It's the stupid media, stupid
Submitted by Susan ClevelandOH on November 18, 2006 - 9:34am.
Now that the voters have stood up and dealt a giant attitude check to the petulant little snot in the Oval Office, the blogosphere is picking up the mop and continuing the house cleaning.
They're turning their attention to the beltway media, those folks who have had their way with all of us for long enough, and calling them out for what they are: Mean Girls and Kewl Kidz.
Glenn Greenwald started the ball rolling with Why the Beltway class can't comprehend the Russ Feingolds of the world and offered some of the following insights:
It is hard to overstate how ignorant and wrong Beltway pundits are about everything, and how barren and corrupt inside-Washington conventional wisdom is.
~snip~they believe in nothing. They have no passion about anything. And they thus assume that everyone else suffers from the same emptiness of character and ossified cynicism that plagues them. And all of their punditry and analysis and political strategizing flows from this corrupt root.Not only do they believe in nothing, they think that a Belief in Nothing is a mark of sophistication and wisdom. Those who believe in things too much -- who display political passion or who take their convictions and ideals seriously (Feingold, Howard Dean) -- are either naive or, worse, are the crazy, irrational, loudmouth masses and radicals who disrupt the elevated, measured world of the high-level, dispassionate Beltway sophisticates (James Carville, David Broder, Fred Hiatt). They are interested in, even obsessed with, every aspect of the political process except for deeply held political beliefs -- the only part that really matters or that has any real worth.
Then digby got into the act:
Man are these catty little MSNBC snots enjoying their full-on Demo bitch fest. They are partying like it's 1999. Norah O'Donnell, Lawrence O'Donnell, Mary Ann Akers and some other person I don't know have just spent half an hour discussing the fact that Nancy Pelosi ruined her own honeymoon and now it is really quesionable whether she can lead. Meanwhile, the dirty netroots and Howard Dean must have done something wrong because James Carville is hanging out all the Democratic dirty laundry (while his wife cackles with glee, no doubt) and he wouldn't do that unless there was something to it.
After a thorough discussion of how hapless the Democratic nerds have already proven to be, Mary Ann Akers whispers that reporters all over town are "loving" this story. It's so much fun! All the kidz squealed like schoolgirls at prospect of the merciless going-over they are preparing to give these totalbigfatlosers. ("We're so not being mean or anything cuz they like totally deserve it cuz they just don't get it, ok?")
And then this:
Matt Yglesias observes something that I hadn't seen before. And it's very disturbing:What it comes down to is that, somewhat perversely, the "more open" primary system -- as opposed to old-school smoke filled rooms -- has in many ways made webs of connections more rather than less important. Power has been taken out of the hands of a small group of geographically dispersed elites who, acting out of self-interest, might choose to elevate a relatively obscure figure in the interests of securing victory and placed less in the hands of a broad mass of people than in the hands of a small geographically concentrated elite that controls the channels of mass communications -- i.e., the Washington political press. This elite, lacking an actual stake in the outcome, can afford to let self-interest essentially dictate a policy of laziness. Hence, we may be doomed to an endless cycle of Senators (who DC political reporters already cover), governors from Virginia and Maryland (whose exploits are detailed in the Metro section of The Washington Post), and scions of famous families.
This is one of the best explanations for what has seemed to be the very shallow bench of viable potential presidential candidates. The press corps is picking them. Oy vey.
Sara Robinson more fully develops the bullying meme by naming it, relational aggression, describing it in detail, and going on to explain why we're seeing it in the DC press corps:
Some people never outgrow this. Some boys give up overt physical bullying for this more subtle style. A disproportionate number of these appearance-obsessed kiss-ups grow up to work in the media, where they can make or break careers, argue people down on camera, deliver the news about lame things people did, pick and choose whom they're going to favor with their attention, charm people with influence, destroy others with impunity, and take revenge on anyone who questions their right to power.So it's small wonder why the Kewl Kids behave this way. They're the Mean Girls, all grown up and now concentrated in an industry that plays to the very worst in their already shallow personalities. And they're running exactly the same social games they did when they were eleven…only by this time, they've had 30 years to master them.
