zone or not should NOT be determined by the popularity of the idea (ratings). What happens to the truth if it is unpopular, Rox?

As digital broadcasting expands the number of channels, ... [this] will make more room for your "diverse and antagonistic information sources."

This language is actually from US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, from his famous opinion in Associated Press v. US (1945): "the First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public...."

In the meantime, I don't believe that it's in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" to punish people for listening to the programs that they WANT to hear,

How do you know they want to hear it? Because of ratings? Again: ratings lead to programming on the lowest-common-denominator. NASCAR, football, World's Most Sadistic Police Videos, Reality Shows, etc. Ratings are for determing advertising rates. That's all!! Ratings are not any measure of "serving the public interest".Also, WE CAN'T CHOOSE WHAT AIN'T THERE! (Guess what? many ideas are not available in popular media, thus get a "market share" of zero!) Of course no one is listening to the Radical Green Environmental Show. It isn't there!!!!

Your condescending attitude toward average Americans is uncharitable, to say the least.

I think it's arrogant to imagine that a small number of corporate-capitalists should have the right to determine what everyone gets to see, hear, read.

Forcing ME to contribute my hard-earned dollars to "grants, tax on commerical licensees, tax on new equipment, public trust, subscriber fees, etc." for the disemmination of ideas that I find to be reprehensible is as unfair as stripping away freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Milton Freedman would be proud of your exacting recitation of his argument against democratic media from "Capitalism and Freedom" (1960). And we have suffured under that neo-liberal poppycock from 45 years, even back to 1934 with the defeat of Wagner Hatfield. So that makes it 70 years. But you know what, people like Robert McChesney, Ben Bagdikian, Noam Chomsky, Rampton/Stauber, Michael Parenti and others are elucidating the flaws with this system. Remember the line from The Wall? "I've got 13 channels of sh*t on my TV to choose from"? Now Roger Waters could update that to "200 channels of sh*t". Remember Murrow's RTNDA speech (1958)? or Newton Minnow's "Vast Wasteland" speech (1961)? Do you think anything has changed?Read these if you can. They are excellent:http://www.rtnda.org/resources/spee...se.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=326&invol=1

I see your "Petition to Deny" as a grandstanding attempt to create more visibility for you and your "causes".

Grandstanding? Not really. But yes, it is all about my causes. And I've got them, I'll admit.But if my handful of causes (veganism, animal rights, peace, human rights, prison abolition, environmentalism, capitalist critique, war-on-drugs critique, entheogens, gender politics, media issues, ZPG, sustainable energy policy, etc...) are being censored from the media... just IMAGINE all the stuff that might be being censored also! It's staggering. Probably 10,000 things.I don't claim to know everything that's being censored or marginalized presently, but I figure the solution is creating more outlets for democratic media.And ask yourself:Are you really happy with the state of local radio, Rox? Seriously. How long have you worked here? I've read on this board and scaptura.com many people complaining about the loss of entry-level positions in this radio market (like, loss of JOBS). This is what Wall St.'s golden children Citadel and ClearChannel have brought here. Even WSKG has installed more automation and have just fired 4 key people.Are you really happy with all this? Do you honestly feel that local radio is doing enough local news and public affairs?Be honest.

 

[SirRoxalot]

