The "MSM?" I mean, come on, what is this?

[Writer]

You make them sound like they're some type of mafiosa-styled cabal rubbing their hands together, plotting.

The "Main Stream Media?" What - like the various politically-skewed sources we use as "alternatives" give us a clearer picture of the world? You're going from SUPPOSED political bias to DEFINITE political bias here. How does that help us in the democratic process?


Blech.

~Writer, Who Holds Unpopular Opinions About the Media~

[PretzelWarrior]

1. you'd be surprised. take, for instance, coverage of Edwards

that was knowing and purposeful by the whole lot of them in TV media. Don't say it wasn't.

[Writer]

4. Of course I'm going to say it wasn't.

I'm challenging long-held paradigms of the liberal community here.

Remember that when you look at the media, you yourself bring a type of filter to determining how something might be biased.

[Uncle Joe]

39. The primary difference between us and them is the flow of information or communication for

for public consumption. The sheer one way power and influence of their opinions make them potentially far more dysfunctional, even dangerous when they abuse their power to the healthy workings of our democratic republic.

As we're all human we each have our own biases but we, the people on the Internet may also be corrected in an instant on the very same pubic forum, from which we publish our opinions, for all the world to see. We may and do have our threads flamed.

If Rush Limbaugh or any other radio talk show host doesn't like an opinion from a caller, he or she can cut him or her off and wage a non-stop rant against said caller, followed by taking only sympathetic callers to the host's view point.

Television can set the parameters of the guests allowed on their talk or pundit shows, only conservatives or pseudo liberals need apply. When they only allow people on their programs with opinions ranging from 0-50, how does anyone; depending on television for their information know or care about 51-100? The hosts of these shows can and do dominate discussion interrupting or cutting off any opinion to the contrary. During debates, they can ignore more progressive candidates for vast stretches of time, later only telecasting said candidate's making light of not getting equal time as the pre-selected candidates.

Letters to the editor are chosen by the editor's sole discretion, should they receive 80/20 pro on any subject, they can easily publish a 50/50 ratio or worse. They may also promote letters that agree with their opinion as the three star letters while relegating critical or politically unpopular letters to the bottom.

[dmallind]

23. By the same criterion are the media biased against

all the other second tier candidates who receive little attention?

The press focuses on the race and, sad to say, Edwards is not in a position to win or compete for the race. Duncan Hunter got no press. Bill Richardson got no press. Thompson only got press because he's an actor too. Huckabee got no press until he won IA. It COULD be a smoke-filled-room conspiracy out of fear of anti-corporatism or it could just be because the stories are always all about frontrunners.

Occam is calling.

[neutron]

69. Two Things Drive MSM

1. Themselves. They watch one another to determine what to say without sticking their necks out. That is why you can turn from station to station and the same story is airing with the same pov.

2. Their corporate parent. As example, General Electric believes that it is against their interest for Bill Clinton to have an influence again. Hence the MSNBC debates rigged to annihilate HRC.
As an aside, my friend worked at MSNBC and was surprised that their Human Resources was an out of house organization. He looked them up on the web, and this "human resources" was just one of many operations owned by a company called Day Zimmerman. Among their operations: manufactures, stores and demilitarizes ammunition products and provides related services to the Departments of Defense and Energy and to United States-approved foreign governments and delivers facilities maintenance services to municipal, state and federal government agencies
http://www.dayzim.com/services/government-defense.htm

Just in case you wonder why Chris Matthews still has a job.

[margotb822]

88. He scared them

He was going to hold people accountable and break up monopolies. He was the real deal. But, the media would rather turn this into a circus, instead of give it the gravity it deserves. The media has forgotten that it is their job to report the news, not decide it.

Check out my website for more

[goodgd_yall]

2. You have a point

What I do is, somehow in the morass, find a truth that seems to click.

[Writer]

9. hey - you're honest.

I think that's how a lot of people use their media... whether they'll admit it or not.

[Oeditpus Rex]

3. Ruh-roh!

:popcorn:



I do admire your nerve, though.

:patriot:

[Writer]

6. I am made of Teflon. n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. So, if I shake your hand

it'll just slide right out. :P

[Writer]

11. Don't use scouring pads on me.

[Jamastiene]

5. Oh. Dear.

I'm pulling up a chair.

:popcorn:

[Writer]

7. Yeah, and I'm about to go to bed, too.

I guess there will be goodies waiting for me in the morning! Yayyyyyyyy.

[Oeditpus Rex]

12. Timing is everything

Presentation is everything else.



Sleep well. :)

[Greyhound]

10. Are you really this naive, or just blinded by your personal filter? n/t

[Writer]

13. No, actually, I sit on years and years of headdaching research.

Are you trying to start a flame war? Or would you be open to listening to an alternative explanation?

[Greyhound]

15. It might surprise you to know that you have no monopoly on years of experience and if you are,

in fact, "talent" (a writer), you might consider that a few of us actually know some of the people that your bosses bosses bosses (...) boss answer to.

Let me put it this way, examine the GE prospectus and calculate how much revenue it derives from its multitude of defense, finance, and other governmental interests, and then compare that number to the revenue generated by its media interests. Do you really believe that it would threaten its real money makers in any way, to gain a few Nielsen or Arbitron points?

Or how about this, if Jeff Immelt and Bob Wright are both attending the same meeting, who do you think sits in the big chair at the end of the table?

I'm not trying to start anything, but it seems you were going toward the old "media is just a business and they will go/say/do whatever/wherever the most $$ is" meme. Was I wrong? If so, I apologize.

[Berry Cool]

20. Actually, "media is just a business and they will go/say/do whatever/wherever the most $$ is"

is exactly why Keith Olbermann tells people he stays on the air.

