Bill Moyers on What's Wrong With Our Media
By Nicole Belle Saturday Nov 03, 2007 1:40pm(guest blogged by Bill W.)
Download | play 
Download | play
Four years ago, without public input, the FCC rolled back 30 yr old rules that limited a single company's ability to be able to dominate local TV, newspaper and radio media markets. Thankfully, the rules changes triggered a massive public response and through legislation and lawsuit, they were defeated. Now FCC chair Kevin Martin is attempting to do it again by trying to push through a similar set of changes allowing further media consolidation as soon as December 18. This time, we needn't wait until we have been sandbagged. You can help by contacting Congress and the FCC now to stop Kevin Martin before he gets away with slipping this one by us.
Bill Moyers then goes one further and focuses on one glaring example of how our media is already failing us today:
Download | play Download | play
BILL MOYERS: It's important who owns the press, as we've just seen and heard...but it's also important who decides what is news.
Why wasn't it news last weekend when more than 100,000 people turned out in 11 cities across the country to protest the occupation of Iraq ... but if you blinked while watching the national news, you wouldn't have known it was a story? ...(transcript)
It's no wonder why groups like Code Pink must go to such lengths to make sure the overwhelming voice of public opinion against the war isn't ignored entirely. Thankfully we at least still have Bill Moyers to help make sure that doesn't happen. As always you can watch the full episodes on the PBS website.
Login or Register to post comments.
Yeah, the press sucks ass. But the media outlets are privately owned. They are not yours. If you don't like what they are doing, simply go somewhere else ... like blogs ... which are also privately owned and steer their own commentary and debate, as is their right to do. If you don't like what they are doing, continue to go somewhere else.
Quicktime "play" is not working and
windows media "play" only get's 1/8 of the way through and quits
I should add that this is a good post, and I lament the same issues as Moyer laments. I'd love to see a change toward substance. But it won't happen, sadly. I don't even know what a plausible solution would be anymore. Once the little guys grow, they become the big guys and start pulling the same shit.
Bill Moyers - Last Journalist Standing.
Also maybe a certain blog should turn that mirror towards itself when talking about protests to the American-Iraq War?
Peace
Bill Moyers: American Hero.
Carl Bernstein was on NPR this week. When asked what responsibility the MSM has in the legion of problems with bushco, he said none. He maintains they dug the dirt, it's out there, just need somebody to something with it.
I was under the impression that CLinton did this in 1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Am I wrong?
something's wrong with the video. windows media version is only playing the first two or three sentences.
[I'll let the powerful ones know-Sitemonitor]
Your "contact the FCC" link is to their old petition in 2003.
Here's the current link to the current campaign "Media Ownership Deja Vu":
http://tinyurl.com/2hhbz8
The democratic party should do as Hugo Chavez did. If they are going to continually fail to report the news, don't renew their license. Put a law on the books.
PurplePatriot @ 1:
But the airwaves belong to the PEOPLE. The conditions that the media outlets be granted FREE access (as in no monetary compensation to The People for their use) to the airwaves for decades meant that they had to serve the public. Now they are self-serving.
PurplePatriot @ 1:
The airwaves are publicly owned. They (Broadcasters) operate under licensing agreements that require them to serve the public interest. When they use MY airwaves, that argument doesn't stand up.
Ron @ 9:
The law is or was there. It's just not enforced. You know, when a station's license was to be up for renewal, they had to announce that and give addresses to write to either supporting or not supporting the renewal. I haven't seen that in some time.
miss_kitty @ 10:
I don't disagree with you. You miss my point if you think I'm defending the media. But, while the airwaves are free, the equipment, talent, travel budgets, etc. that it takes to run a competent news agency are not provided freely.
Right, they want to repeat some story about some little blond girl missing, or maybe Britney or any other of the Helium-heads over and over and over. But the real news goes un-noticed, we've all heard that they pressure the media to not react to certain items and the media is in bed with the Whitehouse. If you want the news you have to go to the overseas newspaper groups, people not paid by the US Corporate machine.
.
.
.
In addition to the Pentagon and the White House, Americans should be protesting en masse at media stations everywhere. The American corporate media is a cancer that is eating democracy in this country. Without informed citizens, the U.S. is doomed.
Why there are not MILLIONS protesting this fascist regime boggles the mind. I always think about a recent protest in Taiwan that I participated in where over 1 million marched in Taipei (peacefully). This massive protest took 1 month to organize after the "anti-secession" law was passed in China. They were concerned about the survival of their country and it's democracy. When are Americans going to have that same passion?
When are Americans going to start caring that their country is falling apart at the seams?
.
.
.
Like I told out resident kool aid drinking Dem ultra fan boy Pual in LA:
Protests don't matter because they will not be broadcast and the politicians will ignore them.
This ain't the 60's any more, they know how to defeat the protest machine now.
By ignoring it.
Harry R. Sohl @ 8:
The contact the FCC link is straight from their current page:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=192086
And I would never click a tinyurl, because I have no way of knowing where it's going. They serve a purpose on something like email which may break a link sometimes, and only then from a trusted friend, but they are stupid on a thread where you can just post any url.
STOP George @ 15:
Their too busy watching ball games or NasCar or WWF while munching on Fritos and drinking beer. America seems to be on the couch.
PurplePatriot @ 13:
But their agreement is that they serve the people in exchange for the access. I think it could be successfully argued that they (The Media) are, for the most part, in breach of contract, and that the body charged with enforcing the contract has abandoned its duties.
I will be with a group on Tuesday 11-6-07 in Union Square New York City at noon.
wearing red white and blue. This event will not be on the news. This is a General Strike to bring back our Constitution. We will be reading the Constitution and singing songs. I am getting in touch with all our local media to try and get them to cover this event. Wish me luck.
PurplePatriot @ 13:
And don't forget "our corporate sponsors".
Corporations are out of control, and have way to much influence now. They've devoured small business for the most part. American people are also to blame for their addiction to buying cheap and plentiful.
So now that this clip has gotten your attention, why not go straight to the site and watch Journal for the entire show?
You can enter your comments on their site too.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Disregard my above post. I haven't had my coffee. The tinyurl link I posted is the same as the "contact congress" link you posted. D'oh!
miss_kitty @ 10:
Is this also true for cable media outlets? Or just the four majors and PBS?
TAS anyone? Or will it be Pravda tonight?
People. It is time to wake from your slumber. You will not have freedom, liberty or justice until you all become protesters. Peaceful, unmasked protesters. It is your life. Take it back.
If there was ever a reason to support public broadcasting, this was it. Independent media is crucial in getting the full story.
This is what happens in a free (deregulated) market. Too much power gets in the hands of too few people. The internets is helping to counter this with the likes of C&L and media matters etc., but not nearly enough. The present state of corporate filtered news needs to be highly curtailed now before they getting even more rich and powerful.
The fourth estate is in collusion with the government in their bids for de facto deregulation. We are seeing hte rise of corporate lawlessness in this country.
This country is looking more an more like Stalin's SU.
Interesting given the number of self proclaimed "cold warriors" running things right now.
And all those rubes in the "red" states voting for it to occur. Well, I guess they are red after all eh?
Bob In Pai Thailand @ 26:
TV is like heroin. Most can't kick the habit anymore.
Ironically, it's really easy.
