A Common DU Myth About The Media:

[cali]

It's an instrument of the right wing/bushco

I don't see how anyone could buy into this. It's such a simplistic summation of a complex problem. The media is not primarily left or right. It's corporate. The electronic media, by and large, cares about profit, above and beyond everything. If kidnapped white girls are gonna attract more viewesr, then that's what you'll get. Bears attacking little girls? A greater share of the market. Unfortunately, they're all too happy to dish out what Americans want, and what Americans want are lurid stories and sex. That's pretty apolitica, but I don't think it's a plot to distract Americans from the pressing real issues. It's about cold hard cash.

The newspaper business is different. Newspapers are losing market share at a rapid pace. Take a look at the profits of the major dailies in this country. In any case, it's simply not true to assert that the print media is dominated by a right wing culture. Sure there's Murdoch, but there's also Newhouse. The pathetic WP is trying to kiss up to the right, but it's again more about profits than ideology. The NYT may be flawed but it's not right wing. Anyone familiar with their opinion and editorial pages should recognize this. They screwed up big time in the run up to the war, but that wasn't so much about ideology as about an overeagerness to scoop the competition on WMD. Lousy and inexcusable for sure, but it doesn't make them an extension of the WH. They should have released the story about the NSA conducting domestic spying immediately, but I doubt it was because they wanted bush to win the WH. At that time, it's my understanding that the story was not fully fleshed out. Besides, the NYT, like the majority of newspapers in this country, endorsed Kerry.

I don't know what the answer is here. Reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine? That would help. Less media consolidation would also be a step in the right direction. I do know that the facile statement that the media's a right wing organ is baloney. Just as the right wing assertion that the media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the liberal establishment is bullshit. It's more complex than that.

Finally, a question for you guys that do believe that the right wing controls the media. In that case, how come the retired Generals who are criticizing the war and demanding Rumsfeld retirement, are getting so much air time?

[Oversea Visitor]

1. They got taken over

and it didnt happen overnight. :)

The conquest of Iraq might be a mess
But the conquest of US
Wheee they sure did a good job.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. I was just talking to my son about that last night.

We were on our way home from a basketball game (the smeltics ending up a dismal season,) and listening to sirius left. So, first of all, Cali to a certain extent has a point, the rightwing takeover is not monolithic, else we wouldn't have The Young Turks and Stephanie Miller beaming into my car. However, what we were talking about was the impressive job that the VRWC did in recovering from the expulsion of Nixon in 74 (and the defeat of Goldwater a decade earlier). Well funded and disciplined, they have successfully taken over control of many (not all) media outlets, instituted a rewards based system of control and discipline, and a dirty tricks based system of retribution for those who stray too far from the fold. They did their homework, and now after literally decades of hardwork, virtually the entire message generated from both broadcast and print media is framed within their intellectual and ideological constructs.

The OP is only technically correct. It is hyperbole to claim that the entire media is rightwing, or that the corporate elites speak with one voice. However while false by reason of exaggeration it is a correct analysis of the general reality of the situation.

[ananda]

2. Those based in reality know..

.. that "corporate" means rightwing.

Get a grip.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

22. If it was only about profit, they'd be targeting the 65% who DISAPPROVE

Cali, talk about over simplistic!

You've been here long enough that you should have done some more research by now. You should be well aware that part of the GOP strategy, which their leaders have already copped to, was a slow, steady buy out of media outlets. They've known for years that they couldn't pull off their bullshit with a truly objective media, and they've had the money to acquire media outlets all across America. Have your already forgotten about the much-publicized installation at NPR of right-wing Bush insiders?

Sorry, cali. I think you're just naive on this one. Besides, as my sub line said, if it was only about profits as you say, they'd be covering what the MAJORITY thinks, not pandering to the dwinding minority.

[cali]

43. Atman,

Let's talk about that 65%; how strongly do they dissaprove? Does it effect their viewing habits? Does it override their fascination with bears and missing blonds? In short, are they really a market?

Yes, I'm aware of the right's aquisiton of some media outlets. It's primarily in radio, and to a lesser degree in TV. That's not the entire media. Sorry, your NPR example isn't enough. And didn't he resign? Not to mention that the whole thing was widely reported.

No one ever gives an appropriate answer to the question about the perception of the right that the media is almost entirely left. Why do they think this? Is it an elaborate ploy to deceive people?

I still maintain that it's more about money than any other factor, and something more having to do with, for lack of a better way of putting it, morphic resonance.

[Vinnie From Indy]

66. LOL! Stop your killing me!

You write,
"No one ever gives an appropriate answer to the question about the perception of the right that the media is almost entirely left. Why do they think this? Is it an elaborate ploy to deceive people?"

LOL! Ok! I'll play. Which right wingers are we talking about here?

Do you mean extreme right wingers like Limbaugh that bellow each and every day that the media is "liberal" on the 400+ radio stations that catapult his hate filled rantings like feces all over America?

Are you referring to Hannity, Savage, Tweety, Sacrborough, Kristol, Cavuto, Lelsie Blitzer, Daryn Kagen, Judith Miller, Ben Domenech, Novacula, Tucker Carlson, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham...

(twenty minutes later)

...Fred Hiatt, Bill Keller, Gannett, Mistuh Howie Kurtz, Jeff Gannon/Guckert, Clear Channel, GE etc etc etc

OR

Are you referring to the millions of right wingers that consume this BS and are too stupid to know they are being played for suckers, marks and fools?

OR

are you referring to the hordes of fundie Christian-American talibanistas that call the media "liberal" because they long for the 14th century and the coming rapture?


In summation, there are always two sides to any issue, but it is not a given that both sides have some truth to them. When Galileo wrote that the earth revolved around the sun, his view was heretical. The common thinking of the day, as imposed by the Catholic Church, was the opposite. One needed only to observe the sky closely to see that Galileo was correct. There was no truth to the view held by the vast majority of people at that time. The issue of balance and fairness in the media is the same. One need only observe the actions of the corporate media in regard to BushCo., Clinton etc. to see that the vast majority of media in America is performing their functions in the service of the right wing, corporate power structure. Just as the Catholic Church imposed it's incorrect, self-serving view of an earth centered universe, the vast right wing media apparatus of modern America, comprised of guys like Limbaugh, Hannity etc. attempts to impose it's incorrect, self serving view that the media is "liberal".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Exactly.

[papau]

52. I agree - and anything patriotic - like General speak - gets air time

The boards of the five companies that run 95% of US media are quite RW.

The way to get ahead is to be like your RW producer boss/editor.

The pressure to write RW spin is therefore constant.

The billionaires have pissed $50 million down the tube each year in order to keep Russ on Air - profits are not number one - at least not always.

Much is treated like a football franchise - the prestige of owning and the power among peers is a bit more important than profit.

[Deja Q]

3. They are corporate. They ARE slanted right wing in some things...

And left-wing in others.

But just enough to make left wingers look bad.

[cali]

6. That makes

little sense. It's facile and you don't put an argument behind it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. LOL!

"Seldom right, but never in doubt"

You really like that word "facile" don't you?

Do you think the media has treated the Bush presidency and Clinton presidency the same?

Do you think that the media treated Bush and Kerry the same during the '04 election?

Do you think there are equally as many extreme left wingers on AM radio as there are extreme right wingers?

What percentage of total media in America do you think is controlled by just eight corporate conglomerates?

Do you know what "quid pro quo" means?

Have you ever read http://mediamatters.org/ ?

Actually, I find your predilection to constantly scold all of us on DU somewhat amusing! Salute!

[Atman]

68. I wasn't gonna touch that one, Vinnie!

"Actually, I find your predilection to constantly scold all of us on DU somewhat amusing! Salute!"


But since you did for me...thanks!


Cali often doesn't seem to like being here at all. It is almost a given that if I open a cali post, it will be about how wrong everyone on DU is about everything.

[demgurl]

121. Atman, is it a coincidence that we seem to be observing the same thing?

I think not!

I find that instead of asking us to prove our point, a lot of times we should be asking someone to prove theirs. So, Cali, prove how liberal our media is. I will even help you a little. Someone posted a nice long list of right wing talk show hosts above, why not give us a list of left winger show hosts? (not including AAR)

Yes, they are featuring information about the generals and I am not sure why but I do notice some of the biggest things, things that should be splashed over every front page, are ignored. For instance, I dare you to come up with 5 known US papers that reported, front page, that Bush lied when he said that Saddam would not let inspectors into Iraq.

It constantly boggles my mind how much information is out there and even if the media starts to pick it up, they drop it just as quickly if it is negative toward the regime.

If the media is so darn liberal, please explain why my husband found a newspaper article that heralded how * won the election but buried way down it said that when all votes were tabulated Gore actually won. If the media was liberal do you not think that this would have been front page and certainly not under the title that * won the election?

If the media is so liberal how come the only story we see changed is anything against the * regime? We have, more than once, noted one article and then we keep taking screen shots as they change it until it becomes something that is not even a story any more.

How come a lot of us go outside of the US to get the news? Why does the news against our government appear to be censored but only in our country? Does that sound liberal?

What about the * regime paying news people to report and support the regime's point of view or their programs? If they were liberal would they be accepting all that money to report propaganda?

Those are a few places you can start. I am especially eager to see the long list of liberal media people versus what was mentioned above. Perhaps if you research and answer my questions then you will then have a different take on your question.

