This site is called MediaLens.
It’s mission statement in part reads:
If you go to this site and click on the Latest link on the bottom left, you will find an interesting exchange of letters – one between a mainstream British reporter and MediaLens writers.
Here’s a snippet, in which the MediaLens writers are replying:
You can also find other articles that point out media distortions. Interesting reading.
“Like vaccines, these small doses of truth inoculate the public against awareness of the rigid limits of media freedom.”
Ooooo, that’s good.
I am always impressed when a website discovers Truth, and reveals that the reason it is not more widely promulgated is suppression by Dark Forces.
It’s a major tenet espoused by proponents of dietary supplements, alternative religions, unpopular political theories etc.
The Web site isn’t really saying anything new. Unless, you just haven’t heard this stuff before. It doesn’t say it discovered Truth. It does take on media distortions, and I’d love to hear more comments on specific issues addressed at this site.
What you are doing is simply marginalizing what these people are saying, without really trying to learn what they’re saying. It’s a common tactic from people who don’t want to have to address issues brought up by progressives looking for a little niche outside the corporate powers-that-be.
Seriously. Aside from a snide remark, what are your thoughts about the corporate media and their interpretation of events? Do you think a reporter could write whatever he wants, regardless of its slant, more than once in a while?
I wrote for a newspaper in Missouri’s capital for several years. I know that editors are very interested in being corporate-friendly. And, this newspaper was one of the few that are still independent of the big media conglomerates. In fact, another reporter and I tried to pitch consumer friendly articles on a number of occasions. The editor brushed them off, with that weary look that said it all: “How would that type of series affect advertising sales?” After a while, we stopped trying. My friend, the other reporter, thought about publishing an underground paper, but he knew it could cost him his job.
Dark Forces isn’t really even the issue. It’s the way things work. You might think we have the freedom to think how we wish. But, if you want to be “successful” in our “professional” world, it’s just not the case. Reporters are no different.
Without specifics, it’s a bit hard to hang a debate on something as nebulous as supposed distortions of the ‘corporate media’. The argument seems only to be that ‘corporate media’ (mainly in the USA, presumably) refuse to cover “human rights abuses, poverty, pollution and climate change”, or do not discuss these subjects with the particular ideological slant favored by the ‘alternative’ outlets.
I suggest the OP ask his or herself, “What, if anything, makes the reportage of an outfit like MediaLens inherently more ‘truthful’ than that of, say, CNN?” I be most interested to hear an coherent, concise answer to that question. I’ve asked it before in other threads, and never gotten much of an answer.
Another: there are a number of alternative media outlets of this nature, such as Z Magazine and Pacific Radio. One might ask oneself, “if these provide more truthful coverage of issues of concern to the public, and of greater potential interest to the public, why are they not the most popular media outlets in the nation?”
My view is that there is nothing inherently more truthful in coverage with one ideological slant over that of another, that the alternative media focus on an exceeding narrow range of subjecdts to the exclusion of all else, and thus that so-called ‘alternative’ media can never be an exclusive source for useful information. If somone wants to convince me otherwise, well, have at it.
Is there a concrete example of reporting on a specific issue that you wish to address, clucky, or are you just seething over the weary look you got from your editor at the Springfield Incontinent-Times?
I don’t entirely disagree with you, you know. I am convinced that without the corporate media, we would have known of Britney’s loss of virginity far sooner.
I will never, ever forgive that horrid Justin Timberlake. :mad:
Again, if you’ve got specific issues and solid examples of how the minions of Corporate Media™ have suppressed reporting on them, go for it. This subject has been trotted out ad nauseum in the past, and evidence is always lacking. Apparently, one only needs to believe and that’s sufficient.
Well, reporting the facts would be a big start in helping CNN be more “truthful.”
For instance, how often do you hear that the U.S. support Saddam Hussein up until the time that Iraq invaded Kuwait? When was it that CNN, or any other major media outlet, reported this fact when W. was outlining Saddam Hussein’s atrocities in trying to justify aggression against Iraq? It’s relevant, because Saddam and the Baathist regime was just as vicious when the U.S. government supported them. Those atrocities that W. cited often came with Saddam as an ally.
