PDA

View Full Version : A libertarian who whines about the MSM is a cry-baby HYPOCRITE




nuklbone
01-31-2008, 05:05 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

AlexMerced
01-31-2008, 05:07 PM
lol, it never bothered me so much, more than it annoyed me

we need to keep building up this foundation until this movement is fortress that can't be taken down.

1) become a Ron Paul Precinct Leader @ https://voters.ronpaul2008.com/grassroots/

2) Watch the documentaries Freedom to Fascism and The Power of Nightmares
(videos can be found @ http://libertyia.ning.com)

3) Read the books, "Foreign Policy of Freedom", "Anarchy, The State... Utopia", "The Road to Serfdom"

4) sign up @ http://www.fiftyoneyears.com/ for the Feb 1st Ron Paul fundraiser

5) Join the Merced for Freedom mailing list @ http://mercedforfreedom.com

6) Bookmark http://www.freeople.com

7) Support all the candidates @ http://www.libertycongress.org/

Rambo4
01-31-2008, 05:10 PM
I've thought about this too, and wondered why no one has brought it up against him? I wonder if that also is what keeps him from making a scene when he's being ignored, because he can basically be shut out by someone saying "This is what you're trying to make"

ETA: But like you said, he is encouraging people to find new options, and that's what we're doing and being successful with it

skinnyskittles1989
01-31-2008, 05:11 PM
i wouldn't have a problem with it if this were actually a free market. there are so many regulations on starting companies these days and the media's become almost a cartel sustained by the government. if this were a free market then we'd have no reason to complain

LandonCook
01-31-2008, 05:12 PM
"The Real news" Look up...

seeker1
01-31-2008, 05:13 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

the public airwaves to report the news.:confused: But then the FCC is the one selling us out.

IHaveaDream
01-31-2008, 05:14 PM
We want free market health care too. But we don't want doctors deciding who should live or die.

Catatonic
01-31-2008, 05:14 PM
Does that mean I can have my own national news program and say whatever I want? Or is there regulation stopping me?

Redcard
01-31-2008, 05:14 PM
the public airwaves to report the news.:confused: But then the FCC is the one selling us out.

Show me where it says they are "entrusted" to report the news fairly and without bias.

And, also, let me remind you that Fox News Channel is a CABLE network, not an "over the air" network.

Apparition
01-31-2008, 05:15 PM
isn't it a person's right to complain about whatever they want?
geez.....

Redcard
01-31-2008, 05:15 PM
Does that mean I can have my own national news program and say whatever I want? Or is there regulation stopping me?

Feel free.

Youtube, internet, video tape, public access TV.. go for it :)

vote4ronpauleeze
01-31-2008, 05:18 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.
You're right...

Television networks, newspapers, radio stations, etc. are private businesses and act in a manner that will produce revenue. That's their goal. Some pride themselves and think it's in their business interest to be unbiased and neutral, and others intentionally fill a niche.

...with all of that said, I'm still not happy. I wish he did get more coverage, but it's still their choice... Hopefully, another network can capitalize off of the bias and takeover the market share by using an fair and unbiased approach. That's why we need to continue to spread the word, so as to enrage people.

jeffhenderson
01-31-2008, 05:19 PM
We think private companies should be left alone by the government, but it does not follow that we should endorse or be happy with everything private companies do.

None of us suggest that the government should intervene.

Rather, we find creative voluntary ways to express our disapproval.

Rangeley
01-31-2008, 05:21 PM
I disagree - libertarians beleive that they have a right to do this, just like someone has the right to be disrespectful towards others. But that doesnt mean we think people should be, nor does it mean we think the press should be so disrespectful to Ron Paul.

warmth of the sun
01-31-2008, 05:22 PM
No but think about this. The reason the media censors us is because they are in collusion with the government. When corporations are able to lobby to the government to get handouts and privileges they have a very specific reason to only cover certain people and shape the minds of the masses. If the government was only doing the things it is supposed to do, the corporations would have no reason to lobby the government because it couldn't give them favors.


I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-31-2008, 05:31 PM
A libertarian who whines about the MSM is a cry-baby HYPOCRITE

If you understand libertarian philosophy and if you understand economics in general, your statement is absolutely wrong.

