Ecomagination transforming a top polluter into the liberal media and caring corporate citizen.
A variety of studies over the last three decades have documented elevated levels of PCBs in the Hudson River environment. As a result, a 200 mile stretch of the river, from Hudson Falls to the Battery in New York City, has been designated a Superfund site by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewaters containing PCBs were discharged to the Upper Hudson beginning in 1947 from the Fort Edward plant and beginning in 1952 from the Hudson Falls plant. Estimates of the quantity of PCBs released from these plants to the sediments and waters of the Hudson River from the 1940s to 1977 range from 209,000 to 1,330,000 pounds. These are Made by Monsanto and dumped by GE; details are from the EPA and NYC report on Hudson River pollution. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/32758.html
This is the growth of gmo crops owned largely by Monsanto, maker of the PCB's that helped to create a Nation who lives on drugs to treat cancers and diabetes and other illnesses known to come from PCB's and suspected to come from the gmo crops. The liberal media which missed out on reporting all the details is liberal with truth, nothing more.
Digger the animated fungus from Lamasil.
The happy phlegm couple from Musinex.
ADWEEK image and reporting - Last year, newspapers took in $51.5 billion in advertising revenue compared with $48 billion for broadcast TV. In 2011, the top three U.S. advertising media should break down like this: $60 billion for the Internet, $51 billion-plus for broadcast TV and about $44 billion for newspapers. Adweek
There are a lot of myths that become part of our cultural beliefs but this is one that is especially damaging to the fundamental basis of Democracy.
It's a phrase that is tossed around by anyone who feels that criticism of their candidates or political leaders are subjected to excessive scrutiny or criticism, but the fact is the only thing American media is liberal with is the truth.
America is the land of consumerism; so much so that the advice of the President after the 9/11 attacks was for Americans to hit the malls and show their lack of fear by shopping.
We consumers not ony drive the economy by contributing to 70% of the economic activity we drive the marketing efforts competing for our dollars. The fierce competition for consumer funds has given rise to some of the most creative and effective marketing strategies on the planet.
There's not only overt advertising there's product placement that puts brand names in places where celebrities or film stars will add a level of appeal that will make consumers want Reeses Pieces because ET came home to them or sneakers and underwear that gives sports heroes a home town advantage.
The ads and their catchy sound bites are part of our popular culture and our politics. Show me the money. You can't handle the truth. Where's the beef? These colors don't run. America love it or leave it.
Every one has some element of truth to it and each can mean something different to any of us, but what they all have in common is the ability to be remembered as something that creates and emotional connection. Sometimes they perpetuate myths.
The phrase "liberal media" has joined the list of catch phrases that sum up an emotional reaction to a specific situation. Unfortunately, like lipstick on a pig, it doesn't change the nature of the beast.
American media is a collection of corporate enterprises governed by a small handful of some of the world's richest individuals. What serves the corporations and their wealthy Boards and stockholders can't be called liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
1. Time Warner Inc. Founded by Yale Skull & Bones member Henry Luce. In 2005, Time Warner was among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush a Skull & Bones member like his father and grandfather a classmate of Luce.
2. Walt Disney Company - Founded by Walt Disney, a fierce anti-communist and supporter of McCarthyism. The witch hunt helped the companies guilty of trading with the enemy in WWII escape public scrutiny as false threats were targeted instead. Ronald Reagan got his start in politics by testifying against SAG members and supporting McCarthy in HUAC along with Richard Nixon.
Disney's Current President John E. Pepper, Jr- He served as a fellow of the Yale Corporation from 1995 to 2003, including two years as senior fellow, and also served as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Yale School of Management. From 1963-2003, he served in various positions at Procter & Gamble, including chairman of the board from 2000-2002, chief executive officer and chairman from 1995-1999, president from 1986-1995 and director from 1984-2003.
3. Viacom Inc. In his capacity as owner and chief executive officer of Viacom, Inc., Redstone lords over Hollywood's Paramount Pictures television and motion picture factory; a handful of cable TV networks including MTV, The Movie Channel, Showtime, Nickelodeon, and VH1; several radio and TV stations.
CBS News, owned by Sumner Redstone's Viacom multimedia conglomerate, announced January 10, 2005, that it had fired four CBS News employees, "including three executives, ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story" about George W. Bush's military service, which aired September 8, 2004, on 60 Minutes.
September 24, 2004, when the Rathergate story was still unfolding, without nary a blink, now Republican supporter Redstone endorsed George W. Bush for re-election, saying that "the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. ... 'I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.'"
October 18, 2004, FAIR reported that: "In the wake of the CEO of Viacom's declaration of support for George W. Bush, the media giant that owns both CBS and MTV Networks is refusing to air political advertising from advocacy organizations on its cable channels (MTV, VH1 and Comedy Central)."
"CBS News has shelved a 60 Minutes report on the rationale for war in Iraq because it would be 'inappropriate' to air it so close to the presidential election, ... The report on weapons of mass destruction was set to air on Sept. 8 but was put off in favor of a story on President Bush's National Guard service.
"CBS News spokeswoman Kelli Edwards would not elaborate on why the timing of the Iraq report was considered inappropriate."
4. News Corporation - News Corp was created in 1980 by Rupert Murdoch as a holding company for News Limited. News Limited was created by Murdoch from the assets he inherited in 1952 following the death of his father, Sir Keith Murdoch.
1985, Murdoch became a naturalised citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only United States citizens could own American television stations. In 1986, the Metromedia deal closed, and the Fox Broadcasting Company was launched. This network, known on-screen as "Fox", can now be picked up in over 96% of U.S. households.
Media watch groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America have said that Fox News reporting contains conservative editorializing within news stories. Others have referred to the network as "Faux News", "GOP-TV", "Fox Noise Channel", and "Fixed News."
In 2007, several major Democratic Party presidential candidates (Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson) boycotted or dropped out of Fox News-sponsored or hosted debates, forcing their cancellation.
5. CBS Corporation is a subsidiary of Viacom see #3 for details.
6. Cox Enterprises - James C. Kennedy is the CEO and chairman of Cox Enterprises, the media conglomerate founded by his grandfather, James M. Cox. According to the Forbes 400 list in 2007, he is the 50th richest person in the United States, through his $6.3 billion stake in his family's company.
7. NBC Universal - Formed in 1926 by the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), NBC was the first major broadcast network in the United States. Prescott Bush was a director of CBS when the FDR government "requested" GE and Westinghouse /CBS partner to form RCA and "protect" the American airways from enemy propaganda.
In 1986, control of NBC passed to General Electric (GE), with GE's $6.4 billion purchase of RCA. In terms of market capitalization as of 30th June 2008, GE is the world's sixth largest company.
According to CorporateWatch
General Electric has a history of large-scale air and water pollution. Based on year 2000 data, researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute listed the corporation as the fourth-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with more than 4.4 million pounds per year of toxic chemicals released into the air.
General Electric has also been implicated in the creation of toxic waste. According to EPA documents, only the United States Government and Honeywell are responsible for producing more Superfund toxic waste sites.
GE has faced criminal action regarding its defense related operations. GE was convicted in 1990 of defrauding the U.S. Department of Defense, and again in 1992 on charges of corrupt practices in the sale of jet engines to Israel. In their 2002 report, ""Titans of the Enron Economy: The 10 Habits of Highly Defective Corporations," United for a Fair Economy gave a "special Lifetime Achievement Award" to General Electric "for scoring the highest average rank across all 10 bad habits, the only company to outrank second-place Enron. GE exceeds Enron’s score by an astonishing 45%."
GE’s business model can be considered a global system of management by stress, with the company viewing stress and the fear of job loss as the magic formula for productivity and efficiency.
Retirees say the company has used accounting gimmicks and other means to reduce their pensions.
According to Multinational Monitor magazine, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited GE for at least 858 violations of OSHA rules from 1990 through March 2001. From 1994 to 1999, OSHA cited GE for at least 98 “serious” violations. OSHA issues “serious” citations to companies for conditions posing “a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result.”
What's happening to all those people who are exposed to the toxic activity? They're getting sick and using the GE healthcare products to diagnose their cancers and diseases. They're consuming drugs in record numbers and who is selling the drugs?
The same companies who partnered with GE in creating the Superfund sites loaded with PCB's and dioxins. Along with Monsanto who now controlls the bulk of America's commodity crops; the gmo varieties that are as toxic a the PCB's they once jointly sold by covering up the deadly effects. What's liberal about that except the omission of truthful reporting?
In 2006, U.S. pharmaceutical companies spent about $5 billion on consumer marketing campaigns -- a practice that only two countries, the United States and New Zealand, permit. The drugs are treating the symptoms of toxic activity that goes unreported. While claims of "liberal media" fly it is the true state of our Nation that the media is liberal in reporting.
A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that drug companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they do on research and development; that drug company profits, which are higher than all other industries, exceed research and development expenditures; and that drug companies provide lavish compensation packages for their top executives.
Six out of the nine companies made more money in net profits than they spent on research and development last year. Charts showing the exact expenditures are here.
For years activists across America and around the globe have been challenging the privatization of the food supply with the gmo crops patented by Monanto and the Agent Orange gang but there's no reporting in American media. There's scant reporting of the political lies and corporate crimes that have reaked havoc on our economy and our Constitutional freedoms because corporate media seeks to maximize profits and getting us to swallow %$#@ is the way to do it.
You can call the mainstream media a lot of things but liberal isn't appropriate unless you're suggesting they are liberal with the truth. We swallow enough ecomaginary images, let's stop that one!
As long as the corporate media bans discussion of what's in our food, no one will get me to buy the idea that they are liberal with anything but the truth. What we're swallowing is corporate PR, nothing more.
Pamela- thanks always enjoy your posts. good reading and much to think about. forwarded it along.
Great article, Pamela, and I hear what you are saying. The news outlets are essentially PR for big business. Unless and until they are inpedendent organizations, PR outfits are all they can be. The myth of the "liberal media" is one of the big lies that gets told again and again until it becomes truth - the Force can have a powerful influence on the weak minded.
The good news is the web allows us to do research, find things out for ourselves and maybe, find a reasonable outlet or two. The bad news is that the powers that be know this and are actively working to erect barriers to real information.
When a "legal entity" such as a corporation has more rights than a citizen, the citizenry will, unless they wake up en masse (in which case it will be a revolt), always lose.
Pamela - You failed to make your case. You are confusing the ntion with the media being corporate (economic) with it's being "liberal" (political); in other words there is no exclusion here, the media can be corporate and "liberal".
You also failed to define "liberal" (specifically as opposed to "non-liberal"); Which would be one way to explain how the media is not "liberal" (whatever that means). Further, you have failed to demonstrate how this is a "bad" thing (the lack of a "liberal" media); is there such a thing as a "conservative" media? is that (the lack of a true "conservative" media or the presence of one) a bad thing? is this corporate media actually something in the middle? Does it have to, by it's nature, "cover up" the negative aspects of other corporations?, and on and on.
How about giving it a sincere second go; and maybe spell out fixes (in other words is it impossible to have a "liberal" corporate media; can you separate "News" from advertising and is that enough, etc.
Good article. I'd to see you write an article about how to stop the use of term liberal news media when it is used as an unfounded smear.
No, the people making claims about liberal media bias are confusing that.
I am very clear on the corporate goal to make profits and support what ever ends that requires. The fact that Viacom supported Bush for his benefits to the company was an example and no claim was attached to suggest it was anything but opportunistic. To argue it is not liberal does not obligate me to argue it is consrvative and in fact I did not suggest that.
The point was to address the claims made by GOP supporters that any criticism of their candidates is a function of "liberal media" and the context is as lose as the use. My point is that they are corporate entities who support the reporting of what helps their profitability.
If there were truly a liberal bias than issues relating to the environment and human healt risks from toxic corporate activity would be reported. Those things are not reported and if they media were liberal in the political sense they would be stories we hear.
I did make the case, because the truth about the food supply is conspicuously absent and has been for a decade. That ban on discussing the privatizing of the food supply alone, kills any notion of liberal media in my book. When there's the opportunity to hear the truth about what we swallow maybe someone can begin to make a a case for liberal bias. Until then it's nothing of the sort.
I voted your comment up even if I did not remember exactly what you said. I know you are anti-corporate and you no doubt remember that I am not. And if you want to debate the finer points of commercial journalism, I am glad to try.
But at base, assuming you are right, there is also the personal and editorial content to everything. Let's start with The New York Times and the Washington Post. Any bias there?
Pamela - Again . What that means is that being corporate does not preclude the media from being "liberal" if being "liberal" makes them money.
Some of the media do report on their own corporate owners misdeeds - and this does not make them "liberal" or "conservative"
What I was trying to explain to you is that if you want to claim that there is no "liberal" media; you (1) have to define what "liberal" media would be, and then (2) demonstrate that there is none by identifying all the media (or at least most of it) as other than "liberal"
Coincidentally, any definition of "liberal" media needs to explain how being left of the more extreme conservative is "moderate" and not "liberal". You see, it may be valid that ; this does not contradict nor is contradicted by
this is one definition; but it is not the one you referred to above
Then you go into conspiracy theories , I see no ban, you are discussing it on a part of MSM. Did you ever consider ideas like nobody is pushing to read it so it is not marketable, reasonable people may disagree with your premise, etc.
Again, you could help your case by going back to a blank slate and trying to prove your case rather than blather a bunch of cliche's, and spout conspiracy theories.
Pamela, I completely understand your point and agree with it vehemently. Outside of the conservative echo chamber, people are listening.
You would see a ban if you had spent a decade trying to get a story out in any American media. You can't know what's missing until you know to look for it. The fact that Newsvine was acquired to be the NBC message board in no way equates with a subject being covered in mainstream news. Much as I'm flattered by the nod, my audience isn't the Nightly News.
The subject of Monsanto's role in the food supply is headline news around the globe and the few attempts to cover it here in America have been squashed and resulted in reporters being fired. It's sad but true, truth about gmo food is banned from American media coverage ad if it were not we'd hear about it from a reporter other than me, that is if they were not threatened when they try to report on Monsanto and their genetically altered fare.
Here's a more famous one...
The suggestion that there is no audience for knowing what ingredients are in foods is simply ridiculous. Every show has segments dedicated to diet and health and the fact that the biggest change in the history of the planet has occurred in the food supply and no one talks about it is proof that corporate media is worthless reporters, not that interest isn't there. Simple numbers behind the growth of organics suggest interest in purer forms of food is exploding.
Pamela - maybe you aren't but I am old enough to remember that the interest in purer foods / natural foods exploded with the environment movement in the 1970's (starting with the first Earth Day, May 1, 1970) The growth was then; in actuality currently there are far fewer natural foods stores than even ten years ago and the number is falling.
I did not say there was no audience for this, just not big enough to matter (for example two percent is a significant number but not enough to make TV programs for). On the other hand that is a big enough number to make magazines for, and I have seen several magazines (from Ramparts in the 70's to Mother Jones today; etc.) that routinely cover this as well as other issues you mention.
In your first example you cite Monsanto protecting a legal product from "denigration" (i.e. stores stating that rGBH is somehow "bad"), which is their legal right under our laws. You consider this not to be standing up for their legal rights but some kind of conspiracy.
In your second, "more famous" example, while the story notes that there was an ownership and management change, you again, somehow want to attribute the firing / layoff of two reporters as some kind of conspiracy. That is not justified.
On any specific issue, there is likely to be a "liberal" media (liberal in comparison to the extreme conservative positions) just as others would find a "conservative" media (again, conservative in comparison to extreme liberal positions)
Its not a "myth" its a perspective.
I am old enough to remember and it was the birth of the movement, not the peak.
That's because the explosion in consumer interest is leading the way for corporate and agribusiness organic to follow the premium dollars along with the trend and gobble up small stores and farmers. Fortunately a move to buy local is offsetting some of the greedy gains.
One news segment on one station in one decade is hardly reprogramming for the minority.
MoJo occasionally covers GMO issues, but that is not mainstream media or television.
No, Monsanto sued the dairies who noted that their cows were not treated. Every effort has been made to keep consumers from distinguishing Monsanto's products. If the stuff is fine, go market it like Botox does. Pay to get market share the way all consumer products do. Don't rely on covert measures to keep consumers uninformed.
No, there was a threat by Monsanto and subsequent firing of the reporters. Roger Ailes who was the executive at Fox then was with FOX for more than a decade after this and he was the person responsible. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy when threats of blacklisting and lawssuits chill the reporting environment sufficiently. The fact is Monsanto's gmo crops are reported in USDA statistics as more than 90% of US soy, over 75% of US corn and cotton and the list goes on from there.
The genetically altered food is a subject that has plenty of unbiased detail to report, separate from any controversy about possible health effects. It is a fact they have never been tested for health effects and that Americans who kno about them and do not want to eat them have no right to know what foods they are in. If we truly had a free market and consumer rights, that would be news.
Wow, impressive work Pamela! Clipping to my column and voting it up.
Eriq,
I'm trying to follow your arguments here, but I'm getting confused. Let me start with this:
I think that what Pamela is trying to say (though I don't presume to speak for her) is that 1) profitability is the main interest of the owners of major networks and 2) people who are primarily interested in making money don't generally support liberal views (I don't think Pamela explicitly said or claimed that - I kind of inferred it myself, and I might be wrong).
But my question to you is how does reporting with a heavy liberal spin make networks money? Only about 20% of the Americans consider themselves to be liberal, and many of them (myself included) don't have a whole lot of money. What am I missing here?
Pamela, of course there's a liberal bias. Just ask 33% of all Americans.
Great article btw...
Lisa -
In other words "liberal" is relative to the viewer as is "conservative". In general the "corporate" viewpoint thinks that hard core liberals and conservatives are all crackpots and extremists. The "Corporate" viewpoint basically thinks that everything is negotiable, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad. they see things like GMO as "good" if (a) somebody is making money and (b) it can be demonstrated that there is some benefit (higher yield to crops or less manpower required, etc.)
In other words the same media can be both "liberal" (to conservatives), "conservatives" (to liberals" and "corporate" (to the anti-corporate) while it is actually being objective.
Go figure.
The first one is true a) Monsanto is making mountains of money but the second benefit is b) Monsanto is making higher yields. No product benefits exist outside industry claims of future potential and even the USDA has admitted these have not delivered any of the promises that were hoped for.
Corporate is a legal structure for orderly business operation. Their charter is quite clear and is not a subjective measure; their status as corporate citizens is not a point of opinion, like liberal or conservative and the term has no element of perception but is a simple fact.
Stating they are what they are is not anticorporate it is a recognition of a basic element of capitalism that contains no judgement except by those who look to find a bias in a fact.
Stating that these entities bias the content they deliver, to maximize their profits, is an operational analysis that is no different from the coverage that all companies receive from sector analysts. Individual sector and market coverage is part of the Wall Street basic information model. It is used by investors to evaluate the product offering. It is opinion of value. It is a traditional part of corporate culture and to suggest it reflects an anti-corporate view is missing the fundamental realities of business.