[bigtree]

4. just because a story or two breaks through it doesn't mean they're fair

or not controlled by the right wing. Overall I think it's been proven that there's a right wing bias. I'm not going to do the digging though. I trust my own eyes and ears, and I proclaim the media is controlled by the right, who just happen to comprise the majority of corporatists. Pursuit of money isn't restricted to the right, but it's their main thing. it's what they do the best. I don't see how anyone can look at the agendas of the right and left and not conclude that the republican party is mainly about getting more money for the wealthy and corporations and preserving that wealth at the expense of everyone else. They say as much when they tout their, 'free' market, trickle-down policies.

Some truth does break through, but it's almost always squashed or explained away by the shills. We almost never see our activists with a media platform. They're often treated like special interests even though they represent a majority opinion, like the anti- war activists. So, I guess we see what we want to see. I think the evidence suggests a different picture than you paint. however.

[cali]

7. By dint of circumstance

I've known quite a few media bigwigs. They don't fit so easily into your conception of corporatists. I knew the CEO of one of the major media outlets quite well. He was a liberal democrat and not wholly owned by his board.

[linazelle]

38. Just because you know A CEO doesn't mean that you understand

the media. CEO's are run by owners of companies--they aren't the owners. The owners of these conglomerates OWE the right wing for their existence and just as there are probably a majority of left wing journalists, the fact that they are left wing has no bearing if they are told to report right wing news.

[cali]

45. Gee, maybe I've talked

with him about this subject? Look, I'm all saying is it's more complex than we recognize. But here's a question for you: If left wing jounalists are marching to the tune of the right when it comes to reporting the news, why don't we see more articles about this in serious journalism reviews? Keep in mind these are definitely not right wing mouthpieces.

[papau]

55. fair and balanced only goes as far as it stops you from getting a job

serious journalism reviews have an eye out for the next job.

And there are indeed a few articles published that mention the slant to the right. Even a few that discuss headline writing where heavy RW spin in headline is followed by a fair article with the editor's only evil being the moving of positive for the left material to the end of the article.

[Klukie]

5. I couldn't agree more.

I think that at times things are said here simply because they are pc for this forum. It is interesting to me that so many here engage in the so called rightwing media. I watch all news
and then I make up my own mind.

[linazelle]

28. Anybody who watches news full of omitted facts and then "makes up their

own mind" is deluded. You cannot make up your mind about issues that aren't even being aired without doing research elsewhere. It is the job of the peoples' media to provide this information but they do not. In some places other than here, it is "PC" to deny that the media is slanted to the right as well. Hmmmmm.

[Klukie]

32. I never said that I didn't do research elsewhere.

I am here aren't I?

[Olney Blue]

8. It's all about the money.

[linazelle]

30. No it is not--it is about control and quid pro quo

The attack media will exist as long as they report in favor of the reich. Period.

[Olney Blue]

54. Does that include a Democratic "reich"?

[linazelle]

57. I don't understand your question? Please explain further. nt

[Olney Blue]

61. I'm just wondering if you meant "reich" in general terms

(as in whoever had political power-GOP or Dems) or whether you were specifying the current administration (and
associated corporatists).

[Klukie]

70. Great question!

[baldguy]

9. It's not driven by pure profit.

There's a certain number of people in this country - say 20% - that believe with all their heart that George W Bush is the second coming of Christ. They are who 99% of the talk radio, news editorials & "discussion" shows are targeted too.

There are at least as many or more who believe that Bush is the second coming of Richard Nixon - or worse. Simple economics would dictate that market forces would allow these people's interests would be represented in the media. WHERE ARE THEY?

[joeunderdog]

10. Read Blinded by the Right.

The RW and the media are the same. The corporations own politics, not the other way around.

Sure they endorsed Kerry, but did they run any "Stolen Election" articles. Coulda sold a bunch of newspapers there, wouldn't ya think?

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. Bingo!

The American political system has been acquired by corporate money just as the media has been acquired. The media now acts merely as the PR department and damage control for the corporate interests that have seized complete power in America. The GOP is just a brand name that they are using to get what they want.

[brentspeak]

58. You're assuming that 2004 WAS stolen

It's a tin-foil hat theory to say "the election was stolen", when there's no proof. What the media should have done was run front page stories on the Warren Cty lockdown: Why did Kenneth Blackwell say that he received warnings from the FBI of a possible terror attack on the Warren Cty building when in fact the FBI never said that?

Again, that's not proof the election was stolen, but it's something that should have been screamed about the papers, and forced Blackwell's feet into the fire.

[omega minimo]

82. .

:puke:

[joeunderdog]

93. Proof like SwiftBoat or OJ or Clinton State Troopers? Yeah, right.

That's just the bullshit excuse. The media ostensibly only needs a STORY, not proof...unless of course they don't want to stimulate interest on a particular topic, like say, Election Fraud. See, because if they keep their Bitches in office, they can make more money (Read: OIL, Big Pharm, Defense, Energy.) Politics are money laundering for Big Biz. We get you in office, and you maximize our profits. It's like the Mafia, only more profitable and no one goes to jail.

[Montauk6]

116. Or Fostergate or Travelgate or Whitewater...

[AllieB]

99. I suggest you pick up Mark Crispin Miller's new book

"Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too"

I used to dismiss the stolen 2004 election as tinfoil too, but I've seen too much hard information to think it wasn't stolen.

[CJCRANE]

119. The Clintons

summed this up quite well.

Hillary of course is famous for referring to the "vast right wing conspiracy"
but apparently Bill once said "the media IS the government".

[BlackHeart]

11. I agree with you

as proof go hang out at some right wing web-site and listen to them complain about the "slanted left wing media'. If both sides are screaming they must be doing something correct.

[Klukie]

39. Well said!

[cally]

40. No, both sides screaming does NOT mean they are doing something correct

The best denunciation of this argument is when John Stewart appeared on crossfire. The now defunct show was based on a screaming match where the loudest and most shill got the most air time and credence. There was no fact checking or ability to make sure a person was just spouting lies. So, the RW got away with the lies.

Gore has also written and talked about the error in this argument. In essence, the media has a responsibility to fact check. When they only base their reporting on who complains and smugly think it's OK if both sides are complaining, they open themselves up to organized attacks. The media's responsibility is to fact check and report the truth.

The RW has a documented strategy that's worked well to denounce the media as leftwing. They've purposefully created the myth that the media is biased towards the left. They organized attacks against the media. That doesn't make their attacks true, just loud and effective. The media must filter out complaints and not dismiss them as OK since both sides are angry.

[rock]

12. They are first and foremost entertainment

Whatever draws the biggest audience. Conservatives are much more radical than Democrats, thus better "news".

[unblock]

13. i agree that it's more complicated. but simplifying isn't always bad.

it's true that there are individuals in very senior positions who are not right wingers.
it's also true that the motives of the media outlets are heavily (though not entirely) profit-oriented.

but the more subtle and complex understanding of the media might not be all that far removed from just thinking of it as a right-wing organ.

for instance, they want to be build a loyal customer base, and be provoctive but to avoid alienating people to the point of losing their audience. they have found that right-wing sensationalism tends to accomplish this, whereas left-wing sensationalism bring in a ton of attacks from the right-wingers. perhaps this is the right-wing political machine playing the media like a fiddle, but the result is that the media leans to the right.

of course i'm even simplifying that, but i'm sure you know much more about it than i do.

the point is, unless you want to talk about building a political machine capable of manipulating the media in our direction as much as the right-wingers have to manipulate it the their direction, then the simplification that it's simply a right-wing organ serves just as well.

[trotsky]

14. Almost completely agree.

But I would add one factor - the media leans right because Republicans are better for their bottom line.

CBS chairman Sumner Redstone even admitted it:

The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669

[Boojatta]

24. Aren't there a variety of different kinds of regulations?

the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Is Viacom now able to dismiss any employee without cause and without notice and without any financial compensation beyond wages for hours already worked?

Did the old phone company push for deregulation of the long-distance market on the grounds that such deregulation would be "better for their bottom line"?

Does Howard Stern prefer the Republican approach to management of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

[trotsky]

48. I think he was referring in particular to the abolishment of laws...

preventing media consolidation. The Repukes started pushing that under Clinton (and he deserves a good deal of blame for signing it).

[wtmusic]

107. Meet the New School GOP

Is Viacom now able to dismiss any employee without cause and without notice and without any financial compensation beyond wages for hours already worked?

Give them time--they're working on it.

Did the old phone company push for deregulation of the long-distance market on the grounds that such deregulation would be "better for their bottom line"?

Old School Republicans are a different animal. How many industries has W deregulated as President?

Does Howard Stern prefer the Republican approach to management of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

Howard Stern is a gnat in the grand scheme. In the battle of fundie morals vs. Howard Stern and Janet Jackson's breast, there was never any contest.

[Boojatta]

124. Okay, maybe Howard Stern is a gnat, but he was just an example.

The general question is: "Is the Republican party likely to favor a move towards softening regulatory restrictions on content?"

[wtmusic]

125. Doesn't matter

Regulatory restrictions on content would affect every corporation the same way.

Largely thanks to the Bush administration corporations contribute a miniscule 17% of the tax collected by the IRS (for comparison, in 1974 it was 44%). Redstone is being disingenuous by suggesting that "deregulation" has anything to do with his glowing Valentine of an endorsement. It is slashing their required tax contribution and blind indifference to antitrust enforcement (by which Viacom handily eliminates competition) that allow bloated monopolies like his to survive.

[Boojatta]

126. Maybe this discussion should be between wtmusic and trotsky?

Redstone is being disingenuous by suggesting that "deregulation" has anything to do with his glowing Valentine of an endorsement. It is slashing their required tax contribution and blind indifference to antitrust enforcement (by which Viacom handily eliminates competition) that allow bloated monopolies like his to survive.

