Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We need media reform !

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:19 AM
Original message
We need media reform !
That should be the #1 priority of the new administration. Rupert Murdoch should not have the power to buy up all the TV stations and newspapers in this country. We have to realize that a corporate media is not necessarily in the best interest of our nation or our people. We want a wide chorus of voices and opinions in our papers and over our airwaves. We need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and we need an FCC that has its eyes open. We do not need the Sinclairs of the world trying to determine election outcomes. There is so much that needs to be done about assuring that we have a free press in the future and that the airwaves remain in the hands of the people - not the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grannylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. We need Powell's kid outta the FCC....they are taking no action against
Sinclair, surprise surprise....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VoteJohn04_com Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
33. Screw the media!

They aren't taking action? Surprise Surprise... indeed!

I believe that there was a time...
A LONG TIME AGO...IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY...

That the media was there to SERVE the people!

(Kind of like politicians...public servants...riiiiight)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political_Junkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah we do!
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I would think once the new administration makes it into office, after all the dirty tricks, they would see for themselves that it would be in their own best interest as well as ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. re: Media Reform - Things to Think About
Good topic and I'm glad you brought this up. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time now, and wondering how this problem (I see it as a problem, others may not) could be solved.

I believe media consolidation is a bad thing, not only because of the willful distortions, and lack of diversity in our media, but also because it has led to this theatrical sideshow that we call the "news." Television news pretends to be broadcast "journalism" but in reality, it is not journalism, imho.

This evening I heard Greg Palast on the Mike Malloy Show on Air America Radio talking about getting a phone call from some people over at CBS asking him how it was possible for him to dig up all these details on each of his stories. They wanted to know how he did it. Well, Greg told them that he has a team of investigative journalists who work behind the scenes, that it wasn't just a "one man show." For example, for one story, it may take up to 70 hours of investigation before the story is ever written. CBS is a commercial enterprise, a for-profit endeavor. For CBS to do the kind of journalism that Greg Palast does for the BBC, which is a non-profit enterprise, it would cost them too much money. They can't afford it, according to Palast, and he may be right. I'm not so sure.

I'd like to pose some questions to everyone here now, with regards to this topic of media reform. Feel free to bookmark this thread and come back to it to respond after you've spent some time thinking about it.

1) Who would you consider to be a good investigative journalist? (You may list as many people as you like, you don't have to pick just one.)

2) What steps do you think need to be taken to reform the media? (Feel free to elaborate with your ideas, add links to interesting articles, or whatever.)

3) How can we ensure that reforms that are made are not reversed or weakened in the future by commercial or political interest groups?

Thanks for reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. *kick*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kentuck, Amen & More...
Jumping into this issue gets the adreneline spurting here, but there's many areas that need serious investigation and revision.

First, the Kerry administration MUST kill the current Deregulation bill that Michael Powell rammed through the FCC last spring and is now sitting in the courts that will allow Sinclair and others to maintain their large over-the-air television holding cross the country and to get even more stations. The immediate effects on Sinclair would be devestating and a reason, IMHO, they're going so over the top for their manchild. If he loses they're farked.

Next, the 1996 Telecommunications Bill must be reviewed as it was supposed to be in 2001 and wasn't. This took away the power of the local communities to demand specific programming and services from their cable operator and enabled radio corporations to expand virtually destroy all local radio.

Finally, we need a Justice Department with some balls that would investigate the financial dealing and holdings of these large media corporations. There's a ton of dirt in there and see whose worthy of owning public broadcast properties. But that's a faint, faint dream.

Right now I'll take a Kerry win and let's see what the world likes when we wake up the next day.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Ummmm...
Actually, I am fairly familiar with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I am not sure which sections or provisions would do the things you mention. Unless allowing competition across markets qualifies as enabling "corporations to expand and (sic) virtually destroy all local radio".

Of course all of this talk of the government stepping in and breaking up media conglomerates and regulating the media sounds a bit like government sponsored censorship to me and certainly, in the case of news organizations, an abridgment of the freedom of the press.

Now, don't get me wrong. I agree that the media is all sorts of messed up. And, personally, I always say: 'I don't get my news from the news'. Not so long as ALL news organizations are biased in one way or another.

BUT!!! I also do not think that the government SHOULD be stepping in to do anything about it. It is up to us what we watch and what networks and stations and organizations we support. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Aside from the most appalling sex and violence, I believe that anything should be able to be seen, heard, etc. without interference from the government.

This includes the idiots who want to spread their message that you or I may not agree with. I may not agree with them, but it is not my right to have them silenced! It is only my right to ignore them.

What all of the rhetoric in this thread ends up sounding like is: 'I don't agree with some of the things the media is spreading and while I have the choice not to listen or watch, I think that someone should do something so that no one else listens or watches either.'

That is the same sort of behavior I see condemned here when it is done by the Republicans.

Sorry, but keep the damn government out of my life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I think what we have right now is government censorship
Edited on Sat Oct-16-04 02:23 AM by evilqueen
When the FCC can rewrite the rules so that large corporate conglomerates can take over most of the media outlets (look at Sinclair, they own 25% of the market) and present to us, basically, one main viewpoint... isn't that censorship of dissenting viewpoints? Or don't you see it that way?

Take for example the run up to this war we're in. We got how many hours of "shock and awe" vs. how many hours of the "largest peace demonstrations in mankind's history"? We got how many sound bites of "you're either with us or against us" vs. "protest is patriotic"?

The more of your posts I read, the more you seem to always defend the rightwing ideals. Democracy is about having choices, not cowtowing to the corporations. Democracy is about diversity, not fake diversity represented by rich brown people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I agree, up to a point...
There is no doubt that the media is biased. They have agendas that lean one way or another as a company and what they decide to show us is solely based on pure shock value. Hence the reason that we see more violence on the news now than ever before.

The "shock and awe" as you describe it appeals to the animalistic nature in people more than the peace demonstrations. They know that the former creates more of a stir, so to speak, among the vast majority and that is what they are looking for.

Think about it, rush hour traffic, train wreck to the left, peace demonstration to the right and 99% of people will be looking left completely unable to tear their eyes away.

Do I think that is sad? Yes. Do I think that the media in general is mostly wrong? Certainly. Do I think the government should regulate change? Hell no!!! That opens up a can of worms I don't want anything to do with.

I get my news by reading a myriad of sources and forming my opinion from the facts that I can glean and by simply reading between the lines. As for anything else. Honestly, I don't watch much TV anyway. I DO live in Colorado afterall, there are far too many other things to do. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. So if the media is mostly wrong...
and people rely on it to know what's going on... (I know, you don't and I don't, but the vast majority of people do)... should it be left as is to misinform the people thus misusing the public spectrum that they lease from us? Don't they have a responsibility to the people they lease the spectrum from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. No.
Largely the media has the responsibility to entertain. And they seem to do that quite well considering the number of people who park their butts in front of the TV. :)

I believe it is each individuals responsibility to seek out the knowledge they need. If they don't then too bad for them.

I am not responsible for 'educating' you any more than you are responsible for 'educating' me and the media certainly is not responsible for 'educating' anyone.

Besides, who is going to decide what is 'right' to show? You? The Democrats? The Republicans?

I hear the far right cry that the media is too liberal and I hear the far left deny it and cry that the media is too conservative. So, who is right? Will what the media shows be decided by whoever is in power? It seems to me that this somewhat drives the media already, so what are you trying to change?

Accept that the media sucks and move on. :) To try to change it would be like beating your head against a brick wall. The brick wall isn't budging and you will only end up with a headache. :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. LOL
Edited on Sat Oct-16-04 03:49 AM by evilqueen
If the media is liberal, then why would talk radio be filled with conservatives?

Where are the counterpoints to O'Reilly and Hannity and Limbaugh? (Air America Radio doesn't count yet, it's only been on the air less than a year, so they get a break from me.)

How many on this list are liberal?

+ I see a vast untapped market of liberals out here who have proven their ability to spend/consume that isn't being tapped by the current media offerings. Online campaign contributions prove my point, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. I don't want to argue that....
:)

I just label the media as 'idiots' and leave it at that.

But, I think you see what I am saying: based on what you just said, you clearly do not agree that 'the media is liberal', however a significant portion of our country does agree with that and just as significant a portion thinks as you do.

So who is right? You believe you are, they believe they are. I believe you can all argue about it.... I believe I will go skiing. :)

Anyone who wants to turn off the TV or radio and join me in leaving the world behind for a bit is more than welcome! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #29
39. The Internet is my main outlet.
That's been the "saving grace" for me over the last few years... I can access newspapers and just regular people all over the world and hear other viewpoints that I wouldn't have exposure to if I were just relying on television or radio. I also like that it's "interactive" in that it's not just "messages directed at me" and that I can talk back (or type back, in this case).

:) I don't ski anymore... got hurt really bad the last time I went. But I do live near this huge expanse of fresh water and unspoiled wilderness all around. I don't need to go anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. There you go!
I am with you 100% on that! When you can access what you want, when you want and glean the facts and figure it all out yourself without it being 'spoonfed' to you, then YOU are the one in control. Something that I don't believe will ever happen with traditional media.

Sorry to hear about the skiing thing, but you get the idea! Get out there and feel a little sympathy for those who stare at concrete all the time. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #20
45. Time for a Honeymoon...
I believe it is each individuals responsibility to seek out the knowledge they need. If they don't then too bad for them.

Maybe. But the ramifications of that could be dangerous for all, not just them. Frankly, I don't like dumbasses running our country with a finger on the big red button. hehehe

The best thing would be for everyone to take a "walkabout" and see how the rest of the world actually lives. And I don't mean the view you get from a tourist chartered bus. :)

http://www.honeymoonwithmybrother.com / is what I'm talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Actually
... for myself.... I travel extensively around the country and love nothing more than driving and being able to stop in a lot of the smaller towns and talking to the people who live there. Great stuff!!!

