The Reason Why The MSM Keeps Putting on Anne Coulter

Elizabeth Edwards mentioned this in her confrontation with Anne. The MSM wants the masses to turn off of politics. They don't want a truly sober dialogue about the issues. What they want are "shock jocks" making outlandish, insults. Having people like Coulter on achieves two goals: (1) they get people who love conflict over susbtance, the WWE crowd and (2) they turn off rational people who don't like yelling and insults. Either way, "pundits" like Coulter serve to keep the masses uninformed about the real issues of the day.

Thus, in order to save our democracy, the media conglomerates need to be broken up into tiny pieces. They no longer serve the public's interests nor do they inform the public about the key issues of the day.

I totally agree.

The right needs someone to reallly challenge them. It's not enough to just get upset with what they are saying.

We have too many intelligent people on our side. We have many that can put her in her place and still maintain their dignity.

She says shocking things because it gets her attention and that sells books.

Debating her on TV gives her legitimacy as a serious commentator on current events.

If you invite Anne on TV, then why not Lyndon LaRouche?

Just an asshole. And a jejune one at that. One of her stupidest tricks is to answer challenges by saying things like, "Oh, so I should never write any more books then, huh?" This is like the 10-year-old who responds to parental discipline by saying, "Oh, so I can never watch television again, huh?"

For an adult to be able to suck up airtime and bookshelf space with these kinds of clumsy attempts at chicanery is beyond pathetic.

Fuck the masses that voted for them in 2006!

regardless of their blessed *seniority.* IMO, Reid and Pelosi are next to worthless! :grr:

http://voidnow.org

Big Shout OUT to you, Elizabeth! Thanks for calling the coulter out on her toolage for the corporatemediawhores(the villians we really need to eliminate).

The "MSM" has made the calculation that there are more television watchers in group (1) than in group (2), and the "MSM" is interested in maximizing their audience so as to make more money.

That's all it is. The "MSM" is a business, people. To think that, at the end of the day, the "MSM" is interested in anything other than making money is delusional in the extreme.

That they're just spouting the viewpoints
that the MAJORITY of us agree with?

Is that what you're saying?

Spot on.

The same can be said of radio - Randi Rhodes consistently does better than Rush Limbaugh in many radio markets yet she gets none of the slavish support he enjoys from broadcasters. I'd also like to remind Mouse what happened to Phil Donohue on MSNBC a while back. This isn't just about money. Look at the Washington Times for a further example of this.

nt

don't you think the MSM will be more aligned with that party?

Also, isn't it in the interest of the Neo-cons to avoid productive debate at all costs?

Go play "I know everything" somewhere else.

News these days has become a profit center. The news channels (and I'm using them as an example in this case) are all about shock and titillation. They evidently feel that a real, honest, serious debate won't go over as well as stalking Paris Hilton does. Or bringing on gasbag pundits to scream at each other.

And yes, FOX Noise isn't as much about pushing a political agenda as one might think. They're in the business of making money, first and foremost. And they found a gullible demographic to do just that. Basically, they zeroed in on a target audience (whiny conservative hotheads) and milked them for all they could. Sure, it's a shitty news channel, but I don't consider them to be news anyway. FOX Noise is an entertainment channel, putting out slanted and gussied-up news and loads of celebrity gossip and other crap just to get people to watch. It's basically conservoporn. Tabloid TV.

Unfortunately, the other news channels have tried to emulate this approach. Rather than hard news, it's non-news stories, dead blondes, screaming pundits, celeb gossip and silly lifestyle stories.

'the "MSM" is interested in anything other than making money is delusional in the extreme'

However, the point is that the big broadcasters have an obligation to do more with the public's airwaves than just "making money". If that's all that matters to them, maybe their broadcasting licenses should be revoked, or they should be charged BIG BUCKS for them.

Corporations that own their media subsidiaries are willing to lose money with them if they can increase profits elsewhere, from tax cuts or actual subsidies. Kind of like a loss leader.

They haven't been using your business model for years. Decades even.

We know and learn MORE about what is going on in spite, or because, of the 'news' being so controlled.

Thank God for Jon Stewart, Colbert and the internets.

We don't need no stinkin' MSM!

respond.

Media deregulation was a death knell to democracy. Let's hope, vibe, wish, pray, whatever that it isn't too late to save her from the scourge of the lazy, corrupt MSM.

He begged me to change the channel. Their plan worked.

if they thought they would get more money by banning Ann Coulter I can ASSURE you they would.

I work in the television business. It's about profit, it's about revenue growth, it's about getting the stock price to rise. That's their motive.

However, I agree with your conclusion. These conglomerates are a detriment to our culture and politcal system.

Two different issues .. even workers in the media might not see the first until it happens to them. "Into the Buzzsaw" a collection of essays by award-winning mainstream journalists whose stories got too hot to handle, and what happened to them.

"Manufacturing Consent" of course is the famous Chomsky/Hermann book on the subject of shaping what constitutes "acceptable discourse" in the American media. Even a strong bias can develop without overt censorship, a kind of evolutionary process where the playing field is tilted by money and power.

haven't gotten around to Chomsky's tome yet, but it's on my list.

Buzzsaw tackled a lot of issues, but several stories that got axed were axed because the advertisers didn't want the stories aired. The Monsanto case sticks out as the most egregious. I thought the book backed my point of view...

Or, more to the point, because they did not go along with the "party line." Ashley Banfield and Phil Donahue are two who immediately come to mind. How many Democrats do we find hired at FAUX News? There was some information given (can't remember where) that a supposedly mainstream channel (I think it was MSNBC) insisted on having two GOP guests on to every one Democrat during talking head shows and a Democratic guest was not allowed to appear on their own, but a GOP guest was.

To say no decisions are politically-motivated in MSM really cuts out a significant portion of what drives it.

but because execs thought he'd get creamed over time, as Americans were thought to be rah-rah and patriotic and pro-war. MSNBC and NBC did not want to be "swift-boated" as being traitorous, not supporting troops, etc, at least that is Donahue's account of what an exec more or less told him.

In these cases political considerations were made because they would ultimately drag down the brand name of the network, resulting in losses in viewers and advertisers. In some instances politics drove decisions, but that was just the means. Ratings was the ends.

Those executives took out Donahue based on a FAUX News view of the world. IF they had allowed him to remain, they may have been proved dead-wrong, primarily because they would have supplied a contrarian voice to all the rah-rah.

and millions of dollars on that maybe.

Not trying to defend him, just saying what went down. Making decisions based on revenue is not the same as making it based on politics, regardless if the show was a political one. Politcally Incorrect was cancelled because of the bad press it got, which ABC didn't want to deal with. He was fired over money, not politics (even though Bill Maher is certainly a political figure). Do you see what I mean?

(Or maybe he realized he had a second chance, who knows). The ratings on Donahue's show had actually gone *up* at the time it was pulled. If no politics were involved (even the politics of fear) how could that exec justify yanking a show that was rising in popularity.

To be clear, I'm not insisting that ratings and revenue play no part in a network's decision because of course it's show *business*, but clearly, clearly since Rupert Murdoch entered with FAUX News very few have had the guts to go against the grain with a different kind of politics (until KO came along).

in the ratings. Its only in the past year or two that things have changed and KO has become more successful. Sadly, he still loses to O'Reilly in head to head matchups.

If they wanted money they would put more progressives on the air, as there is a huge market that is being unserved right now. Keith Olbermann is the only one right now, and he did not start out as an explicitly political newscaster. When he did start speaking out his ratings rose dramatically, and it is partially the money he brings into MSNBC that has kept him from being fired but it is also partially because MSNBC would really expose themselves if they were to fire their most popular newscaster for political reasons.

I don't think the "news" channels are nearly as concerned with profit as the other television stations are. Remember all these channels are part of huge media conglomerates that have numerous revenue sources outside of their "news" broadcasting. I really view these "news" channels more as the public lobbying arm of the media conglomerates, this is where they really try to sell us their political agenda and being able to sell that I think is even more important to them than making a profit. They have plenty of other television stations they can use to get that profit from.