What he does makes money. So long as he does that, he can say what he wants. That's what he says. So far, he appears to be right.

It doesn't seem to matter how much money he makes for GE vs. how much money the defense industry makes for GE. All they care is that what he's doing doesn't show a loss.

It's not an ideal arrangement, to be sure, because it means that all viewpoints are measured in terms of revenue value, and those for which there is no revenue-producing audience do not get heard.

At the same time, it means that so long as there is some money to be made in dissent, a certain degree of dissent will have a home.

As for some of the other arguments made here against what Writer has to say...well, duh. Anyone think Writer doesn't know that companies that buy ads in programs often get to write "editorial" in them in which they praise themselves? Duh.

Perhaps what Writer is trying to point out is that while alternative media can be very useful and tell us things we might never have learned otherwise, knowing which ones to trust is just as tricky, because each one is an entity unto its own, and you have to figure out for yourself what kind of an agenda it might have and whether or not it is to be trusted. And that takes a lot of work, especially when you consider all the sources out there.

MSM may have bias, but at least there's some system of quality control. That's not necessarily true of alternative media.

Both have their good and bad points. Yet here, we tend to sanctify and canonize the alternative media as the repository of all that is truthful, good and holy, and demonize the MSM, simply because we know one is driven by a profit line and the other is not, while ignoring all the other factors that go into making a good and reliable news source. We essentially let a single factor--anti-corporatism--dictate which media we trust, when we should take numerous others into consideration: professionalism, quality, reliability, etc.

It is possible for alternative media to be professional, high-quality and reliable. It's also possible for them to be biased pieces of unreliable crap peddled by people with a personal agenda. It is possible for MSM to be unprofessional, low-quality, irresponsible, unreliable and corporate-agenda-driven. It is also possible for them to be professional, truthful and trustworthy. Perhaps that is what Writer is trying to say.

[onenote]

22. well stated

[kwassa]

25. Great summation of media issues.

and the arguments against MSM on this forum.

[iamthebandfanman]

28. yup!

i dont really think they have a political agenda persay... they tend to back up whoever will benefit them financially. be it taxes or restrictions... they will get theirs for doing their part to help someone. lol.

you just cant trust a large corporation that has financial interests all over the globe to tell you the ENTIRE truth.... that interest will outweigh any sense of duty they may or may not have to the american public.
cause like you said, they are a business after all. they take care of them and theirs first, we are second.

[Orsino]

38. We can refine that point further.

"It doesn't seem to matter how much money he makes for GE vs. how much money the defense industry makes for GE. All they care is that what he's doing doesn't show a loss."

If there is an overall net profit of sufficient magnitude, then he can keep doing what he's doing. Whether or not KO makes money directly, MSNBC benefits from the anti-establishment image he provides.

That Olbermann criticizes the Administration doesn't clear the MSM of charges of censorship. MSNBC is profoundly conservative, even if they find it profitable to put a "rebel" in front of their audience every night. We should remember the lesson of Howard Beale. The house always wins, and they still laugh every time we exult over some point Keith has made. They know his message is swamped by the MSM's other voices (and occasionally by Keith's own stances, which aren't all quite what I'd call liberal), which are nearly identical...and are severely biased toward the interests of the handful of rich old white men who own our discourse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. We should also remember Howard Beale was fiction

It's just one person's (or maybe a few) ideas about what would happen in a certain situation.

[Dr Fate]

45. So they lie on purpose to make money. Well that makes me feel much better then.

Actually, if profits, selling ads and gaining more ratings was the real answer, then they would have covered the last 5 or 6 Republican sex scandals with 24/7 tabloid style coverage for weeks on end.

You know- like they do whenever its a DEM in sex scandal. (See Clinton, Condit, any Kennedy-weeks and weeks of coverage- some of it false)

[Greyhound]

73. Ignore the point and sidetrack the issue.

Of course they are out to make money and do so at every opportunity, but there are definite limits. KO lends some veracity to what is otherwise a waste of wavelength and bandwidth, but his audience is minuscule compared to the broadcast networks. Even if it were not, KO would have to make a choice between his integrity and his salary if ever he made a real difference to the much larger bottom line of his employers owners owners.

We've seen it happen time and again in all of our media. As long as both GE and NBC are making their money and not stepping on each others toes, everybody is happy and each are free to do what they need to to make as much as they can, but if/when there is a conflict, Bob Wright works for Jeff Immelt and what GE says, goes. End of argument, period.

KO gets the landmark story-of-a-lifetime of how GE has been caught doing something underhanded and blatantly illegal, so terrible that it could cause the stock of a major division of GE to tank. The calls are made and the story is spiked and that is the end of it. Perhaps KO individually has the integrity and the means to walk away from MSNBC to get the story out anyway, but which of the other 5 media corporations is going to hire the reporter that has proved he is "not a team player"?

The idea that there is any integrity left in the major American media is naive. At least in the past, while much of the media has always been corrupt, there was a huge diversity of it and some outlet was always glad to hurt the other guys and therefore the news got out. Today, the Republicratic media consolidation has made even that impossible.

[Dr Fate]

47. Me too- and I cant find an example of the the media reporting false stories that help DEMS...

...retain power.

On the other hand, there several MAJOR false stories that are designed to help Republicans retain power and hurt Liberals (WMDs, Saddam/9-11, Swiftboat Vets, half the stuff they said about Bill Clinton- the list goes on and on.)

Do they exist? What are the out-right false stories that just happned to help DEMS and hurt Republicans?

If everything is as balanced and on the up & up as you say, then the examples should come pouring out. There should be just as amny "accidents" and examples of "bad reporting" that are allowed to stand as fact and benefit DEMS as there are for Bush. Where are they?

[Dr Fate]

14. I'll bite. Which major media outlet openly opposed the Iraq invasion?

And by opposing the invasion- I mean they had broadcasters opposing the war- just like like they broadcasters who were openly for it. I dont remember that balance on any networks.

2nd Question. Name a false story in the major media that helped Democrats and hurt Republicans. I can name false stories that hurt DEMS and help Republicans all night.

I cant prove if they are "plotting," but the level of ouright false information that helps conservatives and hurts everyone else seems way beyond coincidence at this point.

Okay- so the media at large supported the war and allowed Bush to lie about it due to patriotism and post 9/11 fear- so the media allowed fake news about Swiftboat vets because of 9/11 and patriotism too?

False media that helps Republicans and hurts Liberals has many excuses and explanations, but those excuses dont seem to account for it happening over and over- and the excuse changes every time yet another example is presented. Sometime it's "bad reporting"- sometimes it's a variation of "but the country supported Bush at the time- what were we supposed to say?"

When a conservative complains of media bias, they usually are speaking of facts that happen to make Republicans look bad- when a Liberal complains of media bias, they are usually complaining about false information-so the "both sides claim bias" explanation desnt quite wash either.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," Redstone said, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. ... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Any mega-media outlets like Viacom claiming a "better deal" with DEMS?

[harun]

30. You could set the bar much lower. Which major media outlet

didn't cheerlead the Iraq invasion? Paper, print, radio, online, news, etc. I would take proof of any, but I know there isn't.

I am sure plenty of writers and reporters probably opposed the promotion of the war, but the owners and editors ALL promoted it.

[Dr Fate]

40. That is what media defenders never discuss much- who signs the paychecks.

Hint-they aint Liberals.

[Oeditpus Rex]

49. This editor didn't (n.t.)

[Dr Fate]

50. Neither did a lot of editors you might find on the internet. MSM is another story.

My challenge stands- list the major MSM network or major MSM paper- and show us the anti-Iraq invasion editorials outweighing the pro in that major publication or network.

I'm not saying they might not exist, but they are few and far between- few enough to warrant the suspicion of the media on this site.

[Oeditpus Rex]

55. I wasn't an internet editor then

You have to be careful where you toss that blanket. Newsrooms are, by and large, liberal — and that's not merely my estimation from having worked in a few; surveys back it up.

Now, when you say "editors," you need to be less vague. There are editors in chief, metro editors, city editors, national editors, foreign editors, wire editors, opinion editors... to say nothing of sports editors, features editors, business editors... and then the copy desk, which has desk chiefs, slot editors and rim editors.

Every damned one of 'em answers to a publisher, who in turn typically answers to a board of directors, who in turn answer to stockholders.

Whom do you blame?

[Dr Fate]

58. Surveys may back it up, but apparently the paychecks dont.

I'd like to see a survey that shows that the man who signs the pay-checks is a Liberal.

Reporters can claim to be Liberals in surveys all they want- it still doesnt account for their major FAKE news stories that helped Bush and hurt DEMS- while TRUE stories that would hurt Bush go essentially unheard of.

You say there are surveys that prove Reporters are Liberals- but how about showing us a major media outlet that was opposed to the invasion- or one that presented a false story as fact/conventional wisdom that helped Liberals.

I'm not saying that the the media should lie- I'm saying that if the lies are just accidents, then there should be some fake stories that cut both ways-not just ones that help the GOP. Where are they?

Aside from the issue of false reporting, show us a Liberal editor of a major paper that endorses impeaching or censuring Bush- keeping in mind that many major outlets called for this when it was Clinton.

[Oeditpus Rex]

65. You misrepresent me

I'm not foolish enough to defend the egregious errors of the news media — except to counter the endless parade of DUers charging "bias" and "complicity" with my firm belief that the vast majority were the result of lazy, often apathetic and just plain bad journalism.

There's no way you can make me believe Judith Miller went to work each day thinking, "How can I make President Bush look good today?" It was more like just about every reporter who ever lived: "How can I get The Big Story today?" The trouble is, she and others gave too much credibility to the wrong people.

[Dr Fate]

77. So it's a happy coincedence that when ever the media lies, the lie helps Bush.

If it's just balanced laziness or balanced bad reporting, or balanced search for "the big story"- then there would be as many stories that help Democrats and hurt Bush as there are stories that help Bush. God knows the info is out there-just not prominent in the MSM.

As it stands, no one can show me those examples- just fake stories that help Bush.

Judith Miller? Who was the counter point to her articles in NYT? That, is, who was the other reporter at the NY Times who was writing articles that corrected her mistakes, or presented counter theories? (You know- what we used to call BALANCE) There wasnt one? Must be "laziness" or a a honest mistake then, certainly not bias-right?

The fact that the media constantly presents lies as fact that help Bush and hurt Liberals is a Happy coincidence- all just a big, decade long one-sided "lazy" accident. Uh-huh.

Bad reporting and laziness would be an acceptable excuse for say, 25 lies that help Bush and hurt Liberals- but THOUSANDS?????

[Skittles]

16. this is a joke, right?

:o

[Indenturedebtor]

17. Sorry man

I agreed with you until I spent nearly a year traveling in other countries between 2004-2005. Watching Cnn and Fox compared to stations from all the other countries was like night and day. all the other countries told the same stories. flip to CNN and Fox and you got two nearly identical stories that disagreed with the world.

Hell I sell ad space for tradeshow publications. Guess what, buy and ad and you get to write an "Editorial" about how great your company is. Shocking eh? These Media companies are not the old timey newspapers they're just another type of mega corporation now that sell their favors to the highest bidder. They don't care about truthiness they care about profit.

Shock you to get you watching, lie to you to sell even more adspace to those that want you to be lied to.

[Hissyspit]

18. Alternative media isn't corporate-owned.

While the picture may be hyperbolic, and it's your characterization, we've seen plenty of examples over the past decade of the media acting just like a mafiosa-styled cabal rubbing their hands together, plotting.

The corruption that began with the loss of the equal times rules and the laws on corporate ownership that go back to the Reagan years has been devestating.

Just spend some time watching BBC News Hour and compare it to a U.S. nightly news show.

Actually MSM should always have quotes around it: "MSM."

The corporate-owned "mainstream" media over the past seven years for the most part has failed this country. (It's gotten somewhat better, but only after it got popular to hate Bush.) Speaking as a former newspaper reporter, Writer, I have been for the most part disgusted and ashamed of the U.S. journalism media over the past decade. And, yes, there is a difference between Definite, honest, upfront bias, and hidden-agenda, subtle, corporate-pandering bias.

There is SO MUCH I wouldn't have known about had I depended on only the MSM for my news source. (For example, I never once saw an image of a dead drowned person in Katrina coverage on cable or in mainstream newspapers. If it hadn't been for alternative media, I would have never seen visual proof that ANYONE had died.) I have seen again and again and again, stories break on the Internet, get revealed, covered and researched here and at other sites, that six months or six weeks or two weeks later got covered by the "MSM."

[Oeditpus Rex]

43. For the record, the 'equal-time rule' still exists

Perhaps you're confusing it with the Fairness Doctrine. The so-called "equal-time rule" is Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 and applies to advertising by political candidates, not to news broadcasts. Whittled down, it states that all political candidates must be given equal access to free or paid promotional air time — not necessarily that they must be given air time, period. It does not, for example, force TV or radio stations to take a financial hit if a candidate cannot afford as much air time as an opponent.

In 1959, the law was amended by Congress to include interviews, debates, documentaries and spot-news reports as exemptions along with scheduled news programs. That's why stations and networks can dictate which candidates may participate in debates.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

[Hissyspit]

86. Yeah, I meant the fairness doctrine. Thanks for catching that.

and now for a kick for Writer's thread.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorkulon]

21. It's an acronym. It's shorter than typing "mainstream media."

It doesn't necessarily connote any opinion, but it serves to distinguish major corporate news outlets from alternative/foreign press. For example, if you said, "I haven't seen anything about Sibel Edmonds in the media," or "in the press," that would be wrong. You haven't seen anything about Sibel Edmonds in the MSM.

You could just as easily say, "I think the MSM does a great job, and people are too subjective and critical of it." I doesn't imply anything; it's not a value judgment or a pejorative; it's just short for "mainstream media."

What, we're not allowed to make that distinction?

[Echo In Light]

24. Who OWNS the mainline media, and the scope of the platform...

That reaches a majority of people, with all of its social/cultural implications {long standing process of indoctrination} are comprehensive variables to consider. Due to cultural familiarity, greater numbers of people will mindlessly, unquestioningly abide much of what is gleaned from mainline sources. This is nothing new to the current Bush era. By and large the agenda setting press has always served the aims of the corporate/state nexus which often doesn't have humanity's best interests in mind. It's like a man made weather/info apparatus used to whip up public support for illegal/immoral military/business actions/policies by selling the "conflict" and need for supposed "retaliation" to the public, usually aided by large doses of emotional coercion i.e. Problem, Reaction, Solution

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html

http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/index.htm

[arendt]

26. How did you get to 1000 posts? It is patently obvious that the Corporate Media is...

ten times more corrupt than the Hearst press Yellow Journalism of a century ago.

The MSM is too polite a name for this bunch of fact-ignoring, propaganda-spouting, corporate mouthpieces.

Go read any Sunday paper. You will find editorial sections devoted to naming babies (Boston Globe, 2 wks ago). You will find zero coverage of the massive deficits. You will find fluff pieces on members of the Bush cabal.

I might as well say:

"Defending the Corporate Media? I mean, come on, what kind of shill is this?

arendt

[iamthebandfanman]

27. we dont make it sound like

they ARE.

hey, if you dont wanna believe it and be so trusting... thats on you... dont scorn others for deciding to take large corporations news programs with a grain of salt.

if i listened to what the MSM said and took everything as truth, id probably be hiding under a desk. whether it was from terror, child molesters, and/or britney spears.

[JohnyCanuck]

29. Why is the great majority of news sourced to authority and its vested interests?

That's John Pilger's question.

The Cyberguards of Honest Journalism

by
John Pilger


No longer trusting what they read, see and hear, people in western democracies are questioning as never before, particularly via the internet

What has changed in the way we see the world? For as long as I can remember, the relationship of journalists with power has been hidden behind a bogus objectivity and notions of an "apathetic public" that justify a mantra of "giving the public what they want". What has changed is the public's perception and knowledge. No longer trusting what they read and see and hear, people in western democracies are questioning as never before, particularly via the internet. Why, they ask, is the great majority of news sourced to authority and its vested interests? Why are many journalists the agents of power, not people?

Much of this new thinking can be traced to a remarkable UK website, www.medialens.org. The creators of Media Lens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, assisted by their webmaster, Olly Maw, have had such an extraordinary influence since they set up the site in 2001 that, without their meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism's first draft of bad history. Peter Wilby put it well in his review of Guardians of Power: the Myth of the Liberal Media, a drawing-together of Media Lens essays published by Pluto Press, which he described as "mercifully free of academic or political jargon and awesomely well researched. All journalists should read it, because the Davids make a case that demands to be answered."

That appeared in the New Statesman. Not a single national newspaper reviewed the most important book about journalism I can remember. Take the latest Media Lens essay, "Invasion - a Comparison of Soviet and Western Media Performance". Written with Nikolai Lanine, who served in the Soviet army during its 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, it draws on Soviet-era newspaper archives, comparing the propaganda of that time with current western media performance. They are revealed as almost identical.

Like the reported "success" of the US "surge" in Iraq, the Soviet equivalent allowed "poor peasants the land peacefully". Like the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan, Soviet troops were liberators who became peacekeepers and always acted in "self-defence". The BBC's Mark Urban's revelation of the "first real evidence that President Bush's grand design of toppling a dictator and forcing a democracy into the heart of the Middle East could work" (Newsnight, 12 April 2005) is almost word for word that of Soviet commentators claiming benign and noble intent behind Moscow's actions in Afghanistan. The BBC's Paul Wood, in thrall to the 101st Airborne, reported that the Americans "must win here if they are to leave Iraq . . . There is much still to do." That precisely was the Soviet line.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711290023

[OneGrassRoot]

31. Forget coverage of candidates....

the mere silence since 2001 about all of Bushco's crimes and misdemeanors - and lack of investigative journalism - speaks volumes.

They either put out "information" to distract us (e.g., Britney/Paris/handshakes), or withhold real news and facts, with the intent of manipulating the storyline and national discussion.

WHAT they are plotting isn't always evident other than the dumbing down America.

[Snarkturian Clone]

32. 'Round here, lots of people only hate the MSM

when it doesn't agree with them. When it does agree with them, the MSM becomes the Holy Word. Remember, a lot of people come to this board just to agree with people. They expect the same from the MSM. Either the MSM has to be preaching whatever they are thinking or it's a conspiracy specifically against them.

I agree with you about the folks that reference these crunchy left-biased sources as news. That's no better than saying World Net Daily is news.

Here's to unpopular opinions!! :toast:

[Dr Fate]

42. Actually, I have a problem when the media provides FALSE news. (WMDs, SBVs, etc)

The media not agreeing with me is one thing, but the meida not agreeing with FACTS is another.

The fact that there are some questionable internet sources does not absolve the major media outlets of anything.

All I know is that "the crazy internet sites" were 100% right about WMDs or Saddam 9/11 connex-while Wolf Blitzer and Chris Mathews as well as the NY Times, etc. were 100% wrong.

The source itself is not the issue- the issue is whether that source is presenting facts or not.

[NuttyFluffers]

33. do more research, less writing...

may want to start with annual Top 25 Under/Unreported News Stories. easy to find in your local library. work from there, the information is already readily available. your ignorance is not an excuse...

[bryant69]

34. It's very simple - when the Media says something that agrees with my ideological bias

they are acting correctly. When the media says something that is not in line with my ideological bias, I know they are a bunch of filthy liars.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dr Fate]

56. What about outright fake stories-where do those come into play?

Name the fake MSM stories that conformed to a Liberal bias and impacted the country.

I can name you 10 fake MSM stories that conformed to a conservative bias.

Bias is one thing- but the real nitty gritty of the matter is fake news- and the MSM on many occasions has presented fake news that helps republicans.

Where are the fake stories that were allowed to stand as fact to help DEMS? If they are accidents, then why do the "accidental" or "poor reporting" fake stories that are allowed to stand as fact only seem to help Bush?

[bryant69]

64. What are your ten?

I am curious.

Bryant

[Dr Fate]

79. WMDs. SBV. Saddam caused 9/11. Dan Rather lied. Al Gore lied...

Terry Schivo is not brain dead, Bill Clinton was invloved in (List 20 fake scandals here), Bush was a successful businessman, "No one could have stopped 9/11", Katrina victims could have used the school buses, etc. etc.etc...Lies, Negligent disregard for the truth and more lies.

Shit- you want unchallenged lies presented as fact from Big, mainstream corporate media ? Turn on FOX news or a mainstream big-network owned radio station right now and start counting.

As far as WMDs and Saddam/9-11 connex goes- there was just a report listing over 900 lies that were verified and presented as fact by the media.

These are just off the top of my head- a quick google search will produce hundreds of lies and negligent omission of facts for your consideration:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=bush+media+lies

Now- where are your ten major news stories that balance my examples as to falsity and impact? If every thing is as balanced and on the up and up, then you should easily be able to produce 10 major impact fake news stories like I did-excpet thatthey help Democrats instead of Republicans.

Again- if the fake news is all just accidents and bad reporting, then surely some of it falls to our side- where is it?

[Oilwellian]

72. So....

the truth has become an "ideological bias?" Let's take Sibel Edmonds story for instance....is wanting her story to be reported by the mainstream media an "ideological bias" to you? How absurd.

It's what the media is NOT reporting that is so disconcerting to me and many others. It's certainly not to the benefit of the American people that high officials have sold our nuclear secrets to countries in the Middle East. It's not an "idealogical bias" that many are concerned our "MSM" has blacked out the story completely and is endangering our national security further by letting these criminals skate. Your point is moot.

[Virginia Dare]

35. Huh?

you don't think the media arbitrarily kills stories they don't want to run? Yellow Journalism has been going on since Roman times, maybe even before.

[MadHound]

36. Given that literally a handful of corporations control over 90% of the media

Yeah, I'd say that they're some type of mafiosa-styled cabal. And yes, they do plot, plot to deliver skewed news that most favors their elite corporate bosses either making money or wielding influence.

[Marr]

37. Recognizing the bias in the corporate media is not the same as

endorsing all alternative media. Alternate and foreign news sources can be flawed as well, of course.

The fact is that the corporate media is incredibly biased in the US. It's bias is in favor of Wall Street, and mostly comes in the form of omission rather than outright propaganda. Have you ever read a paper or watched the news in Europe, or even Canada? It's like night and day.

