3 ms·

I've never understood how I'm supposed to feel about this. Successful businessmen are always going to own successful media companies in a capitalist society. P

by kypro 6y ago

I've never understood how I'm supposed to feel about this. Successful businessmen are always going to own successful media companies in a capitalist society. Perhaps there is room in the US for a national media company like we have here in the UK, but even here most successful media companies are still owned by successful businessmen.

A12-B 6y ago
Media should not be centralised
- er4hn 6y ago
  I think this is the correct answer. Any business where there is a lack of competition tends towards negative monopolistic behaviors. Monopolies tend to not be good for consumers with knock-on effects for society. If gas (standard oil, for example) is a monopoly then consumers experience inflated prices. If media has a lack of competition consumers are told a point of view that they believe over time due to a lack of alternatives.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 6y ago
    That horse bolted long ago, as long as the 18th or 19th century, as soon as people got news of what other people far away liked, and had a chance to pay for a piece of it. The star system (one star takes the pickings over thousands of local artists) started then, and probably won't get stopped unless we get punted back to sticks and stones.
guerrilla 6y ago
I think it would help you see where people are coming from if you assume media ownership is power and consider that consolidation of power is undemocratic.
HenryBemis 6y ago
Somehow to add to what guerilla is writing.. Example: I have lots of money. Media is a profitable business. I buy some media companies because 'more profit'. I accept and welcome the above. BUT.. I have lots of money, I made it selling heroin, and now the media are on to me, so I will 'buy a couple of media companies to counter the noise', is completely different game. I am thinking of Italy's Berlusconi. He had sex parties, some had minor(s) [0][1], but it's all good. He owned media companies, ad companies, he was the prime minister, he was untouchable. He used all this power and control to have sex with minors? He wasn't Epstein-grade, but he wasn't a clean guy either. So.. media consolidation helps or not the 'evils'? [0]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=195272163 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=195272... [1]: https://www.smh.com.au/world/second-minor-at-berlusconi-parties-report-20110128-1a75b.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/second-minor-at-berlusconi-part...
- kypro 6y ago
  I agree with this and I think you seem to be acknowledging that the word "billionaire" in this article is irrelevant? My issue is that it's being used here as if the reader should care that rich people own media companies. Perhaps the article should be titled, "These 15 [bad people] Own America's News Media Companies", because as you point out, it's okay for rich people to own successful media companies, but that sometimes people with bad motives who are rich enough to own a media company do so. I was being critical of the framing of the article – I understand why people are critical of the individuals and the motivations of those who own media companies.

by kypro 6y ago

A12-B 6y ago

Media should not be centralised

er4hn 6y ago
I think this is the correct answer. Any business where there is a lack of competition tends towards negative monopolistic behaviors. Monopolies tend to not be good for consumers with knock-on effects for society. If gas (standard oil, for example) is a monopoly then consumers experience inflated prices. If media has a lack of competition consumers are told a point of view that they believe over time due to a lack of alternatives.
- B1FF_PSUVM 6y ago
  That horse bolted long ago, as long as the 18th or 19th century, as soon as people got news of what other people far away liked, and had a chance to pay for a piece of it. The star system (one star takes the pickings over thousands of local artists) started then, and probably won't get stopped unless we get punted back to sticks and stones.

guerrilla 6y ago

I think it would help you see where people are coming from if you assume media ownership is power and consider that consolidation of power is undemocratic.

HenryBemis 6y ago

Somehow to add to what guerilla is writing.. Example: I have lots of money. Media is a profitable business. I buy some media companies because 'more profit'. I accept and welcome the above. BUT.. I have lots of money, I made it selling heroin, and now the media are on to me, so I will 'buy a couple of media companies to counter the noise', is completely different game. I am thinking of Italy's Berlusconi. He had sex parties, some had minor(s) [0][1], but it's all good. He owned media companies, ad companies, he was the prime minister, he was untouchable. He used all this power and control to have sex with minors? He wasn't Epstein-grade, but he wasn't a clean guy either. So.. media consolidation helps or not the 'evils'? [0]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=195272163 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=195272... [1]: https://www.smh.com.au/world/second-minor-at-berlusconi-parties-report-20110128-1a75b.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/second-minor-at-berlusconi-part...

kypro 6y ago
I agree with this and I think you seem to be acknowledging that the word "billionaire" in this article is irrelevant? My issue is that it's being used here as if the reader should care that rich people own media companies. Perhaps the article should be titled, "These 15 [bad people] Own America's News Media Companies", because as you point out, it's okay for rich people to own successful media companies, but that sometimes people with bad motives who are rich enough to own a media company do so. I was being critical of the framing of the article – I understand why people are critical of the individuals and the motivations of those who own media companies.