Just be careful doing this sort of thing in Montana. The people there are so friendly that you just might end up staying. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Bias Is Not The Issue As Much As Control
Bias is a byproduct. In the case we've witnessed in recent years, it's a bias that is part self-serving (sucking up to a regime that lavishes it's friends with government loopholes and exemptions) and part marketplace (the popularity of the Faux cable network wasn't an aberition, but IMHO it was overblown) and these companies saw a buck to be made in reaching what they saw was a rather affluent and highly loyal "consumer rich" environment.

The people who watch Faux are the ones the Cadillac dealers, large banks, real-estate, Di-Tech, Viagra and so on. Just like how one reality show spawned another, the same went with Faux crap. MSGOP brought in Joey Scarborough and CNNservative went to more "personality" (?) shows instead of hard news. While I the research they used was on that small universe of cable viewers as opposed to the population on the whole, it created a perception that we've had to battle more than this evil regime this year.

I'll be curious if there's a change in the media wind the moment it looks like this regime is a goner. Will they come out of their zombie state like a spell was lifted? Or will they get even more defiant feeling that the electorate is to be held in contempt for making the media look bad. Stay tuned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. My suggestion....
Don't watch. :)

Seriously. Who is making you watch the stuff? No one. You seem to have a good idea of the content of these networks you disagree with. Why? Because you watch it!

Want to save yourself from these 'evil empires'? Stop watching.

Want to save every one else? DON'T!!!! We don't want to be saved!!!

I don't want the Republicans to save me from gays or immorality and I don't want you or anyone else to save me from anything else. Let ME save ME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. Keep Your Loved Ones Close...
Your enemies nearer...

I want to hear the propaganda and be informed of what the other side is hearing and seeing...since I know they won't take the time to see my side. It comes in very useful when engaging people when you can tie them in knots with their own Hannity. LOL.

I don't watch TV exclusively and with the marvels of digital cable, I have more channels than I know what to do with. I work with these channels on in the background, not unlike my mother did listening to the local all-news radio station.

If you let one television network or website bias your view, then that's not their problem, that's yours. (in a generic manner, nothing personal).

To "save ourselves" we must confront...just like Jon Stewart did today as did Al Franken and even Ted Koppel did masterfully last night. We must keep vocal and get louder. We're starting to get our voices heard and we're starting to believe in our own power. Now more than ever we need to watch those who lie and distort and let them know we're watching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Fine, but
If the government steps in and makes all of the media outlets 'tell the truth' then 'your side' and 'the other side' will be getting the same information then, huh?

It sounds like you made a good argument for keeping things the way they are: so you can keep tabs on the bad guys. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Government As Honest Broker...Diversity
For example, the FCC can encourage local groups in gaining access to the airwaves by putting limits on just the license values, not the money a station makes. Right now, the high costs of getting a license is what keeps additional voices from getting on the airwaves...this has nothing to do with programming or who tells the truth or not. It right now tilts to those who have the money have the loudest voices. I'm looking to even the access, not the revenues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Hmmmmm...
An unfortunate reality. Those with the deepest pockets generally win. I am not sure how to change that in a free market system.

Let's say you and I both are given licenses and we start our own TV networks. You have deeper pockets than I do so you are going to be able to create better programming, or at least 'more appealing' programming and do more to create a larger audience. How do I fight that? My general business tactic would be to go the quality route. But, let's be honest, that is not what the majority of society wants. They want flash, they want sensationalism, they want glitz. The quality of the content doesn't matter to them. I am sorry to put it this way, but the majority are simply herd animals looking to the media to tell them what to think.

So, you could change all of the rules and, honestly, I do not believe all-in-all that it would really change anything at all. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. No Utopia...Just Fairness
With all the technology now available, the concept of a mass market as we knew it no longer applies. You'll no longer have TV shows like the ones 20 or 30 years ago that drew 50% of the population...or even 20 or 10 percent. When you look at the cable ratings you see fractions of a share, but these people make money. They found niches in the market and have adjusted their business to serve that audience. Call me naive, but this is how I learned you should do things. Flash & sizzle are short-lived and consume those who must live by it.

I honestly think the majority wants diversity. They want an all wrestling or all shopping or all Jerry Falwell Channel. Fine, just let all those channels develop and let those who want to try to create a new voice not have to fight the government to get started. Now the government is like a brick wall that has gotten thicker and taller in the last decade.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. Absolutely...
I am with you on this.

In fact, I have said for quite some time that we will likely see the end of commercial TV networks within our lifetimes.

The major networks have seen huge losses in viewers. Why else are they showing 13 episodes per season rather than the previous 26 on average? And yet, we see more commercial minutes per hour than ever before?

