Oops.
Hampster problems.
I meant to comment on the idea that the media has a corporate bias.
Where is the proof of this?
The Microsoft lawsuit has been a major news story for a long time. Has NBC’s coverage of this been any different from any other news sources?
Has a media personality or writer been fired or disiplined for taking a position that was anti-corporate or made an owning corporation look bad?
A couple quotes to help me further bring home my point:
This from El Kabong
This from BrainGlutton
The second quote is closer to what I’m saying. There’s not a single voice for leftists in the mainstream media. That’s all I’m saying. Not a dramatic statement. Kabong, my point in the quote that you have from me is simply to say that unless you search for the leftist viewpoint on the Internet – not everyone has a computer, anyway – you won’t get exposed to this. If you’re not exposed to it, why would you look? There’s no “fight for space.” The fight was never sanctioned by the people who control the mainstream media.
More from Kabong:
Well, whether you realize it or not, you didn’t say much different than I did. It’s all a part of commercialism, capitalism, whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is to turn over a buck, yes. That’s the chief tenet in today’s philosophy of capitalism. Where, do you think, it would make sense to air the views of anyone left of the political spectrum, in the grand scheme of turning a buck?
Let’s say your an executive of NBC’s media division. Would you air leftist views, even if you thought they were thought-provoking and could bring in good ratings? If you are part of a system that believes globalism is just another brick in the wall of the Great Capitalist Plan, do you think you would consider airing viewpoints from people looking to stop globalism? Even if people would find their thoughts stimulating.
I’ll bring up Noam Chomsky, even though he’s sort of a lightning rod in these types of conversations. That man is known the world over and is popular in many places outside the U.S. You’d be lucky here to find someone off the street who knows who he is. He’s not going to be invited to appear on Dateline NBC anytime soon. Chomsky (just to name one person, there’s many others who also could) offers the “yeah, but” argument to the government’s spin. A point/counterpoint with this guy could be sold.
But, it’s got nothing to do with selling a particular program. It’s selling a particular mindset, a particular lifestyle, a particular view of life. A corporate medium is not going to air a guy who questions the corporate media. It’s not really that complicated when you look at it this way.
Ben and J. Lo fit find in this system. Hurricanes fit fine. Everything that doesn’t have a leftist vision fits just fine.
Corporations have the money. They have the media. They have the final say. In that situation, does anyone really think they’re gonna get an unbiased view of the world? Or, as BrainGlutton pointed out, a multi-biased view of the world?
A lot of people do believe the news unbiased, because they haven’t been exposed to these types of ideas. It’s a cyclical thing that works fine for the corporate global vision.
Corporate media is Bad, in the sense of What Ludovic Wants. I want media which will expose me to new musical experiences, so that I can enjoy them for a change from my CDs, or explore them on my own if I like them enough. Radio does not do that, so from Ludovic’s point of view, it is Bad.
The notion that corporations are inherently right-wing and anti-government is not quite right. Corporations have only self-interest. That does not always intersect with a right-wing or even capitalist ideology. For instance, if General Motors could buy a law that made it illegal for anyone to drive a non-GM car on a public road, it would not hesitate to do so. Such a law would obviously run counter to basic principles of free enterprise and limited government, but I doubt GM would be troubled by such high-minded ideological concerns.
I think you are referring to MSNBC, which is co-owned by Microsoft and NBC. NBC itself is owned by General Electric.
Chomsky was on CNN a while back with Bill Bennet to discuss American foreign policy. I think it was Paula Zahn’s show.
I know he’s appeared here and there. He was on CSPAN recently, too. But, his message is a little complicated for the usual formulaic news show on mainstream TV. He’d have to appear pretty regularly just to get people to begin to understand his point of view.
I wonder if there’s a transcript of that CNN appearance.
I’m not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that while it is possible for a broadcaster to be publicly funded and independent, such a broadcaster would be worse than the corporate media? How?
My view on this, is I really enjoy C-Span. Most Cable News Shows, whether they are Crossfire or Bill O’Reilly are just 20-second clips of ideological bickering.
The reason I really enjoy C-Span is they give EVERYONE a chance to explain there viewpoints. They show a variety of things. One day I sat there and watched a Young American conservative meeting for 2 hours. Yes, I couldn’t stand sitting there, but if you do not know the other side’s viewpoint you do not know your own viewpoint.
I also enjoy watching sessions of Congress. I’d like to bring to light a debate that took place yesterday. The debate was over an amendment that would revoke the FCC’s decision to allow the Corporate Consolodation of medio outlets in one market. I thought, and many people would also assume, that only left-wingers would be opposed to the FCC’s decision and supporting this ammendment.
