Skip to main content

A Tale of Today

A Tale of Today
        
Often when learning something I like to see connections in it to history. It helps me to understand applicable topics much better than I otherwise would as it allows me to see reasons for certain actions, and ultimately to see their consequences. Putting a curriculum in context can show people's actions to be what they are. Ican often apply history in our journalism class as, after all, both subjects are just different attempts at covering all meaningful human endeavors. 

In our last journalism class we discussed, among other things, conglomerations and monopolies. We talked about how distribution companies have gotten into the content creation business and how content creation companies have gotten into the distribution business. Netflix now makes its own shows, for example. They have the data of what everyone wants, and can make content accordingly. This seems like they are just filling a niche and appears benevolent, but what could they do with all that data that translates to power? What can Facebook and Google do? These companies that have broken the wall between content distribution and creation can now control their entire supply chain. That made me think, wasn't this vertical integration a crucial step that the Gilded Age's "Captains of Industry" took towards becoming some of the most powerful men in American history? Having this complete control of supply lines through vertical integration was and is a robber barron's dream.

 We also learned about horizontal integration in class. This is where businesses buy up competition in their industry. Fortunately, horizontal monopolies are illegal in the U.S. However, mega-mergers are commonplace. America's largest corporations buy out competition and fix prices for the benefit of the few. That rings some bells for me. The richest people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in America had built up monopolies horizontally and vertically, destroyed competition, and bought elections for pro business candidates that they had in their pockets. Wages were low. Working conditions were egregious. Trust busting was unimaginable. 

Talking about conglomerations and monopolies made me think about the past, but it also made me wonder if that past was also our future. If Jeff Bezos is the Rockefeller from our time, then who will be our Ida Tarbell? If the Koch brothers are our Carnegie, then who will be our Theodore Roosevelt? Who is our Upton Sinclair and where is our Sherman Antitrust act? Wall Street's power is usually compared to that of Main Street. We must have people act before Wall Street is more powerful than Capital Hill. 
                

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Forward in this Generation Triumphantly

We Forward in this Generation Triumphantly A Response to Isabella Bonilla's  "A Reflection Of the Past 72 Hours" The past few weeks, months and years have looked bleak for the grand arc of human triumph over tribalism. From Brexit to Bolsonaro, rifts between groups of people have become evident if not enlarged.  Isabella responded to  a class discussion on hate crimes committed in recent days with an eloquently worded piece. (Yes I realise I have already responded to one of Isabella's posts, but they are thoughtful and not too many posts for this continuation have been made yet). In it she makes many points about the media's role in covering a tragedy. She also points out that the internet, the modern marvel it is, has a rampant problem with disinformation and promoting radicalizing echo chambers. I agree in many regards that the internet and social media are not beneficial to the state of public discourse. I don't have any social media because I ...
1 comment
Read more

In Defense of WDRB

In Defense of WDRB Local news is inherently flawed. Local news is often incapable of living up to national expectations on a low budget and local audience. Evie published a post  that had some harsh words for WDRB today. In it, she berates the local news station for airing too many stories about social issues or human interest, and for publishing too many sports stories online. The way she sees it, WDRB sacrifices being able to do in depth coverage on specific stories in exchange for more time for populist stories. While I agree with her in some points, I fundamentally disagree with her opinions on what constitutes a relevant and important story.  Evie states that on a recent broadcast "there were nine stories that fit under the category of social issues and human interests, but their were zero stories on politics and government, and only one story on accidents and disasters" to support her point that WDRB is airing too many irrelevant stories. While I do see it as s...
1 comment
Read more

All the Facts

All the Facts On the 6 o'clock news on Monday WDRB aired a story that was not well researched or well reported. There are plenty of stories like that that are aired, but this was the lead story on the 6 P.M. broadcast. All the details on the story viewers were given was that there was an incident that might have involved gunshots in an apartment complex and that the police had showed up. The reporter added that no ambulance had shown up at the time it was reported.  Not only is this a meaningless, fear-mongering story, but WDRB made it the lead story of the broadcast. They thought that a possible incident that may or may not have involved gunshots was the most important thing for Louisvillians to know. They didn't wait to air the story until they had more details than "something happened!". They aired this hollow nothingness and tried to make it have the semblance of a news story. They said they would come back to the story if they got any more details, but why...
Post a Comment
Read more