http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-63043 The Dangers of Government-Subsidized News — Technology Liberation Front Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:24:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-63043 <p>[...] talked here before about the dangers of a government-subsidized press as a way of “saving [...]</p> [...] talked here before about the dangers of a government-subsidized press as a way of “saving [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-65248 jdfalk Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:48:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-65248 <p>The thinkers you're lambasting have identified the correct problem, but probably the wrong answer.<br><br>The first amendment keeps the press (mostly) free from being controlled by the government -- but not from being controlled by the corporate profit motive. The "free" market has pushed media organizations (and health care, and everything else) towards a never-ending quest to increase short-term profits, with the result that the literate audience most likely to read the news has been shunted aside in favor of catchy, divisive headlines that illuminate nothing. They're not competing to provide the best content, or even the best product; they're competing to have the most valuable ticker symbol on the stock market.<br><br>I think there's some merit to the idea of returning to public funding of public and community broadcasting -- they're basically only alternative voice left among traditional broadcasters these days -- so long as it's actually hands-off, and not the kind of ham-handed control the Bushies attempted. But I agree that it's a model which doesn't (and likely shouldn't) work for the majority.<br><br>Instead, as Clay Shirky pointed out, we need entirely new models.</p> The thinkers you're lambasting have identified the correct problem, but probably the wrong answer.

The first amendment keeps the press (mostly) free from being controlled by the government — but not from being controlled by the corporate profit motive. The “free” market has pushed media organizations (and health care, and everything else) towards a never-ending quest to increase short-term profits, with the result that the literate audience most likely to read the news has been shunted aside in favor of catchy, divisive headlines that illuminate nothing. They're not competing to provide the best content, or even the best product; they're competing to have the most valuable ticker symbol on the stock market.

I think there's some merit to the idea of returning to public funding of public and community broadcasting — they're basically only alternative voice left among traditional broadcasters these days — so long as it's actually hands-off, and not the kind of ham-handed control the Bushies attempted. But I agree that it's a model which doesn't (and likely shouldn't) work for the majority.

Instead, as Clay Shirky pointed out, we need entirely new models.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-61905 jdfalk Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:48:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-61905 <p>The thinkers you're lambasting have identified the correct problem, but probably the wrong answer.<br><br>The first amendment keeps the press (mostly) free from being controlled by the government -- but not from being controlled by the corporate profit motive. The "free" market has pushed media organizations (and health care, and everything else) towards a never-ending quest to increase short-term profits, with the result that the literate audience most likely to read the news has been shunted aside in favor of catchy, divisive headlines that illuminate nothing. They're not competing to provide the best content, or even the best product; they're competing to have the most valuable ticker symbol on the stock market.<br><br>I think there's some merit to the idea of returning to public funding of public and community broadcasting -- they're basically only alternative voice left among traditional broadcasters these days -- so long as it's actually hands-off, and not the kind of ham-handed control the Bushies attempted. But I agree that it's a model which doesn't (and likely shouldn't) work for the majority.<br><br>Instead, as Clay Shirky pointed out, we need entirely new models.</p> The thinkers you're lambasting have identified the correct problem, but probably the wrong answer.

The first amendment keeps the press (mostly) free from being controlled by the government — but not from being controlled by the corporate profit motive. The “free” market has pushed media organizations (and health care, and everything else) towards a never-ending quest to increase short-term profits, with the result that the literate audience most likely to read the news has been shunted aside in favor of catchy, divisive headlines that illuminate nothing. They're not competing to provide the best content, or even the best product; they're competing to have the most valuable ticker symbol on the stock market.

I think there's some merit to the idea of returning to public funding of public and community broadcasting — they're basically only alternative voice left among traditional broadcasters these days — so long as it's actually hands-off, and not the kind of ham-handed control the Bushies attempted. But I agree that it's a model which doesn't (and likely shouldn't) work for the majority.