To assist Pamela with an example Glaxco Cline and Smith recently wanted to advertise a product in Australia. This is illegal in Australia. So to get around this law, they sponsored an independent survey asking women about which brand of handbags they preferred. The survey was then inserted into the mainstream news as a news item. This was done by the Galaxy Poll. Headlines read "A $1b obsession in the bag" :"Why women crave a posh bag" ; "Forget the price tag, if the handbag fits... buy it" "Larry Emdur: ...a new survey shows just how much Aussie women love their handbags, now apparently we're spending a whopping $1.7 billion a year on handbags alone." Suzanne Mostyn: the poll was commissioned by Panadol Rapid because that company knows that fashion is a headache! — Channel Seven,
... and because that company knows how to build brand recognition, courtesy of free puffs in the media. But what do headache pills have to do with handbags, I hear you ask.
Well, you carry one in the other, silly.
The sleek new Panadol Rapid Handi Pak, a stylish addition to every woman's handbag...
— Panadol advertisement *grins*
Great article Pamela, when you combine it with the news from earlier this week about drugs found in many cities water supplies it paints a bleak picture of things to come.
Not only do we have drugs in the water supply, we have them in the food crops growing in open fields and the ones being prescribed are done despite known risks. We're dying for profits!
Two pieces from the past few days, Former FDA Official Testifies that Eli Lilly Lied about Drug Side Effects seeded by Spaman and a second that reports on the conflict of interest between drug companies and the people creating new mental disorders treated by those drugs. Vermont AG Calls Heavy Weight of Drug Money Towards Psychiatrists "Troubling" added by Take2LA
Wheel, That is a good point. Another thing that went by the wayside in the public consciousness are the poison plumes spreading through major aquifers in the world, as a result of taxic dumping by many different corporations. Love Canal is just the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg.
We have the biggest Superfund creator making untested foods and the US is now hitting the decade mark in the population wide feeding experiment. How healthy are we looking to all of you?
Well if you measure by Wall Street's index dropping the liability for the toxic cleanup and seeding perpetual revenues maybe we are healthy. Keep those acres growing and take a purple pill to keep it down and all the indicators will keep pointing up. If it doesn't stay on 10 year do the adjusting!
As long as we pee, there will be drugs in the water supply, won't there? I'm more concerned about the rise in antibacterial everything introducing unnecessary germicides thus increasing the risk of resistant microbes.
Fantastic work Pamela! I only wish you had an hour slot on all the major channels to get this to the people.
Tee hee, there's no American media who would give me a 30 second spot but thanks for the vote!
Pamela,
You make my similar column look like a 7th-grade report. You rock!
Naw, don't be so hard on yourself. I've just been battling these drtbags head on for a long time and know that when I go to battle I need to be loaded for bear. You hit the nail on the head too!!
The orientation of the media organization is one thing. More important is the orientation of the advertisers. They determine the tenor of all programming. In the early days of television the advertiser was happy to just be associated with the news. Now they want to control the content. In the old days, ugly people were routinely reporting. Now only beautiful people read the news. It has become very intricate and complicated. The real myth is that is easy to compartmentalize.z
I don't know that I'd characterize them as ugly people in the old days as much as to say that qualifications as investigative journalists trumped the appeal of well styled hair and makeup. What we have now is a parade of bimbettes who too often don't have enough depth of understanding to realize what swill they're delivering. Network executives have moved reporting to the spokesmodels who were better on the game shows and Hollywood gossip beat. Oh wait, that is news now.
I think the Kennedy-Nixon debate signaled the end of "ugly" people. Kennedy had excellent makeup and his lighting was much more complimentary. Nixon refused to artificially enhance his looks. The camera angles and lighting emphasized his bad physical traits. After this, more and more talking heads appeared while the true reporters were slowly moved to smaller and smaller appearances until they simply disappeared.
I've coined the term "news models" for these folks. It fits.
Daily Show's Samantha Bee calls them NILFs, for Newscaster's I'd like to ...you can guess the F!
*grin* I can't think of one that I'd consider in that capacity. Some are downright... *shudder*... ewwww.
But a Derek Zoolander School for News Models seems entirely too believable. LOL
Pamela - Is this for real? Are you really arguing that GE is for McCain and shows it through MSNBC and NBC?
Yes it is for real. I did not argue anything but the fact that liberal media is a myth. It would help if you read my articles in terms of what they do say, instead of looking for ways to twist your own bias into something relevant to refute claims I don't make.
Not once was a current candidate mentioned, the discussion was following the money and economic interest. You fail to grasp the idea that I do not support a party but seek to expose corruption and toxins and the omitted coverage relating to them.
Get with the program and quit trying to make me into some Democrat. It never has been the case and never will be because both sides of the aisle share guilt in my eyes. I take candidates one by one and right now it's about corporate media bias.
Is the media liberal? That's the question that I chose to take on and if you have evidence to show that it is please offer it here with something more than opinion. While you are at it you can explain to me how a liberal media refuses to air any stories about the privatization of the food supply and elimination of consumer rights to be informed about what they buy and swallow or the right to know where the stuff is hidden in food once they choose not to swallow it.
Show me those "liberal" values of consumer rights and accurate economic reporting or explain what part of liberal hides toxic corporate activity from the public. Try to focus on the topic, thanks.
But since he brought the subject up...........................I thought the coverage of Mccain/Palin by MSNBC, with the exception of Olberman and Maddow, was almost like a perverted love fest.
Good article. When will people awaken to the fact that 6 corporations own all of the media in this country?
Maybe when every last drop of food and water is toxic and there is no money left to buy drugs to treat them for the illness that comes from the land that once sustained life with abundance.
First off, is an article really an article if it's half blockquotes? Seems to me that's what a seed should be.
Second, something isn't a myth just because you call it a myth. Just because the head honchos of a company donate to one campaign doesn't mean that reporters many levels down the company later are in lockstep with them.
Take for example newsvine's recent coverage of the RNC. That coverage was done in conjunction with NBC and MySpace. MySpace is a child company of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. So going by your logic the big wigs at top should have forced them to work with Fox News, or the Wallstreet Journal or something. However, the big wigs at top could have cared less about the day to day goings on of their child companies, so MySpace was free to form whatever partnerships it wants. In the same way, most of the big shots at these major media companies are too busy making money than worrying about what their news subdivisions are leaning politically.
Besides, is it really a myth when there is scientific research backing the claim of liberal media bias?
If I need to cite sources to back up my claims about corporate ownership then it needs to be in quotes. The last time I tried to break it up into seperate quotes the formatting got totally screwed up, so I made it one block. There are multiple sources in there, if you look for that.
A seed would be appropriate if someone else had written about it and the quoted parts were all from one place. Maybe footnotes could have been used, but no it is not seed material at all.
That point was addressed by Sumner Redstone when he pulled the stories that were critical of George W. Bush prior to the 2004 election. It wasn't about unbiased coverage but corporate profitability. Here it is quoted again, from the block quote section.
As for "scientific research showing bias, that too must be a matter of opinion, since other studies find a very different result from analysis of the news!!
That's a single anecdote that stands out because it is so unusual. I'm talking about the bias in the day to day news.
Op/Ed Columnists aren't the news. We know they have bias, and they get paid to have that bias. No one complains when Olbermann does his thing on his show, it's when he introduces opinion and bias into the hard news.
I actually don't even really have a problem with news bias, objectivity is great to strive for, but it is kinda impossible. I just wish the news agencies would admit that they aren't object, and they do have bias. Take for example the newspapers of the UK. More or less they are pretty open with the policies they support. I see nothing wrong with that.
Moreover, and more importantly, we all read. The label is wrong, however. Indeed, it is hard to tell what liberal is anymore. Is it libertarian? Is it for free speech? I could go on.
Commercial enterprises are all about what is commercially popular. When the Bush administration was so far down, Obama was a breath of fresh air to connect with the populace. Problem is, the populace quickly turned against a biased media and companies starting thinking it was not so grand to end up with Obama. So if commercial money was pulled it was not due to political thinking, it was due to commercial sense.
As far as Fox News, it saw an opening and capitalized to the point that it has gone overboard. But that is commerce.
There are other news agencies not at all beholding to advertising, at least not much. Like the AP and newspapers who have their own commercial democraphics. For them, it made and still makes sense politically for them to support Obama. And the winner is the most important to writers and media mavens. If they have chosen the wrong horse, Katie bar the door. As they now know they have. And that their only longterm hope is to keep on the same track, with even bigger lies and claims in order to have their candidate win.
In addition, Obama spends most of his money on advertising. Guess where that goes.
That's a major decision that probably altered the outcome of the 2004 election. How much more evidence is needed to show media reports news that supports their goals of maximizing profits?
They are driven by ad revenue and shape coverage to avoid biting the hands that feed them. As long as consumers keep swallowing the foods and drugs that fill the spaces the content is secondary. The current trend is to fill with low budget reality shows where cost to produce gives enough viewers per time slot for profits to keep cranking. Popularity for television is about the least awful choice, very few strive for quality or seek a majority it's filler content.
@politicalcenter The word Liberal means in political parlance to the right of center. Conservative usually refers to the center right.
@Adam Hobson
I think the word you are looking for is Disclosure. If these companies are not will to disclose these things, then naturally they should be viewed with suspicion
Thine PIG dost not yet fly..