STOP George @ 15:
I like that Idea. Just last week I e-mailed the previous event organizers(Code Pink etal) with that idea. I've been to 6 demonstrations myself and I can't help but think what greater turnout there would be if very pop sites like this promoted such demos. Not say there have not been huge turnouts. On Sept 24th 2005 there were at least 200k of us in DC.
Peace.
Peace.
Here is a similar article about the same subject from FreePress.
I am one of the lucky ones, I have the internet to view CNBC the BBC and others. A large percentage of people don't have this luxury and therefore are completely blind and ignorant to whats going on.
miss_kitty @ 19:
Also, it would be easy for them to argue that they are indeed serving the people by pointing to their ratings. When they spend 40 minutes talking about Britney's vagina, they get 30x's the ratings of C-Span. I agree with what you are thinking, "But they aren't serving the people ..." The problem is who will decide what is serving the people? I don't want the assholes in charge of Washington now making that decision. So that would never work.
Maybe the media isn't entirely at fault. Maybe it's the apathetic, dumb citizenry.
Symes @ 29:
Indeed isn't it though?
Their fortunes are completely dependent upon oil and military spending.
L.A. Confidential @ 30:
You've got that right, my friend! I was a T.V. addict before this fascist regime took over and then I had an awakening of sorts.
There should be a movement of some kind to ween Americans of this scourge of corporate T.V.
.
.
.
PurplePatriot @ 34:
Exactly what it is... Extreme stupidity and Apathetic behavior.
STOP George @ 36:
PurplePatriot @ 1:
Please go see my blog page: http://www.purple-patriot.blogspot.com/
Haaa haaa haaa ... ohhh, I amuse myself. I'm such a blog escort.
.
.
.
Hmm... I guess you can't comment to yourself here (heh).
Here's what I tried to say above...
And you should have seen the angry comments I received from DKos members for proposing that Americans protest in T.V. studios similar to the way the 911 truth movement is doing it. God forbid that you disrupt the diet of American television! What will families do?! Actually talk to one another and….(gasp!)…think?!!
.
.
.
Moyers:
Yeah, more books from the likes of Tenet.
Sums it up perfectly...
STOP George @ 40:
Not surprised about DailyKOS. DLC all the way. A lot of people won't even move their lips /out their daily Diktat from DailyKos.
Peace.
PurplePatriot @ 34:
It's a catch 22 situation, really. The corporate media has greatly aided in the dumbing down of America and the American public (now ignorant) are unable to resist the mindless propaganda that is streamed to them every day. And when truly courageous and righteous groups like Code Pink and individuals like Dennis Kucinich get attention, they are viewed as "crazies" -- rather than true patriots. Going against the grain is a crime now. You must be a good German and conform.
.
.
.
I'm a non-believer, but every Friday night I thank god for Bill Moyers. He, like so few in the media, or in the world for that matter, is the model of integrity.
PurplePatriot @ 1:
Virtually every media source in this country, especially in red-state USA are owned by just 6 companies. We don't have much choice already, and the FCC isn't even letting on what changes Kevin Martin has in mind this time, but if it's like last time and they are going to allow a single company own a newspaper, radio and TV in a single market (not to mention also being the cable/internet provider who can choke off access to what websites you can visit unless they pass net-neutrality laws), especially the big companies that can afford to underbid advertising at a loss to kill off any competition, we'll all be getting our news straight from minitrue.
You might still have other choices in NYC and LA, but you won't in any of the red states, and that will be devastating to the Democrat's electoral chances permanently.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our media. Without stepping outside my house, I have access to hundreds of diverse thoughts, ideas and opinions on any political or social issue imaginable. Only a daily basis I can listen to over 60 liberal and conservative nationally syndicated radio talk shows. I can watch a dazzling array of at least a dozen TV news networks. At the click of a mouse I have instant access to scores of online newspapers and hundreds of politically diverse blogs, message boards and forums. Add to that the innumerable newsletters, magazines, periodicals and books that proliferate everywhere. The average American is drowning in a bewildering daily avalanche of information unprecedented in the entire history of mankind.
"I can watch a dazzling array of at least a dozen TV news networks."
Something about this statement doesn't feel quite right.
PurplePatriot @ 1:
THE PUBLIC owns the airwaves, dicklick.
The American media needs a Fairness Doctrine to balance the daily avalanche of Progressive nationally syndicated radio shows. Government legislation might be the only way to provide the public with enough conservative radio hosts to equalize the pervasive daily presence of Randi Rhodes, Tom Hartmann, Lionel, Alan Colmes, Ray Taliaferro, Bernie Ward, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy, Neil Rogers, The Young Turks, Mike Newcomb, Amy Goodman, Lizz Brown, Rachel Maddow, Ron Reagan Jr, Doug Basham, Jim Hightower, Bruce Burch, Jon Elliot, Duke Skorich, Peter Collins, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lynn Samuels, Christine Craft, Bev Smith, Michael Eric Dyson, Stacy Taylor, Lynn Cullen, Jay Marvin, Ron Kuby, Mark Levine...just to name a few.
mrogi @ 46:
Seven in 10 U.S. Adults Say They Watch Broadcast News at Least Several Times a Week
While there seems to be more outlets than ever for U.S. adults to get news, a new Harris Poll shows that majorities choose to get their news most frequently from broadcast mediums. Specifically, three-quarters (77%) of adults say they watch local broadcast news, and 71 percent say they watch network broadcast or cable news several times a week or daily. On the other hand, one in five (19%) U.S. adults say they listen to satellite news programming or read a national newspaper (18%) several times a week or daily.
These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,985 U.S. adults surveyed online between January 12 and 17, 2006 by Harris Interactive®.
----------------------
Most Americans aren't as rigorous as yourself when it comes to getting news and information on a daily basis. They rely on T.V. Broadcast news. And this news is decidedly bias towards the right and fails to question the government or system in any meaningful way.
.
.
.
I wish Bill Moyers was on every weekday. He's one of the best thinkers of our time
mrogi @ 49:
The elimination of the fairness doctrine wi
mrogi @ 49:
Conservative radio seems to be doing quite with the elimination of the fairness doctrine...
From Wikipedia:
.
.
.
Bill Moyers is always good.
Part of the reason there isn't more outrage is the internet. It's great to have the blogs (don't get me wrong), and access to news these "big 6" don't and won't cover, but action is also needed. Your country hangs in the balance right now. (Even Pappy Bush is crying for it???)
mrogi @ 46:
And almost all if not every one of those "60 liberal and conservative nationally syndicated radio talk shows" and every other newspaper and tv station are owned by just 6 companies. Your "diversity" is an illusion.
STOP George @ 15:
Americans are just stupid and lazy...this nation is like Rome before its collapse.....bread and circuses and keep the people occupied with trivialities so they don't see the barbarians looting the city....
If Americans could vote the issues by cellphone, and the vote had to be obeyed, would it help? (It seems to work for American Idol.)
@ #55 Grumpyoldvet
Americans are just stupid and lazy…this nation is like Rome before its collapse…..bread and circuses and keep the people occupied with trivialities so they don’t see the barbarians looting the city….
Yup!! "The nation" is nothing like the image of the nation everyone seems to hold so dear. That "fairy tale" has ended. "Norman Rockwell is dead."
Er, silly question here, but has anybody looked into Kevin Martin's financial records? This has all the hallmarks of a buy-off. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he jumped ship immediately after the changes are made to start a high-paying lobbying job for media companies. You know, exactly like what happened in the Medicare fiasco.