Do you mean eliminates by buying them? What competitive advantage does Viacom have over smaller, more flexible competitors?

Did the slashing of the required tax contribution help Viacom more than it helps Viacom's competitors?

[wtmusic]

128. What advantage does a monopoly enjoy?

Ask the marketers of thousands of products (many superior) which have challenged Microsoft over the years. Whether the competition is gobbled up or stepped on doesn't particularly matter--as long as it is no longer a challenge.

All lowering Viacom's taxes does is help their bottom line, but it does so substantially. And Redstone undoubtedly pockets millions in stock dividends annually because of it.

[dogday]

18. The Bush Spin Machine is out in full force

Now they are dragging out Generals to contradict the statements.. They are hard at work trying to spin this as a few discontented Generals.. Do people realize what these Generals risk by coming forward??

[Squeech]

19. Plenty of blame to go around

First of all, there's an article by David Podvin you should read, I think it's on the website www.makethemaccountable.com. The basic story is that "Neutron" Jack Welch at General Electric bought up NBC initially as an investment property, and to suppress stories about GE's illegal midnight dumping of hazardous waste. But then he and Rove came to an understanding that, should NBC help Shrubbie win, then they'd get the FCC to relax the rules and media properties would become more profitable. In the 2000 election season there was precisely one broadcast that was critical of Bush, written and delivered by Claire Shipman-- who was subsequently fired, by Tom Brokaw himself. Asked to comment, Brokaw just said, "Jack Welch is a very intelligent man, and he signs my paychecks."

Moreover, note that within the above, I stated that media properties were profitable and growing more so. This is also true of newspapers, despite all their known problems, especially competition from the electronic media-- the current figure is said to be about 19% return on equity, which is twice as good as the average for all American industry. I think (although I have no hard evidence) that one feature that makes them profitable is when they can offer themselves as part of a package with the other media, that when a company like NBC or Clear Channel can offer advertisers some sort of coordinated deal of "serious" ads (or coverage) in print along with a more populist TV version.

Now, it may be true that the NY Times isn't explicitly right wing, but no way is it fair and balanced. They printed every ginned-up Clinton "scandal," every leak out of Ken Starr's sieve of an office, above the fold on page one, and when they even deigned to run corrections, buried them on page A19. Then there were the reasons Judy Miller referred to herself as Little Miss Runamuck. It's been known for a long time that newspapers like the sales boost wars generate-- the guy they named the Pulitzer Prize after once famously told his star photographer, "You supply the pictures, and I'll supply the war." And maybe by itself that accounts for Miller's role as the Ahmed Chalabi News Service-- but when you throw in how the Times also knew about the NSA eavesdropping program a year or more before they deigned to report it, plus the way they buried all the stories of Florida 2000, plus the editorial stance of every columnist not named "Krugman," it's hard to see their behavior as just a non-partisan scramble for hot scoops.

To answer your specific question of why the generals dissing Rumsfeld is getting so much play now, here's my theory. The coalition that put the Republicans in power consists, I think, of three distinct interest groups: the corporate oligarchy, the leftover cold warriors in the PNAC, and of course the religious right. At this point the coalition is starting to fray, especially as the corporatists see their profitability at risk from some of the wackier ideas of the other two groups: an additional war on top of the Iraq debacle will probably cause a recession, not to mention that the most extreme Christopaths are working pretty explicitly for Armageddon, which will decidedly impact the bottom line. (Plus, now that Dubya's been exposed as a lame duck, who cares what he thinks.) So this is an instance where you're right that the ideology of the media is explicitly corporatist, but that still makes it a fellow traveller with the VRWC.

[Boojatta]

25. Do you subscribe to a newspaper that features corrections prominently?

Ideally, I would like each correction to be not only prominent in one issue, but also repeated for a solid month followed by a monthly reminder, for twelve months, on the first day of every month.

and when they even deigned to run corrections, buried them on page A19.

[Squeech]

33. What they said

Do you remember this one? Some prominent European business organ, the Economist or the Financial Times or one of them, ran a "correction" that said something like "We reported that George W. Bush won the 2000 election for the presidency of the United States. This may have been in error." :rofl:

[Uncle Joe]

85. I read an article somewhere that stated the CEO or owner of G.E

pressured NBC to call Florida for Bush while it was still in dispute election night of 2000.

[Orangepeel]

21. not all media is right wing, but there is a right wing media

IMO, the problem is that there is a well funded, relatively well coordinated right wing media effort that is unmatched on the left. It includes Limbaugh, Drudge, much of fox news, etc. Stupid, trivial, anti-Dem stories get picked up and pushed by them until the legitimate media feels forced to report them like they were real news (all the Clinton stuff and the Kerry smears, for example).

There's nothing comparable on the left.

[Boojatta]

29. "the legitimate media feels forced to report them"

If you and ten people choose one particular topic that is not covered and launch a coordinated campaign, by letter, email, and phone call, asking one particular "legitimate" media organization to cover that topic, then will that organization "feel forced to" cover the topic?

[Orangepeel]

56. probably not, unfortunately

reporters are people, subject to the same herd mentality issues and personal insecurities as everyone else. If "others" are reporting a story, it's a story.

We can fight against the system and complain that the media doesn't cover the stories we want them to, or we can try to play within it and get the media to cover those stories. Air America and left wing bloggers are a good start, but we just aren't as good as it as the republicans (hopefully adding a "yet" to the end of that sentence)

[dailykoff]

23. World's oldest profession.

Their prices are low and you can count on wall-to-wall swiftboating of anybody who threatens to clean up their corner.

[linazelle]

26. Generals criticizing the war getting air time ... so did Cynthia McKinney

It's not who gets airtime, it's what happens when airtime is provided. The generals are aired for two minutes, and the other 24 hours right wing talk hosts tear them down,naysay, omit and lie.

Cynthia McKinney's incident was aired around the clock--and the full story was never provided...just the damning parts and incessant criticism. ANY negative issue associated with democrats is aired and that includes criticism. Negatives about republicans are seldom aired and when they are aired, the facts are skimmed over--the dots are not connected. Contrast that with Bill Clinton's media who dogged him for years. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that people wanted to see Bill Clinton hounded? He was the most popular president ever just as Bush is the least, and yet their press is the exact opposite of their popularity.

Positive issues have been ignored regarding liberals for six years now. The right wing attack media personalities continually make up lies, omit facts and mislead people regarding the democratic agenda. All you have to do is look at media matters to see that, or just look at tv. period.

As for what people want to see, that is absolute bullshit. Who are these people who profess to know what people want to see and who are assured that they are providing what people want to see when they have not varied their format to actually see if there is a difference? People want the truth and to suggest that people want to see something else instead of the truth is absurd.

I listened to ABCs' newsradio general manager take questions from the public during the migration to 100% right wing format. Callers asked why they were so biased. The GM said they DON'T CARE about balance, they provide what they provide because they believe that is what their listeners want. They lost a considerable share of their market by going all right wing and still the claim that is what their listeners want. Well, maybe some listeners do want that, but their loss of market share proves your theory is untrue.

[Squeech]

31. Yup

Market share is demonstrably not the reason. When MSNBC shitcanned Phil Donohue, he had the highest Nielsen ratings, by a substantial margin, of any of their shows. In media markets where they really compete, Air America usually outdraws Rush Limbaugh.

When confronted with this fact, true believers in Market Forces, if they're intellectually honest (and that's a humongous IF), will probably mumble something about how the creeping socialism on the Left is perceived to be uncongenial to advertisers. (Meanwhile note how many of Limbaugh's sponsors sell penis pills and other quackery that would be *illegal* if we had a functioning FTC.)

[Boojatta]

36. Have you made any money selling books and articles by Chomsky about

East Timor to people in Indonesia? Is there too much competition?
Are there already a variety of high quality translations of those books and articles into Bahasa Indonesia, other forms of the Malay language, and Javanese?

People want the truth and to suggest that people want to see something else instead of the truth is absurd.

[Donkeykick]

27. Well...

The newspaper business is different. Newspapers are losing market share at a rapid pace. Take a look at the profits of the major dailies in this country. In any case, it's simply not true to assert that the print media is dominated by a right wing culture.

it is here that I think that you're wrong. The newspapers are controlled by the elite in this country. They do not wish to cover the political aspects of the Bush administration, like they should, so they choose to print special interest stories in place of them.

What can I say? The public is catching on to newspapers. I can also see this happening a lot in some of the news channels. :shrug:

[linazelle]

34. The fact the newspaper readership is down has nothing to do with RW

coverage. Those papers are owned by the right and they also omit the very same news that television does. TV and newspaper market potential is the same--it's just that America has become so damned dumb, most of the high school drop outs that have been manufactured can barely read a newspaper or engage in critical thinking. Also, at least twenty years ago, it was predicted that newspaper readership would drop as the population of readers aged and the younger generation came of age. It's turned out to be true just like the predictions twenty years ago that manufacturing jobs would go overseas.

I was solicited for a newspaper subscription the other day. They called after Libby outed Bush. I asked the solicitor what was on the front page of their newspaper that day. It wasn't the story of the most egregious crime committed by a president in years. I told him to call me back when their paper starts actually reporting the news. He told me that he reads the paper for the coupons and the funnies and suggested that I do the same. I told him no thanks.

[WiseButAngrySara]

35. K & R & thanks for the opposing view. It somewhat cures my paranoia...n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

44. Never mind r.e. by previous comment. I posted before I read the rest of

the thread, and I'm now back to paranoia. Just looking at the vast difference in the way Clinton was treated by these biased media b*tards (all the while, screaming about a 'liberal press') and the way * has literally gotten away with murder, and the fact that the media rarely reports and follows up on anything negative, makes me simply not believe what your original post contends. The media is biased, and it is biased for the right-wing corporations, and the BFEE. Plain and simple. Look at the burying of personal history of B*Co. and his family members! If this had been Clinton's family, don't you believe that the media would have been all over it? He received relentless coverage and impeachment for NONIMPEACHABLE offenses, retrospectively. What Georgie has done in comparison to Clinton, makes Clinton's folly look like just what it was--child's play!

[onenote]

37. i agree

The one obvious case of "right wing" media is FoxNews; but their existence basically proves Cali's point. First, they are motivated by both politics and money. They are very successful playing to a RW audience, so they do so. The fact that nothing has emerged on the left to be comparable is interesting and may say something about how economics and politics intersect in this country. Second, if all of the media toed the same RW line as Fox, there would be virtually no news critical of the administration or the war -- compare FoxNews to virtually any other outlet. They are the last to report anything that reflects critically on the administration or the GOP in general. That they do so at all is as much forced on them by the reporting of other outlets (they have to report it to spin it); without those outlets, information would simply be buried.

The media is a business. Its run as a business and there is little journalistic independence anymore. But that's not the same as taking direction from Rove.

onenote

[Atman]

41. See post #22

I think Cali's explanation is more simplistic than the "simplistic" charge she levels.

[onehandle]

42. There are certain news outlets that do have close ties with the GOP, but..

...for the most part, you are correct. The corporate media in the end, wants to attract readers and viewers, any way they can.

Don't patronize the advertisers of media that play this corporate game. Tell their advertisers what news stories, trends in news, and news that should be reported, that keep you from buying their product. I'm not talking about the mega-companies like GE, they don't give a shit. Concentrate on medium-large, medium, and smaller companies. They can't afford to lose your business and waste money on useless ads.

[Joe Fields]

46. Obvously, you haven't seen who sits on the ........

board of directors at these media conglomerates. Look it up. You may change your mind.

[cally]

47. Please take a look at the viewership and interest

on the shows on Aruba girl or the runaway bride. Polls and viewership show that the public is not that interested in those stories yet the cable 'news' keeps focusing on them. It's not about profit but filling airtime with non-controversial stories that don't anger their corporate advertisers. It's OK with the corporate advertisers to trash a Democratic President but not to question a Republican machine that's giving them tax breaks and federal giveaways.

Many media have admitted that their stories questioning this administration have been pulled or edited. The swiftboat ads were given endless free airtime and destroyed Kerry's campaign. Rather was fired and the awol story was never fully investigated nor reported. The NYTimes reporters say that their story on spying was ready to run and the Times chose not to report it until they were telling the story in a book.

With the * administration in a freefall, media will now start reporting some of these stories. They have no choice in order to maintain any credibility. That's why they are now reporting the General's criticism.

[The Doctor.]

90. That sounds right.

Except Rather wasn't 'fired'.

The media inversion will come when Democrats start promising more to the corporations that own the media.
There must be a way to fix this.

I cannot entirely agree with cali here.

[leftofthedial]

49. you are right that it is a complex situation

when we naive progressives try to understand the vast array of right wing forces that the ruling oligarchs have mobilized to mislead and control us, we are like the blind men examining the elephant (it's a snake! it's a tree! it's a hippopotamus!).

Make no mistake though that all these forces are anti-progressive. Corporations are anti-progressive. It does not much matter whether the corporations are the head, the tail or the legs; we're still being trampled by an out-of-control elephant. The media has been massively infiltrated by national security organizations (among the most right wing entities on earth) and by the repuke party and their think tanks. Fox News is the most blatantly egregiously right wing, but all are to some degree. The generals do not represent a left or progressive view; they are simply one right wing faction disagreeing with another. Watergate is another example--it was not a triumph of progressive justice over right-wing corruption. It was an internal fight between the old-school fiscal conservative repukes (country club repukes) and the new-order social conservative repukes (neocons).

It's not like the corporate media is giving air to Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky.

The Fairness Doctrine (as part of massive campaign reform if possible) would be terrific. We need to end the insanity that is corporatism/unfettered capitalism. It is literally institutionalized psychosis.

[Rex]

50. It's all about who will pay the most for MSM propaganda.

The 'media' is very much so controlled by the Right; look at the difference in how the media has handled Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidency. Media corporations, by and large, are controlled by the Right because of economic factors.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. It is not a Myth! WrongWing Corporations are in Control of MSM and all

you have to do is to listen to their news whores to know it is so. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Also remember, the big money for these WrongWing Corporatists is not in the "news". In fact, they lose money on that end, but what it does do is make way for its agenda on their profit making, power controling businesses that are marching us into Fascism.

[pearl]

53. General Electric

Even programs with bad ratings on all of GENBC/Univeral
don't get cancelled. If you pull back the curtain on All of
their programs.

Meet the Press- Big Sponsor Boeing.
I guess that means his targeted audience are people who buy
large planes. Their programing has nothing to do with ratings,
ie. sponsors = money. No, their agenda is War Profiteering.

[NJCher]

59. quantitative studies show a bias to the right

There are plenty of studies that show the media gives more air time to the right than the left. Here's just one but there are many others:

In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many right-tilted panels as left-tilted panels.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002




Cher

[bigtree]

64. one of many

this is a good one. I can't believe the op didn't realize these were out there. I don't think the anecdotal query holds up to these studies. They are comprehensive. The op offers nothing but emperical observations and one relationship with a CEO.

As I said though, it looks to me like freeps rule TV news and are over-represented in other media.

[Toucano]

77. And that study assumes Democrats actually "left"

If you subtract he "helper monkey" Democrats, it's even more biased.

I think a lot of the "left" in the United States can no longer even recognize the right-wing candy they're being fed.

[last1standing]

60. You're essentially right, but you don't dig deep enough.

Politics plays a large part in any corporate structure such as Exxon, Walmart, or GE. Taking GE as the example, they are a conglomerate of businesses ranging from lighting to heavy armaments. One of their many subsidiaries is NBC, the National Broadcast Company. The directors of GE really do have one agenda and that is to create profits for their stockholders. To do this they must find ways of selling their products in any way possible. One route they take is by spending millions each year lobbying congress and the white house. Another way they do this is by using synergy, a process by which one subsidiary helps the others. GE uses this to great effect by skewing their political coverage to those they feel are willing to provide them with the most business. In GE's case that would be their armaments and medical supplies businesses.

One anecdote that just about everyone here will remember is when during the election of 2000, Jack Welch, the CEO of GE sat in the newsroom of NBC during the results coverage. As the night wore on and no winner was announced, an exascerbated Welch finally cried, "Will someone just call this for bush?"* It soon was.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=23

Yes, this is just one example of political interference by a media corporation, however, the evidence exists for all of the five major companies that control over 90% of the infomation in this country that most of them lean heavily to the republican party as they find them more accomodating for their desires. Is that rightwing or leftwing, no. It's pure corporate greed that runs rampant in the USA. However, when the desires of the corporations dovetail with those of the religious and the authoritarian right, then we can rightly call these corporations "rightwing".

I hope this helps explain why so many here, and elsewhere, complain about the "rightwing" bias of the media.


*I couldn't find the actual quote but there are many sites that will back up the gist of that quoted statement.

[IChing]

62. Have you followed what is happening to the Village Voice?

And local independent weekly news magazines?

Sure it is corporate but much more than that.
I think they are trying to create "group think" and don't argue it is just easier, journalist see the danger of
this autocratic news trend. Wake up and smell the fascism. In Europe you know that this paper is liberal or that paper is conservative
there is no distinction here. One source for all stories is gonna be a dangerous and ignorant proposition for the populous.

" a unnamed pentagon spokesman said" " someone close to the administration says"

"There is no proof that corporate interest in control of ALL of the MEDIA is right wing..."

But tell me when was corporate interest ever in the interest of liberals or left wing?



Village Voice Shakeup: Top Investigative Journalist Fired, Prize-Winning Writers Resign Following Merger with New Times Media

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/13/145245

[IChing]

67. "I don't see how ANYBODY can buy into this"

It seems you needed to say "some people "vs a totality which excludes anyone thinking outside of your box.

[MGKrebs]

63. I agree, and so what if there is a RW media bias anyway?

What are we supposed to do, ban or limit the "right wing"'s media holdings? No, the idea that the RW might dominate the media is a SYMPTOM, the problem must be addressed otherwise I would think.

[Beetwasher]

65. Wrong, The Media is Infiltrated by RIGHTWING OPERATIVES

Such as Judy Miller at the NYT. She's just one that we know about it. There's nothing even close to being comparable on the left. She HAS an agenda in pushing rightwing propoganda. Is the NYT itself a RW propoganda outlet? Not as blatant as Fox news, but they certainly allow RW operatives to do their thing there. Bumiller still works there, have you read her tripe? How does an editor let her egregiously slanted stories get printed? You would NEVER see a supposed objective news story get printed in the NYT that was slanted left the way Bumiller's are slanted right. The Ed pages, yes, they have left leaning contributors, but it's clearly labelled Editorial. Only the right gets away with shoddy "journalism" in the NYT and is able to push their propoganda as supposed objective news stories. During Clinton's term you'd find a scandal story every day for weeks in the NYT regarding the BJ scandal. Is Plame in the NYT everyday? Are the treatment of Clinton and Bush by the Media even CLOSE to being comparable? Seriously, if you think so, you're deluded.

Fox News IS essentially a propoganda arm of the WH. Nothing even close to being comparable on the left.

The left has no agenda or operatives or blatant propoganda outlets that the right has. Objective, fair media outlets w/ no agenda are labelled "left". That's bullshit.

[converted_democrat]

101. Good post. n/t

[stepnw1f]

69. Sureeeee

I disagree with you.

[WilliamPitt]

71. The media doesn't help the Republicans?

There is a large amount of data below, so I am going to summarize at the top of this post and let folks scroll down to check my summary against the data. The information below is up to date as of 3/28/06

1. General Electric: this is one of the larger defense contractors in America. Their primary focus is on the production of engines for military aircraft such as the F101, the F103/CF6, the F108, the F110, the F118, the F136, the F404, the F414, the J79, the J85, the LV100, the T58, the T64, the T700/CT7, the TF34 and the TF39. They are the leader in developing technology for aerial drones and unmanned military aircraft. General Electric is also deeply involved in financial services, the lending indistry and commercial services to corporate America.

2. AOL/TimeWarner: Though the "AOL" has been dropped from the corporate title, the computer company is still very much a core part of this media giant. Some quick AOL stats: 26 million members in the U.S. and Europe, as of September 2005; 110 million domestic unique monthly users of the AOL service and its network of Web properties, as of September 2005; 2.5 billion Instant Messages sent across AOL's messaging networks (AIM and ICQ) each day, as of September 2005. The amount and cost of this technological base has required AOL/TimeWarner to do significant outsourcing to India.

3. News Corporation: Little needs to be said here. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, and its flagship Fox News, is an ancillary wing of the Republican Party. Anyone who questions this may contact me for a bridge I have to sell.

SUMMARY: General Electric gets paid for war, and so its media companies cannot be trusted to report accurately on what is happening in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. AOL/TimeWarner needs outsourcing to sustain its bloated technological infrastructure, and so its media companies cannot be trusted to report accurately on the effect of outsourcing on American labor and the cost benefits of outsourcing for corporations. Murdoch just wants to help Republicans, but his vast media holdings affect every other media company.

The Bush administration's main interests are war, privatization and corporate hegemony. They are financially supported by military contractors and large corporations that practice outsourcing while screwing the American worker. General Electric, AOL/TimeWarner and News Corporation have a stranglehold on national and international news distribution. The manner in which they slant the news assists their own interests, and their own interests dovetail seamlessly with the Bush administration. Ergo, the media helps the Repoublicans. Q.E.D.

Now, take a long look at the reach these three companies have. When people don't understand how so many can support Bush and his policies, they need only look below. This is where their "information" is coming from.

=====

General Electric Holdings

NBC Universal (80%-owned by GE, 20% controlled by Vivendi Universal)

NBC Stations:

WNBC - New York
KNBC - Los Angeles
WMAQ - Chicago
WCAU - Philadelphia
KNTV - San Jose/San Francisco
KXAS - Dallas/Fort Worth
WRC - Washington
WTVJ - Miami
KNSD - San Diego
WVIT - Hartford
WNCN - Raleigh
WCMH - Columbus
WVTM - Birmingham
WJAR - Providence

Telemundo Stations:

KVEA/KWHY - Los Angeles
WNJU - New York
WSCV - Miami
KTMD - Houston
WSNS - Chicago
KXTX - Dallas/Fort Worth
KVDA - San Antonio
KSTS - San Jose/San Francisco
KDRX - Phoenix
KNSO - Fresno
KMAS - Denver
WNEU - Boston/Merrimack
KHRR - Tucson
WKAQ - Puerto Rico

NBC Universal Television Studio
NBC Universal Television Distribution

CNBC
MSNBC
Bravo
Mun2TV
Sci-Fi
Trio
USA

Other:

Paxson Communications (30%)

Other General Electric Businesses:

GE Aircraft Engines
GE Commercial Finance
GE Consumer Products
GE Industrial Systems
GE Insurance
GE Medical Systems
GE Plastics
GE Power Systems
GE Specialty Materials
GE Transportation Systems

----------

AOL/TimeWarner Holdings

Time Warner Book Group:

Warner Books
The Mysterious Press
Warner Vision
Warner Business Books
Aspect
Warner Faith
Warner Treasures
TW Kids
Little, Brown and Company
Little, Brown Adult Trade
Little, Brown Books for Young Readers
Back Bay
Bulfinch Press
Time Warner Book Group UK
Time Warner Audio Books
Time Inc.
Southern Progress Corporation
Sunset Books
Oxmoor House
Leisure Arts

Time Warner - Cable:

HBO
CNN
CNN International
CNN en Espanol
CNN Headline News
CNN Airport Network
CNN fn
CNN Radio
CNN Interactive
Court TV (with Liberty Media)
Time Warner Cable
Road Runner
New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC)
Kablevision (53.75% - cable television in Hungary)
In Demand
Metro Sports (Kansas City)

Time Warner Inc. - Film & TV Production/Distribution:

Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. Studios
Warner Bros. Television (production)
The WB Television Network
Warner Bros. Television Animation
Hanna - Barbera Cartoons
Telepictures Production
Witt - Thomas Productions
Castle Rock Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Warner Bros. Domestic Pay - TV
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution
Warner Bros. International Television Distribution
The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia - Pacific, Australia, Germ.)
Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries)

Time Warner Inc. - Magazines:

Time
Time Asia
Time Atlantic
Time Canada
Time Latin America
Time South Pacific
Time Money
Time For Kids
Fortune
All You
Business 2.0
Life
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated International
SI for Kids
Inside Stuff
Money
Your Company
Your Future
People
Who Weekly (Australian edition)
People en Español
Teen People
Entertainment Weekly
EW Metro
The Ticket
In Style
Southern Living
Progressive Farmer
Southern Accents
Cooking Light
The Parent Group
Parenting
Baby Talk
Baby on the Way
This Old House
Sunset
Sunset Garden Guide
The Health Publishing Group
Health
Hippocrates
Coastal Living
Weight Watchers
Real Simple
Asiaweek (Asian news weekly)
President (Japanese business monthly)
Dancyu (Japanese cooking)
Wallpaper (U.K.)
Field & Stream
Freeze
Golf Magazine
Outdoor Life
Popular Science
Salt Water Sportsman
Ski
Skiing Magazine
Skiing Trade News
SNAP
Snowboard Life
Ride BMX
Today's Homeowner
TransWorld Skateboarding
TransWorld Snowboarding
Verge
Yachting Magazine
Warp

Magazines listed under Warner Brothers label:

DC Comics
Vertigo
Paradox
Milestone
Mad Magazine

Online Services:

CompuServe Interactive Services
AOL Instant Messenger
AOL.com portal
Digital City
AOL Europe
ICQ
The Knot, Inc. - wedding content (8 % with QVC 36% and Hummer WinbladFunds 18%)
MapQuest.com - pending regulatory approval
Spinner.com
Winamp
DrKoop.com (10%)
Legend (49% - Internet service in China)

Time Warner - Online/Other Publishing:

Road Runner
Warner Publisher Services
Time Distribution Services
American Family Publishers (50%)

Entertainment Networks:

TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television (TNT)
Turner South
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network in Europe
Cartoon Network in Latin America

Other:

Netscape Communications
Netscape Netcenter portal
AOL MovieFone
iAmaze
Amazon.com (partial)
Quack.com
Streetmail (partial)
Switchboard (6%)

-----------

News Corporation Holdings

Fox Television Stations

WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St. Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
KTBC - Austin

DBS & Cable:

FOXTEL
BSkyB
Star
DirecTV
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.

Newspapers, United States:

New York Post

United Kingdom:

News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times

Australia:

Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times

Magazines:

InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide (partial)

Books:

HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Access
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Harper Design International
HarperEntertainment
HarperLargePrint
HarperResource
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperTorch
Perennial
PerfectBound
Quill
Rayo
ReganBooks
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Avon
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTempest
Katherine Tegen Books
Trophy
Zondervan
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia

Other:

News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Nursery World
Scout Media

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

[senseandsensibility]

73. Thanks, Will.

Not only do the news corporations benefit monetarily from chimp's tax policies, they benefit from WAR as well. Anyone that thinks that they are not influenced by this is going to OD on the kool-aid very soon.

[vickitulsa]

94. Aaaarrrgggghhh, OMG, and WTF!?!--------

After reading through (almost) your entire post, WP, I'm so depressed I feel like jumping out my window! (Good thing I live on the first floor.)

But still ... this is a nightmare; and, together with some good arguments from other posters in this thread, your post convinces me we Dems have little hope of ever gaining ground in the media. :cry:

Strange thing is, I was close to agreeing with the OP, since I've often wondered why many here at DU seem so certain the RW completely owns all media outlets and skews every smidgeon of their output accordingly. In my own mind, I had to ask: If the RW owns all media, then where are we getting all these news stories we cite day after day, month after month, here at DU? The ones that DO challenge and even attack the present administration, I mean.

Regarding what one poster wrote about some situations being merely one "branch" of the RW opposing and fighting another, I have to say this sort of thing is what has given me hope about the ultimate outcome in our country. It seems obvious to me that what is in the interest of one rich and powerful individual or group is often not in the best interest of certain other rich and powerful individuals or groups, and therefore they are unlikely to ever truly pull together well enough to defeat a concerted, massive effort by Americans to fight hard and get our country back!

