David Sirota - The Media Want the War

[pberq]

Anyone who still thinks we live in a democracy, please read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050824/cm_huffpost/006102;_ylt=AmiR9.clczdj__7uhgL8QLX9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

David Sirota: Only One Thing Left to Conclude: The Media Want the War

David SirotaTue Aug 23, 7:00 PM ET

<snip>
Back in May when ABC News openly justified the media's refusal to cover the Iraq War, I thought it couldn't get worse. Then, a few months later, I saw that it could, as the Washington Post began trying to intimidate Democratic politicians and prevent them from standing up to voice opposition to the war. I figured that was rock bottom, but in recent days, we've seen that yes, the braindead insulated elitists in the Beltway media have found an even lower road to take than even this.

In the last 48 hours, we've seen the "objective" mainstream media now openly attacking people who oppose the Iraq War. Mind you, these aren't the editorialists or the opinion pundits, these are the people who are supposed to be telling the objective truth -- and instead they are literally attacking war critics.

Take MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell. In an interview with former FBI agent Coleen Rowley (now a candidate for Congress), O'Donnell claimed that Rowley "had decided to align with anti-war extremists" because Rowley visited Cindy Sheehan's supporters in Crawford. Or, take the Washington Post's Mike Allen. He said those who oppose the war are "PETA, hippies, Naderites" -- again, a blatant effort to paint those who oppose the war as fringe, even though polls show a majority of Americans oppose the war.

These nauseating examples need to be put into a context. They follow the media's open pushing of the Iraq War before the invasion and refusal to question what they knew were pre-war lies. They also come as polls show Americans oppose the war, want an exit strategy, and believe the entire mess is endangering U.S. national security. And they come even as Iraq War veterans themselves say they understand that criticism of the war is not criticism of U.S. troops.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Wasn't it William Randolph Hearst who had a big part in selling

the Spanish-American War?
Wars sell papers!!! (and other media as well!)

http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/willh.html

Believed by many to have initiated the Spanish--American War of 1898 to encourage sales of his newspaper,

... where "yellow journalism" got its start. In a classic example of the power of ownership, Hearst responded to illustrator Frederic Remington's request to return from a Havana that was quiet, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." --Spanish--American War of 1898

When an explosion sank the Maine and killed hundreds of sailors in the Havana Harbor on 15 February 1898, journalists, including those from the Journal, recommended caution in speculating the cause of the disaster. Hearst had other ideas. When he learned of the explosion, he called the Journal city desk and asked the editor on duty what other stories were to be played on the front page. When the editor replied “just the other big news,” Hearst exploded that there was no other big news and the sinking of the Maine meant war. Two days later the Journal was banging the war drum with such headlines as “War? Sure!” Coverage of the Spanish-American War, soon to become the Journal’s war, established a template for the next century of how journalists were to cover significant events. After thirty-five years of this type of journalism, newsmen and women at competing papers were amused when Hearst issued a bulletin in 1933 that established editorial guidelines for his newsrooms across the country: - Introduction, Red Ink, White Lies: The Rise and Fall of Los Angeles Newspapers 1920-1962 by Rob Wagner, Robert Leicester Wagner

[pberq]

2. You're absolutely right!

Another factor is: how many MSM reporters are on the government payroll? It could be through the CIA, or some other source.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

29. yep - check out the documentary on the 'citizen kane' dvd

it's about two hours on hearst and welles and tells of just how evil and murdoch-esque hearst was

[Hissyspit]

44. I just bought that. It's a great documentary in its own right.

I had seen it years ago when it was nominated for an Oscar (it may have won, can't remember), so am glad I have a copy now. I show it in class.

[tanyev]

3. And then they wonder why their ratings keep falling, falling, falling.

[bryant69]

4. I don't know what this has to do with living in a democracy

Democracy means you get to vote - if this were about black box voting or paper trails (desperately needed by the way) or redistricting (also needed), I'd see the connection. But the fact that some media spokesmen are pro war, well I'm not sure I see the connection.

I'd also want to know the context of the two quotes above - O'Donnell's a tool, and I don't remember much positive about Miek Allen - but if they are speaking editorially, well, i'm not sure I see the problem (other than what they said was stupid, I mean).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pberq]

8. A democracy is dependent on the electorate getting the facts.

An informed electorate is the only way a democracy can function.

How can you know which way to vote if you don't have the facts?

And it's more than just voting. It's about contacting your representatives on policy. Again, without the facts being available to the voters, the system becomes something other than a democracy.

[bryant69]

9. That's very idealistic

But of course the argument could be made that those two editorialists were simply presenting the facts as they see them.

[K-W]

12. Your definition of democracy is inadequate.

"Democracy means you get to vote "

No, Democracy means rule by the people. Voting is a technique that ideally serves a system of democratic governance. But the test of democracy is not whether or not there are elections, it is literally whether or not the people are governing themselves.

What this article is describing is propaganda. Members of the media are attempting to marginalize what are not, in fact, marginal opinions to minimize the spread and credibility of those opinions.

When people in positions of power in society use that power to control public opinion, they are practicing the opposite of democracy.

