Media Capitalism

Superman · 12-16-2005, 08:37 AM

I'm curious. If capitalism ensures that the people get what they want and need, then how come you guys don't have more media territory than libs. You think you're the vast majority in this country (several of you said this very recently, so you're on record), and yet your buying power has not been sufficient to mold the media to your liking.

I don't believe that capitalism fills all the gaps, and provides what the people need and want. But most of you here do, and I just wonder if you can explain how a LARGE industry such as the media could fail to satisfy the majority of Americans.

This should be interesting.

Dantilla · 12-16-2005, 08:40 AM

What's this? A liberal admitting there is a liberal bias in the media?

Superman · 12-16-2005, 08:47 AM

Focus, Dan. We're talking about conservatives' disappointment with the media, not my approval. I think you and I would both be heavily medicated if we were grade school kids today. But okay, I'll bite. I'll admit that I'm not violently disappointed with the media. And since conservatives are, I suppose the media thinks more like me than them. Is that an adequate dodge of your question?

gaijindabe · 12-16-2005, 08:49 AM

"LARGE industry" wants to make money. Period. Full stop.

Radio and TV have been heavily regulated from the beginning. Hence leftist. The blogisphere is not, and hence you get many, many more conservative voices.

legion · 12-16-2005, 08:50 AM

In this case, those in control of hiring at all of the major media outlets walk while dragging their left hands on the ground. They hire like-minded people, who work their way up, and hire like-minded people. Conservatives have their outlets: Fox News, AM radio. They are routinely smeared by the "established" media--newspapers, television, news magazines.

The simple fact is that there is a relatively small amount of people in control of a lot of the media. This is not a efficient market, and thus not really capitalism. I would characterize the U.S. media more as a collusive oligopoly.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Radio and TV have been heavily regulated from the beginning. Hence leftist.
How does 'heavily regulated' automatically mean 'leftist'?
The blogisphere is not, and hence you get many, many more conservative voices.
That and $3.50 will get you a latte'. but not much else.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Nobody has yet addressed Supe's initial question. Irrespective of who owns the media, who they hire, etc: if conservatism really was what the people wanted, simple market dynamics would have all of the networks clamouring to out-Limbaugh the other guy in the way they rushed headlong into reality-tv. If joe sixpack was as conservative as you claim, Limbaugh would be the color guy on Monday Night Football, brought to you by Oxycontin... oh, wait, nevermind...

Superman · 12-16-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by legion

The simple fact is that there is a relatively small amount of people in control of a lot of the media. This is not a efficient market, and thus not really capitalism. I would characterize the U.S. media more as a collusive oligopoly.

This is a stunningly eloquent and concise and direct response to my question. I'm feeling faint.

Okay, I recovered. So, these folks in control must be the owners of the media, I assume? The capitalists who own the media? So I guess they're leaving some earnings in the locker room so they can pursue a liberal agenda that costs them millions in earnings they COULD be getting? And it's a unanimous collusive oligopoly? I mean, if they're leaving this much revenue in the locker room, that's GOT to be creating the world's most powerful commercial vacuum. American media.

Or maybe it's the underlings. Again, this would suggest that ALL the media outlets are being run by underlings in ways that are not maximizing the owners' earnings, and the owners are not correcting this problem?

Hmmmmm.......

gaijindabe · 12-16-2005, 09:04 AM

Be patient boys. Modern Media is a pretty recent invention. Look when the FCC and the rest was created - what was the dominant political philosophy of that time?

In the "marketplace of ideas" the big battles are long over, just a few skirmishes on the margins. It just takes a while for the big boys to catch up.

RallyJon · 12-16-2005, 09:08 AM

Damn good question. Imagine if the Wall Street Journal started a cable news channel--how cool would that be? I'd watch it. Seems like it would be a pretty lucrative demographic for advertising, too.

It does seem that the media attracts a certain type of person, like academia does. This has led to the incredible structural bias we see today. Change certainly won't come from the bottom up, it'll have to be a top down demand for impartiality that drives hiring. Unfortunately, Fox News really hasn't tried very hard in that department, it seems to me.

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

If you are talking about news media, the answer is that people are not looking for news that is tilted to their perspective, they are looking for unbiased reporting, which you do not feel they are getting, unless I misread the initial post. Liberal radio is apparently not surviving, I seem to remember hearing that air america was getting cancelled.

If you are talking about entertainment media, it is pretty simple. Which is more likely to garner viewers, A show about people going to work, paying their taxes and staying married to the same person, or a show about abunch of hot looking housewives who are doing the neighbors, the pool boy and the gardener(I am guessing about the content, because I have never seen Desperate Housewives, except for the bit with Terrel Owens on MNF)

Seahawk · 12-16-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by legion

The simple fact is that there is a relatively small amount of people in control of a lot of the media. This is not a efficient market, and thus not really capitalism. I would characterize the U.S. media more as a collusive oligopoly.

Major news media (in this case TV) are not profit centers and are usually subsidized by other corporate ventures...they are, in essense, not self-supporting. Gone are the days of single entity corporations like CNN that can operate at a consistent profit.

Viewership is WAY down and the capitalists who decide where to spend advertising funds have other viable alternatives.

As well, since the threshold costs are enormous, and the profit margin increasingly slim, there are effective barriers to the TV marketplace. TV news is not a good investment. Where the are less barriers, radio for instance, conservative voices match liberal vocies.