The battle over broadcast TV and the Internet.

Now that I'm free of TV, it seems I'm not the only one who sees its demise coming rather soon -

 

The TV Business Is Toast

 

This article speaks to the heart of the two major battles going on over the Internet. This is because one finds that the same media companies involved in the TV battle are the same ones with a stake in the future of the Internet.

 

1. This pending TV demise is precisely the reason the phone and cable companies are desperately trying to maintain control over the 'pipes' and effectively charge people for various 'speeds'. Without it, they won't be able to maintain control over content.

 

2. And without that control, all the TV business models for the broadcast TV/media companies (both network and cable) will fall apart, as the article suggests. Don't think for a second the media companies don't have a stake in that - recall Barry Diller recently was quoted as saying the only thing from keeping the Internet from being tiered was a 'billing system'. His idea is to turn the Internet into one big store for media companies’ content.

 

As long as the Internet evolution stays out of the hands of industry, government and the military - it won't go the way of broadcast TV.

Dislike tobacco companies? What about life/health insurance companies?

Well if you dislike one or the other, why not combine your loathing and get it all done in one shot?

 

"The study found that the American insurance company Prudential Financial, Inc. has $264.3 million invested in U.S. cigarette makers, including Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. The Canadian company Sun Life Financial, Inc., which sells life, health and disability insurance, owns over $1 billion worth of stock in tobacco interests, including $890 million in Philip Morris. Prudential Plc, which sells health and disability coverage, has $1.38 billion invested in two tobacco companies, including British American Tobacco."

 

(Sources - http://www.prwatch.org/node/8406; http://www.theprovince.com/Health/Canadian+life+health+insurers+investing+heavily+tobacco+companies/1664704/story.html)

 

Wait, it gets better -

 

"Insurers exclude smokers from coverage or, more commonly, charge them higher premiums. Insurers profit -- and smokers lose -- twice over."

 

And yet there are still people in this country who question the need for a national health care plan.

 

Maybe it's because these private companies make it pretty obvious that their primary goal is profit. And without any motivation to offer competitive comprehensive services, they become monoplies and conglomerates and do things like this.

Stupid things said by corporate media figures.

(some day I should just create a list and compile them)

 

Every now and then, people in the corporate media stray off script and reveal just what stupid thoughts percolate in their heads.

 

And then ... sometimes people like this say things like this -

 

"if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

 

or ...

 

"The fact is, Americans in America have been safe since 9/11, almost the whole length of G2's term as president, and for that we should be thankful."

 

See how in trying to defend Bush/Cheney, how stupidity just flows? As difficult as it is, let's put aside the fact that he's essentially advocating US Armed Forces personel murder US Congressional representatives. What he fails to either understand or accept is that  9/11 happened on Bush's watch - that means he and his adminstration failed the United States.

 

But why am I surprised? His endnote sums it all up -

 

David Feherty is a golf analyst for CBS and the author of four books, including, most recently, An Idiot for All Seasons.

 

Mr. Feherty,

 

I suggest you go back to your commentary for what ever it is you do. Leave judging W and his impact on the world to more quailfied and honest people, like those that aren't right-wingers, or too limited in their thinking.

 

 

"Liberalish"

I've noticed over the years that media celebrities have created a perception that they espouse progressive views, are liberal or left-wing, but in actuality harbor views that often aren't. Yet they come off that way, perhaps as a way to be perceived as cool or hip. Or just generate copy.

 

What I've often observed in such folks is how much they talk a great deal publicly about themselves and their lives, even going so far as to craft this persona in the media. People buy into them (almost like a brand) and start actually believing these individuals are what they make themselves out to be.

 

Often times these folks in reality are really clueless on most of the issues they talk about. And if that all it were, then perhaps it would amount to not much, even nothing.

 

Where am I going with this?

 

As someone who harbors views that stray into the left-wing, it's somewhat disappointing that often times, people like this who craft such 'liberalish' personas, often times are not very liberal at all. Worse, by being to boisterous and public and even critical of actual liberal points of view, they actually bring down the movement to a large degree.

 

I'm reminded of an event from a few years back about how during the run-up to the second Iraq War, many people like myself spoke up and criticized both the Bush government for their overt militarism and selling of a war (as well as Democrats for refusing to stand up to them), that frankly should have never happened. Often times ‘liberalish’ media figures used their considerable influence to deem us 'squish-brains'.

 

The war came and went. On no, it's six years and a day from 'Mission Accomplished', and troops are still there. The only WMDs found were the ones the Americans brought with them.

 

Yet these 'liberalish' folks still exist to this very day, continuing to spew out their 'liberalish' rhetoric, without any concern or care for the damage they could've prevented. Heck they even try to turn around and pretend like they actually were somewhat critical all along, even launching organizations to impeach Bush and all that.

