Obama and the Media Dilemma

[babylonsister]

Obama and the Media Dilemma
by Robert Parry | February 17, 2009


It was only a few years ago – when the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House – that the U.S. news media offered up one-sided coverage of the Bush administration, relying on Republicans, right-wingers and pro-war military experts to shape what Americans got to see and read.

The reason for marginalizing Democrats and other critical voices, we were told, was that the Republicans were in power and it made no sense to have on guests or to quote experts who didn’t share in the power. The premium was to have Republican insiders explaining what was going on.

So, one might have thought that when the Democrats won control of Congress and the White House, Republicans would largely disappear from the TV chat shows and the news pages. After all, the Republicans today have even fewer representatives in Washington than the Democrats did during most of the Bush years.

But if you thought that, you would be wrong. Instead, the cable networks and the print media have been falling over themselves to get the views of Republicans and to disseminate those opinions widely to the American public.

During a key early stage in the battle over Barack Obama’s stimulus bill, the Center for American Progress examined the political affiliations of guests on major cable networks and found that Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 2-to-1. Suddenly, the premium was on the views of those out of power.

In other words, Republicans get to dominate the news programs when they’re in power and they get to dominate when they’re out of power. The one constant is that the U.S. news media bends over backwards to favor the Republicans; what changes is the rationale.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20328

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. So why doesn't anyone call them out? When Dems get onto these shows, they should raise it!

This article is not news to any of us here. My question is why it is allowed to transpire?

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Parry's got it right. And this will destroy America unless we stop it somehow.

[OhioChick]

3. K&R

Holy cow....You have quite the candy factory going on there! :)

:kick:

[depakid]

4. Yet some Democrats still don't see the need for the fairness doctrine

:shrug:

[DCKit]

5. The "Fairness Doctrine" is political poison.

I'm seeing well thought out ideas for "equal time" and breaking the media monopolies, the latter being necessary if we are to continue as a Democracy, IMO.

[babylonsister]

6. OBAMA STILL OPPOSES FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016947.php

OBAMA STILL OPPOSES FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.... One would like to think a development like this one would put the matter to rest.

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

Alex Koppelman asks the right question: "Can we stop talking about the Fairness Doctrine now?" The answer is, "I'm afraid not."

For one thing, the conservatives terrified of the non-existent campaign to bring the Fairness Doctrine back aren't persuaded by today's statement. Isn't it possible that Obama's consistent, principled opposition to the policy is really just an elaborate ruse, intended to obscure his secret support for the policy? The president might spring the policy on them when they least expect it.

For another, the embarrassing right-wing paranoia will just adapt and manufacture new angles to the old story. The American Spectator, for example, claims that it spoke to a staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who said Democrats not only want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but also want to extend it to the Internet.

"It's all about diversity in media," the Spectator quoted the committee staffer as saying. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? ... Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?"

Now, the notion that Democrats actually want to do this is obviously silly. The notion that a Democratic staffer who works with Henry Waxman would share an imaginary, nefarious scheme with the right-wing American Spectator is even sillier.

But it's a reminder that Fairness Doctrine hysteria isn't about what's real; it's about what keeps conservatives excited.

[DCKit]

7. Thankfully, Obama is waaaaaayyyyyy smarter than even the exceptional Republics.

Allowing U.S. to go on and on about the fairness doctrine while they spin and bloviate, then he denounces it. Now they don't know what to do, or say. It's gotta suck being them right now.

I don't know where he's going with this, but I'm confident it's not going to turn out well for the Republics.

[Uncle Joe]

8. The corporate media will never treat the Democratic Party

equally in coverage with the Republican Party until the Democratic Party renounces or alters the preamble of the Constitution substituting "We the corporations of the United States" for "We the people of the United States."

To know this you must understand the law of agency aka; who's your daddy?

To the corporate media, corporations or oligarchs are their daddies, corporations pay their bills or buy their commercials, thus corporations are their clients. The American People are only their customers and there is a significant distinction between the two. A fiduciary responsibility of allegiance is owed to a client, not so much to a customer.

Words matter, they have power, this is why the corporate media rarely refer to the American People as citizens, except maybe during election time and only then in a passing manner, citizen is an empowering word, projecting the person on to the government, as a stakeholder of their nation.

The vast majority of the time, you will hear the corporate media refer to the American People as consumers, which is just another word for customer. But what is nature's supreme example of a consumer? For one thing locusts are consumers, that's all they do, mindless consuming until the fields have been stripped bare, only then to fly off to some distant land to rape it as well in another orgy of gluttony.

The fundamental problem we have, is that currently, after Earth is stripped bare, we have no other fields. So we must recapture our power as "We The People of the United States" from the mindless, soulless, profit is our God corporation mentality. Only a government truly representing all the people as citizens can have the strength, wisdom, foresight and vision to avert global catastrophe, but don't count on the current incarnation of the corporate media to promote that goal as their primary agenda, their focus is lower on the bar.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.