STOP George @ 15:
When the fat morons can no longer afford to drive to Wal Mart to buy beer and cheetos because gas costs 18$ a gallon.
Can someone link me to a reliable site for news sources outside the u s please. Thanks
Whaaa? @ 60:
Here's some to get you started...
Canadian:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
http://www.thestar.com/default
British:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/0,,,00.html?gusrc=gpd
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Whaaa? @ 60:
Within the U.S...
What's wrong with media?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH MEDIA?
They're the fourth branch of the blinkin' government!
That's what's wrong with the media, and all the cultural crap sold via it's domain that anesthetizes the sheeple.
Whaaa? @ 60:
Within the US...
I suggest www.DemocracyNow.org . (daily video streams and transcripts)
Vote for liberal site Sadly No! Here http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/funniest-blog-1.php
Help them beat the conservative site DUmmie FUnnies. You can vote once a day.
STOP George @ 62:
Whaaa? @ 60:
Al Jazeera English (streaming video):
http://europe.real.com/smil/aljazeera_us_lo.smil
(excellent in-depth programming!!)
We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
- Edward R. Murrow
Moyers, Olbermann, Stewart, and Colbert. The only news reporters I trust.
Remember when the Downing Street Memos came out years ago and the broadcast media went to 24/7 coverage of these documents which showed unequivocally that Bush lied the country into war? I bet you and your family were huddled around the TV listening to every detail being painstakingly analayzed by Brian Williams at NBC news?
How about all the media coverage when the Military Commissions Acts was passed and Habeas Corpus was eradicated? Remeber the indepth coverage from Katie Couric at CBS news?
I bet your enjoying the scintillating coverage of Net Neutrality issues by Charlie Gibson at ABC news. I'm so glad he's discussing this in advance of all the legislation so the voters will have an opportunity to weigh in. Imagine if most of the public had no idea Net Neutrality was at stake!
And I'd like to give a personal kudos to all the Public over-the-air news programs for their comprehensive coverage of Bush rescinding Posse Comitatus, Depleted Uranium being released from munitions in Iraq AND Bush's order NSPD-51 which allows him to declare martial law due to ANY circumstance he deems necessary.
Thank you news organizations for using our public airwaves to benefit the Public. You've done us all a great service!
***This post was 100% sarcastic!!
In the U.S. McClatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder)... They try hard and have comment forms (editable on an account page) on every article... Mild moderation.
I asked my co-workers if they ever heard about "net-neutrality". None of them did. We work at a business software company -- as software developers.
That's how extensive the media blackout is on the truth and issues that are important to the society that we live in.
.
.
.
STOP George @ 72:
It's obvious what needs to be done. We need to give these same media outlets the ability to own EVEN MORE MEDIA!
Rebuttal of Bill Moyers Summary (To see full Rebuttal click here):
First, consumer reporting is found almost exclusively within the corporate media structure. One of the few businesses ever attacked on PBS since its inception was Wal-Mart. Other than the famous Wal-Mart documentary, however, PBS rarely if ever informs the public about faulty products or fraudulent services.
But, everyday on local, regional and National broadcasting stations owned by Corporations, the public is informed about products that are unsafe or services that should be avoided. In fact, if you turn on your local news right now, owned by the corporate media, there is an amazing chance that you will be warned about a new product to avoid or a new corporate scam in the works. You will learn how to protect your family from “greedy corporations” just trying to steal your money.
Admittedly, you will never see Brian Williams attack General Motors, who owns NBC. But you may see Katie Couric do just that; she works for CBS. You will never see John Stossel attack Disney, who owns ABC. But, you certainly could see Bill O’Reilly complain that Disney was failing to protect children at their parks; he works for FOX. The fact that you will not see a journalist attack his or her boss is common sense, but it does not mean that he or she will not attack the competition.
Ironically, Big Corporations provide the most democratic form of media because it is always dictated by what the majority of people want to hear, read or experience. If the majority of people want to hear, read or experience a particular form of media, Corporations that produce high demand content will make a profit; that is their incentive.
Bill Moyers and PBS, however, are just the opposite. PBS uses tax dollars to bring programming to the public that they may or may not want. In actuality, it forces people to pay for services that they may dislike. Notably, PBS is also skewed to upper demographics, meaning that the entire public is taxed to pay for programming that is watched overwhelmingly by the wealthy. This makes it the most regressive and anti-democratic form of media. This form of media is certainly not being used for the public good.
There are many things wrong with the mainstream media. The single most important thing of all is that it is controlled by the state.
We as regular Americans do not hear the real news, we hear what they want us to hear. It is not freedom of choice in action, it is listen to us, or side with "the enemy" instead.
Thank heavens there is still the internet, where ideas are NOT crushed by insane half-human primitives. Thank heavens that it is a place where ideas can freely flow and there is absolutely no limit to what we can find out. All it takes is one person on the Earth with an idea, a video, a song, whatever, as well as an internet connection, and the world can see it. This is how we found out about EVERY SINGLE things that has happened in the White House since 2000. All of it started on the internet FIRST, then it was "picked up" by the MSM when they were forced to show it or else give the whole jig up and let the whole cat out of the bag.
I think without the internet, we would be living under full fledged socialism right now.
Speaking of the failure of the MSM, has anyone heard that members of the IPCC are starting to speak out on its political bias?
http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=htt...
One PhD dude on the panel states that the whole global warming thing is a farce. Check it out!
gumpyoldvet @ 55:
Idiotland @ 59:
I think you sell your countrymen short. We are all getting poorer, faster (outside of the 0.001%), of course. We are working harder, in MORE jobs simultaneously, and still are losing our healthcare -- our HOUSES -- at an ever faster rate. A dollar buys LESS of the consumables we need now, than ever before (at least, since the depression when we started tracking such things). What a wonderful luxury NOT to be FORCED to buy the cheapest necessity. You apparently have this luxury, yet look at how you act.
And what would you have them do? Stop their jobs so they can wander around with little protest signs in a carefully cordoned "protest zone" and let their children starve? Stop working 3 jobs to forfeit their children's future in education? Do you have any idea how LITTLE free time this mythical "average" American has? There is a reason that, despite all of the problems with our country currently, our productivity is legendary. Even as the real value of our wage sinks like a rock. This "average" American simply doesn't have time to ferret out the threads of truth woven into the vast body of media lies that surround them everyday, in every vehicle, room, and workplace. Of course, you could engage them and understand them... help them to understand you... but then, that sounds like work, doesn't it?
I'm SO tired (not upset. physically exhausted) of this blame shoved onto the shoulders of the poor. Perhaps in disagreeing with this administration you could reach out rather than putting down. Perhaps you could share your knowledge and passion, since you have the free time, with the 60% that are too disgusted to participate in elections. Or is it easier to sit in your comfortable chair, surfing the internet and throwing rocks? The only thing that always surprises me more than people constantly accusing the Democrats, the party of socialist ideas, of "elitism" is those always willing to step up and prove that there really are loud elitists there to drive away those that need social support the most.
So what would you have them do? You got your Democratic House and Senate. You're welcome, by the way. So why are you still bitching at the rest of poor America? What are they, then to do for you next? The next election is MORE THAN A YEAR away.
I think Americans, almost every one, are very concerned about their country already. Whether they shop at Walmart, or drink beer is hardly the issue. How would you have them direct that concern? Why? And how are YOU going to help them? Those are the issues.
