M. Crispin Miller: 'Mainstream Media in the U.S. is disgusting'

[Hatalles]

Run time: 09:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFPmUVU6eYE   Posted on YouTube: March 15, 2010 By YouTube Member: RTAmerica Views on YouTube: 704   Posted on DU: March 28, 2010 By DU Member: Hatalles Views on DU: 1177

 

[EFerrari]

1. Go, Mark!

lol

[Rhiannon12866]

2. K&R! Thanks for posting!

:applause:

[Bullet1987]

3. Damn good interview...a MUST see!!

If Obama won by MORE votes than we're being told, that means the Democratic party didn't want Obama coming into office feeling as if he OWED the American people anything. Which is why the whole MANDATE thing went away pretty fast after Obama was elected. They didn't want his victory deemed a landslide.

[Enthusiast]

4. "a MUST see!!"

That is for damn sure. This guy knows what we all knows but he can say it and say it well.

[Overseas]

5. K&R . //nt

[90-percent]

6. Spot On, Mark!

Michael Moore recently said that European newspapers are driven by circulation, so they have to satisfy their readers needs foremost. (presumably to be informed of important info, not pap) In America, newspapers play to the advertisers, so a newspaper reader in AMerica is reading propaganda to get them to consume or outright political manipulation by the media overlords)

I agree with that totally.

He hit on a theme Frank Zappa had discussed perhaps forty years ago; That the whole American system is designed to turn teenagers in to loyal consumers, at the expense of everything else. When Frank was confronted with English revolutionaries at a concert back in the don't-trust-anyone-over-thirty sixties, intent to do some violent government overthrowing, his opinion was that you go after the source - gain control of the TV, because that is what they are using to control you.

The utter brazenness of our elites - things like health insurance companies announcing 40% rate increases IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE, shows just how sure they are of the extent of their corporate take over of politics, and media.

The info about a Barack landslide downgraded to a modest win is certainly profound, isn't it. Can you imagine how much populist stuff we'd all expect if he won by a 75% to 25 % margin? (which, for all we know, HE ACTUALLY DID!)

Interesting about MSM breaking Edwards vs. giving Palin a pass. My first choice for President in 2008 was Edwards, exactly because of his many populist positions.

Now to contend with the thought that this Russian TV network is continuing the cold war by featuring people like Mark and Max Keiser. I've seen that mentioned here before. Food for thought.

-90% Jimmy

[Bullet1987]

7. The information about Palin's husband being connected to anarchists

who want Alaska to secede also is ignored.

[tempelton]

8. Journalistic mistake in this clip...

(sorry, I got carried away below...)

One of the clips showing in that video (in which Jim Corr sits down with a panel of people) is from RTE One in IRELAND!!!

How do I know? Because I am Irish (and indeed trained in journalism in the RTE studios).

The irony of presenting a story about how crap the American media is (all true, mind you) and then failing to show footage from the correct country is a rich one indeed. Also, Oprah is not a journalist or good representation of the MSM in America. Again, weird selection of footage (fairly amateur mistakes - although RT have some other good efforts).

However, the American media is definitely of shockingly low standards in this country (I moved here 9 months ago but I have followed US politics for years). In fact, Crispin's analysis is right on the mark. But I would add a further component to it - one which often is overlooked on the left due to the effectiveness of MSNBC - which is the proliferation of opinion journalism on TV.

Quite simply: cable news presents both sides of the political aisle with a consumer-lifestyle choice of which type of news information ghetto you wish to reside in. The Democrats/liberals/sane obviously have MSNBC and conservatives/republicans/racists/domestic terrorists* obviously have Fox. Fox is obviously a partisan joke - but PLEASE don't try to pretend MSNBC is anything other than partisan for the other side.

So, what's wrong with that?

Well, both camps offer the unspoken assumption that we are after the 'other side' (or else we are criticizing our side from an explicitly political point of view). The effect of this tunnel-vision journalistic approach is inevitably to omit, ignore or consider as irrelevant (to the consumer-lifestyle choice product that you are selling to your customers) any facts/stories/issues that 'your side' consider ideologically uncomfortable. The other effect is to further polarize the country, by providing them with an echo chamber of 'safe information' that will in no way challenge their political opinions or ideas (thereby ensuring their is no national intellectual growth or inclusiveness or understanding - only differences and misinformation abound).

Both sides, whilst remaining loyal to their 'side', act as though power doesn't corrupt. As if the bombs Bush/Obama drops on civilians don't kill, maim and terrorize. As if politicians become saintly when our side has a majority of them. What a stinking joke!