GE Benefits from the greening of our politics. It allows the drivel, and has even turned its (turkey) Peacock green for a time to promote it. Liberal politics for profit. It only reduced Matthews and Olberman's role after it was getting a little too obvious they were in the tank (though everyone knew already) for O-Who with all their leg tingly goodness. CBS firings came after a serious BACKLASH for totally skewed reporting and FRAUD by a department headed up by Rather.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is an industrialist and is as Liberal as is Warren Buffet. You make assumptions that because there are capitalists running the organizations, the organization cannot be liberal? Horse relish! Lets look at some of your examples...
Henry Luce contributed to the Howard Dean Campaign AND Hillary Clinton AND some Republican congress and senate camps.
John E. Pepper, Jr is a pragmatic businessman who has only served as chair of Disney since Jan of 2007. What to do in so short a time? IMO Disney in the last year and a half has been seen as less a pillar of the Liberal community as it had previously.
Sumner Redstone has donated to both Parties, and supports primarily Liberal Democrat legislative candidates according to FEC records.
MSM is biased like it or not. Recent interviews and scrutiny on Palin demonstrate they cannot even control themselves even in the midst of the claims of that bias.
Half of me would like to delete this for the editorial remarks that are CoH violations but I'll just use the ! for those and reply to what you seem to have gotten wrong in other areas.
Funny he must have come from the grave to do it, he died February 28, 1967!!
That's great, but as head of Viacom he publicly and editorially supported George Bush. We are talking about institutional bias and what the man did in private had no bearing on the news bias.
Where's the examples of bias? Asking for qualifications isn't biased it is basic.
LUCE III of the Luce foundation the one I was referencing. (IN FEC records which are not allowed to be posted here apparently) I imagine the Luce Foundation has given up its holdings in Time entirely.. My bad and the current Chairman Parsons merely a partial donor to the Liberal Dems.
Please enlighten me of the CoH violations? New to the format here, and wouldn't want you to appear... biased with your removal of my comments. I'll try to play by the rules.
As for recent? Look at the transcripts of Palin and Obama interviews by Gibson if you have not already done so. I tried to post links here, but it wouldn't take. Gibson CLEARLY did not give Palin the same tone in questioning. It was Gotcha on Palin's and Fluff on O-Who's.
That's the remark that crosses the CoH line from discussion to name calling and distortion.
No worry there I'm known well enough here for users to appreciate that I won't take the cowardly route of deleting to shy away from conflict, only to put any abuser from any point of view in the trash when that's where the comment belongs.
Besides there is an appeal process so comments deleted by those who aim to censor can be restored, just as the comments I made about gmo food in the AP piece about USAID were restored when some corporate %$#@ tried to delete me to censor. The Newsvine staff is incredibly fair in that regard.
I made no reference to the Foundation nor did you in the response. The Foundation's charter states it is to pursue interdisciplinary exploration of higher education; increased understanding between Asia and the United States; the study of religion and theology; scholarship in American art; opportunities for women in science and engineering; and environmental and public policy programs.
As far as I know the tax exempt status granted the Foundation removes it from any decisions regarding the business operations from which its income is derrived, making any activity moot in this discussion. Unless you'd like to argue that the Foundation violated its charter and should lose its status as tax exempt, then go for it, but I'll make no such accusation. I see no connection.
Sorry I forgot the link to the Sourcewatch investigation covering the Monsanto rBGH.
Pamela, Jason's initial comment was certainly tart, but I see no CoH violations here. JMO.
You should look into Mr. Gates' work outside of computers. I believe in a hundred years, he'll be remembered as a great humanitarian.
I really thought a few years ago Mr. Gates, Mrs. Gates & Bono were going to get a noble peace prize.
If you look more closely at the Gates Foundation support for things like the Rockefeller new Green Revolution in Africa you will find a support for Monsanto and petrochemicals privitizing the food supply and driving small farmers into servitude and bankrupcy for American multinationals. What's reported as benevolent efforts is often nothing but a corporate facade, like lipstick on a pig.
If humans survive 100 years with the rate of destruction of our environment and food supply I think that history will judge his humanitarian efforts a some of the most damaging contributors to the policies and products leading to the environmental destruction and human illness.
Sorry, but you can't do that.
The wingnuts cling to three thing as though they were life rafts:
Guns.
Religion.
The liberal media.
Let them have this or they'll just start whining about something else.
Yep! The religious right kind of paranoia does not rest.
The media was liberal ever since Washington's time. That isn't always a bad thing, but it has remained pretty much how it goes, for good or bad. Just don't try to cover it up and expect those with two brain cells working to not believe it.
Care to cite examples of how current, corporate media shows any of the spirit of liberal rebellion the papers of Washington's day did? Now a Tea Party would have corporate sponsors!
the biggest bias in the American media is an "American" bias.
As long as they continue to be the Corporate Media, they will always have a right-wing bent.
By defintion, they are not liberal.
Great read!
As I said above Nearing
@politicalcenter The word Liberal means in political parlance to the right of center. Conservative usually refers to the center right.
At best nearing the Liberal media can only be centrist. Doesn't say much for the US political system now does it.
SthPacific:
Nope.
Pamela, from what I've read, you've basically said was that "the media is owned by corporate types and supports the corporate stance on GMO. Therefore, the media is not liberal." Pardon me, but that's not true. You can be liberal and think that the corporations are right on GMO. And duh, the media is owned by corporate executives. Media companies are, well, companies. I'll agree that Fox is conservative, but most of them don't even pretend to be non-partisan. MSNBC's Olbermann, however, complains of partisanship and says that citizens should rise above it. After slamming Bush and Cheney over and over again. While we're on the topic of MSNBC, they recently ran the ticker about Palin and how many houses she adds. How's that not liberal? CNN's main "conservative bias" charges come from the fact that "they were too lenient with Bush". In other words, not liberal enough? MSNBC is accused of being "conservative", but most of the talk hosts who were accused have been kicked off.
One more thing. That "owned by corporations" stuff? BS. I write for Newsvine. Newsvine is owned by MSNBC. I regularly lambaste MSNBC.
I write for a magazine that shall remain anonymous that supports Obama. I am not for Obama.
Oh, this seemed timely: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
That wasn't at all biased by ABC.
Huh? Supporting it would be one thing; it would require reporting something about it, maybe even putting out propaganda. Omitting any discussion at all, ignoring the critics, the global trade policies and WTO lawsuits that are involved, simply to avoid any mention is censorship and there is nothing liberal about that when the only result is to affect consumer behavior in a way that benefits one group of corporations.
As for looking at newsbusters as a neutral source, tee hee, there's the fox watching the hen house. It is run by Media Research Center and funded by a lineup of petrochemical interests.
The point is that Newsbusters is a mouthpiece of petrochemical and weapons makers. Why wouldn't they love Palin? It would be nice to see some of the supporters get out from behind the shield of Foundation smokescreens and simply say Gulf Oil and Olin guns loves Sarah Palin. They should!!
So you're saying that one issue immediately makes them biased? OK, how about this. The MSM hasn't reported at all about the LPGA banning non-English speaking golfers. Does that automatically mean they're racist too?
First, you're gonna say that the guys who say that the media is biased conservatively, namely Media Matters for America, is not biased? Or that Alterman isn't biased? Or even, that you're not biased?
Second, you attacked Newsbusters. Wow, they're biased. No duh. But you didn't respond to any of my points.
Let's go back to the thesis statement that is the media is not liberal. Every other point goes to support that idea. What I am saying is that banning any discussion of a dramatic change of the food supply, that benefits a small group of petrochemical companies who have historic ties to the corporate entities that run corporate media, is evidence that the media is not liberal. Nothing more.
If the media institutions were truly liberal, the subjects of feeding us science experiments, increasing chemical use and privatizing the global food supply would be issues a "liberal" media would be anxious to bring to the attention of viewers. Failure to report it shows they aren't liberal.
OK, so it's evidence. Not conclusive evidence that stands by itself.
Now, I presented (non-conclusive) evidence to show that the media IS liberally biased. You haven't refuted that. Also, you're only other piece of evidence is that the media is owned by corporations. I refuted that in 13.3, and you didn't counter that.
What is that? I seem to have missed the point you're referring to.
I don't see you refuting anything in 13.3. The point about Newsbusters is that they are funded by petrochemical companies and their views represent ones that benefit their funders. That's true.
The media is a collection of corporate entities and they too have one goal, which is to maximize profits. I have never suggested that makes them conservative, but simply capitalistic, with political values that support their chartered aim of maximizing profits. Are you suggesting they have other aims beyond making profits? I know the collapsing financial sector might suggest profitability isn't the aim but according to the commitment the Board and Executives make to shareholders, return on investment is their one and only objective. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
#13:
Yes, that's true. But does that mean Newsbusters cannot tell the truth, simply because they are biased? Like I said, that would mean that Media Matters for America, Alterman, and even you and I can't tell the truth, because we're all biased.
One commentator who appeals to a market segment for programming doesn't make the corporation liberal any more than airing soap operas with infidelity makes them adulterers. That's evidence that there's an audience for the content, not proof that the corporate bias is liberal.
If you did a full listing of all the political coverage the network provides and compared all the stories then you'd be on the right track. Didn't you ever take a business course?
Showing that one product appeals to a consumer segment does not mean the entire business model tries to serve that segment. You need to look at the big picture and all elements affecting the bottom line. In media it is advertising and the audience who watch Keith would change the chanel if they couldn't find something that speaks to them. It's basic marketing, not proof of bias.
So you're saying that I should take all the coverages they did and compare all the stories?
So how does your article prove that the media isn't liberal? It proves that it could have conservative leanings, but not that it's liberal.
As opposed to taking a single example and calling it representative of the whole, yes.
So how does your article prove that the media isn't liberal? It proves that it could have conservative leanings, but not that it's liberal.