This is what Bill Moyers knows. That is why he finds them. He talks as equals to them. He shows them the problems, the lies, and the corruption. It is why he speaks of the way thinks could be, should be, and sometimes were. This is useful. Your distain for these people -- your people, really -- is not.
Perhaps in a perfect world, the cheerleading of Katie Couric would be out at mainstream news sources like CBS, and Bill Moyers would be in, but then I don't live in a perfect world. And neither do you.
If you want change in the world, live that change. If you want the ear of those disconnected from the process, seek them out. If you want people to follow your ideas about saving this democracy, talk to them as rational equals, and plead your case, rather than spitting on them. Honestly, it would be a lot more effective.
Delivering information that the public "likes" or finds "palatable" is not what a good journalist does. Especially if the society is indoctrinated the way the American public is right now.
These members of the Fourth Estate are working as a watchdog for the public. Not as "entertainers". Bringing the public what they "may or may not want" is what a responsible journalist should strive for.
Moyers viewers are the "wealthy"?!! LOL! Do you have stats to back that up? What a bunch of bunk! Moyer's analyses is certainly not geared for "the elite" in society. It is there for the average American to digest and to think about. This kind of journalistic quality is extremely rare in the American corporate world of news. And "Democracy" depends on it's citizens being able to think and to be knowlegable -- not on it's citizens being entertained and ignorant.
.
.
.
#74 Devil...Admittedly, you will never see Brian Williams attack General Motors, who owns NBC. But you may see Katie Couric do just that; she works for CBS. You will never see John Stossel attack Disney, who owns ABC. But, you certainly could see Bill O’Reilly complain that Disney was failing to protect children at their parks; he works for FOX. The fact that you will not see a journalist attack his or her boss is common sense, but it does not mean that he or she will not attack the competition.
They all marched us into war with Iraq! They're all marching us into war with Iran!
Where has their reporting been on the Telecom Amnesty mandated in the Senate FISA bill? Could it be because AT&T and Verizon advertise heavily on ALL their stations? What about some coverage on the huge profits being made by Defense Contractors? That'll never happen because they run millions of dollars of advertising on ALL their stations too.
Just really take a moment and think about how truly powerful the media is. If we had a genuine 4th estate there'd be NO WAR in Iraq....1.2 MILLION IRAQIS and 4,000 US Soldiers would NOT BE DEAD. And 2 trillion of our tax dollars wouldn't have been tossed down the sh*tter.
Devil's Advocate @ 74:
The mainstream media isn't actually democratic though. They don't mention Ayn Rand nearly enough.
STOP George @ 77:
Moyers form of journalism is undemocratic though. He doesn't mention Ayn Rand nearly enough.
double post :)
don't hate me @ 70:
Devil's Advocate @ 74:
Yes, you are right...big corporations DO provide the most democratic form of news in that it provides people with what they want to hear, read and experience. This is true in a free market. But you never mentioned the possibility that the mainstream media in 2001-2007 is NOT an example of free market media in action.
Observe.
The media is completely and utterly free to show what they want, provided the viewers watch it. If the viewers watch it, it will continue. But you have made a critical error in your reasoning.
You forgot to separate free market theory with actually occurring market phenomena.
GE owns NBC. GE is also one of the biggest military contractors. That means that a large chunk of GE's revenue is NOT derived from satisfying consumer demand. It is derived from taxes, which I am sure you will agree, is theft. Thus, GE can MORE afford to have NBC NOT completely satisfy consumer demand, because the losses they experience in NBC by showing propaganda which benefits the very same people who pay them for the contracting and not the viewer, are counterbalanced by the higher-than-market revenues they receive from government when they buy military equipment from GE. You cannot expect NBC to say anything bad about the military industrial complex. Thus, NBC has an incentive to NOT report all the news if it has anything to do with military contracting.
So you see, while your arguments make sense in a free market, you cannot fault the critics of mainstream media in reality, for in reality, the mainstream media is NOT exactly performing service that maximizes consumer demand. They are definitely and without question compromised by entangling themselves with the government, and thus it is completely understandable that free markets are not in action when it comes to the media.
This is actually exactly how fascist regimes come into effect. See, it may appear on paper that all the corporations are owned privately (by corporations or whoever), but the substantive powers of CONTROL are exercised by government. It is government that ultimately determines what gets shown on the news. That is why all the government had to do was ORDER the mainstream media to not show the caskets of returning US soldiers coming back from Iraq. The mainstream news is banned from doing so.
If the government can order the media to do such a thing, then if the viewers want to see those caskets, then doesn't it stand to reason that free markets are NOT in effect, and that government is actually the ones in control?
While I admire any free market intellectual like yourself, I think it is actually MORE harmful if you play the free market card in theory (where you are correct), to practice (where you are not correct).
I do agree with your public TV comment. Public TV is no better. But if I had to choose between fascist programming or public television, I would choose the internet.
"…but it’s also important who decides what is news."
The fact that no one ever criticizes Israel on tv makes this this statement obnoxiously true.
STOP George @ 72:
Now ask the same people if they heard of the famous Edwards Haircut incident. Stay away from any gun when you do so...
Devil's Advocate @ 74:
"Ironically, Big Corporations provide the most democratic form of media because it is always dictated by what the majority of people want to hear, read or experience. If the majority of people want to hear, read or experience a particular form of media, Corporations that produce high demand content will make a profit; that is their incentive."
Yes that is their incentive. But profits are a function of revenues. GE, for example, not only owns NBC, but is also one of the biggest military contractors for the US government. That means, they receive higher than market revenues for selling shit to the state. Along with this, they have a higher than market rate of profit, meaning they can provide less and less service to their customers, and in their subsidiary's case, NBC, the viewers interests are sacrificed.
This is because GE has an incentive not only to provide service to its viewer customers, but ALL of its customers, which includes the government. As such, the more revenue they derive from the government (GE makes billions this way, far more than advertising, which is the indirect way of earning revenues from viewership), the LESS incentive they have in providing viewers with what they want.
The mainstream media is directed at the highest levels by the government. It is not a free market in action. Remember when all the government had to a few years back was tell the mainstream media to NOT show videos of soldiers returning in caskets from Iraq? The government ordered the media around, and they complied. For GE is not about to sacrifice government revenues if they go against the very same people that are causing the caskets in the first place.
While I admire anyone who is a free market intellectual, I think it is terribly irresponsible to be blinded by what is actually happening, rather than what could happen in theory.
This is exactly how fascism comes into effect. More and more privately owned companies come under the sway of government, and so even though there are nominal private owners, the substantive powers of control rest with the state. Our country's media is NOT a free market media, for it is heavily regulated for one thing, and compromised in the ways I just mentioned as well.
If you want to be all about free markets, all the power to you, but please observe reality and then admit that what you said is not happening. That would be a whole lot more productive.
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 we have witnessed an explosion of diverse political talk shows on radio and television. Prior to 1996, Progressive talk radio was virtually non existent. Today, at least 30 nationally syndicated liberal radio talk shows are broadcast daily. Progressive ideas from the political left have never had wider exposure in the mass media. Things are great and getter better.
If you are not listening to NPR or watching PBS, you are being kept ignorant.
That is the reality of America.
