We need to stop talking about the "mainstream media"

[dissent1977]

In today’s society it is impossible to ignore the influence of the corporate media conglomorates. Everywhere we look we are being exposed to some type of advertisement to push the latest product on us, or to make us think a certain way. However much we may try to avoid the influence this media has on us, we need to realize we are being affected whether we realize it or not.

One of the traps I often find myself falling into is unconsciously parroting the language of the corporate media. It is rare that anyone notices, in fact I see even the most committed activists doing the same thing all the time.

One prime example of this is all the talk in activist circles of the “mainstream media”. It is as if we believe that a media that is run by corporations that are worth billions truly represent the mainstream. If billionaire CEOs like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Eisner are truly mainstream it seems as if there would be a lot more of them. After all isn’t the mainstream supposed to represent the masses?

The corporations however want us to believe they are the mainstream, and we are outside the mainstream. They want us to believe that we are on the fringes of society, because that makes it easier for them to ignore us.

I do not claim to represent the mainstream, nor do I believe that there is anyone else that represents the mainstream. We are a diverse nation with many different opinions floating around, and no one group should pretend like they have a monopoly on the public discourse.

I do however claim to be closer to the American public than any billionaire CEO. The vast majority of Americans do not get paid for expressing their opinions, but the pundits on television take enormous sums of money from advertisers on a regular basis. I, like millions of other Americans have an opinion on the issues facing the world today. I do not get paid for expressing those opinions, all I receive is the pleasure of knowing that when injustices are being committed I do not sit by silently and watch. Whether people agree with my opinions or not they can at least know that those opinions are not being bought by anyone.

Many of us need to change our language, and start speaking in our own frame rather than the frame that has been pushed on us by the corporate media. Yes, we are part of the alternative press. But let us make it clear, we are an alternative to the corporate media not some nonexistent mainstream media.

On Edit: I changed the words "mass media" to "corporate media conglomorates" after a reader pointed out that those words could also be interpreted in a way that I did not intend them to be interpreted.

[NVMojo]

1. it's the mainstream, corporate, conservative media ....

what a pathetic choice

[cestpaspossible]

2. Isn't that the freeper term for corporate media? nt

[dissent1977]

3. Yes it is

I hear the rightwingers talk about the "mainstream media" all the time, and I would not call them out on calling it that. I want them to admit they do not represent the general population. When I hear people on DU use the words "mainstream media" or MSM, however I want to scream.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. We just need to make 'mainstream'

a dirty word.

M$M works for me.

[dissent1977]

20. As long as you use the dollar sign instead of an S I can live with that

[G2099]

4. CCM - Corporate Controlled Media works for me

That's how I describe the media and most at the top of media organizations are members of the CFR - Council on Foreign Relations.

[dissent1977]

5. That works for me too

I like it, there is no denying it is corporate controlled and the term certainly sheds a negative light on them. They deserve to be portrayed in a negative light after all the crap they have pulled.

[Demit]

6. "isn’t the mainstream supposed to represent the masses?"

No. The word mainstream in "mainstream media" is not intended to refer to the audience, or the public, or the citizenry. Maybe it strikes you that way because of its similarity to "Main Street"?

You yourself use the term "mass media" in your first sentence. I don't think you mean it to imply that you are referring to the masses as in the people, do you?

I think the term came about to distinguish older media from newer, less widely-circulated and recognized media--specifically blogs and online zines. That is, what "establishment" versus "underground" publications were, in the 60s.

I have an interest in this topic, and did some googling on the etymology of the word. So far, I found usage going back to 1990. (A doctor speaking on the subject of AIDS: "...The purpose for this paper is to disseminate information that I feel is being suppressed by the main stream media..." http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/KEELYNET/BIOLOGY/badgley.asc)

The word mainstream is an adjective describing the media, to differentiate it from alternative media. Corporate is another adjective to describe media in another way. A good way, but not the only way.

[dissent1977]

7. "Mainstream" does suggest that it represents a mainstream audience

It is possible that when you use the term you do not mean it to be interpreted that way, but that is the way some people are going to interpret it.

You do make a good point on the words "mass media" though. As I said I find myself falling into the corporate media's trap sometimes and unconsciously adopting their own language. While I don't think the words "mass media" have the same meaning as the words "mainstream media" it still probably sheds a more positive light on them than they deserve. Because you pointed this out I will edit the words "mass media" out of the original post, and will try to refrain from using the words in the future.

I hope you consider not using the words "mainstream media" though.

[Demit]

10. No, I think the term is just fine, and I use it in the way it has been

used from the beginning. The way Dr. Badgley used it in his paper in 1990.

I think you are imparting a connotation to it that it does not have. I think people who will interpret "mainstream media" to mean "mainstream thought" are mistaken. I think "corporate media" is a good descriptive term, and I'll use it when I want to make a point about financial interests & ownership of media outlets. But I definitely regard "mainstream" as a neutral descriptor of media, and will continue to understand that it is used to contrast it to newer, smaller, alternative news sources.

