Discussion:
What Liberal Media?.
(too old to reply)
Harry Hope
2009-01-04 16:42:50 UTC
Permalink
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13708

What Liberal Media?

January 3, 2009

by Robert A. Kezelis


WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?

Rush, Sean, the Billous One, and other bloviators like Ann Coulter
have long complained about media bias.

A LIBERAL bias.

Imagine my shock when after searching long and hard for such a welcome
viewpoint, that no such bias exists.

To the contrary, today's media has become shallow, insipid,
brain-dead, and worst of all, boring.

When six countries are at each others' throats in the middle east,
(Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey) corporate media
thinks that we are more concerned missing besotted blond bimbettes, or
dead children whose parents abused them, forcing them into beauty
contests at the age of four (JonBenet), or worst of all, what some
faux plumber who is not named Joe thinks about McCain's economic
plans.

Worse yet, in today's era of instant global communications, America's
MSM has been notable not for its successes, but its failures.

Here's a short list:


Iraq

A bunch of Afghanistan-based Yemeni and Saudi religious freaks
advertised their intentions to attack the USA, and but for the
burro-cratic screw-ups populating the top offices in the FBI, (I am
being kind), and the utter lack of ability to do her job exhibited by
Condi Rice, they would have failed.

Instead, they stole some jets, killed a bunch of people and knocked
down several buildings.

America's response?

We invade Iraq, probably the only country in the region with
absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Where was the MSM on this massive screw-up?

Missing in action.

Even today, when most Americans acknowledge that Iraq has been a
super-expensive, deadly, and total cluster-fuck, MSM is pulling its
people out of Iraq.

Apparently, there is no story worth investigating there.

Not even the fact that our DOD broke federal laws by using illlegal
propaganda techniques domestically.

Nor the upcoming failure of government, the Kurdish war, the Sunni
Shia battles, the Baathist resurgence, Iran's actions, continuing
fraud by US contractors, and of course, death.

Lots of death.

Disease, Hunger.

And death.


Condi Rice

Another disease the current MSM has is the manufacture of heros, as
though America cannot choose its own.

Condi is the perfect example.

Way out of her league, she blew personally and professionally blew the
whole 9/11 episode.

Her pitiful mushroom cloud comments were accepted by the MSM without
question.

Her first Russian visit was an international disaster, yet portrayed
as a success domestically.

Her lack of knowledge and experience was magnified by her inept
inability.

Her promotion to SecState convinced many abroad that her boss was a
certifiable lunatic.

Once there, her aggressive attitude, demanding ways, and shallow,
prickly behavior was applauded by the MSM, when the rest of the world
held their collective breath, wondering how much longer they would
have to suffer this fool.

MSM's treatment of Condi Rice was and remains reprehensible.

Not one hard question, not one investigation, not one critical story
was aired about her.

She was MSM's darling, and they did their collective best to present
her only in glowing terms.

Even today, she is a MSM star, despite eight years of wreckage,
destruction, blood, consistent failures, and war.


FISA, Patriot Act, illegal spying pre-9/11

One cannot help but be awed by how the MSM dropped the ball on what
used to be traditional American Values (and not the make believe crap
that the GOP pretends to follow).

Somehow, between the ultra-right religious infiltration of society,
the aggressive, myth-based neocon agenda promoted by the
Administration pushed aside what America used to stand for, and for a
time, confused Americans enough to pass fascist legislation.

As Boy Wonder told us, "They hate us for our freedoms," so the
administration's response was to take our freedoms away?

Bah.

In March of 1933, a newly sworn-in President Franklin Roosevelt
greeted an anxious, tired, and scared country with these words:

"This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive, will
prosper . . . Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have
to fear is fear itself . . . . nameless, unjustified terror paralyzes
needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Boy Wonder's response?

"Now, watch this drive."


US Attorney firings

Since the corporate take-over of the news, once thriving regional
papers have closed, or been turned into mindless pap, with canned
stories replacing (expensive) local reporting.

Radio has gone from a robust art form, to a choice of three:

Bad sports talk, bad conservative talk, and bad music.

Clear Channel's buying spree, along with its competition, has done
more to destroy radio than any other factor.