Air America Radio is devoted to the dissemination of Truth from a Progressive perspective. There is more incisive journalism and commentary in a single broadcast day on Air America than a whole week of programming on NPR & PBS combined.
Wag @ 85:
I was about to ask you to quit using the name of my friend, Wag. What lead me to believe you weren't him was the fact that the word socialism made zero appearances in this post.
But then I saw the plea to observe reality, and the smug, patronizing tone. Yep, it's you. How you doin' ol buddy?
As usual, you make some good points. But you get a D- for delivery. But don't go changin'. You're great just the way you are.
Wag @ 85:
One more thing ... can you start using the block quotes so I can more easily tell where your comment starts?
don't hate me @ 78:
Look, the media was not privileged to the intelligence information. They didn't have information about Iraq that contradicted Powell's statement to the UN. They reported what the World thought. The world was wrong; the democrats who voted for the war were wrong. The structure of the media could not have fixed that.
mrogi @ 88:
So you are supporting Corporate owned, not collective, media. Air America can only stay in existence if it makes profit and provides what you want. If they don't provide what the people want. It will fail.
mrogi @ 88:
Although I am a big fan of Air America, and believe Thom Hartman is one of the most intelligent hosts on the air today,
it is primarily opinion radio.
Straight news is delivered without opinion.
mrogi @ 86:
Glad to see some intellectual honesty from the left. It is really appreciated.
PurplePatriot @ 89:
Uh thanks...I like some of your comments too. And I'll use blocks from now on.
mrogi @ 88:
It isn't all truth, it is invective and incitement.
Personally, I'd easily trade whatever "progressive talk radio" those here are talking about for a return to media ownership regulation and diversification, and mainstream news that isn't an emulation of Rupert Murdoch's right-wing neocon mouthpiece, Fox News. That means CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc. And a return to a PBS and NPR that are beholden to the public interest alone, and not concessionary to the incredibly flawed idea of "exactly equal time and equal promotion of two opposite sides of any situation".
Right propaganda + Left propaganda ≠ Truth
Good journalism can never be free of some bias, but it CAN contain integrity. That is was we need to get back. A bias in the interest of the people in whose nation you live, and in whose interest you report, is entirely acceptable. The complete lack of integrity in not only story selection, but story spin in all main media outlets is unacceptable. Pandering solely to hidden power brokers or to a cut-throat oligarchy is NOT acceptable. Fellating the few in power to further one's own career, and obtain access to the halls of power for personal gain, at the expense of one's duty to inform the public is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The idea of matching biases is misleading, I think. The fundamental problem is a simple one of honesty.
Wag @ 85:
1) Keith Olbermann is paid by NBC, which is owned by GE.
2) At the time the war began, the majority of America supported the War; times have changed. The American people don't want to see their soldiers coming home in body bags. They shouldn't be forced to see that by you using their tax dollars. They can be told about the death toll without being demoralized. Your goal is to demoralize, and if that is the case, don't expect people to watch it.
Matt @ 80:
Yes, the viewers who watch PBS are skewed to the wealthiest demographic.
Devil's Advocate @ 91:
Yes, I would say part of that is true. The media did not have the required information to make a sound judgement. But why should it be that they immediately sided with the war-drummers rather than with the thousands of protesters who asked questions before the war started? The media ignored them as kooks, because to give too much credence to the protesters would sacrifice the media journalists' chances of gaining access to the White House, which is where the REAL tomales apparently are.
I think it is PERFECTLY logical to blame both the media AND the government. The media has been caught many many many times outright LYING. It wasn't all about not knowing the whole truth and thus take a more humble approach and just report what others reported. No, the mainstream media ent OUT OF THEIR WAY to lie about the facts, and report favorable news reports that didn't make the powers that be look bad. The mainstream media were fed reports from the White House, and they never asked any questions.
Now I don't know about you, but if I acted like the mainstream media acted in the run up to the war, I would be fired from my job so fast my head would spin. Because most jobs want people to THINK!
Ya, what a concept. Too bad that the media is too little too late. You cannot seriously claim that Fox News had information asymmetry with the government. Fox News is run by the government. The proof of this was when Tony Snow on Fox called CBS (or NBC not sure), the "competition".
Devil's Advocate @ 91:
So what?! Neither was their hard information that supported the claims of the administration. In fact, there were MAIN informed detractors to the opposite. The fact that we could not get the UN behind us testifies to this fact! Their case was unproven, yet was printed verbatim, with full endorsement of those media outlets, in the run up to the war.
The medias role is not to uncritically parrot press releases from the White House. If that is how they view their function, the it should be simple to someone as intelligent as yourself that they are then, in fact, completely redundant and unnecessary. Why not just publish one paper, "American Government Truth Daily" containing all the PR statements the government wishes the public to accept and call it a day?
ANY reasoned analysis and investigation turned up flaws in their argument, well before the war. This is not to mention that there WERE leaks from the CIA, or at least very credible former CIA analysts that were SCREAMING as loud as they could that they smelled something rotten. They were ignored by an "independent" press whose sole existence is to inform the public. Whose interest is supposed to be with the public.
And the public was let down. This WAS a problem with the current structure of the media. If you want to argue Devils Advocate you'll have to do better than that. Perhaps in what way the media failed to perform its role, whether consolidation played a big part, etc.
But fail they certainly did.
"media outlets are privately owned"
ah, but the airwaves they broadcast on are 'our commons' and they used to 'have to' provide news and other non-profit services in exchange for their license to use 'our' commons ...
Devil's Advocate @ 91:
Pure bunk and revisionist history.
The world DID NOT believe Hussein was an imminent threat.
The UN inspectors were reporting that much progress was being made with the dismantling of missles in Iraq. The world media WAS reporting that there was NO evidence to the mythology that Colin Powell was creating during that booga-booga speech he made to the UN. Millions upon millions around the world held up signs screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL".
The world was NOT wrong in it's skepticism. The American media, however, were pushing stories based on intelligence sources called "curveball". Indeed, the American corporate media completely disregarded any sense of skepticism when there was much evidence leading one to believe that the fear the American government was generating was not genuine in the least.
It was a total failure of the American corporate media to do its job.
.
.
.
Devil's Advocate @ 91:
Um, how come I knew the "fix" was in? Was it because I listened to what the UN weapons inspectors said? Was it because Bush threw the weapons inspectors out after it was clear there were to WMD to be found? Maybe something Scott Ritter said? How come I knew Colin Powell's presentation was a joke? Wasn't he holding up CARTOON pictures? Funny, some media had it right, like Knight Ridder. Perhaps the people you know, or the media you listen too had it wrong because it was to their financial/tax/deregulatory advantage to get it wrong. Or they couldn't see an obvious scam. Didn't 25 Senators vote against authorizing the Iraq war because they didn't buy any of this horsesh*t?
http://www.radioopensource.org/knight-ridder-on-getting-it-right/
Devil's Advocate @ 97:
Devil's Advocate @ 97:
1) Keith Olbermann is paid by NBC, which is owned by GE.
2) At the time the war began, the majority of America supported the War; times have changed. The American people don't want to see their soldiers coming home in body bags. They shouldn't be forced to see that by you using their tax dollars. They can be told about the death toll without being demoralized. Your goal is to demoralize, and if that is the case, don't expect people to watch it.
You see, the problem is those aren't "Devil's Advocate" arguments. You are not faithfully arguing the opposing point of view, on the war, you are rationalizing immoral acts.
1) Irrelevant, especially in the prelude to war (during which, I believe Mr. Olbermann was unemployed, or a sportscaster). A distraction that means nothing in relation to the selling of the Iraq war.
2) "At the time the war began, the majority of America supported the War; times have changed. "
Again what does this matter? The media does not get special protection under the law because they only report what is popular. Again, they are to disseminate information and analysis that may be in the public interest, not blindly promote a certain position (without supporting evidence) in hopes to obtain favored status from the Presidency, and therefore better profit.
"The American people don't want to see their soldiers coming home in body bags. "
I personally believe that to be false, and you cannot prove it true. It is, simply, a lie. Or an ill informed opinion at best. I think the Americans that gave their lives in service to their country deserve recognition in image form as well as words. This country is not strengthened by ignoring their sacrifice. We have a long tradition of viewing and honoring the dead, rather than dismissing them.
"They shouldn't be forced to see that by you using their tax dollars."
Nobody's tax dollars pay for AP photographers. You are mistaken again.
"They can be told about the death toll without being demoralized. Your goal is to demoralize, and if that is the case, don't expect people to watch it."
Ah. Now we come to the heart of your position. You see, reporting reality doesn't inherit the motivation to "demoralize". A free press does not avoid obituaries in order to promote "good moral" at the expense of basic truths. People die. It is newsworthy, and of import to the people of the United States, be the oversees deaths or domestic, to know the details of these deaths. You would have them act out a macbre play wherein the dead's faces are painted, and they are animated as puppets... as though that is the same as life.
What you are attempting (and suggesting is the duty of the press) is to "moralize" the war. Sanitize and package. Wrap it in pleasing untruths with the goal of changing public perception, and hence opinion.
That is the dishonest that I mentioned in the post above. That is lying. And the is inarguably what happened to deceive the American people about that war, and the ensuing occupation. It is propaganda alone.
I have full faith that if the American people were not lied to, and if the international community were not manipulated and insulted at EVERY turn, we could easily be convinced to stick it out until there was a more stable generation. Instead the lies and coverups begat MASSIVE fraud and abuse of the reconstruction. These lies were the seeds by which sectarian violence arose -- UNCHECKED -- because the reporting of it was suppressed. This is why there is STILL no clean water, no electricity, no hope for so many there just trying to live life between explosions and rifle fire.
Attempting to "moralize" or "sanitize" a truth becomes collusion to deceit. Take the picture, write the story, publish. The people can see, and read. The White House is still welcome to publish propaganda through their own PR agency, of course.
Devil's Advocate @ 91:
Remember this little nugget, Devil's Advocate?
UK war dossier a sham, say experts
That was discovered in February, 2003 -- 1 month prior to the invasion. This same plagiarized University student's report on Iraq's WMDs was called, "A fine piece of paper" by Colin Powell in his booga-booga UN speech, BTW.
.
.
.
Devil's Advocate @ 98:
I am involved with our local PBS station and that would not be my experience but detractors like to portray PBS as some sort of elitist club. Wrong. Most people I know that watch PBS tune in because they are sick of the freak show atmosphere that permeates other networks. I'll take Moyers, American Experience, and Frontline anytime before anything else offered elsewhere.
Hmm. blockquote failed me. My above post begins with a quote. My response begins with:
"You see, the problem..."
bmw 528 @ 107:
This "elitist" label is as laughable as that myth that the corporate media is "liberal".
But say it enough times -- and people start believing it. As Bush says, "Ya gotta catapult that propaganda".
.
.
.
"company’s ability to be able to dominate local TV, newspaper and radio media markets."
the talk radio monopoly with it's uncontested repetition to 50 - 70 MIL americans determines what is and what isn't acceptable in media. it does the groundwork for the GOP propaganda machine. it gives the lazy media a giant bandwagon of talking points and one liners that would be seen as irrational or lies without that widespread repetition earlier in the day or week all over the country.
until progressives realize talk radio is what gives this insane small minority their power they will continue to play politics without a front line.
I think my overall interest in TV waned dramatically when it started to seem like content development was less reflective of normal and talented people connecting with the country. I always liked quality TV growing up, but it's so scant now that it is not hard at all ignoring a grand majority of it. And I'm tired of major news doing everything in its power to look like a summer Wesley Snipes blow-up movie trailer every minute of the day... Is it too much to ask to get Americans to take something seriously? Do we really need shiny pretty objects in our faces all the time in order for something to be worth noticing?
Devil's Advocate @ 74:
Before you post any more half assed garbage again, you should do a little fact checking. The vast majority of PBS funding comes from individual donors and corporate sponsors, not the government. PBS is also not an elitist club as you imply in your last paragraph. Most donors and viewers are average americans with average incomes.
And your defense of the MSM is way short on facts and frankly, ridiculous. Need proof? Try this:
www.mediamatters.org
You obviously don't watch PBS or you would know what the hell you were talking about. Instead, you post your libertarian bullshit which is actually a self centered philosophy saying I want to keep my money for selfish purposes instead of raising public consciousness or contributing to the public good. All about you, you know?
Next time, stop confusing your opinion with fact and maybe you will have a point of view worth respecting.
Andre @ 111:
As much as I despise what Devil's Advocate thinks is "acceptable" with the corporate media -- he / she is right.
American news is "entertainment" like never before. Pure and simple. And it's "Hollywood" entertainment, where Americans are always supposed to look good.
.
.
.
STOP George @ 109:
Of course, the Buscovite Junta tried several times to severely cut back funding for PBS and NPR and it failed every time. Locally and nationally there was a groundswell of bipartisan support to defeat the bill that was heard in Washington and was instrumental in defeating the two efforts the Republiborg Collective made to silence a media outlet that did not agree with them. The CEO of our PBS station went on the air to encourage local support for same---and it worked.
Show me somebody who complains about today's mass media and I'll show you a person with no historical perspective. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst sent a standard for putrid yellow journalism that no current American news organization could ever hope to match.
mrogi @ 116:
Two wrongs don't make it right.
mrogi @ 116:
Hmm...nice straw man, mrogi!
The fact is, today's American corporate media has succeeded to continue to turn the American masses into ignorant patriotic robots. The internet is a very bright light at the end of this dark tunnel. But net neutrality is also being threatened vigorously -- something that is never discussed in the corporate media.
.
.
.
Two wrongs don't make a right; but a left followed by a right is a knockout combination...if you know how to fight.
PurplePatriot @ 1:
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Your answer is "They are allowed to lie, you don't have to listen."
Man I bet the Jesuits really loved people like you who do their work for them.
"Go to sleep everyone, ignore the murder we are covering up, the pedophelia we are covering up, the warprofitteering we are covering up, the warcrimes we are covering up, the lie upon lies that show you that millions and millions of americasn think JUST LIKE YOU but you are not allowed to know you are in the majority."
If you do not fight the system which says that Rich people can lie with impunity, you deserve the country you get.
Show me an individual in America who is an ignorant mind numbed robot, and I'll show you an individual who is mired in that condition by choice. I'll give my life savings to anybody in this forum who can't find in depth investigate news reports on the most important political, social and economic issues of our time.
mrogi @ 116:
So the coverage of the Spanish War (which I really don't think defines either man alone) is the model for us to use for the future? I think the run up to the Iraq war similar, but far worse.