[dissent1977]

12. I obviously can not make you change, but the term is not a neutral one

At least in my view it is not neutral, and I know there are many others who share my view.

Now in your view maybe it is neutral, and that is an interpretation that I think you could make a good case for. The problem is when you use the term you very rarely discuss its meaning. People are going to interpret it differently and they may interpret it in a way that you are not intending for them to interpret it.

[Demit]

16. It's true, words do acquire different connotations over time

but this is a term that is of relatively recent origin.

I'll be a little more emphatic here: you (and those many others) are misinterpreting the term. The phrase's usage began as a neutral term with a specific meaning. Because currently we liberals regard the state of the (major) media as woeful doesn't suddenly give the phrase "mainstream media" a new meaning.

When I use words correctly, and somebody misinterprets them, I can't help that. The problem isn't mine. For example, if I use the term hoi polloi and somebody thinks that means the aristocracy or a pretentious group of people (a frequent mistake, perhaps because the phrase sounds fancy)--it doesn't indicate a problem with the term.

Politicians on the right, for years now, have been trying to portray liberals as out of the mainstream. But the concept of "mainstream thought" has nothing to do with what is meant by "mainstream media". You are conflating two different concepts into one.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I think this goes back to well before the 90s

There was always an 'underground' media. Blogs an e-zines are simply the latest incarnation of that. In times of revolution, but before the internet, there were 'underground' media. Some were written (printed) some were aural (disseminated orally). How was word spread in the French Resistance in WWII? How was the revolution spread in colonial America?

Many underground media went on to become part of the mainstream. Not that they represent the mainstream, but that they are acknowledged in the mainstream.

Soon enough, today's blogs and e-zines will join the mainstream, too. The media is in a new state of transition. And the status quo, as we all know, dislikes transition.

[Demit]

13. LOL, the practice does, of course. I was referring to the term MSM itself

And yes, that's a good way to put what I was trying to say--that "mainstream media" means IN the mainstream (of media).

Like mainstream medicine v. alternative medicine, or mainstream art v. outsider art.

[firefox]

9. I call the controlled media "Fantasyland Five"- nt

[saltpoint]

11. I usually use the phrase "mainstream media" interchangeably with

"corporate media," since I am suspicious of the long corporate shadow over reporting agencies and "news analysis."

Both terms, at this point anyway, are perjoratives for me. A lot of progressives scorn Judy Woodruff, not because she is unintelligent, but because her former work with PBS was so distinct and interesting, and the CNN stint has been so lackluster and softballing.

I have no idea if 'softballing' is an acceptable word. Thank God we're all up past Phyllis Schlafly's bedtime.

Progressives resent reporters who do not follow up their questions with Cheney or Rumsfeld, since the logical course of public debate would demand a more critical examination. (That means YOU, Juan Williams and Cokie Roberts!)

The Iraq War is a case in point. Can all of us please have a dollar for every lie Dick Cheney has told about Iraq? We'd be rich folks real fast.

Give me Bill Moyers or give me death.

[saltpoint]

14. dissent1997, this is a hell of an interesting thread.

What about the phrase "Founders' Media" for The Nation, The Village Voice, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Pacifica Radio, etc.?

No Paine, no gain.

The progressive coalitions cold simply steal the Founders from the Right. From that point forward, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, that moron Rush Limbaugh, etc. -- all those corporate conglomerate media -- would be characterized as controlled media, and therefor limited, constrained, and ultimately untruthful.

Progressives writing in and reporting for Founders' Media would then have shifted the definition of free media, and even enhanced the function of free media.

I wouldn't mind seeing images of Madison, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. as Founders' Media logo instead of some damned peacock.

Just a thought.

I loved your post on this tonight. Thank you.

[dissent1977]

15. Thank you

[AndyTiedye]

17. Big Media

...seems to describe them pretty well.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. "corporate media consolidaters" because they ignore real news

in order to pursue flack fake news to keep us all distracted from the actual issues of the day. If you want to know about the "pervert of the day" as Ted Turner phrased it or a celebrity trial or social wedge issues then they're all over it. They pushed the envelope, reveled their true selves (no news, no way, no how) and actually made themselves entirely irrelevent and useless.

On the bright side - they have brought back a resurgance of the written word - particularly in blogs where the public has found a way to bypass the corporate media censors.How do any of us know the deeper truths about Election fraud, torture, Jeff Gannon, DSM? Not through the filtered news outlets, that's for damn sure.

I laugh when I think about how I actually used to look forward to watching Hardball and thought it informed me. One day, I said to myself, "gosh, this is the 50th night he's talked about gay marriage" and of course his other topic was SBVs. Now that I know what they're not talking about, it's almost amusing to watch these shows. They just hors d'oevre stuffed gasbags blathering to each other.

Anyway, how about "Real News" outlets? The places that inform and reveal and educate regardless of where the chips may fall. I am not looking for any Democratic equivalents of Fox News - I just want actual journalism again.