Well, as genuinely imperfect as the British media is, for the most part it does not work that way. It works based on the standards of journalism which have been informally established by, primarily, the BBC. With a serious news gathering budget (which is under attack at the moment from Rupert Murdoch and the right) and a distinct lack of opinion-based journalism, the BBC is far from perfect BUT it does manage to set the tone and high level of professionalism which then - to borrow an ugly phrase - trickles down to much of the rest of British journalism.

It isn't perfect over there. Murdoch-influenced tabloids are an affront to the word journalism. There is PLENTY of disinformation in the media (including at the BBC). But disinformation is part of the perpetual struggle that faces journalism in every era. It is the model of news gathering though that remains the jewel worth reaching for.

BUT HERE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE (sorry, needed emphasis): the chances that disinformation will be rooted out, flagged or called out in the BBC (and to a lesser extent other news gathering operations in Britain) is greater since a larger swathe of the population of that country is watching. They are paying attention. They have a national gathering place with which they can share ideas with each other and express opinions for the entire country to digest. They have grown up with the notion of (at least relative) impartiality embedded in their psyche - this has provided them all with a certain level of subconscious media savvy, in which they quickly can recognize when a politician has been given an easy ride or not. Once that is seen to be the case, then a public outcry will often follow and the BBC - which relies on public funding - will eventually have to address the issue head on.

I do NOT want to see left or right in charge or setting the agenda for the BBC or any other news gathering organization. I understand that most people do not hold my political point of view and thus I refuse to thrust it upon them. I want journalists to be as impartial as possible (yes, I know many people say such a thing is a myth - I would merely respond by agreeing in part, but still would argue that the BBC remains the finest model for journalism in the world). The public must decide what is objective or not and it is the political mood of the nation that will tilt this perception to either the right or the left.

That is where the battle of left and right come in - in influencing public discourse. In making left-wing alternatives heard. In voicing dissent and mobilizing opinion. NOT in controlling it. I would rather burn the BBC to the ground than to dictate what it was to say/report/attack.

In America you have a capitalist quagmire from which I see little hope of extricating yourselves. The BBC works (however imperfectly - you will get little argument there from me) because it is publicly funded. This sort of approach would surely seem anathema in America. And so instead, the news is increasingly being presented as a product, an off the shelf lifestyle choice that you get to go along with your coffee table and cherished beliefs. Thus there is no BBC-induced national conversation. There are few situations in which a broad cross-selection of politicians/leaders will square off, while facing a public audience, as is the case on the BBC at least once a week.

Admittedly, I do think MSNBC is a necessary evil to some degree these days, in that it is serving to push back the extreme right-wing distortions that dominate the media today. I do watch it and I am impressed by Rachel in particular. But it is not a true journalistic medium. It does not gather news internationally (or did I miss something?), it does not have a bevvy of reporters covering events across America (merely contributors from organizations that do), it does not provide a forum for Americans to grill their elected representatives head on. Instead, it seems to me to be a symptom of the kind of cost-cutting and cobbled together 'journalism' that blights America today (and which Crispin refers to). It is not the model of journalism that will turn things around. I don't really know how this could happen in America I am sorry to say. I think it is going to get a whole lot worse. Any ideas?

By the way, I notice a tendency to tow the party line on this website that is extremely off-putting. If anyone accuses me, for daring to criticize MSNBC, of being a Freeper, I will come over to your house and drown your puppies for being so dumb. I am an left-wing socialist who simply trusts no government and no corporation and no religion and no authority to tell me the time of day. I don't even trust the BBC (which I hoped I at least implied above) - I merely prefer it's model of journalism as I think it is the best one we have today and I am positive that the world could learn a lot from it.

That's all!

* You may be tempted to say that, if Fox viewers are so insane, then there is nothing to talk to them about! Well, first off, they're not all insane - they're just confused/misinformed/silly (I know this because they are my in-laws!) Ignoring them or continuing the model of polarising/mis-informing cable-consumer-news will only make this worse, not better.

[sabrina 1]

9. Thanks for an excellent post.

A few years ago when a record of where on the list of real Free Press around the world the U.S. stood, it was shamefully somewhere around #54.

Ireland that year I believe, was #1. That is why when Bush arrived in Ireland and was actually expected to answer questions he had not 'approved', his 'people' tried to do the Irish journalist what they have done here to silence good investigative reporters. We have none. Well, we have one that I can think of, but not on the MSM.

