If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Courts open doors to even larger media conglomerates. This fall on NBC: The same old crap with 40% more AOL commercials.   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 54
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2007 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2002 at 2:06 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-02-20 02:08:37 PM  
woot, bring on the crap!
 
2002-02-20 02:10:56 PM  
The odd thing about advertising AOL now is that it is the single largest porno gateway for Americans right now.
No SPAM control...no regulated chat rooms......
I wonder if they really are thinking about what the FARK they are trying to convey by carrying AOL commercials.

The allmighty dollar rules.
AND I STILL CAN'T SMOKE WEED IN MY HOUSE LEGALLY!
 
2002-02-20 02:12:17 PM  
"It allows for the creation of a powerful new entity we have never seen before...."


LOL, that sums it up, brother.
 
2002-02-20 02:13:00 PM  
The title for this should be "SCARY".
 
2002-02-20 02:13:02 PM  
Friggin' AOL, everytime I see their ads I just imagine more and more chowderheads going on line everyday.
 
2002-02-20 02:13:10 PM  
Oh, god, it'll be like on the Simpsons when the fortune teller shows Lisa the Future....
 
2002-02-20 02:14:09 PM  
It makes me mad that AoL is so CRAPPY compared to small-time ISPs but gets such a huge market share.

Not to mention that they own so many other things now.
 
2002-02-20 02:16:25 PM  
Dark One, it's the same reason that Winders sells so well. The average idiot doesn't want pure functionality, they want nice little buttons and cute paperclips to help them get on Ebay and buy farking garden gnomes. The average user is afraid of pure functionality. It's like giving a 16 year old a McLaren F1. They opt for a mustang.
 
2002-02-20 02:17:25 PM  
Shoot they already got rid of the Tick and Futurama, and the Sopranos have been off the air for too long . I care less about tv everyday, because I get all my entertainment from the Combat Zone, hehe. (All you Boston natives know what I mean ;p )
57 channels and nothing on, absolutely craptacular !
 
2002-02-20 02:18:54 PM  
"It allows for the creation of a powerful new monopoly we have never seen before..."
 
2002-02-20 02:21:53 PM  
Thank GOD for skinMax
 
2002-02-20 02:26:26 PM  
Did you guys see the Janet Jackson concert on HBO??

Damn that was hot!!!
 
2002-02-20 02:28:14 PM  
Hooray for bringing frightening sci-fi visions of a hellish corporate-run society closer to reality.
 
BX
2002-02-20 02:28:14 PM  
oh well, this paves the way for a single angency to give us its own slant on news. Too bad. I think I will go live in the wilderness now. fark you conglomerates
 
2002-02-20 02:31:46 PM  
Skinink- what Combat Zone? There's like one bar with skank-o-rama chicks with horse faces and no boobs, and their is one "Adult" bookstore. The 'zone was gone before I showed up, long gone.

To get quality nudity for dollars, you have to go to Saugus or Providence, RI.
 
2002-02-20 02:35:21 PM  
Wow, get ready for Big Brother (the old big brother, not the shiatty TV show) with a shiney, idiot-friendly interface.
 
2002-02-20 02:37:11 PM  
beware the screeching cheetah willy
 
2002-02-20 02:40:19 PM  
McFly, you might be on to something there. Let's see if this works:


We have always been at war with The Axis of Evil. We have always been allies with Great Britian and the rest of Wester Europe.


Close. If the Axis of Evil could be expanded to a few more countries, and Europe continues to become one nation, we might have something here.
 
2002-02-20 02:50:11 PM  
Uh, Deus, what kind of store in Winders?
 
2002-02-20 02:50:46 PM  
Yeah, pretty soon it'll just be...the Corporation.

Perfect timing with Rockstar's release of "State of Emergency".
 
2002-02-20 02:51:01 PM  
AOL reminds me of Heaven's Gate.
 
2002-02-20 02:53:57 PM  
Thanks, Republicans! Now that we have SuperGigaMegaCorp, we don't need an environment anyway!
 