TV news?

Hah.

If there is a fire, a murder, or a big nasty crash, it may get
covered, but only if the missing blond bimbette story or OJ aren't
mentioned.

Is it any surprise that a more complex, more devastating, and
far-reaching story like the firing of US Attorneys for political
reasons, never made it into the news?

Or the related political arrest, judicial abuse, and eventual
imprisonment of Alabama Gov. Siegelman?

Or the fake voter fraud cases being pushed in 2004 and 2006?

Where was the media investigation of these events?

Our MSM's behavior over the past eight years has been pathetic.

Since when did they become lapdogs, sucking up to the Scooter Libbys,
pushing canned, planted, even fake pro-Administration stories, gladly,
even proudly accepting the chance to dance with Karl Rove at a press
party?

If it weren't for some intrepid intertube reporters from TPM, digging,
investigating, and (AHEM. Hey, MSM! Pay attention here. This point is
directed to you. I will type really slowly so even you get it:) R E P
O R T I N G on these issues, the crimes committed by this White House,
Karl Rove in specific, would never have been discovered.


Corruption and torture in Iraq

A cargo plane carrying pallets of of US currency landed in Baghdad,
and promptly fell off the proverbial radar screen.

The billions of dollars sent secretly to Iraq went missing with no
investigation or comment by our MSM.

Contractors, those not using slave labor, routinely won no-bid
contracts on a cost-plus basis.

Translation:

The more they wasted, the bigger their profit.

Even worse, their quality control has resulted in US troops eating bad
food, (not just not tasty, but poisonous) drinking bad water (The ice
they used to store corpses was used in drinks served to US troops),
being electrocuted in the shower, not to mention out and out fraud
stealing US taxpayer money.

As for torture?

The NYT was asked to hold off publishing photos and proof of US
torture policies.

BEFORE the 2004 election.

And the NYT obeyed, helping a criminal president be re-elected.

What happened to that once proud profession?

Where was the MSM?

Comfortably embedded with troops trained to provide only one side of
the story.

It is true that a very few number of reporters did go off the
reservation, and tried to report on the real facts.

Two things happened to them:

i) they were iced out of any information flow from the US military,

ii) they were shot.

(Iraq-based reporters have had the highest casualty rate of any war or
occupation).

These are but a few of our MSM's failures.

But what is the cause?

And what is the solution, if one exists?

The problem can be summed up in one term:

Corporate Ownership.

Media conglomerates do not compete, they control and direct
programming, even news programming, from above.

Today's corporate media moguls thought that by buying out the
competition, they could increase profits, lower costs, and manipulate
the news to their benefit.

It is almost amusing that Corporate Ownership has sown the seeds of
its own destruction.

With every take-over of smaller papers, with every computerized
programming effort, with the dumbing down of the news, and turning it
into infomercial junk, the corporate owners thought that they were
squeezing profits out in ways never before attempted.

No longer were 4% returns appropriate; 14% was their goal.

With every firing, consolidation, cutting of staff, dropping of
resources, they forgot that one key ingredient - their audience.

What was worse was the political tone that spread throughout Corporate
MSM, especially the last 8 years.

Hard questioning of Bush, Cheney, or Condi was deemed off-limits.

Questioning policy decisions or military, economic, or social policy
fiascoes could not happen, lest the media be painted with some
imaginary broad "traitor" brush.

In many ways by design (Clear's ban of Dixie Chicks), and in others by
circumstance, America's MSM became both a corporate message machine,
as well as scared of its own shadow (much like the Democratic
leadership in Congress).

Even Katrina, with its floating, rotting corpses, did not wake up MSM
and force it to reassess its warm, friendly relationship to this
administration.

Some people, especially on the far left, have called for the return of
the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

With that tool, they think that they could match Rush's and Sean's
lines and lies, step by step, word for word.

They are wrong.

Frankly, the Fairness Doctrine is a canard.

We live in a different world, and we no longer have three TV, five
radio stations, and a morning or evening newspaper as our sole access
to world events.

This law will not solve anything.

You cannot mandate content from the top down, as we see each day.

