The press dislikes Obama's speech because it threatens the core interests of their corporate owners.

I'm not surprised that the corporate press is panning Obama's speech. I'm a little disappointed that so many progressives are falling in line.

Obama's speech directly threatened the most basic values and financial interests of the corporate press. If a news outlet isn't partially owned by the fossil fuel industry (like giant media conglomerate GE-NBC), then it relies heavily on advertising revenue and investments from that industry. Didn't anyone notice the weekly ads from BP and other oil and coal companies on the Sunday morning talk shows?

Problem #1 for the employers of our favorite reporters and pundits is Obama's complete rejection of the philosophy espoused by General Electric (NBC) spokesperson Ronald Reagan and shared by the CEO's of all corporate media parent companies. In case you didn't notice...



If you want to hear it in more dramatic terms, it means that the Reagan era of business friendly government is over. That's why we just regulated the banking, credit, and insurance industries. Whether you think those regulations are strong enough or not, it represents a turning of the tide.

Next, Obama threw down the gauntlet at the most powerful force in Washington and the media: the fossil fuels industry.







Have you heard these portions of Obama's speech debated in the press very much? Of course not. The corporate press CEO's don't want you to pay attention to those sentences. Reporters and pundits who don't stay within certain boundaries find themselves oddly denied jobs and promotions. Yes, even on MSNBC.

So instead, we're given frivolous criticisms and shallow analysis. Why should we be surprised when the press doesn't praise Obama for making a strong statement in favor of core liberal values? When are liberals going to stop consuming this crap and learn to stick to the alternative press?

Problems created by capitalism will never be solved with a capitalist response.

If you're going to disagree then you could at least read it first.
Given the history of the New Deal, I have to disagree with you.

and I disagree.

or at the very least see consumption of their product decline significantly. That sounds odd, but OK.

when exactly is that going to happen?

because I quoted parts of the speech answering that question. In fact, Obama did several things to help make it happen before the oil spill.

"This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries."

"As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition."

Accelerate, jumpstart, already, as we speak. You may be cynical enough to believe Obama is simply lying, but he's making a good case for what needs to happen.

that a political speech with no numbers, dates, names, bills, deadlines, or specific proposals may as well be a promise to give everyone a pony during his third term.

are usually made by election day losers who don't connect with most of the public. However, he did mention a specific bill that already passed Congress and it has plenty of specifics we can all debate right now. It seems like you're unwilling to process any information that doesn't confirm your existing attitudes.

they no longer report they editorialize 24/7

-Thomas Jefferson

The 'for profit' news media, along with money in politics, is at the root of our dysfunctional political structure.

:thumbsup:

because the thread keeps getting un-rece'd.

You can figure out that big media is corporate owned but can't figure out that Obama & Co. are too?

Don't hold your breath for Obama to come through on those anti-corporate promises.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22head+of+GE%22+%2BObama

And that he hasn't let up on pushing for climate change legislation at all since taking office. Any President is going to build relationships with corporate elites because we don't live in a socialist country. Does that really matter if he continues to follow through on his stated goals?

... and benign in the other?

Does Obama have some sort of moral Midas touch, that anything that associates with him becomes pure of heart and of motive?

Does GE turn from greedy corporation as owner of NBC to benevolent industry benefactor as a partner of Obama?

over hiring, firing and setting the boundaries of debate because they are the owner. That power relationship is VERY different than having influence with a politician. It's not a fair comparison. To Obama, GE is one of many powerful companies that gave more money to the other party.

So far you haven't given any examples of how Obama's relationship with GE (which sounds no different than his relationship with hundreds or thousands of power elites) has negatively influenced his actions as President. Is guilt by association enough to confirm your cynicism?

How can the same exact people be bad evil people in one context and faultless in the other? Why would they work with him in one case and against him in the other?

It has nothing to do with guilt by association, this is about the lack of consistency in the ideas expressed in your OP. If these people are malicious enough on the one hand to use their media outlets to bash Obama, that is not consistent with all the ways they are voluntarily acting in concert with him.

The much simpler explanation is that they own him just as they own NBC... and given how friendly his policies to GE corporates (and other corporates), that's an explanation that stands up quite well on the facts.

Kind of like how I have a different relationship with my sister-in-law than my brother does even though she's the same person. I'm sure GE has some influence with Obama but that's not the same as having a power relationship over a media outlet GE owns. It's silly to equate the two different types of relationships. Having influence with a person is not the same as having direct control over a person.

As we have seen in his actions and this speech, Obama is pursuing a number of agenda items strongly opposed by GE. If GE had direct control over Obama, like they would over an employee, then he would be acting a lot more like Ronald Reagan than he is right now.

It can't be that the very same people are both for and against Obama simultaneously.

As the link I posted above shows, GE's cooperation with Obama is extensive, and indeed if he were not so permissive of financial shenanigans, they would likely be bankrupt already.

It makes no sense for people who are cooperating with him on so many different things would turn around and use the media outlet they control to bash him... unless there is a charade being played.

I would be interested in the enumeration of a couple of these "agenda items strongly opposed by GE" that Obama is allegedly pursuing!

edit: The only thing I could find for variants of "GE opposes Obama" searches was a financial reform provision from a year ago, which has since been dropped by the administration. So I definitely need your assistance in finding evidence to substantiate this assertion.

Do I have the same relationship with your mother as you do? It's the same person so you and I must have the exact same relationship. That's what you're arguing.

I'm not suggesting that GE changes their agenda. It's the degree of control that differs. I'm sure GE influences Obama but that's very different than being an employee or company owned by GE. For examples of agenda items opposed by GE, read the quotes in the OP again. Another example is the Murkowski resolution which Obama issued an official veto threat to help defeat.

So no, Obama doesn't take orders from GE like an employee. Your idea of how much they influence Obama is exaggerated.

If you're so sure that Obama is the slave of his campaign contributors then keep in mind that his largest contributor was small donors: the people.

funny stuff! :thumbsup:

is only effective when you make a point to go along with it.

I don't usually laugh when I read Chomsky's critique of how the media operates. This post is simply a specific example of it.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

Made even funnier by their name/avatar.

in a major speech from the oval office that most of the left doesn't bother to acknowledge it.
Strategy fail.

:bounce:

Keep up the good work helping the corporate media ensure that no one discusses liberal ideas in the public sphere.

ting off easy

Because it contradicts the drumbeat accusing Obama of not being liberal enough? My post isn't even about whether BP is getting off easy.

"it relies heavily on advertising revenue and investments from that industry. Didn't anyone notice the weekly ads from BP and other oil and coal companies on the Sunday morning talk shows?"


have you performed a quantitative analysis of the relationship of particular news outlets to their various advertisers/corporations? if so, can you show it? it's doubtful that BP is typically the predominant advertiser/funder of most MSM outlets; their sponsors vary, come from many industries, corporations and sectors, and not solely and not predominantly from big oil in general or bp in particular.

further, you cite the apparent heavy presence of bp ads on recent sunday talk shows; this is anecdotal evidence; it's not representative of overall ad trends for msm; it's not only anecdotal, but likely due to bp's recent wish to maintain a high positive presence in the US media

so, you start off your OP with faulty premises.....

First, let's be clear that I wrote "BP and other oil and coal companies." So you're setting up a straw man by asking me to show that BP is the predominant advertiser/funder of most MSM outlets. I used that example as an illustration.

It's also foolish to suggest that we can measure the fossil fuel industry's influence merely in advertising dollars without considering the power of their financial relationships which can be exercised in many ways. Of course, in the case of General Electric, the relationship is obvious.

If you want specific examples on how news outlets are influenced by their owners then start with Noam Chomsky, Normon Solomon, and Jeff Cohen.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=10&author_id=167

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

i'm overly familiar with Chomsky, et al.

totally agree with all their claims

but your point is different; i'm not settting up any straw man; i'm simply adhering to YOUR cited example

you made the specific claim about BP and other oil corps; now, you try to wriggle out of your claim by broadening it to include all those corps that directly or indirectly rely on same; that will not help you prove your point; it rather exposes your faulty logic and methods;

My only reference to BP was "BP and other oil and coal companies." I referred to the fossil fuel industry generally several times. I never made this about a single company or the oil spill. Even my headline refers to the "corporate owners" of the press, not BP or just the oil industry. Try reading the OP again.

Do you have a more logical explanation about why news outlets chose to avoid discussion of Obama's most liberal statements in the speech that fall outside the anti-regulation, pro-fossil fuel orientation of corporate news outlets? If you agree with Chomsky then it should be fairly obvious. Are you suggesting that the fossil fuel industry has no influence over news coverage?

when one broadens one's claims (post hoc, i might add), of course they start to appear true; if one makes any sufficiently broad statement, one can find cases to support it; but then the broadness makes the statement meaningless for analytical purposes;

now you are changing your claim to: "corporate owners" plural


i don't have to pick apart your entire OP

i am starting with its most crucial component: the initial premise upon which you base your argument

your premise is faulty; and, it's unproven; and, rather than concede that your premise is merely an assertion, and a false one at that, you adduce articles that do not support your assertion.

And I'm sure you're smart enough to find studies on the fossil fuel industry's advertising, PR campaigns, partial ownership and other means of influence over the press.

Which of my principle assertions do you disagree with?
1) That the press chose to ignore those portions of Obama's speech that threaten the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry and the anti-regulation attitude of corporate CEO's.
2) That news coverage is influenced by the political orientation of its owners/advertisers, with the fossil fuel industry being of particular influence.

Both statements seem obvious to me. Turning the focus to BP's PR campaign, which I only mentioned in passing as one example, is a red herring. I haven't changed focus from the OP at all.

apparently when it applies to Obama, but you're also challenging the idea that BP has strong influence over the news industry. Does your cynicism only apply to Obama? BP is in charge of the government but GE isn't in charge of a company they own? huh

confusing others, alright.

Transprent as glass, dude. But you've always been.

whether it's from an authority figure or from pundits I usually agree with.

Under Bush. They were distinctly anti-war, while their parent corporation is one of the biggest war contractors.

Sorry, but your point FAILED.

Keith wasn't on the air during the lead up to the Iraq war when speaking out would have really mattered. He's smart enough to not step out of bounds and let the same thing happen to him that happened to Phil Donanue. MSNBC sent a message to their on-air personalities and it was received.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/24/phil_donahue_we_have_an_emergency

MSNBC is not your friend. They fired the one anti-war voice they had when it mattered most before the war started. MSNBC likes Olbermann because he's an entertaining liberal and a good company man who doesn't step outside certain boundaries.

But he has pounded home an anti-war message, as has Maddow, since they have been on the air.

Oh, and to get back to your original corporation, BP, which you essentially accuse these two of working for, apparently you haven't seen either of them hammer BP, night in, night out, for weeks now.

No, in your view they dared to criticize the president, so they must be industry shills:eyes:

Again,
FAIL.

I don't have to accuse them of it. They just do. GE is not BP, so his criticism of BP is unsurprising. Talking about that story is unavoidable.

I don't think you get my point. It's not about the fact that they criticized Obama. It's the parts of his speech that the press won't acknowledge because they don't want to discuss those issues.

But hey, I didn't even watch them so I could be wrong. What did Keith and Rachel say about Obama's partisan denunciation of anti-government, anti-regulation conservatism? Or did they just ignore it? What did they say about his call to end our reliance on fossil fuels?