The public is fully allowed to access certain ideas. They just cannot do it through that company. They would need to access it from another source. When the government bans something, it's gone.
but we're dealing with 1,200 major radio stations. millions of listeners. they are having an impact on public opinon. its a form of propaganda.
but we're dealing with 1,200 major radio stations. millions of listeners. they are having an impact on public opinon. its a form of propaganda.
Most of the websites cited on this board are propaganda as well. I don't want the government telling them what articles they have to print either.
All of these bands reach a lot of people too. More than just those who listen to these 1,200 radio stations. Maybe the government should write their lyrics for them as well. It's "censorship" since they don't allow other points of view in their lyrics.
Are you telling me the only music you listen to is music Clear Channel plays for you?
mmmh.
What I'm trying to convey here is not that complicated. public opinion is very important in the United States. More important than say Russia or China or Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world, for a number of reasons. In China, if someone disagrees with the gov't they can throw em jail or dissapear them or remove them somehow, without worrying about laws and constitutions and legal restraints. They don't have that luxury in the US, tho the Patriot Act is making that closer to being a reality. So instead of controlling us with force they control our opinion, and there are literally millions of example of State sponsored propaganda. An entire industry has been created for this one purpose, its called public relations.
When a company as large as Clear Channel removes certain ideas from its broadcasts, it effectively removes those ideas from certain members of the public. When you combine Clear channel with Fox and a dozen other media outlets you are doing more than denying the public access to certain information, you are manufacturing consent-for whatever issue. In this case a war.
Most of the websites cited on this board are propaganda as well. I don't want the government telling them what articles they have to print either.
All of these bands reach a lot of people too. More than just those who listen to these 1,200 radio stations. Maybe the government should write their lyrics for them as well. It's "censorship" since they don't allow other points of view in their lyrics.
every piece of information is propaganda in a way. the idea is to make all information available to everyone and allow them to make up their own minds. when you narrow the spectrum of thought, you are actively affecting the opinion of the public.
What I'm trying to convey here is not that complicated. public opinion is very important in the United States. More important than say Russia or China or Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world, for a number of reasons. In China, if someone disagrees with the gov't they can throw em jail or dissapear them or remove them somehow, without worrying about laws and constitutions and legal restraints. They don't have that luxury in the US, tho the Patriot Act is making that closer to being a reality. So instead of controlling us with force they control our opinion, and there are literally millions of example of State sponsored propaganda. An entire industry has been created for this one purpose, its called public relations.
When a company as large as Clear Channel removes certain ideas from its broadcasts, it effectively removes those ideas from certain members of the public. When you combine Clear channel with Fox and a dozen other media outlets you are doing more than denying the public access to certain information, you are manufacturing consent-for whatever issue. In this case a war.
I get the concept. The solution you're implying sounds quite distasteful and unconstitutional.
And unnecessary. If Clear Channel doesn't want to play songs that millions of people want to listen to, what a great opportunity for Entercom to capture market share, as well as little or big independents like KEXP. If Fox News doesn't want to carry coverage of a hot scandal in the administration that millions of people care about, what a great opportunity for CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to cover it and capture market share.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
every piece of information is propaganda in a way. the idea is to make all information available to everyone and allow them to make up their own minds. when you narrow the spectrum of thought, you are actively affecting the opinion of the public.
Let's be more specific since you seem to beat around this one. Should the government require stations to play certain songs, or cover certain stories?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Let's be more specific since you seem to beat around this one. Should the government require stations to play certain songs, or cover certain stories?
the government represents the people, insofar as the country is democratic, right?
a private corporation (a fascist institution by definition) with an agenda-in this case pro-Bush/pro-war-shouldn't be allowed to narrow the spectrum of information, it amounts to censorship.
the government represents the people, insofar as the country is democratic, right?
a private corporation (a fascist institution by definition) with an agenda-in this case pro-Bush/pro-war-shouldn't be allowed to narrow the spectrum of information, it amounts to censorship.
So you want the government to mandate playlists.
Would you have the government mandate that every station play the same playlists, or would you have the government divide the spectrum and assign genres, with appropriate playlist requirements?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Would you have the government mandate that every station play the same playlists, or would you have the government divide the spectrum and assign genres, with appropriate playlist requirements?
I would have the government keep monoplies like Clear Channel forming in the first place so that listeners could decide what they wanted to hear, rather than have some corporate giant decide for us. Keep it on a local level...
radio is shit, imo, except the few local stations we have here. its a relatively small town, mostly hicks and country music fans, but we still have one station that caters to the hippies and skaters and pearl jam fans. And it does very well...
Comments
Most of the websites cited on this board are propaganda as well. I don't want the government telling them what articles they have to print either.
All of these bands reach a lot of people too. More than just those who listen to these 1,200 radio stations. Maybe the government should write their lyrics for them as well. It's "censorship" since they don't allow other points of view in their lyrics.
mmmh.
What I'm trying to convey here is not that complicated. public opinion is very important in the United States. More important than say Russia or China or Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world, for a number of reasons. In China, if someone disagrees with the gov't they can throw em jail or dissapear them or remove them somehow, without worrying about laws and constitutions and legal restraints. They don't have that luxury in the US, tho the Patriot Act is making that closer to being a reality. So instead of controlling us with force they control our opinion, and there are literally millions of example of State sponsored propaganda. An entire industry has been created for this one purpose, its called public relations.
When a company as large as Clear Channel removes certain ideas from its broadcasts, it effectively removes those ideas from certain members of the public. When you combine Clear channel with Fox and a dozen other media outlets you are doing more than denying the public access to certain information, you are manufacturing consent-for whatever issue. In this case a war.
every piece of information is propaganda in a way. the idea is to make all information available to everyone and allow them to make up their own minds. when you narrow the spectrum of thought, you are actively affecting the opinion of the public.
I get the concept. The solution you're implying sounds quite distasteful and unconstitutional.
And unnecessary. If Clear Channel doesn't want to play songs that millions of people want to listen to, what a great opportunity for Entercom to capture market share, as well as little or big independents like KEXP. If Fox News doesn't want to carry coverage of a hot scandal in the administration that millions of people care about, what a great opportunity for CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to cover it and capture market share.
Let's be more specific since you seem to beat around this one. Should the government require stations to play certain songs, or cover certain stories?
the government represents the people, insofar as the country is democratic, right?
a private corporation (a fascist institution by definition) with an agenda-in this case pro-Bush/pro-war-shouldn't be allowed to narrow the spectrum of information, it amounts to censorship.
So you want the government to mandate playlists.
Would you have the government mandate that every station play the same playlists, or would you have the government divide the spectrum and assign genres, with appropriate playlist requirements?
I would have the government keep monoplies like Clear Channel forming in the first place so that listeners could decide what they wanted to hear, rather than have some corporate giant decide for us. Keep it on a local level...
radio is shit, imo, except the few local stations we have here. its a relatively small town, mostly hicks and country music fans, but we still have one station that caters to the hippies and skaters and pearl jam fans. And it does very well...