Truth in News - Progress in Iraq?

[Bubba136]

TD wrote:

To verify my statment, I only have to find one news channel that doesn't do this.

In order to recognize which news organizations are reporting the news truthfully, you havet to know what the truth is, to begin with. And, unless you're present and have eyewitness exposure, how does one decide which reports are true and which are slanted?

[genebujold]

So what? I am an highly educated individual who can think for himself. I can tell what is right and what is bogus.

You as an educated individual should be to tell right from wrong. Who cares if Murdoch wants to aquire all of the news outlets? Let him! That is freedom and pure capitalism at work here.

When I say "YOU" I am talking about everyone as a whole, not just Dr. Shoe.

Unless, you don't want to think for yourself and believe everything that you hear and read from various media sources?

I think Dr. Shoe's point is that if he continues buying up news services there won't be "various media sources," just one (or perhaps a lot of large ones owned by the same parent corporation and all with the same spin, and a bunch of little ones without much voice).

[j-turbo2002]

Yes Gene, I understand all of that.

I then tried to explain to Dr. Shoe that he should not worry because:

You are right to some extent.

However, when you think about this logically, the odds of one person owning all the news media outlets are extremely small.

You would probably be more likely to win the lottery or to be hit by lightning.

Therefore, you really don't have to worry about checks and balances.

[Nicole]

CNN is referred to and the "Clinton News Network" by almost everyone here in the USA because of it's outlandish insistance to approve of everything Clinton did, even lie under oath.

Strange- I've never heard anyone, conservative, moderate or liberal, refer to it as such; at least until I read this thread.

[j-turbo2002]

Everyone has been calling CNN the "Clinton News Network" for quite some time now. For the past six years now, everyone that I know (and have met) has been referring to CNN as the "Clinton News Network". I thought that it was just a common phrase that everyone knew of. I guess that I was wrong.

[Bubba136]

This is surprising since everyone says that people in California set the trends....and the rest of the world play's catch up. Oh well, judging from the bent movie star crowd....they just loved Clinton, and he even thought he was one of them ..... it would be sacrilegious for anyone to even think that way.

[Nicole]

This is surprising since everyone says that people in California set the trends....and the rest of the world play's catch up. Oh well, judging from the bent movie star crowd....they just loved Clinton, and he even thought he was one of them ..... it would be sacrilegious for anyone to even think that way.

Charmed- I don't hang out with the 'bent movie star crowd', and plenty of my associates, notably my in-laws, can't stand Clinton.

Californians certainly don't set all the trends, and I am fairly certain that most of us recognise this basic fact. For example, it was Texas that made it cool to actually like the man who is currently our president. It has been the New England states who have taken a more progressive attitude towards gay marriage.

I personally call CNN the Caveman News Network, but that's just a silly Flintstones movie reference.

[genebujold]

j-turbo2002, how can you say the odds are small when he already owns 40% and rising fast?

[j-turbo2002]

j-turbo2002, how can you say the odds are small when he already owns 40% and rising fast?

I am not trying to dodge your question. I am trying to find some credible numbers.

From where does the 40% and rising fast come from?

How did "they" come up with 40% and rising?

What have "they" based this upon?

[j-turbo2002]

In 2001, this was the breakdown:

The Murdoch Family owns 30% of NEWS CORPORATION. How much of the worlds media do they really own? Well, I am still searching for some good numbers.

I believe the big media conglomerate is AOL Time Warner.

Sources of Information:

The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/

[j-turbo2002]

Let's just use the 2001 figures.

Lets suppose the Murdoch Family were to take over the worlds media outlets in the next few years.

This would mean that they would have buy out (or merge with) the other big nine media conglomerates.

We are talking about some serious money here. We are talking about a figure of at least $500 billion or more.

Murdoch owns 30% of NEWS CORPORATION, a company that earned $12 billion in revenue in 2001.

Now, I would love to know the name of the bank that is going to lend him that kind of money.

I am not saying that this is not possible. However, Murdoch himself would probably not live to see it happen. It is something that would take quite a number of years to achieve.

Also, considering the fact that media revenues go up and down like a rollercoaster; Murdoch's own corporation may not be here in 5 to 10 years. Who knows, it may be broken up into different conglomerates (throught buyouts and mergers) that are all owned by different owners.

This is why I say that the odds are small.

Yet, then again, who knows? Anything is possible these days.

Perhaps Murphy's Law will take effect here?

[Bubba136]

Not to worry about this happening, people. The inference here is that if one person/company/entity controls all of the newspapers and media outlets in the world, they could control what the public read. While that might be true in theroy with commercial outlets it doesn't take into account government media and the Internet, which is where many people get their news from these days. I believe that with the increasing control by one organization more and more people would quit buying their newspapers or listening/watching their radio and TV programming. Profits would diminish and ultimately disappear, causing them to "go bust."