Television news doesn't have a lot of professionally-trained "reporters" on the ground. Most of them are former sports stars or models or beauty contestants. Sure, there are some behind-the-scenes reporters, but that "newsie" stuff doesn't drive up ratings.

There has been several things that have contributed to the demise of news, but hiring people with no journalism training, networkss moving newsrooms under the wing of the network's entertainment division and the overly-consolidated media are the three worst, in my opinion.

Back in the 1930s, the original FCC declared the American people the owners of the public airwaves and gave broadcast media a public service commission. Media were widely owned by smaller enterprises expressing a wide variety of opposing viewpoints, which made for vigorous debate and a more informed public. Reagan began the process of dismantling the original rules, cancelling the Fairness Doctrine and opening the door for media consolidation. The 1996 Telecom Act -- the almost total deregulation of the media -- vastly consolidated media holdings into the hands of 6 megacorporations. As of 2013, they were GE, Newscorp (Murdoch), Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. It varies slightly as they reshuffle themselves. The bosses see media solely as a profit center, not a public service. News departments were dissipated and replaced by infotainment --"if it bleeds, it leads," etc.

The transnational megacorporations that now own ~ 90% of the American media represent the interests of the 1% and view media as profit-making centers. These megacorporations own other megacorporations and ALL of them have what is known as "interlocking directorates." That is, they serve on one another's board of directors. It really is an "old boys club." They know it is not in their interests to keep the American people informed. They are a HUGE part of the reason for our current income inequality predicament.

A great book on the subject is Ben Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly." http://www.amazon.com/New-Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapters/dp/0807061875/ref=sr_1_1 (Sorry to link to the majorly oppressive Amazon, but their website is still good for info.) His latest book has only 11 reviews but earlier editions had scores of reviews. (He must be very old by now.)

A while back, the Columbia Journalism Review was the go-to place for the details of media ownership. The site has changed over the years & I find it less helpful, but one can go here & click on "Who Owns What." It's informative. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php

In bringing attention to this, Bernie is doing a great public service. The Big Boys won't pay attention to him, but if he can get the American people on board, we might have the start of our political revolution.

GO BERNIE.

just not as fast as the whacko republicons want to.

The 1% (Goldman-Sachs, for example) do not wish us to die, they just don't care if we do. They want profits/power and power/profits. We need a change and Sen Sanders stands for that change. He stands for the people.

but it should be obvious that he has far more personal integrity and genuine ideals than Clinton ever did. The DLC was a horrible cave-in of Democratic values. I think people gave it a pass b/c the Repubs were becoming their unbelievably ugly selves during the Clinton presidency and most of us felt protective of him to the point of letting him get away with stuff he shouldn't have done (1996 Telecom Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, WTO, Glass Steagall repeal, etc.) When I was researching the media monopoly for a grad school project toward the end of Clinton's 2nd term, I felt almost personally humiliated to come across an account of VP Gore sweet-talking the media moguls, telling them everything the administration would do for them, complete with cringe-worthy quotes.

But I know that the presidency is not all powerful. I know the oligarchs are running things and our elected representatives must dance to their tune -- or "die" politically.

Except a few. And of those few, Bernie stands out for clear-sightedness and real, put-it-on-the-line courage.

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

They, the Oligarchs, loved Clinton/Gore. And in 2000 they ran Gore in spite of the fact that the Left warned them not to. But the Oligarchs would rather have a republicon like Bush win in 2000 than a progressive. That's what happened. That's what will happen again in 2016 if the Oligarchs buy the nomination for H. Clinton. They don't care if she or Jeb wins. They just don't want Sanders to win.

it's a safe bet that he's aware of this. Lately he's surprising me in his ability to strategize and work the political situation to his favor. I hope he and his advisers can handle the DLC wing of the Democratic Party -- and the Party brass too, since they seem to be in the Hillary camp. And it's pretty obvious that Biden is the backup in case Hillary falters. Yes, they're afraid of Bernie.

As for the oligarchs, Bernie is not afraid to take them on directly and openly. He's calling them out.

He really is rather amazing.

It's too bad more people aren't following this thread. Maybe the horse race is simply more exciting. (Or maybe it's me. -- if so, sorry, and thanks for being such a good sport.)

taking them on, I fear for his and his family's safety.

It may be slightly out of date but not too much...

I'm quite familiar with that graphic, which appeared in this article.

That handful of giant corporations care about making money and little else.