Our television media doesn't do anything close relevant reporting. In comparison to foreign news sources, our big news outlets sound like something between a corporate annual report and a tabloid show. Newspapers are a little better, but still ignore much of the important news.

[Dr Fate]

44. Exactly- the BBC and the UK Guardian, Channel 4 (as well as Micheal Moore) are "the real bias."

You make a good point-whatever the inadaqucies of a few biased, obscure websites exibit do not excuse the numerous examples of bias and out-right false news presented by the mass consumed "MSM"

Writer doesnt seem to account that people like you and I have noted this by comparing the MSM to legitimate sources with better rates of accuracy on the issue at hand than say, CNN, FOX news or even most major News Papers- including Judith Miller's employers.

[Elidor]

41. The Corporate Media

Who make money selling something they call "news." Only it isn't.

Btw, anti-Bush bias doesn't lessen the fact that we are RIGHT.

[althecat]

46. What part of the MSM's political bias is not definite?

I take some issue with this bit.

"You're going from SUPPOSED political bias to DEFINITE political bias here. "

Most of the MSM has a very clear and very obvious political bias - at least a corporate political bias. But here's the rub - the MSM spends lots of effort and money trying to pretend it doesn't - e.g. fair and balanced fox news.

...by way of contrast...

The liberal/alternate media may have a clear bias but it makes no bones about it.

Finally another point - a bias in favour of "the people" is inherently more honest than a bias in favour of "the corporations" - i.e. biases are not all created equally - one form of media bias is wholesome and democratic the other is self serving and anti-democratic.

[Dr Fate]

48. The real question is, what are the FALSE stories in alternate media that have impact?

I mean BIG stories- on par with "WMDs" or "Swifboat Vets"- false stories that hurt the GOP and helped DEMS, in the same way the MSM fake news helps Bush and hurts Liberals.

The issue really isnt bias so much as it it should be fake news vs. real news- biased or not.

Writer cant seem to show us a fake alternate media story that has an even remotely similar effect as do the BIG fake stories the MSM feeds us. To me that is the real issue. Bias is one thing- but is the news FACTUAL?

When people complain about Liberal or alternate media, it is often a complaint against their presentation of "biased" facts (AKA- Reality has a Liberal bias)- most complaints about the MSM actually stem from fake facts or complete and total omission of facts.

[althecat]

85. Very good point.

[hunter]

51. People don't mind bad news so long as it's not about them.

The mainstream media obliges.

You are never going to see bloody illustrations of why America Sucks in the mainstream media.

People don't want to know they are riding in a bus that's driven by a maniac who is running down innocent people on crowded sidewalks and heading to plunge over a cliff of economic ruin.

Some people saw a UFO in Texas, and a blond girl is missing!

[Dr Fate]

53. Then why did the media gleefully attack Bill Clinton's presidency if no one wants bad news?

Everyday one media outlet or the other was telling us how corrupt the DEMS were, how DEMS were running down the country, and how Bill was basically Al Capone and John Holmes rolled into one.

In fact, many major outlets endorsed Clinton's impeachment or censure. Can we say the same for the media as to Bush?

Your explanation attempts to account for why the media does not attack Bush- but doesnt explain why they didnt oblige us with the same standards & courtesy when it was Clinton.

In fact, they had to MAKE Up bad things about Clinton-with Bush they wouldnt even have to.

[hunter]

57. Precisely because it was bad behavior of no consequence.

Bill Clinton getting blowjobs in the oval office by someone who is not his wife is bad behavior by a President. But it's not scary.

Killing millions of innocent people and trashing our economy is bad behavior by a President, but it's scary as all hell.

[Dr Fate]

59. You must fave forgot about "He is a Chinese spy" ,"He killed Vince Foster", "He is a liar", etc, etc

And numerous other charges of lying and corruption that the media had no problem informing us about when it was a DEM- true or not.

If true those would indeed be scary things- and they were presented by MSM as such on a daily basis.

Your excuse doesnt wash- the media does indeed tell us about corruption, lies, percieved treason, and how the country is going down hill when it is a DEM. Bush however, got a free pass, and they didnt even have to MAKE STUFF UP about his scandals.

[hunter]

66. Bad news if you are Vince Foster.

Otherwise, life goes on, whether it is a lie or not.

Another problem of the MSM is that they've gotten in the habit of rubberstamping press releases.

Honest organizations don't tend to send out press releases full of vile disgusting lies. The GOP political machine does. And when honest news comes along, such as George W. Bush's dishonorable military service, the GOP machine pukes all over that too.

[Dr Fate]

75. A murder-scandal isnt bad news? You glossed over the chinese treason story and many other scandals.

My assertion stands- you are incorrect when you say that the media gives presidents a free pass when it comes to bad news.

The media has given George Bush a free pass when it comes to bad news, that is for sure- but it never even once gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt, and the meida constantly portrayed Clinton's "scandals" as dividing the country and tearing at "the moral fibre" of the country. THAT is bad news. It was bad enough news to cause enough "Clinton fatigue" to keep Gore from winning a comfortable margin in 2000- which was the goal, I think.

Your excuse for why the media behaves as it does does not match up to the facts.

[Uncle Joe]

60. I believe their primary reason was to keep scandal front and center, thereby

making integrity an integral part of the 2000 election, they didn't want the primary political champion for opening up the Internet for the people in the White House and they knew this was Bush's best chance of making the race close enough to steal.

If you ever watch the Big Brother television show, you will on occasion see them back door a particularly strong player out of the house, because that player is viewed as the greatest threat and the other players are afraid to take that player head on. I believe as the Internet grew in power and influence, the corporate media came to resent Al Gore for it and this was their main motivation for the witch hunt against the Clintons through out the first part of the 90s which they were more than happy to transfer in to the war against Gore's credibility, beginning just weeks after Clinton's impeachment. They were building a frame or setting the stage if you prefer, to give an inferior yet corporate loving candidate something to run on.