Immediatly there were your normal Left-wingers speaking out against the FCC. You had Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, Dennis Kucinich the progressive from Cleveland, etc. What suprised me is that many conservatives oppose this consolodation of medio outlets. There reasoning is that if the local affiliates lose more control of their programming, they can’t block out shows like the Victoria’s Secret show. Evidently, many markets block out the programming of the national affiliate if the area has a vibrant relgious right.
This is an interesting perspective. This goes deeper than a right-left issue. It is almost a media version of a local soverignty debates.
I’d describe my own political viewpoint as Ultra Liberal. Someone brought up the point that who wouldn’t want 100 differant companies owning 100 differant radio stations. That is the point of those opposing the new FCC regulations.
The FCC regulations would allow one corporation to own something like 8 radio stations, 4 tv stations, the entire cable network, and 1 major newspaper. I’m from Cleveland. That is basically the entire Cleveland market right there. I don’t want any one voice dominating the entire Cleveland media.
More than a bias one way or the other, the corporate media cuts everything into 10-second sound bites. They pick out what they believe is the most important matter of substance and show only that.
One of the reasons I love C-Span is the commentators rarely say anything one way or another, but ALL viewpoints are covered. PBS and NPR appeal to me in similiar ways. There was once a study of the Nightly local news on Cleveland’s Corporate Congolmerates. Something like 10 minutes or less was actually used every night for news and current events. Between weather, sports, commercials, and chit chat among anchors, the actual news was slim.
Someone brought up the point of Chomsky not being on long enough to explain his viewpoint on the Corporate media. The point I’d like to bring up, is that NO ONE is allowed enough time to convey their viewpoint on mainstream media.
The limited news time available in the corporate format is often filled with BS news topics like shark attacks and sensationaly celebrity news. I don’t give a flying f*** whether Britney Spears likes the blue marshmallows in Lucky Charms cereal.
Another factor that is explored is that no one is every held accountable to the history of the issue. Today, Bush II pointed out that Saddam tortured and murdered his own people for 3 decades. What the mainstream news doesn’t point out is that the US government under Reagan and Bush I actually gave Saddam billions in weaponry. They knew he was a bastard that used WMD against Iran and his own people, yet they KEPT supporting him right up until he invaded Kuwait. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
I’m sure a conservative will get on here and point out how some liberal wasn’t held accountable to the history of an issue. I encourage them to do so. That is what the truth is all about. THAT IS WHAT NEW COVERAGE SHOULD BE ABOUT!
I like having the ability to choose among thousands of media outlets from all over the world through different mediums. From the internet, TV, radio, to buying actual paper newspapers and everything else. I like having extremists on both sides to turn to for my more biased reporting. Which, let’s face it, is mostly just being honest and admitting your bias up front. The rest of the time we have to guess.
The internet has changed the nature of news reporting. I can go get the NYT, WaPo, OpJournal, FT, London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, FrontPageMag, Counterpunch, Spinsanity, a dozen wacky conspiracy sites and so on without getting off my ass. They can take my internet news when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
Anyway, corporate media plays a big part in providing both news and entertainment. I’m not for getting rid of PBS, C-SPAN, or any other government media, I like having access to that as well. Nor am I for governmental regulation of the content of privately held media entitys. As always the government needs to guard against media trusts. I mean “trusts” in a busting sense.
It seems odd that in an era of almost unfettered access to information there is so much debate about corporate media.
I once heard that a substantial percentage of US citizens get their news from Leno, Conan, Letterman, The Daily Show, and other comedy shows. (?) IF that’s true, the real key to informing (and thereby controlling) the masses is stand up comedy. Dave Chapelle will rule the world.
An increasingly interesting debate. Corporate media is inevitable, because there is no one outside of a large corporation that can afford to operate the media networks we are looking for today. The problem, I am sure, with the original poster’s point is that the increase in amalgamation of several independent media companies into larger and fewer competitors makes for a climate of conformity that prevents true open dialogue.
A case in point: in Canada here we have an extremely wealthy (billionaires) family that owns a very large media network. They have television stations and major newspaper dailies in every major Canadian city. This means that every station in the network looks the same, sounds the same, and reports the same stuff. No big deal for fluff entertainment like Friends, or whatever, but they have a rule that their newspapers must only publish corporate editorials and opinions, meaning the editors of each newspaper have no editorial say in their daily opinion pieces. This is a big concern here, because it prevents free thought and opinion in favour of towing the party line. The party also happens to be very clearly in favour of one of our political parties over any other, meaning that these same papers are forced to bias their news coverage in favour of that party. Just one example of the negative effect of corporate media.