In order to faciliate well functioning markets, FRAUD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Fraud is a crime, and it should be a crime. MSM, by pretending to be unbiased journalists, are commiting fraud.

Libertarianism suggests market solutions for fraud. It's true that watchdog groups will spring up and people will listen to them. In this case, we're the watchdog group. Show me a media conglomerate that isn't committing fraud by pretending that they're unbiased.

Fraud is not acceptable if you're a libertarian.

VoluntaryMan
01-31-2008, 05:31 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

You are correct.....only to the degree that they don't fraudulently cloak themselves in the mantle of the "4th Estate." If they will drop the pretense, and openly confess that the only difference between the National Enquirer, the Weekly World News, and themselves is that they have an undeserved reputation for journalistic integrity (by comparison), and a frightening degree of access to the halls of power, most of us would stop complaining. Until they come clean with the American public, and drop the deception, I and others will continue to be indignant, as is our right.

Ethek
01-31-2008, 05:36 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

These private Corps have a goverment backed monopoly to hold onto public airwaves. I really think this is getting into the Antitrust realm

gingko1
01-31-2008, 05:38 PM
Wouldn't an extension of the libertarian ideal be against monopolistic / collusional companies since they become de facto governing bodies?

The amount of regulation, red tape and the subsidies prevents real "free markets" in media. That is why we rail against them.

Smiley Gladhands
01-31-2008, 05:39 PM
Libertarianism suggests market solutions for fraud. It's true that watchdog groups will spring up and people will listen to them. In this case, we're the watchdog group. Show me a media conglomerate that isn't committing fraud by pretending that they're unbiased.


Exactly. How will the market properly respond if we don't whine and raise a big stink over this? The more we use our freedom of speech to spread the word about the media's faults, the faster a market solution will transpire. All this complaining and boycotting has already cost Fox some viewers and credibility....now Fox gets to choose money or bias. And I hope Rupert chokes on his decision, whatever it may be. God bless the free market. :D

Deborah K
01-31-2008, 05:42 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.


Have you seen this documentary? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

You might change your view. It (the media) is SUPPOSED to be free market, but it isn't.

You are right about the demand for better coverage needing to be filled. I think it is time to start a network on the internet, where you just click on a link and start watching the news as though you are watching TV, only on the internet.

JosephTheLibertarian
01-31-2008, 05:43 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

Corporations are creations of state, not elements of the free market. Also, FEC regulates tv and radio, not exactly a free market principle. jackass

Redcard
01-31-2008, 05:43 PM
Have you seen this documentary? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

You might change your view. It (the media) is SUPPOSED to be free market, but it isn't.

You are right about the demand for better coverage needing to be filled. I think it is time to start a network on the internet, where you just click on a link and start watching the news as though you are watching TV, only on the internet.

You have it ;)

It's called Youtube and a blog. :)

DailyKOS and other political blogs have been doing this for over a year.

Do it :) Go for it!

(Also check out current.tv for a good model. It's run by Gore, but, they have a method by which indie journalists can directly post stuff to the website, and in some cases, that makes it to the TV station)

dircha
01-31-2008, 05:46 PM
The federal government has no right to sell corporations the exclusive rights to broadcast radio waves into our businesses and homes.

When me and my neighbors can get together and set up a tower and override the signal for the ABC nightly news without armed thugs showing up at our doorsteps, let me know.

Deborah K
01-31-2008, 05:47 PM
You have it ;)

It's called Youtube and a blog. :)

DailyKOS and other political blogs have been doing this for over a year.

Do it :) Go for it!

(Also check out current.tv for a good model. It's run by Gore, but, they have a method by which indie journalists can directly post stuff to the website, and in some cases, that makes it to the TV station)

Wouldn't you need a studio and newscasters and producers and all that stuff? I mean in order to make it just like TV?

Redcard
01-31-2008, 05:49 PM
Wouldn't you need a studio and newscasters and producers and all that stuff? I mean in order to make it just like TV?

Well, yeah.

But that costs money. It can be done nowadays for less, though. A good three chip Camcorder runs around $1500. A good Mic can be had for $200 or so. A mixer board for one or two mics can run $100-$200. The "newsdesk" can be set in front of a blue screen, if need be.

