Guest guest Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 Good points, Frank!Be Well,Misty http://www..com Showdown at the FCC..or why the american people are grossly uninformed. The concentration and domination of " news " by the corporate interests is turning the major media into nothing more than a sales channel to sell corporate interest's specific point of view to you, which is usually in direct opposition to the individuals own interests in our societies. Still wonder why you don't hear of vitamins and herbs on tv or newspaper, but get a daily helping of what the newest drug or medical industry product you should buy disguised as health news. This disinformation carries over to most aspects of our societies, which affect each of us in most areas of our daily lives. We as a society better wake up. Get most of your information from the web.It's the only place at this point to get anywhere near the truth. Frank http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796 Showdown at the FCCJeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet May 1, 2003Viewed on May 6, 2003 The Bush Administration will soon hand the nation's biggest media conglomerates a new give-away that will concentrate media ownership in fewer hands. On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission, run by Michael Powell (son of Colin), plans to end long-standing federal checks and balances on corporate media power. Companies behind the measure include the powerhouses of corporate media power: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox., General Electric/NBC, Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, Tribune Corp and Clear Channel. Once the rules are swept away, expect to see more mergers and buy-outs of radio and TV stations, major papers and even TV networks. It will then soon be possible for a single conglomerate to control most of a community's major media outlets, including cable systems and broadband Internet service providers. There will be fewer owners nationally of all major media outlets of communications. Right-wing powerhouses are also likely to grow more powerful soon, unless opposed. Rupert Murdoch's Fox is planning to take over the country's most powerful satellite service, Direct TV. He will be able not only to control access to millions of households, he will use it as a " Death Star " to further expand his broadcast and cable TV empires. Meanwhile, liberals -- let alone progressives -- have no ownership influence over any major media outlet. This is all happening despite the fact that growing numbers of the public are willing to stand up and express their unhappiness with the way media conglomerates are using the public airwaves. As Neil Hickey describes in his article, " The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership, " in hearings across the country there has been a huge outpouring of public concern and anxiety about the direction of the media system. Not surprisingly, the media conglomerates thirst for more control as they seek to end media ownership limits. What all this means for our nation hasn't been covered by the media. There has been no TV network news coverage on the impending media give-away. Nor have the major dailies explained to readers what their lobbyists are doing and how such changes will affect journalism, politics and the public's First Amendment rights to a system fostering diversity of viewpoints and expression. A rare exception was a recent column in the New York Times by conservative pundit William Safire arguing that the media system is hiding the real story because it is unwilling to " expose the broadcast lobby's pressure on Congress and the courts to allow station owners to gobble up more stations and cross-own local newspapers, thereby to determine what information residents of a local market receive. " The proposed FCC rule changes will further weaken the ability of mainstream journalism to serve as a critical public safeguard. Soon, reporters at newspapers will have to pay attention to whether they get TV ratings, once their papers become part of larger TV empires concerned about promoting advertising and " brandwashing. " More importantly, the country will have even fewer gatekeepers over the news and popular culture that informs much of public consciousness. (Read more about this problem from media mogul Barry Diller, who made many revealing statements to Bill Moyers on a recent edition of his program NOW, on PBS.) As recent TV coverage of the Iraq war illustrates, US media companies aren't interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. " Embedded " reporters present information from a point of view shared with U.S. soldiers. News outlets hire retired military generals to dish up the prominent " expert " point of view. Journalists regurgitate communiqués disseminated by the Pentagon. Corporate TV stations avoid feeding viewers information and images they " don't like " such as coverage of civilian casualties and protests. The network that 36 percent of people watch for their primary war coverage (Fox News, according to a recent Gallup poll), is a deliberately conservative mouthpiece. Furthermore, for the media companies to be heavily lobbying the Bush administration for give-aways that will net them billions of dollars -- while they are providing mostly uncritical coverage of the war -- gets to the crux of our media problem. Danny Schechter of the Media Channel provides more details of this media conglomerate war cheerleading collusion in " War Coverage Rewrites