This is not the forum for a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism. Let me say only this: In a socialist society such as the one you propose, your freedom to criticize the government and pursue a role in society that wasn't dictated by the collective would likely land you in jeopardy. It is the blessings of a free society that allow you to expound on the glories of your socialist "heaven", where your very role in society would be determined by the state, not by yourself. Your point of view has been proven as unworkable and repressive in every culture from the Soviet Union to China to Cuba and elsewhere. Cuba, a model for societal reform? Show me a more repressive society left in the world. Socialism has invariably led to a tyrrany of the leadership, and repression of the freedoms of the people. The rights of the majority are stripped away, and any minority point of view is invariably suppressed - often violently.Your temerity in determining that the majority of Americans are unaware of alternate points of view, or unable to understand them without the help of people like you, demonstrates greater arrogance than any corporation I've ever seen. "Please, massa, explain things to us so we poor wage slaves can understand why we shouldn't be happy." In my view, the majority of Americans have a pretty good idea what's going on, which is why they're almost universally unhappy with short-sighted government and corporate decisions. I have a lot more faith in the people than you appear to have. Perhaps that's because so many people reject your point of view. Your logic must run along the lines of "They don't agree with me, so they must be stupid." You obviously fail to acknowledge that THEY may be RIGHT. Those people working $7.00/hour jobs at McDonalds are either learning HOW to hold down a job, or failed to take advantage of the schooling available in this country that would lead to a better paying position. In your socialist society, some of us would be relegated to McDonalds for life because "the collective" determined that was the position where we could best serve. Perhaps you prefer that method of selecting positions for workers?That is not to say that there aren't certain aspects of our society where social issues shouldn't be addressed. There are people who are unable to care for themselves, or who are under the control of people who are unwilling to care for themselves. We can, and should, provide for those who are burdened with physical or mental problems that prevent them from earning a decent living. On the other hand, our "Great Society" experiment in socialism founded in the 1960's Johnson Administration bred generations of able-bodied people dependent on the state for their livelihood. We're still cursed with that cycle of government intervention, and the recent requirements that people on welfare either work, or train for jobs, is only beginning to take hold. In the meantime, the drive to require schools to ensure that young people have rudimentary math and language skills before they are promoted holds the greatest hope for those people caught in that shadowy world of poverty.To relate this back to broadcasting, the capitalist model is simple. If you can garner enough monetary support to purchase either airtime, or a broadcast outlet, in order to disseminate your ideas, you're free to do so. If you can't find enough financial backing to either purchase airtime or purchase a broadcast outlet for your ideas, it's not up the to government to guaranty you airtime. You'll have to use whatever other means you can afford to create enough of a constituency to allow you to purchase airtime for your point of view. This differs from your beloved socialist society, where everything is for the good of the collective. In a socialist society, you'd have to convince the MAJORITY that your point of view was beneficial to the collective before you'd be allowed to present your ideas. Good luck with that.There are now less news and public affairs programs on local stations than there were 30 years ago. There are also a significantly greater variety of media outlets than existed 30 years ago. In 1976, we didn't have 24-hour cable news stations. We didn't have local access cable stations broadcasting local government meetings. We didn't have thousands, if not millions, of Internet sites representing virtually every point of view extant. We didn't have satellite radio, or satellite TV - both paid and free - with hundreds of broadcast channels available from around the world. We didn't have the plethora of magazines, pamplets, newsletters, and other printed information sources that are now much cheaper and easier to produce. So, there are plenty of alternate information sources available for those who wish greater depth or breadth of information. In fact, the amount of information available to the average American is overwhelming.As far as jobs and broadcasting go, there are currently fewer traditional broadcasting jobs than there were 30 years ago. There are far fewer traditional broadcasting jobs than there were in the 1940's, when records were allowed to substitute for studio musicians, and "announcers" had to have an "engineer" to turn their microphones on for them. Technology improves, and those who fail to keep up with technology have to re-educate themselves. Perhaps we should mandate a return to candles and whale-oil lamps? PETA would not be amused, I'm sure. On the other hand, there are millions more Internet jobs than there were 30 years ago. There are more opportunities for you to have your voice heard than at any time in the history of humanity. As far as corporate control of broadcasting is concerned, we are in a cycle where several large groups have consolidated broadcasting outlets as an investment. I believe that we are on the edge of a cycle where those groups who have consolidated themselves into bland, repetitive, and unimaginative programming are going to find themselves challenged by live, local, timely, and varied programming that will diminish their profits, and diminish their grip on traditional broadcast outlets. The digital age is catching up with radio and TV. Podcasting, Internet broadcasting, and the ability to create content quickly and professionally on an inexpensive home computer are having an impact. There will be more outlets for content, more chances for talent to rise to the top, and more opportunities as long as socialism doesn't rear its ugly head in the broadcast industry. Perhaps you should stop whining, and either start raising money to buy airtime or a broadcast outlet, or start learning how to distribute your message using the means already available to you. If you can't get your followers to contribute, then how deep is their belief in your point of view? If you can't find enough followers to contribute, then perhaps you need to rethink your point of view.Personally, I find you to be so wrong in your thinking as to be laughable.

