2007-12-19 01:09:14 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not surprised considering the current, pro-corporate monopoly administration.
Notice how neo-cons are often apathetic toward concentrated power.
2007-12-19 01:32:45 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
as a techniques because of the fact the revealed companies are worried if it works do not screw it up for us. opposite to conventional perception the FCC is owned via the media giants and continually have been. The FCC has a board of directors that artwork for the main broadcast companies. some call them lobbyists or particular pastime.
2016-10-02 02:46:57 · answer #2 · answered by beisch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its been monopolized for a while now in two major empires, Clear Channel Communications and Infinity I beleive is the second one. it's not good to have our information given to use by organizations that control what can be said and what cant be said. I'm pretty sure freedom of speech doesnt really applied to the cuss words and insults but we are facing the reality and the main reason why we had freedom of speech to begin with and that was for political views. I dont want to turn the channel and be reminded about soldiers who loose their lives and been called heros as a country..I want the WHOLE story involved. We have been losing this freedom for years now and it seems like we are letting them do it.
2007-12-19 01:28:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a bad idea to have fewer companies in charge of all media in a country. There is too much about that that smacks of facism.
In the 70's and 80's, didn't the govt break up the Bell Telephone monopoly? Why is this being allowed?
2007-12-19 01:18:29 · answer #4 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Keep it up and we'll be like the old USSR with only one news organization like Pravda promoting the party line. It's already so sad, I remember when travelling you used to get different local radio, now you get the same old junk everywhere.
2007-12-19 01:24:35 · answer #5 · answered by ash 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When George Soros buys Fox News, expect the cons to suddenly realize what a misstep this was.
2007-12-19 01:21:02 · answer #6 · answered by St. Tom Cruise 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
just in time to prevent Murdoch from running afoul of the previous rules, following his acquirement of the Wall Street Journal.
how very convenient. that's just what America needs, MORE corporate ownership of MORE diverse media outlets.
2007-12-19 01:21:19 · answer #7 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should fulfill the cons dream of having fewer journalists to ask them questions and in their minds, the fewer media outlets & choices you have, the better.
2007-12-19 01:13:37 · answer #8 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
not a very good idea do you want just one view of the news ? i hope not if you only have one view then they do not report the news they frame the news their way even if it is not the truth look at fox they dont even hide the fact they only tell it if it makes republicans look good
2007-12-19 01:16:34 · answer #9 · answered by yourway692003 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They all just print what ever the AP puts out anyway. What difference will it make?
2007-12-19 01:19:10 · answer #10 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