The obedience of US media

Commy · January 2010

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.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

but i heard the wars were moral and just and a war of necessity....

Commy · January 2010

Pepe Silvia wrote:

but i heard the wars were moral and just and a war of necessity....

right, fighting terrorism and all of that. that wonderful, impossible idea.

he still stands · January 2010

Chomsky's writings on propaganda are enlightening and provides answers to why there is no dissent (beyond corporate subserviance) in the mainstream... it is intuitive... if you're mainstream you are automatically the voice of the elite and a speaker of rhetoric. One cannot get into that position without looking a certain way, "acting" a certain way, and saying the correct things. Morality and truthfulness must be sacrificied along the entire path... not only when you're the one leading others.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

he still stands wrote:

Chomsky's writings on propaganda are enlightening and provides answers to why there is no dissent (beyond corporate subserviance) in the mainstream... it is intuitive... if you're mainstream you are automatically the voice of the elite and a speaker of rhetoric. One cannot get into that position without looking a certain way, "acting" a certain way, and saying the correct things. Morality and truthfulness must be sacrificied along the entire path... not only when you're the one leading others.

at one point CNN had members of the military's psy-ops unit working there....

Commy · January 2010

he still stands wrote:

Chomsky's writings on propaganda are enlightening and provides answers to why there is no dissent (beyond corporate subserviance) in the mainstream... it is intuitive... if you're mainstream you are automatically the voice of the elite and a speaker of rhetoric. One cannot get into that position without looking a certain way, "acting" a certain way, and saying the correct things. Morality and truthfulness must be sacrificied along the entire path... not only when you're the one leading others.

true. and especially if your leading others. in 'manufacturing consent' the idea is brought up, the idea that there is some person sitting in some room somewhere deciding the news, sitting behind a desk, and its suggested how absurd that notion is. but when you get down to it tha'ts exactly what an editor does. there really is an individual sitting behind some desk deciding the news.

and chomsky is right, you don't get into that position of prvilege without going through the screening. that process produces certain individuals.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

Commy wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Chomsky's writings on propaganda are enlightening and provides answers to why there is no dissent (beyond corporate subserviance) in the mainstream... it is intuitive... if you're mainstream you are automatically the voice of the elite and a speaker of rhetoric. One cannot get into that position without looking a certain way, "acting" a certain way, and saying the correct things. Morality and truthfulness must be sacrificied along the entire path... not only when you're the one leading others.

true. and especially if your leading others. in 'manufacturing consent' the idea is brought up, the idea that there is some person sitting in some room somewhere deciding the news, sitting behind a desk, and its suggested how absurd that notion is. but when you get down to it tha'ts exactly what an editor does. there really is an individual sitting behind some desk deciding the news.

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.....

marcos · January 2010

Yeah and it seems the soldiers are forgotten once again, these are bad times when the concern is how things appear politically and not humanly, expecially when we have lost so much already.

Commy · January 2010

marcos wrote:

Yeah and it seems the soldiers are forgotten once again, these are bad times when the concern is how things appear politically and not humanly, expecially when we have lost so much already.

that's the thing.

the debate isn't over the real cost of this war...

media serves the state.

the end.

Jeanwah · January 2010

Commy wrote:

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.

I disagree. What's going on is not these media giants are bending to mainstream, it's the gov't that holds the puppet strings over them. The gov't dictates what mainstream America sees and hears in the mainstream media. The age of journalism is dead, as we know it. If you really want to hear independent (and more importantly factual journalism you HAVE to turn off MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX and NBC.

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.

Commy · January 2010

Jeanwah wrote:

Commy wrote:

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.

I disagree. What's going on is not these media giants are bending to mainstream, it's the gov't that holds the puppet strings over them. The gov't dictates what mainstream America sees and hears in the mainstream media. The age of journalism is dead, as we know it. If you really want to hear independent (and more importantly factual journalism you HAVE to turn off MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX and NBC.

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".

Jeanwah · January 2010

Commy wrote:

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".

But the way I read your point is that the media has the power to choose. They don't. They serve because they have no individual choice.

Commy · January 2010

Jeanwah wrote:

Commy wrote:

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".

But the way I read your point is that the media has the power to choose. They don't. They serve because they have no individual choice.

eh, i think they have a choice. i also think the way the structure is set up it only breeds the tools.....they have free will, to some extenet, but they also play by the rules, by nature.

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.

Jeanwah · January 2010

Commy wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Commy wrote:

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".

But the way I read your point is that the media has the power to choose. They don't. They serve because they have no individual choice.

eh, i think they have a choice. i also think the way the structure is set up it only breeds the tools.....they have free will, to some extenet, but they also play by the rules, by nature.

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.

They have no choice because the 4 giants - ABC, CBS, ABC and FOX - are at the govts mercy.
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.

Byrnzie · January 2010

Commy wrote:

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.

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.

TravisTheSky · January 2010

Get out of the matrix!

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.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

Jeanwah wrote:

They have no choice because the 4 giants - ABC, CBS, ABC and FOX - are at the govts mercy.
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.

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

Jeanwah · January 2010

Pepe Silvia wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

They have no choice because the 4 giants - ABC, CBS, ABC and FOX - are at the govts mercy.
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.

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

LOL, I did mean NBC. I did hear that about NBC a while ago, but not the Kucinich part. That's a whole nother part of the media topic...where the media dictates who our next president will be. It's all intertwined and manipulates the public effortlessly.

Starfall · January 2010

I generally agree with most of you, except for one important aspect.

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.

Commy · January 2010

Starfall wrote:

I generally agree with most of you, except for one important aspect.

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.

Drowned Out · January 2010

I don’t think it really matters whether the government controls the media or vice versa…chicken or the egg….the point is that the incestuous relationship between the two has grown exponentially over the years.

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).

The obedience of US media

Comments

Categories