[bryant69]

15. Or to put it another way

When someone says somethign I dont' agree with, that's the opposite of Democracy.

[K-W]

16. Except that isnt even close to what I said.

Im wondering exactly how you managed to translate "When people in positions of power in society use that power to control public opinion" into "When someone says somethign I dont' agree with"

What part of my actual opinion was confusing to you?

[bryant69]

17. I guess it's a matter of drawing a line between Bush

And these two editorialists.

[K-W]

18. No, its not really a matter of that at all.

Especially since I havent mentioned Bush.

[bryant69]

19. Well then it comes down to two people who have power

In so far as they have the ability to appear on tv or write a column, and they said something you think is incorrect?

[K-W]

20. That is clearly not what I wrote.

Why do you keep asking me if I meant to write something that is completely different from what I wrote?

What makes you think I meant something other than what I wrote?

[bryant69]

25. Well I'm sorry for not following you

The initial article quoted two people as having experessed negative opinions about Ms. Sheehan, I thought that was what you were referring to.

[K-W]

28. I was referring to the article.

I was not saying the things you translated my writing into.

[Supersedeas]

5. the story of the Bushist Regime is intricately tied to story behind the

scenes in the Corporate Media.

[DemonFighterLives]

6. They love it

I saw that Nora O'Donnell thing and they sure gave Colleen a raw deal. Right winger, Mike Williams I think, acted like a rabid dog and wouldn't let Coleen Rowley get a full sentence out. He loved the war and to Coleen's credit she didn't go off on the 2 of them.
I kind of wish she would have called them out for their crap. She did correct the extremist meme.
Now we are extremists if we want the war to end. :argh:

[mattclearing]

7. They are just doing what they're told to do.

It's GE that wants the war, because it's more than a media company.

The Post company is different, but the end result is the same...they create 'truth' for us to buy so that we can feel safe and justified in our lifestyles and attitudes. This reinforces our own biases and lack of collective guilt for American tyranny.

By aligning with power, the Post knows that it will always get the story, positioning themselves to be a "comfort provider" of choice. It does them no favors to engage the population of the country. In order to get the story, they need to hold the ear of the elites.

At any rate, they aren't selling truth or news, but rather peace of mind through ignorance and fallacy.

[MadHound]

10. Yes, that is the key to this biased reporting

The media is only doing what their corporate masters tell them to. Since 95% of our media is controlled by only five corporations, it is entirely to easy for other view points to be ignored or marginalized. And remember, three of these corporations have direct ties to the military industrial complex, thus more war means more profits for them. The other two have found that there is more money to be made being cheerleaders for this illegal, immoral war than there is in reporting the truth.

This is the whirlwind we are reaping from Clinton's assinine move to allow further media monopolization with the '96 Telecom Act.

[mattclearing]

11. Yeah, that telecom act pretty much destroyed the whole media industry.

At the time I was mad about the radio/music aspects of it. It seems to have done much more damage in retrospect, though.

[bostonbabs]

13. with 9 million blogs

and a blog started every 9 seconds ( according to Wharton Business School News Letter this month ) ...I think that the "airwaves".... are being replaced by the" WEBWAVES"..I HAVE BEEN A NEWS HOUND MY WHOLE LIFE ( 56) AND ALWAYS TURNED ON THE MORNING TELEVISION NEWS.....NOW I TURN ON MY COMPUTER!!!! ...they are loosing viewers and Hannity and LImbaugh are going the same way. TELEVISION IS TABLOIDISM......and with the power of the internet comes the power of ORGANIZATION.......it will only get better. I am off to my Aunt Rita's today ...she asked that I show her how a computer works. She is 87.

[Beam Me Up]

23. Welcome to the NEW WORLD, bostonbabs!!

I stopped watching TV when they put the chimpanzee in the White House. I knew right then and there that this country was headed for BIG TROUBLE. And I saw how the media handled the story of the recounts in Florida. It was despicable, and I knew that was only the beginning. One does not STEAL the Presidency of the most powerful nation on earth for noble ends.

Good for you helping your aunt onto the net!

[glitch]

33. Wonderful!! Welcome to DU, and I hope to be welcoming your Aunt Rita

to DU very soon!

[Al-CIAda]

14. .

[Beam Me Up]

21. No surprise. THEY ARE CORPORATIONS and they are in the business of

SELLING A FALSE REALITY called "consumerism". They want us to BUY their pre-packaged WAR PRODUCT. That is also what their sponsors, the major corporations who PAY THEM, want. And it is what most of their stock holders want.

The American people need to learn that the corporate owned media is NOT ON THEIR SIDE in this or any other dispute between 'we the people' and our 'government' (environmentalism or social policy for example). Their job is to SELL the government's position--and the government's position serves who ever is in control of its offices. All one need do is look at who is in control of those offices today. They are almost uniformly rich, white and male--and heavily invested in both energy (predominantly oil) and defense.

THE CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA IS NOT A FRIEND OR ALLY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Never has been, never will be, except when it is in the 'best interest' to appear that way.