[Dr Fate]

61. Makes more sense than all the coincidence theories I see here.

You seem to recognize the fact that they did go after the DEM with NUMEROUS fake stories (Al Gore said he invented the internet, for one), while we cant seem to find the fake stories from the 2000 election (much less a similar amount of reporting on Bush's fatual lies & scandals from his Texas years) that helped DEMS.

[warren pease]

52. I'd cite the Sibel Edmonds case as counter-argument #1...

This is excerpted from a draft of an article on MSM abuses I'm doing for Online Journal, and I think it says what I want to say pretty well. Plus, it saves me from having to think and then write it up all over again.

It's been axiomatic for at least a decade or two that if Americans want to find out anything useful or timely about what's happening in their own country, they must turn to information sources not originating in the US. They seek out the variety and diversity of thought that enlivens newspapers and web sites around the world.

This is because the shameful excuse for a functional free press that we live with here has become the home of orthodox dullards and mindless sloganeering and infotainment too moronic to bother with. Things got this bad in large part because giant corporations got wise to the fact that having a national megaphone from which to browbeat people with their simplistic propaganda might be a pretty good idea.

By an incredible coincidence, the GOP under Reagan felt the same way and media deregulation hit the ground running. Clinton's Telecom Act of 1996 accelerated the process of acquisition and consolidation; Bush's FCC went the rest of the way and simply declared itself a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate media dedicated to serving its monolithic masters while passively ignoring or actively screwing its citizen constituents.

<snip>

Sibel Edmonds has a hell of a story to tell, right off the pages of John LeCarre's finest fictional works of espionage and international intrigue. But this isn't fiction. From mid-to-late 2001, former FBI translator turned whistleblower Edmonds translated hundreds of international phone conversations among certain Turkish, Pakistani, Israeli and American officials. She describes in detail a range of illegal undercover operations that jeopardized US national security and involved senior members of the Bush administration, Congress and the US military and intelligence communities.

She alleges these activities included selling US nuclear weapons secrets, shielding terrorist suspects in the aftermath of 9/11, carrying out illegal arms transfers, international narcotics trafficking, establishing money laundering schemes and running off-the-books espionage operations.

Over the past few months, frustrated and angry, convinced that the public needed to hear these allegations, Edmonds offered to go public with the whole story.

She promised to provide evidence that backs up her claims of a pattern of sustained criminality. She has already named several top-level administration officials, including Marc Grossman – the third-highest ranking official in the State Department at the time – along with veteran neocon insiders, Pentagon fixtures and PNAC members Douglas Feith and Richard Perle. Along with the names come specifics on illicit dealings with members of foreign governments – more names, dates and places – and other unimpeachable evidence she says proves her allegations beyond doubt.

As Edmonds said later, “If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials." Well, that set the warning lights flashing and the sirens on full blast.

Assuming that US mass media was still in the news gathering and reporting business, she contacted representatives from all major US newspapers, radio and TV stations, trying to set up interviews and affirming that she was aware of and willing to accept potential legal consequences for violating a gag order imposed five years ago.

US media completely ignored her. They refused to return her calls and emails. They refused to even consider taking an hour or so to meet with her and gage the validity and newsworthiness of her story for themselves.

<snip>

In these very weird times, that means they did their jobs to perfection. Expecting real news or investigative reporting from today's US media monopolies is like expecting a salmon to howl at the moon. US media gets scooped every day by just about every news organization on earth and nobody really cares anymore. Sadly, this surprises almost no-one; these inept propagandists have revealed themselves as seedy parodies of themselves and have disgraced their formerly proud profession too many times to count.

<snip>

Clearly, Sibel Edmonds' experience is not the kind of story mass media's corporate paymasters want getting out there. Undermining an administration's claims of virtue and altruism is never good for the status quo. So senior editors and producers practiced a little self-censorship and imposed a de facto blackout on what may be among the most significant and damaging allegations in a nearly endless list of serious criminal offenses allegedly perpetrated by the Bush administration.

Unlike the treatment she got from US media, the Times of London has run several lengthy front-page articles in which Edmonds has finally been able to get the word out, in detail and without editorial intervention or redaction, proving that even a Murdoch rag knows how to cover a big story now and then.

<snip>

Mass media has built an information-averse filtration system, with check points and vetting procedures in place at every stage, that makes speaking ill of the oligarchy virtually impossible. As such, traditional financial measurements of corporate success don't apply to propagandists. They weren't acquired to make money for their parent companies; they're there to legitimize the corporate takeover of the US political process and the cesspool of corruption that's been the result.

The principals couldn't be happier with the way things have turned out. They can afford to leave reality based news and comment to the Internet and the international press. They've spent the money and done the deals required to build themselves their own alternative universe. If the status quo isn't going so well in the real world, so what?

They just crank up the dream machine another notch or two and watch the results. Their audiences tap into the parallel zeitgeist and before long they're enveloped by the virtual world of Paris, Twitany, OJ who didn't do it, Brad Pitt's identity crisis, Jen's struggle against typecasting, Pickles' latest charity bash, how to get a makeover for pennies, 750 chaste ways to please your mate, 120 ways to stretch your food budget, losing weight with the strawberry shortcake diet... You know the drill.

And the world is once again safe for normality. Consumers consume, believers believe, workers work and the planet's magnetic field remains undisturbed.

Ask an important question, get a thousand word answer.


wp

[Supersedeas]

54. who said anything about BIAS, it is about NOT confronting issues at ALL -- but diverting the use

of public airways and bandwidth with meaningless BS just to make advertisers and marketeers happy.