How often do you hear that the U.S. pushed for sanctions against Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqis after Gulf War I?
Truth and facts are different. It’s the facts, indisputable facts, that you would think that the media would want to bring home to the public as unbiased as possible. Not happening.
(Just so you know, MediaLens is British and more interested in that nation’s mainstream media.)
Define “narrow” range of subjects. Because, that’s what consumers receive when it comes to political views in the U.S.
Also, explain how “truthful” might equal popular. Since when did people rather hear the truth?
(I have to go right now. Hope to get some more thoughtful responses.)
Common knowledge, reported or editorialized on frequently.**
No kidding! The whole debate over sanctions was suppressed by the Corporate Media™? We must have fantasized all those stories over the years, arguing about the effectiveness and consequences of sanctions.
Criminy. If you want to sell this line of thinking, don’t insult our intelligence with these feeble strawmen.**
Charity begins at home.
Pretty much constantly. Why do you ask?
Ya know, it’s like clockwork around here. At least once a week, it seems, someone posts what they claim is a request for opinions on the ‘corporate media’ or some such, then bash any respondents if they don’t reply with the correct Chomskyite code phrases.
Well which facts are we talking about here? See, you haven’t actually referred to any specifics. Oh wait, perhaps you are referring to the example of previous US support of Saddam Hussein. Why, in your view, would it be necessary to report that particular fact, more than any other, in every story on Gulf War II? How, exactly, is it relevant to straight reportage of events in the war, and why would it need to be repeated ibn every story? Jeez, I certainly remember that the US supported Saddam at one point without having to be reminded every five minutes.
You know, I think you can find some posters around here who would agree that I’ve been one of the louder voices arguing against the invasion of Iraq. I somehow managed to arrive at that viewpoint even though most of the coverage I followed on this issue came from (gasp) the corporate media. Jeez, how do think that happened? Could it be that I, you know, actually thought for myself?
Speaking of facts, sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the US. And I’ve heard many claims concerning their effects, from all sorts of sources, and none seem to agree wihtin a factor of five. Present your cite or cites for the “hundreds of thousands” figure, if you please.
Uh, I did, remember? “human rights abuses, poverty, pollution and climate change”. Worthy subjects all (well, except climate change, which is hardly a proven condition), but not the ONLY worthy subjects.
All I’m saying is that there is pathetically easy access to what you regard as media that are more factual. All I’m asking, and I’ll ask again, is why, in your view, don’t more people avail themselves of these ‘facts’?
Just to remind you, you still haven’t addressed what, in your view, makes the output of MediaLens inherently more truthful (or factual, if you want) than any other media outlet. Good intentions? Demonstratably lesser bias to a particular political viewpoint? God on their side? What?
Wow. Nice. I’m ever so sorry my response was insufficiently thoughtful for you. I made a good-faith effort to respond to your OP, and you come back with insults. You did see the part about “not being a jerk”, right?
Well, the San Francisco Bay Guardian has a specific complaint about a specific issue, namely the reliance of news organizations on grants from private funders to pay for news reporting:
Jackmannii has repeatedly made it clear that he thinks this is a non-issue, and I concur that there is a lot of inadequately supported conspiracy-theory speculation out there about “corporate media dominance”. But I’m not willing just to laugh the whole subject off without considering some of the questions that have been raised about it. Here are a few of the more interesting questions that I think it would be enlightening to get answers to:
Why has the “labor beat” been discontinued by so many newspapers over the last few decades? How has the more trendy “workplace reporting” dealt with similar issues?
How has the change in the socioeconomic status of reporters in the past few decades affected coverage? Now that there are very few mass-media “content providers” without college degrees, are news stories more skewed toward the perspective of the well-educated and well-to-do?
How important is private foundation funding to the work of news organizations, and what effect (if any) does it have on the choice of topics covered and the slant of the coverage?