It is because of historical perspective that we know the directions we DON'T want to move in. Most of us in this country don't want more corruption, we want less. I would turn your statement around, "If more Americans had a sense of history in journalism, they would have an idea just how dangerous and destructive the abuse of journalism can be."
I also completely disagree that the amount of power abused daily by Rupert Murdoch and his media empire somehow pales in comparison to that of Joseph Pulitzer. You are simply wrong there. Not to mention all the supermarket tabloids that have inherited and expanded the role of "yellow journalism" in public life. At least Pulitzer admitted his mistake, and soon corrected the paper and established rewards for more appropriate behavior.
The "gilded age" was not a golden era, and I'd rather not recreate it's problems today, just as I'd prefer Dick Cheney to not restore a monarchy in America. Looks like I don't really have a choice, though...
STOP George @ 114:
Turning off your TV is wise.
Think of it. You are paying a company to provide corporate propoganda and cia sponsored propoganda right to your eyes every minute of every day. YOU PAY for it.
Hitler or "Big Brother" could not have asked for anything more amazing than you guys PAYING for your own Propoganda Wall TV's. But you do. You thought they were supplied by the state in Farinheit 451 and 1984 or Equilibrium? Nope, apparently really duped people actually purchase their own mind-control devices...
Turn off your TV for 2 weeks and turn it on and realize how completely brainwashed you were...
Neil @ 123:
I absolutely agree.
I have been cable-free for 2.5 years.
But I remember a time when I thought that people were over-reacting to the evil's of the boob-tube. Many of my friends look at me strangely when I ask them if they can see the blatant propaganda in shows such as "24". I've even sent them articles of how right-wing the creators of this show are. You know what their response is? Oh, it's just a T.V. show.
Just a T.V. show.
That's how insidious it is! People accept this blatant de-sensitizing propaganda as harmless fun. And then we wonder why there's no fucking outrage when the U.S. is proven to have a policy of torture.
As I said before, there needs to be a movement against this device -- especially now that we have a much much better alternative with the internet.
.
.
.
Neil @ 120:
While I agree that what PurplePatriot says is morally wrong, I'd like to point out that they are FACTUALLY WRONG as well.
Main media outlets that operate on the airwaves (TV or radio) ARE licensed by the public. As such they are beholden to public interest and are supposedly regulated, even as to content. They are even required to maintain a certain number of educational programs (a rule which is almost always thwarted, of course, to sell more products). It isn't "just like the internet", sorry. The penalty for non-compliance, or lying about their programming (selling "entertainment" as "news" or showing "informercials" as "educational") are supposed to result in permanent loss of the PUBLIC license to broadcast into the public space.
Media deregulation has hindered this effort, as has corporate lobbying groups for the MSM. But with any luck, the FCC may finally reinstitute SOME oversight, and have hearings every 3 years to determine if these radio or TV mono- or duo-opolies DO, in fact, serve the public interest. If they cannot prove that they do, someone else my have their license.
So no. Not just like the internet. We'll have to see how extended cable and satellite channels turn out, but so far these outlets may prove their own undoing just by failing to even broadcast sports properly.
There are some restrictions for newspaper ownership and production as well, but I'm sure you can find those if you wish on teh intarwebs...
But to those down on ANY TV at all, well, really? I think the problem is "bundling". Just like the "bundling" that lost Apple's iTunes a media deal. The practice of force feeding you a bucket of cowshit before allowing you a glass of water. I'm not a big fan. So why can't I have and just pay for the History Channel, PBS, Discovery/TLC, Fox Sports, Military Channel, Current, and Comedy Central? Just that, in HD. Not paying for or subsidizing anyone else.
The answer is because then they couldn't shove the cowshit down my throat anymore. Really, I can't think of any other rational. So iTunes, TPB, and Bittorrent live on... such fools running the show...
mrogi @ 121:
By choice?
Television is now a CULTURAL addiction. It enforces conformity and discourages a fresh viewpoint. It enhances stereotypes and diminishes the attention-span. It is an integral part of the American culture. And it does so in the most insidious way. Why investigate something when everyone else agrees with you?
You severely underestimate the power of this medium.
.
.
.
Neil @ 120:
Easy with the righteous indignation toward me. If you followed the comments from thread to thread, you would have picked up on my underlying point. I can't make the point explicitly, because I'm not well liked here. If you read more than just one post of mine, you would see that.
That said, I don't necessarily blame you for missing my point and not understanding the context since it is not evident. But my post was not directed at the occasional reader of the comments. It was directed at those who may have come to understand me over time.
So the fact that you find it 'the dumbest thing you've ever heard' actually helps make my point. You just aren't in on what my point is.
Site Monitor: Unfortunately, we are in on your point. You're soooooooooooooo clever, Purple Patriot. Want to keep it up? It won't turn out well for you here.
Neil @ 123:
TV is one of my bastions of sanity. I love watching documentaries and comedies. If I turn off the TV, I'll spend more time doing shit like this ... which is slowly turning me into a sociopath.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 125:
I like that. And you, understandably, took my original post at face value. It has a hidden meaning that, admittedly, most won't get.
PurplePatriot @ 128:
Funny... I began having the same feeling when I was watching the bantering between the anchors on the local newscast.
It's sooooo nice to be able to fast forward through that crap now with the streaming video. :>)
.
.
.
STOP George @ 130:
Good point. I probably would shitcan my TV if not for TiVo. And I don't watch local news ... yech.
You don't need any more evidence than the second video to prove how our media is failing us today. They don't show the coffins. They don't show the wounded. They don't show any of the reality of war. And don't show the protests against it.
They are still shilling for Bushco just as much as they were in the mislead up to the initial invasion.
PurplePatriot @ 127: Site Monitor: Unfortunately, we are in on your point. You're soooooooooooooo clever, Purple Patriot. Want to keep it up? It won't turn out well for you here.
I'm not trying to be clever. Do what you think you need to do. I'm not going to be afraid of George W. Bush calling me unpatriotic. Nor will I be afraid of some bloggers, who take themselves a little too seriously, kicking me off of their site while calling the same behavior by other media outlets unacceptable. (Shut up!! Cut his mike!!)
I like this site. But like I said earlier, it's about the comments. That's what makes this site interesting. Nicole is the only contributor I've ever even seen acknowledge that the commenters are a value-added part of this site. A couple of nights ago she at least mentioned us and appreciated our diversity. The rest of you seem to treat us like a nuisance ... the ones who aren't sycophantic lapdogs that is. My God, go back and look at moderator comments, not just to me. They almost always provoke conflict and use threatening language. Yeah, I get it. We commenters can go fuck ourselves because this site doesn't need us. It is a wildly successful site that will do just fine without us. I get it. That's a sad, shitty way to run the joint. But I get it. You're going to run the joint however you want. I get it.
I respect what John Amato has done here; and despite what over-reacting moderators think from time to time, I've never done anything to undermine his success. Hell, I agree with 90% of the posts on this site. But if he decides my comments are a threat to his site's survival, he's free to kick me out. He'd be delusional to think so. But like I said, do what you think you have to. You'd probably be doing me a favor since I am admittedly a little addicted to this.
"Want to keep it up? It won't turn out well for you here." For crying out loud, I hope you don't actually take yourselves that seriously. I hope that's at least a little tongue-in-cheek. If not, I've got news for you ... no matter what, it won't turn out bad either. You're not quite as powerful as you may pretend to be. You're like a mall cop who walks around the mall like a badass threatening twelve year olds who are acting goofy. Get over yourself.