 

Perhaps if they actually took a real stand, carefully thought out the issues, and avoided demonizing a large segment of their audience, maybe, just maybe, a terrible war that costs thousands of lives, billions of dollars, could've been prevented.

 

So be wary of those folks who in all their snark, are trying to claim some point of view. Often times, all they really care about is the view, not the point. And in keeping with the facts, you'll find that snark usually is all they have.

 

Sincerely,

 

Culture Vulture

 

P.S. Unlike Tom, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any remorse or sincere apology from such people.

 

 

 

 

Banana Republicans

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/bond-no-you-guys-are-running-a-banana-republic.php

"

McCain: "In Banana Republics they prosecute people for actions they didn't agree with under previous administrations."

Bond: "This whole thing about punishing people in past administrations reminds me more of a Banana Republic than the United States of America. We don't criminally prosecute people we disagree with when we change office. There are lots of questions that could have been asked of the Clinton administration failing to recognize the war on terror. They did not. The Bush administration went forward, and that's the way our country should. The President said he was going to be forward looking and now he has opened up the stab in the back."

"

Some have suggested these folks are employing double-speak, that they really can hold contradictory ideas in their head like that. I disagree.

It's not double speak. It's projection. They know what they are doing and saying.

These right-wingers in the form of Banana Republicans took over the country and ran it into the ground. Now when there is an opportunity to hold those of them who broke the law accountable, their defenders try to twist the meaning in an attempt to poison the public debate (with the media's help).

The best way to respond is with the facts wherever and whenver possible. And not lose focus. Never let a distortion or lie go unchallenged.

The more I see stories like this ...

... the more I'm convinced that Pay TV (either through satelite or cable, or online) is just not worth watching ...

 

 

Comcast Station Goes All Out To Push Laptop Security Software

Clients: Trend Micro Software

Release Date: September 2006

Aired By: 1 station

Disclosed By: No stations

From the Department of Unintended Irony: A cable newscast devotes 86 seconds to a report about identity theft while stealing the identity of the segment's true authors.

On September 28, 2006, CN8—the Comcast Network—warned viewers that laptops were becoming a increasingly big target for criminals, not for the resale value but for the sensitive personal information often found on the hard drive. Fortunately, said CN8 consumer reporter Janet Zappala, "there are ways to keep your laptop away from the bad guys."

...

Update: In April 2009, former CN8 reporter Janet Zappala contacted the Center for Media and Democracy to state that: "I am an award-winning journalist who has always taken the utmost pride in my work. ... [At CN8] at the time all of this transpired, we had a very limited staff with very limited resources and were trying to do the best with what little we had. ... We were not set up at the time with our own station website; therefore the only way we could help our viewers find more information on a given topic was to give the only website available. I never endorsed any products or companies."

...

Maybe it's just me, but video news releases (VNRs) and audio news releases (ANRs) appear to be nothing more than propaganda created by public relations firms at the behest of corporations in order to sell products.

In other words, they are not news. And if this is any indicator, perhaps the American public is finally catching on.

People in the corporate media who continually say moronic things.

"WILL'S GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT"

No, he's not getting punished at all. That he's still published after what is a career of lying about just about anything, is testament to that.

Recall his last article about global warming. There's was a lot of outcry over the inaccuracies in it. But what consequence of that did Mr. Will receive?

He publishes this article.

There's a very good reason for it. Controversy, even if self-induced, generates copy.

The Washington Post knows this.

The larger question for me becomes ->

How does one motivated in implementing real and positive change - on issues like this and others - function in a dynamic where the debate is largely muddied by this kind of chatter?

Should I simply ignore what people like Mr. Will and the corporate media say? Should I encourage others to do the same? After all, these people and their Right-wing/Conservative movement isn't in power. After all, if they keep repeating the same lies about the same issues over and over again, what is the point of having places like Media Matters repeatedly correct, us on the Left continually upset of the distortions in the media being dropped on the public?

Or, must people like me continually come up to post our responses to such distortions as a way to clean up debate? My problem with this is that the Left still doesn't have an effective voice in debates over issues like Global Warming, Iraq, Afghanistan, Economic issues, Gun Control, etc. Our voices aren't very loud in the larger medium of the public debate - those voices are muted by the larger corporate media. And even when they are heard, they are often demonized (Krugman called shrill).

My thinking is we should be concentrating our attention towards those in power, and working to ensure that the right solutions to the problems we all face are implemented. Obama has been elected, and the Democratic Party has control over Congress, but what is the point of having power if one doesn't use it for good?