The obedience of US media
Commy
Posts: 4,984
FOX:
To OBAMA :Your long-awaited announcement comes after our former Vice President urged you to quit dithering
ABC:
In an appearance August 18 on WLS radio in Chicago, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson was asked about anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan's plans to travel to Martha's Vineyard next week, where she will protest the Iraq and Afghanistan wars while President Obama is vacationing there. Gibson, whose newscast and network featured Sheehan when she led anti-war protests outside President Bush's Texas ranch in 2005, [he]answered, "Enough already."
MSNBC:
WASHINGTON -...Obama is faced with two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enemy, or stick with the 68,000 already committed and risk the political fallout if that's not enough.
CNN:
America's top commander in Afghanistan warns that more troops are needed there within the next year or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure,"
implicit in the reporting is the idea that the US has a right to be there, and rarely is the question asked, "should we be in afghansitan?"
There is almost no dissent in media, from the left wing liberal MSNBC to the right wing anti obama FOX, ALL news outlets support the war in afghansitan.
As its always been. Corporate subserviance to washington is well documemnted, where there's a war there is media loyalty to washington, always spouting the official line. rarely are the significant, obvious questions asked.
The obedience of US media is absolute, there is almost no dissent.
To OBAMA :Your long-awaited announcement comes after our former Vice President urged you to quit dithering
ABC:
In an appearance August 18 on WLS radio in Chicago, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson was asked about anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan's plans to travel to Martha's Vineyard next week, where she will protest the Iraq and Afghanistan wars while President Obama is vacationing there. Gibson, whose newscast and network featured Sheehan when she led anti-war protests outside President Bush's Texas ranch in 2005, [he]answered, "Enough already."
MSNBC:
WASHINGTON -...Obama is faced with two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enemy, or stick with the 68,000 already committed and risk the political fallout if that's not enough.
CNN:
America's top commander in Afghanistan warns that more troops are needed there within the next year or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure,"
implicit in the reporting is the idea that the US has a right to be there, and rarely is the question asked, "should we be in afghansitan?"
There is almost no dissent in media, from the left wing liberal MSNBC to the right wing anti obama FOX, ALL news outlets support the war in afghansitan.
As its always been. Corporate subserviance to washington is well documemnted, where there's a war there is media loyalty to washington, always spouting the official line. rarely are the significant, obvious questions asked.
The obedience of US media is absolute, there is almost no dissent.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
at one point CNN had members of the military's psy-ops unit working there....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and chomsky is right, you don't get into that position of prvilege without going through the screening. that process produces certain individuals.
or if their stations are bought by owners who mainly care about pushing their views.....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
that's the thing.
the debate isn't over the real cost of this war...
media serves the state.
the end.
FACT: The Bush gov't attempted to censor a NASA scientist writings due to his findings on global warming / climate change. This scientist's job at NASA was threatened if he didn't censor his own research for the gov't to release. But this scientist quit instead and went forward with his uncensored article and published on his own. Regardless of this being about a "debatable" topic, this is what happens every day in mainstream media. And MANY editors are given stories, they're not actually writing them. True journalists only exist independently.
War coverage is by far prevented to be seen on mainstream media. We are to be entertained, not told the truth. Think about it next time you watch the news. Count how many entertainment stories are covered vs. real news. Only until Obama was elected have been recently been allowed to see soldiers caskets. It's because Bush had refused to have them seen in the media. "Out of sight, out of mind..."
Turn to international news outlets (it's incredible what you learn about your own country watching international news), and watch independently owned news outlets and websites.
you mean you agree, since that was my point. media serves the state, as i've said, and you're agreeing- with you're statement "the gov't holds the puppet strings over them".
part of that is they are owned by corporations with agendas, if a "journalist" doesn't play by the rules they can be axed,but more importnatly the structure breeds fools. look at your local news anchors and extrapolate. nationwide they are very similar, and tools all. that mentality is encouraged, so that's what we get.