I realize you won't be able to help yourself from weilding the almighty sword of banning on me. But nonetheless, I like what John has done here. His moderators are a little full of themselves sometimes. But I like what he's done here. Keep up the good fight against the right wing!
Peace.
PurplePatriot @ 129:
I noticed it only when another quoted it. Too much distraction on my end, I suppose. Looking back it seems that they quoted you in full, however.
Why hide meaning? What does that accomplish? It isn't some veiled petty comment on C&L somehow being "authoritarian", is it? Because that is just... well a little silly...
They can be a little [comment deleted - play nice. Spitemonitor]
but it seems to me if you patiently make a point that has merit, it will persist, even if slightly tangential or against the main opinion of the group. Which reminds me:
STOP George @ 126:
Well to hold ANY republic together there must be SOME common touchstones and shared cultural references. I'd prefer these to be more meaningful than an episode of "Friends" or whatever as well, but the need is still there. Learning something shared, in common with others hardly means that you must give up your own culture (unless, somehow your "culture" demands illegal and abhorrent things like assassination or enslavement of women).
Television IS powerful -- moreso because it is a 'push' medium, sure. But I don't think it is inherently evil, it is just a medium. The answer to my thinking is to open access, rather than "burn the book".
Most of us acknowledge its power, but would choose to use that power for good. In fact, I am often amazed when discovering new outlets like Link TV, or that my family that lives thousands of miles away happened to catch the same excellent Bill Moyers interview on Presidential powers and can then have an amazing conversation based on that "shared" experience.
The medium is far more useful than you give credit, I think, than simply spreading stereotypes. I would even say that some of what would now be considered banal and offensive sitcoms about race in the 70s and 80s nonetheless helped prepare for an integrated America. We still have work to do, and Gary Coleman (or the producers of that ridiculous show) may never win the peace prize, but those images enforced a sense of integration in society as (eventually) normal. But the sum total of it, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, the Cosby Show, etc. definitely had a net positive impact on rural "white" America in terms of introducing racial diversity to children that might not otherwise be exposed AT ALL. I think this outweighs any stereotypes they might have been perpetuated (or the just horrible writing and laugh tracks). What would happen if all media was only like the internet at that time, and people only associated with "their own kind" as they seem to do politically? I'm not positive, but there might be something lost there that the shared experience of push TV provides.
Dom Imus babbling about "nappy-headed hos" or Clearchannel ONLY allowing demeaning gangsta rap to portray the black community... these of course, are problems. But you may want to look at how far we've come before just throwing away tools like broadcast TV for others to have and pervert. I think it would be better to fight for them. As you say, they are powerful tools indeed.
(Ironically, I haven't had any TV or radio for many, many years, outside of 2 years of satellite in 2004-05 which I didn't pay for. Hey, it introduced me to the Daily Show, Colbert, Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, and the return of sanity and Moyers to PBS... it can't all be THAT bad. Partly for personally boycotting media providers, partly just because I'm really poor.)
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 134:
Yes, most of the time it will. Most of the time. But I rarely disagree with the crux of the points. I just see, and sometimes point out, inconsistencies and hypocrisy. They just hate that.
Anyway. I'll be getting banned shortly. I admit that it is fun to get into it with other commenters, and even the mods at times. But I don't think that is necessarily fundamentally bad.
Later.
One other thing that is wrong today is there is less and less media on, especially after 9pm, and on weekends. We just don't seem to get the more coverage we had several months ago. There are WAY too many crime shows, where there used to be fairly informative news shows, that are a huge waste of time for political junkies like me who just like the red meat of politics with a little international news without the spin for wars and empire. Even Cspan isn't as good as it used to be, mostly boring interviews now.
People who claim that the American public is brainwashed into mind numbing stupidity by the mass media always exempt themselves. They pontificate that the masses are gullible sheep who are hapless victims of corporate media propaganda. The bombastic finger pointers assume they escaped indoctrination. Pompous media critics claim the rest of us are a bunch of idiots hypnotized by evil media conglomerates. But somehow they figured out how to preserve their pristine intellect and powers of discernment in the face of overwhelming seduction by print and broadcast media.
Although my voice can vote at the ballot box. The appointee to the FCC does not require my vote.
Then then free speech=money, and the weathy have more free speech than I do.
So our representatives listen to the wealthy's lobbyist sound of financial deposts into their accounts over those that they are to serve.
This country is not the same I served and fought for.
Yes, Bill Moyer, that bastion of neutrality.
It's also interesting that the media don't report on the recent good news out of Iraq. When there's an increase in deaths, it's a trend. When there's a decrease, it's, well, not a trend, and not worth reporting.
I suspect we'll shortly be getting a new report from C&L proclaiming that the NY Times is in Bush's pocket.
Thank God, thank God, thank God for Bill Moyers.
Money Talks..............the People walk - in single file, through the metal detectors and into the FEMA camps....
STOP George @ 15:
I agree 100%!! I think one way to get the majority of the people off their damn couches is to take away tv...it has truly become the opiate of the masses, and is being used to keep us complacent by this administration as they turn this country into a fascist state...
I fear that most won't know what happened until after we're all incapable of doing anything to stop it. KILL YOUR TV!!!
I know that alone won't stop this from happening but it's a start. And no, I don't know how to take away tv from the public...
1996, under the Clinton Administration.
It's also significant that neither the NYT nor the other major media will adequately cover Dennis Kucinich's attempt to work impeachment through the Congress. There is no story more important than this, in this morally bankrupt age of ours. The only presidential candidates worthy of being Democratic nominees, as far as I am concerned, are Al Gore (President) and Dennis Kucinich (Vice-President). They have been unequivocally right on all the major issues.
Ralph West @ 145:
Yup yup!
And since their so damn dead on with everything, the MSM is marginalizing them...especially Kucinich...poor guy! I have donated to his campaign...but being the broke-assed, blue collar guy that I am, it wasn't very much at all...I don't feel one bit that I wasted the money either!!!
What's wrong with the media, check one thread up.
FOXNews Teaser Says Obama Made 5 Yr Old Cry - It Was A Lie
L.A. Confidential @ 21:
This is why I don't understand why people have a hard time believing that a free-market society is not a good thing. Capitalism, in and of itself, is not bad...but there needs to be oversight or you get mergers and acquisitions that lead to anti-trust situations where small businesses are squeezed right out of competition. And where do the funds to drive the oversight come from? Bueller? ...TAXES!
We need more PBS stations. And donate to keep them alive, too.
PurplePatriot @ 1:
That's just not true. Until "media consolidation" about which the "people" were not consulted, the "airwaves" belonged to the people --a principle that had been established in several statutes and, at last, most emphatically in the Communications Act of 1939. That principle, moreover, had been upheld in the courts. This is not a matter of just going "somewhere else". It's a matter of TAKING BACK what had been ours. I don't wish to be rude, but much of what is wrong with this nation is the widespread and appalling ignorance of our laws and American principles. No wonder the GOP gets away with screwing us silly.
You might try: The State of American Media: 'Wires and Lights in a Box'
To be completely fair, the right wing and the GOP are not stealing our rights. We are giving them away for absolutely nothing.
ajclowder @ 20:
How did the General Strike to bring back the Constitution go? Was attendance high?
Login or Register to post comments.