I could set such a thing up in my small condo right now, for a few grand.

Michigan11
01-31-2008, 05:49 PM
The Free Market is at work...

I have already cancelled my cable because of the MSM.

I'm doing my best to get everyone I know to do the same, screw em' all!

Kludge
01-31-2008, 05:50 PM
If you're really interested in this convo., an alternate version is here ;)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=80444&highlight=Pro+liberty+is+pro+media

dircha
01-31-2008, 05:50 PM
You have it ;)

It's called Youtube and a blog. :)

DailyKOS and other political blogs have been doing this for over a year.

Do it :) Go for it!

(Also check out current.tv for a good model. It's run by Gore, but, they have a method by which indie journalists can directly post stuff to the website, and in some cases, that makes it to the TV station)

And I can also stand out in front of my house and shout.

That's not the point.

The point is that the federal government has no right to sell corporations exclusive use of the broadcast spectrum.

Bob Spruill
01-31-2008, 05:52 PM
We want free market health care too. But we don't want doctors deciding who should live or die.

That is a powerful line, but doctors who decide who dies get charged with murder, which is imo a valid function of government. And not only that, the lose my business.

========================

Fox News became successful because they were percieved to be an alternatrive to the extreme liberal bias of all the other networks. They have lost that with me. I will never watch Fox again.

Fox proved that there is a valuable market for non-liberal news. Now that Fox has proven itself be propagandizing for big government neo-conism, there is an open place in the market for someone to make a fortune providing something that resembles the truth.

If the free-market does not meet the demand, then there is some force stopping it. Which is probably what is happening.

Truth Warrior
01-31-2008, 05:54 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.
You're just talking with the wrong kind of libertarians.<IMHO>

Redcard
01-31-2008, 05:55 PM
And I can also stand out in front of my house and shout.

That's not the point.

The point is that the federal government has no right to sell corporations exclusive use of the broadcast spectrum.

That's correct, and you know what? Fox News Channel is NOT an analog channel. It's not sold "on spectrum" at all. In fact, you will be VERY hardpressed to name a single News channel that IS sold on spectrum.

In the interim, why don't you DO something about it. Nobody was listening to these "podcast" things until someone said "Hey, an RSS feed and an MP3 file. HMMM." Nobody was watching Youtube videos until two kids said "Hey, everyone has webcams.. what about.... personal TV Stations. HMMM."

DO something. Don't whine about what's being done to you.

Deborah K
01-31-2008, 06:06 PM
Well, yeah.

But that costs money. It can be done nowadays for less, though. A good three chip Camcorder runs around $1500. A good Mic can be had for $200 or so. A mixer board for one or two mics can run $100-$200. The "newsdesk" can be set in front of a blue screen, if need be.

I could set such a thing up in my small condo right now, for a few grand.


Let's do it!:D

Goldwater Conservative
01-31-2008, 06:11 PM
(1) Free speech. I can boycott something AND exercise my 1st Amendment rights to call someone out on their BS.

(2) These corporations aren't entirely free market entities. They owe much of their profits to government for granting them legal immunities, monopoly rights, etc. Hell, read up on the rocky early days of Fox News. A mayor by the name of Giuliani helped them get their start.

Rhys
01-31-2008, 06:13 PM
if we purchase their product while distrusting and not wanting that product, we are not living the free market.

What's more, they should have to legally admit to being liars in court, I think.

Also, it seems like a form of monopoly that they can have a TV station that reports the "news" and a company that is the news or makes the guns.

If the government weren't so big, the press wouldn't kiss it's ass so much.

And a direct answer is, we can complain about the sucky press. it's their right to make their content, it's our right to make counter content and spread the word that we hate them.

I agree too that the FCC sold us out. It's ilegal to be a radio station unless you're clear channel.

jarofclay
01-31-2008, 06:13 PM
We want free market health care too. But we don't want doctors deciding who should live or die.

Wow this is great comment. Supply and demand should dictate that the market decides who to "feed" with their eyeballs and thus support.

Unfortunately there seems to be a monopoly of crappy media which means that the market is also crappy. Not good news unfortunately.

