Victory of the corporate news monopolies--the Left calls them "mainstream."

Every time you call them the "mainstream media" (or "MSM"), you give them this ground. But they are not even close to being a reflection of the REAL "mainstream" of the American people. The crap shoveled at us every day by the 5 rightwing billionaire CEOs who control all news and opinion in this country (--except for the internet) is intended to create a narrative of rightwing power, and to make the great progressive majority in this country feel like the minority, thus to demoralize and disempower us. Have you not felt this from time to time, or often--that you are all alone, and that the rest of the country has gone nuts, or that other Americans are stupid yahoos, who let greedy, powermongering fascists lead them by the nose? How often have I heard that, here at DU--that other Americans are "sheeple"! Too often. But who are these "sheeple"? Are they really the majority? What of the 56% of the American people who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, way back in Feb. '03? That would be a landslide in a presidential election--56%! And that was even before all the lies were exposed, and it had to include some of the 50% or so of Americans who believed that Saddam had WMDs and/or had something to do with 9/11. 56% opposed the war DESPITE the propaganda. And what of the 63% of the American people who oppose torture "under any circumstances" (May '04)? What of all the extraordinary opinion poll stats over the last several years, showing 60% to 70% disapproval of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic? What of the current 74% opposed to the Iraq War, and the whopping 84% opposed to any US participation in a widened Mideast war?

MOST Americans were thinking for themselves, way back in Feb. '03, INCLUDING some who had those bits of WMD-9/11 propaganda rattling around in their heads. Given the relentless, 24/7 war propaganda that we have all been subjected to, isn't there a much stronger case for Americans being resistant to propaganda, than that they are passive "sheeple"? Yet somehow we get the impression that "mainstream" Americans are stupid and easily led. Gee, where does that impression come from?

It's the people who watch too much TV news/opinion who think other Americans are stupid, because stupid Americans, and stupid opinions, are given great prominence there. IF most other Americans are thinking for themselves, how can they put up with this crap? --this thinking goes, as if the crap that is shoveled at us by the corporate news monopolies defines us, and CREATES a majority. We make the mistake of thinking that other Americans ARE putting up with it--rather than that most Americans are just as unhappy with crap news and crap opinion as we, the vocal left, are. I think the latter is the case. "Mainstream" America is as unhappy with the fascist, warmongering, stupid crap on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers, as we are. In fact, "mainstream" America is us. The Left.

Only rightwing views count. Only rightwing views need to be catered to. Only rightwing views have a forum. Thus, MOST Americans feel that OTHER Americans hold rightwing views, and this condition of feeling very alone in your progressive, leftist views then becomes self-fulfilling. Some winger you encounter gives you the willies, and you think "that's America." You multiply the encounter in your mind--because that's all you see on TV, hear on the radio and read in the newspapers. And it is a completely wrong view of the American people.

Almost nothing that you see on TV, hear on the radio or read in the newspaper is anywhere near being "mainstream." The average American is against the war, and always has been. The average American is appalled by torture, and always has been. The average American despises George Bush and Dick Cheney, and didn't vote for them. The Supreme Court appointed these SOBs in 2000, and Diebold/ES&S (s)elected them in 2004, with their 'trade secret,' proprietary programming code in all the new and extremely insider hackable electronic voting systems. New voters were flocking to the Democratic Party in 2004--60 to 40--in rejection of the Bush Junta, and its heinous war and its torture and its thievery and all of its other fascist policies. Bush's so-called mandate fell to 49% on the very day of his inauguration in '04 (an unprecedented low for a 2nd term president), then quickly plummeted to 40% then to 30%, and now it's lower than that. Why? Because in fact Bush/Cheney lost that election. The people were never with them. It was an artificially manufactured endorsement for fascist--and very unamerican--policy, created by the combination of rightwing Bushite-controlled electronic voting systems and rightwing Bushite controlled news media.

We are the victims of the ILLUSION that the rightwing, fascist views we see on TV, hear on the radio, and read in the newspaper are "the mainstream." And this most insidious victory of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies is constantly reinforced--inside of us, in our own minds, and to the serious harm of others--by our constant repetition of the phrase "mainstream media" (or "MSM"), to describe the rightwing propaganda that is shoveled at us, day and night, on every channel, and with our coffee in the morning as we read the paper, and on the radio as we drive to work. Rush Limbaugh is 'the mainstream." The war propagandists--and corporate shills--at the NYT are "the mainstream." The Associated Press--generator of thousands of lying, deceitful, highly manipulated, rightwing-slanted national/international news stories--is "the mainstream." The Washington Post, that dirty rag, is "the mainstream." CNN, that mouthpiece of the Bush Junta, is "the mainstream."

But they are not. And that is my point. So why do we keep calling them that?

I've had some people argue back that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies create what is real, in our national life, and therefore must be...I don't know...worshiped in some way, given unrightful title to credibility and reality because they SAY they are "the mainstream," or because OTHER people accept them as "the mainstream." Or simply because they are so pervasive. How can we NOT call them "the mainstream" when they own everything--all our public airwaves, all print news venues? But this is exactly how George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales tried to make torture "the mainstream." Because they are doing it, it is normal, it is accepted, it is "mainstream." In truth it is bizarre and psycho--like much of the news/opinion we are exposed to. In truth, the great majority of Americans strongly object to it. But because the Bush Junta tortures prisoners, then it's okay? Because the corporate news monopolies own everything, they ARE "the mainstream" and we have to call them that?

If you want to buy into that, well, fine, that's your choice. Keep reinforcing their claim to "the mainstream" of America, if you want. But I urge you not to. I urge you to kill this phrase, 'the mainstream media" ("MSM"). The internet is the mainstream, not the corporate news monopolies. The 74% opposed to the Iraq War are "the mainstream," not the wackos who are still defending it in the corporate news monopolies, or the wackos like Lieberman in Congress who are blocking any effective action to stop it.

I see this phrase, or its acronym, again and again and again, and every time I see it I think that the writer--no matter how leftist his or her views are, on other subjects--has been brainwashed into believing that his or her leftist views are in the minority, and are NOT "the mainstream." The writer DOESN'T KNOW that the Left IS the mainstream. It makes me trust the writer less, and it makes me pity the writer, and pity us all. Are we all "sheeple," in our own way? Don't we realize what has been done to us--that the real fascist coup, the one we can't get at, the one that is not obvious--is this subtle and expert brainwashing that convinces us that wingers and corporate fascists and psychos are in the majority.

Ann Coulter is finally getting dumped by the "MSM" for her bigotry. But did you ever consider how such a wacko could achieve any prominence as a commentator? It was to make YOU feel alone, in your tolerant, progressive views; to make YOU feel isolated; to make YOU feel that everybody else in the country is nuts. How could she have such a big trumpet? How could she be famous and well-paid for the crap she spews? SOMEBODY must believe that crap, becomes 'MOST Americans must believe that crap,' becomes 'MOST Americans have gone nuts.' That's how it works. Currently, we have Bob Novak, a traitor to this country--the outer of a CIA agent and an entire WMD counter-proliferation network--acting all mainstreamy. If the REAL mainstream had anything to say about it, he would be in disgrace--and even in jail. He is a traitor! --by any definition of the word. A betrayer of people who risked their lives to keep us all safe from illicit traffic in dangerous weapons. Does this not make you feel a bit crazy? Americans must be pretty stupid to accept an outright traitor as a news columnist. Right? It makes you feel lonely. It makes you feel that the values of loyalty, and lawfulness, and decency, and honest journalism, and intelligent, rational commentary, are no longer desired by the American people, because, if they WERE desired, wouldn't the "free market" give them to us? How could such a criminal still be writing a news column? We forget that there is no such thing as a "free market" of ideas any more, or of anything else. Corporate monopolies control it all. Rightwing billionaires. Fascists. And they present Ann Coulter and Bob Novak to you as "the mainstream." And every time you use that phrase--"MSM"--you are agreeing with them, that psycho Coulter and traitor Novak, and others like them, are "mainstream" America.

There are subtler versions of Ann Coulter and Bob Novak fed to us every day, as "the mainstream media." We have editors shaping and creating "news" stories in the service of war and corporate profit--in every one of the so-called "mainstream" newspapers and news services--the NYT, the WP, the LAT, AP. Many of us KNOW ABOUT this manipulation, and it is often pointed out, here at DU. We study it in detail. And we know that the great majority of the American people oppose the war that these "news" organizations serve, and are victims of the global corporate predators whose profit is the sole object of this highly manipulated "news" and opinion. And still many of us call it "the mainstream media" and the "MSM" for short, never realizing what a propaganda victory it is for those who are oppressing us. Another way they have us is political campaign contributions, which feed billions of dollars to the corporate news monopolies for crapass political TV ads. You send $20 off to Howard Dean, and most of it ends up in the pockets of rightwing billionaire TV moguls. There is no solution to this, until we can regain control over the counting of our votes, and can start electing enough honest officials who will do something about it.

But use of the phrase "MSM" is something we can act on now--at least in our own writings. It is an insidous and inaccurate phrase, and a victory for the bad guys. WE are "the mainstream." Not them.

"Corporate news monopolies" is a good and accurate substitute for "MSM." I always write out the fully precise designation "war profiteering corporate news monopolies," but that's too long for most writers and speakers. "Corporate media" is also a good, short substitute. I urge you, with all my heart, to please consider using a substitute phrase.