The Corporate Ownership has tried, for eight years, to force its
pro-business opinions (tort reform, Medicare's Prescription mess, and
so many more) down America's throat.

Yet, despite that constant pro-business drum beat, most Americans are
willing to seek national health care, a quick exit from Iraq, stem
cell research, and a real Department of Justice, among other
"socialist" and "liberal" ideas.

Simply matching or replacing the conservative slant currently in the
MSM with a liberal or progressive tone will not fix the problem.

Eventually, any liberal message would have the same track record as
the conservative outlets, ie eventual failure.

(which would give Rush even more gristle to choke on, between his
Viagra and Oxycontin binges)

Unfortunately, the disease (Corporate control and consolidation)
remains in place.

Clearly, there is great interest in news.

Blogs and websites discuss Palestine, Syria, China, and Euro-Dollar
exchange rate with far more detail and interest than you would ever
find on CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS.

There is a possible solution to the MSM mess.

The solution is divestiture.

No more massive media chains, controlling and directing how news is
reported to 80% of the population.

Small papers would again go back to their 4% profits, but again
concentrate on local stories of interest.

Radio stations would compete for listeners, not by following the
political and programing whims of Wall Street or Clear, but by being
creative and interesting.

Clearly there is a need for national news services.

The costs of on the spot reporting, foreign events, and investigative
journalism would all improve with competition, instead of
consolidation.

If we returned to certain limits on the numbers of papers, stations
and TV outlets any one company could own, perhaps the individual media
outlets would realize that survival means that their product has to be
good.

And for their product to be good, news needs to be investigated,
confirmed and reported.

What a nice change that would be.

Of course, if MSM wakes up and starts doing its job, the first target
would be the Obama Administration.

That's fine, in fact, that would be welcome.

If the MSM started asking tough questions again, it would likely
benefit both the new administration and the country.

Intelligent discussions of American policy and America's problems
would be far better than wondering if JonBenet's mommy was a killer.

Besides, if the new administration collects any criminal elements,
like the Bush Administration did, I suspect that they would want that
out in the open sooner than later, so they deal with the problem.

Under Bush, such folks either received a presidential medal or a
promotion.

____________________________________________________

Yup, folks, that's a quick profile of your "Liberal" media.

Harry
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2009-01-04 16:54:36 UTC
Permalink
The press is neither pro-left nor pro-right. They are pro-govt. They
supported the mass murders and terrorism of clinton and also of bush43.
They'll support barky too, no matter what he does.
zzpat
2009-01-05 05:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
The press is neither pro-left nor pro-right. They are pro-govt. They
supported the mass murders and terrorism of clinton and also of bush43.
They'll support barky too, no matter what he does.
The media hated Clinton because he was smart and they are not. They
loved Bush and tried to make him look presidential because he's an idiot
and so are they.

The problem then isn't liberal or conservative per se. It's incompetence
and laziness. Every major reporter in the country lied about
Whitewater, under Clinton and WMD, under Bush. Whitewater was a
systematic attempt by the media to weaken a president while WMD was a
systematic attempt to prop up a president.