[Skidmore]

22. I've always believed this.

Blitzer was practically salivating at getting to go hang out in Baghdad when rumors of war were on the horizon. When Saddam refused him entry he became rabid in his obvious pushing of that agenda. War is business at many levels. Peace is not profitable in some industries and the news seems to thrive on death and destruction.

[novak goes postal]

24. The big networks and cable think that it is good for them.....we'll see !

[deminks]

26. I have thought this for some time.

Since the media did not move with the polls (now Dubya's support in the 30's), I find it hard to believe that the media did not have a hand in supporting Dumbya's elections and war(s).

[otohara]

31. Outright Blatant In Their Support of Bush & War

helped usher in the stolen election, helped usher in the lies about Iraq, helped usher in a second term of Bush, and continue to show their support by reporting protesters as "extremists" and supporters as "patriots".

War is good for business and that includes the media.

[Arugula Latte]

34. ..and before the election smeared Gore and built up a fuckin' frat boy

who had never earned anything on his own in his life. True to form, Bush had to have the presidency stolen for him to "succeed."

[IrateCitizen]

27. This is nothing new -- read on...

If you want a deeper understanding of how this works, don't read Sirota -- read Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse. They demonstrate how the media is just one part of the ubiquitous and all-encompassing "culture industry" of modern advanced capitalist society.

The role of the media in modern culture is not to inform or enlighten in any real way. Rather, the role of the media is to reinforce the status quo, and to either ignore or scathingly delegitimize any challenges to it. This is why, for example, when Dennis Kucinich tried to talk of a nationalized alternative to our health insurance system during the Democratic presidential debates, Larry King dismissed it with the perjorative label of "socialism" -- even though it would have allowed doctors, nurses and hospitals to operate as private business entities as before. Likewise, it is why antiwar voices were completely crowded out in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and now that they have reached a critical mass, the MSM is bending over backwards to try and delegitimize them.

War is good for business, especially in the short term. Ain't no corporate executives' children or talking heads fighting in Iraq. Furthermore, some owners of media companies (i.e. General Electric) profit directly from the manufacture of war materials. And finally, the direct seizure of raw materials (such as all that precious oil under Iraq) helps maintain the assymetric relationship between the population of the US and the amount of the world's resources we consume, something that is intrinsic to the "American way of life" of which we all are a part, especially those at the top.

The MSM is simply acting in its assigned role right now -- trying to squash dissent and re-assert the authoritative voice of the status quo. It is trying to get people back in line, to keep them from questioning, and instead get them to focus on their narrowly-defined roles within the corporatocracy. Expecting them to do otherwise would be foolhardy, IMHO.

[Kolesar]

30. The press conspired to hide the facts leading up to the Iraq War

They purposely released misinformation at the White House's behest (NY Times Judith Miller, for example). It was a gop propaganda campaign.

[bpilgrim]

32. the elite want this war and the M$MWs are their BULLY PULPIT

http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[wli]

35. the MSM should be prosecuted like Julius Streicher was

Top-to-bottom. From anchors all the way to all those holding voting stock and the boards of directors.

[Psyop Samurai]

36. You are correct.

n/t

[HR_Pufnstuf]

37. Of course they do...

These guys....

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/index.html

"GE Transportation Aircraft Engines (GEAE) is the world's leading producer of large and small jet engines for commercial and military aircraft."


...and these guys:

http://www.nbc.com/


are the same company.



The mistake society made was privatization of military defense. I think its time to NATIONALIZE the defense industry JUST like the Space Industry.

Now.

[Al-CIAda]

38. .

[staticstopper]

39. The sooner we give up any hope

for big media, the better. I have stopped watching and reading and a few other people I know have done so as well. I just wish I would have known this before and not been sucked into all that fearmongering/selling BS.

The left has NO voice there at all. But (as it has been pointed out here many times), we are at least 49% of the viewing audience.

Well I take that back, we still get cuss words, sexual innuendos, teenaged singing sexpots, and the like. But as far as foreign policy goes they will only let crumbs be tossed on the floor by people who have bad reputations in the public narrative, just to make it seem like there is still freedom.

Maybe a passive aggressive approach would work? The left should drop out totally, then maybe some of the sane conservatives would get scared enough to let loose the reigns a bit. Other than that I say screw em. I've still got an internet connection and a home printer.

[EVDebs]

40. Disney owns ABC which owns KSFO who employs Melanie Morgan

So ABC indirectly is funding Melanie Morgan's anti-Cindy charade. Lovely bit of Operation Mockingbird if you ask me.

[EVDebs]

41. Disney owns ABC which owns KSFO who employs Melanie Morgan

So ABC indirectly is funding Melanie Morgan's anti-Cindy charade. Lovely bit of Operation Mockingbird if you ask me.

[Freedomfried]

42. WAR keeps news ratings high!

No war, people go back to watching soap operas and cartoons.

OF COURSE THE CABLE NETWORKS WANT THE WAR TO CONTINUE!

[Hissyspit]

43. The media WANTED the war, too.

And they got what they wanted. The bias toward the war occurring in the corporate 'mainstream' media was palpable.