I'm not a legal expert but my general understanding as far as I'm aware is most big media co's are 'private'. Are private co's required legally to be unbiased and inform people as much as possible? I wish a lawyer could lay out EXACTLY what (if anything)they are legally required to do. What I do know though is that public networks (PBS) are legally bound in ways to educate and inform us in as unbiased manner as possible since they are 'publicly' funded. Public money = public interest.
Big media co's are private - however the channel of communications that they use are not. This is why the government though the FCC has the power to regulate "Interstate Commerce".
We tell the FCC what to do. We create a NEW kind of corporation type that IS legally required to inform the people. Period. It MUST LEGALLY place informing the people OVER making a profit. Then we take our slice of the channel of communication these media corporations are using which ARE owned by the public.
Lobbyists and regulators become obsolete. THEN you can have citizen journalists.
Unless you have not been paying attention, there are a LOT of powerful people right now who do not like the Internet because it IS democratic...
We can't have that-people might actually figure out what those powerful people don't want you to know. They NEED you to remain ignorant to hold their power.
If you are still not convinced, answer this question: Why is congressman Wexler doing a youtube video?
Click on "More From Advocacy Corporation" on the right for Part 2.
AdvocacyCorporation 4 years ago
I'm not a legal expert but my general understanding as far as I'm aware is most big media co's are 'private'. Are private co's required legally to be unbiased and inform people as much as possible? I wish a lawyer could lay out EXACTLY what (if anything)they are legally required to do. What I do know though is that public networks (PBS) are legally bound in ways to educate and inform us in as unbiased manner as possible since they are 'publicly' funded. Public money = public interest.
MrEclectik 4 years ago
Big media co's are private - however the channel of communications that they use are not. This is why the government though the FCC has the power to regulate "Interstate Commerce".
We tell the FCC what to do. We create a NEW kind of corporation type that IS legally required to inform the people. Period. It MUST LEGALLY place informing the people OVER making a profit. Then we take our slice of the channel of communication these media corporations are using which ARE owned by the public.
AdvocacyCorporation 4 years ago
Granted the mainstream news media are grotesquely biased, lazy and trivial. I don't see how government intervention is going to make them any better.
What we need is more citizen journalism.
By the way making a video about something you saw in the paper is NOT journalism.
fremontr 4 years ago
Institutionalize the "citizen journalist" into:
A private sector,
partially federally subsidized,
for profit entitity
that can buy and sell stock
who acts as a clearing house for a type of information based on a certain type of goal that gets free air time
though an FCC mandate
that CANNOT place profits over informing the people
...and you have a recipie for rapid structural changes in society.
You have in effect, YouTube on Television -on steroids.
AdvocacyCorporation 4 years ago
Lobbyists and regulators become obsolete. THEN you can have citizen journalists.
Unless you have not been paying attention, there are a LOT of powerful people right now who do not like the Internet because it IS democratic...
We can't have that-people might actually figure out what those powerful people don't want you to know. They NEED you to remain ignorant to hold their power.
If you are still not convinced, answer this question: Why is congressman Wexler doing a youtube video?
AdvocacyCorporation 4 years ago