I didn't know that local papers were owned by such large corporations until I took this class. I don't think that local papers should be non-profit, but if they were non-profit that wouldn't necessarily make them less of a newspaper. The fact that local media is controlled by a few corporations takes away any chance for local community.

This is in answer to question #1. From the website I could not find anyone who owns slashdot.org my favorite news source. Like wikipedia it is a user supported news site that specifically deals with news for nerds. the categories of interest range from space technology to nanotechnology to star wars, video games, patent and copywrite legislation etc. In exchange for not being owned it seems that slashdot has the possibility of being inaccurate. However, it tends to be much more critical of government and corporations than most news sources, probably because it is not under obligation by its owners not to be. It seems that sites and news sources that are online only have a much higher chance of being independently supported. CNN however, what I always have on in the background in my room, is owned by AOL/Time Warner. Obviously this is a conflict of interest with such stories as AOL going broke and bankrupting investors etc. Yet on the whole, I would not say that CNN fails to report on complex economic and democratic issues. Out of curiousity I looked up my other favorite thing to read which is the Economist. Who owns The Economist? Since 1928, half the shares have been owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson, the other half by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The editor's independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees, which formally appoints him and without whose permission he cannot be removed. Still, it is owned by big corporatrions.

So, I looked into a lot of what I read, watched and listened to in San Antonio since I don't read the statesman or watch local news here. What I discovered was that, while my favorite news channel (KENS - Belo), the newspaper (SA Express News - Hearst) and my favorite radio station (KISS - Cox) were all owned by seperate large comglomerations. So while these particular media sources of mine may not be directly colluding to fix the news, but they have no reason not to censor the information to keep the public blinded from this conglomeration trend

Was the investigation justified?

No. Even though it seems pretty clear that his show had high standards and tried to be objective, it's not the point. The investigation was unjustified because even if it was biased it represented a view. It contributed to a diversity of opinion. It was separate and uninfluenced by power or commercial interests. It met the criteria for the goals of public broadcasting.

Sometimes I encounter the idea when debating with friends and family that one should be humble and apologetic about their opinions. That fair play in discourse is that everyone is entitled to their opinion in the name of, I don't know, possibly objectivity. That having an opinion against someone or something is reactionary or whatever. As a result I have grown really sensitive to being considered "reactionary". I try to censor myself. I think I will use Moyers argument when voicing my opinions from now own. "A free press is one where it's okay to state the conlcusion you're led to by the evidence." Obviously I will leave out the "free press" part and just start at the "it's okay" part. This should prove useful to me so long as I have evidence to confirm my opinion, not always the case but I do try.

I am enjoying this book, and I enjoyed the article. I love writing "Dewey" or "Lippman" whenever I see something that might illustrate their concepts - which is fairly often. I know this makes me a nerd, but I had already come to terms with my "nerdiness" a long time ago.

In the book there was this section about the conundrum in public broadcasting, and I felt a little guilty at some judgments I've made about PBS and NPR. I was watching Pixies perform on Austin City Limits, and I noticed that Budweiser was the sponsor. I remember being alarmed because I didn't remember corporate sponsorship for PBS before and Anheuser-Busch of all corporations (Obviously I am not so against this that I refused the free beer at the tapings - free beer, though). I also have to admit that ever since the last election I have been grumbling to Randy about what seemed like blatant Republican butt-kissing. It felt to me that they realized that the Republicans had won so much control that they were obviously the power house that needed to be appeased. I kept hearing stories about Republican authors, etc. I just don't know anymore. Maybe they were just trying to add a diverse view. Maybe I was spoiled by years of liberal bias. I don't know. NPR never seemed that radical to me before, not enough that they would feel the need to swing to the other side. Then again maybe the swing to the other side was in my head.

I think it's interesting that Belo Corporation owns two of the stations in several cities. (2 in San Antonio, Pheonix, Tuscon, Seattle, and Spokane) So in a decent sized city where there are only like 4 stations, they own half of them. I wonder if that works in their favor(sarcasm)? How can you be sure that you are getting all sides of an issue, and not just the ones that they want you to hear? YOU CAN'T!!! I think it goes with McChesney and Nichols's "global struggle" claim. "the forces of darkness - large, profit driven media corporations and their spoon fed politicians and regulators - work their commercial schemes everywhere." I love that quote, really pumps me up.