 

[bhuston]

This is not the forum for a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism.

Economics has a huge relationship to broadcast media today.

In a socialist society such as the one you propose....

I am not proposing a particular "socialist" arrangement of society, because I understand these various -isms are loaded with all kinds of cultural biases. So forget about the offensive "S" word for a moment. Substitute "democratic". (You do agree that we live in a democracy, don't you?)The central question I propose we, as a democratic society, need to ask ourselves:

• In a democracy, what are the goals of the media system?
• Does our present media system meet these goals?
• Today, who controls the media, and in who's interests does it serve? This is very closely related to the question raised 230 years ago:
• Who controls the government, and in who's interests does it serve?

I argue that in a democracy, the media system, the government itself, should serve the public interest. In fact, it is codified by law. (The 1934 Communications Act). This is NOT what we have today. Our form of government is now Fascist Corporate Rule, which serves the interests of the wealthy and mercantile classes. More and more, our civil liberties and rights are being chipped away, and our minds are being colonized by global media.Were you taught the American Revolution was essentially a revolution against corporations? Read:Massachusetts Bay Corporation (which was a colony that founded the commonwealth where I live today), the Virginia Corporation, the Carolina Corporation, the Maryland Corporation, the Pennsylvania Corporation; these were business corporations that settled and created the 13 colonies. They were dictatorships -- there was no pretense. The people who ran those companies decided what you could grow, where you had to ship your products, what kind of work you did; they could conscript you into the militia; they were dictatorships. And the revolution fundamentally transformed those companies into constitutional states. http://www.ratical.org/corporations/RevokingCorp.html

Cuba, a model for societal reform?

Show me a socialist country which is operating naturally, without coercive US influence, and then we'll talk. Let me remind you that Cuba has been under a trade embargo since 1961. And as I stated before, when I say "socialist" I mean, "serving the people", in other words, I use "socialist" as a synonym for "democracy", because this is how our government is supposed to work.If the Cuban government serves some class or interests other than the great majority of the people, then perhaps we shouldn't call it socialist.

Show me a more repressive society

,US is approaching fast, and in some ways, our repression/oppression is greater.

... the majority of Americans are unaware of alternate points of view ...

I'm not faulting the people. If they are ignorant or believe something false (like "we went to Iraq to find WMDs, to stop Al Qaida" etc), I blame the media system.

In my view, the majority of Americans have a pretty good idea what's going on,

Did you ever read this? http://www.alternet.org/story/16892/ "The more you watch, the less you know"

I have a lot more faith in the people than you appear to have.

I have faith in the people, once the propaganda is removed, and that are exposed to the truth.

Perhaps that's because so many people reject your point of view. Your logic must run along the lines of "They don't agree with me, so they must be stupid." You obviously fail to acknowledge that THEY may be RIGHT.

What are you talking about? Which of my views does everyone disagree with? Or do everyone disagree with all of my views? Unless you can site some examples how "everyone disagrees with Bill Huston", I would ask you to stick to the facts.

Those people working $7.00/hour jobs at McDonalds are either learning HOW to hold down a job, or failed to take advantage of the schooling available in this country that would lead to a better paying position.

