the gatekeeper has arrived to bring down the hammer of regimes of discipline in the guise of liberal "openness"...
since when is the merging of mega-corporate mergers of media conglomerates "political gossip" and not just "news"? And how regional can it be dismissed as, when US media domination is global in reach and scope? This is super relevant to an open media and a neutral net.
Folks outside the US are not as insular as Americans and don't struggle with centuries of "isolationism" so are far more interested (and frankly far more aware) of issues in American politics and economy, understanding that it will both indirectly and directly affect them...
or perhaps policing the internet is more important.
It's really hard to make comparisons with Europe, because their situation is so different, and also within a very different cultural/historical context as well. Firstly, they don't suffer from a hyper-consumerized, anti-intellectual (shit throwing) Ape culture. So they're typically more immune from Corporate Propoganda. Furthermore, they have state TV stations that are liberal and honest. Our PBS was not allowed to do anything actually relevant or watched, so our PBS was ghettoized to do documentaries about the History of the ice-cream cone on the Eastern Seaboard during the late 19th Century.
I agree it is very hard to compare the United States with Europe, but there are many similarities and a ton of cross over in ownership. American media firms that are competitors in the United States are many times joined at the hip in Europe. There is a ton of collusion going on.
Ben Bagdikian, former Berkeley Journalism Dean and author of "Media Monopoly" has spent 30 years painstakingly chronicling these relationships.
These media conglomerates are constantly merging and getting more powerful by the day. They of course have their sights firmly on taking "control" of the Internet (will there always be some dissension...sure on the fringes of society) But those that think that the Internet will always have to be an open medium are naive, remember everyone said the same thing about radio in the 1920s.
One more thing to think about when we compare Europe to the US. One must look at French Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy and his attempts "civilize" the Internet which is really a code for “regulations favorable to big business and the national security state.
The difference is the French citizens on the whole are more engaged (as braindeomon points out) so they haven't put up with Sarkozy's proposals... unlike the American populace who are largely uninformed on what's going on politically (outside of Congressman Weiner's antics).
I admit I painted an overly simplified, pre-1990's picture. Even the BBC has famously had to adopt a more "American" model of advertisers allowing more inroads by mega-corporations, and they've partnered with several American corporations.
Sarkozy is notorious for his overt racist statements and policies, so he will be no friend to democracy. I just feel sorry for his beautiful, talented wife, because he really is a narcissist.
Right wing Berlusconi built his media empire on trash, titilating television and is famous for his teenage lovers.
However, being ultra-/ far-right wing in Europe is famously understood to be well to the left of Liberal Democrats. Our actual "moderate" right wing would be illegal in Europe, since they had to deal with fascism, so won't countenance anything that vicious.
since when is the merging of mega-corporate mergers of media conglomerates "political gossip" and not just "news"? And how regional can it be dismissed as, when US media domination is global in reach and scope? This is super relevant to an open media and a neutral net.
Folks outside the US are not as insular as Americans and don't struggle with centuries of "isolationism" so are far more interested (and frankly far more aware) of issues in American politics and economy, understanding that it will both indirectly and directly affect them...
or perhaps policing the internet is more important.