You know how corrupt Wall Street is. Well, the major media is just as corrupt.

[reformist2]

Even without evidence, most of us know just how rigged the game on Wall Street is - insider trading, sweetheart deals, cronyism, falsified reports, it all happens on a daily basis. People who want to make big bucks fast will corrupt the system.

Well, the same is true with the major media outlets - excessively favorable coverage, softball questions, planted audience members, slanted poll results (or deleted ones if they don't go the way the ought to), it all happens on a daily basis. People who want power and influence will corrupt the system. It's the way of the world, and we need to be aware of this, 24/7.

[CrispyQ]

1. The media is as big a problem in our electoral process as electronic voting machines.

The whole process is corrupt & compromised.

We don't have a democracy, we have an auction.

[JonathanRackham]

2. Auction

An excellent one word description of the political process.

[CrispyQ]

4. Wish I could claim it but I saw it on a bumper sticker.

Sometimes bumper stickers are perfectly succinct.

Urban Sprawl:
Cut down all the trees &
name streets after them.


I'll never forget that one.

[JonathanRackham]

5. Priceless as well. Nt

Nt

[Jarqui]

3. I felt that for a second time last night

I suspect this has something to do with it:

The internet has hurt media companies financially. For example, lower print media subscriptions which lead to lower ad buys (their key revenue stream) and lower TV ratings which lead to lower ad buys. Simple concept.

Most media are companies trying to make money and many would describe this as a business "opportunity":
http://www.thedeal.com/content/tmt/as-hillary-clinton-opens-her-presidential-bid-tv-companies-anticipate-an-avalanche-of-ad-dollars.php

Tribune CEO Peter Liguori suggested in a fourth-quarter call that political ad spending will hit $4 billion in 2016 and cited projections that the sum could approach $5 billion. "We own and operate stations in areas where the 2016 Presidency will ultimately be decided," he boasted, citing 13 swing states in Tribune's portfolio.

$4-5 billion in ad revenue is on the table. Currently, out of all the ad spending done by the roughly 20 candidates of both parties, Hillary has bought 25% of the ads so far and there's no sign she's slowing down. And right now, she has the best odds of becoming the next President - she'd help ratings with the odd interview. So a media company might not want to piss someone like that off right now with bad reviews - they'd probably want to do a little sucking up.

Maybe husband Bill has a few media power levers to pull. ....

There's something going on - I feel it. The above might explain some of it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. The Fourth Estate no longer exists.

It's been purchased by Corporations, who also own Congress and the WH. You cannot have a free press that's suppose to HONESTLY inform the public about the corruption in government when the same Corporations own ALL OF IT!

BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, BERNIE!


Fairness Doctrine



The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered as a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrinell