NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conspira/14685

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 6.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:14685 alt.news-media:1762
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!spcvxb!hsh!paul
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Time-Warner, Channel One and the "Edison Project"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:47:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: HSH Associates
Lines: 120

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad Pierce) writes:
> [Reprinted without permission but without violation of copyright laws
> from the Dec 1992 issue of _Multinational Monitor_, which allows
> reproduction for non-commercial use if proper credit is given. All
> rights reserved.]
>
> TIME WARNER/WHITTLE SELLING KIDS SHORT
>
> THE $7 BILLION MERGER of media giants Time, Inc. and Warner
> Communications in early 1990 marks a significant and dangerous stage
> in the drive toward increasing concentration of the media.
>
> Time Warner now owns and controls mass circulation magazines such as
> Time and Fortune; publishing houses including Time-Life Books, Warner
> Books, Little Brown and the Book-of-the-Month Club; two of the largest
> pay-television services in the United States, HBO and Cinemax; two of
> the largest cable-operating companies in the United States; music
> publishing companies including Warner Brothers, Atlantic and Elektra;
> and Warner Brothers Studios in the film industry.
>
> Time Warner owns a 22 percent interest in the Turner Broadcasting
> System, the parent company of CNN.  [etc etc]
> [snip]
> FAIR executive director Jeff Cohen questions about the ability of Time
> Warner employees to report fairly on business in the wake of the merger
> and the layoffs.  He says, "You can't expect reporters working at Time
> Warner--no matter how valiant--to give working people the information
> they need about the dangers of mergers and business monopolies when
> they're working for one and they've just seen their colleagues laid
> off."

[I'm no fan of Time-Warner, since their openly liberal politics shines
through in practically every TIME story, but this stuff deserves a "devil's
advocate" response nonetheless.]

Interesting that FAIR has no trouble defending the "fairness and accuracy" of
the BigRichCorporations that produce the NY Times, LA Times, etc, or of those
which own & operate CBS and ABC.

In other words, FAIR and their buddies would have us believe that
BigRichCorporations are by definition conservative and, therefore, biased.
And Time-Warner is a BRC.  QED.  See?

But it is equally true that T-W is an *entertainment* company, and is a
product steeped in the ideology of Hollywood -- the same crowd that openly
and actively supported Clinton, and which openly and actively derided Bush
(not to mention his VP).  The American Broadcasting Company is also owned and
operated by an entertainment company, their status as a corporation
notwithstanding.  But hey -- the "A=B=C" argument that FAIR uses can be
demolished just by looking at the Turner News empire.

> Cohen also notes that as a result of the merger, the company now
> both owns cable stations and distributors and produces the product
> that will get on the air; Time Warner also owns magazines that review
> movies and televisions shows that it produces.  Cohen cites a Time cover
> story on author Scott Turow which ran just as Warner released a movie
> based on a Turow novel.

So?  It's called "cross-marketing," and it's neither illegal nor unethical.
One wonders what ideological niche Cohem would slide this Turow fellow into.
I never heard of him myself, but I'd bet a buck on it.

> Critics of media concentration have more profound concerns about the
> mergers of huge companies like Time and Warner, charging that corporate
> giants will control the international flow of information to reflect and
> promote their own interests, and exist only to exploit information for
> profit. "Concentrated power to persuade and influence is dangerous," says
> Cohen.  "That's a given."

The "evil corporation" line, combined with the "evil profits" line.  Puh-
leeze.  The same charge could be made about the Democratic Party, for which
FAIR makes a passable (if not terribly credible) party organ.

How about: "Critics of partisan politics have profound concerns about the
merger of the Executive and Legislative branches, charging that liberals will
control the international flow of information... and exist only to exploit
political affairs for profit."  Howzabout it, Cohen?  The Federal gummint is
the largest employer, bar none.  Does that "concentrated power" strike you as
"dangerous"?

> Time Warner has already thrown its muscle behind a particularly
> disturbing enterprise to push a noxious mixture of media, education and
> commercialism.  In 1992, Time Warner became majority owner of Whittle
> Communications, with an option to buy an additional 20 percent of
> Christopher Whittle's communications company.  Whittle is the most
> blatant and well-known of the new breed of classroom hucksters,
> companies that view elementary and high school students as prime targets
> for marketing schemes.

Really, this is some way to thank TIME magazine for naming Bill Clinton its
"Man of the Year"!  Many parents find the liberals' goal of foisting
homosexual indoctrination upon their children to be "noxious," but perhaps
it's okay if the gummint does it?

[ snip, snip, snip; I don't have all day]
> Karen Brown of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for the Study of
> Commercialism says, "We are very wary of a money-making corporation
> deciding the curriculum for children.  Clearly, the bottom line for a
> company like Whittle may not serve the best interest of U.S. children."

Another variant of "profits are evil", which translates equally well as "any
company that makes a profit can do no good."  Does the NEA -- the
organization and its amply-paid leaders -- qualify as a "money-making
organization"?  I think it does, in goal if not in name.

I've never heard of _Multinational Monitor_, but it speaks volumes about
their editorialism that not one word from Time-Warner was included.  I
suppose getting the other side's opinions would just be a hindrance.

If FAIR really did stand for "fairness" and "accuracy," they'd be asking why
the media gave Clinton's cabinet nominees such a free ride.  Why aren't we
told more about Christopher Warren, who lied to Congress?  What was the
secret deal Ron Brown cut, in order to save his confirmation?

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

Paul Havemann   (Internet: [e-mail])

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **