This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Calling it “mainstream” is probably a mistake. A better adjective would be “managed”. We in the US have a media that doesn’t necessarily represent mainstream public or even mainstream publishers leanings, but manages entertainment and news much like Ford or IBM manages the distribution of their automobiles and computers. Ford and IBM and the thousands of big corporations in th US manage the distribution of their products by an assortment of franchise or subsidiary or contract obligations, and the actual distributors are bound by contract to distribute per the dictates of their parent provider. So your local TV or radio station, that may be independently owned may have its content managed not by the station owner but by the affiliated network. Much like your nearby fast food place has their products defined by the parent franchiser.
So whether TV or Radio or your local newspaper or your local movie house, what gets presented to the local public is determined not by the owners or managers of the local businesses but by a handful of people at the distribution level.
For a few years I worked for companies that were distributors of national brand computers and electronic products. Contracts with the branded distributors were pretty severe, requiring we ordered so many a month and governing how we could advertise their products. I also have family involved in movie theaters, and likewise, movie theaters have strict guidance on what, when and how movies are show.
To apply such business practices to the press seems to me to undermine the freedom of the press.
So whether TV or Radio or your local newspaper or your local movie house, what gets presented to the local public is determined not by the owners or managers of the local businesses but by a handful of people at the distribution level.
For a few years I worked for companies that were distributors of national brand computers and electronic products. Contracts with the branded distributors were pretty severe, requiring we ordered so many a month and governing how we could advertise their products. I also have family involved in movie theaters, and likewise, movie theaters have strict guidance on what, when and how movies are show.
To apply such business practices to the press seems to me to undermine the freedom of the press.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Heartlander Thankyou for the explanation.
The big newspaper owners used to be called the "Press Barons", but we don't hear that phrase much now. The papers very much reflected their owners' political views, but at least it was pretty obvious which paper supported which politics.
Some while ago the UK government decided to allow local, commercial radio stations. They were always patchy but over time they became amalgamated and most are apparently now all one channel of wall-to-wall pop music sent to local studios to add snippets of local news and advertising.
The big newspaper owners used to be called the "Press Barons", but we don't hear that phrase much now. The papers very much reflected their owners' political views, but at least it was pretty obvious which paper supported which politics.
Some while ago the UK government decided to allow local, commercial radio stations. They were always patchy but over time they became amalgamated and most are apparently now all one channel of wall-to-wall pop music sent to local studios to add snippets of local news and advertising.
@Heartlander Another term fof mainstream is establishment, OP got it correct.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@ArishMell :) I did a Google questioning who were the owners of US TV, Radio, newspapers, entertainment, etc. and without even having to peek behind the headlines, 90% of TV, radio, entertainment, newspapers, etc. are owned and controlled by less than 50 $Billionaires.
An interesting ratio compared to what politicians claim are the 5% riches Americans having 90% of the US wealth. That 5% translated ing about 20 million Americans.
An interesting ratio compared to what politicians claim are the 5% riches Americans having 90% of the US wealth. That 5% translated ing about 20 million Americans.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Heartlander
I would include large swathes of the Internet in that "etc." As time goes on that <50 owners might reduce further by mergers and acquisitions, although the companies also do have share-holders even if they have little or no influence in what the companies publish.
A Utah-resident PM correspondent on here has sometimes told me America is a poor country. When I pointed out the USA is perhaps the world's richest country, he explained he means a huge number of people are poor.
If the politicians' 5% claim is right, 20 million is so many people I wonder what the politicians use as the minimum amount of money to be described as rich. Though that number of bank-accounts does make the 90% claim more credible.
It probably includes a lot of corporate directors and not only entertainments-owners, but also the most highly-paid entertainers and sports stars.
At one time, a Briton whose cash and assets amounted to £1 000 000 was a "millionaire" and there were relatively few of them. That was only a few decades ago too, but now far more people have estates approaching at least half that by living in homes whose value has risen to over a third of a million £ value. While many others even in high-grade employment, can't afford a home a lot less than that, especially in London and in certain provinces popular with long-distance commuters and second-home buyers. .
I would include large swathes of the Internet in that "etc." As time goes on that <50 owners might reduce further by mergers and acquisitions, although the companies also do have share-holders even if they have little or no influence in what the companies publish.
A Utah-resident PM correspondent on here has sometimes told me America is a poor country. When I pointed out the USA is perhaps the world's richest country, he explained he means a huge number of people are poor.
If the politicians' 5% claim is right, 20 million is so many people I wonder what the politicians use as the minimum amount of money to be described as rich. Though that number of bank-accounts does make the 90% claim more credible.
It probably includes a lot of corporate directors and not only entertainments-owners, but also the most highly-paid entertainers and sports stars.
At one time, a Briton whose cash and assets amounted to £1 000 000 was a "millionaire" and there were relatively few of them. That was only a few decades ago too, but now far more people have estates approaching at least half that by living in homes whose value has risen to over a third of a million £ value. While many others even in high-grade employment, can't afford a home a lot less than that, especially in London and in certain provinces popular with long-distance commuters and second-home buyers. .
DogMan · 61-69, M
@ArishMell There are very few poor people in the U.S. You can live your life in the U.S.
without ever having a job, or contributing in any way, and still have a roof over your head,
a big screen TV, and a smart phone. To say they are "poor" is a huge disservice, to
the millions of actual poor people around the world.
without ever having a job, or contributing in any way, and still have a roof over your head,
a big screen TV, and a smart phone. To say they are "poor" is a huge disservice, to
the millions of actual poor people around the world.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DogMan I see. How do they manage that though?
I suppose poverty is relative, and you can't really call yourself "poor" if you can afford those luxuries, but I agree. There are millions around the world who do live in real poverty, with ramshackle accommodation at best, no mains water, electricity, etc.
I suppose poverty is relative, and you can't really call yourself "poor" if you can afford those luxuries, but I agree. There are millions around the world who do live in real poverty, with ramshackle accommodation at best, no mains water, electricity, etc.