The problem then is liars in the media. The anchors of all the network
and cable news shows are liars. How do we get rid of them? Same with the
editors of all our major newspapers. They too lied about Whitewater and
WMD. We need people in the media who have standards...and the current
bunch don't give a damn about anything except the headline (even if that
headline is fabricated).
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
16 Days - Bu Bye Bush
2009-01-04 18:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
The press is neither pro-left nor pro-right. They are pro-govt. They
supported the mass murders and terrorism of clinton and also of bush43.
They'll support barky too, no matter what he does.
The media hated Clinton because he was smart and they are not. They loved
Bush and tried to make him look presidential because he's an idiot and so
are they.
The problem then isn't liberal or conservative per se. It's incompetence
and laziness. Every major reporter in the country lied about Whitewater,
under Clinton and WMD, under Bush. Whitewater was a systematic attempt by
the media to weaken a president while WMD was a systematic attempt to prop
up a president.
The problem then is liars in the media. The anchors of all the network and
cable news shows are liars. How do we get rid of them? Same with the
editors of all our major newspapers. They too lied about Whitewater and
WMD. We need people in the media who have standards...and the current
bunch don't give a damn about anything except the headline (even if that
headline is fabricated).
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
The media is intimidated by neocon presidents as are their owners. Nixon
scared shit out of them, Reagan acted loony around them but Bush/Cheney
scared their pants off or gave them unfair tax breaks (FOX).
Jim Alder
2009-01-04 19:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by zzpat
The media hated Clinton because he was smart and they are not.
Wow. It's hard to know where to start with that statement.
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
16 Days - Bu Bye Bush
2009-01-04 21:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by zzpat
The media hated Clinton because he was smart and they are not.
Wow. It's hard to know where to start with that statement.
You denying te news didn't pound Clinton? Shit, it got so bad everyone I
knew quit watching the news. Peter Jennings (married 4 times) couldn't bash
Bill & Monica enough.
Jim Alder
2009-01-05 00:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by 16 Days - Bu Bye Bush
Post by Jim Alder
Post by zzpat
The media hated Clinton because he was smart and they are not.
Wow. It's hard to know where to start with that statement.
You denying te news didn't pound Clinton?
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Stray Dog
2009-01-04 20:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:54:36 -0600
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
alt.politics.usa, alt.rush-limbau
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
alt.politics.usa, alt.rush-limbau
Subject: Re: What Liberal Media?.
The press is neither pro-left nor pro-right. They are pro-govt. They
supported the mass murders and terrorism of clinton and also of bush43.
They'll support barky too, no matter what he does.
No, they are pro-rich. Since the advertising budgets are quite large, the
media will kiss the feet and ass of anyone feeding them money that helps
pay for the media. You will never (or almost never) see ANY
anti-corporation, anti-capitalist, anti-business content unless it is
really quite soft and general or very well established and anti-society
(eg. Bernard Madoff, Enron, etc).
Peter Perfect
2009-01-04 21:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stray Dog
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:54:36 -0600
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
alt.politics.usa, alt.rush-limbau
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
alt.politics.usa, alt.rush-limbau
Subject: Re: What Liberal Media?.
The press is neither pro-left nor pro-right. They are pro-govt. They
supported the mass murders and terrorism of clinton and also of bush43.
They'll support barky too, no matter what he does.
No, they are pro-rich. Since the advertising budgets are quite large, the
media will kiss the feet and ass of anyone feeding them money that helps
pay for the media. You will never (or almost never) see ANY
anti-corporation, anti-capitalist, anti-business content unless it is
really quite soft and general or very well established and anti-society
(eg. Bernard Madoff, Enron, etc).
How charmingly naive, which is a polite way of saying my, what a
particularly large pile of happy horse shit that is. While I can see why
someone might feel as you do, I can also see that such an opinion is born of
a complete ignorance of How Things Work.

First off, the media is not "pro rich." The media is pro ad sales. With a
few exceptions, the media as a whole doesn't give a skinny rat's ass about
ideology. They only care about a putting out a product that attracts enough
viewers to produce enough ad revenue to make money, period, end of story,
move on. Were folks gaga over

The one and only vital function of any media outlet is to sell enough
advertising to make a profit. It's a simple numbers game. It's foolish in
the extreme to believe there's more ad revenue available targeting 5% of the
population than there is targeting the other 95%

If this rather obvious concept still eludes you, I suggest an observational
experiment. Count the number of ads you see on teevee for $10,000 watches
and compare to the number of ads you see for cheap "male enhancement"
frauds. Now, to which market segment do you think these two examples are
aimed? Which produces more revenue?

FYI, products targeting the wealthy do NOT generally buy mainstream media.
They buy *targeted* media like Town & Country, The New Yorker, The
Smithsonian, etc. The average Joe don't know 'cause the average Joe don't
know.

As to your argument that political ads drive media revenues, are you
sniffing glue? Are you seriously positing that a once every few years for a
few weeks at a time ad buys are somehow *the* major revenue source of major
media?

Er, excuse me for just a second, if you would...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, few! Wow, that was a good one!

FYI, political advertising makes up less than 1% of ad revenues for
television networks and stations. Less for pint and radio.

