 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | said by MyDogHsFleas:What was the general press supposed to do with this? A single-digit-percentage price increase by a TV service provider is not exactly blazing headline news.
What would have been "integrity" and "fact checking"? I don't get this at all.
The story centers around the fact that AT&T used lobbyists and funded groups that helped shape new policies that made investors lots of money, while pretending that these laws would ultimately help the consumers see better competition and pricing.
Many people knew that the pitch about these laws helping consumers was all a lie, and the only serious questions concerning the motives and authenticity of these claims seemed to be coming from independent blogs and forums. The mainstream media simply regurgitated the same spin coming from these lobbyists and fake consumer advocate groups that were quietly being funded by the conglomerate.
In fact, by simply acting as a mouthpiece for these lobbyists and groups while ignoring legitimate criticism, the mainstream media contributed in spreading this false propaganda. |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Writing an article shining light on the gutting of video franchise laws and local control and consumer protections while also failing to deploy, not honoring commitments, raising prices steadily and not really competing however would make a great story in the paper.
However, expecting investigative journalism these days is really a stretch. Most pieces just quote the company PR written up a little more in depth and call it done.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jmn1207
to KrK also.
I see where you are coming from. I think this argument depends on drawing a connection between "video franchise laws and local control and consumer protections" and lower prices. Counterpoint: FIOS deployed under local cable franchise law, did not go against it like AT&T did, and they are raising prices too. So I don't think there's such a strong connection.
IMO the thing that local franchises do mostly is (a) demand that "public access" channels be carried that no one watches, and that the city can spend money on to placate local groups; and (b) serve as a source of revenue for the city. I don't really see a lot of "community control" driving prices down and services up. Frankly, cable's push to DOCSIS 3.0 and plant improvements is driven by competition from the telcos, Verizon and AT&T -- not by anything the local franchises do.
My other comment would be that just because the mainstream press is not as "progressive" and anti-corporate/pro-big-government as you would like, doesn't mean they are lazy shills. The mainstream press has to make a profit too, and if no one reads their stuff, they don't get ad revenue. And, like it or not, this is a center-right country that doesn't want unbalanced news/commentary. Case in point: the complete, abject failure of Air America, and the ascendancy of Fox News over CNN and MSNBC.
I actually tried to listen to Air America for a while, after finding it on a bad AM station locally. It was literally unlistenable. Nothing interesting going on, no one you had ever heard of participating in the shows, very few callers into the talk shows, and all the ads were PSAs. It was clearly a sinking ship. |