Here's some more controversies:
And of course, Keith Kerr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
What are you are saying? I proved it is not liberal and so what's the problem?
A liberal media would work to report issues that liberal citizens consider important with a bias that reflects the view of those liberals. Top among those issues are concerns about the environment and toxic corporate activity. Failure to embrace and report those issues shows an absence of liberal values.
Instead they edit the reporting to accommodate the advertisers who pay the bills. It does not by definition make them conservative, but capitalistic. It is a point I have repeated several times yet you fail to grasp. They pursue profits and though they are granted a legal status of personhood, have no true human traits.
Traditionally the party that is most accommodating to that agenda of maximizing corporate freedoms and profits is the GOP, who wrongly claims to be conservatives. True conservatives would never tolerate the reckless spending and violations of Constitutional rights the NeoCon Republicans have indulged in.
Greed and corruption are equal opportunity employers and they are hallmarks of a breed of corporate citizen that has none of the virtues of real people from either end of the political ideology. To say they are conservative is an equal distortion. They are manipulative and opportunistic and care only for maximizing the bottom line. Get it yet?
You did not. You proved it has corporate ties that MAY bias it non-liberally.
Again, you only have one example of this: GMO.
Again, please prove this.
Andrew (aka Online Apps) ask yourself what is the difference between News Media (investigative journalism) and Public Relations Andrew (aka Online Apps) and you will answer your own question.
You are not reading what you wrote any more carefully than what I do. Read it again!
I repy to what is actually stated, not to some biased idea of possible meaning.
What was my title? Let's end the myth of liberal media. What's the premise? That they exist to make a profit and that is an objective that does not reflect political ideology but support politicians who advance that goal.
What values of liberals are contrary to this profit pursut? They fail to report toxic corporate activity that would be characteristic of supporting a liberal agenda in favor of pursuing profits.
No there have been countless examples of things omitted, from the coffins of the war dead and the Iraqi children maimed and orphaned with wounded in refugee camps to the food we Americans put on our table. The fact that you can watch television commercials boasting the healthful benefits of soy while the media has refused to air any stories of how that is genetically altered to serve petrochemical makers and convert the food supply to a privatized, patented novel life form and say, ONLY gmo, is mind-boggling after a decade of making the public swallow it.
What is more fundamental to our human rights and consumer choice than deciding what we swallow? What in the world could you be thinking when you suggest that a worldwide controversy that touches every family, every farm subsidy, every trade agreement, every can of baby formula, every major brand snack, nearly every box of cereal and drink is okay to omit from coverage?
What do we have a right to expect from our "free press" after a decade of adulterated foods? Only gmo? That doesn't show I've failed to make my point just that you fail to see what the rights of a free people and responsibility of a free press are. Liberal with the truth is where the bias is and if you don't see that then they have done their job well enough to keep you swallowing profitably.
You proved it MAY. Not that it DOES.
They exist to make a profit BUT sometimes the profit comes from trashing the corporations (minus, of course, itself).
Oh no. Don't go there. The MSM shows way too MANY pictures of how bad it is in Iraq.
Nothing. But you're drifting off topic. That only proves that the media is biased conservatively in ONE area. You can still be liberal and side with the corporations on GMO.
Humor me and link a few stories that show coffins of war dead or injured children and refuges. I'm not sure what networks you're tuned in to because the "news" that I have seen for the last seven years shows and animated map of Iraq and burning cars with occasional clips of gun waving men in turbans marching in the streets. I watched the Vietnam War coverage and have been stunned by the absence of reporting of tragedies. Show me please who reports it!
Explain to me how that would work or what in the world would let the two ideals even coexist.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/24/world/26censor_600.jpg
http://newsbusters.org/node/7786 (staged, btw)
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/07/25/world/middleeast/20080726_CENSOR2_index.html
Oh, by the way, could it be that the reason there are no photos because the war is being won? Naw.
I'll do that with another idea. How about if I were conservative on all issue (abortion = murder, illegal immigration must be stopped, lower taxes for everyone, etc), yet on ONE issue I was liberal (say I believed gays should be able to marry). Am I not conservative, even with ONE liberal issue?
What does your perception of of a possible victory have to do with the lack of reporting about the casualties over years and years and years? Great that the Times had one photo spread. Most people don't read the Times, they watch television. Where is the network reporting over these years?
No, you'll do it with the claim you made about the gmo food and how my use of the absence of reporting about it has no bearing on a liberal bias. Don't switch the rules and the subject. Answer the question that was directly tied to your claim. Show me how a liberal entity supports gmo food. Then explain to me how it is that their support justifies the omission of reporting on the subject.
I think the problem here is that this is being looked at like a black and white issue. Either the media is fully liberal in every single way, or it's not liberal at all. However, there are shades of gray here. Yea, the media may be looking out for corporate interests in its lack of coverage of GMO foods (or maybe people themselves don't care and won't give ratings to news about GMO), but that also doesn't mean that many in the media report on someone like Obama far more favorably than they report on McCain. Or that they automatically assume things like government spending and universal health care are good, and bias their reporting that way. How many times do you read or hear the media talk about "paying for tax cuts"? That's a liberal position that they've already assumed that biases everything they they report on the tax cuts.
So yeah, the media protects corporate interests in some areas, but it's still assumes liberal positions in so many other areas, and it does tend to portray Democrats in a better light than Republicans.
And I wonder...if being "corporate" disqualifies you from being "liberal" how do we suppose we should get our news? Should all news outlets be run by the State? Is NPR "liberal" because it isn't "corporate" but rather State-run?
What do anti-corporation advocates believe should replace the corporations? We have a free press, and a competitive press, which basically means we have some of the best news information in the history of the world--but it's not perfect. Would it be more perfect if some other entity besides the corporations were behind it?
Hollywood is largely made up of corporations, as well. Is Hollywood not liberal?
The thesis is not backed up by any evidence--and the lack of evidence is not the same thing as proof. Because the MSM doesn't cover GMO does not imply bias. Adam suggested it could be a ratings issue. That's a good point. That's why shootings get more coverage than bake-sales.
Andrew stated that someone can be both liberal and a support of genetically modified crops. That, too, is a good point. I think one can be liberal and also disagree with global warming--something that the MSM certainly takes for granted--a very liberal position traditionally.
As Adam said, there is much more gray in this equation than black and white. Attempting to argue for the black or white position is bound to fail, as your article does, due to this fact.
"We have a free press, and a competitive press, which basically means we have some of the best news information in the history of the world--but it's not perfect."
This honestly rates as the most uninformed post I have ever seen in this or any other forum. If you and other people believe this, then it explains how most of the public is scratching their heads in bewielderment as the USA is on the verge of economic colapse, political colapse, possiible war, and possibly martial law.
frankenberry--
Explain to me another time or place where the press has been more free, where information has been more accessible....
If you can't then you'll have to eat your words. Seriously: where is there a freer press? When have we had better information or access to information, much of which is provided by our corporate media...?
Our press is tightly controlled by a few corporate entities. All of our news, TV, press, you name it, is tightly controlled. Outsiode of the internet, there is no freedom of information. This is the last bastion of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. And they will be taking measures to reign this in as well, it is already in the works.
frankenberry--
Please provide evidence of this claim. You seem to be implying that somehow the media is controlled by massive corporations working in congruence with one another to suppress and stifle free speech. Could you please, along with sources to back these claims, provide what earthly motivation these companies would have to do this?
And what methods are "they" taking to "reign in" the internet?
It's all well and good to spout this sort of wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but to actually back it up takes leg-work. Do you have anything to back it up? Or is leg-work too much to ask....
But there is the Internet. That's like saying without legs, tables suck. Besides, not only is there the Internet, but we do actually have a few more corporations competing for our news than in the past when it was strictly ABC, CBS, NBC and your local paper and that was it. Now we've added two more network channels, a bunch of cable news channels, top-specific news channels, and that whole Internet thing.
Someone, anyone please explain how this is possible anywhere but in Andrew's imagination. That makes as much sense as suggesting that Ghandi could be a member of the NRA. Much as the theory that repeating something makes it true, it doesn't. Someone make a case for that theory that includes some basis in fact or reason beyond Andrew said it. Explain how it could be.
What you haven't heard in the supposedly "liberal" media are all the legislative loopholes that have set up this financial collapse that was orchestrated by the lobbyists for the financial sector. Paying lip service to uninformed voters by tossing out a token remark about how tax cuts will be paid for is meaningless, when there's a system of corporate welfare that taxpayers would revolt against if it were reported.
What passes for news is largely meaningless fluff and issues too big to ignore, delivered with a heap of spin. If the crimes of the politicians who serve corporate interests were reported the Iran Contra Gang wouldn't have joined the Watergate alumni in the Bush regime. They would be in jail.
Not at all, it tends to portray those who serve their aims in a positive light and those who challenge those policies negatively. Corporations do not have party loyalties, they have profit aims and the greed that drives the whole system isn't something that divides like the voters on either side of the aisle.
Politicians are either working in the public interest or they're on the lobbying dole. Keeping people arguing about party differences keeps the game going, so like the casino, the house always wins. It isn't about Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative, it is about full and truthful reporting to serve an informed public or propaganda to keep the corporate power and profits growing while an uniformed public largely argue about two sides of the same coin.
How about reading the article which lists the corporate control and cites profit motives for keeping people uninformed. Greed can do a fine job of making groups act in congruence, no conspiracy needs to be involved. As for evidence that free speech is suppressed, look at the truth about the food. Where is it???
Also consider that many corporations share members among their Boards of Directors.
