We need to think Media reform

[AnIndependentTexan]

We need to think of a way were MEDIA can not call elections. We need to be creative, but we also need to think of how GOP could counter it OR pervert it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteppingRazor]

2. No, we don't

I'm not a big fan of our current failures in the mainstream media, but inhibiting freedom of the press just because the press is failing will not cure anything and will, in fact, do irreparable harm.

[Blue in the face]

3. Amen

It's not about stifling the media, it's about cutting them loose from the corporate corruption that filters reality into censored political spin.

I say we go back to Teddy Roosevelt days and bust up all the monopolies that threaten our democracy. Get rid of Fannie Mae, Citigroup, the Carlyle Group, GE, etc and make them play by the rules again, not just pay off politicians to exempt them.

[The Spirit of JFK]

4. Didn't they just all agree to not do exit polling?

Are you looking for MEDIA reform....or some sort of election reform that would make the media a much smaller factor in looking atand reporting results?

[jmowreader]

5. That's not the media reform we need

When Rush Limbaugh can call a Democrat a traitor just because he's not a Republican and not worry about rebuttal...
and Sean Hannity can call him a traitor and not worry about rebuttal...
and O'Reilly, Coulter, Ingraham, Doktor Laura and all the other reich-wingers can do the same with not a worry in the world that someone will stand up and say, "prove it" or--worse, in their view--call them damn liars...

we have a problem with the media far beyond their ability to predict election results.

During this election cycle, the Republicans put out a brochure bearing a picture of the Bible with the word "BANNED" written across it and a picture of a man putting a wedding ring on another man's hand with "APPROVED" written on that. Now, if any news program with a reasonable viewership would have brought in the person who designed the ad, the person who approved it and George Bush, held up the brochure and asked a simple question: "Are you completely full of shit or only 95 percent full?" the GOP would have been finished right then.

You will notice that it didn't happen.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

6. we need the fairness doctrine returned

(I think that's what it was called). It was overturned when Reagan was prez - but if it were brought back, then maybe we wouldn't have to deal w/some of these jerks, making these claims as they do.

[RagingInMiami]

7. I think it's too late for media reform

Now that Bush is back in office, expect the FCC to further deregulate the media, allowing companies to own several newspapers, TV and radio stations in one market. Pretty soon, we'll be getting our news from about three companies that not only control the media in this country, but abroad as well.
When I started as a newspaper reporter seven years ago, the trend was just starting to get bad, but we still had competition, which is what makes newspapers want to get the "scoop". The last newspaper I worked at was the Arizona Republic, the largest paper in Arizona, which at the time, was owned by a family, like the way all papers were at one point.
But Gannett, which owns USA Today as well as a TV station in Phoenix, bought them and killed our competitive spirit. In the industry, Gannett is known as McNews because of their cookie-cutter approach to news. They wouldn't even touch this election fraud story with a ten-foot pole.
Last I heard, they were trying to buy the East Valley Tribune, a smaller paper based out of the Phoenix-metropolitan area which we used to consider competition.
If it wasn't for the internet, American people would be less informed than they already are. It's a sad situation.

[jmowreader]

10. That's exactly what it was called

The other thing we need to reinstate is Carter-era media ownership limits.

Back in the day, you could own in one market:

one television station, one AM radio station and one FM radio station

- OR -

one morning and one evening newspaper, if I recall correctly.

- OR -

one weekly newspaper.

I think you could own both papers because they realized newspaper presses are very expensive and the ROI ain't there unless the cylinders are turning 24/7, but you needed separate staffs of writers and editors to work on them. There were also cumulative numbers--you could own only a certain number of media entities period.

Also, each television and radio station had to devote a certain amount of the broadcast day to news, and commercials could be no longer than 15 minutes.

Now look at the situation we have: you can own something like one-third of the outlets in an area. Clear Channel and Cumulus, the two big ones, own hundreds of stations each. Newspapers are as bad--and it's not just Gannett. In North Idaho, Duane Hagadone owns every newspaper from Lewiston to the Canadian Border except for the St. Maries Gazette-Record, and he doesn't want that one. Hagadone made his money in the logging business and went into tourism; his papers consistently come down on the side of logging and tourism.

This, and a thousand more examples, is why we gotta get back to Carter's media ownership rules.

[From the south]

8. Many on the right agree

I have many friends on the right, they all think the media should be prohibited from calling any states or showing any results until all the polls (including those in hawaii) are closed

[newyawker99]

9. Hi From the south!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: