The obedience of US media

Drowned Out wrote:

I don’t think it really matters whether the government controls the media or vice versa…chicken or the egg….

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!

Jeanwah wrote:

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Unfortunately, that role has been replaced by the need to make money, as massive corporations have taken over the media. Hard news - which almost always lose money, but serve the public good - has been replaced by "infotainment" and fluff.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.

when it comes down to it it's not this huge pool of reporters and journalists but the few editors, publishers/producers and owners

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

that Sarah Palin on Fox thread got me thinking about the death panels thing...why didn't the media just squash that? why didn't they have an open debate about it? i know they had people on jabbering vague things but why didn't some network just get someone involved in writing the bill and Palin or someone else making the claim and just say 'ok, where does it say death panels?' and force them to show where it says or doesn't say anything about death panels?

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

Palin Makes Dems Cry "Uncle" On Death Panels

Had Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes read her commentary -- which was posted the day before their article was published -- they would have known that the death panels are real, and where to read up on the details. Palin makes a solid case that health care "reform," as originally envisioned by Democrats, would lead to rationed care and put a price tag on the value of people's lives based on their economic productivity.

Palin cites and explains the ramifications of Section 1233 ("Advance Care Planning Consultation," pages 424 to 434) of the House's proposed bill, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'' and quotes from "Principles For Allocation Of Scarce Medical Interventions" (The Lancet, January 31, 2009), a paper co-authored by one of President Obama's health care policy advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -- whose brother, Rahm, is the president's chief of staff.

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