What positions? Look around Binghamton: ]http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147What's[/url] to blame? People's education? Get real. There is no lack of collage grads. I know people with advanced degress working for $7/hr. The real villans are the bankers, Wall Street, Capitalism. Investors moved to where the real profits are. China, where you can get an engineer with a Master's degree for less than $30/day. Look it up: http://corporate.globalsources.com/INFO/PRESS/ARTICLES/OCT2303.HTM

In your socialist society, some of us would be relegated to McDonalds for life because "the collective" determined that was the position where we could best serve. Perhaps you prefer that method of selecting positions for workers?

Why can't you imagine a society where individual rights are valued, plus, the overall arrangement of industry, government, and the media serves the needs of the people? (as opposed to the serving the lusts of the rich?)

On the other hand, our "Great Society" experiment in socialism founded in the 1960's Johnson Administration bred generations of able-bodied people dependent on the state for their livelihood.

Why not look to the example of how FDR's government-service programs built infrastructure and put people back to work to end the greatest depression seen here? (BTW, the Great Depression was likely triggered by the stock market crash, which was in turn caused by reckless bankers making risky speculative investments with borrowed money, and massive consumer debt)

the capitalist model is simple. If you can garner enough monetary support to purchase either airtime...

OK, Milton. We got it already. If you don't understand why we need another form of media, not funded by advertising, please read "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" or "The Problem with the Media" both by McChesney, "Inventing Reality" by Parenti, "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky. Read the 1968 Carnegie Commission Report. Read about George Stoney, the father of Public Access TV. Read about Graham Spry, the father of the CBC. Read "Air Wars" by Jerry Starr. Read about Lewis Hill, the founder of Pacifica. Read my collection of media quotes:http://web.archive.org/web/20041011015614/www.publicaccesstv.net/special/quotes.html

There are now less news and public affairs programs on local stations than there were 30 years ago. There are also a significantly greater variety of media outlets than existed 30 years ago.

The examples you cite (24 hour cable news, etc) are no substitute for LOCAL news. You have not refuted my assertion that the overwhelming shape of American media, which most people are exposed to, broadcast radio and TV, newspapers, book publishing, billboards, movies, etc. all have a capitalist bias. Certain ideas are promoted:Consumption, investment, stock-market reports, business updates, justifications for war, commercials, corporate PR (propaganda), news and entertainment intended for national audiences, western medicine (surgery, pharmecuticals, expensive procedures), ideas which move money.Certain ideas are excluded:Local anything, environmental issues, natural healing, human rights, why most people want peace, why the factories are closing, why people are getting cancer, how a certain plant can (again) be the center of a thriving economy giving power back to rural farmers, but which happens to be illegal, etc. etc. etc. I can't name them all. There are too many.

As far as jobs and broadcasting go, there are currently fewer traditional broadcasting jobs than there were 30 years ago.

Some loss is due to technology. But how many jobs have been lost because Citadel has consolidated 5 radio stations under one roof? How many were lost because Clear Channel thinks local news and public affairs are not in the interests of their stockholders?

several large groups have consolidated broadcasting outlets as an investment.

Bingo! That's the biggest problem. Media is a market, an investment, an advertisment delivery device. Did you read that Murrow speech? Excerpt:"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate, and yes it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extenet that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is nothing but wires and lights in a box.... Television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us.... Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest." -- Murrow, 1958http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtmlDid you read the Minow speech?Your license lets you use the public's airwaves as trustees for 180 million Americans. The public is your beneficiary. If you want tostay on as trustees, you must deliver a decent return to the public-not only to your stockholders. So, as a representative of the public, your health and your product are among my chief concerns...I have confidence in your health. But not in your product. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air, and stay there. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland." -- Newton Minow, chair of the FCC, 1961 http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtmlNothing has changed!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Get Back to Me When...