History. " The FCC's Powell is also promoting massive consolidation in cable TV and with online communications for this summer. Soon just two massive cable companies -- Comcast and AOL Time Warner -- may be legally permitted to own almost all of the nation's cable TV systems. And Powell has already removed critical safeguards that will enable cable and telephone giants to dominate high-speed Internet access -- which has alarmed the ACLU (and even other monopolists like Microsoft and Disney). Some key members of Congress may be undergoing some reality therapy as citizens are forcing them to confront the stark ramifications of the media deregulation they have enabled. One overwhelming result of their actions, for example, is the Clear Channel Communications buying spree (the company now owns more than 1200 radio stations), which has run roughshod over the nation's commercial radio system, turning it into a wasteland of conformity and commercialism. In contrast, back in 1996, the combined total of the number of stations owned by the two largest radio chains was a mere 115. Eric Boehlert, as part of a powerful and detailed series on Salon.com on media concentration, explains how the Clear Channel situation may be producing a backlash. A less known but also disturbing trend is represented by another conservative company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which, as Paul Schmelzer writes in " The Death of Local News, " is pioneering the frightening model of local news from a central sources thousands of miles away from the market. Meanwhile, perhaps unrelated to media concentration, but clearly connected to the war, female voices have just about disappeared from the media as documented by Caryl Rivers from Women's ENews. Despite all the bad news, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project offers: " These decisions in June are hardly the end of it. There is a real effort to keep the FCC in check going forward. Cable ownership rules are up for review this summer. There will be a spate of mergers after the rules change, and organizing may be able to beat some of them back, and pushes for legislation to gain back some of what has been lost. " But in the big picture, unfortunately, elected officials have been silent about what will be the most significant changes in media diversity rules since the Reagan era. It's time to send Congress a message that they should speak up now and defend the right to free speech, competition and ownership diversity in the digital age. To make your voice heard go to MediaReform.net, a comprehensive website that makes it easy for you to register your protest about the FCC's media deregulation policies. Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.org. Jeffrey Chester is the director of the Center for Digital Democracy. © 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 Hi Misty: When I saw your post on P4H (a fabulous list!), I was really excited that someone had started an e-group for alternative medicine resources for people and I encouraged some of my friends to check your list out. However, it has been with dismay that I see post after post on your list expounding left-wing liberal democrat, political views - what a turn off!! Is this a campaign ploy for promoting liberal democrats for Election 2004? Alternative medicine is for everyone in the political sphere Misty. I have been a patient of one of the top holistic physicians in the US and he's a right wing conservative! So am I! And I say Bravo to my fellow countryman, Rupert Murdock for ensuring that Americans are now getting another view point; fair and balanced!! Before it was liberal, liberal , liberal brain-washing! If this is truly a list promoting alternative medicine - please stay on topic! And BTW, FYI with regard to your homepage, Nicolas Copernicus was the first to propose the theory that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and orbited the sun once yearly in 1530. Galileo was charged with blasphemy for embracing the Copernican Theory in 1663. He was forced under threat of torture and death to renounce his belief and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Evonne - " mistylyn trepke " <mistytrepke Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:24 AM [s-A] Fwd: Who controls our information? Good points, Frank!Be Well,Misty http://www..com Showdown at the FCC..or why the american people are grossly uninformed. The concentration and domination of " news " by the corporate interests is turning the major media into nothing more than a sales channel to sell corporate interest's specific point of view to you, which is usually in direct opposition to the individuals own interests in our societies. Still wonder why you don't hear of vitamins and herbs on tv or newspaper, but get a daily helping of what the newest drug or medical industry product you should buy disguised as health news. This disinformation carries over to most aspects of our societies, which affect each of us in most areas of our daily lives. We as a society better wake up. Get most of your information from the web.It's the only place at this point to get anywhere near the truth. Frank http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796 Showdown at the FCCJeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet May 1, 2003Viewed on May 6, 2003 The Bush Administration will soon hand the nation's biggest media conglomerates a new give-away that will concentrate media ownership in fewer hands. On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission, run