Ed, pointing out well known facts is hardly a conspiracy theory. Our news is pure corporate propaganda speak. the examples are endless. where has the media been on the Iraq war? where has iit been with independant candidates or non mainstream candidates such as Ron Paul? where has the media been on many, many critical issues? you know where, fully supporting a very narrow track of status quo.
you're telling me our news isn't filtered through several large corporate channels? you do know the 6 or so entities that own virtually all media channels, or don't you? If not, look it up. It is not conspiracy, it is common knoledge. And if you don't think these corporate entities all have connect3ed interessts, then this conversation has gone as far as its going to go because you lack general fundamantal unfderstanding of the power structures that exists.
Nothing in this article, or in this thread is "proof" of anything. It is all implication. It is guilt by association, or even worse, assumption. Sorry, Pamela, but nothing in your article proves that the media is either acting to suppress information or that they are not generally liberal (not all of them, mind you, but many of them).
frankenberry--
I see that actual leg-work did prove to be too much to ask. There is very little point in discussing anything with someone who claims that this is a "well known fact" but cannot provide any hard data to back that up.
You talk on and on about "power structures" and so forth, but once again use only your opinion to state your claim. Rational people require more than opinion when the claims being made are so outrageous.
That is by far one of the dumbest comments I have seen in a long time. I wonder who told you to think that E.D.Kain
The state press has a specific job. That is to make sure the public is properly informed on the issues that effect their lives. They can not do this if they require corporate sponsorship.
One of the duties of a Democratic state, is to provide funding for this type of media. Ronald Reagan, took this away. The independent media can not perform this function because they do not have the resources at there disposal. Bloggers can not do it for the same reason. The Corporate media can not do this because they would lose advertising revenue and go out of business.
Ha! Well, I'm glad that in order to make your point you needed to resort to personal attacks. (hint: this rarely helps make your case).
So you think the State run media will be less biased? Really? If all our news was replaced by State-run media, you think we'd get a more fair, less biased media?
Really...?
Or, perhaps, we'd start to see more and more bias in favor of the government. Perhaps less information critical of the government (wasn't this one of the primary complaints about the corporate media? That they towed the government line? Would this be better if the whole media were controlled by the Government???)????
Let's see. Cuba has State-run media only. So did Soviet Russia. I'm pretty sure China has State-run news. Myanmar, too...
Need I say more?
ED, what are talking about??? you are blatantly making up things and inserting in as my opinios. I never mentioned sate run media.
Also, I am posting facts. It is not my responsiblity to inform the uninformed. If you want to sit passivley and collect information, then stick with your MSM. That requires no critical thinking or digging for info, which appears to be your preferrence. You have the right to remain uninformed, dont let me get in your way.
Well I see Paulson has become another Lenin.
Again your comment is stupid and misinformed. How can one not personally attack this stupidity. How would having an independent state funded media be bias toward the government. Please explain this. Do so without your straw man quotes. The very idea that the BBC, AFP, ABC Australia for example are bias towards their respective governments shows how ignorant you are.
As for your pathetic comparison to communist state run media, it is no different to American corporate media. Total power is in the hands of a few, and those few do not allow criticism of the corporate entity. Just as the Soviet state run media did not allow criticism of the Body politic.
So according to you, The American government can not be trusted, because they are not elected by the people for the people. So they are not democratic according to your logic. Well statistics would bare this out, The US has a 98% return rate for elected officials in a two party system. The polit bureau in the Soviet Union had a 92% return rate for elected officials under in a one party system. Are you secretly a communist in corporate clothing E.D.Kain ??
America is the only western country that does not have state funded media (since 1981) and just look at how stupid an misinformed the public is.
Here is a great piece from Haaretz,
Franken--I was responding to Sth Pacific (who I quoted).
You are stating opinions. And no, it is not your duty, but it also does not help your argument to refuse to back up your opinions with sources, and then arrogantly label them as "fact."
Now to Sth Pacific (who continues with the personal attacks).
Well, thank you for putting me in my place.
Oh so many things wrong with your comment. Where to begin? First of all, I am not saying that America is like any of those communist countries. It is much more like the UK, which has, as you stated, the BBC. It also has corporate media. They balance each other, much like NPR is balanced against US corporate media. You and others seem to imply that all our news should be state run. This is certainly not the case in the UK or any other democratic nation. Nor is it a very good idea. Just because our government is honest now, doesn't mean it always will be, and a private news media acts as a checks and balance against the State.
I didn't say that. (Show me where I said that they were not elected?) But no, they cannot be trusted with control of the news. That's a step toward fascism.
Not true, again. NPR is state funded (hence "public radio") as is PBS ("public broadcasting"). Now which Western country has only state-funded media, pray tell?
ED, your statement that that " ..just because our government is honest now..." essentially disqualfies you from any further serious consideration on any topic, ever. Seriously. you are either lying, or you are in a coma.
Okay franken. Way to dodge the issue.
Only dodging the uninformed mob.
Please explain to me why no stories about a decade of genetically altered foods have gotten one minute of air time. Don't tell me the public doesn't care enough.
Tell me how any liberal bias could tolerate such an omission. If as Andrew theorized they think these gmo crops are so wonderful, why aren't we seeing them served at official affairs and the executive dining rooms? Let's have Trump feeding the stuff to the Apprentice kids like he does with all the other products they want to promote, This is the land of sales savvy, where's the promotion and competition to establish them as a superior brand? Isn't that free market cekking in action?
It is an issue that affects the vast majority of our commodity crops, the bulk of our trade agreements negotiated by the WTO and the contents of nearly all the processed foods in stores. If people aren't "interested" in what they swallow and pay to grow with their tax dollars, explain how the "free media" is educating us.
PBS is not state funded E.D.Kain they are sponsored by BP, Chevron and various wall street entities. etc etc
NPR is not government funded media either E.D.Kain Their sponsors include Iraq-Afghanistan Deployment Impact Fund, The Ford Foundation, American Jewish World Service, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, NASDAQ Educational Foundation, etc etc etc
So you are wrong again E.D.Kain and this time it looks like you have deliberately attempted to mislead readers here, or you simply do not understand the concept of Government funded media.
I say again the USA is the only western country that does not have this type of organized Media. Again you dodge the issue and use your straw man arguments. You have gone from comparisons to communism to comparisons with fascism.
You are digging yourself into a hole, and looking ever more ridiculous in the process.
So let me help you E.D.Kain There are three basic types of media. 1 independent media. 2 Corporate media. 3. Organized media. The organized media is the most important branch of the media for any functioning democracy. The government provides a certain amount of funds for their operational use, and they also share information with other countries that have this type of media. They do not have advertising or sponsors of any kind and the content they produce is open source and freely available to all members of the public. The government has no say whatsoever in how these groups are run or what they report. If the government has any control over them at all, it is merely the threat of reducing their funding, which in a functioning democracy, will induce a voter backlash at the next poll.
I found this article when searching for something else. It is from 1998 and underscores my point that the media bias is not toward either political party or ideology, but in support of those politicians who can be bought to support their aims.
It also notes the worldwide controversy that has been raging for a decade and the absence of coverage in America's corporate media. The whole picture is an awful lot to swallow, without seeing censorship written all over it.
Where's the news? This is Clinton policy and Bush Sr. and Dubbya policy. Where's the bias?
oops I lost the last line of that quote I wanted to have...
True, they are "in part" sponsored by these companies and by "viewers like you." But the lion's share of their funding is from the State--hence "public" radio or "public" broadcasting. They simply supplement this funding with corporate sponsorship. It is a very American way of doing things.
And Pamela, searching Google News for Genetically Modified Crops I found articles from CNN, Bloomberg, Scientific American, Forbes; on a regular Google search I found stories from NPR and PBS, The Washington Post; if you add "MSNBC" to the search you find several articles from that news giant (and Newsweek).
So "not a word" seems inaccurate to say the least. There's even reports from Fox!
Business reports that relate to the profitability of the biotechs do not count as reporting to consumers about what they are swallowing. The June 2003 FOX piece was a report of the US suit in the WTO and while it mentions the GMO crops in passing, it adds the biotech propaganda that they are safe. It is not a report about the foods, just a casual mention that's older than the war in Iraq.
The last line is ridiculous, it cites no evidence and no named sources. The headline doesn't suggest it is anything but political news and it was not an on air piece but an AP style post.
This Newsweek bit from the industry's own posterboy hawking the clones is from 2006 and does not discuss the topic but sells the technology as a green solution. Some of these PR bits in the mainstream are a reaction to activists like me growing awareness and PR trying to stem the tide of rejection by proactive PR. Once again it is not a discussion of GMO but a selective dropping of the term in an article with a wholy different aim. Also note it is the International Edition and globally the subject is part of regular coverage. They need to react to criticisms from abroad too.
As for your MSNBC posts, did you read any of that? Take the top one which is minimalist PR that would barely get a passing grade as a middle school report on the topic. Give me a freaking break!
The reduction in chemical use is a bold faced lie and the second is a joke. How stupid are we to suggest that this informs consumers? Agin I'll note this is part of the MSN fare and not television coverage.
Here's the link for anyone who wants a god laugh at what is considered consumer reporting!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7278294/
The point is, within about three minutes I was able to get plenty of links to articles on the subject. I didn't even put any effort into it. And simply because these few pieces present a line you disagree with means nothing. As stated before, one can be liberal and for genetically modified crops. I know a number of liberals, in fact, who are. Not all liberals are anti-capitalist socialist lefties. Some are actually liberals, in the Western, traditional sense of the word...