Spike
01-31-2008, 06:17 PM
these media companies have gotten bigger because of the government, by lobbying the FCC, and politicians and other funny business.

This is not the free market. Fox News or Time Warner, AOL, and all those companies are just playing that monopoly game.

forsmant
01-31-2008, 06:26 PM
i wouldn't have a problem with it if this were actually a free market. there are so many regulations on starting companies these days and the media's become almost a cartel sustained by the government. if this were a free market then we'd have no reason to complain

+1

MGreen
01-31-2008, 06:26 PM
People seem to frequently misuse the word hypocrite on the Internet.

There is nothing hypocritical about complaining, crying, bitching, whatever that the MSM is being unfair with its coverage. It is hypocritical to say the government should force the MSM to provide equal coverage.

"My toy soldier's arm just broke!"
"Stop crying, baby! Companies have a right to make crappy products!"

jaumen
01-31-2008, 06:44 PM
Complaining about unfair treatment doesn't make a libertarian hypocritical... it would be hypocritical to say that they don't have the right to conduct their business as they please, which includes giving unfair treatment... just because they have the right to doesn't mean we have to be happy about them treating candidates unfairly.

Redcard
01-31-2008, 06:47 PM
I dunno, honestly. I think that the government holds back these companies more than it "unfairly helps them." For example, Murdoch, without any help from the government, (as seen by his domination of European media WITHOUT the restricts that the US Government has) could easily take over the majority of all the news outlets in the US.

But he can't, because FCC rules prohibit a ton of ownership options that he could have made.

So.. I dunno. I think if this were truly a free market, you'd be very disappointed by the offerings still.

nuklbone
01-31-2008, 07:40 PM
I think the major news corporations will lose most of their strangle-hold as soon as technology advances to the point that we can integrate our TVs & computers to easily watch internet content. I look forward to the time when watching an independent news website on TV is just as common and accessible as watching CNN or FOX.

anewvoice
01-31-2008, 07:52 PM
This is a flawed argument as this is not a free market. Much like our economy, the media is a manipulated and regulated system of coercion and corruption.

But it is true that Fox News is responding, with the likes of Billy O, to a market demand for ignorance.

JosephTheLibertarian
01-31-2008, 08:10 PM
I dunno, honestly. I think that the government holds back these companies more than it "unfairly helps them." For example, Murdoch, without any help from the government, (as seen by his domination of European media WITHOUT the restricts that the US Government has) could easily take over the majority of all the news outlets in the US.

But he can't, because FCC rules prohibit a ton of ownership options that he could have made.

So.. I dunno. I think if this were truly a free market, you'd be very disappointed by the offerings still.

Too bad you don't know what you're talking about. Government regulations is why only a handful of corporations own their own tv stations, why don't you think corporations donate to the LP? They don't want any deregulations. Get your head out of your socialist-leaning ass.

bcreps85
01-31-2008, 08:11 PM
When you operate on public airwaves under the guise of fair and unbiased news, then libertarians certainly do have the right to whine about the MSM without being a hypocrite. It is a profession like any other, and there are standards that should be upheld.

You can't just randomly say you are a doctor without the qualifications, and once you have the qualifications you must try to help all patients, not pick and choose. You can't just randomly claim yourself to be a scientist or researcher if you have no training and your methods are questionable because you will be called out on it in peer review. I could go on and on.

If they want to be propaganda and entertainment machines, then that is how they should have to classify themselves in the public eye. As it stands, they are masquerading as a reputable news source, and they provably are not. They are deceiving "the people", and as such "the people" should not let them benefit from OUR airwaves.

Jae0
01-31-2008, 08:13 PM
Good thing i'm not a Libertarian. *whines*

Redcard
01-31-2008, 08:21 PM
Too bad you don't know what you're talking about. Government regulations is why only a handful of corporations own their own tv stations, why don't you think corporations donate to the LP? They don't want any deregulations. Get your head out of your socialist-leaning ass.

You think that if it was deregulated that the big dogs wouldn't own everything?

Look at Walmart. It's killing companies. Look at areas of the world that have less regulation.. the bigger companies dominate the smaller ones.