And if you think that local news is independent, that's a fallacy, as the networks that run them have them at their mercy. It's all an intertwined, govt controlled entity. And it's getting worse...the few smaller independents that may be local are being bought up by the big corps, much in the same way community banks are being bought up by the monsters. Rupert Murdoch is making more and more deals every day in his ownership.
The same is true in China. The only difference is in the method.
In China the news media avoid sensitive subjects. In the U.S the news media skate around sensitive subjects - using a process of selection, falsification, and omission - and paint a picture that is acceptable to those in power. The end result is exactly the same: The public are left clueless.
Don't watch mainstream media.
I handed my cable box back to Time Warner last May. I now have to seek out information online. It's amazing how many new neural connections my brain has grown from absorbing "alternative" media. The world makes much more sense! I feel far more empowered than I ever have in all my life.
you put ABC twice but expect you meant NBC for one of 'em. Anyway, NBC is owned by GE who also manufactures weapons (they even sold weapons/munitions to Hitler AFTER we got involved in the war) and NBC is the one who changed the rules and uninvited Kucinich to the Nevada primary debates.
so, in some cases they work in collusion with the government
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The big media networks are not under the control of the government - quite the opposite. What we're seeing here is the culmination of the power of large, transnational corporations taking control of our government. Corporations that have only one goal - to make as much money as possible - and will go to any means to pursue that end.
Consider this - 20 years ago there were more than 100 separate companies that ran or owned our broadcast media outlets. Today, that's down to less than 10. We're seeing companies swallowed up into mergers, and each resulting corporation has become larger and more powerful. Media outlets that once saw their role as the Fourth Estate, the vanguard of our freedoms, became subservient to the almighty dollar. They then use their enormous influence to bribe, I mean, give campaign contributions, to politicians who can be useful in furthering their interests. And using the revolving door between government and private business to put lobbyists in charge of government agencies assigned to regulate their industries, or by hiring useful politicians or aides to work as lobbyists to further their interests with government.
And some of those mergers are downright scary - NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the biggest defense contractors in the world. Rupert Murdoch's FOX bled millions for 5 years until they were able to turn a single cent in profit - coincidentally, with the rise of George W Bush.
This is the classical definition of fascism - a merger of corporate interests with government.
maybe. i still believe the state rules.
the outcome of war is always the same, only the pretexts differ. the outcome of policy rarely serves the majority, and mostly obeys corporate will. the state serves its purpose, it primary goal, to serve itself, and the majority rarely effect that. the business elite does, to some extent, they have a power, and as such they are taken into consideration.
but power is about violence. who can do the most. and to be sure, the state has its hands on much more power than any corporate or all of the corporate entities out there, despite blackwater or aegis. the state rules, absolutely, the rest of us are considered or not, depending on our influence.
A clip from a Businessweek article about this:
Korn/Ferry International numbers that show that in 1973, just 14% of large corporate boards included former high-level government officials. By 2003, that number had increased to 59%, even though the average number of outside board members had decreased, unfortunately, from 16 to just nine. (The most recent number puts about 53% of corporate boards with a former government official.)
Why has this become more prevalent? My initial response would be that the value of former government officials to a corporation is directly related to the amount of government regulation in that industry. The more red tape to cut thru, the more beneficial people with government ties becomes to the corporation.
Here are a couple of interesting sites I found for tracking ties between people of power and corporations:
http://mapper.nndb.com/start/?id=22532
http://muckety.com/
(btw – As of last month, Comcast has controlling interest of NBC Universal – GE maintains 49% ownership).
It seems to me that both are little front companies for the larger power behind such facades. The "Military Industrial Complex," the giant banks and megacorporations, whatever label we put on it: The people beyond the small confines of just media and government.
Fun with metaphor: Yes, media and government are chickens and eggs. Look outside the factory-farm henhouse at who owns the poultry company. ...Gosh, that was tacky!
What people are forgetting is that in true nature of what journalism is supposed to be about, the media never reflected what the gov't wanted until the last 20 or so years. True journalism was about investigating our government, digging for real info and exposing the scandals. I'm sure everyone can recall Watergate!! What's happened since journalism has died is a combination of corporatism, gov't greed, and the need to control mass media.
Yep, there's a reason why the Press is particulary mentioned in the First Amendment - the founding fathers envisioned a free press as the "Fourth Estate" - that informs and educate the public, and to guard against abuses of power.
Unfortunately, that role has been replaced by the need to make money, as massive corporations have taken over the media. Hard news - which almost always lose money, but serve the public good - has been replaced by "infotainment" and fluff.
Edward R. Murrow would be shaking his head, knowing his prediction had come true:
If we were to do the Second Coming of Christ in color for a full hour, there would be a considerable number of stations which would decline to carry it on the grounds that a Western or a quiz show would be more profitable.
profit motivates under capitalism, that's true, but i think what's driving media is its role as a servant of the state. i can cite dozens of examples where they have without qu4estion reported teh official line, often resulting in many thousands of innocent deaths. the United States has the most advanced propaganda system in the world. where there is a newly appointed official enemy, sadam, noriega, ahmedinjahd, there is a story demonizing htem, or 20 or 50. where there is state interst there is reporting refelcting hat, even corporate officials are given precendence over actual experts. intelligent debtate does not exist, and the impact of this is huge.
when idnonesia was slaughtering people in east timor had the press reported on it and brought it to the attention of the american public the atrocities would have ceased. and the press knew about it, there is no doubt, but they were much more concerned about an offical enemy, pol pot, and his slaughter in cambodia, which as americans we could do fuckall about.
The thing is, the atrocities in east timor stopped after the american public found out about it, wehn the story was finally reported by a small church group who probably saved thousnads of lives. all it took was a word from washoington, and all it would have taken for htat to happen would have abeen 1 word in teh ny times or people or some major news outlet. the press has a huge responsibilty, and as it stands they are serving the state, and people are dying as a result. but the press was more concerned about being a tool for the state, demonizing the enemies and ignoring state crimes. and hundreds of thousands of people are being killed as a result of this, its a fucking crime. media is powerful, and at the moment they serve the state. thaqt shit needs to change.
i think it goes both ways over if the media has a choice or not. in ways they do and some ways/times they don't, ya know? it all depends on the individual thing we are talking about. some times the government wants a story pushed, other times they don't have to do much of anything for it be reported
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
instead they chose their respective sides and acted smug. cnn and msnbc made fun of anyone mentioning them and Fox helped push the idea of it. just 1 example is this fox news blurb
i can't really get a link because the fox news page comes up with errors but if you do a google search for the title and hit chached it will show you a saved image of the page
instead of trying to be understanding and talk to the person it had to be nasty and hostile. like Barney Frank yelling at that woman. sure, to me the idea of comparing the proposed health care plan to a Nazi plan seems absurd but if someone told me that's what they thought i wouldn't try to be a dick about it and just make fun of her and call her names, i'd try to talk to them like i'd want to be spoken to. i'm sure we've all had stupid ideas at some points, how would you feel if instead of someone nicely showing you where you went wrong they screamed at you and degraded you? how would you feel if your child had some silly idea on how something worked like the sun and moon being on a see-saw and instead of trying to explain to them how it actually occurs they just made a big scene about what an idiotic idea that was?
Jon Stewart had it right years ago when he went on crossfire and asked why it has to be so visceral and in your face filled with yelling and screaming at the other person? why can't it be about information and facts? actual civil debate
i'm sure an honest debate about death panels, among other topics, without just being quick soundbytes biased towards a certain angle would get pretty good ratings
edit:
here's a link that has some instances of Fox News pushing Palin's death panel rubbish and 5 Fox News personalities, including Newt Gingrich, helping push the idea of them
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908100054
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'