[speechlesstx]

When the media were entities themselves weren't most of them still corporations?

When congress passes laws that have dramatic effects on corporations, are they just supposed to shut up and take it? That seems to be the idea here, and not only are these Dems pi$$ed at those who are reporting on how Obamacare affects their business and employees, they're pi$$ed at insurance companies for pointing out the Dems own stupid mistakes, like forgetting to require them to cover children:

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

It's an easily recognizable pattern here, ex, has been ever since Obama was elected - dissent suddenly became evil. Opposing Obama or his policies is unacceptable, so let's avoid debate and demonize anyone who dares to oppose regardless of the facts.

[tomder55]

So then it isn't really about their right to free speech ;it's that they are effective in their use of that right in a way that offends your vision of free enterprise.

The same power they exercise is exercised by other corporate units like trade unions and advocacy groups of all kinds . Would you also argue that SEIU ,the AFT or the AFL-CIO should not have the right to petition and influence the government,. the Sierra Club , Homeowners Associations ,Consumer Organizations or the NAARP... the NAACP ?How about organizations that advocate for small "Main Street " business like the US Chamber of Commerce ?

Every single one of these groups petition and perform advocacy for" the people" persons they represent.. Did the founders also ban the people from forming associations to influence the body politic ? What are political parties except another influence group that is also legally incorporated ?

[excon]

When the media were entities themselves weren't most of them still corporations?

Hello again, Steve:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just going to pretend that corporate ownership of media isn't a problem? Or, is it only a problem when GE owns the media?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just gonna pretend that corporate ownership of media isn't a problem? Or, is it only a problem when GE owns the media?

Obtuse? I’m not the one avoiding the point of my last 2 posts. Obtuse? You mean the media didn’t actively press their interests and agenda before corporate ownership?

[excon]

You mean the media didn't actively press their interests and agenda before corporate ownership?

Hello again, Steve:

Let's try arguing about the same thing. That's a whole lot more fun, isn't it?

Before corporatist ownership of the media (that's a NEW word now, since we're having trouble with these distinctions), they DID, as you point out, actively press THEIR interests... But, the interests of a media FREE from CORPORATE interference, corresponds to MY interests as a citizen. Media that is owned by corporations that have agendas DIFFERENT than news gathering and reporting, DOESN'T correspond to MY interests.

Given your disdain for GE, we should be on the same page here. Unless, of course, you tell me that RIGHT WING ownership of the media is fine, but not those lefties... I'd understand if you did. Truly, I would.

excon

[tomder55]

For my 2 cents corporate ownership of the press and the media is fine with me so long it is upfront. I do have problems with the content of the news divisions of the GE Corp . But I would not deny their right to either own the media ;or to use it to promote their interests .

[excon]

I do have problems with the content of the news divisions of the GE Corp . But I would not deny their right to either own the media ;or to use it to promote their interests .

Hello again, tom:

I have the same problems with FOX... But, it goes deeper than that. Corporations buy each other, and I'm sure you're fine with that... What happens if GE buys ALL the media?? Are you going to like it THEN?

Nope. The media should be FREE from corporate interference. That's good for YOU and it's good for ME. Of course, you don't see it that way.

excon

[tomder55]

I'm sure there are antitrust rules that cover that contingency.
But this argument is so 20th century . There are so many alternatives for informantion gathering that I hardly need Fox ,GE ,Disney ,or the other conglomerates for information. In fact; I usually rely on various independent compilers on the web for that purpose.

The newspapers ,radio ,network news are all suffering audience decline because there are independent means to gather reported news and to filter it .

[speechlesstx]

Let's try arguing about the same thing. That's a whole lot more fun, isn't it?

I would but you keep ignoring my point, which is the statists aren't interested in free speech, they aren't interested in debate. ANY dissent from their agenda will get you hauled in to the Capitol and intimidated as a corporation and branded a racist/terrorist/bigot if you're a concerned citizen.

That leads us back to your opening words, "SHOULD your congressman represent you...?"

What exactly do you mean by "represent you?"

[excon]

I'm sure there are antitrust rules that cover that contingency.

Hello again, tom:

I'm sure they'll have a packed Supreme Court to let them get away with it. No? That IS the result of corporatism...

excon

[tomder55]

Last I checked most decisions of SCOTUS in the last 20+ years have been 5-4 one way or the other and one justice recognized as the so called "swing vote" .
If anyone has an opportunity to pack the court in the near future it is the Democrat "progressives " .

But like I said... your standard media empire is eroding rapidly . Example... Citadel broadcasting owned by Disney... one of the most popular venues for "right wing " talk radio filed for Chapt. 11. Air America is already smoked. Across the board the network media is a money loser and despite the skewed opinions here... cable news does NOT have a huge audience and are mostly entertainment rather than straight up news reporting .
The newspapers are all money losers .