"But, other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

There's plenty of REAL problems to solve without making up irrational bogey
men just to justify a nice tin foil hat. No need to tilt at windmills when
there are real challenges to conquer. Take your fears and anger and put them
to work.

The real shame is many don't believe they can make a difference, as you have
demonstrated with your massive media conspiracy theory. But the truth is one
person most certainly can make a difference. Focus on fighting for positive
results rather than against the monolithic institutions you imagine to be
marching in negative accord.
Mitchell Holman
2009-01-04 17:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13708
What Liberal Media?
January 3, 2009
by Robert A. Kezelis
WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?
Rush, Sean, the Billous One, and other bloviators like Ann Coulter
have long complained about media bias.
A LIBERAL bias.
Imagine my shock when after searching long and hard for such a welcome
viewpoint, that no such bias exists.
To the contrary, today's media has become shallow, insipid,
brain-dead, and worst of all, boring.
When six countries are at each others' throats in the middle east,
(Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey) corporate media
thinks that we are more concerned missing besotted blond bimbettes, or
dead children whose parents abused them, forcing them into beauty
contests at the age of four (JonBenet), or worst of all, what some
faux plumber who is not named Joe thinks about McCain's economic
plans.
Worse yet, in today's era of instant global communications, America's
MSM has been notable not for its successes, but its failures.
Iraq
A bunch of Afghanistan-based Yemeni and Saudi religious freaks
advertised their intentions to attack the USA, and but for the
burro-cratic screw-ups populating the top offices in the FBI, (I am
being kind), and the utter lack of ability to do her job exhibited by
Condi Rice, they would have failed.
Instead, they stole some jets, killed a bunch of people and knocked
down several buildings.
America's response?
We invade Iraq, probably the only country in the region with
absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Where was the MSM on this massive screw-up?
Missing in action.
Even today, when most Americans acknowledge that Iraq has been a
super-expensive, deadly, and total cluster-fuck, MSM is pulling its
people out of Iraq.
Apparently, there is no story worth investigating there.
Not even the fact that our DOD broke federal laws by using illlegal
propaganda techniques domestically.
Nor the upcoming failure of government, the Kurdish war, the Sunni
Shia battles, the Baathist resurgence, Iran's actions, continuing
fraud by US contractors, and of course, death.
Lots of death.
Disease, Hunger.
And death.
Condi Rice
Another disease the current MSM has is the manufacture of heros, as
though America cannot choose its own.
Condi is the perfect example.
Way out of her league, she blew personally and professionally blew the
whole 9/11 episode.
Her pitiful mushroom cloud comments were accepted by the MSM without
question.
Her first Russian visit was an international disaster, yet portrayed
as a success domestically.
Her lack of knowledge and experience was magnified by her inept
inability.
Her promotion to SecState convinced many abroad that her boss was a
certifiable lunatic.
Once there, her aggressive attitude, demanding ways, and shallow,
prickly behavior was applauded by the MSM, when the rest of the world
held their collective breath, wondering how much longer they would
have to suffer this fool.
MSM's treatment of Condi Rice was and remains reprehensible.
Not one hard question, not one investigation, not one critical story
was aired about her.
She was MSM's darling, and they did their collective best to present
her only in glowing terms.
Even today, she is a MSM star, despite eight years of wreckage,
destruction, blood, consistent failures, and war.
FISA, Patriot Act, illegal spying pre-9/11
One cannot help but be awed by how the MSM dropped the ball on what
used to be traditional American Values (and not the make believe crap
that the GOP pretends to follow).
Somehow, between the ultra-right religious infiltration of society,
the aggressive, myth-based neocon agenda promoted by the
Administration pushed aside what America used to stand for, and for a
time, confused Americans enough to pass fascist legislation.
As Boy Wonder told us, "They hate us for our freedoms," so the
administration's response was to take our freedoms away?
Bah.
In March of 1933, a newly sworn-in President Franklin Roosevelt
"This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive, will
prosper . . . Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have
to fear is fear itself . . . . nameless, unjustified terror paralyzes
needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Boy Wonder's response?
"Now, watch this drive."
US Attorney firings