Duh? The International and business pages have always contained references. The fact that MSN added a short bit of untrue consumer reference to the google line up three years ago does not constitute reporting on the subject. If you did put any effort into or recognized the fact that a handful of years old reports turning up as google hits is a pitiful representation of relevance, you'd get the point that the networks do not report about what they are, where they are and certainly not why informed people are concerned about eating them.
The fact that the bulk of Americans have never heard the term gmo is a more accurate reflection of the true state of affairs and watch as Phillip Morris aka KRAFT is swapped for AIG in the DOW average. It manipulates the reported DOW index that most folks look to as a measure of economic health, it signals the next place the consumers will wake to the harsh reality of "deregulation" as a tool to rob them blind and leave them asking why didn't anyone see this coming!!
Please explain to me how it is possible to be liberal and support gmo crops. Explain to me wha your "leftie" friends use as their basis for seeing this as a good thing. Also note that opposing corrupt corporate activity and corporate welfare is not anti corporate it is Patriotic!
What's your definition of liberal, Pamela? I kind of think you may be participating in the hi-jacking of the term. For your information, to be liberal does not mean one must be socialist, anti-capitalist, or anti-American. Those are not qualifiers. Many people believe that gmo crops have the potential to do a great deal of good for the world, and feed starving people better.
So are you against the corporations behind gmo crops, or against the crops themselves?
What's your definition of liberal and and how have I "hijacked" an adjective? Explain that.
The article was written to address the use of the term in discussions where Republicans are criticized by the media and individuals ascribe the criticism to a "liberal" bias. My position was that their bias is not one of political ideologies, but profit pursuits and they would champion individual candidates, regardless of party to achieve those aims.
Where has there been any suggestion that I was confused what liberal does not mean? Weren't you the one who accused me of being liberal and anti-capitalist? Where is the answer to my question to several here, including you, who argue one can be liberal and support gmo crops?
Do you ever answer a question or just keep moving the target? Explain your claims.
Many people believe there are aliens and the government was behind 9/11 and ten thousand other points of view that some people believe. What does that prove? Nothing except that no matter what the topic, some people will believe in one extreme or another. Some say opinion is not the same as fact. Link me to any factual basis for this belief. Show me anything but the opinion of biotech promoters that indicates that this is a realistic claim based on the decade of performance.
The term Liberal means from the Right of center in political parlance. It usually refers to the parctise of Keynesian economic theorem, which strangely, Americans call socialism. The term Neo-Conservative is the American word for Neo Liberal. which comes from Classical liberalism, known in America as Reaganomics which is derived from Hayek A blue blood from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who defended classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He was awarded the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991. His devotee's included Hoover and Nixon, but he is best know from
Hayek wrote an essay titled Why I Am Not a Conservative, Hayek identified himself as a classical liberal, but noted that in the United States it had become almost impossible to use "liberal" in its original definition
Hayek was connected with the Centro de Estudios Publicos, and had this to say about Pinochet.
"But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly." "Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war."
Sth Pacific
You are so far off base it's laughable. Neo-cons are hardly "classical liberals" -- you're thinking of Libertarians. And "liberal" does not mean "right of center" in political parlance, these days it means "left of center" and no, Americans do not consider liberalism to be the same thing as socialism, though some socialists call themselves liberals.
And, no neo-liberal and classical liberal are not the same thing, nor would Reaganomics (a sort of economics, not the broader political ideology) be considered classical liberalism, though he did have a more classically liberal worldview and was pseudo-libertarian in his politics.
Maybe it would be good to take a comment about conservative values from the former editor of the ultra conservative National Review. Seeded by JBlossom it is a fantasticly informative piece.
He goes on to add a real clincher...
@E.D.Kain
Only in America, but in truth what the American public call liberal is still to the right of center. This is an undeniable truth, there is no left in American Politics at least not in any position of power. So you are using the term liberal inappropriately, it is America who has lost the meaning of this word, not the rest of the world.
As for your wandering answer, All those political factions you are refering to live between the right of center and the center right. This is why American elections are decided by who has the best image, the most iconic image 36 hours before the election, and policy has absolutely nothing to do with who is elected, because they are essentially the same. There is an old joke outside America told in Parliamentary Democracies, "What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?," You take two empty bottles, and label one Republican and one Democrat, and thats the difference."
I would have to disagree, they would never be empty, they'd be stuffed with lobbyist cash!
This is true. The actual Left has no voice in American politics, they're marginalized to the "fringe" quicker than you can say "Noam Chomsky".
and so some of the best and brightest minds of the twentieth century are sidelined by an electoral system that only requires 50.01% for an absolute majority and of that, only those who can be bothered to vote. At the very least, the US should pass a law for compulsory attendance at polls, so the message to the public would be that your vote is important. Some of the voter turn out recently has been worse than pathetic, In some countries it would have been declared a null ballot.
+ National Voting Day release from work so that people have no other priority on that day.
When Michael Powell, son of the General and Bush Secretary of State, was commissioner of the FCC, there was a relaxation of the monopoly rules on mass ownership of media outlets in a single market. Bush offered the media owners a carrot - implicit was that they be nice to him and his. He then offered them a stick, with talk of treason and supporting terrorism. The right-wing has used this "liberal media" spin or non-sense for political advantage since Reagan. It's worked, too, and they still get value from it. When the Tribune Company went on a buying spree they bought the Hartford Courant, the paper of record here in Connecticut. It was once a fine paper, well read and well respected. It's since become a rag, an empty waste of paper and ink. I don't waste my money on it, as don't many others. The Tribune Company drummed out editors and journalists who refused to toe the Party line and who insisted, for instance, that Bush's war against the people of Iraq was not what Bush, et al, portrayed it to be. They were right, of course, and the owners wrong. The owners are still wrong, but they are still the owners. Once the Courant was bled dry, the Tribune Company sought to sell it. Perhaps they have sold it, but for a long time there were no buyers. That doesn't sound very liberal to me.
What a sad story of where we are in a nutshell. I had a friend who had been an investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal and over time the same pressure to toe the line finally drove him into another field. We can only hope that in the hearts of millions upon millions who seek real freedom and truth that the change we need from the grass roots of hardworking Americans everywhere will reject what we've been peddled for so long and save ourselves at the bitter end.
Awesome article.
Thank you! :~)
Great article and a concise history of the facts behind the media of today. Th Republicans, neo cons in particular, view anyone who disagrees with them as liberal, anti-American, devoid of family values and so on. The Republicans' open disdain for the media took roots with the Nixon White House and Spiro Agnew's forceful, public denouncements of the media. Sarah Palin is the new Agnew.
Thanks for the compliment and I do agree with the NeoCon criticisms; they're ruthless.
I really don't see the problem as one of the GOP as much as a faction of the GOP who have dominated recently. Much as many would love to paint me as a Democrat it in't the case. There are a long list of Democrats with whom I find equal fault for the corporatization of the government and policies that undermine freedoms. The Clintons are on my list of corporatists as well. I am a true bipartisan critic who follows the money and alliances. It's a funny thing that money will create allies and agreements where theoretical differences and sound bite reporting suggests irreconcilable differences.
In my eyes there are a collection of issues in play. One is to sustain a level of conflict about irrelevant issues so there is distraction from things that matter more. In much the same way a magician waves a scarf with one hand while the other is making the trick happen, the media focuses on flag pins and lipstick on pigs, while the economy is collapsing and the regulatory agencies have their power usurped.
If there were one group I'd look to with blame it is the Skull and Bones who are in both parties, control the covert operations of the CIA, own the FED banks and sit on the Boards of every company that lives on corporate welfare and bail outs.
I believe Nixon, like Reagan was less aware of the power that put him in office and committed the crimes that marked their administrations than GW Bush who is a third generation Bonesman who grew up knowing it was his connections and Teflon Don status that made him untouchable.
I think Palin is an ambitious woman who's own opinion of herself believes she can do anything and who's character is one that accepts her own superiority of judgement and beliefs so she sees her way as the right way and the ends justifying the means. That isn't meant to belittle her character, just suggest that in my view she sees no limits or flaws in the mirror.
My view of her political acumen is that she should stay in Alaska. As a mother it's enough to govern the million people there and give her own house more effort than a run for the White House with some extra time to love the special needs infant and teen with a baby of her own on the way.
Le's end the myth of multilple parties in the US also. Liberalism and Conservatism, aka, left and right wing, are now so fundamentally alike that iy's impossible to find any platform differences on the fundamental issues. They still have some rhetorical, windowdressiing differences, but it is superficial at best.
frankenberry, If you are speaking of the Repubs and Dems, you would be correct.
Take a look at the Green Party platform, it's clearly different.
For something really different check out Vermin Supreme for president A man who supports suicide, cannabalism and full blown time travel research! That's different.
Or the liberatrians. But the Repblocrats have a stranglehold/monopoly on the political process. No real 3rd party will be able to compete in the current system.
frankenberry:
I agree with you.
If we could point out that the Repubs and the Dems are two wings of the same party to enough people, couldn't we get a critical mass of people to vote for a third party? Or at the very least a ballot referendum for proportional representation or run-off voting?
There are many people who see this and are fed up.
It is pretty tough when the corporate media controls the process to such an extent that folks like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are eliminated from the primary process by television debate rules.
Sheeple will never see through the glamor of CNN and Fox, Newsweek and the other media outlets. also, with E-voting via Diebold machines, not sure any "votes" make a differnce anyway.
But the US has a two party system that does not have any proportionality so the green party is irrelevant. They can never have any political power. Voting for them is the same as not voting at all.
SthPacific, with Diebold E-voting, you are 100% right.
Study after study show the MSM's overage of Barack Obama is over 80% negative. For John McCain the number is just over 50%. I wish there was a liberal bias in the media, but the facts just don't support the claim.