The Bush cartel cancelled an interview that reporter had with Laura Bush as 'punishment' for asking questions she 'shouldn't have asked'. I am sure all they accomplished was to confirm what many other countries think of this country's so-called 'democratic press'.

But your points about the 'left' 'right' reporting is absolutely correct. You should know though that before MSNBC, which itself fired 'liberal' hosts during the Bush administration, all we had was Fox and Fox wannabe's, CNN et al. There was literally no 'left' views at all.

Anyhow, thanks for your perspective, I am familiar with the news media in Britain and agree with your assessment completely.

[tempelton]

11. Thanks Sabrina

I agree that without MSNBC there would be little (nationally visible) opposition and so it makes the channel necessary. But at the same time, it is part of the same anti-journalistic spiral in many ways (but not in every way obviously).

The bottom line is, Murdoch (and his business plan) stand above all of this - loving both Fox (the cash cow) and MSNBC (as the opposition which spurs on his customers to adore Fox more). His fingerprints are all over the demise of journalism since the 1960's on-wards. He is of course only one individual and it is not a conspiracy - it is merely the outcome of the form of dumbing down dross he has sought to peddle. But nevertheless, I am quite sure he is very proud that American journalism is systematically being reduced to a screaming contest and clown college.

It is one of the things I do truly dislike about living here - the lack of journalistic standards. I do hear some good reporting on NPR and I do enjoy shows like The Young Turks. Furthermore, I am a loyal Nation subscriber and place great stock in their journalism. Those mediums - and excellent radical alternatives like Democracy Now - however are for you and me: the lefties of the world. You and I will always seek out the info, because we are so inclined.

The majority of the population however, who do not seem so inclined, are hostage to the shouting match (or, if they stick with network news, must instead deal with the out-of-context sound-bite approach to world affairs that is little better) and learn little in the process.

There will of course always be those who refuse to deal with evidence and facts and who will filter reality through their (typically medieval religious) views, no matter what. The rest of the people - who are the majority, I suspect - remain open to reason and evidence. They are the ones getting kicked in the nuts by the current media landscape. Sadly though, when the American people are misinformed, it can have global implications. Global warming, being just one planet-impacting example.

Finally, the Irish media may have been ranked well in the survey but it cannot hold a candle to the British media. Both countries (and I have lived in both for many of my 33 years) share most media/tv anyway, so it doesn't make a huge difference, but the British media is vastly superior. Again though, it is not perfect (FAR from it, in fact) - but has some outstanding news gathering organizations, such as the aforementioned BBC and the best newspaper in the western world, the Guardian.

And I do remember that Irish journalist grilling Bush. I thought it was a fairly standard interview - one which would garner no special attention in Ireland, had those questions been directed at any other politician.

[sabrina 1]

18. You're welcome Templeton

I can't disagree with anything in your post. The attempt to appear 'fair and balanced' has literally destroyed the news media. Rather than just report straight facts, the networks now blunt the real news by claiming there are two sides to every story and presenting what really are not news, but opposing opinions on news items. Such as the Torture scandal. That was simply illegal by all standards, international and domestic and should have been reported that way.

But the media brought on dozens of 'experts' to discuss whether or not in some instances, raising possibilities that rarely if ever occur (the ticking time bomb scenario for instance) torture might be necessary. By the time they finished, the horror of the crimes committed was lost as these 'discussions', as intended imo, caused people to wonder if, maybe, there were times when it was necessary in order to save 'millions of lives'. The testimony of experts in the field, that torture does not produce reliable information and that other methods of gaining information are far more reliable, this was lost in the defense of a crime for which there is no defense. As a result, other than a few low-level military personnel, no one has been held accountable.

Torture is a crime against humanity, and that has been decided by all decent societies, and when the story broke that is all that needed to be reported. Someone broke the law and it needs to be investigated.

I definitely agree with your assessment of Murdoch's evil influence and dumbing down of the news reporting business.

Also agree regarding the British press ~ but here efforts have been made to discredit the BBC and The Guardian and sadly some on the right have bought into the claim that they are 'leftie' propaganda.

[tempelton]

19. Precisely right...

... the profileration of experts allows you to hide behind their opinions, rather than there been an objective standard of international law (which, convienently the Bush junta simply chose to ignore). With subjective spray-on journalism in your corner, all events are relative...

And regarding the BBC and Guardian - well, there are many in the British press who also consider both to be liberal bastions. The truth in that charge probably lies in the conventional cosmopolitan make-up of the BBC's journalistic staff. They still however do not express opinion pieces and the news-gathering operation is second to none.