Please get back to me when you realize that this is 2006, not 1966. The entire media landscape is radically different, and Murrow and Minow would be among the first to realize that cable, satellite, and the Internet have rendered their earlier statements moot.As far as "socialized broadcasting" is concerned, you'll have to convince a majority of people that you're correct in your POV, and convince them to either elect different Congressional representives, or insist on a change by their current representatives. I'm sure we'll all be aware of when that happens. BTW, there is a huge difference between socialism & democracy. There is also a Constitutional Amendment regarding Freedom of the Press that includes the freedom from government interference in presenting political points of view. That includes the freedom to NOT present political points of view.You are engaging in an excercize in self-aggrandizement. I guess that some people feel that negative attention is better than no attention at all. The rest of us outgrow that stage of life. For example, we eventually realize that hitting a girl is not a way to get her to like you. If your campaign fires up your supporters and makes you feel like you have some impact on society, good for you. Shake them down for the cash you need to buy airtime, a radio station, or a website. Just don't expect the rest of us who are less impressed by PETA, vegans, and hallucinogen-addled "artists" to fund your program.

 

[bhuston]

Re: Get Back to Me When...

Please get back to me when you realize that this is 2006, not 1966. The entire media landscape is radically different, and Murrow and Minow would be among the first to realize that cable, satellite, and the Internet have rendered their earlier statements moot.

They are not around to ask, so your point is moot Sure, everything's changed. The QUANTITY of broadcast channels is much greater, but the QUALITY is the same or worse.This is because structurally (media funded by advertising) nothing has not changed. In fact, if you look at the ratio of public service channels as a percentage of total number of channels, the public has lost a lot of ground. Just as a (non-radio) example,In 1972, 10% (2 in 21) of cable channels were allocated for PEG, and local production studios were REQUIRED. Now, we have 2 in 200 channels, or 1%, bo studios, and Time Warner loads up one with advertising about 90% of the time.So we have lost an order of magnitude! That's a lot. Keep in mind that in 1934, Senators Wagner and Hatfield (one republican, one democrat) thought 25% reserved for public service broadcasters was proper. If you look at radio, locally we have 13 commercial radio broadcasters, and 3 public service broadcasters. (two NPR channels, and WHRW -- the ONLY station in town with significant local production and public access). So, 3 out of 16 total is about 18%. It's not 25%, but it's close. (we should have 4 public service stations)But if you look at the amount of local non-news public affairs programming, WSKG does just slightly better (0.74%) than the commercial broadcasters (0.64%). The rest of the day it's either 15.5 hours of elevator jazz, or 15.5 hours of european orchestral music. *yawn* Or the highly biased NPR news. (Biased towards serving the tich, the corporate, and the military, at the expense of human rights and environmental programming). Only WHRW is non-commercial, is not funded by corporate underwriting. And the results are clear. The music diversity is far greater than any other station in town, and the amount of locally produced news and public affairs is greater by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE! (7.4%). Only WHRW meets the definition of a "public service" broadcastor as defined by Wagner-Hatfield, so we actually have 1 in 16, which is 6%. Again, we are off by an order of magnitude. Data is here: http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/bhuston/localism.html

As far as "socialized broadcasting" is concerned, you'll have to convince a majority of people that you're correct in your POV, and convince them to either elect different Congressional representives, or insist on a change by their current representatives. I'm sure we'll all be aware of when that happens.

A agree with this. It doesn't seem things will change without a popular movement. But it is building, especially through the work of Robert McChesney (author, educator, activist). He's the main force behind FreePress.net. Check it out, and try reading his books. Start with Rich Media, Poor Democracy book or else read Problem with the Media. It just may open up your eyes a bit. The second book details a very critical history of our national communications policy which occured in the early 1900s. READ IT! http://www.mediaproblem.org/

BTW, there is a huge difference between socialism & democracy.

Oh really? As I've already stated, the question is: WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT, AND WHO DOES GOVERNMENT SERVE?The answer for democracy and socalism is the same, I argue. Isn't democracy "government of the people, by the people, for the people"? (Lincoln)We don't have this anymore. Our form of government should more properly be called fascist, corporate-rule. Our government (and our media system) have been coopted to serve the investor-class, and not we the people.

There is also a Constitutional Amendment regarding Freedom of the Press that includes the freedom from government interference in presenting political points of view. That includes the freedom to NOT present political points of view.

