but there's some interesting stuff there; and I liked the point about copyright.
Thanks!
My only point about cable "monopolies" is that three companies have about 80% of the market, and the rest is incredibly fragmented. Bloomingdale, MI even has its own "nationalized" (countyized? Heh) *phone* and DSL network. They are not a part of SBC as is the rest of the state.
None of these things are monopolies. If Comcast Cable has a monopoly in Michigan, say, then it is entirely a product of the state of Michigan. We have state referenda in Michigan: if people were truly sick of Comcast, one vote could push them out. Most people have a choice of cable broadband or SBC DSL. Michigan could even pass a law requiring that Comcast sell broadband separate from cable television, if it liked.
If you were one of the minority who can't stand Comcast's offerings (including BBC America, nudge nudge) then anyone can stick a 2 foot dish in their front yard and get satellite digital television (also comes with BBC America, heh). My mom has it. It even comes with a TiVo/tuner (which my mom, a raging non-techie, loves).
What kind of damn monopolists are these "media barons"? They seem to be incompetent.
And there are many more crimes I'm happy to lay at their feet that are/were paid for by our mandatory TV License fee (even just the thought of "Eastenders" makes my teeth grind).
But, the BBC also provided us with "Fawlty Towers", Victoria Wood, "Mastermind", French & Saunders, "The League of Gentlemen", "The Office", "The Old Grey Whistle Test", Alan Partridge, lots of David Attenborough documentaries, those costume dramas that I don't actually watch, but I've heard are pretty good ...
Heh. For me, the Golden Age of American television was not the Fifties, but the Seventies: "Shogun", "The Winds of War", "War and Remembrance", "Roots". All those great miniseries, uh, -es, which you Brits (Anglo/Scots or otherwise ;-) ) call serials. Fantastic TV. All privately produced.
These days, of course, much of the TV series action is on cable channels: "Battlestar Galactica" (Sci-Fi Channel and Sky One), "The Sopranos" (HBO) et alia. In the old days, the Three (ABC/NBC/CBS) were leery of a miniseries that would interrupt their regular serial programming. Now that choice has expanded, our choices have expanded with them.
But really: would "Fawlty Towers" never have been made in Britain unless subsidized? Does government really need to regulate our electronic press to ensure "The Office" gets made?
I don't watch TV these days and so, yeah, there's a part of me that does sort of resent paying for the privilege of owning a set merely to watch DVDs on, but, at the same time, I still kind of like the fact that there's a TV station (the license fee also pays for BBC radio) that doesn't rely on commercial revenues and remains advert-free.
Yes, the infamous TV tax. "Vivian: eat the telly!"
And that is your taste, which I understand. But my point is not to compare tax-based/fee-based/ad-based models. My favorite idea is a channel that has minimal ads and a small fee.
My contention with McChesney is that he truly thinks the ad people run television. (No doubt GM paid for the CBS News segment where they strapped explosives on a GMC light pick-up to ensure the "manufacturer's defect" would display on cue. And how much ad revenue did the RNC pay CBS for Dan Rather's infamous fake-but-accurate "documents" on GWB's National Guard career?)
Well, what about newspapers? They run on ads. And magazines? Do we regulate and control them all?
What about books? Do we anti-trust Barnes & Nobles, Borders and Books-a-Million?
McChesney's vision is frightening. He would throw away freedom and the market for some Orwellian, government Fairness Committee.
Hi there!
but there's some interesting stuff there; and I liked the point about copyright.
Thanks!
My only point about cable "monopolies" is that three companies have about 80% of the market, and the rest is incredibly fragmented. Bloomingdale, MI even has its own "nationalized" (countyized? Heh) *phone* and DSL network. They are not a part of SBC as is the rest of the state.
None of these things are monopolies. If Comcast Cable has a monopoly in Michigan, say, then it is entirely a product of the state of Michigan. We have state referenda in Michigan: if people were truly sick of Comcast, one vote could push them out. Most people have a choice of cable broadband or SBC DSL. Michigan could even pass a law requiring that Comcast sell broadband separate from cable television, if it liked.
If you were one of the minority who can't stand Comcast's offerings (including BBC America, nudge nudge) then anyone can stick a 2 foot dish in their front yard and get satellite digital television (also comes with BBC America, heh). My mom has it. It even comes with a TiVo/tuner (which my mom, a raging non-techie, loves).
What kind of damn monopolists are these "media barons"? They seem to be incompetent.
And there are many more crimes I'm happy to lay at their feet that are/were paid for by our mandatory TV License fee (even just the thought of "Eastenders" makes my teeth grind).
Heh. "Never saw it, don't particularly care to."
"They're whores."
"I'm in."
But, the BBC also provided us with "Fawlty Towers", Victoria Wood, "Mastermind", French & Saunders, "The League of Gentlemen", "The Office", "The Old Grey Whistle Test", Alan Partridge, lots of David Attenborough documentaries, those costume dramas that I don't actually watch, but I've heard are pretty good ...
Heh. For me, the Golden Age of American television was not the Fifties, but the Seventies: "Shogun", "The Winds of War", "War and Remembrance", "Roots". All those great miniseries, uh, -es, which you Brits (Anglo/Scots or otherwise ;-) ) call serials. Fantastic TV. All privately produced.
These days, of course, much of the TV series action is on cable channels: "Battlestar Galactica" (Sci-Fi Channel and Sky One), "The Sopranos" (HBO) et alia. In the old days, the Three (ABC/NBC/CBS) were leery of a miniseries that would interrupt their regular serial programming. Now that choice has expanded, our choices have expanded with them.
But really: would "Fawlty Towers" never have been made in Britain unless subsidized? Does government really need to regulate our electronic press to ensure "The Office" gets made?
I don't watch TV these days and so, yeah, there's a part of me that does sort of resent paying for the privilege of owning a set merely to watch DVDs on, but, at the same time, I still kind of like the fact that there's a TV station (the license fee also pays for BBC radio) that doesn't rely on commercial revenues and remains advert-free.
Yes, the infamous TV tax. "Vivian: eat the telly!"
And that is your taste, which I understand. But my point is not to compare tax-based/fee-based/ad-based models. My favorite idea is a channel that has minimal ads and a small fee.
My contention with McChesney is that he truly thinks the ad people run television. (No doubt GM paid for the CBS News segment where they strapped explosives on a GMC light pick-up to ensure the "manufacturer's defect" would display on cue. And how much ad revenue did the RNC pay CBS for Dan Rather's infamous fake-but-accurate "documents" on GWB's National Guard career?)
Well, what about newspapers? They run on ads. And magazines? Do we regulate and control them all?
What about books? Do we anti-trust Barnes & Nobles, Borders and Books-a-Million?
McChesney's vision is frightening. He would throw away freedom and the market for some Orwellian, government Fairness Committee.
I despise him.
Reply
Leave a comment