The Guardian however DOES - as do all papers - have an editorial slant which does tilt left. It has some fantastic leftwing commentators, like George Monbiot and Seamus Milne etc, but that is very separate (as is the case with all papers) to the purely reporting side of things. However, I suppose it is an academic question as to the total influence of one over the other. But, with the acknowledged decline in paper sales across the developed world, I think it is fair to say that the long established editorial slant of the Guardian, or indeed any other paper, has had no demonstrable contemporary impact on the editorial standards of the BBC or other British news gathering ops.

However, I am not so sure you could say the same of the American media - where the vast 'right wing' (and to a lesser extent, the left wing) conspiracy of think-tanks, media personalities and opinion journalism seems indeed to filter from Fox (and MSNBC) into the dimming shadows of the diminishing newspaper office. Fox is setting much of the agenda for the country and where their tea party narrative goes, you can see the Washington Post et al follow.

I was reading in the Nation today (just a brief reference) about the decline of NPR over these past few years as well. The lack of primetime facts in a country this obsessed with magical religious hokum is a dangerous thing indeed...

[tempelton]

22. Check this out...

... O'Leilly has just given an interview to Newsmax in which he explicity admits - as though it is a good thing!!!! - the precise Murdoch-induced reasons for the demise of American journalism (which was already piss-poor to start with!):

""CNN was at the top of the hill when we came in 13 1/2 years ago," he says. "What happened to CNN? Basically they stayed where they were 10 years ago. They did not change with the times. We live in a very intense country, a very difficult time. CNN does not reflect that urgency. They basically report the news. And they do a good job. But people in the United States now, they know the news already, because they have the Internet, they have talk radio, a lot of vehicles, so they want analysis and perspective from a cable network, particularly in prime time. They don't want to hear again. CNN doesn't give you that, so that's why they have fallen off dramatically."

He expresses all of that as though it is a good thing!!! Shocking and disheartening to say the least.

Read the full story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/bill-oreilly-obama-wants_n_517736.html

T

[sabrina 1]

23. First of all, and not surprisingly, he couldn't be more wrong

about CNN not changing. CNN went to the right in an attempt to compete with Faux after it was sold by Ted Turner. The CNN of today doesn't even compare to what it was when Ted Turner owned it. Their downfall was exactly the opposite of what he is claiming, it was their shift to the very thing he is promoting that lost them many of their earlier audience.

Ted Turner has said that he sometimes regrets selling the network.

[tempelton]

24. Fair enough...

...CNN is definitely attempting to be all things to all people AND simultaneously pass themselves off as above the fray - thus they fall between two stools. However, what is so disturbing to me is O'Leilly's smug defence of the talking heads syndrome. He is basically admitting it is just an act - giving 'the folks' what they allegedly want.

The lack of critical thinking and reason (or, put more precisely, the excess of faith-based thinking) across this vast land is becoming increasingly surreal!

[sabrina 1]

26. Oh yes, I agree and CNN made a decision to try

to compete with Fox. I remember when we organized a write-in campaign when they decided to put Glenn Beck on the air. They ignored 'liberals' claiming the reason they ignored them was that they 'didn't yell loud enough'.

So, they Beck his own show. This might make you feel better. Fox' audience has been indoctrinated to think of CNN and the rest of the media, as 'the liberal' media and there was no way they were going to tune in to Beck in the numbers needed to compete with Fox.

After a few years of horrendous ratings, (they hung on rather than admit their mistake) they finally dropped him. Then he went to Fox.

The state of the media here is beyond depressing. But, it is not going to change as long as it is owned by major corporations. Clinton was responsible for signing the law that allowed the merging of major media conglomerates, putting the whole news media in the hands of just a few Corporations. He says he regrets that now. But I can't imagine he was so stupid as to NOT realize what most high school kids would have known if that were to happen.

People are hoping to rescind that law some day, but for now, we are stuck with a Corporate owned and controlled media with practically zero journalistic standards.

[Bullet1987]

10. I agree!

DU has become less and less for independent thought, and nowadays is more about towing the party line and attacking those who don't. HCR is a perfect example of this.

[tempelton]

12. Yes, there are loads of trolls out there but...

...I don't understand why they are automatically deleted once they turn up. I would always prefer to debate their views rather than ban/delete them. This again is just another sad example of the echo chamber effect that runs rampant through the American media, in which we only seem to be able to deal with views that do not upset our world view. This is a very poor way to practice democracy it seems to me. Again, I would much rather rip a rightwinger to shreds, than ban his words. I suppose there is however some merit to this place been a forum specifically for lefties (which is fair enough). However, to literally ban opposition, as sometimes seem the be the case here, is just a mirror reflection of the right in my opinion (and no, that does not include the racist scumbags who troll here sometimes - I would still only rip them apart, not delete them, but I would understand those who would ban them outright).

And yes, I too noticed lots of party line conformity over HCR when I was lurking here (leaving me cold to the notion of contributing regularly). It is just like the Labour Party in Britain - I support Labour (although I would typically vote green or socialist). However, when the Iraq war was launched and Bush and Blair were busy ordering the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, it was frankly fucking jaw-dropping to see otherwise decent Labour activists contort their moral compass so dramatically as to end up supporting the war.

It is the same blind faith the religious depend on and I have zero tolerance for it myself.

I guess this is a forum mostly for the Democratic Party, yes? Or is it a forum for the left? Because the Democratic Party and the left are two very different things - I'm just not sure everyone on here always remembers that simple truth.

[sabrina 1]

20. 'Contort their moral compass'

it was frankly fucking jaw-dropping to see otherwise decent Labour activists contort their moral compass so dramatically as to end up supporting the war.

Very well stated. We saw it happen here and it was heart-breaking to see Democrats vote for Bush's illegal war and to continue to fund it.

And the contortions were on view again as they tried to justify the support of a HC bill that bailed out the failing Private Ins. Industry and worse, transferred into their hands, public funds. It also continued the abhorrent For-Profit Healthcare system that has been the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It was mind-blogglingly unbelievable to see people on democratic boards struggling to explain, as it became increasingly clear that they had been betrayed, why being betrayed was a 'good idea'.

I can understand the need to defeat Republicans after years here of the left being completely marginalized. But as you say, the Democratic Party and the left are not the same thing, and this debate over the Health Insurance Reform bill made that clearer than ever.

The problem is we have only two parties that have any chance of gaining power. One is completely off-the-wall insane and the other has far too many compromizers and right-leaning members who have infiltrated the party and hold a lot of power. The fact that there are good Democrats in Congress, Kucinich, Hinchey eg, doesn't make much difference, as the majority of the party's members will vote with the right-wing of the party so we end up with not much choice, other than a few crumbs every once in a while. See the watered down minimum wage bill, the only accomplishment by Democrats for the two years after they gained a majority in 2006.

As for opposing views, there were boards that were not moderated or partisan where you could engage in discussions with the rightwingnuts. That's where I started out. It was interesting, they tend to resort to name-calling and other dirty tricks when you present them with facts. But I liked the fact that lurkers who might be on the fence, could see them in action, and I have to admit it was fun linking them to information they were trying to hide. I remember when I found out that Rush Limbaugh was a draft dodger and his excuse was an anal cyst. I hesitated to post it as I knew they would go ballistic. But I did, they demanded 'proof' along with a lot of other fun things, which I had ready. That was fun, it did burst a few rightwing bubbles and I wondered why it had taken nearly a decade for that information to become public.

[tempelton]

21. Well said madam!

I agree with you entirely - and I am tickled pink to find out that titbit of info about Rush Limbug.

However, I must admit - although the HCR is largely a sell-out, I still do support it (as it is certainly better than nothing at all). But I do agree that the public option should have been held out for - but I am not confident it could have been achieved. Also, I just live to see the Republicans crushed.

As for debating them head on - I do in various forums (although, as I work at home, I try to limit the time spent on this stuff). But it can be a lot of fun to keep on upsetting people by being able to back up what you say with evidence, rather than mere hyperbole!

Nice talk to you maam :)

[truedelphi]

13. K & R for listening later. Thank you. n/t

[democracy1st]

14. K & R

[Stevepol]

15. K&R. Best interview I've seen in a long time. Where's the rest of it?

[Cha]

16. Thank you Mark..now everyone..spread the facts.

[90-percent]

17. My news

If I get it from a combination of DU and DU vids, Keith and Rachel, am I really so bad?

The only other MSM I consume is DU links to papers and vids and magazines. Saves me a fortune in no longer affordable magazine buying, for the sake of a solitary article.

-90% Jimmy

[Triana]

25. Absolutely they are. They are one of the biggest peddlers of ignorance

....and one of the most frightening things in the US is the amount of active, willful ignorance - much of it peddled and propagated by the lame$tream media.