Why do you think that it'd be any different on TV if it were dergeulated. HELL, look at what happened with deregulation in the Telephone market. It closed up and now AT&T is right where it was 30 years ago, only now, they're even MORE powerful.

luvthedoc08
01-31-2008, 08:23 PM
The Media Is A Public Service And Is Supposed To Be The 4th Check In Our Balance System, Instead Is Is Rupert Murdoch's Personal Infotube. If You Want A Free Market Abolish The Fcc And Let The Airwaves Be Completely Free

Shellshock1918
01-31-2008, 08:23 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

They have the responsibility to report the truth. I'm not a libertarian so to speak but doesn't libertarianism rely heavily on responsibility? These news outlets need to be responsible.

Redcard
01-31-2008, 08:30 PM
The Media Is A Public Service And Is Supposed To Be The 4th Check In Our Balance System, Instead Is Is Rupert Murdoch's Personal Infotube. If You Want A Free Market Abolish The Fcc And Let The Airwaves Be Completely Free

Show me in the Constitution where it says that the media is a fourth check? There's a reason that the Constitutional Convention was held in private and barred the media from coming in.

libertarian4321
01-31-2008, 09:07 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

I have heard no one advocate that the government FORCE Fox to do anything.

We have a right to complain, spread the word, boycott, sell News Corp stock, etc- thats part of the free market, too...

JosephTheLibertarian
01-31-2008, 10:30 PM
You think that if it was deregulated that the big dogs wouldn't own everything?

Look at Walmart. It's killing companies. Look at areas of the world that have less regulation.. the bigger companies dominate the smaller ones.

Why do you think that it'd be any different on TV if it were dergeulated. HELL, look at what happened with deregulation in the Telephone market. It closed up and now AT&T is right where it was 30 years ago, only now, they're even MORE powerful.

Any evidence to back that up? Nope. Just stupidity. How's the Soviet Union doing?

Leslie Webb
01-31-2008, 10:32 PM
We need a for-profit Libertarian News Network.

nuklbone
01-31-2008, 10:58 PM
We need a for-profit Libertarian News Network.

That's what I'm talking about.

Xyrus2
01-31-2008, 11:15 PM
It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

Free market? Where?

There is no real competition, and the mega media corps fully intend to keep it that way. The only way you can even make an in-road is to have millions, if not billions of dollars.

It's the same with the telecoms. It's the same with the national chain stores. Once a corporation gets big enough, the start buying laws to ensure that they stay where they are and to keep everyone else out. Just take a look at our IP and copyright laws for a prime example of just how "not-free" our market is.

Profiting from a free market takes work, innovation, and risk. Profiting from a captive audience takes less, and profiting from a brainwashed audience takes hardly any at all. That's what corporations want and that's what they pretty much have.

The laws that are SUPPOSED to ensure a "free market" have only induced not-free market tactics. Until that changes, expect to receive the shaft sideways from most companies.

~X~

EvoPro
01-31-2008, 11:23 PM
I haven't read the thread, but I think it is definitely OK for libertarians to complain about the Corporate Media because the Industry is not a free market. Especially the TV Industry, when you consider that cable companies have a monopoly over each area that they are in. And unless there is a free-market, I am in favor of equal time laws.

ronpaulfan
01-31-2008, 11:31 PM
I've always disagreed with this. If foreign countries have major influence in our media, it's a national security issue *cough*f*u*Israel*cough*

Malum Prohibitum
01-31-2008, 11:36 PM
I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations. They have the right to say whatever they want and cover whatever candidates they want. They don't owe us anything. Are we suggesting that they should be controlled or restricted in some way? As long as they keep up their ratings and sell commercials, they are doing their job.

The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

Um... technically the msm, at least television and radio, isnt a 'free market'. One could argue that the FCC sells licenses as a way to create a barrier to entry, and limit competition to those organizations that it deems worthy. I think we could pool our capital and compete with them, but its not like you or I are going to buy a TV station tomorrw, even though the costs of a transmitter and studio arent likely any more expensive than opening up a nice restaurant.

nuklbone
02-01-2008, 07:15 AM
I agree with you guys that say the regulations should be lifted that make the market hard to enter. That is an important element of a free market. Like rules in a ball game. Competition only works as long as everyone has to follow the rules and the rules are the same for both teams.