As for media being right vs left, remember that the only thing that really matters to the media is ratings and readership, so it’s really not a question of political viewpoints, but of what the editors and programmers feel the public will be interested in. And the sad truth is that most people are interested in fluff, like Ben and J Lo, and hurricane damage and some blonde kid who fell down a well. Just go out and public and really listen in on some conversations, and count how many are about real issues and how many are about American Idol (ugh!)
As an aside, someone brought up the point about public broadcasters towing the government line. Here in Canada we have the CBC (guess what it stands for), fully government funded, that is clearly not a government shill. The reporting of the CBC, much like the BBC in the UK (don’t know about Australia’s ABC) is unbiased and very reflective of other viewpoints, to the point where I can’t really watch corporate media as much because it so much more sensational. In fact, when elections are on, the CBC is decidedly in favour of the NDP party (a socialist party that has marginal influence at best) over the ruling Liberals (an centralist party that just does whatever it takes, right or left, to stay elected), who sign their cheques. So properly implemented and given effective checks and balances and independence, public broadcasting can work.
Aye, there’s the rub. Can’t see the U.S. government going out of its way to provide this type of broadcasting.
Sorry, but I, and I think most people, have no problem seeing a vast difference between the statements “indoctrinate the masses with the government/capitalist line” and “sell subscriptions and advertising”. Jeepers, I’m not gonna have to parse out every word here, am I? Here, see below:
Well, anywhere that buck could be turned from airing that viewpoint, of course; where people themselves turn away from the news source because they percieve a bias counter to their intrinsic beliefs or interests. If people rose up in disgust with the pap they were getting from the pop-oriented TV and print news, as they really should, see how fast the nets would dust off their leftist credentials. Personally, I’m absolutely certain the revolution WILL be televised, 'cause it’ll be a ratings killer.
The point I’ve been trying to make through all this is that no one in this country is forcing anyone to accept any specific line from their news outlets. If you don’t like FoxNews, and I certainly don’t, you have the right to ignore their sorry asses. As stated earlier, there is is really nothing at all inhibiting people from finding the leftist viewpoint, if they are willing to make a minimum effort to locate and understand the message. Please try and remember that a lot of people reject the ideology you have been promoting here because they find intrinsic flaws in it (launch a thread here concerning the supposed evils of globalism if you want to see this in action), rather than because the mean ol’ networks are gagging the voice of the people.
I say, if they don’t want to make the effort to understand events, the hell with 'em, let 'em be deceived.
I’ve enjoyed the give and take in this debate, but it seems we’re starting to replow the same ground here. I would be more than happy to see, for example, a national, BBC-style US network, but in the absence of that, information supporting all viewpoints is available, and people can and should make the effort to be informed. If what they want is silliness and irrelevance, then so be it.
I’ll just mention I’d be happy to participate in a thread along the lines of “How can alternative media make their voices better heard?” if someone wants to start one.
Kabong, we’ve plowed and replowed. I feel frustrated in that I don’t think I fully got you to see my point of view. I know your point of view, I think, but when you continue to try to convince me that “no one in this country is forcing anyone to accept any specific line from their news outlets,” I know I’ve failed in getting my true point across. Because, I agree with that literal statement. My argument is much more nuanced.
But, I really have no desire to continue to rehash it now. When I do make broad statements to try to sum up my argument – such as the “indoctrinate the masses with the government/capitalist line” statement – it does nothing more than confuse the issue, I now realize. I don’t think there’s schools or classes or meetings about “corporate indoctrination.” But, for example, I think it’s inherent that someone who climbs the ladder in the corporate system would fall in line with the capitalist vision of globalization.
Anyway, I’m a little spent on this subject.
Serious misconceptions regarding the current state of public media in the U.S. (i.e. PBS and/or NPR):
-
Federal grants to public radio vary from 10-40% of the total operating budget of any given NPR affiliate. Used to be more, but the steady move to the right has reduced funding across the board for non-money-grubbing federal programs (NEA, NIH, NASA, etc.). Claiming public media is just as beholden to the “G” as CNN is to AOL/Time-Warner is not just spurious, it’s ludicrous. In not a single media market do tax dollars account for even half of the budget of any given NPR or PBS affiliate. If you don’t know this to be the case, you’ve never suffered through a Fall Fund Drive “Car Talk” marathon!
-
Federal funding for enrichment or enlightenment programs is a perfectly reasonable burden to place upon the taxpayer. Funding basic scientific research is a good thing. Funding the exploration of the universe is a good thing. Funding a starving artist’s exhibition is a good thing. It makes no difference whether you like the results or not - it is a fundamentally good thing for human beings to learn more, see more, and express more.
