Comments on: Katrina and the Evolution of the U.S. Media http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:00:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3033 Arun Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:22:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3033 Right now, it may not be corporations that are the problem, but rather the government. From Josh Marshall: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006449 <blockquote>At first the evidence was scattered and anecdotal. But now it's pretty clear that a key aim of the Bush administration's takeover of the NOLA situation is to cut off press access to report the story. </blockquote> Right now, it may not be corporations that are the problem, but rather the government.

From Josh Marshall:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006449

At first the evidence was scattered and anecdotal. But now it’s pretty clear that a key aim of the Bush administration’s takeover of the NOLA situation is to cut off press access to report the story.

]]> By: Moshe Rozali http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3032 Moshe Rozali Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:01:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3032 david, We probably understand each other, so we can just let it go... david,

We probably understand each other, so we can just let it go…

]]> By: David http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3031 David Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:14:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3031 Moshe, Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct Govern: To control the actions or behavior of: Control: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. Encourage: To give support to; foster: (definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) "to encourage responsible and independent news media... (to prevent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc." ......."This means regulations..." How can you support something by controlling it? The only thing you need to support is free speech. That is, if someone wants to say something and someone else wants to "regulate" that (by force if necessary, how else?) you put the person who wants to regulate it in jail. It's regulation of the airwaves that causes monopoly (BBC pre 1955 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/22/newsid_3131000/3131477.stm and http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=632782005) For example the Internet is the most unregulated type of news media. Due to this lack of regulation, news delivered on the internet is by far the most diverse source of information, a true "free society". It is the lack of "controlling" and "governing" that has made the internet what it is. Moshe,
Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct
Govern: To control the actions or behavior of:
Control: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.
Encourage: To give support to; foster: (definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/)

“to encourage responsible and independent news media… (to prevent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.” …….”This means regulations…”

How can you support something by controlling it? The only thing you need
to support is free speech. That is, if someone wants to say something and
someone else wants to “regulate” that (by force if necessary, how else?) you put the
person who wants to regulate it in jail. It’s regulation of the airwaves
that causes monopoly (BBC pre 1955
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/22/newsid_3131000/3131477.stm
and
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=632782005)

For example the Internet is the most unregulated type of news media. Due to this lack of regulation, news delivered on the internet is by far the most diverse source of information, a true “free society”. It is the lack of “controlling” and “governing” that has made the internet what it is.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3030 Mark Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:01:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3030 David. That you'd refer to CNN as left-leaning is crazy to me. also, if you think British news is homogeneous, you're not reading/listening to enough of it. David. That you’d refer to CNN as left-leaning is crazy to me. also, if you think British news is homogeneous, you’re not reading/listening to enough of it.

]]> By: Moshe Rozali http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3029 Moshe Rozali Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:07:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3029 Arun, Nice of you to refer to my comment, though I don't see any dictators there, benevolent or otherwise. David, The public good in this case is to encourage responsible and independent news media, otherwise real democracy cannot function. This means regulations (to prvent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.) and it means taxes to support public broadcasting, so that the financial consideration will not be the only consideration. I don't believe this conflicts with "your good" (unless you define that very narrowly, as in "I don't want to pay any taxes")--this is all a small price to pay to have a functioning democracy. Arun,

Nice of you to refer to my comment, though I don’t see any dictators there, benevolent or otherwise.

David,

The public good in this case is to encourage responsible and independent news media, otherwise real democracy cannot function. This means regulations (to prvent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.) and it means taxes to support public broadcasting, so that the financial consideration will not be the only consideration. I don’t believe this conflicts with “your good” (unless you define that very narrowly, as in “I don’t want to pay any taxes”)–this is all a small price to pay to have a functioning democracy.

]]> By: David http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3028 David Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:02:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3028 Comment 12, I'd like to ask you: What exactly is the "public good" with regard to news media? What if the "public good" conflicts with "my good"? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, sorry if that appears to be the case). Comment 12,
I’d like to ask you: What exactly is the “public good” with regard to news media? What if the “public good” conflicts with “my good”? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic, sorry if that appears to be the case).

]]> By: David http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3027 David Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:52:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3027 "As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to change how they behave." Yes we do have a right (my point 1 above concerned imposing forced regulations on networks). Because we are paying them. Their fate is tied to the desires of the viewing public. Their subjective behaviour is therefore a result of our behaviour, not the cause. To ensure objective networks one must first create an objective public. How do you create an objective public? By ensuring free speech. The American people love to hear an opinion (just look at the sports shows on ESPN!, you never get Alan Hansen talking like that!) and respect your opinion much more than in other countries I've been to. America is the home of free speech and the country most dedicated to it's protection. And that's why, (crazy as it might sound), American networks (taken as a whole) are more objective than English networks. What do I mean by this. I mean, if you want a left leaning opinion it is available (CNN), if you want a right leaning opinion it is available (FOX). You could watch them both and come up with an objective opinion (which is what I do actually). In England you have quite homogenous opinions across the networks. Even the conservative party has to cloak their ideals in left-leaning jargon. "It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments," Subvert: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subvert. Absolutely not. I'm just trying to debate with you. Sometimes I just don't understand what you mean and would like a more explicit version of your opinion. "Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy "news" that doesn't get to the facts?" I have no clue what you mean by this. I love facts. “As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make
companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to
change how they behave.”

