I was just watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN which is supposed to be a "fair and neutral" news organisation. Yet, there still refer to world leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with blanket "dictator" statements. FYI, both Chavez and Ahmadinejad were voted into presidential office with less controversy and legitimacy than Bush in 2000, and enjoy way better approval ratings. I know Fox is a gone case and I never listen to them, but why do other news media still listen and go a long way to perpertuate the US administration's propaganda weapon.
Other examples are the difference between how Iran and Saudi Arabia are portrayed in the media. Iran, a pseudo-democratic nation is still portayed as repressed and unAmerican while Saudi is portrayed as a benevolent monarchy. This is clearly because Iran doesnt share the US's policies in the Middle East like Saudi does. I am not trying to imply that Saudi or the UAE is repressed, just the hyposcrisy of US propaganda. Because most of the American media is owned by defense contractor corporations and they have an agenda that they want to put forward along with the news. well, its simple, money. Propaganda attracts people, which attracts advertisers. CNN can get paid to advertise, while its popularity may grow, for the wrong reasons or not. I'll keep along my big brother conspiracy theory tonight and just say that we are all fed the information which will make us behave in the way that is wanted. Maybe I'm watching too much Invader Zim and X files or maybe it's true. Who knows? Because it works. So those who can afford to buy the media can afford to promote their particular brand of propaganda. But really, it's nothing new.
I'm not a Christian, but I seem to recall an old story about Jesus when he was in custody. Some sort of referendum was put to the people -- should Jesus be released? Or a brutal killer, Barabas? (Not sure of spelling.) Propagandists infiltrated the crowd, spreading rumours and crossing palms with gold. Next thing you know, they've got the rabble calling for Barabas' release!
It just goes to show that it's nothing new that people will promote just about anything for the almighty dollar or to further their own agenda. Britain is just the same
a recent poll showed that more people are getting their information from the internet as it is a more reliable source First off Kerry S:
You don't know what you are talking about regarding the UK/Britain. It is NOT the same.
Arguing that you're wrong is pointless, because anyone who would say something so stupid clearly doesn't read the Brit Press.
NOW FOR THE QUESTION:
There are several answers - but I'll mention the biggest one.
First and most important is we currently have a Corporate Media. While this may initially seem confusing in that many news organizations have been corporate for decades, one must keep in mind that the term "corporate media" refers to the "mindset" of the media, not the form of ownership - which is a product of so much of the media being owned by corporations vs. the past when the ownership was far more mixed.
It's pretty simple to understand why "corporate ownership" is an anathema to a free press.
The bottom line is the ONLY line that matters to a corporation.
When the responsibilities of the "media" as accorded it by the principals of the 4th. estate conflict with the "bottom line" of a corporation - make money for shareholders - it ALWAYS gets over-ruled.
The motivations behind a Free Press and a Corporation conflict dramatically.
Media thrives on controversy. After all "news" by definition is controversial, unusual, unexpected. Good news is none of those, so it's not reported.
Corporations on the other hand despise controversy. Their goal is to appeal to as many people as possible in order to sell as much as possible.
Hmmm. guess what the corporate mindset feels about the main driving force behind all Media?
The end result is the creation of the most generic, easy to produce, cheap "news" product that they can sell to the largest audience without much effort.
That product is the FRight Wing propaganda garbage. It's so easy to sell, because so many of those who believe like this are sheep, who rather not think for themselves, and judge the quality of everything based on what they are told by the media is good or bad.
Appealing to the left which is generally more educated and cynical is many times harder, and thus has a much lower profit margin.
What I'm saying reflects statistical data.
Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Riely their biggest audiences are in the lower-income white demographics. The wealthier the demographic, the more educated, the less their audience is.
The FRight wing types almost repeat verbatim what their talk-show stars say. They are followers, and that is why the corporate media loves them so. They will do what they are told, and do not question like the leftie.
If you want to trip one of them up, ask them who said that? Why do they believe it. What r the reasons they believe that's true.
If thy answer at all it will be to admit, they really don't know, and they heard it from Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Rielly and figured those guys wouldn't lie to them.
Ask a leftie and you'll get a boring, tedious explanation of their viewpoints and beliefs.
The fact that "corporate mindset" has replaced the "mindset of the free press as it's supposed to be defined by the 4th estate" have destroyed our once great free press.
We have a "corporate media" now, and expecting fair news coverage from that is naive at best.
The only way in which our press is still "free" is it is a press free to purchase by the highest bidder.
The FRight Wing, war-mongers realized this before anyone else, and set out to do just that.
It's only now that the other sides have tried to join in, but too late. All the good stuff has been purchased.
As a result we have a media that is heavily biased towards the EXtreme FRight Wing (FRight = Fear mongering Right)
There is no bigger, more stupid joke on the American people than the oft repeated lie that we have a "liberal media."
You want to know how big a joke it is? Ask people to point out what are the things about the media that make it "liberal."
They'll happily spout off a bunch of stuff, but almost none of it will be anything a liberal believes, nor will what they think is liberal in general be related in any way to being liberal.
The worst part about it now is so many people in terms of what they personally believe are "classic liberals" but the FRight Wing media has turned the word into an insult, so nobody believes they're liberal.
Until the corporate owners are forced to take on the responsibilities that come with ownership of the free press nothing will change.
It was only in the Mid-90s when the RepubliKunts took over, that they were freed from all restraints.
And within years, they redefined fair and accurate and balanced.
Fair used to mean making sure that the "person who was lying or being deceitful" was called on it by the reporter or media. Once the media knew you were lying, they investigated and showed the people the evidence.
Today Fair means letting both sides say what they want. Nothing they say is investigated, and since we have a FRight Wing RepubliKunt media, the FRight wing gets to say 10x as much as the weenies on the Left. I say weenies, because they waste their opportunities apologizing for who they are and what they believe rather than standing up and make the best use of their time.
Accurate now means - everything the FRight Wing says is assumed to be accurate. So much so that it is the basis for the questions a reporter will ask anyone not on that side.
Balanced means making sure only the FRight Wing perspective is mentioned as if no other perspective exists.
I totally sympathize with your feelings, and since the Demosissies are too afraid to do anything to change things any time soon, I suggest turning off CNN completely. It is honestly worse than FOX, because it still gets away with being seen as a "balanced" broadcaster when in fact they have some right wing nuts that could make FOX blush.
A FAR BETTER CHOICE to learn about the world is provided to you by our friends up north. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. is a partly publicly owned and funded Canadian news organization that will give you the news our media should be giving you.
http://www.cbc.ca
(the ca stands for Canada NOT California hehehe)
It will be balanced and fair, for they do NOT have a steak in our political system.
Just like the Brits are far more balanced and fair.
There are a dozen or so British news sites. Each easily surpass our entire nation in terms of "investigative, aggressive" journalism with principals. Of course if you ask an American Media clone, they'll mention "page three girls" in Murdoch publications. What they neglect to mention is on the next page, you'll find news, based on facts and investigation that beats the pants off anything in this country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk
are two of my favorites. The BBC in particular is very neutral for news regarding the USA.
They cannot elect our president. So they have NO reason to play favorites.
They will slam the left or right, but right now since the FRight wing is messing up so badly they're getting hammered.
You want to learn about the truth regarding the IRAQ war, most major British online sites have "special coverage" check it out.
I know how you feel. I've been there.
If enough people do what I did, then the corporate media here will take notice and become more balanced.
As long as intelligent people like you tune in CNN, read the NYT Etc. they believe all is fine. :-) |
