Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> 
>   Alan,
> 
>     unfortunately, not too many 'tech guys' understand the Media biz
> all too well.  I'll try to put this into concise terms here:
> 
>     consolidation = 'information richness'--.
> 
>     in other words, if media is owned by few- then obviously the
> overall choices are diminished.  The basis of our information then
> takes on a less diverse character, and typically in order to maintain
> this situation, the 'illusion of news' needs to be propagated.  So we
> fill the viewers heads will all sorts of useless topics like Britany
> Spears, etc. because we have to report *something* [1] and we employ
> people with nice haircuts and terse voices to give the illusion of
> importance,  because without some kind of information to fill our
> heads, we will have the feeling that we are being uninformed, in which
> case the program has no or an opposite effect.  The last failsafe is
> to prevent the 'media consumer' from essentially smashing their TV
> set.
> 
>    Martin @ FCC has persued a consistent policy of promoting
> monopolization of the media, often in direct opposition to public
> protest.  Specifically Martin's treatment of the newspaper medium will
> have a drastic effect.
> 
>    For a background in these topics I recommend reading Walter Lippman.
> 
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann
> 
>    Also Dan Gillmor is somewhat of a figure in this realm.  He now
> works at ASU.
> 
>    http://www.dangillmor.com/
> 
>   -jmz
> 
> 
> 
>  [1] And appealing to your reproductive instincts is perhaps the most
> effective way to provide this stimulus.

Thanks for the information.  I'll look at them later but I think I get
your gist.  And I agree that less sources of information and so on leads
to the "illusion of news."

Alan