by Michael Powell (son of Colin), plans to end long-standing federal checks and balances on corporate media power. Companies behind the measure include the powerhouses of corporate media power: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox., General Electric/NBC, Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, Tribune Corp and Clear Channel. Once the rules are swept away, expect to see more mergers and buy-outs of radio and TV stations, major papers and even TV networks. It will then soon be possible for a single conglomerate to control most of a community's major media outlets, including cable systems and broadband Internet service providers. There will be fewer owners nationally of all major media outlets of communications. Right-wing powerhouses are also likely to grow more powerful soon, unless opposed. Rupert Murdoch's Fox is planning to take over the country's most powerful satellite service, Direct TV. He will be able not only to control access to millions of households, he will use it as a " Death Star " to further expand his broadcast and cable TV empires. Meanwhile, liberals -- let alone progressives -- have no ownership influence over any major media outlet. This is all happening despite the fact that growing numbers of the public are willing to stand up and express their unhappiness with the way media conglomerates are using the public airwaves. As Neil Hickey describes in his article, " The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership, " in hearings across the country there has been a huge outpouring of public concern and anxiety about the direction of the media system. Not surprisingly, the media conglomerates thirst for more control as they seek to end media ownership limits. What all this means for our nation hasn't been covered by the media. There has been no TV network news coverage on the impending media give-away. Nor have the major dailies explained to readers what their lobbyists are doing and how such changes will affect journalism, politics and the public's First Amendment rights to a system fostering diversity of viewpoints and expression. A rare exception was a recent column in the New York Times by conservative pundit William Safire arguing that the media system is hiding the real story because it is unwilling to " expose the broadcast lobby's pressure on Congress and the courts to allow station owners to gobble up more stations and cross-own local newspapers, thereby to determine what information residents of a local market receive. " The proposed FCC rule changes will further weaken the ability of mainstream journalism to serve as a critical public safeguard. Soon, reporters at newspapers will have to pay attention to whether they get TV ratings, once their papers become part of larger TV empires concerned about promoting advertising and " brandwashing. " More importantly, the country will have even fewer gatekeepers over the news and popular culture that informs much of public consciousness. (Read more about this problem from media mogul Barry Diller, who made many revealing statements to Bill Moyers on a recent edition of his program NOW, on PBS.) As recent TV coverage of the Iraq war illustrates, US media companies aren't interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. " Embedded " reporters present information from a point of view shared with U.S. soldiers. News outlets hire retired military generals to dish up the prominent " expert " point of view. Journalists regurgitate communiqués disseminated by the Pentagon. Corporate TV stations avoid feeding viewers information and images they " don't like " such as coverage of civilian casualties and protests. The network that 36 percent of people watch for their primary war coverage (Fox News, according to a recent Gallup poll), is a deliberately conservative mouthpiece. Furthermore, for the media companies to be heavily lobbying the Bush administration for give-aways that will net them billions of dollars -- while they are providing mostly uncritical coverage of the war -- gets to the crux of our media problem. Danny Schechter of the Media Channel provides more details of this media conglomerate war cheerleading collusion in " War Coverage Rewrites History. " The FCC's Powell is also promoting massive consolidation in cable TV and with online communications for this summer. Soon just two massive cable companies -- Comcast and AOL Time Warner -- may be legally permitted to own almost all of the nation's cable TV systems. And Powell has already removed critical safeguards that will enable cable and telephone giants to dominate high-speed Internet access -- which has alarmed the ACLU (and even other monopolists like Microsoft and Disney). Some key members of Congress may be undergoing some reality therapy as citizens are forcing them to confront the stark ramifications of the media deregulation they have enabled. One overwhelming result of their actions, for example, is the Clear Channel Communications buying spree (the company now owns more than 1200 radio stations), which has run roughshod over the nation's commercial radio system, turning it into a wasteland of conformity and commercialism. In contrast, back in 1996, the combined total of the number of stations owned by the two largest radio chains was a mere 115. Eric Boehlert, as part of a powerful and detailed series on Salon.com on media concentration, explains how the Clear Channel situation may be producing a backlash. A less known but also disturbing trend is represented by another conservative company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which, as Paul Schmelzer writes in " The Death of Local News, " is pioneering the frightening model of local news from a central sources thousands of miles away from the market. Meanwhile, perhaps unrelated to media concentration, but clearly connected to the war, female voices have just about disappeared from the media as documented by Caryl Rivers from Women's ENews. Despite all the bad news, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project offers: " These decisions in June are hardly the end of it. There is a real effort to keep the FCC in check going forward. Cable ownership rules are up for review this summer. There will be a spate of mergers after the rules change, and organizing may be able to beat some of them back, and pushes for legislation to gain back some of what has been lost. " But in the big picture, unfortunately, elected officials have been silent about what will be the most significant changes in media diversity rules since the Reagan era. It's time to send Congress a message that they should speak up now and defend the right to free speech, competition and ownership diversity in the digital age. To make your voice heard go to MediaReform.net, a comprehensive website that makes it easy for you to register your protest about the FCC's media deregulation policies. Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.org. Jeffrey Chester is the director of the Center for Digital Democracy. © 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 Dear Evonne, Thank you for expressing your views... As I have said before, I see this issue connecting to the quote I offered about medical tyranny and the closing off of options. This information was not offered in the light of any political party- truth be told, I have not keep track of which party is trying to do what with this. Likewise, whatever party is behind this, should the other party have offered this idea, I would have taken the same course of action. I simply do not see where the closing off of informational sources is a good thing, especially since they are so heavily controlled to begin with. If I am deficient in understanding how this is in the people's best interests, to have even less sources of independent information, please explain it to me- I am glad to learn. Likewise, thank you for the correction of the homepage. I will address that as soon as I can. Be Well, Misty http://www..com In , Evonne Vey <petart3@c...> wrote: > Hi Misty: > > When I saw your post on P4H (a fabulous list!), I was really excited that > someone had started an e-group for alternative medicine resources for people > and I encouraged some of my friends to check your list out. However, it > has been with dismay that I see post after post on your list expounding > left-wing liberal democrat, political views - what a turn off!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 I am also a new member, joined a couple of days ago. I feel the same way. I am looking forward to learning about alternative medicines but so far most of what I have received has been someone's political view. I thought when it said " the greatest hurdle to new insight is usually the entrenched thought patterns that we all encounter while stretching and transforming past our former boundaries. " was to learn to rely on nature and natural things, not change our political view. If that is what this group is about than I am on the wrong group. Like I said before I want to learn about alternative and natural remedies. Marti - " Evonne Vey " <petart3 Cc: <detoxrules Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:58 PM Re: [s-A] Fwd: Who controls our information? > Hi Misty: > > When I saw your post on P4H (a fabulous list!), I was really excited that > someone had started an e-group for alternative medicine resources for people > and I encouraged some of my friends to check your list out. However, it > has been with dismay that I see post after post on your list expounding > left-wing liberal democrat, political views - what a turn off!! Is this a > campaign ploy for promoting liberal democrats for Election 2004? > > Alternative medicine is for everyone in the political sphere Misty. I have > been a patient of one of the top holistic physicians in the US and he's a > right wing conservative! So am I! And I say Bravo to my fellow countryman, > Rupert Murdock for ensuring that Americans are now getting another view > point; fair and balanced!! Before it was liberal, liberal , liberal > brain-washing! > > If this is truly a list promoting alternative medicine - please stay on > topic! > > And BTW, FYI with regard to your homepage, Nicolas Copernicus was the first > to propose the theory that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and > orbited the sun once yearly in 1530. Galileo was charged with blasphemy for > embracing the Copernican Theory in 1663. He was forced under threat of > torture and death to renounce his belief and was sentenced to imprisonment > for life. > > Evonne > > - > " mistylyn trepke " <mistytrepke > > Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:24 AM > [s-A] Fwd: Who controls our information? > > > Good points, Frank!Be Well,Misty http://www..com > Showdown at the FCC..or why the american people are grossly uninformed. > > The concentration and domination of " news " by the corporate interests is > turning the major media into nothing more than a sales channel to sell > corporate interest's