MediaCon: the internet threat

Memo to the few:

Two important items for today.

(1) This Internet is getting out of control. I just learned that when you search on news in Google, for example, it actually returns results with the work of people, not Incs. This has got to be stopped. Get Google to change its code. Incs. before people. Always.

(2) Research shows that the best way to resist the increasing public criticism of Mikey’s plan to relax rules on media ownership is to focus on the internet. Why worry about 3 companies controlling all of media when we have the internet as a competitor?

(BTW: ever notice?: Mikey + (c) = Mickey)

This entry was posted in free culture. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to MediaCon: the internet threat

  1. Anonymous says:

    Please include a sample search url for (1) — My news.google.com searching doesn’t return anything sinister

  2. SC says:

    > Incs. before people. Always

    what does this mean? what is an inc?
    do you have an example?

  3. Andrew in DC says:

    Sadly, there is more of this “cable-ization” of the Internet on the horizon. As more and more INC channels move in, the public access (blog) channels get squeezed out. God forbid that something of the people should trimuph over the commercialized sector by providing more interesting material.

    We’re going to end up with a net that is broken into proprietary sectors, where people on AOL can’t see MSN sites and Comcast viewers can’t see AOLTW material.

    God it’s going to suck.

  4. toph says:

    Thought Google was going to make a blog ghetto to fix that threat.

  5. Reply Memos (from parts all over):

    Things to ignore:

    1) That Pathfinder investment. We can recoup.
    2) The $300 million we dropped into Barnes & Noble.com — that’ll make it back!
    3) Pointcast.
    4) The way our share prices since 1998 have outperformed asbestos manufacturers, but lag well behind tobacco stocks.
    5) Our debt levels.
    6) Our declining revenues in core businesses (Magazines, Theme Parks).
    7) The way the only media companies to show any growth (NWS and VIA) are led by 70-somethings, with the offspring of at least one of those execs (Murdoch), certifiable as idiot.
    8) Our disastrous mergers with tech companies (AOL, Infoseek) that have left our boards reeling and shareholders considering a revolt should we ever try that noise again.
    9) All is well! All is well!

    (Aside: It’s very important to keep fighting here, but the opposition is hardly capable of building a new city of Enki. One of the great things about having a predictable opposition is you always kinda know what they’re gonna do next.)

  6. Kevin Jordan says:

    “Incs.” likely refers to incorporated news sites — people who get paid to bring the news to the masses. Contrast that with a personal diary site which might mention news but would then probably litter it with opinion. While I agree with Prof. Lessig’s argument, I feel the difference between the two is shrinking. Incs. are taking many more liberties these days (under the auspices of differentiation, no doubt), letting opinions season the news instead of just reciting the facts.

    Why I’d want that any more than I’d want the sandwich artists at Subway to choose my toppings is beyond me. Provide the sandwich and I’ll decide how I’d like it to taste today, please.

  7. jj says:

    *chuckle*

  8. Ry Rivard says:

    Lessig is absolutely right. Even with Jayson Blair and the potentially botched Jessica Lynch story, not to mention Judith Miller’s military-reviewed, military-given story, I’d rather get my news from the one New York Times than dozens of weblogs.

    Anyone who says the difference is shrinking is fooling themselves, because most weblogs–hey, even my own–take Times et al stories and manipulate them to prove their ideology, right or wrong. The argument can be made that Times et al is advancing their own ideology (Augusta is just an obvious example), but we are still getting news from trained people who are at the scene talking to the newsmakers, and at very least the story isn’t tainted by another layer of a blogger’s ideology, even if the blogist knows what they are talking about, though it’s a given that most–hey, even me–are out of their league.

    I think the great thing about the blog-olution is that expert people, like Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kause can be more Johnny on the spot with their criticism of the news sources, not that they can become news sources.

    Thus, Google, being the sentinel of the web, should always put the news before the carrion and their critiques.

  9. d chalmers says:

    Ahm. I think some commentators might be missing the facetious tone of the Prof’s post?

  10. mike lawson says:

    D chalmers….good god…i was thinging the exact same thing..guys, the post is in jest…..lolol

  11. Ry Rivard says:

    Oops, it was in jest, but I just got off reading a serious piece about Googlewashing, so the idea didn’t even hit me. So, I stand by (whatever that means) everything except that “Lessig is absolutely right” bit.

  12. get a clue says:

    Clearly some people could use an irony detector. Did you also think Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal was all about the economic, sociological and political benefits of eating babies?

  13. Kevin Jordan says:

    That’s what I get for posting on an empty stomach. Mmmmm, Subway.

Comments are closed.