My Latest Fantasy.....

[MsTryska]

first off I'd like to thank mark Crispin Miller's Book "Cruel and Unusual" for spurring the fantasy.


So here it is: a newschannel called the 4th Estate. Neither Left nor Right, but a government watchdog, No stories about Lacy Peterson, people who've demonstrated their abilities at solid reporting, and got gutted for it, who cares if we've got Whitehouse access - we don't need it, and won't be part of the propaganda machine.



Other than money and the rest of the media screaming "liberal left wing loonies" (even if there is total impartiality) and attempts to discredit at every turn, what stands in the way of makign this happen?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. This, I like!!!!!!!

n/t

[liberal N proud]

2. It shouldn't have to be a fantasy

The Media in this "Democracy" are supposed to be the watchdog for the people. Looking over the shoulder of everything the government and politicians do and reporting (not editroializing) to the people.
The media in this country have faild miserably, they have become nothing more than the Paravda for the bush regime.

[MsTryska]

3. Exactly.

which is why i would love to see a station like this reminding EVERYONE what the Press is supposed to be like.



The credo would have to be lifted directly from the constitution and the writings of our Founding Fathers.

[PaganPreacher]

5. "Watchdog for the people?" Not in this country.

Your assertion that "media in this 'democracy' are supposed to be the watchdog for the people" is incorrect on its face.

There are two basic types of media in this country: "corporate" and "advocacy".

Corporate press has exactly one obligation: to make money for its shareholders. If biased reporting will maximize profits, then biased reporting is what we, the People, will get. In fact, if the corporate masters thought that naked tapdancing news anchors would maximize profits, we would be seeing that every night.

Advocacy press also has exactly one set of obligations: to present the issue(s) of the advocates in a favorable light, to lionize the advocates, and to demonize the advocates' opponents. Consequently, advocacy press is biased by design.

The idea of an unbiased "watchdog" press is not borne out in the Constitution, in history, or in practice.

1. The Constitution protects a "free press," and the press is free to be as biased as the press owners want. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that obligates the press to serve some nebulous "public interest" or "greater good"; to the contrary, the government is powerless to make the press serve anything at all.

2. American history is filled with examples of press organs that served the interests of their owners, but woefully short of examples of "serving as watchdog for the people."

The handbills and newspapers of the 1770s spread the word on British maltreatment of Colonials, in the areas of commerce and taxation, land seizure, gun control, and empressure of Colonials into military service. However, those same handbills and newspapers ignored the benefits of British colonialism; consequently, "the people" were not provided with a balanced view on the risks and benefits of revolution. It was an advocacy press, advocating a particular solution to a particular problem.

In 1898, William Randolph Hearst used the free press to invent the Spanish-American War. No, I don't mean that the Spanish-American War didn't happen; instead, I mean that Hearst invented the causus belli to sell newspapers. "Yellow journalism" certainly did not serve as a watchdog for the people.

Of course, there are many other examples throughout our history, and I need not bore you with a recitation of them.

3. Modern media practice is a collection of competing biases.

Editorials are masked as front-page news; the Administration and Pentagon "leak" information, and the corporate AND advocacy presses report them as Gospel. "Reporters" fail to fact-check, relying on press releases, "public opinion polls", unnamed sources,and falsified documents.

If you believe anything the press tells you, you do so at your peril (even if they are saying something that you want to hear.) There is plenty of primary source material available, to learn the facts for yourself.

Just remember, my friend, the first book printed on a printing press was NOT Descartes' "Meditations," it was a Bible.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[MsTryska]

7. Exactly why a new "corporate media"

needs to come to the forefront.


one that can't be put in the pocket of the government.


how that happens i'm not sure, but if people watch, advertising would come.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. "what stands in the way of makign this happen?"

$$$$$$$$$ is what stands in the way of making this happen.

And I don't undertsand why. An honest news source would be hugely profitable. The netwroks and the cable three (CNN, FOX, and MSNBC) all split the viewers. Each has what? 1/4? an 1/8? Put on an honest news source and I suspect fully 1/2 of the population would watch it. Based solely on a profit motive, it would work.

So why is no one putting up the bux?

[MsTryska]

6. I agree.

I mean it's not very likely no one has ever come up with this idea before, which is why i'm wondering if something other than money is standing in the way.

[Debs]

8. Something else IS

Advertising. All media is paid for by advertising thus making it institutional that bussiness will control it and bussiness will not over the long run support a progressive agenda as they fear, probably rightly that it will interfere with management perogatives

[gratuitous]

9. You're in part describing

The late and lamented I.F. Stone's Weekly, which sifted through the detritus of government to come up with stories. For example, Consortium News has a story up about how the public was sold a bill of goods at this time last year regarding troops in Iraq. They were supposed to be all done and outta there by now, remember? At least, that's the line that was being peddled then to a gullible public. Izzy Stone reveled in exposing that sort of duplicity.

You're also describing something that the PBS program NOW does. And Counterpunch. You are, I'm sure, conversant with all of these and more, right?

What, you never heard of any of them? THAT's part of what stands in the way of making such a newschannel happen.