There are 3 problems with this POV.Here's the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". First Problem: When it becomes necessary to invest millions of dollars to build a radio transmitter or television station, it puts it out of reach of the common man. Not just anyone can become a broadcaster due to this reason.Secondly, SCOTUS Justice Hugo Black said in 1945 "the First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public" Do you understand this? Because it's really important. It establishes that when citizens live in a First Amendment land, there are in fact rights of LISTENERS, VIEWERS, READERS, etc. which might just trump the "rights" of commercial broadcasters. Here, read this: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/demoBrief.html#p0 (read the summary of argument)Lastly, I argue that as long as corporations (e.g., corporate broadcasters) claim to weild constitional rights, then Democracy will suffer. Because the imperatives of profit are directly opposed to the need for people living in a democracy to be informed.

You are engaging in an excercize in self-aggrandizement.

Aggrandizement: "exalted in power, rank, honor, or wealth"? You are dead-wrong about my motives. Leave out the insults and stick to the facts, please.

Just don't expect the rest of us who are less impressed by PETA, vegans, and hallucinogen-addled "artists" to fund your program.

When the commercial broadcasters start covering the complete picture, which is necessary in a democracy, I will be very happy stop my work. But this will never happen, because the problem is structural (corporate/profit). If you have not tried peyote, psilocybin, LSD, etc. you are ignorant of the facts.If you have tried these and say such a thing, you are a hipocrite. As far as "hallucinogen-addled": your petty insults will not change the truth, which is stranger and more beautiful that you can (perhaps) imagine.

 

[SirRoxalot]

MY Final Word

You have your point of view, and I have mine. I've said all I need to say on the subject. We'll see whose POV prevails.

 

[bhuston]

Re: MY Final Word

My final words:I hope you, Rox, or other people interested in the problem of the media today read some of the books I am recommending, b/c these scholars and authors can do a much better job than I can.Media:

• Rich Media, Poor Democracy, by Robert McChesney
• The Problem with the Media, by Robert McChesney
• Manufacting Consent, by Noam Chomsky
• Necessary Illusions, by Noam Chomsky
• Media Monopoly, by Ben Bagdikian
• Toxic Sludge is Good for You!, by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
• Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, by Jerry Mander
• In the Absence of the Sacred, by Jerry Mander
• Inventing Reality: the Politics of News Media, by Michael Parenti

Corporations/Economics/Globalism

• The Corporation, by Joel Bakan (watch the movie; better than the book!)
• Unequal Protection, by Thom Hartmann
• Gangs of America, by Ted Nace
• PARECON: Life After Capitalism, by Michael Albert
• Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins
• When Corporations Rule the World, by David Korten
• The Post-Corporate World: Life after Capitalism, by David Korten
• Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy: A Book of History and Strategy, by POCLAD
• The Elite Consensus: When Corporations Wield the Constitution by George Draffan
• No Logo, by Naomi Klein
• The Case Against Globalism And For a Turn Toward the Local, by Mander/Goldsmith (ed.)

Democracy

• The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast
• The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, by Amy Goodman

And resychedelics, you never replied whether you were ignorant or a hipocrite (there are no other choices). There is no cure for hipocrisy other then confession. So in the case you are ignorant (and you would like to be cured of it) I would like to recommend the following:

• Food of the Gods, by Terrance McKenna
• Archaic Revival, by Terrance McKenna
• Forest of Visions : Ayahuasca, Amazonian Spirituality, and the Santo Daime Tradition, by Alex Polari de Alverga
• Rant in E Minor, by Bill Hicks (audio CD)
• Sane Man, by Bill Hicks (video)
• Peyote Religion, by Omer Call Stewart
• The Psychedelic Experience, by Timothy Leary, Ralph Metzner & Richard Alpert
• The Doors of Perception, by Aldous Huxley

 

[wjrgam]

Are you aware that socialism has failed in every society that has embraced it?

You're right! Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba...

Don't forget Canada