Since the corporate take-over of the news, once thriving regional
papers have closed, or been turned into mindless pap, with canned
stories replacing (expensive) local reporting.
Bad sports talk, bad conservative talk, and bad music.
Clear Channel's buying spree, along with its competition, has done
more to destroy radio than any other factor.
TV news?
Hah.
If there is a fire, a murder, or a big nasty crash, it may get
covered, but only if the missing blond bimbette story or OJ aren't
mentioned.
Is it any surprise that a more complex, more devastating, and
far-reaching story like the firing of US Attorneys for political
reasons, never made it into the news?
Or the related political arrest, judicial abuse, and eventual
imprisonment of Alabama Gov. Siegelman?
Or the fake voter fraud cases being pushed in 2004 and 2006?
Where was the media investigation of these events?
Our MSM's behavior over the past eight years has been pathetic.
Since when did they become lapdogs, sucking up to the Scooter Libbys,
pushing canned, planted, even fake pro-Administration stories, gladly,
even proudly accepting the chance to dance with Karl Rove at a press
party?
If it weren't for some intrepid intertube reporters from TPM, digging,
investigating, and (AHEM. Hey, MSM! Pay attention here. This point is
directed to you. I will type really slowly so even you get it:) R E P
O R T I N G on these issues, the crimes committed by this White House,
Karl Rove in specific, would never have been discovered.
Corruption and torture in Iraq
A cargo plane carrying pallets of of US currency landed in Baghdad,
and promptly fell off the proverbial radar screen.
The billions of dollars sent secretly to Iraq went missing with no
investigation or comment by our MSM.
Contractors, those not using slave labor, routinely won no-bid
contracts on a cost-plus basis.
The more they wasted, the bigger their profit.
Even worse, their quality control has resulted in US troops eating bad
food, (not just not tasty, but poisonous) drinking bad water (The ice
they used to store corpses was used in drinks served to US troops),
being electrocuted in the shower, not to mention out and out fraud
stealing US taxpayer money.
As for torture?
The NYT was asked to hold off publishing photos and proof of US
torture policies.
BEFORE the 2004 election.
And the NYT obeyed, helping a criminal president be re-elected.
What happened to that once proud profession?
Where was the MSM?
Comfortably embedded with troops trained to provide only one side of
the story.
It is true that a very few number of reporters did go off the
reservation, and tried to report on the real facts.
i) they were iced out of any information flow from the US military,
ii) they were shot.
(Iraq-based reporters have had the highest casualty rate of any war or
occupation).
These are but a few of our MSM's failures.
But what is the cause?
And what is the solution, if one exists?
Corporate Ownership.
Media conglomerates do not compete, they control and direct
programming, even news programming, from above.
Today's corporate media moguls thought that by buying out the
competition, they could increase profits, lower costs, and manipulate
the news to their benefit.
It is almost amusing that Corporate Ownership has sown the seeds of
its own destruction.
With every take-over of smaller papers, with every computerized
programming effort, with the dumbing down of the news, and turning it
into infomercial junk, the corporate owners thought that they were
squeezing profits out in ways never before attempted.
No longer were 4% returns appropriate; 14% was their goal.
With every firing, consolidation, cutting of staff, dropping of
resources, they forgot that one key ingredient - their audience.
What was worse was the political tone that spread throughout Corporate
MSM, especially the last 8 years.
Hard questioning of Bush, Cheney, or Condi was deemed off-limits.
Questioning policy decisions or military, economic, or social policy
fiascoes could not happen, lest the media be painted with some
imaginary broad "traitor" brush.
In many ways by design (Clear's ban of Dixie Chicks), and in others by
circumstance, America's MSM became both a corporate message machine,
as well as scared of its own shadow (much like the Democratic
leadership in Congress).
Even Katrina, with its floating, rotting corpses, did not wake up MSM
and force it to reassess its warm, friendly relationship to this
administration.
Some people, especially on the far left, have called for the return of
the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
With that tool, they think that they could match Rush's and Sean's
lines and lies, step by step, word for word.
They are wrong.
Frankly, the Fairness Doctrine is a canard.
We live in a different world, and we no longer have three TV, five
radio stations, and a morning or evening newspaper as our sole access
to world events.
This law will not solve anything.
You cannot mandate content from the top down, as we see each day.
