|
"The growth of big news organizations means there is less competition and less diversity of news sources today compared to a few years ago."
|
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
>
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total # of Responses: 182 - 9/28/03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66% |
|
13% |
|
3% |
|
13% |
|
7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have received feedback on this issue from people all across America. Review the graph to the left for a quick snapshot of the responses received to date, or read the responses below.
|
|
Julie, VA
|
|
... varity of news
... 
September 28,2003
|
First we had newspaper media 'sound bites' in the form of USA Today. Now, most TV news programs are in this 'sound bite' format. I can watch a varity of news form around the world, or indepth on a PSB station, turn to the local news about 13 min into the program to hear the weather (which always has a commercial break) and then return to what I was watching. Pitiful. However, I really like Nightline and at times Oprah for full news croverage. Obviously, Oprah is entertainment, but when she presents a story as news, it is well researched. As for Nightline, the subjects are varied and always researched, they cover the world around me and I'll watch because I fell more atuned whether or not think it is the most pressing issue of our time, because sometimes it turns out to very relavant to me! Thanks to all who will look as closely at themselves as they would at others!
|
|
Marion, FL
|
|
|
... less real news
...
September 23,2003
|
The more stations owned by one company, means that there will be more drek and less real news.
|
|
L. A. Elli, MN
|
|
|
... one does not follow
...
September 22,2003
|
It's an opportunity for those in search of busines opportunities and accurate news if one does not follow the pop culture media. Watch Nightline and don't read People magazine.
|
|
Chas, HI
|
|
|
... alternatives for truth
...
September 20,2003
|
"The growth of big news organizations means there is less competition and less diversity of news sources today compared to a few years ago."
Is the above statement some kind of "trick" statement?
This ain't the no spin zone. Please. Question? What if "the news is on with our star reporter (so-an-so)... and nobody watches?" As you news media moguls are quite aware... out of necessity...
alternatives for truth in journalism very much exist... and growing. And, already, some people... are not watching...
|
|
Ime, VA
|
|
|
... towards bipolar media
...
September 20,2003
|
The growth of big news organizations does not necessarily imply less diversity. The organization CHOOSES to either limit or broaden the scope of their news coverage.
Unfortunately, our media conglomerates CHOOSE to popularize the entertainment aspect of news, rather than put forth facts and figures from both here and abroad. What's catchy is hot, what's not, is not and thus trickles down to the internet (read: less accessibility for most).
We're headed towards bipolar media, not unlike our stagnant political structure.
- Ime Bushed
|
|
Rob, NY
|
|
|
... Competition is extremely important.
...
September 20,2003
|
Fox and CNN seem to have the hold on the news media and can report what they think is popular regardless if it has been thoroughly researched. Like many other large corporations that are growing together. Competition is extremely important.
|
|
Bob, OR
|
|
|
... greater diversity
...
September 20,2003
|
It does not necessarily follow that greater diversity in media ownership will result in accurate and truthful news reporting. We can pretty much bet however that if media ownership is not strickly limited that our perceptions of important events will reflect the political and economic interests of the mega media conglomerate. One can only hope however that greater diversity will allow a more balanced and accurate story to be told.
|
|
Gayle, MT
|
|
|
... I would go further ...
September 20,2003
|
I would go further and say that the trend toward concentration of media sources in just a few corporate hands is one of great danger to our ability to make informed, intelligent decisions about the future of our sodiety. In thia world, information is power and I am shaken by the weight of that power being in the hands of a few powerful people. It becomes a situation of detachment, of them versus us. Without an intelligently informed and active citizenry our government cannot function, and our democratic republic may be doomed.
|
|
Glynda, OH
|
|
|
... We need independent
...
September 19,2003
|
I strongly believe that big business does run our news and in order to judge how any given new event is covered you must know who owns the station in question. I believe that it is not a good idea to have our national news owned and directed by multinational corporations that have interests that may conflict with our national interests. The need for our citizens to have news reported in a way that reflects American interests only or first is extremely important. I don't believe that we need to "dumb" down the news, we need to educate the viewers to be better able to understand the news as it is. We need independent, responsible news and newscasters that are allowed to broadcast without regard for any bokttom line business interests. I personally like Peter Jennings thh best of all the anchors, he seems to have a good handle on how to put news in a perspective that is easy to grasp. I believe that Fox News is a farce. Are their paychecks sighned by the Rebublican National Committe? I don't
|
|
Che, NY
|
|
|
... diminished competetion
...
September 19,2003
|
The possible diminished competetion and diversity is a lesser concern to me. I question the agenda of that select group of policy makers and "public" officials whom quietly formed and made law those regulations that would allow for that growth.
The degree of coversion and the insidious implications, are equaled only by the relatively passive and unquestioning public acceptance.
|
|
|
|
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
>
|