[barbtries]

72. spend about a week

checking in with media matters daily...i think you'll change your mind. much of the msm are propagandists for the bushies.

even before i believed the media was partisan, i quit watching the nightly news because i got sick of being told how to feel. just give me the news, please...since bushies took over the country, sites like DU and alternet etcetera are my sources for news. and i'm better informed than probably 99.9% of the people i come into contact with.

[Vinnie From Indy]

74. Welcome!

Glad you could make it!!!! :)

[annabanana]

75. How often have these Generals been identified as having

been "on the ground" in Iraq? How often are they qualified as being "retired" (with the subtext of "irrelevant" implied). Their exposure has been carefully circumscribed.

[Toucano]

76. Your facts are correct, but you draw the wrong conclusion.

"The media is not primarily left or right. It's corporate."

Corporate = Right
Corporate = Status Quo
Corporate = Anti-labor
Corporate = Irrational comsumption

The electronic media has changed DRAMATICALLY in my lifetime, right along with the United States. Remember the dumbing down of America?

Profits of the news sector was once lower on the list of priorities for the networks. They delivered responsible, thoughtful, and fairly neutral reports.

Since the development of CNN, and the media consolidation that followed, profits became the priority. ALL television news is now simply the purveyor of candy.

Are you not alarmed by the number of "news stories" that are simply about consumer products? There are a lot of commercials disguised as news items. Did you notice CNN's recent *incessant* reporting about the Roth IRA? That's a financial PRODUCT they're pitching. IRA's were designed by the right-wing to help undermine the importance of social security and allow their fat cat banking backers to increase profits. Did you notice when the daily reporting of mortgage rates became "news"?

Every single "Money Matters" type report is a product pitch. Every "latest technology" report is a product pitch. Every "lifestyle" type report is a product pitch. Subtract the product pitches, the self-promotion stories, and the sports and entertainment stories, and there's almost NO actual news being reported.

A typical citizen of the US who thinks they're being responsible and well informed by reading corporate newspapers and watching corporate news on television is dangerously ignorant.

The media sets the agenda, tells people what's important. Since the American public can no longer distinguish a news reporter from a carnival barker, the media has set the pro-corporate, and therefore pro-right agenda.

The only solution to turn the tide is to turn the dial. Turn them OFF. The fairness doctrine isn't going to do it.

People who think that "covering" the retired generals who criticized Rummy is evidence of fairness have missed the fact that the coverage alone won't change anything. They can cover a Cindy Sheehan rally, a anti-war protest, or a Bush scandal without fear of actually sparking any outrage of consequence. It's called giving a dog a bone. The dog chews the bone, ignores what's going on around him, and then eagerly awaits the next bone.

[Cell Whitman]

79. The media panders to and accepts right wing propaganda

as credible. You can find examples now after YEARS of eating and pushing lies where they do the right thing but even still they try to give equal time to the lairs - now some have been embarrassed into giving time to the truth. Combine that with the part of the media which is Right Wing dedicated propaganda like FoX news and talk radio you have overt right wing bias in the media.

Fact is you have to look at what actually gets through to the people and the dems could yell "fire" in the theater and no one would hear them let a alone care. We get mad because liberals don't speak up, they do it is just that TV won't cover them and when they do they feel obliged to give propaganda from the right equal time.

The pathetic WP is trying to kiss up to the right, but it's again more about profits than ideology.

Don't buy that at all - the WP has bought into the right wing propaganda and bullying tactics and push the ideology. They didn't hire Domenech for profits alone for sure, they did it because they believe right wing hate speech propaganda is credible and they therefore push it.

Name a cable news channel which is dedicated to push liberal views 24/7. So yes, some of the media is bullied right and some of the media is blatant Pravda. When you put it all together it is a right wing media. Anyone can pull anecdotes and say different but it isn't the whole story.

Most conservatives would tell you they are not into Moon's agenda but they are still his instruments.

Don't give me that Stewart and Olberman "balance" anything out. Both of them will tear down a liberal in flash, they just have Bush as such an obvious target. Olberman's bosses have complained to him ta boot.

And yes it is corporate media, which promotes right wing propaganda.

If we had an honest media they in unison would have called for O'Realy to be fired about this.
I mean the man openly and INTENTIONALLY deceived his viewers and we wonder why 50% of the country still thinks Saddam served the hijackers breakfast on 911.

BO is still on the air after this.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/19/1410214&mode=thread&tid=25

Speaking of that, did you ever hear a series of reports saying that the Saddam/al Quada connection was bullshit? NO they would MAYBE report the poll figure and say someone said it wasn't true but did any of them really attack that lie over and over as it should have been? They pander and cower to lies from the right and that makes them culpable and a right wing enabling media at best.

yet NO ONE cares, they hunker down together until blatant embarrassment FORCES a couple to get in the open with some truth. Think about what has gone down the last five years not the last five days.

Sadly, most people have been so worn down with cult-like information control, the truth has become practically useless.

[omega minimo]

80. .

:puke:

[Cell Whitman]

81. really can't believe we have to fight this fight again HERE

amazing.

[senseandsensibility]

83. Yes the orignial poster has declared the idea of rightwing bias

in corporate news a "myth." Now we should all just shut up and watch CNN, I guess. Weird. I guess it's "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" time.:shrug:

[tatertop]

89. Yep. Here we go again: one step forward, two steps back.

[RagingInMiami]

84. The media is corporate

Corporate falls on the right side of the political spectrum.

The media wants deregulation. The right-wing supports deregulation.

The media wants war to boost up ratings. The right-wing wants war to boost up profits.

The media is right-wing.

[tatertop]

86. Wrong as can be. Elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the rule of 7

were the precursors to the elimination of a free-to-report
media. Rush and Fox are the most glaring examples
of the result.
The right wing stranglehold on the media marches on.

Watch as they serve up bush's insane casus belli
for war on Iran in lockstep.

[BlooInBloo]

87. A lot of it really is conservative tho....

Consider, for example, the remaking of the WaPo to reflect its conservative owner, via the idiot Hiatt.

[Greyhound]

88. Incredibly naive.

To take part in a conspiracy does not require that you are "in on it", only that you participate. You are right that the corporations are not right wing/left wing, they have an agenda to enslave the population of the entire planet, without the traditional liabilities of actually owning slaves.

[Festivito]

91. Wrong, the media is right-wing, corporate, and corrupt as needed.

Your straw-man of it being wholly owned overreaches.
The media are not wholly owned.
However, they are curbed and controlled, when and where they can be.

Oh, the missing white girls do get attention.
But, so would stories the media OMITS.

Scoops are fun,
but, we've had scoops go un-scooped for a long time.
(I don't know why they care about scoops, I don't want a paper based on who gets the incomplete story first. Even on DU I like better the post that took a few more seconds to put together.)

Scoops mattered before the Internet. If it still matters to some, BULLY!

Let's recall some STORIES:
. S&L versus Dem "bank scandal"
. Clinton Pardons
. WH trashing

. S&L cost each of us hundreds of dollars, hundreds of billions in total. Yet, what got press? The Dems were controlling the House bank that paid Congressional salaries and Dems weren't collecting overdraft fees. Gee, we could have netted a couple hundred bucks after hiring someone to watch it and collect the fees. That would be about a millionth of a cent each. Let's see: Not even a penny versus hundreds of dollars. Our media? The less-than-a-penny story against Dems and ... helping guess who... Rs.

. Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. How awful, said the media, over and over again and again. Yet, there was no reason he shouldn't have pardon after he helped with dangerous Middle East assignments. And, he was only pardoned of jail -- which would cost us money -- he had to pay back his unpaid taxes.
MORE: Past presidential pardons were reviewed by our media. Democratic presidential pardons that is. NOT Bush I's! Gee, why is that? Did GHW Bush pardon a plane-bomber or something? Oh, yeah, he did. Oops! An unpaid intern wrote about it, and she was fired. AN UNPAID VOLUNTEER WAS FIRED.
Why media? TOO interesting? Might sell TOO MANY papers?

. White House was trashed by Clinton people after he had left office. Surely pictures were run, well, not really. Just some somewhat neatly stacked folders. Our media kept damaging Dems on page one for days. Oh, and when the Dems asked for an apology, WHAT PAGE DID THAT RUN ON? Hmmm? One day, page .. whatever. A lying scheming WH, well that's not a story worth running. Might sell papers. Yikes!

OR, HOW ABOUT SOME WARNINGS:
Like a president asking just how many agents were put into the inner workings of our nation's media outlets? And, just how many agents did Senator Church miss when he tried to clean our intelligence services?

Simple?
Simply Right Wing.
Not right wing to simpletons maybe.

Be sure to check out Will Pitt's post.

[high density]

92. Fairness doctrine wouldn't help anything at all

As we saw in 2004 election coverage, the media is already trying to do that and this fake "balance" isn't helping anybody. It ends up being that the Rape-ublican side always just lies their asses of while the Democrats try to stay a little bit more honest and get slaughtered. Often there aren't two sides of a story to present (see Iraq) but having something like this would squash even the little tiny bit of honest reporting going on out there.

So in the end the modern day corporate media is an instrument of the right. They love money and profits. They love tax cuts they don't need and deregulation. As such they love and support the Rape-ublicans. Just ask Sumner Redstone, who is supposedly a "liberal Democrat." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669

Sumner Redstone, who calls himself a "liberal Democrat," said he's supporting President Bush.

The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Sharing the stage with Mr. Redstone was Steve Forbes, CEO, president and editor in chief of Forbes and a former Republican presidential aspirant, who quipped: "Obviously you're a very enlightened CEO."