2002-02-20 02:59:17 PM  
Yea, Club Fantasies is awesome in Providence, but Centerfolds just opened up, but on skanky La Grange Street. I wouldn't sent Mike Tyson down that street....
 
2002-02-20 03:01:47 PM  
TheDarkOne: you mean the Simpsons Ep where Fox becomes a hard core porn channel? Cool, bring on the porn.
 
2002-02-20 03:06:47 PM  
"It allows for the creation of a powerful new entity we have never seen before...."



hitler, microsoft, NEXT!
 
2002-02-20 03:07:11 PM  
Digitalchris. the goal of a corp is profit i think we all can agree on that right? Pollution is waste, I think we can all agree on that too. waste is the bane of profit, I think we can all agree on that, given that doesn't it reason that giant corps will attempt to reduce waste to better their own bottom lines?

Also just because you think it sucks does not mean that it was done by republicans research then rant.

Btw I think AOL/Time Warner should have never happend but at least it has helped open access to pipes
 
2002-02-20 03:19:15 PM  
I....I see a vision.........I see us all........turning on our televisions, but the remote......it looks weird......there's only three buttons on it.......one looks to be the power button and....oh dear god......No.....please no...NO!.......

I saw the remote, with it's three buttons. One was the power button, but the others *shudders and sobbing*

One was the Micro$oft channel, the other one was AOLNABCBSESPNNTimeFoxWarner (and they were showing Larry King Live).

God help us all.
 
2002-02-20 03:19:26 PM  
Digitalchris. the goal of a corp is profit i think we all can agree on that right? Pollution is waste, I think we can all agree on that too. waste is the bane of profit, I think we can all agree on that, given that doesn't it reason that giant corps will attempt to reduce waste to better their own bottom lines?

Vman: HAHA! no.
That theory is patently ridiculous. Say it costs a company $50 a barrel to properly dispose of waste X. Or they can dump it in the river, and MAYBE get taxed $20 some years from now for massive cleanup efforts. However since it's a tax, competitors would also pay it. The only way to keep corporations from polluting is to make sure the economic burden of any pollution is FULLY paid, IMMEDIATELY, by the polluter. This requires monitoring and fines.

What you're saying is akin to saying: fire is bad for companies. Burning will ruin a company's profits. So companies will pay to fund "Fire Departments" to help in the event of fire.

Wrong. they'll let EVERYONE pay for it, and then attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

Getting back on topic, when you have SuperMegaCorp to deal with, any attempts to fine and monitor are met with resistance, since the company can simply go international, buy politicians (economy of scale - buy a few polits is cheaper than paying fines on hundreds of businesses), or simply use their size to threaten "hurting us hurts the whole economy". Blah.
 
2002-02-20 03:27:47 PM  
I hear AOL is going to buy Starbucks & Wal-mart..
 
2002-02-20 03:31:40 PM  
VMan - Looking back on your post, it's the classic example of logical fallacy of equivocation.

You first say pollution is "waste" (i.e. garbage - I think we can agree that no business can find a revenue-generating use for all of it's by-products like some kind of universal Scrapple). Then you say "Waste" is the bane of profit. Did you mean garbage is the bane of profit? No, you meant spending that does not generate added revenue... a completely different definition of "waste".

So thanks for that textbook example of equivocation. Now I've actually been able to use knowledge I gained reading Fark! Flying pigs soon to follow....
 
2002-02-20 03:33:14 PM  
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
 
rwg
2002-02-20 03:48:16 PM  
If AOL gets NBC, I suspect MSNBC wouldn't last long. Maybe this is a good thing after all...
 
2002-02-20 03:50:52 PM  
What's TV?
 
2002-02-20 03:56:41 PM  
well, now we'll certainly get unbiased reporting from our trusted news professionals. it's not like monsanto doesn't own them all already.
 
2002-02-20 03:59:48 PM  
Digitalchris:
"Thanks, Republicans! Now that we have SuperGigaMegaCorp, we don't need an environment anyway!"