Yes we do have a right (my point 1 above concerned imposing forced
regulations on networks). Because we are paying them. Their fate is tied
to the desires of the viewing public. Their subjective behaviour is
therefore a result of our behaviour, not the cause. To ensure objective
networks one must first create an objective public. How do you create an
objective public? By ensuring free speech. The American people love to hear an opinion (just look at the sports shows on ESPN!, you never get Alan Hansen talking like that!) and respect your opinion much more than in other countries I’ve been to. America is the home of free speech and the country most dedicated to it’s protection. And that’s why, (crazy
as it might sound), American networks (taken as a whole) are more
objective than English networks. What do I mean by this. I mean, if you
want a left leaning opinion it is available (CNN), if you want a right
leaning opinion it is available (FOX). You could watch them both and come
up with an objective opinion (which is what I do actually). In England
you have quite homogenous opinions across the networks. Even the conservative party has to cloak their ideals in left-leaning jargon.

“It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments,”

Subvert: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subvert. Absolutely not. I’m just trying to debate with you. Sometimes I just don’t understand what you mean and would like a more explicit version of your opinion.

“Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy “news” that doesn’t
get to the facts?”

I have no clue what you mean by this. I love facts.

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3026 Arun Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:48:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3026 The radio spectrum is not private property and so in assigning spectrum to private entities, the public, via the government also required the private entities to fulfill some responsibilities. It is every citizen's right to demand that the broadcast media fulfill those obligations. To the extent rights-of-way used by cable companies were obtained from railroads and roads that in turn were obtained by eminent domain, the cable companies too have obligations to fulfill, and every citizen has the right to demand that. To Moshe Rozali's point - free markets, democracy with division of power, etc., are good because they promote accountability. The enlightened dictator may provide much better government than a democracy; but the problem is that accountability is lost, and inevitably corruption follows. The rightwing has forgotten accountability and simply regards property rights as primary. Let us remember that intellectual property rights is a created right and does not exist without government; and property rights are a convention or derived rights, like privacy rights, that in general hold because they are necessary for upholding other rights. The radio spectrum is not private property and so in assigning spectrum to private entities, the public, via the government also required the private entities to fulfill some responsibilities. It is every citizen’s right to demand that the broadcast media fulfill those obligations.

To the extent rights-of-way used by cable companies were obtained from railroads and roads that in turn were obtained by eminent domain, the cable companies too have obligations to fulfill, and every citizen has the right to demand that.

To Moshe Rozali’s point – free markets, democracy with division of power, etc., are good because they promote accountability. The enlightened dictator may provide much better government than a democracy; but the problem is that accountability is lost, and inevitably corruption follows. The rightwing has forgotten accountability and simply regards property rights as primary. Let us remember that intellectual property rights is a created right and does not exist without government; and property rights are a convention or derived rights, like privacy rights, that in general hold because they are necessary for upholding other rights.

]]> By: Moshe Rozali http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3025 Moshe Rozali Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:24:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3025 I think there is a deeper issue here- the consumer product/service model is fine and good for many things, but cannot be taken to be the only game in town. There are certainly some things that cannot work this way (emergency management, news, police, and also science...). That's why there should be strong institutions with the mandate to protect the public good against narrowly defined interests. The widely believed illusion that one can manage absolutely everything by a free market strategy, and still have a livable life is just that, an illusion. I am not sure that news was always thought of as a consumer product, rather than a public service, but sadly that seems to be the case now. I think there is a deeper issue here- the consumer product/service model is fine and good for many things, but cannot be taken to be the only game in town. There are certainly some things that cannot work this way (emergency management, news, police, and also science…). That’s why there should be strong institutions with the mandate to protect the public good against narrowly defined interests. The widely believed illusion that one can manage absolutely everything by a free market strategy, and still have a livable life is just that, an illusion.

I am not sure that news was always thought of as a consumer product, rather than a public service, but sadly that seems to be the case now.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/comment-page-1/#comment-3024 Mark Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:00:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/05/katrina-and-the-evolution-of-the-us-media/#comment-3024 It is my right as a consumer to air my feelings about the news organizations and if enough people do it, they will change their behavior because it is in their interest to do so. I don't want them to represent my political views. I want them to be objective and hard-hitting - to ask the difficult questions. It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments, as opposed to what I'm actually writing. What I'm asking for isn't difficult to understand and shouldn't be a left-wing ideal. Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy "news" that doesn't get to the facts? As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to change how they behave. It is my right as a consumer to air my feelings about the news organizations and if enough people do it, they will change their behavior because it is in their interest to do so. I don’t want them to represent my political views. I want them to be objective and hard-hitting – to ask the difficult questions.

It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments, as opposed to what I’m actually writing. What I’m asking for isn’t difficult to understand and shouldn’t be a left-wing ideal. Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy “news” that doesn’t get to the facts?

As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to change how they behave.

]]>