Is The Corporate Media Deciding This Election For Us?

[kpete]

Is The Corporate Media Deciding This Election For Us?

A well-functioning democracy depends on an informed public. There is no question that the public deserves to know these things about Senators Clinton and Obama. The information in the examples cited here could and should have an effect on the election, because the public will weigh these factors into their voting decisions. But the public also needs the information about Senator McCain, presented with equal emphasis. And clearly this isn't happening.


In the United States the broadcast media used to be required by law to serve "the public interest" ahead of profits. Use of OUR airwaves was licensed out to private interests that were allowed to use them to profit to a limited extent in exchange for providing the public with information and news. We did this because it served our interests and those of our democracy.

...............

So today there is no requirement that our mass media serve the public interest. Instead the only interests that are served are private, corporate interests and the only information the public receives through these outlets is information that benefits the corporations that control them.

........

Control of our information sources is now in the hands of corporations with no requirement that they serve the interests of democracy. So shouldn't we expect that corporate interests are placed ahead of the public interest? If for-profit enterprises control the information the public receives then why wouldn't they promote candidates who would be more favorable to their commercial interests?


more at:
http://speakoutca.org/archives/2008/04/why_is_the_corp.php

[Clear Blue Sky]

1. They are sure trying....n/t

[live love laugh]

4. Absolutely. n/t

[rurallib]

2. They are trying like hell aren't they

My impression was that they wanted a McCain/ Clinton match from the outset. McCain almost pissed his away but was saved by the very undemocratic rules of the GOP.
Clinton appears to have pissed hers away but the MSM is trying like hell to salvage it for her and in the process damage the Dems and Obama.
I think the MSM especially Fux was all ready for the Clinton disaster this fall. They seem to be having a hard time really damaging Obama. All the while McCain continues to do his "where the fuck am I?" tour and it gets more and more difficult to hide this embarrassment.
Still, no doubt the MSM is ready to go all the with Hillary.

[DumpDavisHogg]

3. The corporate media's decided it since '88

I was around back in '88 when the entire media was just one big swiftboating against Dukakis.

Ol' Bill has been the only Democrat in the White House since, just because he moved far enough to the right that the media was willing to tolerate him (which destroyed the Democrats in the process).

[Dogmudgeon]

7. You sound like an Obama fan

And that's okay by me. I'm for Hillary, but to hell with the firestorm.

I'm not sure the idea that Obama is being victimized is accurate. He's gotten a free ride for most, but not all, of the primary season. Evidence? MSNBC. But this is no GD-P partisanship on my part; I am convinced that it comes from more Machiavellian motives. I would like to turn your attention to something that you may have missed: that the media are driving this as close to 50:50 as they can to heighten the drama, split the Democrats, and make money selling advertising. It is probably easiest to detect in the way the media swatted John Edwards out of the running like a fly ready to land on a bowl of jello. They wanted a two-way sports-classic contest, a prizefight, the last 15 minutes of the movie Rollerball (the original version).

Obama started far behind Hillary. It was an exciting rocket ride to his current orbit, was it not? People tuned in. The cable boxes were kept busy, and those Tivo hard disks were soon filled with rants and gaffes and debates.

They don't care who wins, either. What they want is a source of dramatic news. All three of them hold that promise, even John McCain, who is more likely to die in office than we are hearing. (He has had pretty aggressive melanoma, which is difficult to keep in remission.)

The MSM are not behind Hillary. She's expendable, and they nearly expended her already. But so are Obama and McCain, and it's Obama's week to be publicly scourged -- if it bleeds, it leads. The media want money and power. They are only backing one outcome -- their own aggrandizement.

--p!

[Uncle Joe]

5. For profit medical care and for profit prisons are a natural extension of

the to hell with the public interest mentality of the corporate media.

Corrupt incompetent corporate loving leadership taking priority over superior leadership; concerned about the public interest is another natural extension.

I believe our corporate media is Orwell's worst nightmare, as just one example they've demonized the word "elite" this used to mean cream of the crop, the best in their field, now it's a dirty word, and this makes the job much easier for the corporate media to promote mediocrity and mediocrity is much more likely to support disastrous short term or no term thinking policies loved by the corporations.

I even believe the corporate media is going so far as to distort what Orwell was about in their television programming. People not up to date on Orwell's "1984" book might have come to the subconscious conclusion that "Big Brother" as in the television program might mean winning money if they're lucky or at the very least some measure of fame instead of the oppression, total loss of privacy and freedom that is sure to follow.


Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[seabeyond]

6. they certainly did in 2004. not one, not ONE postive comment about kerry or dems...n/t

[Supersedeas]

8. seems to be working that way -- if the Free Ride Straight Talk Propoganda means anything

[ananda]

9. Absolutely.

No question about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Been saying for months now

not that anybody will listen to me

:-)

[Supersedeas]

24. it's an echo chamber -- many are saying it but the Advertising/Marketing $$$ marginalize us

[fed-up]

11. they already have by narrowing field- Kucinich and Edwards nt

[Individualist]

35. Precisely.

By minimizing coverage of progressive candidates, the MSM has determined who the frontrunners would be. The saddest fact is that instead of voting their consciences, voters have obediently fallen in line and will vote for the MSM appointed nominees.

[TheFarseer]

12. yes - and this is new??

They picked the Repug candidate too. I'm sick of being told who's winning. who's losing. who's old news. who's electable. who some expert with their own agenda thinks I should vote for. 24 hour news is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. If you don't believe me yet, you may someday soon. It's not nearly done f*cking with us yet.

[Two Americas]

13. an orchestrated effort

Both sides in the current bitter feud within the Democratic party over candidates is being scripted and orchestrated by the right wing with the able assistance of corporate media, and most people here are happily dancing to their tune as they rip and tear into their friends and allies day after day.

[bonito]

14. When two war candidates "won" the NH primary

The media were their servers.

[Rex]

15. Already did.

Done and done.

[devilgrrl]

16. Oh dude, they chose the candidates for us.

If you've been on DU since 2001, Clinton and Obama weren't even on anyone's radar screen as far as Democratic candidates were concerned. In matter of fact, they weren't after the 2004 sElection either!

And now, here they are...

Both center/right btw. :mad:

[leftofthedial]

17. No. Corporations, in the service of the oligarchy, have already decided

(one of three war supporting, corporate supporting, insider elites)

the corporate media is just telling us about it in their currently fashionable reality TV style.

[datasuspect]

18. i agree with what you say

except the constituency with more money/power (the corporations) is served by the weaker power (the government).

[mdmc]

19. well, they got some help

diebold

[Echo In Light]

20. ...and even more "help" yet...

[tavalon]

21. Well, the media is sure trying to make it close

and therefore, stealable.

[Echo In Light]

22. They're definitely planting the seeds

[bdamomma]

23. they have been planting the seeds now for a while

it is up to us to unravel their plans.

[dysfunctional press]

25. no- they're trying to provide us with the illusions that we have absolutely any say in the matter.

we don't.

[guardian]

26. Of course they are trying. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

27. is this a trick question?

of course they are.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Well they chose the Democratic front-runners. They ran off the REAL CHANGE candidate(s) in favor

of two that pretty much won't rock the corprat boat, if they even manage to be get elected, that is.

[GreenTea]

29. Gezzz! Not a moment too soon-Guess they didn't pay attention to what the media did to John Edwards?

Edwards a progressive democratic candidate, with an excellent progressive platform was completely and purposely ignored by the media to ensure this on going - woman vs African-American circus for the Dem nomination and let the Dems beat up on each other and take it all the way to the convention which would only help the republicans.

The media and the republicans were quite aware that John Edwards would be the strongest Dem candidate and would easily defeat any republican candidate (as EVERY poll showed)....The media & republicans went to work....ignoring John Edwards and his ideas, and when the media or republicans ever did mention him...It was only to completely trash John Edwards.

Which made it near impossible for Edwards to raise the kind of money needed to compete, as the media's chosen two Dem glamor candidates were taking in tens of millions of dollars by being talked up, used and exploited by the media 24/7....They media (and republicans) got the two Dem candidates they wanted and they worked hard to get.

So now we have what we have - And the republican media manipulators couldn't be happier!

[Lorien]

30. They already have

A year ago Kucinich and Edwards were topping every Dem poll out there, and now look what we've got!

[Orsino]

31. No. But they're deciding how we decide, which is close enough. n/t

[LaPera]

32. Most still aren't aware how they've been manipulated & used. They think & need to believe it's

all been their doing and decisions, and the media pounding has had nothing to do with who they support.

They believe they are in total control. "They couldn't handle the truth" so they reject any notion or anyone or who tells them anything they don't want to hear, even if it is the truth.

Very easy to manipulate and control these media watching obsessed people, it happens to them over and over and over again, and they still don't have a clue.

[dkofos]

33. YES Just as they have done for the last 30 years.

And the American people still don't get it.

[elizfeelinggreat]

34. yes