Tit for Tat: CBS/Viacom's Super quid-pro-quo

[einniv]

On Edit: Moved link to the top so it is more clear what are my words and what is the article
This has probably already been posted but I thought it was interesting. It documents what CBS got in exchange for their friendliness to the white-house re: the MoveOn ad.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0206-04.htm
--snip--
Given that Bono's song was inappropriate and MoveOn's ad too political, I thought it interesting that CBS' Super Bowl pre-game show included a lengthy interview with President Bush. This is not political?

The plot thickens. Remember last year's debate on the Federal Communication Commission's proposal to lift restrictions on the percentage of the television news outlets that could be owned by any one company? The FCC proposed rules that would have meant that one company could own stations reaching as much as 45 percent of the national audience. The limit had been 35 percent.

According to a report on Bill Moyer's show "NOW," the Senate blocked the FCC proposal last September. However, two months later, Senate Republicans and the White House reached agreement on a compromise that raised the limit to 39 percent. Just enough, as it turns out, to allow two particular media giants, Viacom and News Corp. (Fox), to keep all their stations.

Still with me? OK, who broadcast the Super Bowl and decided that neither Bono nor MoveOn was welcome at the party but that the president would be an honored guest? Why, CBS. And who owns CBS? Funny you should ask. Viacom owns CBS. Yes, the very same Viacom that was a prime beneficiary of White House pressure to allow a single media conglomerate to own enough television news outlets to reach 39 percent of the nation.
--snip--



I have recently been reading and listening to stuff about "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Herman proposed an institutional analysis of the media to try to explain why it acts the way it does.
There are what he calls filters. What determines what things get reported. The filters are
1.Owners
2.Advertisers
3."news makers"
4.flak
Flak is like when pressure is put on the media by lawsuits or government action. I guess this kinda fits in to the flak filter but I think in a way it is unique. First, most flak is of a negative nature. This is more of a positive feedback. Seldom does government have as big a prize (or punishment) to offer.
I think it is also important to consider these "carrots" Bush had to hold out when thinking about the Iraq war. In addition to them wetting their pants over the chance to get "in bed" with the pentagon and film a real live war! The media rules had them by the... well you know... pocketbook!