What’s the effect of the recent huge rise in media ownership consolidation? Are today’s “chain” news outlets required to be more profitable than independent ones, and does that make them more dependent on their advertisers? Also, does there tend to be a common standard for editorial perspective within a media conglomerate, and if so, does that perspective tend to be more pro-business than an independent news organization’s?
I think these are reasonable questions to ask, and I think it plausible that the developments they refer to do have an impact on news coverage. But Jack has a point that he shouldn’t be expected to accept claims about “corporate media” without some definitive answers to such questions and evidence to back them up.
EK: Wow. Nice. I’m ever so sorry my response was insufficiently thoughtful for you.
Um, just in case it might avert a needless quarrel here, I should point out that I interpreted Clucky’s parting remark to mean that he was hoping to see some additional thoughtful responses, not responses that were more thoughtful than yours.
If I’m wrong about that, then no, it wasn’t a nice thing to say; quarrel away.
Sure, the corporate media publish stories that are good for the bottom line. Shocking, attention-getting stories, that are ‘corporate-friendly’ and don’t hurt revenues and are in line with the editor’s views (to some level).
But what makes these independent journalists so special? Are they any better? what’s their motivation to publish true, unbiased information, that covers all sides of every issue, fairly and objectively? What prevents them from playing up one side of the story?
The corporate media might report:
“Dozens of pro-drugs protestors descended on London today, angry at the government’s ‘Youth Protection Strategy’, released yesterday by the Labour government. Police, standing by, were forced to make several arrests, even using pepper spray in one instance, when bottles and bricks were thrown at them.”
And the alternative media might report:
“Throngs of disenchanted activists held a rally in Trafalgar Square this afternoon, to raise awaremess about harsh new measures brought down by Tony Blair. The demonstration was largely peaceful, but police, brought in ahead of time and in full riot gear, cleared the area, swinging batons and using pepper spray on the crowd of mostly youth. Many arrests were made, and a spokesman for the group was ‘severely appalled’ at the actions of the police”
Sure, maybe they are independent of big corporations. This doesn’t mean they’re God’s gift to Truth.
There’s more to reporting that “Facts” and “Truth”. It’s easy to use adjectives, inflection, emphasis in certain facts over others, and emotionally-loaded short bits of tape containing no real facts, to turn a story into another, better-sounding one.
Sadly, I’m not convinced that these ‘alternative journalists’ inherently better than the corporate leviathans. Maybe a little, but not great.
Clucky:
Well that pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? My guess is that the real suffering these guys are addressing is the suffering of the far left who have seen socialist ideas sink to the bottom of the heap in the last 20 yrs or so.
I’ll echo the sentiment of the other posters here. Show us a major human rights catastrophy that has not been covered by some mainstream media outlet or other. None that you’ve brought up so far satisfy that criteria.
I think it’s great that these guys are out there expressing their views. But don’t you think that seeing the world exclusively thru the lens of “corporate greed” will tend to slant their coverage more than just a little bit?
JM: Show us a major human rights catastrophy that has not been covered by some mainstream media outlet or other.
Well, Project Censored does an annual roundup of what it considers the 25 top stories ignored or inadequately covered by mainstream media. Number 3 on the 2001/02 list was “United States’ Policies in Colombia Support Mass Murder”:
Kimstu:
I found this story by the BBC in 5 seconds searching on Yahoo. Wouldn’t you consider the BBC to be a “mainstream” news source?
John, the story you cite is from June 2002; Project Censored pegged the Colombia story as important underreported news in 2001.
(Would you consider the BBC to be “corporate media”, anyway?)
And by the way, I believe PC focuses primarily on what it considers to be inadequate coverage by American mainstream media, and I confess that’s what I was thinking of in my earlier posts. If we’re addressing the question of the adequacy of mainstream/corporate media coverage worldwide, that’s another (and far bigger) kettle of fish.
That must be the same Pew Charitable Trust that frequently donates to National Public Radio, an outlet known for its rigid toeing of the corporate line. :rolleyes:
And while it’s true that primarily leftist sources were beating the drums for the Coca-Cola/Columbia story as being big news (i.e. marxist.com, britons4peace.com, leftgatekeepers.com), a Google search also turns up a 2001 story on the subject in the Pittsburgh Business Times, which might be viewed as a slave to various corporate masters. 