The Corporate Ownership has tried, for eight years, to force its
pro-business opinions (tort reform, Medicare's Prescription mess, and
so many more) down America's throat.
Yet, despite that constant pro-business drum beat, most Americans are
willing to seek national health care, a quick exit from Iraq, stem
cell research, and a real Department of Justice, among other
"socialist" and "liberal" ideas.
Simply matching or replacing the conservative slant currently in the
MSM with a liberal or progressive tone will not fix the problem.
Eventually, any liberal message would have the same track record as
the conservative outlets, ie eventual failure.
(which would give Rush even more gristle to choke on, between his
Viagra and Oxycontin binges)
Unfortunately, the disease (Corporate control and consolidation)
remains in place.
Clearly, there is great interest in news.
Blogs and websites discuss Palestine, Syria, China, and Euro-Dollar
exchange rate with far more detail and interest than you would ever
find on CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS.
There is a possible solution to the MSM mess.
The solution is divestiture.
No more massive media chains, controlling and directing how news is
reported to 80% of the population.
Small papers would again go back to their 4% profits, but again
concentrate on local stories of interest.
Radio stations would compete for listeners, not by following the
political and programing whims of Wall Street or Clear, but by being
creative and interesting.
Clearly there is a need for national news services.
The costs of on the spot reporting, foreign events, and investigative
journalism would all improve with competition, instead of
consolidation.
If we returned to certain limits on the numbers of papers, stations
and TV outlets any one company could own, perhaps the individual media
outlets would realize that survival means that their product has to be
good.
And for their product to be good, news needs to be investigated,
confirmed and reported.
What a nice change that would be.
Of course, if MSM wakes up and starts doing its job, the first target
would be the Obama Administration.
That's fine, in fact, that would be welcome.
If the MSM started asking tough questions again, it would likely
benefit both the new administration and the country.
Intelligent discussions of American policy and America's problems
would be far better than wondering if JonBenet's mommy was a killer.
Besides, if the new administration collects any criminal elements,
like the Bush Administration did, I suspect that they would want that
out in the open sooner than later, so they deal with the problem.
Under Bush, such folks either received a presidential medal or a
promotion.
____________________________________________________
Yup, folks, that's a quick profile of your "Liberal" media.
Harry
Rent "Outfoxed" sometime. How the media giants collude
to decide what is "news" and who get what portion of the
public airwaves. Rather like mafia dons deciding which
gang will have a monopoly on what turfs.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428
Clay
2009-01-04 17:45:06 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 4, 11:42 am, Harry Hope posted nonsense again <LOL>:
...
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13708
What Liberal Media?
January 3, 2009
by Robert A. Kezelis
<self-serving nonsense snip>

"Robert A. Kezelis is a practicing attorney [who] went through what he
calls 'a nasty divorce without a clue'. ”

Just another brain-dead leftist who... by his own words... is "without
a clue".

Too fucking funny.

-C-
Jim Alder
2009-01-04 19:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13708
"One cannot help but be awed by how the MSM dropped the ball on what used to
be traditional American Values (and not the make believe crap that the GOP
pretends to follow)."

Andf this guy can't see liberal bias in the media? Go figure.
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
16 Days - Bu Bye Bush
2009-01-05 00:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13708
"One cannot help but be awed by how the MSM dropped the ball on what used to
be traditional American Values (and not the make believe crap that the GOP
pretends to follow)."
Andf this guy can't see liberal bias in the media? Go figure.
And if you can't see Bush bias after listening to hate radio all day you are
a moron.
Jim Alder
2009-01-05 02:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by 16 Days - Bu Bye Bush
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13708
"One cannot help but be awed by how the MSM dropped the ball on what
used to be traditional American Values (and not the make believe crap
that the GOP pretends to follow)."
Andf this guy can't see liberal bias in the media? Go figure.
And if you can't see Bush bias after listening to hate radio all day you
are a moron.
"I know you are but what am I" is the best you can do?
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
o
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...