I believe that media ownership is too concentrated. But even if ownership is broken up, I can't envision a circumstance under which broadcast, cable and satellite providers don't obtain their content from national networks. In other words, even if NBC can't own as many (or even any) stations, NBC is still going to exist as a national outlet and chances are that every community in the country is going to have access to NBC programming (just as they all will have access to HBO or CNN or CSPAN). And these national networks are going to go after a mass audience. And if they think that putting a train wreck like AC on, they're going to do so.

More local ownership means that the local news coverage will improve, but I don't see it eliminating the Tonight Show and jokes about Paris Hilton or Anne Coulter.

All divisions of a MSM conglomerate must show a profit. Thus, MSNBC has to show a profit for GE just like the prime time programming division must show a profit. So, in order to do this, MSNBC has to spruce up the news and make it as entertaining as say, "Heroes".

Now, if you break apart GE so that it didn't own everything, then MSNBC could stay around on a more meager profit and put on real news. As an example, look at CSpan. They don't have any profit target to meet, so they can put on the unvarnished news.

CSPAN was created (and is funded by) the cable industry to operate as a not for profit entity for a couple of reasons -- to differentiate themselves from competition and to curry favor with both the federal government and local governments (by offering "public interest" programming). While CSPAN isn't technically "owned" by the cable companies, it owes its existence to them.

Whether operated as independent networks or jointly owned with other companies, commercial networks are going to try to maximize their profits and that means maximizing their viewership. In some cases, profits can be maximized by offering a service targeted to a niche audience, such as a foreign language audience or an audience with a particular demographic (such as the recent launch of networks targeted at gay and lesbian audiences). Other networks will seek out the mass audience for programming or news of general appeal (CNN, MSNBC, FX etc). They still will go with what attracts an audience. And if AC's spewing draws an audience, she'll still get on.

Those who really care are finding a new life on the internet as media becomes more irrelevant. Politics should not be a charge, it is a process which is broken by Corporate Media.

she wrote if she were not outrageous. I'm sure she knows this. Remember that saying: "The only bad publicity is no publicity"

Knowing my political bent, and encouraging me to be an activist (it does wonders for my mental health), he remarked "Do you ever wonder why young people today appear so apathetic?". I had my own theories, which including crushing debt and the futility of much of party politics.

His own theory - which makes sense - is that the overwhelming mass of Main Stream Media is purposefully designed to turn attention away from social and political problems. That it's no accident that the bulk of the news is focused on horrifying crimes and celebrity melt-downs, and that when politics is discussed it's reduced to wing-nut diatribes. That it's a form of learned helplessness, deliberately promoted using skillful psychological manipulation.

I don't think my psychiatrist is tin-hat material. I think he's a hell of a lot smarter and more observant than 99% of the populace.

And I suspect that one of the reasons I'm not crazier than I already am is that I avoid the MSM as much as possible.

many times. i tried to watch the video of elizabeth edwards's phone call and that so-called "pundit" - even before she began spewing contempt - made me sick. the hair thing. the sunglasses. as far as i can see, she is her own story, the only story that matters - whenever i have listened for however long i could bear to, without exception, at some point ann coulter became the story.

i cannot get how she gets air time, or how she rates anything resembling respect or credibility. mostly i cannot stand to look at her or listen to the foul excuse for discourse that flows from her.

and tie all the corporations down with regulations, oversight, and the death penalty (for the *corporation*, not the CEO) if necessary. Corporations are *not* people!

And in case this is the 30 millionth post:
%$#*$#&!#&%# Tom Delay!

If for example, the American People are exposed to warm and friendly fascism viewpoints on daily television as normal and it's labeled as Conservatism, it makes true conservatives seem as moderates, moderates seem as liberals and liberals seem as Communists.

Those that control the MCM want to maintain their information monopoly and the people who would most sympathize with them doing so, are for the most part on the extreme right.

They are quickly becoming irrelevant. Everyone knows that if you want substance you go to the internets. They are dinosaurs and are becoming extinct as we watch (or don't).