[MGKrebs]

95. I say again: What is the point of those who challenge this?

The media may be right wing right now, but that is because that is where the profit is. The OP is just saying let's recognize the true reason the media is like it is and not be distracted by the symptom. We are unlikely to make any progress changing things until we make that step.

If media could make more profit by being different, they probably would. Otherwise, if we are talking about some sort of regulation to correct things, there is much more liklihood of regulating corporations than there is of regulating the "right wing".

If one were to accept that the media OF COURSE is slanted to the right is to accept the inevitablility of it. Are we also going to say that OF COURSE mainstream Americans are suseptible to media BS and therefore ignore them too? Or is just being able to sit around and whine about the right wing media the end of the story?

[Clarkie1]

96. I love contrarian posts like this - excellent basis for discussion.

It has always amused me how the right-wing blames the "liberal media" for their problems and the left-wing blames the "right-wing" media.

The media will give the American people whatever gets the highest ratings, for the most part. So the root of the difficulty is what the American people want. If the American people want and demand more enlightened, thoughful media, then that is what they will get. It all depends on the values and priorities of the American people, and that starts with education. If we want to change the media, we have to do a better job educating our young people, and demanding all high school students take rigorous civics and media education courses to graduate.

[Mr_Spock]

97. Thanks for the reality check post

You are correct - other than Faux "News", most all media outlets are not deliberately left or right IMHO.

[magellan]

98. The main reason I call the media "right wing"

...is because it's dumbed down and you can't learn anything useful from it. :)

[Jigarotta]

102. propaganda swallowed whole by too many.

dissapointed by those here who think it is not.

[magellan]

103. Regardless of the label applied

...there's no denying that US cable and network news does an abysmal job of keeping the people informed. I don't trust anything I hear from the likes of CNN, etc. While they're busy glossing over facts or sexing up a story for ratings, what's truly important goes unreported.

If I want opinion, I read US editorials. But when I want the news -- real news that's current and doesn't opine or shy away from facts, whether I like them or not -- I watch Democracy Now or read foreign news sites like the BBC.

The US media can go to hell for all I care.

[neoblues]

100. The Media is a Tool; and it is being used.

The "media" is the most powerful tool (weapon) with which to manipulate the thinking and awareness of large groups of people, particularly whole populations, that has ever existed.

There is absolutely no doubt that this tool is being used. Such a powerful technology would not be ignored.

To the extent that occasional bits of evidence appear that tend to confuse the identification of just who is actually using it, it's intentional. Confusion works in their favor; they do want it to be as covert as possible--or at least to be able to present an argument that... "no, we're not behind this; we aren't controlling things, after all... see this and this, if we controlled things, surely these wouldn't have been covered!". Right, sure--and don't bother to mention that 90% of the coverage associated with whatever it was, was in fact designed to refute it--so it never actually worked against those who are behind the control after all.

It's simply so obvious that it cannot be ignored, much less disproven--the media is a tool of the Right-Wing forces in our society. Whether that means that the Corporations are in control or the political leaders are in control is effectively irrelevant--since they are both working together. They are co-conspirators, partners and aren't even distinguishable from one-another.

One percent of the population owns 90% of the corporations/business/capital in this country. That one percent is very nearly completely Republican/Conservative/NeoConservative/Righ-Wing in it's political views. Hence, what is the difference between Corporations and Right-Wingers? That Corporations are but a controlling minority of the larger population of Right-Wingers.

Remember, the media is the next best thing to outright thought control. By itself it manages to define the political landscape and to present the appearance that whatever position they prefer is overwhelmingly the "right" choice (as determined by the "experts" and most of the most well-known figures). A huge percentage of Americans--who even believe they've weighed the issues--are misled and don't even know it. They listened in, read or whatever--and saw that 9 out of 10 bits of evidence and opinion came down on one side or the other--and figured that must be the "right" answer.

In a sense, Democrats/Liberals are just more resistant to being told what to believe--or really, just less swayed by the "opinions" of "experts" and/or the "preponderance" of the evidence... It also helps that we're capable of rational thought and can often tell when the evidence is manufactured or appears to be lop-sidedly reported. We, apparently, question things more. We dare to disbelieve the popular story; especially if we can see who produced it, who benefits from it, or are aware of some important parts that somehow don't get included... It's a skill called "critical thinking".

"Critical Thinking". It's something we'd like to imagine most people have--indeed everyone should have by the time they've graduated high-school. Alas, it's not as common as we would wish. It's also possible that this explains why people with greater education tend to be or become more liberal in their outlook. Of course, most university professors are more liberal in their outlooks and it could merely be the contact between teacher and student that leads to the change in the student. Most likely, it's a bit of both--and the active component of the simple "contact" between teacher and student is in itself a form of teaching--learning by experience and by emulation. The students get to witness a person applying critical thinking skills and they pick up on that. Of course, their studies also tend to demand critical thinking skills and thus to succeed, the student learns to think this way.

Anyway, again, rest assured that the media is a tool of the right wing; and that it assuredly is controlled for purposes of manipulating the people--with profits (which are always near and dear to Republicans) as an important but secondary consideration. That the owners of the corporations are right-wingers, and that the right-wing politicos use their power to ensure corporate profits such that one cannot consider the two entities to be separate is also a fact. Corporations financially support political candidates (of both sides just to hedge their bets, but primarily the Republican candidates) and enjoy much influence therefore, but sharing similar ideologies, they'd probably enjoy much of that support regardless. Still, it's to the corporation's advantage to ensure a Republican majority. Likewise, since Republican politicians profit (both publicly and privately, both legally and often illegally) from Corporations (usually owned by their own friends), it's to their own advantage to do what's "good" for corporations.

The unholy alliance between politicans and Corporations ensures that "the People" are left out... We all lose. Rights and protections are stripped from both employees and consumers. Our environment is sullied and polluted. We're kept in a state of struggling due to the power of the government/corporate alliance. Wages remain stagnant while costs rise. Education becomes more expensive and it's quality suffers. This is all made possible by the control and manipulation of the media.

In the end, the media is the most harmful thing possible for the average American and especially for the poor. Not only does it ensure the oppression from those right-wing groups, but it also tends to leave the people misled, deluded, and even distracted--ensuring that they will not organize to restore their own rights. People waste so much time and energy on watching television--time better spent on something else--anything else. It even works to make this subjugation permanent by shaping the minds of younger generations--making them believe the government should be all powerful over their own lives and rights. Most pernicious of all is that it helps to ruin their educations, leaving them all the more uneducated (as well as misinformed and infused with self-destructive attitudes). Before jumping ahead, I should note that "distraction" is one of the most important functions of the media as thought control.

The media could be the greatest boon to mankind; it could do more to educate and inform as well as unite and organize people than any other thing. However, the flip-side of the coin is what we're witnessing--and it's just as powerful in it's ability to act against the best interests of the vast majority of people (while enriching the few).

For now, media is evil. It is Republican Evil. Though granted, there is no formal documentation of their control over it--it is merely an implicit control and it's only apparent when you consider it's effects, it's final product, it's programming. There it become evident, it is a Republican/Right-Wing instrument. If we ever hope to live free again and to make real progress--we must put an end to the current form of the media industry.

Beware though, for even a liberal mind with good critical thinking skills can be polluted with false or misleading information. I suspect that consuming too much of the media's pablum can have insidious effects beyond simple misinformation, but that's just a suspicion. Watch, listen, read but never take anything as guaranteed or on it's own (as in without the reasoned, unadulterated view of the 'other side of the story'). This is the appropriate process by which to form your opinions--and it's reasonable whether or not you think the media is Right-Wing or not (if you at least accept that it fails to provide a fully objective coverage of the issues). Of course, this suggestion that you reserve judgement until you've considered the analysis/response from all the competing views is just common sense (and you all know and practice it already, so I can stop preaching to the choir). For any who don't know what I'm saying, it's mostly just this: you cannot trust what you get in the media since it's nearly always, intentionally or not, the view from the Right, so to be informed you have to seek out alternative media (most easily found via the internet) representing the Democratic/Liberal perspective. And here you are.

[Gabi Hayes]

105. Excellent....let's take it a step further, into the implementation phase

Karl Rove & the Spectre of Freud's Nephew - February, 4th 2005

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country… We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized…”-- Edward Bernays, the father of modern PR, and Goebbels' inspiration.

from that, to this:

"For Bernays, however, the necessity of controlling the public mind was a crucially important matter confronting the better element, a group in which he clearly included himself. In his first work, the hugely influential Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Bernays noted that the establishment of public education and the gradual extension of the right to vote caused consternation among western elites. The use of public relations techniques, then, was a way for the minority to “so mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction.” "

to this:

''In post-World War II America, Bernays provided his services to the United Fruit Company and the Eisenhower administration. In 1954, the democratically elected New Deal-style Arbenz government in Guatemala began expropriating—with compensation—some of that corporation’s largely fallow lands. In due time, Bernays launched a media blitz which made palatable the (clandestine CIA-backed) coup which would overthrow the “communist” government.''

to this, with almost complete media complicity:

''The allure of determined leadership—one can read all about it in management and self-help books—is heightened in times of turmoil. The last election almost certainly turned on the question of whose leadership could best “keep America safe.” George W. Bush, thanks to Karl Rove, absolutely rolled John Kerry on this question. Kerry, the decorated vet, was successfully depicted as a French-loving, wind-surfing “liberal flip-flopper.” And then we all heard, ad nauseum, that he “betrayed his comrades” in Vietnam by “throwing away his medals” at some hippie protest or other. That these smears had nothing to do with Kerry’s program ended up being irrelevant.''
http://www.americanidealism.com/articles/karl-rove-and-the-spectre-of-freuds-nephew.html

the junta knows how to play the game; they've studied it very carefully, and the media have only been too willing to play along. THEIRS is the message that is spread far and wide, over and over. Clinton's involvement with the Arkansas troopers was instrumental in establishing the narrative of his corruption, even though it wasn't TRUE. Gore's claim of discovering Love Canal was used as an example of his arrogant mendacity, even though the MEDIA CHANGED the relevant quote to completely change the meaning of what he said, then REFUSED to correct itself, actually repeating the false quotation, and helping to establish the myth of Gore's inability to tell the truth. And we all know about Kerry vs. Swifboat Veterans for "Truth"

again....WHAT liberal media?

[neoblues]

114. Completely lucid and accurate insight.

I hope everyone reads your post; it ties together the most relevant ideas and concrete examples. But then again, if one's head is buried deep enough (in the sand or up the behind), the question remains... what right-wing media? (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain or it will ruin the surprise)

[Ksec]

104. you make a good argument

Whatever sells is what they do. Be it us or them.

The repukes are more supply side freindly. The Dems are more people freindly. People are their customers. Supply siders are their ticket to a free ride both monetarily and ethically.

[Terran1212]

106. "not left...corporate"? Corporate = inherently anti-left!

[Taxloss]

108. Yes, absolutely right.

The currency of the broadcast media is viewers, because the more viewers the more advertising revenue. If slamming Bush pulls in the viewers, they'll do it.

[mdmc]

109. M$M

they go where the story is... where the money is.... they care about cash... uber alles... just like the right wing.

[Malikshah]

110. The air time is akin to fattening the goose prior to killing it

Finally, a question for you guys that do believe that the right wing controls the media. In that case, how come the retired Generals who are criticizing the war and demanding Rumsfeld retirement, are getting so much air time?

It is the standard set up.

As was seen with Dean and others.

[depakid]

111. How anyone could watch the so called "mainstream" media

or read the drivel in the Washington Post- and even the NY Times these days and NOT conclude that they actively promote far right interestes is completely beyond me.

If seeing with you own eyes isn't enough, then groups like Fairness and Accuracy in the Media (FAIR) have plenty of studies regarding their actions in both covering the far right- and censoring progressive voices and issues.

And in the Post's case (or CNN's or MSNBC, etc) the evidence is CLEAR and convincing that profits aren't what it's about. It's about an editorial agenda- if it weren't they would be hemorrhaging viewers and readers- losing money to advocate the far right's positions.

[killbotfactory]

112. Corporations have to put profit over all other (legal*) considerations

*unless it is more profitable to break the law and face any consequences.

So when you have corporations controlling news companies, what do you think will happen? If war will boost ratings, they will promote it. If it will benefit their parent company (for example: through defense contracts) they will promote it.

It is about profits and nothing else. There may be individual journalists who care, and want to report critically about the news, but they will be under tremendous pressure to tow the company line (whatever it may be).

Of course, if they are blatantly biased in the news, they will lose credibility (unless they are Fox News) so they have to be somewhat subtle about it. Whether or not they are, the influences are there, and they can dramatically effect news coverage.

The US news coverage of what happens in Central and South America are the most obvious example of this. Comparing democratically elected (in internationally monitored elections) officials to dicators, for example.

[Mr_Spock]

113. kick

This post gets it.

[rman]

115. corporate = RW

because the RW is in favor of arranging things so that corporations can enjoy eternal profit growth (ie by funneling tax money their way) - which inevitably is at the expense of the rest of us.

And as you pointed out it's big corporations that own the MSM.

Both the Fairness Doctrine and the Rule of Sevens should be reinstated.

[Marr]

117. News outlets make more money for their *parent companies* when they

promote pro-corporate policies- and that is almost always inherently anti-left. You're completely ignoring the "corporate" part of your "they're just corporate" argument. It's not about selling copies of newspapers, or pushing a 'missing blonde' story because viewers are interested in that (they aren't, by the way).

Big media outlets act as PR wings for their parent companies. Look at the media's sale of the Iraq invasion. Do you think they did that because it made for exciting television...? No- dismantling the lies would've been exciting television. But then we wouldn't have had the invasion/occupation, which has been an enormous money maker for all the right people.

[rman]

118. You're saying corporate is not primarily left or right.

Now that's a myth.

[Mr_Spock]

122. no

I don't actually think that's what the OP was saying at all.

[Armstead]

120. I agree....The media simply reflects our awful values

The Corporate Media is not some conspiracy, and it gets real tiresome to hear claims that the Blonde Scandals are actually a deliberate attempt to distract America.

The fact is the media is a refgletion of how shallow and amoral we have allowed our society to become.

The MSM used to be based on a basic bargain. The Networks and local sttions could have a license to do the Beverly Hillbillies, but they were also expected (required) to set aside a certain amout of air time and resources to real news, public affairs and local programming. Their news operations were seperate from the "profit centers."

But as poart of the CONservative Revolution, that minimal bargain was set aside in favor of the Profit Uber Alles mentality that came to dominate everything. And the idea of diversity of ownership -- which once was proteted by the FCC -- was also tossed out in favor of Monopolization of Ownership.

Therefore, news became entertainment, subject to the same downpard pressures s the rest of the programming.

That became a slippery slope. The answer is complicated but simple. 1)Start restoring Dioversity of Ownership, so that control of the media becomes more bordly based. 2)Restore the idea that any company that holds a license over a public resource of the airwaves and/or wires, must adhere to certain standards of public service.

[cmkramer]

123. I agree with you

It's way too simplistic to just keep barking "Rightwing" in our case or "leftwing" as the Freepers do.

I saw Harvey Fierstein do a commentary on LOGO about his appearance as Mrs. Santa Claus at last year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. At the end of the piece, he said that the trouble with the media isn't about bias, it's about having a short attention span and being too easily distracted by trivia.

[oblivious]

127. Almost all news in the mainstream media comes from AP.

To a much lesser extent Reuters and AFP.

Basically, you control AP, you control the news.

It is a right-wing perspective. You're hearing about the dissenting generals now because elite factions of the right-wing are fed up too.

[msgadget]

129. All good points

and I do agree. Less media consolidation would be great but it'll be hard under any party to unmix that cake.

The media claim they have to compete differently now, that it's not like back in the day when reporters agressively sought to break stories before their competition but these days they don't want to be reporting on something people don't care about while their competitors have captured their interest.

This White House really clamped down hard on leaks and media access and I don't know if they've loosened up or if reporters have just finally grown bolder. Unfortunately a lot of news isn't on the front page and if it isn't mentioned in a blog or on the evening news many never see it. I still buy print editions but my newstand actually stocks fewer copies of papers these days. Online editions are fantastic for their search features but there is no substitute for holding a paper in hand and leafing through it. Online one is likely to go from one link to another related or to go straight to a compelling headline.

Speaking of blogs, the major media outlets looked down their collective nose at blogs and online loonies for quite a long time. Rathergate and then Jeff Gannon opened their eyes and may have encouraged them to be more thorough. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of independence. What I see in the WaPo I'm likely to also see in the NYT and LAT. That's why we on the left have to read Washington Times and other right leaning media.

Edit to add: Maybe we see them as biased or right leaning because even when they do report on something they are selective about the stories for which they provide context and follow-up. It's hard not to feel cheated or maligned when that happens.

[Odin2005]

130. MSM has become the propaganda outlet of the conglomerates that own it.

It's just one more sign that western governments are losing control. Us Westerners still thnk we control our governments, but this is an illusion, similar to how Octavian Caesar kept the Roman Senate and other republican institutions, but he had absolute power in reality. Economic forces, Globalization, has moved the balance of power from governments' to corporations' court. When a civilization falls into terminal decline it is covered by the death shroud of a universal state, for Greaco-Roman Civilization this was the Roman Empire, for the West it is a corporate oligarchy, a "corporate republic."

[Odin2005]

131. *BUMP*

[sendero]

132. There is an important difference..

.... between bias and control. There is not much question that large segments of the news media are infected with right wing bias. But control? No.

Do you think Americans would have ever seen the debacle called Katrina if there was control? Do you think that any of the handful of tv personalities who have gone from decisively pro-Bush to decisively anti-Bush would still be on the air if there was "control"?

Do you think that back in the 70s when the media was decidedly liberal, that someone was "controlling" it? No.

Yes the media is biased. There is no quick remedy to that situation, yet it is actually a self-correcting one IMHO. The media cannot allow their reporting and spin to diverge too far from reality, their credibility (already lost for many here, but not in the whole country) is at stake.

There are two factors that can realistically change things. First, Bush is toast, his credibility is shot and no matter how much the media spins it is not coming back. They might be able to stop the bleeding, but they cannot put the blood back. All of the pundits who continue to act like Bush is not the abject failure that he is run the risk of being considered irrelevant. So I think you will see Bush being covered in a positive light less and less.

Second, and I've made this point early and often, Dems are total failures at manipulating the media compared to Republicans. The news media lives on controversy, drama, outrageousness. The Reps serve it up with glee while Dems make nuanced policy statements that Americans TUNE OUT.

Bottom line, yes the media is biased but their mandate is still to make money. Sure there are shows that retain sponsorship because despite bad ratings. But to act like it is an either/or situation, that there isn't a mix of manipulation and self-interest, is unrealistic.