And that has changed exactly how?
Navasky’s column doesn’t seem to have much to do with “corporate media bias”. The Ann Coulter case hardly reflects an evil large corporation silencing a controversial voice, rather a small right wing journal jettisoning an affiliated writer who was behaving like a moron. And the networks didn’t stomp on Bill Maher. Individual affiliates dropped him for a time. And I have not heard of any network news pledges never to interview or show any tape of bin Laden.
In any event, the concept of American “corporate media bias” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Jackmannii, I actually agree that MHL distorted the main thrust of the (mainly comical) Navasky piece. That said, MHL’s point wasn’t that there is “corporate media bias,” or that there is rightwing bias in the media; but that the media is dominated by coporate interests. These are not necessarily the same thing.
FTR, I actually don’t think that there’s a substantial “rightwing” bias in the media–though a) we are moving in that direction and b) there is definitely not a leftwing bias as conservatives have been alleging for decades.
The column you cite first claims that left media critics allege a rightwing bias (few do), and then purports to refute the claim by arguing that corporations are not conservative. On what basis? It cites a study (done by a conservative group) which “found that most companies and foundations give four times as much money to left-wing groups and causes than to right-wing ones.” For example, oil companies give money to Sierra Club. Well, anyone who knows anything about what oil companies have been up to over the last few years would recognize that this can be explained as a public relations maneuver, pure and simple. It says nothing about whether corporations are “conservative” or not (a largely irrelevant question), still less about whether corporations operate to further their own interests (as they are clearly in the business of doing), and nothing at all about what media corporations do when they produce and broadcast media that suits their corporate interests.
The point of most media critics isn’t that the media is used to promote specific conservative ideologies. No, the media is used to sell us stuff, and to (try to) turn us into bubblehead consumers who know very little about what’s going on in our world. This is useful for corporations (including media corporations), since active citizens tend to buy less and question more; they also don’t like their environment polluted, their safety impinged upon, etc. etc. That’s the problem: that lousy media has a bad impact on our democracy. But you’re right: the Navasky piece doesn’t do a good job of making that case, and isn’t really attempting to.
Oh, and if your columnist is really interested in whether corporations are conservative or not, she’d be better off checking out which political parties they give the most money to. Hint: the answer won’t support her thesis 
MHL’s rant, hampered as it was by a irrelevant link, appeared to be more of the same jazz (or “swing”, if you will) about how the “corporate elite” keep the media and by extension Americans as a whole under their thumb. In this context, it implies a corporate media agenda which is assumed by many on the Left to promote environmental degradation, to flatter and minimize harm done by big business and to downplay social problems in order to convince us to become quiet, happy consumers.
Those on the Left who frankly acknowledge a media slant in their direction on “social issues”, argue that since the major media are “corporate-controlled”, this somehow equalizes matters by benefiting the Right. The study Charen cites puts a large dent in this comfortable assumption. Not even a trained contortionist can reconcile the idea that Corporate America is consistently shafting groups like the NAACP and the Sierra Club by means of their heavy hand over the major media, while at the same time corporations heavily sponsor the activities of these groups.
Corporations happily buy influence from both major political parties. There was no shortage of favors doled out by the previous Administration.
L.P., L.L.C., P, whatever. Corporation is just a business form where the ownership is split among a group of shareholders. MHLs paranoid and Chomskyesque explication of “corporation” is silly. I base this more on the revealing posts waterj2 assiduously dug up than her meager post on this topic.
There are huge numbers of small independent news outlets on the internet. I would assume you have just tried to limit the debate to TV and major print. Your claim we get “close to 100%” of our news from those outlets is outdated. That is a convenient way to ignore the most significant change in news delivery since Guttenberg. Your “oligopoly” point is partly correct. Anyone who depends on TV for news is certainly horribly uninformed.
I assume you are from the UK. We do not have any Official Secrets Act here, we do have a First Amendment though. Did you ever stop to consider that the one opinion the BBC gives you may not be the right one? I like to read socialists (but not just socialists), rightwingers, boring centrists, libertarians, and conspiratorial wackos then make up my own mind. Scary, that about 10% of the time the wackos turn out later to be right.