When I had cable my favorite station was the Austin Music Network - no joke. I always felt like the cost to the city was nothing, that we had this pearl, this treasure that other communities didn't. I also enjoyed community access from time to time, because it was just out there or real. Both AMN and community access television could be boring for long stretches of time. This was true, but I had already been listening to community or college radio for a few years. The more you listen to community radio, the more you build this patience for the lulls that come from allowing one person to cover whatever music or material they feel is relevant. I can't listen continually to commercial radio anymore as a result. I had to listen to KISS a few months ago because the damned Austin City Limits taping message said they would announce the ticket giveaway location. They never did, and the experience of listening to the station all day long was traumatic. I don't know that this is hyperbole, so the question is, was commercial radio always like this and that my long absence from listening to it caused me to forget that it had always been crappy? or had Clear Channel et al slowly led to a deterioration in commercial radio? I like to think I am political, that I have a sense of what is truly important about the world and humanity, but when they start to f^*% with my access to independent music and entertainment it gets to me. I lived in Minneapolis for 14 really great months. I saw so many shows. You wouldn't believe it. Most of the shows I saw at a place called First Avenue. None of the shows were over $15. Many I saw for free because they gave out free comp tickets at every show. I'm not talking crappy acts, but national and international acts: Wilco, Clarence Gatemouth Brown, Tom Waits, whatever the bands of the day were. The world could fall down around me, but I was happy. I had my Radio K - the local college station, KLBB - an independent loungy, swing station on the am dial, and I had these shows at First Ave. I've been away for a while now, but I keep reading articles about Clear Channel forcing their way into the concert venues arena. First Avenue was one of their targets. I think they were successful. It sucks. It wasn't enough for them to control the radio stations. They had to control what we see and how much we pay. Why? I guess if we have live access to good shows then we see how crappy their radio is, makes their job harder. I always wanted to return to Minneapolis, but now I wonder if it will have lost its magic.

In Austin I was so into Austin Music Network. Between our own lovely KVRX - which I hope is safe, and Austin Music Network I could get my fill of "real" music. I will never begrudge someone's opinion that in the hard economic times of today that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on like AMN, but I thought it was worth every penny. I truly thought that it was worth it in a commercial sense, because promoting local music was promoting Austin as a tourist destination. The more bands were given exposure, the more people would go see them, the more live music venues, the more Austin solidies the reputation that makes it much money annually at ACL fest and SXSW. I cancelled my cable 2 weeks before AMN went off the air. I acknowledge that the new station will be more polished and outwardly better, but I am skeptical that it will have the same value.

This is my comment on the first question. My favorite papers are The Austin Chronicle, City Pages, and The Pitch. I was convinced that it would come up that they were owned by the same conglomerate because, even though they all focus on indepth coverage of local interest stories, they have the same trappings and formula. It didn't come up that way.

I listen to KGSR from time to time. I didn't find them either. I googled the am station I mentioned above, the swingy, lounge music one. It had been owned by MPR (or NPR I don't remember), but it was sold to some company called Davidson, LTD. I was not able to find it on the website either.

I read the New York Times online everyday. They're owned by the New York Times Company (creative), and they are a part of a huge conglomerate. I don't know what to make of that. Is what I'm reading reliable? It seems more reliable than other American news sources.

because he's such a cute old man. because he says "warsh-ington." because he is progressive and smart and funny... and Kenneth Tomlinson is an egregious fuckwit.

There, that's my bias. Back in August, McChesney appeared on _Now_ and you can read the transcript of his interview with David Brancaccio here: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW131_full.html

I believe that almost any investigation is justifiable; it's who you hire to guide the investigation, how they collect their information, the method of analysis used, and what you ultimately decide to do with the results. Oh, and you should let people *read* the findings. One could argue that it would have been irresponisble, on Tomlinson's part, not to respond to criticisms from interested supporters. If there are questions as to the quality of journalism featured on any PBS program, then, by all means, investigate it. I think that there is a problem, however, when you have the chairman of the CPB involved in secret investigations that were initiated in response to the threats of "an old friend." If Nichols and McChesney are basing most of their argument on the premise that our media is currently organized around the financial concerns of a few corporate interests and that this puts crises-level limitations on democracy, then I think that they would find Tomlinson's actions littered with red flags. I find it equally reprehensible that the chairman would execute his investigation to the tune of $10,000. In light of recent publicity about the financial pressures on public broadcasting, this seems like a careless expense. It also makes me wonder whether or not there's any financial compensation to be had if I choose to do the fourth analysis for this class.

Ok, so I think CPB's investigation into NOW is justified only to the extent that it discusses whether or not NOW is doing a good job of serving the public interest (not promoting values or ideas contrary to social welfare and morals--whatever that means). I do not think (nor do I think McChesney and Nichols would think) that the investigation is legit in silencing the perspective that NOW puts forth just becuase it is "too liberal" for the political pathos of today. McChesney and Nichols warn against this type of benign censorhip when they talk about the practice of current "professional" journalism. They say, "[r]eporters report what people in power say, and what they debate" (pg. 67). I think this is the most telling argument about the power politicians can have in narrowing the range of opinions presented to the public through media.

Thanks for the cool link, Mark. I never knew that the Washington Post owned Newsweek. That's good to know. But to answer the question, yes, I think in one way or another (especially local) news sources are increasingly becoming parts of huge conglomerates--and, of course, this puts a damper on the quality, diversity, and breadth of their coverage. For me, this book is a real eye-opener on how elitist the media truly is. Of course, I recognize the strong bias of the authors, but I still think they make some valid points about how corporations limit, censor, or alter news before it reaches us.
It's actually quite disturbing.

*I'm getting to the Moyers post