Can we really blame "the media?"

[imhotep]

There is no law that says these corporations must be objective.
They have an agenda just like everyone else.
If I ran a network, it certainly wouldn't be fair to conservatives.
Is it even possible to be unbiased?

[SoCalDem]

1. It used to be

:(

at least they showed both sides and the press was not so agenda driven..

news was news..not slant..

[imhotep]

3. yes

and now that everything is owned by greed, why is anyone shocked that money is their priority?

[rman]

7. "shocked"? who cares

they knowingly and willingly screwed up the airwaves.
are you ok with that?
i'd say something needs to be done about it.

[peabody71]

2. They are our public airwaves.

They do have an obligation to represent things truthfully.

[DeathvadeR]

11. u mean were........

Telecom Highjacked from all of us......

[JanMichael]

4. There were laws that said they had to be. Raygun killed them.

There were also laws that limited ownership. Clinton, and a Repuke Congress, killed them too in 1996.

There was also a concept known as "the Fourth Estate" where Journalism took it as a responsibility to objectively criticise all equally.

The corporate consolidation has done away with that old idea.

Now "the Media" is America's enemy instead of Defender.

[Armstead]

6. Bingo

>>>There were also laws that limited ownership. Clinton, and a Repuke Congress, killed them too in 1996.There was also a concept known as "the Fourth Estate" where Journalism took it as a responsibility to objectively criticise all equally.The corporate consolidation has done away with that old idea.Now "the Media" is America's enemy instead of Defender.<<<


I was going to say something similar (but most likely in a more long-winded way).

But no need to repeat it because you summarized the whole problem in a nutshell.

[Richardo]

15. The Fairness Doctrine was overturned by the US Court of Appeals 2-1...

...after the FCC overtuned it in 1987.

Guess who the two were? Robert Bork and Antonin "Anthony" Scalia.**

Got puke yet? :puke:



** Eric Alterman "What Liberal Media?" p.71

[rman]

5. they are not media

in the traditional sense of the word.

it is true that it is impossible to be totally objective. that's why there was regulation and that's why we need both left- and right leaning media.

things changed fundamentally when the fairness doctrine was ended.
now they are for the most part RW propaganda machines, claiming to be fair and balanced.

[AverageJoe]

8. Yes, blame the media

News professionals -- and I use that term loosely in today's media climate -- are ethically obligated to follow the following four principles:

1. Seek the truth and report it.
2. Minimize harm.
3. Remain independent.
4. Be publically accountable.

These are the bedrock ethical dictates of the Society of Professional Journalists. Those members of the media who are graduates of any Journalism School in the country should be very familiar with these concepts and should have a firm grasp on how to achieve them in their professional lives.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a single "star" journalist who seems to have the foggiest notion of these simple ethical rules or any understanding of their importance in a democracy....

[DeathvadeR]

13. [Click ME]

<http://www.capedmaskedandarmed.com/video/FOXed.mov>

[Yavin4]

9. We Use "Blame The Media" As A Crutch

The real problem is that the Democratic party is not united. We have no party loyalty nor discipline. In the last five years, the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to:

1. Impeach a sitting President for lying about an affair.
2. Steal the election in Florida in 2000 without a fight.
3. Re-draw congressional districts in Texas in an unprecendented manner.
4. Steal the CA governorship.
5. Allow racial politics to let the Republicans win the mayorality of New York and the governorship of MD.

The media is not responsible for the complete lack of unity and no backbone of the Democratic party. The Democrats are. The party is headed for extinction is too fractured to take on the Republicans.

[aquart]

10. Standards of journalism, sweetie? Damn right I blame them.

They're professionals. It's cheaper for the HMO to let you die. If the doctors go along with it, you okay because it's a corporate decision?

Corporate decisions depend on what they're allowed to get away with. That's why regulation and inspection is necessary for a free society to maintain itself against the constant rapacious threat of corporations.

It was recognized by the Founding Fathers that a free press was necessary to a free society. That ain't changed.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Probably not.

Going back some years, there were dozens of daily papers in all major markets, each of which had a political leaning and largely preached to the converted. If you've ever seen "The Front Page," there's a great scene where reporters are calling in their versions of the jailbreak. Each has his own version, ranging from heroic innocent freed to crazed killer on the loose. It's pretty much the way things were then.

Hearst, Pulitzer, and a bunch of others battled for circulation with stridency, and facts tended to take a back seat. "Yellow journalism" wasn't invented yesterday. Criticisms of politicians today are mild compared to how they pilloried the opposition back then. If you can get your hands on old news accounts of Lincoln, Wilson, both Roosevelts, Harding, and some others, you'll often be shocked at the partisanship and bile that spews out. And the blatant puffery of their friends.

Now, with media consolidation and so many fewer print publications, most of the strident voices are those little fringe ones on the left and right, and on radio. And a few TV assholes like Hannity and Scarborough.

There was the "Fairness Doctrine" a while back, but that's dead, so they are just out to make the money with no controls.

I think there's a natural tendency for the media to drift to the right, largely because there's more money there, but also because there's a certain amount of pressure on all involved. Reporters know instinctively how to please editors with the stories they file, and editors are quite well aware what the publishers would like to see. No one likes to get locked out of the pressroom, so you won't see that much serious investigation of TPTB.

For instance, in New York, Giuliani made it known to the press that he would brook no investigation of the police or the handling of certain matters. Reporters were regularly banned from City Hall and the police blotter for broaching certain subjects. If you wanted to keep your press credentials, and your job, you kept your head down. And Rudy always looked like a hero. Rudy wasn't alone, btw, most mayors had running battles with the press, but he was probably the worst at controlling them.

[John_H]

14. Of course

First of all, fairness and impartiality may not be a matter of law, but it is a matter of ethics, responsibility, and common sense.

Even without websites like this one, the howler, and MWO it would be painfully obvious that the media has shielded Chimpy from from accountability, that they've helped elect republicans while bashing Dems, and facilitated an illegal and immoral war.

I think sometimes that those of us who make an effort to sus out the facts and read between the lines forgert that the window of opportunity to "reach" the average voter is tiny--a few minutes between walking the dog and the time American Idol starts. If that message is skewed and sanitized one way or another, the truth is fucked.

How else can you explain the disparity between what we Duers know to be incontrovertable fact and Bush*'s poll numbers?

[w4rma]

16. the U.S. media has gone through "Gleichschaltung,"

Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a "fifth column" within the media ranks that injects "daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective."

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore said. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6665

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html

Why Isn't Randi Rhodes Syndicated? The Dilemma of a Liberal Talk Show Host.

RHODES: Oh, I am so glad you asked. I am a ratings and revenue queen. Number 1 or 2 in the ratings usually. So what are the "mainstream" talking about? Well, they say Liberals don't make money because no one wants to hear them. Okay, let's think.

First, remember that more Americans are registered or identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. So here's the dirty little secret of news talk. There are advertisers making huge "buys" on really low rated shows that air nationally. If advertisers only go where the listeners are why do they buy cable news, Oliver North, or Rush Limbaugh who has horrible ratings?

They are buying CONTROL of CONTENT. It's leverage, whether it's radio, cable or network. They control millions of dollars of any company's revenue source. So that if something is said or done to disrupt their global business, they take their advertising elsewhere, or threaten to and then shut down the message.

And, think about this . . . how many products are on TV that you can't even buy? Plastics, computer chips, prescription drugs, soybeans. I mean honestly. This is the story that NEVER gets told. People just think, "Well, if your good enough, you'll have a big audience and that's what advertisers want." "Whose being naïve now Kaye?" I am always number one or two in the market. Rush is somewhere around 21st. I replaced G. Gordon Liddy!

I hope this gets told over and over because it is how they control our news, our Information Awareness. Get it?

BUZZFLASH: Explain the allegations that Rush Limbaugh has stated, that if Clear Channel syndicated your show, he would take his program to another company. Could there be a Democratic or Progressive Rush Limbaugh type personality on the airwaves?

RHODES: Not at Clear Channel.

First, let me tell you where the story came from. I had two meetings with middle managers who both liked me and what I had done for our 'pod'. (At Clear Channel the territories are split up into 'pods'.) In two separate meetings I was told "The Rush story." Additionally, I should never expect to be syndicated by Clear Channel because Rush had said he'd just do what advertisers do. He'd go somewhere else. I was an unknown, he was a known.

I begged for and got (6 months later) a meeting with a senior manager. He told me the "Rush story." So that's where it comes from. Now, when Oliver North was on the air, he stated that Rush was syndicated because Rush was a better talent and got better ratings. (This is insulting because of the fatness of the lie) . . . I then told him that Rush had threatened to take his show elsewhere if I were to be syndicated by Clear Channel. He said "I've heard that but I can't comment." So everyone does seem to know "The Rush Story." (North and Rush are friends).

Control the Content . . . we have business that cannot be disturbed by a questioning public.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/01/03_Rhodes.html

Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."

The report allegedly said Donahue presented a difficult face for NBC at a time of war, saying a nightmare scenario would be one in which his show becomes "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/5263274.htm

While "Donahue" does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the "America's News Channel," have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

NOW In Depth - Massive Media PBS
Solid Ratings Don't Protect Progressive Radio Voices
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Podvin on the Media 1-31-02
Harper's editor laments rise of corporate news purveyors
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
The Wayward Media

HUSTLER: What has happened to the the news media in this country?

PALAST: I vomit every time I see Tom Brokaw.

HUSTLER: And Dan Rather-

PALAST: I feel sick at heart when I see Rather, because he's actually a journalist. He came on my program, Newsnight and said, "I can't report the news. I'm not allowed to ask questions. We're gonna send our children and our husbands into the desert now, and I can't ask a question, because I will be lynched." This is what Rather said in London. He looked defeated and awful, and I was thinking, Why am I feeling sorry for this guy who is worth millions? He should turn to the camera and say, "Well, now for the truth. Over to you, Greg, in London." The problem is that he can't report the story of the intelligence agents who are told not to look at the Bin Laden family, not to look at Saudi funding of terror.

HUSTLER: What makes Rather afraid to do his job?

PALAST: It's not just that there are brutal shepherds like Rupert Murdoch out there to beat the dickens out of any reporter that asks the wrong questions; it's all about making news on the cheap. You know, for some of these editors, cheap and easy is a philosophy of life. To do a heavy-duty story on Bush, and his oil and Bush and his gold-mining company is beyond them. A little bit of the Harken stock scandal came out, but that story was already seven years old. To some extent they know that there are certain things you cannot say. Rather says he would be necklaced for telling the truth.

HUSTLER: He said that? What did he mean?

PALAST: In South Africa, under apartheid, if someone didn't like you, they put a burning tire around your neck. That was called "necklacing." On my show, Rather said, "If I ask any questions, I'll be necklaced." And I'm thinking, Oh, that's a good image. It's sad, but if Dan Rather doesn't have the cajones to ask a question, then you name a reporter who's gonna step out and ask about what's going on. It's not that the corporate guys say, "Don't run that story," although that has happened to me many times in North American media, but also the shepherds pick the lambs who won't ask the questions. For example, there was a reporter, some poor producer, who wanted to run a story about how Jack Welch had lied about polluting the Hudson River. The story didn't run. Shockeroo. That was for Dateline NBC, owned by General Electric, of which Jack Welch was the chairman of the board. Or as in the case of Venezuela, I was stunned to come back from Caracas to find a picture on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle of 100,000 people marching against the president of Venezuela. Sounds like he's a terrible guy and people hate him. What they didn't say was that half a million people were marching for him. At least the Soviet Russians knew that the stuff in Pravda was coming out the wrong end of a toilet, whereas, we live under the pretense that The New York Times prints all the news that's fit to print.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1

...
Robins was talking serious politics on a morning chat show - and clearly hackles went up. By 8:24 Robins was explaining "We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet"

Lauer could have called it quits there -but he went on "When you see pictures of Iraqi's dancing and celebrating -does it change your mind?" "No" Said Robbins - "I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom, I hope we have the resolve to get in there and make it work."

It was at this point that something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television.

The music swelled under Robbins... Mid-sentence answering a question that had been asked just 10 seconds earlier... "We have a terrible track record" said Robbins, clearly not able to hear that music was coming up to literally 'play him off the stage'.

The camera cut to a wide shot. Lauer was leaning in and very much in conversation. Either Lauer was ignoring what must have been the deluge of invectives in his earpiece, or he just determined that he wasn't finished with this line of questioning.

But the music ended. The bumper music ended and the studio was in the two shot as Robbins said..."It's for some reason not in our best interest to keep it going and pursue it to the next level." Lauer nodded, and the camera faded to black as Robbins - mid sentence - had his microphone turned down.

A conversation about free speech. An anchor asking reasonable questions. A guest responding in equally reasonable tones. No attempt to close out the discussion - to say "Well thank you Tim". This was not a filibuster. Robbins was not hogging the spotlight.

Someone in the control room simply decided that it was time to pull the plug. And without grace or ceremony, or even the face saving of letting Lauer say "We're out of time" as morning shows do on so many occasions.

A conversation about free speech and free expression was cut off mid sentence as the network went to black.

Television history was made, as million of Americans got to watch in real time just how powerful and inescapable censorship can be. Robbins wasn't revealing troop locations, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember the war has been won - by all accounts. He was discussing freedom, free speech, and why his appearance has been canceled at the Baseball Hall of Fame. NBC should invite him back and let him finish his thought - or admit at least who was on the phone to master control demanding that they pull the plug.
http://www.rense.com/general37/dark.htm

Tampa cable won't air ad criticizing Bush tax cut

TAMPA - (AP) -- A TV commercial critical of President Bush's tax plan won't air in Tampa after the city's major cable provider expressed concerns about the script.

The commercial was produced for MoveOn.org, an online political activist group, and was slated to air about 10 times a day this week on cable systems in 23 cities, said Lanicia Shaw, executive assistant for Zimmerman and Markman, a Santa Monica, Calif., advertising agency handling the commercial.

The ad is a reenactment of an event in Eugene, Ore., a month ago in which 50 parents lined up outside a clinic to sell their blood plasma to help pay a teacher's salary.

''George Bush's tax cuts for the rich have meant less money for education,'' the commercial contends.
...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5862591.htm

3. How important is "truth" in mass media reporting compared to ratings?
The media doesn't care about outing the real stories - nor about ratings. The truth GETS ratings - but it doesn't win friends in high places. We got more information about the war in Vietnam through "MASH" and "Star Trek" allegories than on CBS news.
The corporate owners of the networks will make a killing on their stealing the digital spectrum, given away for nothing by the Telecommunications Act. (For details, see my website www.GregPalast.com) They are willing to give up ratings points by serving up snooze-news with Tom Brokaw rather than gain audience share but lose their tickets to White House dinners.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=145&row=1

Wall Street Journal:
War Produces Rift in Media Between U.S., Other Nations
...British television reporter Geoff Meade asked the officer what he would say to Iraqis and other Muslims who might welcome such images. Some U.S. reporters looked stunned at the aggressiveness of the question. A hush fell on the room. The general eyed him coldly and parried the query. Afterward, says Mr. Meade, a veteran correspondent with Sky News, a service of British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, "Somebody joked to me that I'd find myself at the back of the room along with the French and the Germans."
...
"We believe people need to see the truth, and there's no need to make the truth cosmetic because it's not pretty," says Nawal Assad, a producer at al-Jazeera's London office.

...callers on Italian talk shows criticized as censorship the U.S. government's request to U.S. networks to refrain from showing the images. In Germany, the press has engaged in lengthy dissections of U.S. news organizations, often concluding that the U.S. media has gone through "Gleichschaltung," an ominous word used to describe how the Nazis took over key public institutions, including the media (rough translation: "bringing into line").
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB104854123024458400-email,00.html