Please, when citing a book you should be willing to outline the best arguments from it, assuming you have read it. [sub]Especially since the link does not work.[/sub] Anyway, I do my own search, I get over 1400 hits. Practically every link is to the Marxist This, Chomsky That, or Whatever.edu. Don’t you think that one search alone disproves your point? I look for information on the book and nothing but leftist kudos spills out onto my monitor–provided to me by the corporate media you hate so much. What a paradox, corporations bend over forward to provide you with the leftist opinion which claims corporations do not provide enough leftist opinions. So my question becomes, are there ANY “corporate” opinions in the media? I just looked at 1400 citations, not one “corporate” opinion to be found. Big Leftwing Corporate Conspiracy Theory #5,879: Leftist ideology is nothing but a corporate money-making scheme which takes advantage of the guilt-ridden beneficiaries of the free-market economy!!! I wish I was 100% joking, but after that draining search…
Well, at least you wear your bias on your sleeve. All three major TV networks in the U.S. (NBC, ABC, CBS) have a definite leftwing bias. Dan Rather attended a DNC (Democratic National Committee–the money-making arm of the Democratic Party) fundraiser, yet refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin (not that I always do, or think that he should, but what an interesting juxtaposition ethics wise). You are aware that 90% of the major media employees in the U.S. are Democrats? That may be down to 89% since Fox came along. However, your point is correct in the sense that virtually any particular bias to news you wish to find is available–thanks to privately owned media. Amendment: (since I did my search), only thousands of leftwing opinions are available on some issues.
Now that you have narrowed your position, perhaps you could explain how that matters at all in terms of media content. I often cannot find any conservative or libertarian (my preference) views on any issues. Yes, I admit it, this is not the first time the damn corporate media bandits have refused to provide me with ANY “corporate” opinions. Noam Chomsky, Geov Parrish, and Susan Sontag I can find, always, on every issue.
Jack: “Those on the Left who frankly acknowledge a media slant in their direction on “social issues”, argue that since the major media are “corporate-controlled”, this somehow equalizes matters by benefiting the Right.”
Can you please provide a citation for this? It is so facile and misleading that I’d like to know who the self-described leftist who allegedly said it is.
Jack, what I tried to say above is that criticism of the media is more complicated than what your columnist lets on. And you’re right–the last administration was cozy enough with the media conglomerates; though mainly it was congress that gave them a giant hand-out with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, not Clinton. It’s also true that corporations give generously to both parties, wanting to hedge their bets. But for most big industries–oil, banking, tobacco, for example–a Republican administration is favored (even though the Democrats are not very different on economic issues.)
The point is that media criticism doesn’t have to be a partisan issue: it doesn’t reduce down to good for Republicans and bad for Democrats (though you can certainly make that kind of argument if you insist on it). For me the issue is just, bad for democracy, and that’s a question that transcends party affiliation (or should).
Beagle, I wasn’t trying to nitpick on the distinction between L.P. and corporation; but to point out that The Nation isn’t part of the big corporate media. If you and I teamed up to sell lemonade we might very well want to incorporate or to form a limited partnership. Our reasons for doing so would probably relate to legal and tax questions. But it wouldn’t turn us into General Foods.
Also, no, I’m not from the UK (though I have lived there for months at a time). My work involves my knowing and reading as much as possible about the media. You imply that there is less diversity on the BBC than there is on an American counterpart. On what basis do you do so? Also, the BBC isn’t socialist and does not promote socialism; for that matter England isn’t a socialist country and hasn’t had any kind of socialist-leaning mainstream political agenda since Thatcher’s day. Why don’t you take a look at the BBC’s website–one of the best on the internet–and tell me what signs you see of its lack of diversity or socialist leanings? I’m serious here: once you see how good it is, you might not want to bother with whatever you’re using right now.
Your point about the internet is relevant although it isn’t yet the case that any large number of Americans are getting their news from non-corporate internet sources. It makes very little difference whether you watch ABC, CNN or FOX on the tube, or read it on your screen. Consider: more than 50% of people on AOL never even surf anywhere outside of AOL; and a lot of media corporations are doing everything they can think of to perpetuate that trend. We are at the very beginnings of Internet technology; once the internet is merged with the television set rather than the computer terminal it will be even easier to turn most web transactions into TV and shopping-type experiences, not much more “alternative” than a trip to the shopping mall or a flick through the existing dial. (For some interesting, if depressing, speculation on this subject, see the McChesney website, which you don’t seem to have had time to look at yet.)