She also offers some strategies for fighting back against bullies-- and how liberals and Democrats can put these naughty children in their place:
It's high time we mounted a similar campaign pointing out that junior-high social rules and behavior are beneath the dignity of the national media of a great nation. It's also a grossly immature misuse of power that diminishes the ethical and cultural stature of a great profession. The Kewl Kidz need to either grow up, or go home.
It's time for us to tell them the party's over.
Have to give Dubya and his cronies the top spot, but Corporate Media runs hard at their heels.
Try to find a major media outlet that isn't Faux Lite.
when I've posted several times that we should all "adopt a reporter." We need friends in the outside-the-beltway media, who tend to take their cues from the Almighty Pundits in the absence of other menu choices.
is how these creeps always seem to steer the conversation towards Hillary or McCain. What it amounts to is free propaganda from a heartless, mindless crew that, according to Candy Crowley, would love to see a McCain/Clinton horse race since that would generate a lot of coverage. Which, they think, this country is all about - nothing to do with what's best for "WE THE PEOPLE." Just their own bottom line, ego, power trip, and job security.
My greatest wish would be to see all these talking heads selling pencils on some street corner. They're not going to change; they will continue to ride the horse that brought them.
We cannot allow the media to control our political process just like we can't let our election process be controlled by private businesses.
Wes 08
Hi Susan,
I don't know if y'all saw Richard Dreyfus last night on Real Time With Bill Maher. Here is a Reuters piece on "shaped news" that speaks to part of what he said, but if you can watch the re-airing of the show -- or if HBO puts up substantial parts of it for web-video -- it's really worth seeing.
For those who don't know, Dreyfus spent the last two years at Oxford University studying Civics Education: both what "civics" is and how it is taught. He talked at length about how the skills of civics -- logic, reason, inquiry, civility, debate, and dissent -- are the bedrock of representative democracy. But these skills are not innate, and they don't appear by magic. They have to be taught to our children, or our children simply won't know how to make representative democracy work.
I'm reminded of a line from that wonderful Michael Douglas speech at the end of Ron Howard's film The American President: "America is advanced citizenship."
One of the things Dreyfus touched on was that our political culture has become so partisan that too many parents don't want their children to be taught civics. "Democratic parents are afraid their kids won't come home Democrats, and Republican parents are afraid their kids won't come home Republicans," he said on Real Time. And I think that's true.
More relevant to Susan's point, Dreyfus talked at length about how representative democracy requires that the citizens be well informed, and that ongoing civic education is a duty shared both by citizens and the press. The press have a duty to teach about the important issues of the day, and citizens have a duty to learn about the important issues of the day.
Obviously, that teaching duty requires the press to investigate, to not simply repeat the talking points in a press release, but to test what is said against real-world events and conditions, and to let us know how it holds up. That means, as Dan Rather said, "we have to wear out some shoe leather and check things out."
Such investigations are expensive. They require, in military terms, "putting a Mark One Eyeball on the target." You can't cover Darfur from a desk in Cairo, let alone Paris or New York. You can't find out whether Iran truly is a threat to the U.S. and our interests by sitting in the Pentagon Briefing Room. You can't know the challenges of ordinary working people from tracking the Dow Jones Index and the latest Department of Labor press releases.
In order to test what leaders claim, you have to "put a Mark One Eyeball on the target." You have to be there, and not just for a three-day "fact-finding mission," but for the long term, for long enough to gain the trust and take the pulse of the people. That is why every major newspaper used to have "bureaus" ... offices staffed with their own reporters throughout their coverage areas and overseas.
Bureaus are expensive, and most newspapers and TV news networks have all but abandoned them, relying instead on wire services (AP, UPI, Reuters). But guess who staffs those wire services? The local media, and the bureau reporters. Take out those bureau reporters, and you're all but hamstringing the wire services you're relying on in their stead. You get fewer "Mark One Eyeballs on the target," fewer voices, less analysis, more reliance on individual perspectives.
And you're less able to test what leaders say against reality ... and less able to perform the educational duty the press have in a representative democracy.
It's not about "asking the tough question and the tough follow-up" in a White House press conference. It's about knowing that the talking points don't line up with reality. It's about knowing there's a tough question to be asked.
That's what's lacking in the contemporary corporate press. And We The People suffer for its absence.
Crissie
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5909Posted 5/4/06
I've been watching my DVD of "The American President" for several weeks now. I just love it, and like it better each time I watch it.
This exchange occurs at about the 1:30 mark of the movie:
A .J.: (Martin Sheen): [To Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox), an advisor] The President doesn’t answer to you, Lewis.
ROTHSCHILD: Oh, yes he does, A. J. I’m a citizen. This is MY President. And in this country, it is not only permissible to question our leaders, it’s our responsibility. [To President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas)] But you already know that, don’t you Mr. President. You show a deeper love for this country than any man I’ve ever known. And I want to know what it says to you when in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.
PRESIDENT: Look, if people want to listen to… [Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss), his likely opponent]…
ROTHSCHILD: THEY DON’T HAVE A CHOICE! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.
PRESIDENT: Lewis, we’ve had Presidents whom they loved, but couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.
Cut to a press conference with the President's spokesperson, Robyn:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechtheamericanpresident.html
President Andrew Shepherd's Press Conference on Bob Rumson and the Crime Bill
Reporter: Robyn, will the President ever respond to Senator Rumson's question about being a member of the American Civil Liberties Union?President Shepherd: Yes, he will. Good morning. [Members of the White House Press Corps begin to rise] It's alright. Please keep your seats. Good morning.
For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I've not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.
For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!
We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.
Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.
I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.
Tomorrow morning the White House is sending a Bill to Congress for it's consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a twenty percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.
We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.
My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Hi Stan,
That speech -- and the one Jeff Bridges gives at the end of The Contender -- ought to be required reading in civics classes.
Crissie
What you said:
It's not about "asking the tough question and the tough follow-up" in a White House press conference. It's about knowing that the talking points don't line up with reality. It's about knowing there's a tough question to be asked.
We've been dumbed down beyond belief.
Since I read this blog, I've been thinking about which reporter I'll adopt. I think I'll start with several from different venues--pundit, local, national--and then make my decision based on what I hear or don't.
Great idea.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
But this time we will be prepared, and that will be key!
Here's more of the same found in this excellent blog!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2753260
If Wes Clark chooses to run, we must be organized and timing will be everything. I'm ready...and hope most of you are too. Get some rest, cause it will take each and every single one of us, but it can be done.
Thank you Susan!
PS. Clark was not listed on the Pew Poll, while others who poll less than him were. So you see, we've got our work cut out for us!
http://people-press.org/reports/images/296-4.gif
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=296
"decent wages, education and health care for every American is "not just an opportunity, but a right."--Wes Clark
this is not a comment about substance this is a question : how do you block quote; the html I tried is not working
< div class="blockquote"> <a> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. </a> xxxxxxxx,/div>
I have a battery powered hubris alarm on my belt and it is set on vibrate. - Al Gore
Hiya eb,
I use enable rich-text (right below the text input window) and then in the second line, the second pair of controls what looks like a sideways bar graph with lil blue arrows pointing left (un-indent) and right (indent).
Crissie
(and there's probably an easier way I haven't figured out yet, not being the most technically swift gal on the blog)--I usually enable rich-text while I'm composing my article so I can insert my links and stuff, then hit the html "button" which makes a window pop up showing the HTML coding. I then type into that window any changes I wan to make in the HTML, including the blockquote tags.
The tags are "blockquote" except instead of " " use < >, and then "/blockquote" using < > instead of " " at the end.
Christy wrote this morning about Jamison Foser's roundup at Media Matters of the corporate press reaction to Democrats' sweeping victories in this month's midterm elections:
The political media aren't becoming more responsible; they're simply continuing to direct their scorn at Democrats and progressives. Just this week, media have hyped purported Democratic disarray while downplaying or ignoring altogether GOP infighting; falsely suggested that Nancy Pelosi is as unpopular as President Bush; asserted that Democrats — who do not yet actually control Congress and won't until next year — are "starting to feel some of the pressure" of catching Osama bin Laden without explaining how Bush and the GOP let him get away; and suggested that Nancy Pelosi, who hasn't even become speaker of the House yet, is already "damaged goods."
. . . Progressives — anyone who cares about honest, accurate, and fair journalism, really – simply must understand what they are up against: an elite media that continually screws them, then apologizes to the Right for not screwing the Left harder.
