Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the MSM: what are your views ???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:02 PM
Original message
the MSM: what are your views ???
i keep seeing all these posts that Democrats can't get their message out because the MSM is biased ... i agree that there is a strong bias in the MSM that leads to serious distortions and omissions of important news events ... but i'm not all that comfortable with the idea that Democrats are not able to get their message out when they want to ... I get regular emails from all sorts of elected Democrats ... often, it's not just the MSM who fails to comment on important issues, e.g. the recent UK memo, but leading Democrats as well ...

question one: when Democrats, especially big name Democrats, want to speak out on key issues, do you believe the MSM refuses to give them the access to do so?

the central problem I see with the MSM goes well beyond suppressing Democrats ... the MSM is driven by the profit motive ... when large corporate advertisers request a certain tone on any given issue, there is no integrity left in the newsroom ... if advertisers, and potential advertisers are pushing a certain agenda, that's the news we get ...

the central tenet of American policy is to cater to powerful corporate interests ... that's what Iraq is all about ... large American-based corporations are lined up for their share of the pie ... and with a permanent military presence in the region, that pie is likely to move into other countries ... there are billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to be made ... little things like our national integrity and international law are never allowed to stand in the way ... so guess what kind of news coverage is put out to the American public?

without a well informed electorate, elections, even fraudulent elections, are a sham ... whoever has the bucks to "influence the news" wins the election ... and this leads to the inescapable conclusion that democracy and capitalism cannot co-exist ...

question two: can democracy and capitalism co-exist? if so, how can we expect the MSM to ignore profit motives to tell citizens the truth ???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ihaveaquestion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Someone has slipped MSM the Kool-aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatelseisnew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Outlaw corporate news and re-regulate business
The regulations were enacted in response to the exact same types of abuse that are recurring since deregulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. what regulations ?
what regulations previously existed that prevented business from interfering with news coverage? are you saying laws like this once existed? please explain ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatelseisnew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. the fairness doctrine for broadcast
its the same as with the financial industries and phone and power
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. did the fairness doctrine restrict corporate influence on the MSM?
i thought the fairness doctrine was more focused on things like "equal time" during campaigns ... did it contain specific language that in any way inhibited the kind of media abuses from corporations that we see today?

and, even absent the abuses of advertisers, the news business itself is still stuck in a capitalist, for profit system ... did the fairness doctrine do anything to prevent the dumbing down of the news to appeal to a larger market?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The Fairness Doctrine, welsh. ReaganBush administration got rid of it.
That was the beginning of the Rush era and the fascists' quest to control the airwaves, starting with radio. Their goal was to demagogue divisive issues and break down the alliances formed by the working class of this nation. Abortion and gays and guns became their bait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. do i have to go do my homework here?
sheesh ... ok, i admit i'm lazy as hell ...

i was hoping one of you DU geniuses could explain exactly what was in the Fairness Doctrine that prevented corporate influences from slanting the news ... was it primarily some kind of "equal time" provision or was there more ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. They were required to report both sides with no editorializing
and when one side was heard the other was given equal time.

There are sites now that advocate for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Some Dem lawmakers are involved, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. read this transcript ...
it's an interview Bill Moyers did with Rep. Slaughter on the Fairness Doctrine: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/slaughter.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. When Kerry held a press conference on healthcare issue, who covered it?
Edited on Tue May-10-05 03:37 PM by blm
Not one report from the broadcast media. And that was only a few months after the election.

He has held several press events, but, the big media sends noone. After every press release, Kerry is available for further comment, but, big media stays away.

During the campaign the Swift vets were debunked a few times over, but the big media glossed over the reports and did not book journalists on their nightly shows who debunked the liars while keeping a steady stream of swiftliars in constant rotation. They controlled the message every day with the bookings.

When corporations began buying up media outlets they SWORE up and down that they would be kept separate and impartial. They lied. Welch was even blatant about NBC news doing their share to improve GE's bottom line. Well, when the other part of the company is a defense supplier, that means the news department becomes the Public Relations Dept. for the War Industry and its Purveyors.

Until the GOP control of the media gets ANY exposure from a concentrated effort by Democrats, there will be NO truth heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Would they have refused a Kerry interview or guest appearance?
Edited on Tue May-10-05 05:09 PM by Dr Fate
It's true that they dont cover vanilla health care press conferences.

But in the case of the SBVets- I'll bet any of those shows would have let him come on and be interviewed about it.

It's true, they would have asked him "hard questions" if he had done more interviews- but it's apparently that format or nothing.

He could have said- I'll be glad to come back on tomorrow and debate you some more, Bill- But why cant Bush or Cheney come on too and get in the mix?- unless they have somthing to hide, that is..."