But the fact still remains that these cable news channels are in business to make money. THEY DO NOT OWE US ANYTHING. When we sit around and whine about how they are a bunch of jerks and how unfair it is that they don't cover Ron Paul, it puts them in control of our success or failure.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-01-2008, 07:31 AM
I agree with you guys that say the regulations should be lifted that make the market hard to enter. That is an important element of a free market. Like rules in a ball game. Competition only works as long as everyone has to follow the rules and the rules are the same for both teams.

But the fact still remains that these cable news channels are in business to make money. THEY DO NOT OWE US ANYTHING. When we sit around and whine about how they are a bunch of jerks and how unfair it is that they don't cover Ron Paul, it puts them in control of our success or failure.

They're not just in it for the money, they KNOW they have control over the people.

Redcard
02-01-2008, 07:33 AM
Any evidence to back that up? Nope. Just stupidity. How's the Soviet Union doing?

Have you noticed that AT&T owns everything again?

God , you're a farking dumbass. If you were actually not in diapers in 1980 , you'd have remembered all this crap, when AT&T owned everyone, and the government broke them up, and deregulated to let "competitors" back in.

CelestialRender
02-01-2008, 07:40 AM
Corporate Fascism != Capitalism.

The media conglomerates in the US are vast corporations propped up by government largesse, and favorable legislation, just like most of our other major corporations.

And as long as WE are not allowed to freely speak by donating as much as we want, when we want, how we want, to whichever candidate we want, THEY certainly should not be given greater freedoms than a true flesh-and-blood individual.

CelestialRender
02-01-2008, 07:43 AM
You think that if it was deregulated that the big dogs wouldn't own everything?

Look at Walmart. It's killing companies. Look at areas of the world that have less regulation.. the bigger companies dominate the smaller ones.

Why do you think that it'd be any different on TV if it were dergeulated. HELL, look at what happened with deregulation in the Telephone market. It closed up and now AT&T is right where it was 30 years ago, only now, they're even MORE powerful.

That's because those same giants are still being propped up by big government. Deregulating A PART doesn't do any good; it's deregulating THE WHOLE that makes fundamental change.

With massive, widespread deregulation, you would see a flourish of small business and local competition.

evandi
02-01-2008, 07:45 AM
I'm very sick of this "argument". In a libertarian society people take it upon themselves to correct problems in fair ways. Thus we complain and organize boycotts and stuff.

This type of behavior is MORE important in a libertarian society and not LESS important.

In a statist society, the government pretends to do everything for us so that we never take responsibility upon ourselves to organize boycotts or try to sway people to alternatives.

ONCE AGAIN. IT IS MORE IMPORTANT IN A LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THESE THINGS THEN IT IS IN A STATIST SOCIETY. OK? ENOUGH.

Libertarians have the MOST incentive to speak out, not the LEAST. We do not clamor for the government to solve the problem, we only want them to not create the problem.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-01-2008, 08:00 AM
Have you noticed that AT&T owns everything again?

God , you're a farking dumbass. If you were actually not in diapers in 1980 , you'd have remembered all this crap, when AT&T owned everyone, and the government broke them up, and deregulated to let "competitors" back in.

AT&T owns everything because of government. They made it so people like me can't start our own phone companies.

jrich4rpaul
02-01-2008, 08:02 AM
I do have to agree, that this may spark the beginning of a new, honest media network that will take over.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-01-2008, 08:04 AM
I do have to agree, that this may spark the beginning of a new, honest media network that will take over.

yeah right lol

Redcard
02-01-2008, 08:08 AM
AT&T owns everything because of government. They made it so people like me can't start our own phone companies.

Really?

Vonage and all the VOIP companies would disagree.

See, the companies deregulated, and everyone was allowed in, and actually, quite a few came in to the game.

But, bit by bit.. piece by piece.. they were eaten up.

You're welcome to enter the game now, if you wanted. The phone lines are deregulated. You can, if you want, make deals one on one with various state and local entities to get line sharing. Google themselves are rumored to be negotiating right now.

But, you won't make a profit. And if you began to, AT&T would come in and buy you out of the game.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-01-2008, 08:11 AM
Really?

Vonage and all the VOIP companies would disagree.

See, the companies deregulated, and everyone was allowed in, and actually, quite a few came in to the game.

But, bit by bit.. piece by piece.. they were eaten up.

You're welcome to enter the game now, if you wanted. The phone lines are deregulated. You can, if you want, make deals one on one with various state and local entities to get line sharing. Google themselves are rumored to be negotiating right now.

But, you won't make a profit. And if you began to, AT&T would come in and buy you out of the game.

No, it's not deregulated. I'm not allowed to. And, besides, the phone lines are socialized, this is what plays into the belief that free markets don't work.

DeanToPaulIn4Years
02-01-2008, 08:29 AM
How fucking stupid. COMPLAINING ABOUT IT IS NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

They're free to lie and distort. The people are free to call them out on it, try to bring about change in their behavior and vote with their clicker.

But seriously, if you're still watching cable or television news, you're REALLY wasting your time.

nuklbone
02-01-2008, 08:33 AM
They're not just in it for the money, they KNOW they have control over the people.

There is really no way to respond to a statement like that. You have moved beyond facts and reason into the realm of emotional paranoia.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-01-2008, 08:39 AM
There is really no way to respond to a statement like that. You have moved beyond facts and reason into the realm of emotional paranoia.

Shut up. They don't have any control over people? The media is the one that got McCain back in the race, are you fucking blind?

danda
02-01-2008, 09:08 AM
BZZZZT.

The FCC holds a monopoly on the airwaves and doles them out to private companies. Very few channels are available, and are ridiculously expensive. This guaranteed for decades that only THE BIG GUYS could play in this market. There were giant STAY OUT signs for the rest of us. Indeed, it is ILLEGAL for anyone else to broadcast on these frequencies.

If government didn't get involved, I don't know how things would've turned out, but differently I'm sure.

Look at the fact that cell phones and cordless phones broadcast privately all over the place without (much) interference.

The market would've devised a solution that did not require toadying up to washington beaurocrats.

Of course, today we have cable which has somewhat broken the stranglehold, and the internet, which has mostly escaped.

But we are still paying the price for those many decades during which our parents and grandparents were effectively brainwashed.


I dunno, honestly. I think that the government holds back these companies more than it "unfairly helps them." For example, Murdoch, without any help from the government, (as seen by his domination of European media WITHOUT the restricts that the US Government has) could easily take over the majority of all the news outlets in the US.

But he can't, because FCC rules prohibit a ton of ownership options that he could have made.

So.. I dunno. I think if this were truly a free market, you'd be very disappointed by the offerings still.

Hayek
02-01-2008, 09:08 AM
Sure they can do whatever they want, but so can we. If I get a bad burger...I tell the better business bureau and let my friends know to avoid that restaurant. The same is true when we get false or incomplete News from the MSM.

Problem is, there are not a lot of other media options...and you have to wonder why.

Dan Klaus
02-01-2008, 09:13 AM
I think MTV is starting the see the light...selling Ron Paul's ideas can be profitable for them...hope the trend continues..

mconder
02-01-2008, 09:16 AM
"I'm guilty too. I'll admit it. But stop and think about what we are saying. CNN, Fox News, etc. are private corporations."

They cease to be private the moment the people in our government decide what is news. Since many of the executives of the MSN, belong to public policy making organizations (CFR, Tilateral Commission, and Bilderberg) and in some cases the government itself, so they no longer hold private status in my eyes since they operate on behalf of the ruling class. If it wasn't for the Internet, Ron Paul would be a no body right now...an unknown Congressman from Texas.

Malum Prohibitum
02-01-2008, 09:36 AM
I agree with you guys that say the regulations should be lifted that make the market hard to enter. That is an important element of a free market. Like rules in a ball game. Competition only works as long as everyone has to follow the rules and the rules are the same for both teams.

But the fact still remains that these cable news channels are in business to make money. THEY DO NOT OWE US ANYTHING. When we sit around and whine about how they are a bunch of jerks and how unfair it is that they don't cover Ron Paul, it puts them in control of our success or failure.


