Mr. Clinton

Does he support killing the filibuster?

Because that is what it would take to pass such legislation.

Follow up question:

Does he support expanding the court?

Because that is what it would take to prevent any anti-monopoly legislation from being overturned.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began a significant shift towards deregulation of the media, culminating in the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. This change was based on the belief that increased competition and a variety of media voices would better serve the public interest and uphold First Amendment rights.

LESS competition and LESS variety of media voices and LESS diversity of viewpoints.

Never think that anything Ronald Reagan did was to the benefit of anybody besides the oligarchy class.

Make them the public service that they used to be. Then, a lot of the pressure to 'compete' will be gone and they can start doing what they used to do.

That would be a good move, because news is a public service - and I felt that way for the 20 years I worked in news. It has to be. Otherwise it’s just another “show”.

The stations were being taken over by those who only saw numbers. So, they decreed that their news programs, which they used to do solely because the FCC 'suggested' they had to do a certain amount of 'public programming', meaning news, or other community assistance. Then, the corporations that were buying up these stations and conglomerates decided that their news shows must have ratings like any other television show. SO, they thumbed their noses at the usual practice and made their news programs vie for ratings like any other show.

Now, how is a news program going to compete with Hollywood?

By being as 'Hollywood' as they could be. Of course, this has a detrimental effect on non-bias as well as presentation, because someone standing and dryly talking to the camera is not as exciting as a reporter charging up and sticking a mic into someone's face whether they like it or not and asking questions that no sensible person would ask at that time.

But, I don't blame the news programs, really. They fell into the new 'format' quickly enough, but they were also fighting for survival. However, the practice of letting the news not be dictated by ratings was removed and that led to the mess that we call 'the news' today.

The internet came along after than, but that is another story, and another reason why the news is not what it used to be.

I can't image that newscasts get great ratings.

But that's a different discussion.

Currently Fox "Newz" comes in 3rd in the ratings. MSNBC is 10th.

https://nationalmediaspots.com/stats-us-cable-broadcast-tv-network-rankings/

I misunderstood, I was thinking of individuals news shows, like the nightly news, not whole networks.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider any of cable "news" networks like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News to actually be "news", as most, if not all of their programming is really opinion programming.

and who provides the advertising?

They started doing it for real in the early eighties.

Suddenly, they went from 'How do we report the news for the people' to 'how do we get ratings to stay on the air?'.

As I said above... it is one of the main reasons that our news went 'Hollywood' in the eighties. Having to compete with reruns of Star Trek and Dr. Who is tough for a program whose most exciting moments come from showing a reporter asking a question.

Also, remember that, until the late nineties, having footage of actual events was very rare. They had to do something else to be 'exciting'.

.... The Sick Fuck. No thanks.

happen under this administration.

We get nowhere with a message "Trump is a poopy head"

Americans get that. But they think most politicians from BOTH parties are all poopy heads.

We need to have specific ideas, clear actions we promise to fight for, if the American people will support us. And if they give us a governing majority, then we promise we will get these SPECIFIC things done.

Breaking up the monopolies is a very good starting point. We have cartels acting in nearly every major industry: insurance, telecom, pharma, the media and so on. We SHOULD act on that.

But there are also very specific things we should running on in other areas. We should have specific plans for making billionaires pay their fair share for the society that has made them spectacularly wealthy and provides then the safety to hoard their wealth.

We should have a specific plan for cutting our HC costs in half. And the only plan that gets us there is Medicare for all.

We should have specific plans, not just vague talk, about gun violence, and that must include eliminating the military assault weapons.

We must deal with the accelerating cost of university-level education. Where are the specific proposals? A first step is to charge student loans the lowest interest rate that the biggest corporations get.

And so on.

These are all ideas the public supports by strong majorities, even before candidates get out in from of that parade.

If we are talking about breakups, how about breaking up Amazon which is a monopoly. Just like ATT was broken up years ago.

because there is no way the presently constituted Roberts court is going to allow monopolies to be broken up, they love monopolies, unfairness, illegality, and wealth concentration.

This DAMMIT!!!

Thirteen districts? Then 13 justices. One per district.

get elected 1st.

He explains things in a way that makes them relevant - he connects the dots. He doesn't just recite the same old talking points and platitudes.

took about 10 years, from the original 1974 anti-trust lawsuit until 1982 consent degree, with a target date of Jan. 1, 1984 for the breakup into the seven "Baby Bells" to be completed.

I'd give the media monopolies less time than that to divest, say two years or four years maximum.

in radio in the late 90’s when Limbaugh dominated. We had a slim chance then. Air America floundered and the internet exploded. Thom Hartman even talked about how, back then, he communicated this idea to some Dems, they poo poo’d it and here we are.

Media equality will take as long as it takes to rebuild the shambles of the foundation of the country—at least half a century primarily because of the overwhelmingly biased and purposely controlled messaging due to the inequivalency in media.

It pisses me off that this hasn’t been a primary ongoing issue.

The media companies will refuse to report this.

Nearly all these stations were purchased by corporations that now broadcast syndicated MAGA formats.

And these programs have become the template for Republicans in all elected offices. There are virtually no voices of dissent both on radio, television, and cable -- not even programs sterilized of political persuasion.