We need to think outside of the box and try bold, new tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. The MSM is on the side of the moneyed elites. Period.
That's why it tends to be liberal on behavioral issues (and why criticisms of "the liberal media" strike a chord with uninformed readers) and conservative on economic and political issues.

For example, a fundamentalist will get all worked up about an article that tells matter-of-factly about two unmarried celebrities having a baby together or an article about happy gay couples getting married in Massachusetts. When Rush and co. rave about "the liberal media," the fundamentalist recalls articles like that and nods in agreement. On the other hand, it doesn't bother the elites, because they have always been very laissez-faire about private sexual or other behavior, as long as one retains a "respectable" facade.

However, if it's a political or economic matter, the media will take the side of the rich and powerful most of the time. Whether it's the bankruptcy bill or a labor dispute or black box voting, their first instinct will be to protect corporate interests. They will make debtors look like whining deadbeats, treat union members as greedy yahoos who won't rest until they've destroyed their employer, and dismiss concerns about BBV with soothing pronouncements from conservative pundits. It's only when they sense public opinion turning in the other direction that they will grudgingly admit that the other side makes sense, as has happened with the Social Security question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. not laissez-faire exactly
i agree with your point that the "elites" don't give a damn about most social issues ... but i don't think the term laissez-faire paints the clearest picture ...

social issues, i.e. wedge issues, are used to divide the masses pitting one group against another while the foxes make off with all the chickens ... issues like religion, gay rights and abortion are used to divide people so that they don't focus on the economic policies that enable them to be exploited by the ruling class ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. IMO, Step One Is Labeling It CORPORATE Media & Hammering That Point.
TV and Radio exist for manipulating public opinion and consuming.

Does anyone really believe that tv, which exists to sell products, is
going to shape our opinions in ways detrimental to Corporate America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I agree
MSM is like calling the religious extremist Nuts .....Fundies.

MSM is too good a name for the CORPORATE MEDIA. The problem is not that it's Mainstream...the problem is that it's CORPORATE.

Ditto for the Religious Extremists....Call them the Religious Wrong or Right Wing Religious Extremists.....not the Cute nomer....FUNDIES. What's wrong with being a Fundie? vs. Whats wrong with being part of the Religious Wrong? See?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Obama could get a slot on Food-Fight TV anytime.
It's true that the media wont cover their press conferences- but they could get on the debate/interview shows every week if they wanted.

The media is GOP owned-but they don't hold guns to the backs of Top Democrats and say "Dont mention the memo."

Part of the problem is that DEMs wait for the Republican Owned Media to present & define the issues, then they comment on them.

I'd Love to see Kerry, Dean or whoever go on Wolf Blitzer and say:

"At this point I'd like to "Report" on the UK memo for you, since you "Forgot" to do it. I have a copy of it right here, in fact..."

We need to start going on these interview shows and throwing them off guard- and asking them point blank- "Why did you "forget" to rrport this? This story is weeks old! Why do *I* have to come on here and bring this issue up? Were you even planning to investigate this? Was the runnaway bride really more important than this?..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. Arundhati Roy
It's a mistake to think that the corporate media supports the neo-liberal project. It is the neo-liberal project. It is the nexus, the confluence, the convergence, the union, the chosen medium of those who have power and money. As the project of corporate globalization increases the disparity between the rich and the poor, as the world grows more and more restive, corporations on the prowl for sweetheart deals need repressive governments to quell the mutinies in the servants' quarters. And governments, of course, need corporations. This mutual dependence pawns a sort of corporate nationalism, or more accurately, a corporate/nationalism---if you can imagine such a thing. Corporate/nationalism has become the unwavering anthem of the mass media.

AN ORDINARY PERSON'S GUIDE TO THE EMPIRE (4-5)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Roy is an interesting thinker, and I believe that no matter how hard it is to get our minds around this concept, once done, what we are seeing makes much more sense.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The stars of the Democrats, just as they did not want to draw attention with several of their votes, are very careful with their crafted imagines. Whatever the handlers say. Also, to believe that various Dems are in opposition to the corporate nationalism is rather naive.

There is a school of thought that believes that crumbs from the table are better than nothing. IOW, the Ds may go along to get along but offer a tasty bit on occasion. Ditto the Rs, although our side won't see it this way.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

David Brock makes a compelling case that the Fairness Doctrine is what got us here. It is a long explanation and to understand "why" one must read the book.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Our freedoms were not given to us; we fought for them. If we are to live in any system, we must be vigilant--we're not. The powers that be will pay us no attention because in the grand scheme our numbers don't effect them. Laws...laws that force the corporations to work within a democratic system. Corporate/nationalism is what we got and it ain't good.

I am not a pessimist although this post seems set in stone; we are trying to meaningfully organize. Good. Currently we have no strong central leadership that stands up and is unafraid. We'll see.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. It's not you that needs to hear our talking points.
Edited on Tue May-10-05 09:18 PM by Mountainman
This goes back to the thread about how we demonstrate today. We here on the web communicate with ourselves. We need to get our message out to those who only get the right's talking points!