specific point of view to you, which is usually in > direct opposition to the individuals own interests in our societies. Still > wonder why you don't hear of vitamins and herbs on tv or newspaper, but get > a daily helping of what the newest drug or medical industry product you > should buy disguised as health news. This disinformation carries over to > most aspects of our societies, which affect each of us in most areas of our > daily lives. We as a society better wake up. Get most of your information > from the web.It's the only place at this point to get anywhere near the > truth. Frank > > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796 > > Showdown at the FCCJeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet > May 1, 2003Viewed on May 6, 2003 > > The Bush Administration will soon hand the nation's biggest media > conglomerates a new give-away that will concentrate media ownership in fewer > hands. On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission, run by Michael > Powell (son of Colin), plans to end long-standing federal checks and > balances on corporate media power. > > Companies behind the measure include the powerhouses of corporate media > power: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox., General Electric/NBC, Viacom/CBS, > Disney/ABC, Tribune Corp and Clear Channel. Once the rules are swept away, > expect to see more mergers and buy-outs of radio and TV stations, major > papers and even TV networks. It will then soon be possible for a single > conglomerate to control most of a community's major media outlets, including > cable systems and broadband Internet service providers. There will be fewer > owners nationally of all major media outlets of communications. > > Right-wing powerhouses are also likely to grow more powerful soon, unless > opposed. Rupert Murdoch's Fox is planning to take over the country's most > powerful satellite service, Direct TV. He will be able not only to control > access to millions of households, he will use it as a " Death Star " to > further expand his broadcast and cable TV empires. Meanwhile, liberals -- > let alone progressives -- have no ownership influence over any major media > outlet. > > This is all happening despite the fact that growing numbers of the public > are willing to stand up and express their unhappiness with the way media > conglomerates are using the public airwaves. As Neil Hickey describes in his > article, " The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership, " in hearings across the > country there has been a huge outpouring of public concern and anxiety about > the direction of the media system. > > Not surprisingly, the media conglomerates thirst for more control as they > seek to end media ownership limits. What all this means for our nation > hasn't been covered by the media. There has been no TV network news coverage > on the impending media give-away. Nor have the major dailies explained to > readers what their lobbyists are doing and how such changes will affect > journalism, politics and the public's First Amendment rights to a system > fostering diversity of viewpoints and expression. > > A rare exception was a recent column in the New York Times by conservative > pundit William Safire arguing that the media system is hiding the real story > because it is unwilling to " expose the broadcast lobby's pressure on > Congress and the courts to allow station owners to gobble up more stations > and cross-own local newspapers, thereby to determine what information > residents of a local market receive. " > > The proposed FCC rule changes will further weaken the ability of mainstream > journalism to serve as a critical public safeguard. Soon, reporters at > newspapers will have to pay attention to whether they get TV ratings, once > their papers become part of larger TV empires concerned about promoting > advertising and " brandwashing. " More importantly, the country will have even > fewer gatekeepers over the news and popular culture that informs much of > public consciousness. (Read more about this problem from media mogul Barry > Diller, who made many revealing statements to Bill Moyers on a recent > edition of his program NOW, on PBS.) > > As recent TV coverage of the Iraq war illustrates, US media companies aren't > interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. " Embedded " > reporters present information from a point of view shared with U.S. > soldiers. News outlets hire retired military generals to dish up the > prominent " expert " point of view. Journalists regurgitate communiqués > disseminated by the Pentagon. Corporate TV stations avoid feeding viewers > information and images they " don't like " such as coverage of civilian > casualties and protests. The network that 36 percent of people watch for > their primary war coverage (Fox News, according to a recent Gallup poll), is > a deliberately conservative mouthpiece. Furthermore, for the media companies > to be heavily lobbying the Bush administration for give-aways that will net > them billions of dollars -- while they are providing mostly uncritical > coverage of the war -- gets to the crux of our media problem. Danny > Schechter of the Media Channel provides more details of this media > conglomerate war cheerleading collusion in " War Coverage Rewrites History. " > > The FCC's Powell is also promoting massive consolidation in cable TV and > with online communications for this summer. Soon just two massive cable > companies -- Comcast and AOL Time Warner -- may be legally permitted to own > almost all of the nation's cable TV systems. And Powell has already removed > critical safeguards that will enable cable and telephone giants to dominate > high-speed Internet access -- which has alarmed the ACLU (and even other > monopolists like Microsoft and Disney). > > Some key members of Congress may be undergoing some reality therapy as > citizens are forcing them to confront the stark ramifications of the media > deregulation they have enabled. One overwhelming result of their actions, > for example, is the Clear Channel Communications buying spree (the company > now owns more than 1200 radio stations), which has run roughshod over the > nation's commercial radio system, turning it into a wasteland of conformity > and commercialism. In contrast, back in 1996, the combined total of the > number of stations owned by the two largest radio chains was a mere 115. > Eric Boehlert, as part of a powerful and detailed series on Salon.com on > media concentration, explains how the Clear Channel situation may be > producing a backlash. > > A less known but also disturbing trend is represented by another > conservative company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which, as Paul Schmelzer > writes in " The Death of Local News, " is pioneering the frightening model of > local news from a central sources thousands of miles away from the market. > Meanwhile, perhaps unrelated to media concentration, but clearly connected > to the war, female voices have just about disappeared from the media as > documented by Caryl Rivers from Women's ENews. > > Despite all the bad news, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project > offers: " These decisions in June are hardly the end of it. There is a real > effort to keep the FCC in check going forward. Cable ownership rules are up > for review this summer. There will be a spate of mergers after the rules > change, and organizing may be able to beat some of them back, and pushes for > legislation to gain back some of what has been lost. " > > But in the big picture, unfortunately, elected officials have been silent > about what will be the most significant changes in media diversity rules > since the Reagan era. It's time to send Congress a message that they should > speak up now and defend the right to free speech, competition and ownership > diversity in the digital age. To make your voice heard go to > MediaReform.net, a comprehensive website that makes it easy for you to > register your protest about the FCC's media deregulation policies. > > Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.org. Jeffrey Chester is the > director of the Center for Digital Democracy. > > > > © 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. > > > > > > The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 Dear Marti- Thank you for expressing your views... I went back and counted and so far this work week there have been 16 posting this week having nothing to do with the information issue. And there have been 7 on that topic, counting your email... 8 when I include this reply. Going back farther, a complete 7 day week, there have been 28 articles posted (or requests for help) and still only 8 on the information topic... Since you brought it up, I am coming to see this thought pattern is too entrenched and it is difficult for some to see where the free flow of information is vital to making informed health decisions, so if that is the case, then please be direct and ask me what you would like to learn, or perhaps even post articles that you find of particular interest... But by posting emails such as these you put me in the position of " Teach me something, darn it " but also at the same time " But only those things I politically agree with, or want to learn " . How in the world can I please everyone? My solution to this is to not even try. I simply speak from my heart- whatever side of the political fence that may fall on, if in fact a political fence even exists for that given subject. Likewise, with the topics I choose- they are the ones that speak to me. How can I do otherwise? I assume and trust that you, as a co-participant in this journey, you will bring up want you wish to teach or learn. Be Well, Misty http://www..com , " marti " <maven@b...> wrote: > I am also a new member, joined a couple of days ago. I feel the same way. > I am > looking forward to learning about alternative medicines but so far most of > what I have received has been someone's political view. I thought when it > said " the greatest hurdle to new insight is usually the entrenched thought > patterns that we all encounter while stretching and transforming past our > former boundaries. " was to learn to rely on nature and natural things, not > change our political view. If that is what this group is about than I am on > the wrong group. Like I said before I want to learn about alternative and > natural remedies. > > Marti > > > > - > " Evonne Vey " <petart3@c...> > > Cc: <detoxrules@a...> > Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:58 PM > Re: [s-A] Fwd: Who controls our information? > > > > Hi Misty: > > > > When I saw your post on P4H (a fabulous list!), I was really excited that > > someone had started an e-group for alternative medicine resources for > people > > and I encouraged some of my friends to check your list out. However, it > > has been with dismay that I see post after post on your list expounding > > left-wing liberal democrat, political views - what a turn off!! Is this a > > campaign ploy for promoting liberal democrats for Election 2004? > > > > Alternative medicine is for everyone in the political sphere Misty. I have > > been a patient of one of the top holistic physicians in the US and he's a > > right wing conservative! So am I! And I say Bravo to my fellow > countryman, > > Rupert Murdock for ensuring that Americans are now getting another view > > point; fair and balanced!! Before it was liberal, liberal , liberal > > brain-washing! > > > > If this is truly a list promoting alternative medicine - please stay on > > topic! > > > > And BTW, FYI with regard to your homepage, Nicolas Copernicus was the > first > > to propose the theory that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and > > orbited the sun once yearly in 1530. Galileo was charged with blasphemy > for > > embracing the Copernican Theory in 1663. He was forced under threat of > > torture and death to renounce his belief and was sentenced to imprisonment > > for life. > > > > Evonne > > > > - > > " mistylyn trepke " <mistytrepke> > > > > Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:24 AM > > [s-A] Fwd: Who controls our information? > > > > > > Good points, Frank!Be Well,Misty http://www.searching- alternatives.com > > Showdown at the FCC..or why the american people are grossly uninformed. > > > > The concentration and domination of " news " by the corporate interests is > > turning the major media into nothing more than a sales channel to sell > > corporate interest's specific point of view to you, which is usually in > > direct opposition to the individuals own interests in our societies. Still > > wonder why you don't hear of vitamins and herbs on tv or newspaper, but > get > > a daily helping of what the newest drug or medical industry product you > > should buy disguised as health news. This disinformation carries over to > > most aspects of our societies, which affect each of us in most areas of > our > > daily lives. We as a society better wake up. Get most of your information > > from the web.It's the only place at this point to get anywhere near the > > truth. Frank > > > > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796 > > > > Showdown at the FCCJeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet > > May 1, 2003Viewed on May 6, 2003 > > > > The Bush Administration will soon hand the nation's biggest media > > conglomerates a new give-away that will concentrate media ownership in > fewer > > hands. On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission, run by Michael > > Powell (son of Colin), plans to end long-standing federal checks and > > balances on corporate media power. > > > > Companies behind the measure include the powerhouses of corporate media > > power: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox., General Electric/NBC, Viacom/CBS, > > Disney/ABC, Tribune Corp and Clear Channel. Once the rules are swept away, > > expect to see more mergers and buy-outs of radio and TV stations, major > > papers and even TV networks. It will then soon be possible for a single > > conglomerate to control most of a community's major media outlets, > including > > cable systems and broadband Internet service providers. There will be > fewer > > owners nationally of all major media outlets of communications. > > > > Right-wing powerhouses are also likely to grow more powerful soon, unless > > opposed. Rupert Murdoch's Fox is planning to take over the country's most > > powerful satellite service, Direct TV. He will be able not only to control > > access to millions of households, he will use it as a " Death Star " to > > further expand his broadcast and cable TV empires. Meanwhile, liberals -- > > let alone progressives -- have no ownership influence over any major media > > outlet. > > > > This is all happening despite the fact that growing numbers of the public > > are willing to stand up and express their unhappiness with the way media > > conglomerates are using the public airwaves. As Neil Hickey describes in > his > > article, " The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership, " in hearings across > the > > country there has been a huge outpouring of public concern and anxiety > about > > the direction of the media system. > > > > Not surprisingly, the media conglomerates thirst for more control as they > > seek to end media ownership limits. What all this means for our nation > > hasn't been covered by the media. There has been no TV network news > coverage > > on the impending media give-away. Nor have the major dailies explained to > > readers what their lobbyists are doing and how such changes will affect > > journalism, politics and the public's First Amendment rights to a system > > fostering diversity of viewpoints and expression. > > > > A rare exception was a recent column in the New York Times by conservative > > pundit William Safire arguing that the media system is hiding the real > story > > because it is unwilling to " expose the broadcast lobby's pressure on > > Congress and the courts to allow station owners to gobble up more stations > > and cross-own local newspapers, thereby to determine what information > > residents of a local market receive. " > > > > The proposed FCC rule changes will further weaken the ability of > mainstream > > journalism to serve as a critical public safeguard. Soon, reporters at > > newspapers will have to pay attention to whether they get TV ratings, once > > their papers become part of larger TV empires concerned about promoting > > advertising and " brandwashing. " More importantly, the country will have > even > > fewer gatekeepers over the news and popular culture that informs much of > > public consciousness. (Read more about this problem from media mogul Barry > > Diller, who made many revealing statements to Bill Moyers on a recent > > edition of his program NOW, on PBS.) > > > > As recent TV coverage of the Iraq war illustrates, US media companies > aren't > > interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. " Embedded " > > reporters present information from a point of view shared with U.S. > > soldiers. News outlets hire retired military generals to dish up the > > prominent " expert " point of view. Journalists regurgitate communiqués > > disseminated by the Pentagon. Corporate TV stations avoid feeding viewers > > information and images they " don't like " such as coverage of civilian > > casualties and protests. The network that 36 percent of people watch for > > their primary war coverage (Fox News, according to a recent Gallup poll), > is > > a deliberately conservative mouthpiece. Furthermore, for the media > companies > > to be heavily lobbying the Bush administration for give-aways that will > net > > them billions of dollars -- while they are providing mostly uncritical > > coverage of the war -- gets to the crux of our media problem. Danny > > Schechter of the Media Channel provides more details of this media > > conglomerate war cheerleading collusion in " War Coverage Rewrites > History. " > > > > The FCC's Powell is also promoting massive consolidation in cable TV and > > with online communications for this summer. Soon just two massive cable > > companies -- Comcast and AOL Time Warner -- may be legally permitted to > own > > almost all of the nation's cable TV systems. And Powell has already > removed > > critical safeguards that will enable cable and telephone giants to > dominate > > high-speed Internet access -- which has alarmed the ACLU (and even other > > monopolists like Microsoft and Disney). > > > > Some key members of Congress may be undergoing some reality therapy as > > citizens are forcing them to confront the stark ramifications of the media > > deregulation they have enabled. One overwhelming result of their actions, > > for example, is the Clear Channel Communications buying spree (the company > > now owns more than 1200 radio stations), which has run roughshod over the > > nation's commercial radio system, turning it into a wasteland of > conformity > > and commercialism. In contrast, back in 1996, the combined total of the > > number of stations owned by the two largest radio chains was a mere 115. > > Eric Boehlert, as part of a powerful and detailed series on Salon.com on > > media concentration, explains how the Clear Channel situation may be > > producing a backlash. > > > > A less known but also disturbing trend is represented by another > > conservative company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which, as Paul Schmelzer > > writes in " The Death of Local News, " is pioneering the frightening model > of > > local news from a central sources thousands of miles away from the market. > > Meanwhile, perhaps unrelated to media concentration, but clearly connected > > to the war, female voices have just about disappeared from the media as > > documented by Caryl Rivers from Women's ENews. > > > > Despite all the bad news, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project > > offers: " These decisions in June are hardly the end of it. There is a real > > effort to keep the FCC in check going forward. Cable ownership rules are > up > > for review this summer. There will be a spate of mergers after the rules > > change, and organizing may be able to beat some of them back, and pushes > for > > legislation to gain back some of what has been lost. " > > > > But in the big picture, unfortunately, elected officials have been silent > > about what will be the most significant changes in media diversity rules > > since the Reagan era. It's time to send Congress a message that they > should > > speak up now and defend the right to free speech, competition and > ownership > > diversity in the digital age. To make your voice heard go to > > MediaReform.net, a comprehensive website that makes it easy for you to > > register your protest about the FCC's media deregulation policies. > > > > Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.org. Jeffrey Chester is the > > director of the Center for Digital Democracy. > > > > > > > > © 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > > > > > The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Misty, you are doing a good job. I am new to the list and feel that if I do not know what is going on in our government, whether it be conservative or liberal, I am going to wake upone day and find myself in the same position as those people who live in England. It is much easier to fight a battle if you are prepared and use your God given right to protest to the " generals " who are in charge before the order is forever written in stone. Thank you and any others for any info that you offer. If it is not of interest to me I can always use my delete button but since I am always interested in alternatives, I cannot imagine doing that without scanning to be sure I am not going to miss something. Keep up the good work and I will have a report on the " loss of hair " shortly. Enjoying it all, Eloise >>>>> Thank you for expressing your views...>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.