So where is this concern about consolidation coming from ? The press is as free as it has ever been because there are citizen journalists out there shedding the light on what was once an elitist profession .

[excon]

So where is this concern about consolidation coming from ? The press is as free as it has ever been because there are citizen journalists out there shedding the light on what was once an elitist profession .

Hello again, tom:

You and I are discriminating consumers of news. We're not the problem. We seek out our sources... We're WELL informed... The problem is the lazy ones, and their susceptibility to corporate propaganda. That isn't good for ANYBODY. Wouldn't it be better for ALL of us, if ALL the media were free from corporate influence??

excon

[tomder55]

No ,and I don't have such a patronizing attitude about the people either ;nor did the founders(and it is a fact that even the most ill-educated person in America today is better educated than the majority were in the colonial days) .

Perhaps you would prefer the early days of the country when the news was disseminated by politicians writing in pseudonym because they were the only ones with the capital to publish ?

I'll say it again ;never before in our history has the "press" been as free and open .

What will destroy a free press will be when these corporations take government bailout money because their news divisions are money losers . (this is seriously being proposed for the print news industry ) .

[speechlesstx]

and their susceptibility to corporate propaganda.

You keep implying that "corporate" propaganda is the problem. As opposed to the ideological propaganda of the mainstream media? The same media that breathlessly reported on all nonexistent that tea party racism? The same media that is breathlessly reporting today on that "Christian" militia group? I guess we could rely on publicly funded media like NPR, eh?

Now back to my earlier question, what do you mean by should your Congressman "represent you?"

[excon]

Now back to my earlier question, what do you mean by should your Congressman "represent you?"

Hello again, Steve:

You don't distinguish between corporate interests and the citizens interests. I do. I see them as opposed to each other. You don't.

excon

[smoothy]

Corporations in a district... ARE represented just as well as individuals are.

If you want jobs that aren't a 3 hour commute... they better represent the interests of that (or THOSE) business(es) too... or they WILL leave... happens all the time.

If they are any sort of politician... they will balance them. Or suffer the loss of tax revenue and jobs.

[speechlesstx]

You don't distinguish between corporate interests and the citizens interests. I do. I see them as opposed to each other. You don't.

No, like tom I'm not so patronizing toward the American people. You seem to be under the impression that we can't distinguish between what's in our own interest and what's not, which takes us back to the question you keep dodging - what do you mean by your congressman representing you?

[excon]

Corporations in a district....ARE represented just as well as individuals are.

If you want jobs that aren't a 3 hour commute....they better represent the interests of that (or THOSE) business(es) too....or they WILL leave...

Hello again, smoothy:

You called me a socialist. Here's how I'm not, and your position IS...

In fact, I'm for FREE enterprise. I believe if people are left alone, they'll seek to better themselves, and in so doing, create the greatest economy ever created. That's what we did. That's what make capitalism great.

But, when I say FREE enterprise, I really mean FREE enterprise. That's what I meant, above, when I said "left alone". If business is "left alone" they'll compete in the market, and the BEST products and services will survive. SECOND best will go into the junk heap... That's capitalism personified.

That is, unless SECOND best visits his congressmen to make sure he's "represented". Frankly, I don't know what a businessman NEEDS from congress, unless it's laws favorable to HIS business. But, what kind of laws could a businessman need that helps him compete? Seems to me, he doesn't need ANY. All he needs is an even playing field. To me, that idea canotes an ABSENCE of law. Nope. Your guy only needs laws if he's unable to compete the old fashioned way - by EARNING it.

So, he needs government help, or government subsidy's, or laws that favor his industry... I don't see that kind of corporate welfare any different than poor peoples welfare. You, of course, support government helping business, or to use your words, they will leave.

Nope. I'm a free marketeer. You want the government to intervene. That's positively LIBERAL.

excon

[tomder55]

It's a chicken or eggs argument . Which came 1st ;government intervention in the market place requiring someone to petition the government on their behalf ;or was it the businessperson seeking an unwarranted advantage ?

I don't know how far back in history we should go ;however the history books I read as a child touted the government intervention of the so called evils of laissez-fare .

[excon]

I don't know how far back in history we should go ;however the history books I read as a child touted the government intervention of the so called evils of laissez-fare .

Hello again, tom:

If I were to put all the laws that CONSTRAIN business on ONE side of a teeter totter, and all the laws thatFAVOR business on the other, the laws that FAVOR business would far outweigh those CONSTRAINING it.

I don't know how far back we need to go either. But there was a time, during BOTH of our lifetimes, when the products or services won our business because they were the best there were. Now, I don't know if the products and services that pervade the marketplace are the BEST, or if the companies that provide them LOBBIED the hardest.

excon