If both sides of the story were on the radio or if there were real investigative journalism, we would all be hearing about the Downing Street memo. As it is, only types like us know about it.

No our message is not getting out to the people who might help us get back into power!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. From Our Voice to Theirs
The corporate media in our country has gone from being a public trust that had an obligation to serve the public good and conform to the people's will to be able to retain its license(s), to the mouthpiece of the global corporate oppressor who now gives us orders, and it was the killing of the Fairness Doctrine that brought it about. When that happened, the FCC lost its real purpose and reason for existence, and the broadcast industry and what it was supposed to be, shifted from a concern about the welfare of the people and the rights of the Nation, to a total, and civic-killing, emphasis on the "property rights" and "ownership" of rich capitalists. The entire broadcast industry went from being the public forum of the Nation and the discussion of its important issues--often the catalyst for great social change, by analyzing protests and new movements, and presenting opinions on issues with an attitude of education and an educated public--to the personal property of rich hoarders who were now free to use TV and radio stations only as moneymakers for themselves, and to push their own selfish monolithic propaganda, every minute of every day, to their own advantage, cutting out the entire American population.

This set of policies covered not only "equal time" access for candidates, but fair coverage of all issues, and an opportunity for people who could demonstrate that their side of an issue was either not presented at all or was slandered, to reply. The 1969 case of Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC, which upheld the Constitutionality of the rule, was about just such a thing. Red Lion had put on a program on the "Christian Crusade," an archconservative group, and had attacked an author, Fred J. Cook, during the program. Cook requested an opportunity to respond, and was denied. Cook sued, and the suit was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, which at that time was not a branch of the Republican Party, and so it won on the merits. The whole basis of the law was that the people have rights, and corporations are going to respect them. Then that bastard Reagan came along, refused to enforce FCC rules, and finally killed the Fairness Doctrine itself. This allowed a total unbalancing of opinions that were to appear on the media from then on. Extremist corporate archconservatism, which represented a minute portion of the population, was now the only voice heard, and personal attacks now were not even able to be answered. Deliberate falsehoods now stand uncorrected, and all news coverage is reduced and trivialized. (FAIR had a really good article in its "Extra" Magazine, by the way, this past Feb. It is on their website, at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053 "The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It, and Why We Need It Back.")

You have no idea what levels the corporate propaganda has reached, how complete, even obsessive, the manipulation is now, unless you have access to other perspectives. With that cut off, and the number of people giving all opinions shrinking--fewer corporations owning everything, so it is like there are only 3 or 4 actual channels, and fewer differences of opinion--the media now is just a drumbeat, merciless, (attempting to be) hypnotic, offensive, more and more visually hysterical all the time, and giving the effect of a distant, now totally cut-off corporate propagandist oppressing us. Forcing the law changes they want, telling it the way they want, attacking whomever and whatever they want, and shifting all their taxes onto us. Now, unable to make public, coherent statements of support for our anger and opposition to it all, no real fight against it can be organized. Many people, too overworked to study these issues, do not even know how widespread the hatred of the corporate oppressor now is, so the resultant movement against it can never build up, because it can never focus its knowledge and agreement, and seek the next step, action. This is the profoundest violation of the people that the corporate media does, and knowingly. It stops us from being our own coherent society, apart from them, and affecting things the way we want. They are always interposed between what we as a society would do, and the mechanisms needed to get change rolling. We are now always silenced, in the dark, and unable to operate or control anything in our own country anymore, all the while listening to the horrible, acrid voice of global capitalism telling us that outsourcing and union-busting, pension-killing and wage-reductions, price-gouging and Republican corporations counting election votes, are all fine, fine, fine... Sleep.

Once, the media was the extension of the Nation's real population, and was legally under its control. It was a multitude of small and large corporations, none of whom had control of propaganda over us. Now, with anti-trust laws gone, it is as a monolith, facing us with hostility, actually studying how to fool and trick us, then have deniability later. This seems to me to be the only place to start, to work up a real, general hatred of these traitors--since we are censored, attacked, cannot get (UNEDITED) air time and cannot get fair coverage of any issue anymore. First, tell the situation clearly, so people will know what this corporate threat is, how it got there and what they do, what we lost and how it undermines everything we want to accomplish as a society every day. We cannot even solve our own ordinary problems anymore, with this enemy blocking us. Get people to hate it, and disconnect from it, and most of the task will be accomplished; it will then start to lose its power over us, when people routinely know how it lies and manipulates every issue against us and for itself. If you cannot yet affect the situation, at least first disenthrall yourself, so the lies stop working.

Realize that as soon as the Fairness Doctrine was killed, the corporate media became the biggest treasonous threat that the American people ever faced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC