by Seeker 39 Replies latest jw friends
We obviously agree on several things, though. I applaud your wish to see the end of the mere two-party system. I think we agree on more than appears in this thread. However, there is one statement you just said that absolutely cannot stand:
However, as long as the liberal socialists control the mediaYou do realize that large, conservative multi-national corporations own the media, right?
You do realize that large, conservative multi-national corporations own the media, right?
And here I didn't desire to have to reply again, but have to on this one. When you speak of Multi-National Corporations, they are neither Liberal nor Conservative, but exist for themselves, playing both sides and contributing heavily to both sides.
But, when speaking of individual media corporations, I doubt many would find, Ted Turners CNN, or the Hearst Empire, or Time Warner (merged with Ted Turner, if memory serves) to be bastions of conservatism. Multi-National Conglomerates, who actually have at least partial ownership in just about everything, exist soley to make money and couldn't care less how.
If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?
Indeed, corporations are neither conservative nor liberal, but just are. However, by their imperative -- to increase shareholder value -- the way they act is to maximize their audience. They do this by avoiding offense. They do this by being conservative (in the real sense of the word, not the political sense). The larger the corporation, the more conservative its actions become.
Time Warner is VERY conservative, including CNN. As soon as 9/11 happened, CNN pasted the American flag all over its broadcasts. Good for business, after all.
I read an interview with the head of ABC News, a group controlled by Disney Corp. He admitted he could NOT put on the air something that would criticize Disney. That is conservative in nature.
The era of liberal journalists railing against the system is coming to an end. In its place is a bland, pro-corporate boosterism. It is strikingly conservative.
As for Ted Turner, perhaps you hadn't noticed but after the Time Warner - AOL merger, he got cut out. He has very little say any more.
I honestly don’t want to try and hijack you thread, Seeker, but I can’t help but be intrigued by some of your statements both on this thread and elsewhere.
“The “so-called” Liberal Media are owned by large conservative corporations that dictate control over biased news reporting in major newspapers and on major television networks. The media are conservative just like their owners and sponsors. You're getting the "News" the way that they want you to see it.”
I’m not quoting you --I read this in the Utne Reader several years ago. My problem with this and similar statements, is that although they present a plausible cause and effect scenario, they invariably seem to fall short when it comes to actually presenting any hard data. Frankly, the “effect” does not seem to “runneth over.”
When it comes to social and political reporting at least, on almost any of the traditional liberal/conservative bones of contention, be it abortion, gun control, education, social programs, environmental issues, trade and taxation it is not hard to find hundreds of examples (which I’ll be happy to provide if need be) of the denigration of conservative policy and the promotion of ideas associated with the left.
Now I’m not a fan of the Bush family by any stretch, I understand the fact that even a pseudo-democracy cannot exist for long without a free press and I’m appalled at the direction this country seems to have started drifting when it comes to civil rights. Furthermore, I like you and don’t want it to sound like I’m challenging you to a "pissing match." Yet at the same time, my ‘satiable curiosity’ is getting the better of me. I would love to see something beyond generalities to show that in this instance the effect does in fact follow the cause.
Tom
TD,
Thank you for your comment and question. Let me try to give an answer that explains my position in the context of the reality of today's media. I will spell things out simply and clearly, so those lurking for whom this might be a new idea can easily follow along too. After explaining, I will give a few examples.
First of all, it's important to realize that we are dealing with a sliding scale of political viewpoints. When we speak of the media as being 'liberal' or 'conservative', we don't mean that it is 100% one or the other, but leaning more in one direction than the other. In some cases, we mean they are just over the center line. In others, they are far to one extreme. People are like this too.
This helps explain why you still see dissent in the mass media. If one voice is very conservative, and the other voice is less conservative, yet still not liberal, it can seem as if it is "Liberal versus Conservative" as if those are ever the only two choices. In fact, if you find (and it's not that easy to do this) a true liberal media source, you are immediately struck by how 'extreme' it sounds, since you never hear this message on the mainstream news. The true liberal voice is almost never presented on the news. The average American never comes in contact with real liberal news. This will come as a shock to the conservatives among us, for whom anyone who is not as conservative as them = liberal, but that is not how the words get defined regardless of what they think.
Secondly, the oft-quoted study that shows most reporters are personally liberal is probably true. Reporting doesn't pay well usually, and so it is often a job of the young, and the young are often idealistic, and thus liberal. As we will see, however, a reporter's personal views don't always make it into print, as they are not the ones who decides what gets published.
With those two points in mind, let's find initial agreement: Almost all media sources are now owned by large corporations. Your local newspaper is probably owned by Gannett or News Corp or some other large corporation. Disney owns ABC. GE owns NBC. AOL TImeWarner owns CNN. And so on.
How do corporations survive? By increasing shareholder wealth and increasing profit. How does a Gannett newpaper or ABC News make their profits? Primarily through advertising. Where does advertising come from? Other large corporations that are very much in tune with the public's mood. They know what appeals to the public and what doesn't, and their very existence as corporations depends on presenting appealing messages. Anything that doesn't appeal doesn't get funded.
Who own and run advertising companies and Gannett and News Corp and Disney? Extremely rich persons who, as a tendency, are conservative in their views. It pays to be conservative when you are rich -- preserves capital, after all. You occasionally get a rich liberal, but they are more the exception than the rule. Ted Turner may give away a billion dollars to the UN, but it makes headlines when it happens.
By the way, this ownership issue also helps explain why you still get dissent in the mainstream press. They may almost all be conservative to one degree or another, but they can disagree among themselves on the best conservative course to take. So they argue about it. Through their newspapers or TV news. Remember, just because you get opposing views, it doesn't automatically make it Liberal versus Conservatives. Sometimes you get two conservatives arguing amongst themselves, both putting forth a conservative solution, just different ones.
So now we have a group of very rich men controlling what gets advertised in the media outlets. And we have other rich men controlling the media outlets and needing to please the advertisers. If the rich men controlling the media outlets want to run a story suggesting that corporate America is ruining the environment by their pollution, how many advertisers do you think will want to spend thier money on such a program? Right, none. If, instead, the media outlet wants to run a story talking about pollution and how corporate America is rolling up its sleeves to clean things up, how many advertisers will want to be a part of that program? Right, plenty of them.
The above paragraph is not theoretical, but a real example. Erik Barnouw in his book The Sponsers, on page 135, describes a time when NBC was proposing a documentary series on environmental problems during a time when the environment was a hot topic. Unfortunately, since the series did not toe the corporate line of reassurance in this area, but pointed out that there were corporate failures in protecting the environment (a perfectly true thing to say at times), NBC couldn't get any advertising for these documentaries. They never got made.
Here's an excerpt from Procter and Gamble's instructions to their ad agency: "There will be no material on any of our programs which could in any way further the concept of cold, ruthless, and lacking in all sentiment or spiritual motivation." (The Media Monopoly, Ben Bagdikian, p. 160) Not surprisingly then, we often see the deptiction of businesses as caring, warm, needing to make a buck to be sure, but caring for the consumer's interests too.
Some examples I have personally noted about the increasing corporate-first news media:
When the Seattle riots occurred, the message in the mass media was that these were "anti-globalists." Although a few of those did exist, you almost never heard the dominant and true message of these protestors -- they were in favor of globalization, but wanted environmental and labor laws protected in the process, and wanted the decision-makers to stop deciding the fates of nations behind closed doors and let a diverse viewpoint be heard as they made those decisions. On the nightly news, however, you almost never heard this. Instead you heard about anarchists breaking windows, and college students having a lark by joining a protest. Their message was trivialized because it wasn't one that would be popular to the corporations controlling the news.
After 9/11, the media immediately leaped to the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was behind it. When Bush, a few days later, spoke to the nation and said that he had direct evidence linking the hijackers to bin Laden, it seemed to confirm what the media had been saying. Only one problem: it wasn't true at that time. In the week that followed the speech, four different military and administration sources admitted to a reporter from the more liberal New Yorker that they still had no direct evidence linking the hijackers to anyone. They just didn't know yet. Did any of this make the mainstream news? Did any news organization point out that Bush had said something that wasn't true to the American people? No, they just continued to wave the flag and repeat the party line.
That reflects another problem with the mass media: They are dependent on government sources for many of their leads, especially in a time of military conflict. If they start contradicting their official sources, and pointing out when they are being lied to, their sources will dry up. So they have an overriding need to maintain relatively good relations with their official sources. As we have seen in recent decades, political sources in the White House are perfectly willing to lie to reporters to further a political agenda. This is a dangerous combination then, with sources willing to lie to reporters who need to maintain a good working relationship with these sources, and thus are hesitant to point out lies.
In summary, when you have a group of rich men controlling the media, needing to please another group of rich men controlling advertising, who in turn need to appeal to the largest group of consumers as possible, and thus need to avoid offense, you get a gradual softening of the news. It is an inexorable process that has been happening for years now, ever since the news outlets got bought up. Individual reporters may be liberal in their outlook, but their editors and news managers decide what gets into print. If the head of ABC News says that ABC cannot criticize Disney (and he did say that), it won't matter how liberal an ABC reporter may be personally, he or she will never get on the air a piece that criticizes Disney.
When the news outlooks cease to be independent, but exist as a profit center for larger corporate interests, the bottom line rules. The bottom line is conservative, since it doesn't pay to rock the boat. Give the people what they want, make them feel secure overall, make them want to buy the advertiser's products, and it's a wonderful world.
Except for those of us who want an independent voice to tell us what is really going on.
Hi Seeker
Thanks for your reply
It’s good of you to elaborate on why corporate ownership of virtually every major media outlet would tend, at least on paper, to stifle the presentation of liberal viewpoints. As I indicated before, I find the scenario plausible in terms of cause versus effect.
You’ve also cited two specific examples of this "corporate first" mentality. I don’t want to sound pedantic because as far as I’m concerned, this is just a “patio conversation” with a friend. In all honesty though, I don’t particularly find these examples compelling and here’s why.
While it’s true that initially the real issue behind the Seattle riots was trivialized through lack of coverage, it's also equally true that in so doing the blame for the mayhem which ensued was planted squarely upon a conservative cause. (WTO opposition) What type of media bias was this an example of? Were groups such as the Ruckus Society, the Rainforest Action Network, The Ecology Center, The Wildlands Project and the Sierra Club being trivialized or protected? Frankly it seems that a case could be made either way.
You also mention the recent failure on the part of the mainstream media to follow up on the information presented in the New Yorker and denounce President Bush for being untruthful with the American public in regard to the evidence (or lack thereof) linking Bin Laden to the September 11th attacks. However a failure on the part of the media to denounce the failings of a sitting President does not directly equate to the espousal of either a liberal or conservative viewpoint unless and until it could be shown that liberal and conservative Presidents receive disparate treatment. As such, this example strikes me as only one half of the bare minimum of proof that is required.
I do agree with you on the difficulty of reaching any consensus on exactly what a “moderate” or “centrist” viewpoint really is. It’s quite true that one man’s liberal is very often another man’s conservative. It was for this reason that I made a point of listing issues that tend to polarize liberals and conservatives into distinct, opposing sides. This is not to say then even here, there is no room for moderation, but generally speaking, one either believes that the framers of the U.S. constitution intended to guarantee the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms (and all that this implies) or one does not. One either believes that women have a constitutional right to be the final arbiter when it comes to reproductive issues directly affecting their own bodies (and all that this implies) or one does not. One either believes that the combined income of married couples should be taxed at a higher rate than the individual incomes of couples simply living together or one does not.
What I would think would be far more damning would be clear, documentable examples where individuals like Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Paula Zahn, Diane Sawyer, Bryant Gumbel, Helen Thomas, Terry Moran, Pierre Thomas, Gillian Findlay, Brit Hume, Aaron Brown, Carole Simpson, Jack Cafferty, Morton Kondracke, Candy Crowley, Judy Woodruff, Eleanor Clift, Lester Holt, Charles Gibson, etc., etc. have come down squarely in on the conservative side of these or any other issue where liberals and conservatives are often in sharp disagreement.
Tom
Tom,
I hear what you are saying. I find most of those commentators to be centrist politically in what they say. That is the safest, i.e. the most profitable for the advertisers, course for them to follow. And more to the point, I see this as a trend toward corporatism which is not specifically conservative politically, but tends toward conservatism as the actual word implies. Corporate thinking tends toward the safe and accepted. It's not so much liberal versus conservative as it is safe and familiar. The extremes (on both ends) get lopped off and we are left with a bland middle.
While it’s true that initially the real issue behind the Seattle riots was trivialized through lack of coverage, it's also equally true that in so doing the blame for the mayhem which ensued was planted squarely upon a conservative cause. (WTO opposition) What type of media bias was this an example of? Were groups such as the Ruckus Society, the Rainforest Action Network, The Ecology Center, The Wildlands Project and the Sierra Club being trivialized or protected? Frankly it seems that a case could be made either way.Those groups have been co-opted by the corporations, with their PR machines (see Toxic Sludge is Good For You). And even if some conservatives may oppose the WTO, the corporations do NOT. Since they are in charge of most of the news, the news predictably trivialized opposition to the corporate interests.
ou also mention the recent failure on the part of the mainstream media to follow up on the information presented in the New Yorker and denounce President Bush for being untruthful with the American public in regard to the evidence (or lack thereof) linking Bin Laden to the September 11th attacks. However a failure on the part of the media to denounce the failings of a sitting President does not directly equate to the espousal of either a liberal or conservative viewpoint unless and until it could be shown that liberal and conservative Presidents receive disparate treatment. As such, this example strikes me as only one half of the bare minimum of proof that is required.See, to me this is a new trend, and one that is only recently manifesting itself in the media. What I am saying should become more apparent in the future. But look at how Nixon's lies were exposed, and compare it to Bush's lies today. Both conservative presidents, but one is getting a free ride now. It isn't in the best interests of the corporations to have dissatisfied consumers, so while you can add some bad news to stir up the mix now and then (and to maintain some media credibility), it's best when you can wave the flag instead.
If I am right this recent trend to buy up the media should manifiest itself more and more in the direction of corporate interests. That's not exactly a liberal versus conservative poltical trend, but a conservative business trend. Safer. Middle-of-the-road.
Time will tell.
Seeker,
I was going to add a couple of comments, but I see you have already replied.
At any rate, it was inaccurate for me to say without qualification that WTO opposition is a conservative cause. Globalization is opposed by a mixed bag. Conservatives fear that globalization will result in the U.S. one day surrendering its sovereignty to a world government that will not respect and uphold the freedoms Americans currently enjoy. With those on the far, far right (the Pat Buchanan isolationist crowd) this fear seems to approach the level of paranoia. As I’m sure you’re aware, on the other side of the political spectrum globalization is opposed just as violently by labor unions and environmental groups as well.
…..to me this is a new trend, and one that is only recently manifesting itself in the media. What I am saying should become more apparent in the future. But look at how Nixon's lies were exposed, and compare it to Bush's lies today. Both conservative presidents, but one is getting a free ride now.Do you remember during Bill Clinton’s first term when he officiated at the release of a captive eagle back into the wild? –how in search of the best camera angle, his handlers had him release the bird over an Osprey nesting ground where it didn’t even last for thirty seconds? The look on his face as the feathers slowly settled to the ground was priceless, yet the mainstream media for the most part spared him this embarrassment. Ditto for the time Al Gore, self-proclaimed expert on the environment got lost on a forty-minute nature trail. It was easy at the time to label this as “liberal bias,” (As arch-conservative Rush Limbaugh did) but perhaps it was just simply respect for the office of President and nothing more sinister.
As you point out, time will tell.
Respect for the office of the presidency may indeed come into play here, and thus it may not be the best example to watch for.
All I can say is that anyone that doesn't see liberal bias in the New York Times can't tell daylight from dark.