Of course if you look at the major issues of the day, a vast majority of the America population identify with the "liberal" positions, although they still call themselves "conservative."
Please Cite the Studies.
I am truly Curious as to the methodology used in determining those results.
Also this comment earlier
"Th Republicans, neo cons in particular, view anyone who disagrees with them as liberal, anti-American, devoid of family values and so on."
is simply a falsehood. But I see things like it often, and its type frankly is used when trying to "dismiss" another view as wrong without having to defend your own positions. I would make no presumptions of ANYONE'S love of country, nor would I assume them to be Anti-American.
Look, in MEDIA which is the topic here, the Liberal perspective is most often presented in a more favorable manner. It is the truth whether this article or any others say so. The REAL research instead of a blogger type hypothesis was performed and Adam H presented it in an earlier comment. You don't have to agree, but presenting corporate Americas ownership of major outlets as PROOF of the falsehood is preposterous.
In my main blog, I am opinionated as hell, and yes quite to the conservative side of the road, but I make all attempts to use logic, and at least provide proof if I present something that is outside of my own Opining. I appreciate the concerns, of my liberal friends as well, and understand that in most cases we are trying to reach somewhat of the same goals. But when lies are perpetuated, and retold countless times by cut and paste journalism, it can be quite frustrating... for both sides.
So Fundamentally I disagree with the assertions of the original post, but knowing the diametrically different slant in which we view things, and our methodology, I suppose I understand why.
As a once famous TV COP once said "Just the facts maam.."
Great scientific basis for that, ironic after asking others to ante up with statistics that your claim alone should do it for the rest of the world. Liberal media is why we see so much coverage of the anti-war protests, the parades demanding Impeachment and war crimes trials, see all the coffins of the fallen soldiers to encourage the anti war movement to grow.
Liberal media is why we hear so much about he outrage over the telecom immunity and pollution and why pundits like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have worked so hard to establish the journalistic credibility to be featured as voices worth listening to.
That damn liberal bias just won't stop talking about toxic ingredients in the foods, the fraud in the government contracts and the cheap, imperfect investigation into the failings surrounding the events of 9/11 and the questions the damn liberals won't give up.
How about all the stories we heard about the Enron loopholes adding to the oil profits over the past years and the damn liberal media railing against the legislative freedoms granted to banking entities that were leading to the mortgage collapse?
Can't we get a break from those liberals and sit back and pretend there is no war and no Presidential crimes, no millions of war refugees with dead and wounded Iraqi children, no homeless Veterans and no National debt soaring to he stratsphere?
How much of this liberal crap must people be forced to see and hear?
Oops, seems like none!l
Here's a link for those who might want to see studies of media and partisanship:
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/
Thank you for that Aine; I'll add it to my recommendations links! :~)
If you cut off the last part of that link, it will redirect you to the current year's study, so that your link won't have to be changed yearly (i.e. - next year the root url will redirect to /2009/). Just use:
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/
☆☆☆ Damn, I love having smart friends! ☆☆☆
This just seeded: Leading Journalists Expose Manipulations in the Media
Ooh ooh, more benefits to being among the nocturnal!!
Heaven forbid we present a view that challenges death and destruction!
Really enjoyed the reading, keep up the good work.
I believe that if people were really interested in the national news they would get it from PBS or/and the BBC both excellent in their coverage of more then fire, rape, latest missing person or car chase in your area.
Naw, there's the latest of Brittany and Paris and still the old fall back of O.J. too!!
Corporations should be banned from the production of news content in this country.
That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.
I think the point Pamela is trying to drive home is the dominating influence of “Corporate Imperialism,” not necessarily a side by side of Liberal Media verses Conservative Media and the pros and cons of such a notion.
The Economist Hazel Henderson wrote about the internet being the great equalizer to the rapid growth of mass marketing by large corporations 10 years ago. It is a fundamental principle of all corporations to “grow or die” in the process of existence. The bigger a corporation becomes, the faster it grows because as it grows, it gains more and more influence over the channels of communication. At some point, it becomes very difficult in not impossible to compete with any given corporation because of its enormous influence over communication in a particular market. When this happens, the typical control valves and steering mechanism of the corporate engine essentially no longer function because there nothing that can challenge the corporation’s influence in the market place. At this point, the corporation begins to feed on itself in an effort to continue powering the engine and sustaining growth. This is where a corporation becomes most dangerous because it must start expanding into other markets and start competing with other corporations who initially were not in the same market.
Pamela cited some very good examples of this in her article. All these corporations have essentially left their respective markets and entered new markets to sustain growth. Since they eliminated any meaningful competition in their original market, they subsequently do everything they can to lower cost and raise the price while trying to insure demand to sustain growth. At this point, the consumer of the corporation’s products no longer has a choice whether to continue support of the corporation or any influence over how the corporation produces their products. AT&T;, the original “Ma Bell” is a modern example of this before it was broken up. At one point, AT&T; pretty much controlled the telephone market in half the world. AT&T; was so enormous, most people questioned whether the government could actually take them on. Even the banking and finance industry feared AT&T; to the point that if AT&T; could buy them all up if AT&T; decided to go into the banking business because AT&T; did not like the things people wanted to invest in. That is why congress made the attorney general breakup AT&T.;
Back to the point of Liberal Media, in today’s world of the internet, the consumers can effectively challenge Corporate Imperialism with some effective influence because the consumers have the ability to create an infinite number of alternate channels of communication to challenge any given corporation’s message on any given product or service. In a way, it is like raw capitalism because anyone in the world can publish an opinion and build a case for or against something or someone and the whole world has access to it. A good example of this would be the current presidential election and the criticism of the “Liberal Press” and the “left wing bloggers” who appear to be winning the fight both in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media. No one is stopping the “right wing bloggers” from getting on the internet and fighting back or dominating the conversation. The Ron Paul Campaign is a good example that the Right Wing conservatives are more than capable of doing so. For whatever reason they are choosing not to in any great numbers. The mainstream press essentially dwells on stories they think the majority of their demographics want to hear, not because they are important. In this day in age, media outlets like the network television determined this by the feedback they receive from their viewers. Given that prospective of Liberal Media, Pamela is correct in saying it is not very liberal at all because stories about Monsanto and their business practices are extremely important, however, a lot of people are just not interested in hearing about. It’s not that the mainstream media has not tried, it is just the fact of when they did run stories about Monsanto, they did not receive a lot of feedback about it or low viewership of it. Face it, in this country we for the most part are “Deep Populist” but we dress it up and call it capitalism, liberalism, Americanism, and in some cases, socialism, but the fact of the matter is people only really pay attention to what is popular at any given moment, not necessarily what is important or good to know. Corporations regardless of their politics, exploit this in America very successfully and because of that, liberal media is a myth in a way.
Going back to my example of the original Ma Bell, there was no public outcry to break up the phone company. In fact, Ma Bell was very popular for the most part with the people. The phone system always worked, AT&T; provided very prompt and professional service when it did not, people comfortably bought AT&T; stock and viewed it as about the safest place to put their money. Working for AT&T; was considered a noble career and AT&T; employees were basically happy with employer. When it was proposed to breakup AT&T;, that notion in itself was seen as very unpopular. Yet AT&T; was an empire none the less and up to the point it was broken up, it was given a free pass on its monopoly. The press tried desperately to explain why the government wanted to breakup AT&T; but the people really did not want to hear about it. As a result, the Government will for every more be considered a villain in that case because it took on a very unpopular task of trying to fix something that most people felt was not broken. The fact of this case shows how non-liberal the press actually is. Nothing has really changed since then, the press simply pays attention to those things that are popular, not necessarily important as we continue to think what is popular must be important. Hence Capitalist Imperialism will prevail in this country for evermore on the waves of media popularism not medial liberalism
Fabulous comments and insights, thank you. The example of AT&T is one that hadn't crossed my mind, but is probably the quintessential case of corporate power. Hazel Henderson is a wonderful example of forward thinking and practical advocacy. There's a good VP choice!!
The one name that always comes to mind for me in forecasting the transforming impact of the information age is Alvin Toffler. The three decade trilogy that ended in the 1990 book Power Shift. That was a must read for the generation who remember starting with the 1970's Future Shock and the social transformation of Third Wave in 1980. Ah, we are predictable!
The third wave means China to me Pamela, in the 20th century, the first half dominated by the United States, the second half was dominated by Japan. And the first half of the 21st century will be dominated by China. The new long wave has already begun
But the job of non corporate media is educational, it is to make sure the public is properly informed, or at the very least has the ability to become properly informed. This arm of the Media was (one of three) was removed by Reagan, and so in the US there is now only indie and corporate media.
The people dont have a choice, and the mainstream media who rely on advertising dont hace a choice either. There is massive covert and subtle manipulation at work here. You only have to examine this American populism to see that, No where else in the world can an entire population have its opinions changed instantly by information alone, and the quality of that information is often very suspect.
I dont specifically blame the US public for this, it has been a slow and highly targeted campaign over many decades to get a population of 50.01% to become vegetables. It has been a two pronged attack, Religious extremism, and infotainment mixed with glitter and shiney things. It has now got to the point that when a young person is considering a career in journalism, they have to make a decision between going into a fast disappearing discipline, or to go into a growth industry, Public Relations and Marketing.
If only you knew how extreme it is here with television shows from Platinum Weddings to Pimp My Ride and so called reality shows where houses full of representative ordinary people let the audience act as voyeurs in everything from finding a dream date or mate, career or simply finding themselves as drunk and unrestrained post pubescence prepping for that PR path where celebrity is made not from talent but simply air time.
Back To Top