Did you notice this was a federal appeals court that made this decision. Can you read.

As to the silly assertion about three buttons. Think back to not too long ago when there were only three channels. The variety on on TV and in any media is greater than it ever has been in history.

The great thing about capitalisn is this. AOL TIme Warner might not work out. The merger has had financial problems. If that is so they may have to break off pieces. If not someone may come along and but them out or superced them in the market.

But they are too big and bad you say. Well if I had told you seven years ago that AOL would buy Time Warner you would have laughed then too.

So get over the Orwell crap. Orwell was about the goverment controlling you. These people still need to make money. If people do not buy or watch there stuff they go bye bye.
 
2002-02-20 04:02:11 PM  
Vman: most states in the country, at some point in the past, have given in to a corporation that pushed for taxpayer funding of it's clean up operations that had become a requirement in order for it to meet new environmental regulations. So your conclusion seems a little backwards.


And yay for the DoC appellate judge, who I'm sure had a very well-funded campaign. Yeeeeesss bribery. It's not just for Congressmen and Presidents anymore, children.

Don't worry though, cause soon you won't have to hear these sorts of stories anymore. It's all but assumed that Microsoft censors MSNBC for unflattering coverage; they've been caught doing it on Slashdot. You certainly wouldn't see this story on one of the TV stations the Post owns, and I'm sure the editor that let this through will, sooner or later, by his boss or his bosses' boss, get a stern reminder about who's business interests pay his or her salary. So long freedom of the press, we hardly knew ye.
 
2002-02-20 04:06:23 PM  
Digitalchris: I do agree with the equivocation thing. It was a poorly made argument.

However I did see one time a study which showed the most companies which pursued non-polluitng policies and methods had higher profits. NOw I have absoulutely nithing to back this up I just remmeber reading it somewhere. SO in another way he may have been right.

Remember though Adam Smith the Father of capitalism despised and mistrusted businessmen. The system works but it does not make an individual trustworthy.
 
2002-02-20 04:08:21 PM  
Well said, Sarcasmo.
 
2002-02-20 04:09:13 PM  
Sarcasmo: It is kind of funny to hear you whine about no freedom of the press whe reporting how alternative news sites are watchdogging the big networks.
 
2002-02-20 04:09:55 PM  
The argument may have it's flaws, unless you look at things like the steel industry where waste reduction steps were taken for the exact purpose I stated reducing pollutants and other waste products. Nice try with the logic flaw argument but I used the same definition of the term in each use of the term. There are flaws like you pointed out with your free river dump example. But damnit learn to read and comprehend definitions before you make a further ass of yourself by trying to use a college word that does not appy. Reminding me of a "living Color" skit series I used to watch. If you would like an example more in tune with what I was explaining when refineing copper a cobolt alloy is present in the waste material. This waste is dumped ususally just as pile in the refining site but can flow and damage water streams etc. Copper refining corps have spent a lot of money funding reserch into a way to efficently seperate the valuable cobolt from the waste products. Thusly increaseing efficency and profit. How can my example be bullshiat if it is a common practice? Oh wait maybe it is not... Any paperless office initiatives anywhere you work (From intilect level I assume not In and Out burger does not use much paper anyway) You think they do that to "save the trees" bullshiat paper costs money reduction in that paper reduces expenses and guess what that does... thats right increases profit. Do not attempt to insult my intelligence when you are obviously not capable of defending your own.
 
2002-02-20 04:11:26 PM  
Fudd, the funny this is how it changed to a hard core porn channel so gradually that no one noticed. oh wait, i'm flashing forward into the future ala James Woods again.
 
2002-02-20 04:11:32 PM  
Actually Mr.X-Ray it was very poorly said as it had little relation to the real world. Federal Judges do not campaign they are appointed. The rest was also seriously flawed.

There are arguments against this ruling just not the poor ones that are being made.
 