If you don't recognize THAT, the blech is more than just a feeling that you are expressing.

[Dr Fate]

62. Right- or just plain old FAKE NEWS in order to create issues.

As I have said, bias is one thing, but the fake news the MSM feeds us is what it is: Fake stories that help Republicans and hurt Liberals.

[LanternWaste]

63. No bias, motive, or agenda other than profit

I honestly don't think the media has any bias, motive, or agenda other than profit. While I understand (and empathize) with moving the media into the "them" camp, I think it's at best naive, and at worst merely disingenuous. Our own mirror image of the right wing vilifying the media for their own political purposes in the mid-nineties, if you will.

While the profit motive may align temporarily align itself with a particular candidate or party, it's nothing more than a marriage of convenience, lasting no longer than the dollar dictates.

They used the sobriquet of "the liberal media", and we countered with our own sobriquet of "main stream media". Two different sides of the same business, I guess...



As an aside...Ben Bagdikian wrote a wonderful book called The Media Monopoly sometimes in the late eighties (reading that was part of my political awakening). It's a very accurate prediction of what was happening to the media and what would happen to the media. I'm surprised that the book isn't talked of more as almost every prediction he made has already happened.

[Dr Fate]

80. Really? Then why no 24/7 tabloid style coverage of the last 6 or so GOP sex scandals?

They could have made tons of ratings & money off Foley, Gannon, Haggard, the toe-tapper, etc. by digging deeper and dragging out the stories. In fact, when it was Bill Clinton(D) or Gary Condit (D), we got 24/7 coverage for literally months.

We have at least 4 or 5 recent GOP sex scandals that involve all kinds of kinky stuff (can you say Ratings bonaza?)that only got a few days each of he said she said b/f they were swept under the rug- or in the case of Jeff Gannon, little or no coverage.

If profit was the ONLY motive- then the media would turn every Bush(R)& GOP scandal that comes down the pike into a soap-opera style dramas- you know- like they did when it was Clinton (D).

How much ratings could the media get if there was impeachment? A lot- yet they dont push for it like they pushed for Bill's impeachment.

[LanternWaste]

82. Have you asked any primary sources?

"Really? Then why no 24/7 tabloid style coverage of the last 6 or so GOP sex scandals?"

Have you asked any primary sources? Have you asked any of the marketing groups who target demographics? Wouldn't they have the answers? in addition to the Bagdikian book I mentioned, there's also quite a few books on the topic which cover a wide array of possibilities rather than simply choosing one premise at the expense of a myriad of others.

Sorry. I simply don't buy the allegation that the media is anti-either particular party, nor do I subscribe to over-generalized post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc arguments...

[Dr Fate]

84. So you deny that Clinton & Condit sex stories were ratings bonanzas?

You deny that Clinton's impeachment did not increase ratings for the news networks?

I dont need some fancy-pants report to know that everyone was glued to the set for all these examples-As they would be if you did identically themed stories concering Republicans.

The excuses are wearing more & more thin.

If money & ratings were all they are after- they could get plenty of both from all sorts of sex & corruption scandals involving the GOP, or a an impeachment- you know- like they did to Clinton (D).

To deny that "sex sells" is pretty outrageous. Same goes for political intrigue & scandal. The Greek tragedies & Shakespeare knew this centuries ago and the media knows it now. It's merely a matter of selection. Just ask Clinton & Condit.

[abq e streeter]

67. The things they omit are clearly accidental

Why , just yesterday, I was watching the Today Show's extensive coverage of one one of the crucial topics of the day: Queen Elizabeth, and to show how her presence affects every aspect of modern (?) culture, they played a snippet of The Sex Pistol's " God Save the Queen", but abruptly cut it off after the word "the" and before " fascist regime". This, like every other manifestation of alleged collusion by the "MSM" to control what's seen and heard, and what is not, was simply a randomly chosen place to cut off the music. And all the other news stories that reflect badly on the "fascist regime" that I like to call the Bush administration, that none of the corporate owned networks ever mention, are, I'm quite confident, items that merely slipped their minds to report.

[bobthedrummer]

68. The Office of Strategic Influence never closed-the MSM is one component of it

we've discussed that fact here before, as well as former USAF General Simon Peter Worden et. al. The "influence" is part of mind control.

"The Office of Strategic Influence" (archived H2O Man thread started 2-13-2007)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x201237

Office of Strategic Influence page from Source Watch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Strategic_Influence

[tomreedtoon]

70. No, Writer. The Mafia had honor.

If you've ever read a history of them, they had a degree of honor and morality. If you talked, you got whacked. If you stood by someone, you were honored. You can't say that about Viacom, Disney, GE/Segram's or AOL-Time Warner.

And the Mafia maintained for decades that they did not exist. These other guys brand everything with their logos, like they were cattle barons.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ihavenobias]

76. No one reads reply # 8,000 but why not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2787645

It's an important enough issue to have another thread on the cons of the MSM.

[robbedvoter]

78. I use the term as shorthand. GOP propaganda arm is just too long.

[mitchum]

81. They are scribbling and chattering lapdogs who roll over and fetch for $$$

[Marr]

83. Here's the thing about trying to explain the bias to someone in the media:

If they had a problem with the corporate media's bias, they would've been fired already. That is, if they didn't have the good sense to just shut-up and delete those lines that bothered the advertiser, or the parent company, or a sister company, or whatever. As a reporter, you don't get to choose what you cover-- and as soon as your coverage of the acceptable stories becomes troublesome, it will be changed. Or you will be fired. Or both.

Do you honestly believe that corporate media ownership doesn't have an influence on news coverage?

[Dr Fate]

87. Kick- I'd love for the OP to defend his own post. n/t

n/t