Is there a difference between these two? Is one legitimate and one illegal?

Should corporate entites be able to exert their influence through advertising on content?

Is this a benefit of the capitalist system or is this a negative point?

Originally posted by Manu
Is there a difference between these two? Is one legitimate and one illegal?

Should corporate entites be able to exert their influence through advertising on content?

Is this a benefit of the capitalist system or is this a negative point?
im not sure i understand what you mean. : ) do you mean in regards to what is shown on their website, or should they be able to advertise their product however they see fit?

When the government is heavily influenced by big business, corporate interests are the basis of government interests, so I don't see much difference between corporate censorship and government censorship. Only real difference is that corporations can selectively release certain things, i.e. a product may be released in Los Angeles that would never see the light of day in Wichita, Kansas. The Federal Gov't. doesn't have the ability to do that quite as easily.

Marie-

What im getting at...

CBS would not run an 'anti bush' ad during the superbowl. That is a form of 'corporate censorship.' (to CBSs credit, they avoided all policy/political ads)

If the government (FCC) were to take Howard Stern off the air, that is government censorship.

Is one good, because it is free market decision and the other bad because it is 'big brother.'

Originally posted by Manu
Marie-

What im getting at...

CBS would not run an 'anti bush' ad during the superbowl. That is a form of 'corporate censorship.' (to CBSs credit, they avoided all policy/political ads)

If the government (FCC) were to take Howard Stern off the air, that is government censorship.

Is one good, because it is free market decision and the other bad because it is 'big brother.'

They still supposedly showed the White House anti-drug pr..

The thing is these days the distiction between government and large corporations has become blurred, with mammoth corporations like clearchannel owning such a large amount of media, and being in bed with the highest levels of government. I really don't see a difference.

I'd like to say while were on the subject that I find the horrible corporate music and the vapid "Tom and Jenny" hosts that are all over the radio to be obscene. Such a great medium has been turned into nothing but ****ty pop music, moronic goofball dj's, and advertisements.. And now, the FCC is dumbing it down even more.

Btw, wal-mart censors stuff, when they start owning everything it becomes a problem..

I took an advertising class in the late '70's taught by an exec from J Walter Thompson (lol..are they even still around?). Alot of the talk then was about "subliminal messages" and the guy had access to alot of cool examples. He took us on a field trip to their offices in SF and I was kinda stunned how dull the place looked. I would have expected atleast a few Andy Warhol posters or something!:D

I think a key issue missing in much of todays arguments regarding the media is the influence corporate advertising had on the creation of todays media conglomorates. People sometimes seem to forget who actually pays the media.

If your going to equate corporate censorship with government censorship try to ask yourself who you pay the most too.

One is the law. The other is a service YOU provide.

Great point redline, regarding who 'builds' up the media. We watch it, pay for it, and corporations foot the bill.