CCCP: Corporate Controlled Conservative Press

like you say, there's nothing MAINSTREAM about it.....I call it corporate news

works for me also.

'MSM' endures because the acronym rolls easily off the tongue ...and the keyboard.

Can you suggest a catchy acronym for 'war-profiteering corporate controlled....." (can't find it now in your text); I'll promiote that also.

I get your point ; I have a feeling you may be tilting at windmills here, though.

the warpcrock news monopolies.

It's hard to find an acronym for war profiteering corporate news monoplies. WPCNM.

Warp + crock + news monopolies = warpcrock news monopolies --is pretty fine. It doesn't get "corporate" in there very well, though.

WPCM. War profiteering corporate media. Warpcom. Warpcomedia. Har. (I hate to give up on the word "news" with "media" as the sub.)

War corporate media. Warcom.

War corporate news. Warcon. WarCon. Like NeoCon.

I'm getting lost here.

Warpcrock media is looking good.

...of their reach. To which I say, then call them The Dominant Media. Conveys the idea, but frames it better.

NGU.

I like the use of "Dominant Media." It's accurate, and it suggests the manipulation and the sifting out of anything that doesn't fit the mold.

although I've found myself slipping lately.

One point you overlooked--the corp-whores are also terribly LAZY; they can't be bothered to pick up the phone for substantiation. With this bunch, Watergate would still be just a bread-in and innocent people would have probably been convicted for it. Shame, shame, shame.

You know we are in trouble when the likes of Keith Olbermann (pretty objective, not leftist, IMHO--and I consider that a very goos thing) are considered left wing.

I don't want left, right, or centered news. I want it objective; the way I remember it from my growing up years when being a journalist was considered worthy of much respect.

Is it is not in the glossary here. I've been coming to DU for perspective since 2002, and always assumed it meant 'multiple state media'. I've checked the glossary before, and it was not listed. Before coming to DU I always referred to it as the Mass Media, which as far as I was concerned, said it all.

I also, IMHO, think you give too much credit to the people residing in the US, the mainstream however defined, as having, generally, thought out political views. I find, the grand majority, on any given day, can't name the two Senators in their state, or who is their Representative in the House, or who is the US Secretary of State.

In the past I was amazed by how few people read a newspaper daily, or even on Sunday; and as well how few watched the news on the tele rather than sports, Nascar, soaps, or the other assorted junk masquerading as entertainment.

More people use computers for games, music, shopping, idle chat, and when needed business, than as a source of political information of alternative views. IMHO, As a society, Americans are very politically disinterested, and uninformed. That less than half who are eligible, vote, is a statement onto itself.

It is only with exceptional stimulation, like airplanes flying into buildings or televised war, that most people even remotely attempt to understand political issues. There is the old saw, the US has wars to teach the children geography. And then, as you have pointed out in your post, unfortunately the mindless repetitive mimic of corporate planted information becomes the source of reason, in an unsophisticated search for truth.

Your post resonates the problem of a corporate media with no competition, that distributes information and opinion supportive of its mission. IMHO the other half of the equation is a general public political apathy, and resulting over generations, a selective if existent, memory of history. An individual apathy un realized and un challenged, as long as there is a secure and comfortable environment for addictive stimulating consumption, that leads to their individual selective desires. Interrupt that security, real or imagined, or disturb that comfortable environment of consumption, and then it becomes a crisis and a crash course is needed for political awareness, and they flock to the advertisers of their consumption and comfort, for information specially prepared for their non discerning consumption. If the information is patriotic cool-aid, it takes a while for the flock to think rather than react. Therein lies the problem, 'in that while', the damage is done.

Thank You for enlightening me to the real meaning of MSM, I have wondered before.

edit: for grammar

mainstream or news is misleading.

Thanks for the thread Peace Patriot

Kicked and recommended

Mainstream; the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend:

Like it or not, and I don't either, they are by definition the mainstream media. As for the rest of it, I would really like to believe what you say about the American public, but consider that here, on DU, a Democratic bastion and refuge for American liberalism, Dennis Kucinich is roundly criticized as everything from a loon to being merely unelectable. All this in spite of the facts that he is the only candidate that supports our position and has definitive plans to end the slaughter in Iraq, make universal health care a reality, withdraw from the WTO, end NAFTA and GATT, etc.

We have been brainwashed, there is no other explanation for the last four out of five elections (even discounting the Florida coup), and even the last election didn't bring the results one would expect from a sane public. I'm afraid the solution is is far more difficult than bringing honest elections, or not using the term mainstream media, it will require a fundamental shift away from the most cherished illusions that we, as a people, cling to and that is a tall order, not likely to be filled until it is too late.

Still, we must fight the good fight for what we know to be right.