They have been given a government issued monopoly that includes a requirement for public service providing real information. They DO owe us something until the broadcast market becomes 'free'.

Thumper
02-01-2008, 09:41 AM
The free market works. When there is demand, someone will eventually find a way to profit by meeting that demand. Judging from the enormous energy of this Ron Paul Revolution, it is obvious that there is a huge amount of pent up demand for a different type of coverage than what is currently available on a mainstream level. That hunger for better coverage creates a demand that someone will eventually fill if they can find a way to make it profitable.

It's not bad or good, fair or unfair. It's just the free market. Supply & demand.

Ummm...one of the ways we can see the free market at work is a large group of people bitching and complaining about a product that is inherently bad in an attempt to reveal the inequity to other consumers in the market.

We aren't hypocrites, we are one of the forces that makes the free market work. We are what so many economic philosophers are talking about when they say "the market will take care of it".

Redcard
02-01-2008, 10:08 AM
BZZZZT.

The FCC holds a monopoly on the airwaves and doles them out to private companies. Very few channels are available, and are ridiculously expensive. This guaranteed for decades that only THE BIG GUYS could play in this market. There were giant STAY OUT signs for the rest of us. Indeed, it is ILLEGAL for anyone else to broadcast on these frequencies.

Name a single all news network that goes out over "The Airwaves."

Just one.

nuklbone
02-01-2008, 10:12 AM
Name a single all news network that goes out over "The Airwaves."

Just one.

Yeah, the news channels we mainly complain about are the cable news channels. I think that is a different situation than a free broadcast station.

evandi
02-01-2008, 10:20 AM
Yeah, the news channels we mainly complain about are the cable news channels. I think that is a different situation than a free broadcast station.

It is a different situation. I believe it is a more local problem, but it is government none the less.

If we were not imprisoned for using radio frequencies we would have had rudimentary broadcast networks springing up all over the place.

And I think that people require permits and agreements with local governments to lay cable down too.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-01-2008, 11:14 AM
Yeah, the news channels we mainly complain about are the cable news channels. I think that is a different situation than a free broadcast station.

Government still regulates radio and tv. To deny that fact would be implying that you're a fool.

spacehabitats
02-01-2008, 11:28 AM
I am not complaining about the MSM breaking laws or even not following some esoteric journalistic ethos.

They claim to be objective journalists and claim to be reporting the news.

They have a hidden agenda which also, coincidentally, has as one of its goals to betray and enslave the people of America and the world.

Therefore, they are liars and scumbags.

Since when does being a libertarian mean that you cannot criticize someone for being a lying scumbag?

Pete
02-01-2008, 11:45 AM
You think that if it was deregulated that the big dogs wouldn't own everything?

Look at Walmart. It's killing companies. Look at areas of the world that have less regulation.. the bigger companies dominate the smaller ones.

Why do you think that it'd be any different on TV if it were dergeulated. HELL, look at what happened with deregulation in the Telephone market. It closed up and now AT&T is right where it was 30 years ago, only now, they're even MORE powerful.

If the Fed were not constantly pumping the money supply, the dollar drain in the U.S. would have naturally brought prices down and made imports less attractive.

Also, our federal highway system is a sop to big business. Big trucks require more elaborate roads, and then beat the crap out of them disproportionate to the taxes they pay.

And let's not forget the federal role in killing off manufacturing in the U.S. with regulation and by sucking the business lending market dry. If banks did not have the government to lend to, more capital would be available for business. That, and inflation discourages saving.

Regulation + Wal*Mart = BFF

nuklbone
02-01-2008, 08:27 PM
If by complaining, speaking up, speaking out, etc. we are making a clear effort to exert power and influence and bring about change, then sure, complaining is a good thing. But if we are just moaning into the echo chamber of this forum about how mistreated we are and how the MSM isn't playing fair, and crying about how they are all just a bunch of jerks, we aren't really accomplishing anything.

Like I said, though: I am guilty too. I bitch and moan. Feel free to throw stones at me first. I'm just trying to remind myself and everyone else that we need to direct our energies toward constructive change and also realize that these cable news channels do not owe us any favors. They can say or not say anything they want.