Instead, as Clay Shirky pointed out, we need entirely new models.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-58922 jdfalk Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:48:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-58922 <p>The thinkers you're lambasting have identified the correct problem, but probably the wrong answer.<br><br>The first amendment keeps the press (mostly) free from being controlled by the government -- but not from being controlled by the corporate profit motive. The "free" market has pushed media organizations (and health care, and everything else) towards a never-ending quest to increase short-term profits, with the result that the literate audience most likely to read the news has been shunted aside in favor of catchy, divisive headlines that illuminate nothing. They're not competing to provide the best content, or even the best product; they're competing to have the most valuable ticker symbol on the stock market.<br><br>I think there's some merit to the idea of returning to public funding of public and community broadcasting -- they're basically only alternative voice left among traditional broadcasters these days -- so long as it's actually hands-off, and not the kind of ham-handed control the Bushies attempted. But I agree that it's a model which doesn't (and likely shouldn't) work for the majority.<br><br>Instead, as Clay Shirky pointed out, we need entirely new models.</p> The thinkers you're lambasting have identified the correct problem, but probably the wrong answer.

The first amendment keeps the press (mostly) free from being controlled by the government — but not from being controlled by the corporate profit motive. The “free” market has pushed media organizations (and health care, and everything else) towards a never-ending quest to increase short-term profits, with the result that the literate audience most likely to read the news has been shunted aside in favor of catchy, divisive headlines that illuminate nothing. They're not competing to provide the best content, or even the best product; they're competing to have the most valuable ticker symbol on the stock market.

I think there's some merit to the idea of returning to public funding of public and community broadcasting — they're basically only alternative voice left among traditional broadcasters these days — so long as it's actually hands-off, and not the kind of ham-handed control the Bushies attempted. But I agree that it's a model which doesn't (and likely shouldn't) work for the majority.

Instead, as Clay Shirky pointed out, we need entirely new models.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-58908 Quotes Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:11:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-58908 <p>You are right my friend, i have been teaching french from a long time, so I could say that!</p> You are right my friend, i have been teaching french from a long time, so I could say that!

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-58906 A2Z Online Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:54:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-58906 <p>Freedom of Expression, Freedom Of Speech, Freedom to Vote, Freedom to Live. <br> <br>All this while I have been thinking; <br><br>» What is Freedom? <br>» Are We Free? <br>» Do we See Reality? <br>» Are We Happy with the not so real stories scripted by our Media, or We really now feel the responsibility to Express, See and Show reality? <br><br>Our Press, Media, Politicians, Business tricoons have a simple belief that WE will always Believe what they want us to Believe. <br><br>But I feel, it’s a high time now to expose and express. <br><br>Let’s be Citizen Journalists:- Right to Express is not only the phrase but the reality. <br><br>Mahatma Gandhi did a Dandi March for Salt Tax because Salt was basic necessity of each and every Citizen, Similarly Right to Speak is basic necessity of every one of us and it has to be heard. <br><br><a href="http://www.A2zonline.in" rel="nofollow">www.A2zonline.in</a> is our small contribution to make our Basic Rights Of Democracy to come to our fellow citizens absolutely Free as We are Free.<br><br>LOGON TO <a href="http://www.a2zonline.in" rel="nofollow">www.a2zonline.in</a> now and Express, Write, Share, Group, Upload what ever you fill could contribute to our Freedom and can open our restricted eyes and minds.<br><br>AND YA ITS ABSOLUTELY FREE..................</p> Freedom of Expression, Freedom Of Speech, Freedom to Vote, Freedom to Live.

All this while I have been thinking;

» What is Freedom?
» Are We Free?
» Do we See Reality?
» Are We Happy with the not so real stories scripted by our Media, or We really now feel the responsibility to Express, See and Show reality?

Our Press, Media, Politicians, Business tricoons have a simple belief that WE will always Believe what they want us to Believe.

But I feel, it’s a high time now to expose and express.

Let’s be Citizen Journalists:- Right to Express is not only the phrase but the reality.

Mahatma Gandhi did a Dandi March for Salt Tax because Salt was basic necessity of each and every Citizen, Similarly Right to Speak is basic necessity of every one of us and it has to be heard.

http://www.A2zonline.in is our small contribution to make our Basic Rights Of Democracy to come to our fellow citizens absolutely Free as We are Free.

LOGON TO http://www.a2zonline.in now and Express, Write, Share, Group, Upload what ever you fill could contribute to our Freedom and can open our restricted eyes and minds.

AND YA ITS ABSOLUTELY FREE………………

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/03/27/shall-we-save-media-by-socializing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-58905 A appreciator of language Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:40:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17608#comment-58905 <p>The á - it stings!<br><br>There is no á in French...the proper character is à.</p> The á – it stings!

There is no á in French…the proper character is à.

]]>