2002-02-20 04:13:44 PM  
Corillion, you so crazay. Here in charlotte, once this law is out of the way, I WON'T BE ABLE TO NOT BUY THEIR STUFF. I already can't NOT buy cable TV (a utility, not a luxury, under federal law; try staying informed up to the minute, and living in a society so affected by it, without having it). I can't buy high speed internet access without buying from them (being that they ARE the cable company, they've successfully kept all competition from using their pipes to provide alternatives). Even if I had the money, my apartment complex might have a problem with me putting a dish out on their property. That's not a free market; and AOL-TW is fighting against a free market, because competition isn't profitable. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2002-02-20 04:15:29 PM  
Corillion, you can obviously read.

The Washington Post isn't an 'alternative news site' and, like I pointed out, it owns plenty of cable stations itself.
 
2002-02-20 04:22:04 PM  
Corillon: I have heard the same thing about the environmentally friendly companies having higher profits. However, now you're using another logical fallacy, Post Hoc (or maybe Complex Cause). A policy of non-polution is likely the RESULT of a company's management philosophy (and -UGH- 'mission statement'). That same philosophy could foster employee loyalty, fiscal responsibility and greater public acceptance, which would increase profits.
 
2002-02-20 04:22:17 PM  
Sorry about the judges remark, cause he's right and I was wrong. I get so used to pointing that out about district attorney's campaigns that I didn't stop to think about it before I made the claim.
 
2002-02-20 04:26:18 PM  
Corillon - Lighten up, I was being sarcastic. You know how much TV I watch a week? zero, zip, zilch, nada, none, null. So this won't really affect me. I was just attempting to be a smartass, that's all. Nothing Orwellian about that, is there?

Or were you just pissed off that I dissed Larry King?
 
2002-02-20 04:51:58 PM  
VMan: I assume your paragraph-blob was aimed at me, so I'll respond.

The first and saddest part is the blatant personal attacks.
...damnit learn to read and comprehend definitions before you make a further ass of yourself...

...From intilect[sic] level I assume not In and Out burger does not use much paper anyway...

Do not attempt to insult my intelligence when you are obviously not capable of defending your own.


I almost feel like I'm getting trolled, but I'll respond anyway.


The argument may have it's flaws, unless you look at things like the steel industry...

So you're saying an example proves the rule? Do I even have to bother pointing out the logical fallacy there?

Copper refining corps have spent a lot of money funding reserch into a way to efficently seperate the valuable cobolt from the waste products.

Gee I guess they just one day decided they'd spend lots of money on research. They were forced to find a solution when they faced the fact that they would have to pay to have the pollutants removed. Only THEN did they take the research hit to cut their losses.

Any paperless office initiatives anywhere you work ...You think they do that to "save the trees" bullshiat paper costs money reduction in that paper reduces expenses and guess what that does... thats right increases profit.

Obviously. But completely unrelated. Everybody knows that reducing operating expenses increases efficiency. This has nothing to do with pollution.

A more apropos example would be the recycling of the paper that offices DO consume; and guess what? They sent it straight to the landfill until municipalities began levying fines against them if they didn't recycle a certain percentage.
 
2002-02-20 04:58:12 PM  
IT's already all owned by one company. Take a look.
 
2002-02-20 05:43:18 PM  
DigitalChris: Nice.


Corporations w/ a conscience are the exception not the rule.

Economics does not, has not, and will not solve the world's problems.

As an example to the problem w/ huge media corps. that have their hands in so many other industries as well controlling the bulk of information exchange:

How many news stories are going to be run by the TV stations that are owned by, say, Disney that rile the masses against, hypothetically, sweat-shops, when Disney's clothing products are produced by kids the same age in a 3rd world country that they are trying to market to in the good ol' USA? The answer is none. Every one of those TV stations will be required NOT to run those stories. It doesn't matter much if there are little sources here and there with the information. The point is that most* people will be kept in the dark about so much (more) and all so unimaginably rich people can get unimaginably richer... All the power in the hands of a few: Goodbye Democracy and hello easy greed.

And for all of those that speak out loudly in support of this: You aren't the commandeers of freedom and independence and laissez faire policies you think you are...you are pawns.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report