That's what's coming. The Right, having been spanked at the ballot box, will increase their attacks on the media, blaming journalists for the unpopularity of their failed ideas and leaders. Journalists, already carrying water for the GOP — wittingly or not — will apologize for not carrying more, internalize the complaints, and reflect them in new reports filled with an ever-growing deluge of conservative misinformation.
Foser's conclusion is expressed concisely by Christy:
What can we do about the media issue? Short of continuing to call them on bullshit and pressuring them at every opportunity where it is needed, I'm stumped.
In a lot of ways, though, that's enough. The Nagourneys and Halperins of this world, we will always have with us. As Foser points out, it's in the Republicans' interests to keep browbeating the media, and in the media's self-interest to take the path of least resistance by continuing to bend with the wind of all the GOP hot air — at least until we generate a "noise machine" that's able to punish them just as much for their submission, thereby reducing their incentive to cave. (Thanks to Media Matters, the blogiverse, and others, we're getting there.)
Cont. at Firedoglake.
]
[Jen sez: Support Media Matters and other independent online media myth busters!!
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Passing the Turkee
A follow up to the Firedoglake post (by Swopa) that I posted upthread (downthread).
Firedoglake
~ ~ ~
This morning, Atrios wrote in praise of lesser-known bloggers, and when I alluded earlier today to the blogiverse's role in fighting right-wing media bias, some commenters began to mention various relatively unsung contributors to the fight.
So, in the upcoming-holiday spirit of generosity, here's a toast to some of my personal favorite bloggers you might not have heard of or checked out lately, with links to some of their recent contributions:
- Azael at Hellblazer writes with a passionate combination of wit and eloquence in the Digby/Driftglass mode (as well as the occasional viciously satirical graphic, like the one at the top of this post) and he's been particularly "on" since the election, as shown in this musing on the post-election unitary executive.
- The King of Zembla hasn't been especially prolific lately, but even a seemingly offhand, silly post can have a punch line that feels like a hand grenade.
- If you've ever wondered what a female version of Jesus' General would read like, check out Edicts of Nancy. This past week, Sister Nancy Beth has exposed the homosexual agenda of guitar lessons and praised sending beauty queens to Iraq.
- Whatever It Is, I'm Against It is one of the most reliably sharp-witted and sharp-tongued blogs around, whether the author is finding pictures of Dubya leering at Vietnamese girls or noting how Donald Rumsfeld's reverse Midas touch continues to have unexpected and deadly effects.
- On a more wonky serious front, American Footprints offers some of the most readable and incisive foreign-policy commentary you'll find anywhere, and no one — repeat, no one — debunks media hype about the War on Terror™ better than the brilliant Dick Destiny.
Thanks to the exquisite taste of our founding proprietress of the Lake, I'd also recommend starting anywhere on the blogroll on your left and simply working your way down (or up), one by one.
Please offer your own suggestions, tributes, etc. in the comments. In what promises to be a week where we're all likely to be desperate to get away from relatives a bit starved for fresh news and commentary, a lot of us might welcome the opportunity to browse through some new voices.
~ ~ ~
Please go to Firedoglake for all the links in the above post, as well as the comments.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
and one of the comments refers people to Mahablog. And she's a Clarkie! :D
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Think it yesterday or the day fore that I posted about FDL - asking people to visit them and chip in with their thoughts from time to time. Quite a few Clarkies post there and someone is always dropping Wes' name into a post.
Its very good for us as not only are they good at raising $$, but their people are really actively at work for candidates and turn out in substantial groups.
11 jayt says:
Lukery over at http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/ is the man with whom Sibel Edmonds corresponds, along with Larissa Alexandrovna and the occasional emptywheel input. Lukery is an Australian who knows more about the world’s various and nefarious goings-on than anyone I know (though he spends most of his time on U.S. stuff). You want the real skinny on Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Denny Hastert, the Niger forgeries, shoot, name it, he’s got something on it. The commenters are few (check out the fabulous Rimone), but Lukery is a brilliant and lovely guy, who responds to each and every comment personally.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
http://belaboringtheobvious.blogspot.com/
~ snip ~
So, a word to the wise Democrat: the press is back to operating on Clinton rules and they're gunning for you. They don't want to know about Bush's failures. They don't care that the man has the intellectual capacity of a grape and the empathy of a raisin. They truly aren't concerned that the Republican sewer that Washington has become is rife with juicy stories of wrongdoing, and they aren't going to cover that unless their noses are rubbed in it (except, perhaps, for the few remaining investigative journalists in town, such as Sy Hersh, Bob Parry and Jonathan Landay and the boys at the McClatchy nee Knight-Ridder Washington bureau).
The town is simmering in a stew of corruption, executive excess, bribery, incompetence, preznidential hubris of a level and kind far above that exhibited by Richard Nixon, foreign intrigue, illegal war and a White House full of ne'er-do-wells that Tom Clancy's fevered imagination couldn't create, and the Beltway pundits are chortling over a Democratic House leader who hasn't even been sworn in yet.
That should tell you what's going down. The new Dem representative from East Bumfuck, Indiana, farts in public and that's good for a week's haw-hawing. Some unfortunate Democrat bobbles a punch line and there's two weeks' worth of comparisons to John Kerry. Open your mouth, and the press is going to make something of it that it wasn't.
Let's call it for what it is--yellow journalism of the modern age. It's the tits and ass of news. The NY Times and The Washington Post haven't yet gone to naked women on page three like the British tabloids, but if they did, it would probably improve the overall content, given what they've been doing in the last week. What's worse, they seem to be all but ignoring the really, really bizarre and funny stuff that the Republicans have been doing out in the cornfields....
So, fresh, new Democrats, and old hands, too--some advice. Shut your mouths and do your jobs. Let your subpoenae speak for you. Dig into that simmering stew and make the press and the public smell it, taste it, sense the genuine awfulness of it. Make `em gag on it. Especially the Beltway pundits and the Chatty Kathys on cable news. If they're busy retching, they're too occupied to clown around trying to make you look silly.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Noam Chomsky has written many books on the media, most notably Manufacturing Consent (also a documentary by the same name, available at Amazon)
This film showcases Noam Chomsky, one of America's leading linguists and political dissidents. It also illustrates his message of how government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order to manipulate the opinions of the United States populous.
HERE is a group of interviews given by Chomskey about Manufacturing Consent
QUESTION: You write in Manufacturing Consent [(Pantheon, 1988)] that it's the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector. What are those interests?
CHOMSKY: Well, if you want to understand the way any society works, ours or any other, the first place to look is who is in a position to make the decisions that determine the way the society functions. Societies differ, but in ours, the major decisions over what happens in the society -- decisions over investment and production and distribution and so on -- are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investment firms. They are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government. They're the ones who own the media and they're the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens. You know, what's done in the society. Within the economic system, by law and in principle, they dominate. The control over resources and the need to satisfy their interests imposes very sharp constraints on the political system and on the ideological system.
~snip~
QUESTION: ... You outlined a model -- filters that propaganda is sent through, on its way to the public. Can you briefly outline those?CHOMSKY: It's basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We're talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.
Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.
And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict -- in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.
The New York Times is certainly the most important newspaper in the United States, and one could argue the most important newspaper in the world. The New York Times plays an enormous role in shaping the perception of the current world on the part of the politically active, educated classes. Also The New York Times has a special role, and I believe its editors probably feel that they bear a heavy burden, in the sense that The New York Times creates history.
That is, history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it's extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion. Now in whose interests is history being so shaped? Well, I think that's not very difficult to answer.
Now, to eliminate confusion, all of this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias. According to the propaganda model, both liberal and conservative wings of the media -- whatever those terms are supposed to mean -- fall within the same framework of assumptions.
In fact, if the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively.
In other words, if the press is indeed adversarial and liberal and all these bad things, then how can I go beyond it? They're already so extreme in their opposition to power that to go beyond it would be to take off from the planet. So therefore it must be that the presuppositions that are accepted in the liberal media are sacrosanct -- can't go beyond them. And a well-functioning system would in fact have a bias of that kind. The media would then serve to say in effect: Thus far and no further.
We ask what would you expect of those media on just relatively uncontroversial, guided-free market assumptions? And when you look at them you find a number of major factors determining what their products are. These are what we call the filters, so one of them, for example, is ownership. Who owns them?
The major agenda-setting media -- after all, what are they? As institutions in the society, what are they? Well, in the first place they are major corporations, in fact huge corporations. Furthermore, they are integrated with and sometimes owned by even larger corporations, conglomerates -- so, for example, by Westinghouse and G.E. and so on.
So what we have in the first place is major corporations which are parts of even bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation, they have a product which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers -- that is, other businesses. What keeps the media functioning is not the audience. They make money from their advertisers. And remember, we're talking about the elite media. So they're trying to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates. And ask your friends in the advertising industry. That means that they want to adjust their audience to the more elite and affluent audience. That raises advertising rates. So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations, that are selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses.
Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? I mean without any further assumptions, what you'd predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world, that satisfies the needs and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product.
Now there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don't have that point of view they're likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It's not the way institutions function. So they'll work to exclude or marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they're dysfunctional, they're dysfunctional to the institution itself.
If you haven't seen the documentary, check your local library or buy a copy.
The mass media model is looking at the internet as well, which is why they are fighting so hard against net neutrality. And they are also fighting for MORE media consolidation. Be sure to let your congresscritters know your views on these two issues.
seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not that media pundits are stupid, it's that they're doing their job.
From the comments on this thread at fdl.
13 jim p says:
November 18th, 2006 at 2:20 pm *
There seems an unwillingness on the part of progressives to face that Corporate media is in fact in bed with the Tyranny Wing of the political establishment, and does everything it possibly can to limit or prevent genuine participation by the public in it’s self-governance. Until we come to grips with this, we will continue to put out brush fires here and there, while our nation gets steam-rolled by devious people.
Writing angry letters and threatening boycotts cannot change this fundamental equation. Until we design and execute specific strategies for breaking up the Cartel’s de facto monopoly on programming content and presenters of news and opinion, our agendas will continue to be much less effective than they should be. Political discussion will continue to be limited to cartoon versions of real life, and real issues will either be spun or ignored. This to the extreme peril of us a individuals and as a nation.
Job one: break up the Media cartels. This done, our chances of sane government increase immeasurably.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
ANGRY!!! Maybe(just maybe ) Gen. Wes should sit this one out. The way I see it, the party is never ever going to accept him or his candidacy. They are too bent on the Clintons, Edwards, and Bidens of the political world. Now, we all know that these pretenders will get slaughtered by McCain. I mean how on earth can you reject a fine person like Wes because he has never held elective office? I thought that was a good thing. Do not misunderstand me, I will fight for Wes with anyone but, there comes a point when you have to ask, why bother because they refuse to listen?
none of us is getting any younger, including Wes. We'd sort of like to see this country turned around during our lifetimes.
Wes 08
will know if it's worth it or not. I will be pretty heartbroken if he decides not to run, but I will definitely understand.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
the Iowa Caucus will be a problem. That's where he got tripped up in 2004, not being in the Iowa Caucus to become the unDean Vietnam vet with electability. Lots of votes that would have gone for the General wound up going to Kerry instead.
Right about '04, Dan; just won't be same game in '08. AND there will be no surprise 'Dean', gep, kerry hanging around. (I've felt for ages that Iowa was looking for a more 'regular' guy than Dean, and had Wes been there, well .. .)
Lets think about Hill and Oba in Iowa and Nevada!
And I was including 'caucuses' when I said 'primaries' would be the problem.
She is the divisive figure with a strong following of party faithful who will get slaughtered in the general election. Remember the National Review cover asking Democrats to please nominate Dean? If Hillary is smart she will stay out of it, but she is nakedly ambitious and that is why so many people distrust and even despise her.
The Dean and Clark campaigns both grew out of the Internet, and shocked the MSM into noticing blogs and websites. Now they are ready for anything coming out of the Internet "left field" and I don't see them being surprised this year. I also don't see any surprises coming myself, but who does?
Does anyone else? What could be the wild card in this next election?
It's certainly not a stretch to believe that!
When/if Wes announces, everyone in the country will see this truth for the FACT that it is.
Clearly, given the victory we all just achieved you can see that the public-at-large is ready for change.
I'm not angry, but please fergawdsake, get a grip.
"It's time to lead." -- Wes Clark
at all his goal is to run for POTUS again, I think the zeitgeist has picked Wes up.
He's getting to live out part of his dream, teaching at UCLA. Where apparently teaching is badly needed!
