So, why DID the mainstream media sell out to the right in the first place?

[bobweaver]

[MisterGreens]

1. ?

They didn't.

[tuvor]

2. Welcome to DU, MisterGreens!

:hi:

[newyawker99]

17. Hi MisterGreens!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[genieroze]

9. YES THEY DID!

They did it because most of the MSM is owned by a few REICH WING NEOCON THEOCRATIC nut jobs.

[HawkerHurricane]

12. Actually, they didn't sell out...

they were ALWAYS right wing. It's just that from the early 1930's to the late 1970's, they hid thier bias by being as nuetral as possible, for a number of reasons.

Remember; to a rightie, media that is 'fair and balanced' will never say anything bad about conservativism unless it absolutely must, and if it must, it will include someone to balance out the "unfairness".

[genieroze]

18. Then they didn't sell out, they showed their true colors. eom

[JohnOneillsMemory]

16. Post WWII, the propaganda effort by the CIA co-opted the MSM.

It was called Operation Mockingbird and it never stopped.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html


All the mainstream media outlets 'did their part' in the war effort and even more so during the COld War as the CIA got their talons into every prominent journalist they could. That was just about all of them.

Realize that behind the 'patriotic' co-operation was also the knowledge of what happens to those who don't play ball. The corporate management internalized this threat/mandate and enforce it by firing anyone who doesn't play along.

Try googling up 'Gary Webb'+ 'Cocaine'+'CIA'+'IranContra'.

Try googling up 'Cokie Roberts'+'father's plane crash'+'Hoover'.

Try googling up a book called 'In to the Buzz Saw' about what happens to reporters who step out of bounds against their fascist masters.

After 9/11, some received a little US military-grade anthrax in their mail while Congress was creating a police-state and preparing to occupy the oil spigot called Iraq.

[oldtime dfl_er]

3. um.....cash?

Armstrong Williams, undoubtedly, is not the only one.


www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[EVDebs]

4. Read Ben Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly"

It's the golden rule, he with the gold rules.

[InvisibleBallots]

5. the Corporate Media has always been right-wing

The Corporate Media IS, well, Corporate America, and they have always preferred the right-wingers.

[leanin_green]

6. They didn't sell out, they were bought out.

The Reagan era deregulation policies opened the door to the hostile, monopolizing actions of a focused radical right. Before they knew it, the old owners of the MSM were taken over and those that remained could either get in line or get in the unemployment line.

[Eric J in MN]

7. News organizations are owned by corporations.

ABC News by Disney.
CBS News by Viacom
NBC/MSNBC/CNBC by General Electric.
Fox News by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

[RawMaterials]

11. don't forget clear Chanel dont they own like all the radio stations

I just hit 300 who ho

[kohodog]

8. They are the Right

Remember locally owned and operated newpapers, radio and tv stations? EThe tv stations were "affiliated" with networks, but carried their own news, etc, and there was a pretty wide array of opinions.

Now 5 multiinational corporations own most media of all types. Yhe independants were forced out or bought out.

Now we have Provda.

[rox63]

10. Deregulation

The Repugs removed a lot of the regulations that were preventing media consolidation, and therefore preventing them from making even more money. The Repugs also removed the Fairness Doctrine, and we all saw what a negative effect that had on the election this time around.

[bobweaver]

13. But why did the media go along with it? They were making plenty of money..

...even when the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect.

[Shopaholic]

14. Because there's a difference between making "plenty" of

money and making shitloads of it. They wanted to make shitloads. And thus, our news became shit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. They don't make money on news

Their money comes from entertainment.

[Selatius]

15. It is the very structure of the news media that should be examined

All these news outlets are for-profit institutions. They make their money by selling advertising space to companies and corporations in exchange for airing commercials. Corporate entities would naturally gravitate towards deregulation and limited government if the natural goal is to make a profit. Lower taxes for the rich and corporations, deregulation, etc. could mean increased profit margins for these entities. Institutions who put profits ahead of people are the most successful if we simply look at it in a dollars and cents point of view. Wal-Mart is one of the greatest examples of that. These companies could then influence what is on the news because they subsidize the news organizations. Do you see how it works? The best capitalists make the most money.

If news outlets were based upon a model where every viewer had a say in how the organization is run almost like a worker co-op or a democratic organization, then you would not have ever run into this problem. A subscription based news channel where each subscriber also had a voice over the management and editorial content of the news is a viable model. Channels like HBO and Cinemax are subscription based channels where there are no commercials, but you don't get to vote on which crappy movie not to show, at least as far as I know.

"Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one." - A.J. Liebling

[yankeedem]

19. You need to see "Manufacturing Consent"

by Noam Chomsky. It explains the problem perfectly. And that movie was
released only a couple of years after repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media ownership restrictions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. They were paid

Armstrong Williams is just the tip of the iceberg.