Well, the internet pretty much disolves the concept of a given country’s media. BBC may not be “corporate”, but they certainly are “mainstream”. That was the issue.
This is very true.
I’ve said it frequently: Orwell was an idiot. Big Brother does not need to police the media. The mainstream media will happily police themselves. There’s no need for the Thought Police, because no one really cares. Shout “the truth” from the rooftops if you wish. Few will listen, and even fewer will be convinced. Countless books and alternative media outlets exist. Government censorship doesn’t keep them in the margins-- it’s the fact that they can’t attract an audience, because no one cares.
Frankly, the problem with the media is that Americans are not hungry for “the truth.” There is no outrage when politicians lie. We’re not shocked and appalled that companies exploit third-world workers or pollute heavily. The average American just wants to be entertained.
We’re wrapped up in ourselves, our daily lives. The turmoil thousands of miles away has no bearing on the minutae of day-to-day living. No one is particularly interested in how our actions a decade ago affected or even caused the problems. A lot of Americans are painfully ignorant of history, even recent history.
A lot of people don’t watch the news or read the paper. They get their news from their co-workers, friends, or family, and base their opinions off of these sources. My husband, who teaches at our local university, asked his students before the war how many had watched the news or read a paper within the last two weeks. Few raised their hands, but all had very firm opinions on the war.
I understand the problems that the news media faces in trying to capture this audience. They must balance trying to please those who want to be informed with keeping those who just want to be entertained interested. Thus, you see stories of international struggle followed by one which features an artist plugging their new album. (They actually had live performances on Headline News.) Some newspapers have condensed the real news to one small section, with the rest of the paper devoted to Lifestyles, home and garden, etc. “Magazine-style” media is the result of the efforts to draw an audience other than just those who want to know about current events.
Not too long ago, we had a thread about the History Channel. Many people complained about the lack of depth, and about some of the low-brow programming. The History Channel has problems identical to those of the media: they need to capture the audience. A program on the ancient Sumarians might not reel in the viewers, but one on the Mummy’s Curse or Atlantis may.
So, the problem is not the media: it’s the audience. If Americans *en masse * started demanding high standards, in-depth reporting and scrupulous honesty in the media, there would be a dramatic change. But Americans seem very contented with the way things are now. It’s that majority that the networks must cater to in order to be profitable. The more “brain candy” they offer, the more likely they are to attract a wider audience.
I, too, am dissapointed with the media, but I realize that it’s always been this way. Why should the modern era be different? The media pretty much created the Spanish-American War, and the phrase “yellow journalism” is not a new invention of our time. There never was a golden age of honest, pure journalism, popluated by hundreds of Woodwards and Goldstiens. It’s false nostalgia.
Nothing can be done to “fix” the media, unless someone can come up with a way for in-depth alalysis of current events to become profitable. When the majority of the audience would rather listen to a celebrity interview than one with an economist, you book the celebrity.
JM: BBC may not be “corporate”, but they certainly are “mainstream”. That was the issue.
Well, the thread title says “corporate media”. I grant you that the BBC and other national broadcasting corporations can be said to fall under the definition of “mainstream media”, but they’re not what I was thinking of.
Your other objections also seem pretty quibbly to me. Just because Pew donates to NPR doesn’t mean that it can’t be attempting to further an agenda in news coverage trends, as even the Wall Street Journal (hardly a wild-eyed leftist rag) asserts. And just because you found a short Pittsburgh Business Times article on the Coca-Cola lawsuit (which, as the PC article I originally linked to had already noted, did indeed get some mainstream press coverage) doesn’t mean that the “U.S. Policies Support Mass Murder” story was adequately covered. (In fact, the PBT article mentions only “intimidation” of Colombian activists, and nothing about the alleged connections with the feds’ “Plan Colombia”; pretty peripheral to what PC identified as the major story.)