Chavez wins elections, we are screwed!

[jp]

Media should be free. People should have the right to access the media, all media, regardless of if you think it is good or bad.

Completely agree with this. Also follows that media monopolies need to be broken up to ensure media plurality. Having a monopoly dominate the press and airwaves with its private agenda isn't good for democracy either. Difficult to make an informed opinion when you're only ever given one side of every story.

 

[Conorworld]

Completely agree with this. Also follows that media monopolies need to be broken up to ensure media plurality. Having a monopoly dominate the press and airwaves with its private agenda isn't good for democracy either. Difficult to make an informed opinion when you're only ever given one side of every story.

Exactly. You may not like some of the media out there but with a wide and varied amount you can find something for you

 

[ghost]

I have no doubt that the voting machines and basic process of pushing the button on the day are fair. My statement was about how lopsided everything else was - lack of equal access to state media for an example. We see now in the United States about Romney and Obama trying to out fundraise each other to spend on media. Just think that it would be like if say Obama took over all the stations and refused to allow Romney any ads bar 3 minutes a day? How skewed would the election result be? That's my point.

Nope he just needs a brother in Florida and some "hanging chads". It's all cooked into the new world order and the clowns are just puppets that dance for the public. Every country puts on their own show, but at the end of the day......It's a Show.

 

[syngirl]

Can you back up your claims about total govt media control? May I add a caveat? If the anti-Chavez corporate media was a FOX network-like entity that relied on lies and exaggeration, would it be irresponsible or completely responsible to shut them down? I would be delighted if all corporate AND govt media in North America bit the dust (including and especially NPR), in favour of grass roots subscriber funded media.

Especially NPR? only 6% of funding for NPR comes from govt. 50% comes from "grass roots subscribers". The rest of funding comes from grants, universities, and then yes, of course corporations. So if you're looking for grass roots media, why get rid of NPR? It's the closest you're going to get in America to a grass roots media.

 

[nicoenarg]

Can you back up your claims about total govt media control? May I add a caveat? If the anti-Chavez corporate media was a FOX network-like entity that relied on lies and exaggeration, would it be irresponsible or completely responsible to shut them down? I would be delighted if all corporate AND govt media in North America bit the dust (including and especially NPR), in favour of grass roots subscriber funded media.

Not only would it be irresponsible, it should be illegal. Just because you don't like to hear what a "news" channel has to say doesn't mean you should be like, "Shut them down." Ever heard of freedom of speech? Or do you find it respectable when a leader of a country exercises his/her powers illegally and shuts down a TV station he or she doesn't like?

Say what you will about America (North America is a continent, we're speaking English here, aren't we? Get with the program), freedom of speech and expression is still one of the things that make America the most desired country in the world for the oppressed.

Now that might mean nothing to you, and that's fine by me, but it means a lot to a whole lot of people in the world.

So again, no it would and should be illegal to shut down a TV station just because you don't like what it has to say. You, with your caveman style wishes, might not know about this invention called a REMOTE. But figure it out and use it to change the damn channel when you don't like something you see on TV.

 

[nicoenarg]

Especially NPR? only 6% of funding for NPR comes from govt. 50% comes from "grass roots subscribers". The rest of funding comes from grants, universities, and then yes, of course corporations. So if you're looking for grass roots media, why get rid of NPR? It's the closest you're going to get in America to a grass roots media.

It would be closer to 16-20% when it comes to government funding as CPB is part of the government and universities get a lot of government grants too.

According to the latest numbers on their website, individuals make up 39% of their revenue.

Federal, State & Local: 4.6%
CPB: 11%

Universities: 8%

etc.

 

[nicoenarg]

As for whether monopolies should be broken up or not. Monopolies are created BECAUSE of government intervention, not inspite of government intervention. So think about it before you want the government to do even more for you.

Secondly, if there are monopolies, the most effective way to destroy a monopoly is to create competition. Why would government funding go to huge networks like PBS and NPR is beyond me.

And since we are in Argentina, if it wasn't for the governments over the decades, Clarin wouldn't be where it is right now. The governments should stop concerning themselves with pulling new laws out of their asses to attack a monopoly. The governments should, if they really are against monopolies, be helping prop up competition, real competition not government puppets, and that will eventually weaken any mammoth of a business.

Lastly, Clarin is not a monopoly. Study Economics 101 people. The situation in Argentina resembles an oligopoly where a few dominate the industry but it is most certainly not a monopoly. It seems like the term "monopoly" is now thrown around freely at any corporation or business people don't like, kind of like "Hitler" is thrown around at individuals people don't like.

EDIT: Before I am taken out of context, I am not advocating more government. What I am saying is that if the people really want the government's grubby hand to help them against mammoth media organizations, then it is better to help start up competitve business, rather than try to break up a monopoly or an oligopoly. If the government does the latter, then you're left with a vacuum, that gets filled ONCE AGAIN with a similar structure.

 

[Iznogud]

Ask yourself how the local telecomms came to be...
The government grabbed the doe and couldn't care less of the public or end results. American companies were not willing to fork what was demanded under the table so they could not "compete" with the Europeans.
Most of the radio/comms spectrum was distributed the same way. Now they pretend to grow a new interest in the public's intellectual welfare and exposure.

 

[sleslie23]

Say what you will about America (North America is a continent, we're speaking English here, aren't we? Get with the program), freedom of speech and expression is still one of the things that make America the most desired country in the world for the oppressed.

Ha ha, you have a skewed view of the US. I agree that the US may be seen by some as the "most desired country in the world for the oppressed." But keep in mind there are 2.25 million people (mostly minority) incarcerated in your paradise.

Even if you are referring specifically to "the most desired country in the world for the POLITICALLY oppressed" that is changing rapidly in the US. Sure, it's not as bad as Saudi Arabia, but it's definitely not what it used to be.

 

[MariainDC]

I have no doubt that the voting machines and basic process of pushing the button on the day are fair. My statement was about how lopsided everything else was - lack of equal access to state media for an example. We see now in the United States about Romney and Obama trying to out fundraise each other to spend on media. Just think that it would be like if say Obama took over all the stations and refused to allow Romney any ads bar 3 minutes a day? How skewed would the election result be? That's my point.

Yeah, that is the depressing thing - the elections might have been technically and process-wise OK (for instance, Capriles' campaign organization Comando Venezuela was able to put people in all voting stations), but the complete lack of access to opposition media outside of a few cities (Globovision only has coverage around Caracas), and Chavez' complete grip on the media made it all very unfair and undemocratic.