What I mean is: Wes has worked harder than most big D "Democrats" to get this Congress flipped. He is doing his utmost to be a good shepherd in whatever ways he can, to effect change in whatever ways he can. Despite whatever we may think, our doctor of strategy will make the right decision based on private personal criteria. Whatever he does all here support him.
This time seems so much different to me
Draco Malfoy: Scared, Potter? Harry Potter: You wish.
:)
I honestly think it's up in the air. He's made all the right moves.
A lot of it is a question of trust.
And you know that can be a problem.
Draco Malfoy: Scared, Potter? Harry Potter: You wish.
I don't mean to sound dark & mysterious as if I know something I don't, but - take how bizarre John Edwards behavior was on the The Daily Show. Now, here's a guy who suspects (this is ONLY my take) but doesn't really know the extent to which he's been used.
Jon said whatever whatever about his being a great candidate- does he still want the job, shop talk. Edwards, without missing a beat: "Can I have your committment on that?" It was small but it was sad.
I have no idea what the true state of the Democratic Party is. Lieberman (stress on LIE) is welcomed back with open arms & literally, a standing O! I kid you not.
How are the stars of the Dem party aligned? I wish I knew more about astronomy here & had more time but who among them can see the true bridge between old & new that Wes can be, and is? Trained to trip over their own feet & stare at the ground, half of them wonder why shadows are longer or shorter at different times of the day! I don't know if they know HOW to look up!!! (some)
Will they let a comet blaze past in the form of Obama- or will they make of him an enduring force? Must the sun rise & set based on the Clintons & Carvilles of yore?
I don't understand a lot of things- I don't understand if they understand how dead in the water Kerry MUST be, how the bloom is off Edwards- I mean, we could & do go on & on & on with the speculation.
But I have a feeling a whole lot is going on behind closed doors right now. I just hope the right things are going on, that's all.
We certainly need the right leadership- okay, can't really finish this right now, sorry.
Draco Malfoy: Scared, Potter? Harry Potter: You wish.
"Clintons and Carvilles of yore..."?
bingo! If not mistaken, at least half of that equation may have just rendered itself impotent.
Now (to paraphrase Mr. Q.), if Elvis will be just good enuf to leave the building...
It could happen.
watch and listen...
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
I think I'll try to sleep with this smile: Dr. Dean has received wide support from net and grass roots, in the face of Carville's foolishness, right? If that's a signal of anything, its that the 'Cs' have lost something[s], right? Like Rahm's AND Carville's approaches to Winning Modern Elections.
Back to watch and listen . . .
I know nothing is written in stone but I have every reason to believe...and that's what I'm going to do....that's not always easy for Sybil the cynic
:)
watch and listen...
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
Wes may well decide that his immense talents are best put to use outside of the claw-and-gut carnage of White House politics. I hope he'll run. But I'll support him fully if he feels that, rather than running for POTUS, the country is better served if he continues to educate the American people as to what America should be.
Crissie
I'm dying for Stewart to be like, "Damn, we could have had YOU for a president for the last 2 years?"
I never watch television. I just hit the blogs, buy the papers, where I can highlight things, underline things, and I don't have to be brainwashed. I gave up on the Corporate Media a long time ago. The only time I had cable was when Clark was running, because I wanted to listen to him, but after that I got rid of cable and refuse to watch news. They are never ever going to give you anything of subtance. Why watch? They can't continue this nonsense if nobody watches.
lots of people watch. And it isn't just TV, it's the print media too. I's the whole gaggle of DC media gatekeepers who control the storyline that goes out to the rest of the country. And that's what we're up against when we try to get our message out.
Obviously, to get elected you have to be on the DC/NY media radar screen at some point. However, it just doesn't bother me that we are not exactly front & center at this point. Being on the DC/NY media radar screen is like having a target painted on your forehead, not the greatest thing if you are going to hang around a shooting gallery. Timing is everything. Being on the radar screen at this point raises expectations too, and the expectations game is very important.
The big media is still darn important, but it is declining. I'd rather have David Yepson of the Des Moines Register say something nice than David Broder or Maureen Dowd.
I totally agree with you about timing. And we've got more important things to do than deal with beltway snark right now.
Win with Wes in '08