-
Point number 2 is NOT antithetical to the continued success of the capitalist system. But proponents of large media conglomerates must acknowledge that corporations do not have an institutional incentive for either objectivity or truth. Those who would argue “if they didn’t tell the truth, people wouldn’t trust them and they’d lose market share, so market forces protect the truth” are whistling in the dark. Modern corporations do not seek to compete within a marketplace, they seek to control the market itself.
-
I encourage each and every person who reads this thread to contact your Congressperson and urge them to strike down the FCC policy change that allows greater media consolidation. Media consolidation is antithetical to the very market forces that lip-service conservatives always harp on when decrying Federal regulation. Capitalism is dependent upon dinosaurs dying out so the little furry critters can take over the world.
Dumbguy is not so dumb. Everything in the media is either advertising or meta-advertising. Meta-advertising sells the culture of consumption.
Read “Plateaus of Consumption: The Biosemiotics of Consumer Fascism”
http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/SPEED/1.3/product/burch/burch.html
Is anyone arguing that it is not possible for a broadcaster to be publicly funded? Since we have NPR right here in the states who is a media source which is media funded such a position would be hard to support.
Of course it’s possible.
However, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. I have already stated why in this thread, but to recap:
A 1,000 media sources (tv, newspaper, radio, net) owned by 1,000 corporations is much better than 1,000 media sources owned by one government. If they are too beholden to their owning corporations now, why wouldn’t they be beholden to the government once it owns them? Either way, the fundamental problems of not wanting to bite the hand that funds them exists.
However, with many companies retaining ownership there isn’t one group in control of it all. Even if the Microsoft owned media tries to suppress or bias a story negative for Microsoft (something this thread has yet to prove, despite my request for an example) the other media sources owned by other corporations would be more than happy to report on it since they aren’t owned by Microsoft.
If all the media is owned by the government, what’s to stop the feds from pulling funding from all stations that report on a particular news story?
There is no proof whatsoever that I can see that the “corporate media” shows a bias towards the corporations that own them. I don’t think controlling corporations attempt to influence the journalists working for them. Anybody who thinks otherwise: Cite please! However, even if this was the case, having the government own all the media would be worse.
Debaser, I have already provided a cite, of the corporation that owns several newspapers and tv stations that forces its editors to print only corporate-approved editorials, and to favour one political party that the owning family funds over any other.
This isn’t necessarily prevalent in every media conglomerate, but it is present. Media outlets will of course always try to present the most sellalble story, regardless of who it affects, because the main point of this thread is to demonstrate that the corporate media does not represent the people so much as the interests of the corporation that owns it, and thus is really focussed on selling subscriptions and attracting viewers. Even if a story is disparaging to Microsoft, I’m sure they will happily let MSNBC report it if people will watch, because that translates into advertising revenues.
And again, government funded media can work, and does in Canada, the UK and Australia, as I pointed out earlier in another post. The CBC in Canada has a specific system in check to prevent the government from telling what to do other that to maintain a certain amount of Canadian content on the air (of whatever sort). The most effective check on the government’s power, however, is the people, who would scream bloody murder if the government attempted to control the airwaves. And in fact the CBC clearly is more in favour of a marginal political party here than the ruling party, so they are obviously not towing the government line.
Debaser, I’m not arguing for the media to be exclusively publicly-owned. I don’t think anyone else is either. You are arguing against a strawman.
However, this does not mean that an adequately funded public broadcaster cannot be operated in competition with corporate media, offering a viewpoint that need not contort to the whims of a parent corporation.
As I have stated in this thread, both Australia and the UK have public broadcasters that do not experience this problem. In fact, both the BBC and the ABC have been criticised by their respective governments for certain elements of their reporting, as they have in the past, by both sides of politics. The ABC responded to this recent government criticism by basically telling them to fuck off, and I understand that the BBC has taken a similar attitude to the British government.
Indeed, the Australian government and particularly the Minister for Communications have come under fire in both the public and corporate press for what has been seen to be attempts to compromise the integrity of the ABC. Citizens of countries who own public broadcasters do not take kindly to any hint of the government trying to influence the broadcaster’s reporting.
If you have any doubts in the ability of public broadcasters to remain independent, you have two ready made case studies in your hands proving the stength of such a system.
I’ll get back to you on your request of controlling corporations attempting to influence journalists working for them; it’s a little late at night for me to begin looking around. However, I will remind you that prior to the recent conflict in Iraq, every single News Ltd newspaper in the world (over 200, I believe) carried an editorial supporting the war. Coincidence?
Whether corporate media are good or bad depends on the actual journalism taking place, not theoreticals. Are the media involved representing the full spectrum voices? Are the media allowing access to under represented groups? The media are as good as those working for them. A medium is not corrected by the simple fact of ownership.