More on the corporate media and coverage of candidates

An earlier post made me understand that many people feel that the media favoring or blacklisting particular candidates was based on ratings or individual reporter's biases.

I still believe that there is such an entity as the "corporate media", although it remains pretty nebulous. There are just too many instances when reporters seem to be "on message."

For example -

- The lead-up to the Iraq War. Can we really blame individual reporters for selling the war? Can we say that it was for ratings?
- The Clinton Witch-hunts. The media was all over every scandal like glue. Can we say the same about any of Bush's mistakes? For example...
- The lack of coverage of Bush's failure to show up when he was in the Guard during the Vietnam War. Can we really say that this wasn't covered because of ratings or because it was "too complicated"?
- The obvious lack of coverage of anti-war rallies.

What I'm saying is that if you think that there is a "corporate media" that was at fault for selling the Iraq War, how can you exempt the possibility that the same entity is selling us particular candidates?

Just wondering....

Was there money in it for the media to sell the Iraq War?

If not - then what's the motive?

I noticed Hillary had recieved funds from a media corp.

...play up Bill Clinton's scandals or to downplay Bush's no-show during the Vietnam War?

Was there money involved there?

They know they can sell laundry soap to the audience they attract, so it's usually up to them as to whehter they go right or left. Whichever companies support that view will advertise there. :shrug:

THE MORE THE TWO FIGHT, THE MORE $ for them.
Also, the rest have no significant money for advertising, so no interest in them - off from the debates.
With propaganda outlets like Faux, interfering in the outcome is also a consideration.
I saw them attacking Huckabee, Romney - clearly they push their guy.
So, it's both.

Another:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html

by Corporations. Influences Media Coverage. Reporters are constrained
often because of fear of losing their job if they get themselves on
the wrong side. Therefore they self-censor and become overly cautiious.

Lead up to war: Cheerleaded and dutiflly used WH Talking Points.
Yes, you can say each individual participated. They did not have
to be so gleefully enthusiastic.
Anyone who disagreed with War were axed
Donahue, A. Banfield, lots across the country in print. The famous
Radio Talker (AM) NPR.

The Reporters, Commentators Pundits favor Obama and McCain.
More than one serious reporter has said this. If you watch
TV (this is where America gets all their information)

Free Media--being able to get coverage--is decided by the reporters.
Guess who gets the best coerage, most positve coverage and negative
storie overlooked.

Guess who they do not like---and received 60% negative coverage.
IMO, Profwssional Journalists would recognize their biases and
make efforts to give all candidates an opportunity.

The very idea that the DC Crowd were ready to give Obama a coronation
after Iowa. 48 states had not even voted. The American People have
no idea of who Obama really is. They did the same thing for GWB.No
disrespect to Obama, but I do not trust their judgment after the
mess GWB has made for this country. The DC Gaggle as many of their
own have said--"they are in love". I say, good just let us have
an election.