No, I believe it is only a matter of time before people DO actually have the ability to completely pick and choose (a'la carte) the networks they want to see and commercial television will see its end. But I believe that is something that has been forced by the market and that the government needs to stay far away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. That Horse Is Out Of The Barn
One of the big fears of the large corporations is the future...especially in communications. Just look back at the stuff you have now that you didn't 10 years ago. Look how quick you can access music or news and the variety. The internet is so vast and grew so quickly that the government couldn't get it's meathooks into it...and whatever they try is met by going offshore. No reason broadcasting won't be doing the same thing. The two are very inter-connected.

Another example of the corporate world hating change is what occured to the record companies with file sharing and MP3s. Instead of finding a way to license the technology passively and encourage it's development, it fought it and lost. All the lawsuits and arresting college kids with the latest Slim Shady album isn't gonna do squat. Internet broadcasting can and will do the same to over-the-air broadcasting and they're the big corporations aren't happy with that prospect. Kinda like looking at a huge tidal wave coming straight for you and either you ride the wave or get sucked into the undertow.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. I am not sure
that all of this is necessarily a good idea.

I mean offshore companies broadcasting into our country? Or are you referring more to Internet 'broadcasting'? If the latter, then I don't think that is a bad idea.

As for the MP3 thing, actually record companies DID try to come up with a technology they could license. A whole encryption method and everything. It was cracked the day it was 'put out there' to be tested. :) Just playing devil's advocate a bit on this one because I don't like what the record companies do anyway. I have some familiarity with the business and distributing artists' work and retaining copyright to that work while giving the artist $.28 per CD does not exactly endear me to the record companies' 'plight'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Factcheck, I suggest you take a basic economics class
There you will learn about MONOPOLIES and the danger of completely unregulated capitalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Actually...
I have taken several. And have extensive knowledge and understanding of many economic theories.

As a businessman I am very interested in economics. Well, that may be a bad way to put it because many businessmen these days have very little understanding of even basic economics.

That is beside the point, though.

The dangers of completely unregulated capitalism, as you put it, is not actually a true economic concept. Or should I say, not solely an economic concept.

I believe, based on the free market system, that business should be, by and large completely unregulated unless a company is creating risk to people's lives or acting in a manner so contrary to public interest that it can actually be considered dangerous.

Does this describe the media? Not in any way, shape or form. The media's SOLE purpose is to make money. The way they do this is to get people to watch, listen to or read what they are presenting. The more people they get, the more advertisements they sell. Period. They are not a public service and should not be thought of as such. Therefore, they are not endangering anyone's life nor are they acting contrary to public interest in any manner that could be damaging in any way. Sure you may not agree with their opinions or motives, but that is where any alleged damage ends.

As for monopolies. First, I would posit that there are NO monopolies in the media. Could you point one out perhaps. Even a regional monopoly, or in a single state, or even in a single city. A true monopoly.

Second, are all monopolies bad? Certainly not. Monopolies can actually be an integral part of a healthy economy.

One example; even though it is not a true monopoly. Microsoft Windows. Love it or hate it, it is a necessary 'sort of' monopoly. Why? Simple. If there were even as few as 5 completely different operating systems for computers on the market with fairly equal market share, all software companies would have to write their software for each of these operating systems. No, the costs would not be multiplied by 5, but they would certainly be triple the amount. So, that $50 application just became $150.

Would the cost of the operating system drop? Nope. The competition in the market would not be enough for the price to drop. Actually, the price would likely be higher as the cost per unit sold would increase as volume dropped.

In addition costs for hardware would increase as hardware had to be developed and tested with ALL operating systems in mind.

Like I said, love it or hate it, it is really a necessary monopoly.

But, let's be honest MOST true monopolies are truly a bad thing for the consumer.

Now, to address your baseless remark: "I suggest you take a basic economics class"

I can tell you that I have a far better understanding than anyone taking Economics 101. I made a study of economics while I was in college and spent many an hour discussing various theories and ideas with my professors.

In addition, I spent about 8 years in real world study of economics as I learned the ropes of the corporate world.

Over the last 8 years, I have LIVED economics and have honestly made more money in that time than most people could even dream of making in a lifetime largely due to my understanding of economics.

Try a better response than a simple 'one liner' next time and you may at least get a little respect from someone like me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Monopoly
Charter Communications
It's the only cable company in the entire 906 area code.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Wait...
are we talking media monopolies or communications company monopolies?

If it is the latter, then there are several. I believe we were talking about media monopolies, though.

But, you want some interesting facts about why some cable monopolies were a good thing:

The FCC stepped in and decided that there were too many cable monopolies and decided to regulate this. The first thing they did was to add $.04 to your bill as a fee to compensate them for saving you from the evil cable companies.

A good example is Time Warner cable. At the time this was going on, Time Warner had just bought out Vision Cable in Pinellas County, Florida. They immediately began upgrading the entire system to fiber optic and did not increase people's bills. However, the FCC started a rule where they set median prices for all services and equipment. What this meant for Time Warner subscribers, who were currently paying $.50 for cable box rental, was that Time Warner HAD to raise the price to over $2.00 in order to fall in line with the FCC's pricing rule. Of course, this rule was put in place to make some companies drop their prices.

Another thing the FCC did was to force companies to offer very basic packages that were affordable. In doing so, they also set a pricing rule. Now, Vision Cable (now Time Warner) had been doing this for years. But, it did not exactly meet the FCC's criteria. In fact, they were offering more channels for less money. So, they cut the package to meet the regulation and raised the price. Nice, huh?

Not all situations were like this. In fact, likely most areas saw improvement. But this is a good example that shows that regulation is not always the key.

And, anyway, since we are talking monopolies, Charter Communications may be the only cable company, but can you not get TV via antenna? Can you not get satellite? That would rule out the idea that they are a true monopoly. A monopoly in the cable TV industry, in that area, yes, but not a true monopoly :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
36. Nothing over the air
I live too far out in the boondocks for over-the-air to come in at all. Satellite, maybe, but again, up here we have a problem with reception. I have a sister who has satellite (65 miles away from me) and from what I've seen of the service she gets (freezing or fading out), I wouldn't pay for what she's getting, and there she doesn't have the choice of getting our one cable company's offerings, so she's S.O.L.

Believe it or not, the area I live in... we can't even get cell phones to work properly. Lots of areas where there is just "no coverage". The cell phone providers "say" they cover our area, but the reality on the ground is far different. Many Third World countries have better cell phone coverage than we do (in 906).

But as for media monopolies: Having a choice of 26 (or however many) channels doesn't mean there is no monopoly. One corporation may very well own all 26 channels, either outright or through it's subsidiaries. Finding out who owns what can sometimes be a difficult proposition. That link I posted somewhere here is helpful, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. A little off topic
But, I would never pay for cable if I didn't have to. You are in the same boat as many people (still not a media monopoly though) :)

I have been in very few places in this country where one could not get DirecTV or Dish Network as long as they had a fairly clear shot at the southern sky (even through smallish trees).

Just thought I would toss that out there so that, hopefully, you might have a choice. Because, I have seen situations like yours where the cable services is absolute crap!

The thing in your situation, as far as monopolies go, is that it is actually a market forced monopoly rather than a company that is using monopolistic practices to block competition. Unfortunately, that is quite common in the free market system. Another company would technically be totally free to move into your area, but the market simply may not support more than one company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. Correct
You have described my situation pretty well. There is not a large population up here that would attract that kind of infrastructure outlay (and shared cable lines would only drive the monthly price up, I think). But actually, from what I've seen on television, I don't think I'm missing very much (in terms of what I'd want to watch.) :) Currently, I have the bare minimum cable package + broadband internet. I do miss out on all the good movies, though. Oh, and the movie theatres up here (nearest one to me is 55 miles one way) are all owned by GKC Cinemas, which banned the showing of Michael Moore's 9-11... just one more reason not to spend my money there. hehehe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Clarification
You know this act is massive and my statement above was more directed at the allowing of large corporations like Clear Channel and others to buy up thousands of broadcast properties...many from local or regional owners, and then turned into "cash stations" where local access and programming have been squeezed to a minimum.

I'm very market-oriented, but I feel the scales have been tilted way to far in favor of the deep-pocket corporations that protect their investments with over-inflated prices on their broadcast licenses and the extremely expensive and lengthy process it takes for a local group to challenge a broadcast license.

Through this domination it's led to stifling of competition and the conditions that led to the rise of hate radio, corporate mandated censorship and use of their publicly held licenses with little redress or accountability. All I'm looking at is readjusting things where this medium can thrive on a local level, where it serves best and is accessible to those people. Here the government through competitive license bidding, the shortening of license terms to ensure the station keeps in compliance with community standards and prohibiting the wholescale trafficing of these licenses that turned radio into a massive ponzi-scheme for large banks and corporations.

Again, I warned that his is a large issue and requires both a better forum and far less wine than at a late hour on a Friday night....

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Interesting...
I am not certain that all of what you state is solely attributable to this Act.

However, you make some very good points and have some ideas where government certainly could play a role in 'encouraging' more responsibility without interfering.

Though, I will be the last one to deny any corporation its right to place profit before community interest. :) Sad, but true: companies exist to make money. They have no inherent responsibility to any community and most who show any community involvement generally do so as an additional method of advertisement with an eye on increasing profits.

Example: take a look at a local ballfield or similar facility that is sponsored by a local company. Their name is plastered all over it. Why? Advertising! Is this wrong? From a business standpoint, no. From a personal standpoint, I don't like it. I built a Little League complex and completely donated it to the city. You will not find my company name on it anywhere. We have sponsored teams. No company name on their uniforms. Why? That is just me. I do those sorts of things because, like I have mentioned before, I use every advantage to NOT pay taxes, therefore, I choose where to spend my money and I choose to spend it in my local community. I don't want the advertisement or recognition. I want people to do business with me because of the quality of my company, not because they see our name plastered all over a bunch of little baseball players. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. There Is A Balance
For 40 years broadcasting operated under some strict rules that were aimed at PICN...Public Interest, Concerns & Needs...or the access to those facilities to present things like local news, public affairs and access to politicians and other community leaders. Stations had to prove they met these standards every three years or their licenses wouldn't be renewed. It didn't infringe in business, in fact, our station made money on newscasts and public service announcements.

There were many rules that didn't make sense in the change of technology which was the guise of the original de-regulation (thus were the term came from).

In 1941, at the outest of WWII, FDR & the FCC saw the dangers of broadcast monopolies (NBC owned two large networks at the time) and imposed one-per-market and ownership caps to keep the voices and ownerships diverse. Also there were the cross-ownership rules that limited one company from owning the newspaper, radio & TV station in a town. Those rules are gone, and FDR was right...now it's time to find the middle ground again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Times change
Your 'rules' could only be applied to the major networks, in theory. Unless I am missing something.

How are you going to apply these exact same rules to the cable networks when they do not have to lease the exact same way as the 'over the air' networks?

Then, how does this apply to the Internet? Should the government regulate the Internet as well? Or only those sites run by media organizations?

Sorry, but all of this still comes a little too close to government sponsored censorship for my tastes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. You Don't Regulate Cable At All
There's where there's a lot of confusion.

Cable and broadcast television are two seperate entities. The FCC is mandated to oversee the broadcast spectrum that travels through the "ether" or air, that in theory belong to us...that we, the American people own the "broadcast spectrum" over the territorial limits of the United States (sorry for getting wonky here).

Thus, the FCC can regulate radio & over-the-air (OTA) televison...and over the years have ventured into the content. Their main mandate was to play traffic cop...to keep the spectrum clean from interference and protect certain parts of that spectrum for government-only use.

Cable doesn't use the broadcast spectrum...it uses a wire. The same applies to internet. It's considered "closed-circut", thus it's content and transmission is not under any government jurisdiction...and anyone can own as many cable systems/channels as they'd like. The restrictions are on how the cable systems get their signals around...say if they use microwaves...the FCC regulates those...or franchises that are controlled by local communities. Plus there are other agencies that can stick their noses in...FTC, DOJ, et al.

Again, I'm debating access, not content. I strongly agree that the government can't tell a broadcaster what they can or can't air. In fact I have not said Sinclair shouldn't air the slimeboat crap. They do so at their own corporate peril. My argument is to make it easier for more voices to be heard and to add to the competition that benefits us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Right...
No, I understand that YOU are advocating more of an access thing, but I still have to touch on the overall topic.

So, don't regulate cable at all and then the major networks can simply dump their 'over the air' broadcasts and sign up solely with cable and satellite. :)

I would love to simply say: how 'bout we save some money and just disband the FCC, or at least take away their responsibility for the media altogether, but that opens too many doors. I do not advocate showing sex and violence that is not suitable for children on just any network at any time. There has to be SOME responsibility. But, otherwise, as far as content, let the people decide what they do and don't want to see by simply either watching or not watching. It seems to me that the market would determine the content in the end. Of course, it generally does that now.

How that would fix the access issue, I have no idea. Like I said before, the problem there is that if access was made easier for everyone, it seems to me that those with the deepest pockets still win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. Soon We'll Have The Controls
In many cases some of us already do. I can limit what channels I want to see, and if I wanted I could block out all religious or all sports and so on. Again, that's my option, and I know we'll agree that should be the ultimate determination point...not some corporate, preacher or government-type.

Content should only be address when it's used in a personal nature...not a generic one. I think we've gotten to thin-skinned (especially on our side of the fence) into what is offensive and what is slander and outright exploitation. But this isn't an FCC question, this is one for Constitutional scholars with far greater brains than mine.

I'm one that feels the marketplace dictates and will be dictated. When a Survivor becomes a hit, there's gonna be imitators and each one is gonna try to push the envelope a little more to gain some short-lived advantage. Fine, then it'll be on to the next big thing. The hope is to make it more than one game and not controlled by a small group with conflicted vested interests...and that my friend is what I really think you're getting at.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. No, I for one appreciate the comments you've made, and...
I think this topic is something that people need to think about and talk about, and possibly help "our leaders" to come up with some sort of plan to make things better than they are now.

My own interest lies in internet radio which, if you've been following along with that, requires internet stations to comply with more regulations and restrictions than over-the-air radio and also requires extremely high levels of record-keeping. Citizen startups online (in the U.S.) have been regulated to the point where they cannot co-exist, much less compete, with commercial stations; the fee structure is also vastly different, and I think, unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I've Been In Internet Radio Since 1996
Your preaching to a big choir here on that issue...plus I've got 25 years of working in radio previous to that.

Right now I'm working with others in the development of some exciting new broadcast forms using internet and streaming technology that should turn things on its head in a couple years...similar to how CDs virtually replaced vinyl overnight. A lot of the work is done and just sitting in waiting until this regime is eliminated as there's no way one's going to invest in such a crappy economic environment.

As I say, there's a lot to this issue that is complex and needs some close study. The upshot is that we need a government that encourages start-up busineses and new industries from the ground up, not relying on the large corporations to come up with all the answers. This is what fueled the tech boom of the 90's and why the country did so well.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Cool.
Very interested in what you're developing. I hope I hear more about it in the future, too.

I don't see any reason we couldn't allow citizen startups. I think back to when Citizen's Band (CB) radio began, mostly as a response to the stiff requirements of Ham and Shortwave radio (if I'm remembering correctly). I could see internet radio allowing something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. CB Was The First Online/Cellphone
Also one big party...LOL. It was a rebellion to the tech-heavy licensing...lots of morse code and goofy formulas. You needed to take three tests just to turn on a transmitter.

Digital and Internet radio is on the verge of some exciting things. With convergence technology & wi-fi soon your cellphone will be your radio will be your computer will be your television and visa versa. It's been real exciting being in on a lot of the development of this stuff.

BTW...if you're interested...look at this

http://home.comcast.net/~zecom/listen.htm

We're doing some test tonight with a special concert that took place last Monday night in Washington. Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. Next time you meet a reporter
talk to them about "embedding" and the pressure to conform to the master's wishes. And then talk to them about why the press remains protected under the constitution (democracy).

Gyre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Town Jake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
31. Sounds good, and it even has a catchy line: "media reform"..
..but the problem is The Next Guy, as always. Ever heard of him (or her, as the case may be)? Let's say two things happen in the near future:
1. Kerry wins (this is a near certainty at this stage of the game)

2. Kentuck's calls for "media reform" are heeded to the hilt. Media conglomerates are broken up; the "Fairness Doctrine" is reinstated; the FCC is unleashed, "eyes open," and begins to smite hip and thigh every hint or whiff of "imbalance" in the broadcast and cable media.

A few years down the road, the country inexplicably elects another GOP president. He (and don't kid yourself; if it's the Republican Party it's gonna be a "he"), immediately see his "duty" and does not flinch: with the expanded powers over the media granted him under Kentuck's plan, FCC lawyers - backed by the full might of the federal government - monitor every broadcast for hints of "liberal bias." Producers and editors are required to clear the content of their reporter's output with "bias monitors" that can censor at a whim; the "Fairness Doctrine" is reinterpreted in a manner that allows "long-standing liberal bias from the past" to be a part of the equation - and as a result, "Air America" and all other liberal outlets are required to run fifty minutes of conservative "balance" for every ten minutes of liberal content.

And so it would go... The underlying problem with tinkering around with the First Amendment is always The Next Guy. Would it feel good to shatter, by force of law, the Right-Wing monopoly on the airwaves, AM dial, and cable news? You betcha. Would that good feeling start to evaporate the day some future RW president snatched up that club and turned it on the Left? The question answers itself.

Best to fight the Right on it's own terms, and support the liberal voices out there with our dollars and viewership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. OK
I will go with that.... :)

Not necessarily ALL of the viewpoints, but the overall idea is sound.

Anyway, what it sounds like to me is that what too many people in this thread were pushing for was exactly the opposite of what you describe: having the FCC step in and 'balance' the media because it is too conservative or whatever.

Bad, bad, bad if done by either party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
47. I disagree with these points...
"I believe, based on the free market system, that business should be, by and large completely unregulated unless a company is creating risk to people's lives or acting in a manner so contrary to public interest that it can actually be considered dangerous."

"Factcheck" made this comment in an earlier response.

So, if the question is, unless a company is acting in a manner contrary to public interest that it can be considered "dangerous", then it should remain unregulated? Who makes that decision? Who determines if it is against the "public interest"? We are the public.

And would Sinclair or FOX be considered operating in the public interest? Do any of the corporate media networks operate in the public interest? Or do they operate in the interest of their own bottom line? (speaking of economics) And if economics is part of their equation in broadcasting the "truth" or what is in the public interest, then that alone should call into question their right to broadcast without any regualtion.

But as T Town Jake says, "Best to fight the Right on it's own terms, and support the liberal voices out there with our dollars and viewership."

As much as I like the idea of Air Americas competing with the conservative talk shows across the nation, I really think it is the road to disaster. It creates division and dissension that would, in hte long run, be very detrimental to our country. I know htat is a controversial thing to say, but I see Air America as a temporary reaction to the subversion of the public interest by networks like FOX and Sinclair. I do not think I would want to see it as the standard, because our nation cannot withstand the longterm division.

And the issue should not be distorted or misrepresented as something so impossible to achieve that it should be ignored. We cannot permit corporate interests to determine what is in the public interest. Their interests follows the dollar. That is not necessarily the interest of the public. We, the public have a right to demand a more rational and balanced media. We have the right to demand the time to respond to such trickery as that the Sinclair Broadcasting is ready to hoist upon us. And we have a right to demand that Sinclair offer the time to respond. I do not believe we should censor their "political" statements but I do believe we should demand equal time to respond.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. So it sounds like...
You simply want to create a world where everyone thinks exactly like you do?

Here are some quotes from your post (I hope none of them are out of context, if anything is out of context, please call me on it) with brief responses to each:

"And would Sinclair or FOX be considered operating in the public interest?"

You mention Sinclair and FOX which makes me simply believe that you want any media organizations who hold conservative ideals to be brought down.

"As much as I like the idea of Air Americas competing with the conservative talk shows across the nation, I really think it is the road to disaster. It creates division and dissension ..."

Same thing here. "It creates division and dissension". Are you saying that the road to enlightenment is solely through eliminating the conservative talk shows so that ONLY the more liberal ones are heard? Or are you saying that all should be forced to air a more moderate message? Either one is censorship. The conservatives have just as much right to air their ideology as the liberals do. And while you might think THEY are given more time to spread their message, they believe that YOU are given more time. Who is right?

"... I see Air America as a temporary reaction to the subversion of the public interest by networks like FOX and Sinclair ..."

Same here, you only mention that FOX and Sinclair are involved in "the subversion of the public interest". None of the other media outlets? Please! However, these companies are not acting in a manner that could be construed as 'dangerous' to the public interest. By that, I would mean, for example, a power company that, because of its monopoly in an area, could raise its prices as high as it wanted. THAT sort of thing SHOULD be regulated. The media should not. Unless a media outlet literally started inciting violence, for example.

"We have the right to demand the time to respond to such trickery as that the Sinclair Broadcasting is ready to hoist upon us. And we have a right to demand that Sinclair offer the time to respond"

No, actually you don't. Or, maybe you do. We shall see what the FEC says. However, in my opinion, if Sinclair wants to use its collective power to support a candidate, then so be it. A competing company should buy time or offer time to support the other candidate. I know there are Kerry supporters out there with deep pockets, why have none come forward to buy this 'equal time'??

One thing I do disagree with in the Sinclair thing is them calling it news. Not that I think it 'might' not be news, I think it most likely isn't. But, my disagreement comes from this: if it were regular programming, I believe they have the right to show whatever they want. However, if they are calling it news, then, I believe they 'should' be simply reporting information in a completely unbiased manner. So, if they are saying this is news, then it should not be biased. But, we all know that ALL of the news organizations ARE biased one way or another. Do I think they should be? Nope. Do I think that the government should in any way be involved in help to make them unbiased? Nope.

THAT is the crux of my problem with all of this: That the government should be the ones who make the media outlets change their message in any manner. Not in my lifetime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
56. We had those rules before, remember
and the "next guy" couldn't exploit them: he had to repeal them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
48. I agree. I've always agreed. Basically, you can't call yourself a..
"news" outlet unless you provide unbiased news without editorial comment. Editorials belong on editorial pages. In TV, they should be prefaced as "commentary." Also, bring back the fairness doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. I agree
sort of. This is certainly the way it 'should' be.

However, even in newspapers, where editorials are on a special page, there is certainly a slant to the reporting and to which stories are reported on.

Sorry, but I don't think the media will ever present unbiased news. And I certainly don't think that the government should be involved in trying to make them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
51. YES the FCC has the responsibility to make equal time for candidates.
Maybe they have also been corrupted.Send in your letters you have the right to make them straighten out.I sent mine.We pay their salaries.Employees that deceive and lie should also be fired . Bye bye
Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
factcheck Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Wasted time
Sorry, but the FCC does not have this responsibility.

Please show me where, in their charter, this is their responsibility.

The FCC can ONLY react to programming broadcast if it is obscene or offensive (and I don't necessarily agree with all of that) with fines or other penalties.

In the Sinclair situation, they are simply broadcasting something that is part of THEIR opinion. The FCC cannot and will not regulate that, nor will they fine Sinclair for it. And, I am sorry, but boycotting advertisers is really a waste of time too. These advertisers know that 1) they simply send an appeasement statement in response indicating they will not advertise with Sinclair and then advertise later, and 2) that MOST people who participate in a boycott will lose interest eventually and use their products again. This is a fact of business. And, IF in a particular area, the Sinclair owned station has the largest marker share, the company in question will look at it like this: if they lose 100 people by advertising due to boycott, but would lose 200 other people by not advertising in the largest market, then they will advertise. Business is business after all.

The FCC is not acting in a corrupt manner in this situation, nor are they deceiving or lying. They are simply acting according to their charter, plain and simple.

Now, the FEC might decide otherwise, but that is a BIG grey area.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-04 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
55. Here's a link to the Ed Monks story about the Fairness Doctrine
A great description of what has happened.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?m...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC