You know, I've been thinking. In typical right wing fashion, our conservative friends on board here and nationally continue to refer to media as liberal. As the old adage goes, the best defense is an offense.
I would suggest to you that the media is not only not liberal but rather is controlled by conservative America. How's that for a double negative. I think that the national media is under the control of corporate America.
Here's my point. How does the national media, television and radio, earn money. Advertising of course. Who advertises? Not the trial lawyers (en masse, anyway), unions and poor of this country. Insurance companies, manufacturers, hospitals, drug manufacturers and the rest of corporate America.
Okay, so if the electronic media is dependent upon advertising dollars from corporate America to survive, they are obviously beholden to them. I mean after all the parent companies of NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ClearChannel and Sinclair have stockholders who the officers must answer too.
On the other hand, the print media, I don't believe is not so dependent upon advertising dollars for their life blood but, rather seem to draw the majority of their revenues from circulation. PBS and NPR, likewise are dependent upon listener contributions, endowments, and government allowances for their survival (although I believe the government $'s have been significantly reduced).
Okay, so you have the electronic media, for the most part, dependent upon corporate America for their survival. You have the print media, for the most part, dependent upon circulation and sales for their survival. Then you have PBS and NPR, to some extent, needing government support.
In my view, the news should be fair, balanced and present both sides of an issue (not Fox's definition of fair and balanced). I also would like the news and information as unfiltered as possible. I don't want some producer saying we can't run this story because we may affect our revenue stream.
To my point, I believe that the number of people, not just Americans, injured and killed in Iraq is news. I further believe that American bodies coming home from Iraq and American soldiers missing limbs is news. We saw this in the 60's and I believe if fed the anti-war movement.
Is that bad? Is it bad to know the cost of war? Is it bad to see the reality of war, whether good or bad? President Bush says things are going well but we aren't 100% yet. We don't see pictures of this on the news so our right wing friends say the media is liberal, wants Bush out, and is withholding the good stories.
My thought is that, based on the Viet Nam experience of broadcasting the body bags and footage of the war, corporate america has said to the electronic media, you can run those stories if you want too but we will pull our ads. In my view, corporate america has used financial leverage to dictate to the electronic media which stories to run and which stories not to run.
Now, you might argue, that the media is liberal since they don't show the good we have done in Iraq and Afganistan. However, who is telling us that there is good being done in those countries? Who is telling us that the vast majority of the Iraqi people welcome us as liberators and that the problems are being caused by a minority of insurgents? The answer, George W. Bush and those that support this war.
Don't you think that if the war was going as well as Bush says it is, that corporate America would go to, in my view, their agents in the electronic media and say "run those stories"? I would think so. Maybe, just maybe, the war is going very badly and we are not the liberators that Bush thought the Iraqis would welcome us as.
Corporate America wants Bush re-elected. They do not want the numbers of dead and injured brought up in the news. Why don't we question why the government chooses not to release those numbers? I mean, really, isn't the number of killed and injured in Iraq news.
Obviously, they have to show the number of dead Americans. They can't bury that story (pun intended). I believe we are getting selected news filtered by corporate america. Are we really a free country if our decisions are based upon what others want us to hear and information vital to those decisions are being witheld based upon the dictates of Proctor and Gamble?
I submit that we do not receive all the facts. Truth is secondary to profit. And I really question whether or not we live in a free America or one that is controlled from a corporate executive board room.
Eddie
I would suggest to you that the media is not only not liberal but rather is controlled by conservative America. How's that for a double negative. I think that the national media is under the control of corporate America.
Here's my point. How does the national media, television and radio, earn money. Advertising of course. Who advertises? Not the trial lawyers (en masse, anyway), unions and poor of this country. Insurance companies, manufacturers, hospitals, drug manufacturers and the rest of corporate America.
Okay, so if the electronic media is dependent upon advertising dollars from corporate America to survive, they are obviously beholden to them. I mean after all the parent companies of NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ClearChannel and Sinclair have stockholders who the officers must answer too.
On the other hand, the print media, I don't believe is not so dependent upon advertising dollars for their life blood but, rather seem to draw the majority of their revenues from circulation. PBS and NPR, likewise are dependent upon listener contributions, endowments, and government allowances for their survival (although I believe the government $'s have been significantly reduced).
Okay, so you have the electronic media, for the most part, dependent upon corporate America for their survival. You have the print media, for the most part, dependent upon circulation and sales for their survival. Then you have PBS and NPR, to some extent, needing government support.
In my view, the news should be fair, balanced and present both sides of an issue (not Fox's definition of fair and balanced). I also would like the news and information as unfiltered as possible. I don't want some producer saying we can't run this story because we may affect our revenue stream.
To my point, I believe that the number of people, not just Americans, injured and killed in Iraq is news. I further believe that American bodies coming home from Iraq and American soldiers missing limbs is news. We saw this in the 60's and I believe if fed the anti-war movement.
Is that bad? Is it bad to know the cost of war? Is it bad to see the reality of war, whether good or bad? President Bush says things are going well but we aren't 100% yet. We don't see pictures of this on the news so our right wing friends say the media is liberal, wants Bush out, and is withholding the good stories.
My thought is that, based on the Viet Nam experience of broadcasting the body bags and footage of the war, corporate america has said to the electronic media, you can run those stories if you want too but we will pull our ads. In my view, corporate america has used financial leverage to dictate to the electronic media which stories to run and which stories not to run.
Now, you might argue, that the media is liberal since they don't show the good we have done in Iraq and Afganistan. However, who is telling us that there is good being done in those countries? Who is telling us that the vast majority of the Iraqi people welcome us as liberators and that the problems are being caused by a minority of insurgents? The answer, George W. Bush and those that support this war.
Don't you think that if the war was going as well as Bush says it is, that corporate America would go to, in my view, their agents in the electronic media and say "run those stories"? I would think so. Maybe, just maybe, the war is going very badly and we are not the liberators that Bush thought the Iraqis would welcome us as.
Corporate America wants Bush re-elected. They do not want the numbers of dead and injured brought up in the news. Why don't we question why the government chooses not to release those numbers? I mean, really, isn't the number of killed and injured in Iraq news.
Obviously, they have to show the number of dead Americans. They can't bury that story (pun intended). I believe we are getting selected news filtered by corporate america. Are we really a free country if our decisions are based upon what others want us to hear and information vital to those decisions are being witheld based upon the dictates of Proctor and Gamble?
I submit that we do not receive all the facts. Truth is secondary to profit. And I really question whether or not we live in a free America or one that is controlled from a corporate executive board room.
Eddie