That may all sound a bit pessimistic; and believe me I hope it’s not true for the majority of people. I do read a lot of great stuff on the Internet, and, as a result, I hardly ever bother with TV at all any more. But McChesney provides a lot of convincing arguments to suggest that there’s a pretty good chance that the current media monoliths will manage to manipulate Internet technology so as to commercialize it further, and limit (in practice if not in theory) what people tend to use it for.
Beagle, I missed the part about your not being able to read the link I provided. Try this:
I find your observation regarding the highly-regulated surfing environments experienced by most Americans astute, albeit depressing. I believe it is a safe bet that most Americans will gravitate toward passive, vegetative experiences on the internet that mimic commercial television. Learning and expanding one’s understanding of the world just don’t appear to be priorities for a large segment of the American public.
Greetings Hairy: Here is the link to an article that offers an abbreviated version of the Internet argument made in the book:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/aol-mcchesney.html
And here, beagle since you are so eager for more information on the book, is a thumbnail sketch, courtesy of the publisher. (And yes, I have read the book; in fact, I’ve read most of it twice. It’s a great read, apart from being so informative. And no, I’m not a relative of McChesney ).
"Robert McChesney argues that the media, far from providing a bedrock for freedom and democracy, have become a significant antidemocratic force in the United States and, to varying degrees, worldwide.
"Rich Media, Poor Democracy addresses the corporate media explosion and the corresponding implosion of public life that characterizes our times. Challenging the assumption that a society drenched in commercial information “choices” is ipso facto a democratic one, McChesney argues that the major beneficiaries of the so-called Information Age are wealthy investors, advertisers, and a handful of enormous media, computer, and telecommunications corporations. This concentrated corporate control, McChesney maintains, is disastrous for any notion of participatory democracy.
“Combining historical sweep with unprecedented detail on current events,McChesney chronicles the waves of media mergers and acquisitions in the late 1990s. He reviews the corrupt and secretive enactment of public policies surrounding the Internet, digital television, and public broadcasting. He also addresses the gradual and ominous adaptation of the First Amendment (“freedom of the press”) as a means of shielding corporate media power and the wealthy.”
There is more but I thought I’d leave it at that.
The author you cited has lots of socialist fans. Chomsky loves him, ergo, I do not trust him. Please read my bolded “Leftist Conspiracy” paragraph. I feel as though I have essentially read the book. Moreover, I do use the BBC as one of many sources for my information. I find it to be rabidly anti-gun, biased, overwrought, and not much better than our media. However, the reporters seem to be far better educated than our talking head dolls. But, ours have better hair. No, that is not important.
The Book. Fine, for the time being many outlets (The Nation, you have already conceded not among them, thereby undercutting your “100%” argument) are held by a few media conglomerates. How does that change what they report? I find that while searching the internet it is far easier to find out what the socialists, like your author, think on an issue than anyone else. Maybe it is corporate socialism?
Your argument seems to be crystallizing into “the information is out there, but the majority of people are too stupid or disinterested to find out about anything but shopping.” If that is your point, I agree. People choose to be corporate slaves in many cases, they like it. Being a critical thinker hurts the head. If you want to do something about that, educate. If there are educated people, the corporations will sate their demands for intellectual stimulation like they do our need for multi-colored hair dyes. Or, start your own corporation and do whatever is missing. Complaining is the seed of a business opportunity in a free-market system.
The internet. It is already pretty commercialized. We have pop-up ads, ads. that just sit there, ads. in the e-mail, ads., ads., ads. Not to mention everybody already has a “.com.” I would love to hear how they will commercialize what is already pretty bloody commercial. [sub]Wondering if he used “bloody” correctly in a sentence."[/sub]
This pearl, among others, was generated during the last great SDMB debate over media bias some months back. You can find it in the archives. You’ll need a stronger stomach than I have at present.**
This exactly expresses my position on fairness in news coverage (not analysis). A number of positions I hold (on abortion rights, for example) benefit from a favorable major media slant. But the cost is too high in terms of public distrust and encouragement of counterbiased “alternate” media sources.
Beagle: “The author you cited has lots of socialist fans. Chomsky loves him, ergo, I do not trust him.”
Now, Beagle, I think you’ve been here long enough to recognize that this kind of argument is sub-Great Debates. McChesney himself is not making any pronounced “socialist” arguments. You’ve been given two links and a blurb so you’ll have to do better than dismiss a book you haven’t read because someone you don’t like has praised it.
"Please read my bolded “Leftist Conspiracy” paragraph."
<bows> At your service.
You wrote:
“Anyway, I do my own search, I get over 1400 hits [for McChesney]. Practically every link is to the Marxist This, Chomsky That, or Whatever.edu. Don’t you think that one search alone disproves your point?”
Not in the least. First, I think it’s rather bizarre that you would automatically lump anyone with an academic affiliation (“Whatever.edu”) in with writers with an explicit Marxist orientation.
More important, you’d have disproved my point if your search had shown that McChesney’s important work on the media was being discussed by the New York Times, CNN, FOX, etc. The truth is that while every manner of half-baked self-help book does get covered in these places, McChesney’s book did not. If your point is that the web is full of all kinds of voices, I’ve already acknowledged that point, and responded to it, and await your response to me. If your point is that conservatives or libertarians haven’t weighed in, I can’t fully explain that. Perhaps the National Review didn’t think it had any reason either to laud or to dimiss McChesney since he’s a leftist saying some things they might actually agree with. There are many libertarians who don’t like the media status quo. Our own pldennison is such a one if you’d take the trouble to look at the “Pump Up the Volume” thread I referenced earlier.
"I look for information on the book and nothing but leftist kudos spills out onto my monitor–provided to me by the corporate media you hate so much. What a paradox, corporations bend over forward to provide you with the leftist opinion which claims corporations do not provide enough leftist opinions."
What corporate media are you talking about? Google or Dogpile? Chomsky’s Zmag. Geov Parrish writing for alternet.org? Your allegation simply makes no sense: neither News Corporation (Murdoch), nor Viacom, nor Time-Warner provided me or you with any of these things and yet these are the entities that most Americans rely upon for their information.
“So my question becomes, are there ANY “corporate” opinions in the media? I just looked at 1400 citations, not one “corporate” opinion to be found.”
Well this is the opposite of your first argument, but at least I can understand it. I’ve also already responded to it: McChesney was indeed ignored by mainstream media. He did not do Oprah, appear on the cover of Time magazine, tour Barnes and Noble, or occupy a box on the Hollywood Squares. However, thanks to you, I know that at least 1,400 people read his book and liked it!
“Big Leftwing Corporate Conspiracy Theory #5,879: Leftist ideology is nothing but a corporate money-making scheme which takes advantage of the guilt-ridden beneficiaries of the free-market economy!!!”
Sorry, I can’t even profess to understand what you’ve said here, much less to answer it. That’s why I let it pass the first time around.
“The Nation, you have already conceded not among them [big corporate media outlets], thereby undercutting your “100%” argument…”
Read more carefully. I said close to 100%. The exact figure changes all the time but it’s in the high 90s.
“How does that change what they report?”
How? Immensely and systematically, that’s how. It means they don’t cover anything that challenges their interests such as the actual effects of globalization, the censorship of certain kinds of stories, the extent of corporate welfare. If you want a good example of the kind of important story that isn’t likely to end up becoming banter in the Spin Room, check out the (“Say What?”…) thread I started on a little-understood but vitally important aspect of NAFTA which allows foreign corporations to sue US taxpayers.
“Your argument seems to be crystallizing into “the information is out there, but the majority of people are too stupid or disinterested to find out about anything but shopping.” If that is your point, I agree. People choose to be corporate slaves in many cases, they like it. Being a critical thinker hurts the head. If you want to do something about that, educate.”
As a matter of fact I do, Beagle, but it’s rather absurd for you to suggest that I or any other poster or group of posters can singlehandedly turn a population of WWF fans into critical thinkers. Education is a collective function, hard as that is for some libertarians to grasp this point. It involves social institutions: it’s not a bilateral affair in which I educate you or you educate me. It’s therefore naive to invoke “education” as something that can counter an unfree and anti-democratic media. As though that media weren’t itself part of “education.” Have you ever looked into how much advertising and media content gets into public schools these days?
Jack, glad we’ve reached some common ground on this bipartisan issue.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is as example of state assisted media which has an image of being one of the most respected new-gathering organizations in the world, among journalism academics.
In study, a majority of Canadians support public funding of the CBC in it’s role as a provider of news and entertainment(outside of hockey coverage)and, appreciate the greater balance in coverage of political and social issue.
The CBC exists largely as a promoter of the Canadian ideal as a Cultural Mosaic and has historically attempted to distant themselves, in image, from the American melting-pot. As to whether the CBC is successful in it’s attempt to mirror Canadian custom and social value, the jury is still out, however, the CBC’s existance is supported by Canadians in it’s attempt.
There is no question that American media has always played a role in what Canadians view in the bedroom(part of the reason as to why they have a much greater understanding of their neighbour then visa versa). Most Canadians though, understand that Corporate American media is narrow in scope and view in it’s coverage of issues of world/national importance.
Americans can view the CBC’s news coverage via Satellite
subsciption on Directv’s ch.366 Newsworld and many Americans that I have spoken to agree that it is superior to their own efforts at world news coverage and, it creates a huge contrast in the balance of coverage being afforded.
As to why CBC can play on American tubes? Not to sound to “Chomksyean” but, the voice of Canadians does matter in the grand sea of American mass media.
Cite?
MHL, in suggesting that Canadians’ exposure to American media gives them greater insight into America than Americans have about Canada, seems to be arguing that 1) the “corporate media” generate a true picture of what’s going on in the U.S., or 2) that entertainment and variety shows are reflective of actual life in the States. Odd stuff coming from you.
You mean there really is a “Canadian Ideal”? Cool!!..now I’ll really have to listen to CBC to find out all about it.**
it’s = it is
its = belonging to it (the possessive).
Sorry, but this just drives me nuts sometimes.
Drat! Saw the OP, heard the siren song and dived in only to find that Mandelstam is handily wiping the floor with the Usual Suspects. I simply can’t bring myself to weakly echo superior rhetorical skill. All I am left with is glumly posting a “well done, lad!”
How come we never see you at any of our Conspiracy Meetings? Stoid brings the films, you know, they are very, uh,“entertaining”. Yes. Quite.
Now elucidator, if you know anything about me you know that I am as gentle as a lamb; never wipe the floor with anything besides a Pledge-tinged chammy ;).
*“How come we never see you at any of our Conspiracy Meetings? Stoid brings the films, you know, they are very, uh,“entertaining”. Yes. Quite.” *
Ah, I would like nothing better than to discuss, um, Wittgenstein with you and Stoid, elucidator, but don’t you two hail from the City of Chili Peppers?
Also, btw, I’m a lass (last time I checked).
“Anyone nit-picking enough to write a letter of correction…doubtless deserves the error that provoked it.” - Alvin Toffler
Mary, I’m afraid you just haven’t addressed the contradiction in your remarks. If, as you say, Americans are horribly served by their “corporate” media and kept in ignorant subjugation, you can hardly turn around and say that the same media are keeping Canadians satisfactorily informed about their southern neighbors. Contortions aside, you’re still struggling in that self-made straitjacket.
Re the “Canadian Ideal” - it’s just that I never realized it went beyond a solid check at center ice or an ice-cold Molson. Live and learn.
“Def’n”, “Cap’n”? Co’ol!!!
Actually, yes, he does. He claims that corporate media somehow control content, causing “anti-democratic” tendencies in the media. (“anti-democratic,” sounds like a claim that “corporate” opinion rules the day) By implication, McChesney wants to “seize the means of journalism.” Yet, I have no trouble finding anti-corporate opinion. In fact the corporations (Roadrunner in my case) are so successful making money on anti-corporate opinion they are too busy to issue any opinion of their own.
Did you go to college in the U.S.? I did. Almost all of my favorite history professors were Marxists. I liked them, disagreed with them about 70% of the time, but that is just normal if you are not a Marxist in higher education in the U.S. Everybody (I thought) knows higher education in the U.S. is controlled by the left.
When do ANY books get discussed in detail on TV except on talk shows? His book was published a while ago, I bet he made the rounds like every other author. Self-help books do not get much attention. Are you watching Oprah for book reviews?
I responded at length. I am not even saying that McChesney will turn out to be wrong about his conspiratorial “only shopping” claims, who knows. But, as I said before, corporations sate demands, intellectual or otherwise. Stupidity is the enemy here. [sub]especially in Canada, **MHL,**with the anti-U.S. state sponsored claptrap that passes for news[/sub] Do you think Amazon.com cares that McChesney is anti-corporate media, or, do you think they just don’t think his book is as profitable as, say, “Britney Spears Gets Interviewed In a Wet T-Shirt” (250 pages, 500 photos)? [sub] Don’t bother, I made that up [/sub]
McChesney is the one who claims corporate control over internet content, not me. You explain why the internet is still so free for all ideas.
No, there is no contradiction. McChesney cannot sell books or advertising time. Most people are not interested in “.edu” type opinions. Many Americans think it is OK to fly the U.S. flag in the U.S. for one thing.
Yes, 1400 non-corporate doctrinally leftist opinions are available on corporate media outlets. Attempts at conservative or libertarian speech are quashed on campus all over the U.S. The leftists who supposedly advocate free speech have as their primary mission the elimination of competing views.
[QUOTE]
Beagle*“Big Leftwing Corporate Conspiracy Theory #5,879: Leftist ideology is nothing but a corporate money-making scheme which takes advantage of the guilt-ridden beneficiaries of the free-market economy!!!”*
This is so obvious it is like a glove to the face. The very same “anti-democratic” corporations which supposedly conspire to shut down opinion, are making big money disseminating the anti-corporate opinion they are supposedly shutting down. I bet a CORPORATION published, promoted, and disseminated his book. Note, again, I found no “corporate” counter-opinion.
I could get you down to 60% in another 3 posts. What about public television? Moreover, you seem to be arguing for mutual exclusivity where none exists. Many people get their news from dozens of sources. Others only get “news” from Jay Leno.
I think you may watch too much TV. Immensely and systematically? Big claim, no evidence. I read about globalization every day. Censorship? The most serious charge goes undocumented. You love the BBC-- which functions under censorship. Corporate welfare is covered. (As a libertarian, I agree that corporate welfare is scandalous. How do I know about it?) Most recently the airline bailout was debated. But, with anthrax, terror threats, war (you know, unimportant stuff) it is hard to find time to argue about that bailout any more. It got play for a couple days. That is the reality of TV. NAFTA is mentioned periodically. Do you think a NAFTA network could support itself? You essentially advocate “ChomskyTV.” Go for it. I give it a two month lifespan, depending on your credit line at the outset. Is it wrong that one cannot force people to listen to sectarian leftwing views?
It is wrong to suggest that the coercive power of government should be used to turn “WWF fans” into critical thinkers. Perhaps two way “telescreens” in every home might help, that way we can make sure everyone watches. “Collective function?” Actually education is individual in the extreme. You cannot educate groups, only individuals. Even if your “globalization, corporate welfare, NAFTA” network existed, nobody but the faithful would watch. Michael Moore has tried. His ratings just don’t permit him to be on long. Note, Dr. Laura, gone. Rush Limbaugh, gone. [sub]not complaining either[/sub] Right now anthrax, war, and Afghanistan are newsworthy, no “corporate conspiracy” necessary.
You can say “anti-democratic” over and over, it does not become true. Perhaps you should define “democracy.” That would be helpful. When I did collegiate debate I had dozens of defintions for it. Your working definition right now seems to be the Marxist one. You do not like private ownership of the media, therefore you are left with state control. Or, you could argue for public television which pushes the agenda you advocate. Oh, wait, we already have that.
Storm of biblical proportions coming, sorry if I did not catch all the typos.[submit]