Censorship

Censorship has become a complicated and heated issue within the United States over the past couple of decades. The government seems to only want to restrict the freedom of speech and the majority of the populace appears to allow for this to happen. However, what started as a small growing number of people are starting to take notice to this injustice and are speaking out against the governments control and censorship. The government claims they are doing this for the good of the country and in some aspects that does make sense. For example, like how new stations during the first golf war, “Desert Storm”, were reporting things before they happen. In that aspect censorship does make sense. Yet, when the government is censoring swear words on the Howard Stern Show and bleeping out ever other sentence due to inappropriate material. In that aspect the government is overstepping its boundaries.
The aspect of censorship which I will be addressing is that of media censorship and the control of the FCC over TV and Radio stations. I intend to show the borders which the government is overstepping in order to impose their restrictions. For example, like how the government stuck in a freedom of speech barrier within the Patriot Act which was designed after the events of September 11th. This Acts purpose was to protect the United States, not restrict their freedom of speech. Through evidence similar to this I will prove and convince my audience that the government’s restrictions over the media are overly sensitive.

Corporate Takeover

After reading Ronnie Dugger’s article, Corporate Takeover of the Media, you diffidently get a sense of his passion and his anger for how he feels about the way media is being enforced and treated in our country. He starts off talking about how the government is dolling out commercial right on independent digital channels to licensed broadcasters for free. From there he moves on to how big media corporations seem to be able to ignore the laws set in place. Such as no corporation can control more than 35% of the TV sent to the population and cable is no more than 30%. Yet, companies like CBS/Viacom reach 41% of the population. Also that no company can control both TV and newspaper markets in the same region. However, Tribune Co. owns TV Company and newspaper in the same market. Dugger latter states that in some areas of the country, companies own a newspaper, radio station, and television stations. From here I the reader pulled back for a moment and thought, “yea well what’s the big deal, so what, why do I care.” Dugger’s response, at least it seemed to me, was that if the media controls all outlets of information. They have to ability to manipulate that information that the public hears in what ever way they choose, these corporations have the influence. From a business stand point, this strategy make very good sense, but from an ethical stand point, not so much. Let’s say the corporation that owns what ever media outlet reports the news in your region does something bad, do you think they are going to be the first and most honest about that incident. Realistically, probably not. Dugger further comments on how US corporations are trying to take over the electromagnetic spectrum airwaves, which are international public property. They are doing this by trying to force our government to push for regulations on them. Finally, Dugger ends on how this country needs some political figure to go against the norm and fight the corporations. Make freedom of media an issue on Capitol Hill.

Does Big Mean Bad?

Tom Goldstein takes a different perspective on the current issue of media consolidation” in his article “Does Big Mean Bad?” He argues that the merger of all of these media firms into larger and fewer ones, is natural and that it is potentially not a negative event. He clarifies his argument by showing example of where major corporations within a market, merged into few leading to the betterment for all. These examples then lead him, to the point that it is only natural for any competitive market of business to have buy outs, mergers, and bankruptcy. He almost describes it as a natural cycle of life. Just like how the big eight accounting firms soon became the big six and now current day big four. He then touches on the future of media, the internet and it seems to be heading down a similar path as the rest of the media. He somewhat infers that the internet will one day be dominated by large corporations.

Big Media

Robert W. McChesney and Eric Alterman, the authors of “Big Media: Who Owns the News?” bring to light many of the unknown facts about who really controls the media. They open up their article with a short story about how two people who quit their jobs at a News Corporation and Viacome. The result of them leaving leaves little or no effect on their previous employers. This story illustrates how these media corporations are simply companies seeking profits. What issue are the authors trying to bring to light through this idea of the media being controlled by corporations? Well, at one time the media was controlled by no one; rather it was a form of freedom of speech. Now, large conglomerate control what was freedom of the press, because of the government’s law and regulations. Such as how the government controls all 1,200 of the clear broadcasting radio channels. If a person does attempt to exercise their freedom of speech and decided to broadcast over one of these controlled wave lengths they could face time in a federal penitentiary. Why does the government put these regulations in place; to bolster support for their own needs. In addition, the article also infers they do it to control and manipulate the U.S., through organizations like the FCC. What McChesney and Alterman conclude in the end is that it will be impossible to have our type of government with the current media. Either the media must change or the constitution.

How Does The Empty Glass Fill?

How Does The Empty Glass Fill? A Modern Philosophy Of The Digital Divide, by Solveig Singleton and Lucas Mast. This article makes a few good points which I would like to comment on before addressing what I thought of the article. First good point they make is how people are over reacting and calling the “digital divide” a crisis. While I don’t think it is even near a crisis, at least within our own country, I do think it is an issue that must be addressed. Next good point they make supports my first, in the early nineties, which was less than twenty years ago, no body had cell phones, personal computers, or the internet. Now everybody has them and yet we were not in a crisis then. People were able to do many of the same things and than as they do now. As well, people were able to change rapidly from not having to having and utilizing. Finally, the very good point that the writers make is how students are pushed to be so up to date with the latest technology, yet a growing number are not even schooled in basic reading and writing skills. What I enjoyed about this article were the interesting and unique perspectives which it provided on the issue of the digital divide. I also enjoyed how they broke up the article into sections with titles that spoke of how the digital divide affected each sector. Lastly I liked how the conclusion was clear and concise to what they had been talking about throughout. What I did not enjoy about this article was that the tone, it seemed almost arrogant, like everything they said was the right way. It left no wiggle room from my perspective. Over all I would probably suggest this article if someone is interested in the digital divide.

After reading Joshua Kurlantzick, DICTATORSHIP.COM, I sat back and reflected about what I just read. While this information packed article was, to me, rather well written, it did not seem to keep my interest throughout. Every once and a while an interesting fact would bring back my interest, but over all I merely read it to get it over with. What I did like was how he started off his article, with the little story about him being in the Internet café in communist Laos. That gave me false hope about how interesting this article would be to me. Overall I would probably not suggest this article, unless you are looking for facts about the international spread of the internet to communist and 3rd world countries.