And the bottom line on newspapers — I can speak to that from experience, don't know so much about TV/radio — is incredible in comparison to the average business. The average newspaper clears about 20 percent profit margin.

I know sales people in radio and TV make a much better living than those putting the sellable "merchandise" on the air more often than not...

I hate to say this..and I know I'm going to get some flack over it..but I think it says a lot about,not just the intelligence of the average consumer,but the fact that sometimes the media grinds on one subject for so long,that ANY change is welcome,whether relevant or not. We,as a people,as a whole,have forgotten how to think for ourselves,and depend on the media to do it for us! And we digest whatever drivel they feed us.

I like my drivel with a pack of Splenda and a splash of milk.:sssh:

I like my drivel with a pack of Splenda and a splash of milk.:sssh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I appreciate that; it means a lot to me, and the feeling's mutual.

 

As far as earlier comments: I don't have a problem with making profits. But I think the news media is far too important in terms of its responsibility to inform the public and act as a watchdog for government to leave the major decisions in the hands of accountants — who don't care about the bigger picture, only the bottom line.

 

And the bottom line on newspapers — I can speak to that from experience, don't know so much about TV/radio — is incredible in comparison to the average business. The average newspaper clears about 20 percent profit margin.

I agree with you here but if you leave it in a business format, how do you change that when the goal of businesses is to make a profit for the shareholders?

 

And in the same token, I don't trust a government controlled media because that is about the only organization that I trust less than the media. I think of Good Morning Vietnam and the censoring that went on in that movie.

I see no difference betwen a media controlled either by corporate sponsorship or by the government.In essence,the are both CONTROLLED, therefore,their credibility comes under question.

I agree with you here but if you leave it in a business format, how do you change that when the goal of businesses is to make a profit for the shareholders?

 

And in the same token, I don't trust a government controlled media because that is about the only organization that I trust less than the media. I think of Good Morning America and the censoring that went on in that movie.

 

Did you mean "Good Morning Vietnam?"

 

I don't know the answer, but government oversight ain't it. I just think the news media is not your typical kind of business because of the responsibility to the public the media has, and should not be operated as though it is a typical business. It's no secret circulations and overall quality have steadily declined ever since family-owned operations started selling out to corporations, and running newspapers like a corporation has only accelerated the decline.

Did you mean "Good Morning Vietnam?"

 

I don't know the answer, but government oversight ain't it. I just think the news media is not your typical kind of business because of the responsibility to the public the media has, and should not be operated as though it is a typical business. It's no secret circulations and overall quality have steadily declined ever since family-owned operations started selling out to corporations, and running newspapers like a corporation has only accelerated the decline.

Yes I did. Having a midnight David Hartman flashback. For all of you pups from the How old are you thread, he was the first Good Morning America anchor.

 

Is there some way the government could limit the profit that a media company could make? Let them make their profit to a point but not at the same time be driven by profit.

 

I believe the news media, I think more television than anything, has lost that sight of responsibility to the public. They pander to the public instead of helping educate the public. They seek to shape opinion and judgement instead of reporting and allowing the reader to shape the opinion and judgement.

 

I personally, and have expressed this to the Cincy Enquirer, feel it is hugely inappropriate for the newspapers to back ANY political candidate. They don't back Ernie and he is reelected, immediately any story they have on Ernie is tainted because that was NOT THEIR CANDIDATE and as a newspaper they have tried to SHAPE THE ISSUE.

 

Isn't it ironically funny (you knew I had to get the debate back to this somehow and you got to be impressed how I did it:D ) that the ONE ORGANIZATION who is responsible for unbiasly reporting the news is ALLOWED to endorse a candidate and thus taking a side on a person but churches aren't.

Yes I did. Having a midnight David Hartman flashback. For all of you pups from the How old are you thread, he was the first Good Morning America anchor.

 

Is there some way the government could limit the profit that a media company could make? Let them make their profit to a point but not at the same time be driven by profit.

 

I believe the news media, I think more television than anything, has lost that sight of responsibility to the public. They pander to the public instead of helping educate the public. They seek to shape opinion and judgement instead of reporting and allowing the reader to shape the opinion and judgement.

 

I personally, and have expressed this to the Cincy Enquirer, feel it is hugely inappropriate for the newspapers to back ANY political candidate. They don't back Ernie and he is reelected, immediately any story they have on Ernie is tainted because that was NOT THEIR CANDIDATE and as a newspaper they have tried to SHAPE THE ISSUE.

 

Isn't it ironically funny (you knew I had to get the debate back to this somehow and you got to be impressed how I did it:D ) that the ONE ORGANIZATION who is responsible for unbiasly reporting the news is ALLOWED to endorse a candidate and thus taking a side on a person but churches aren't.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: