It's Time to break up the Media

[Guest guest]

A

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:12:06 -0000

It's Time to break up the Media

 

 

 

It's Time to break up the Media

Mike Whitney

 

 

June 21, 2006

 

 

The media is a fully-integrated part of the state power-structure. In

its practical application, it is more valuable than the military.

There are definite drawbacks to using force, whereas, propaganda and

public relations tend to be less disruptive to the normal flow of

business.

 

The media's primary objective is to shape public opinion in a way that

elicits support for the corporate agenda. Public TV and the internet

pose the biggest threats to that process. They both provide divergent

sources of information which eschew the business-friendly filtering

process. This explains why the Bush administration installed political

appointees at PBS. Their job was to sabotage programs like Bill

Moyer's NOW and the weekly documentary series Frontline. Investigative

journalism is a danger to private interests, creating the likelihood

that the public will focus more attention on the shadowy activities of

big business.

 

The ultimate goal of any privately owned information-system is to

assert complete control over the news-cycle so that events can be

arranged in a way that serves the needs of business. The public must

be prevented from seeing the conjugal relationship between the state

and industry. To achieve this, themedia must appear to function

independently and speak with many different voices when, in fact, it

simply reiterates the same message from numerous vantage points. A

simple Google search of any headline story will confirm the truth of

this. There is no diversity of opinion in mainstream news. It is

regimented and uniform.

 

Commercial media is designed to stimulate desire for consumer goods

and to avoid any information that might instigate greater involvement

in the political process. This explains why the vast majority of

stories are diversionary accounts of weather-related tragedies and

abductions of blond-white women rather than substantive coverage of

real economic and political events.

 

The privately-owned media operates in a way that runs counter to the

ideal of maintaining an " informed public " in a participatory

democracy. It is a top-down model which hands over control of

information to a class of corporate gatekeepers whose judgment is

overshadowed by their desire to maximize profits.

 

We cannot expect impartiality from a privately-owned system where the

main players have such an obvious stake in the outcome. Nor can such a

system " free " in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact, the

illusion of a " free press " is without question the greatest hoax ever

perpetrated on the American people.

 

How can a " privately-owned " profit-driven, politically-connected

industry be a " free press " ?

 

And, why do people continue to expect independent, evenhanded coverage

from organizations that have no allegiance to anyone other than their

shareholders?

 

The media has to function within its own rules and parameters; it is

structurally limited to " bottom-line " considerations. That makes

" unbiased analysis " virtually impossible.

 

" Taking back the media " is meaningless sloganeering. The real goal is

to create as many independent sources of information as possible to

counter the ubiquitous " corporate narrative " of themedia giants. To

large extent, this has been achieved via the internet. The internet

is, in many ways, the perfect democratic model for

information-distribution. The public is free to seek their information

from a wide range of options and, (from what we can deduce) they

normally go to sites that provide news that is consistent with their

own world view.

 

Is there a predisposition to news coverage? Do people naturally

gravitate to sites which reaffirm their own basic convictions about

reality and the world?

 

It seems so. That is why the media has very deliberately prevented

leftists, liberals and progressives from appearing on mainstream

programs. There is a cynical belief that if these voices are excluded,

then the people who share their views will feel marginalized and

powerless. This sense of impotence promotes inaction and further

withdrawal from the political process. Ironically, the exclusion of

leftist spokespeople has only directed more rage at the

establishment-media and deepened the divisions between opposing

groups. The corporate autocrats who promote this system of exclusion

have no idea of what its costs to society will be, or whether it will

eventually trigger widespread social upheaval. Silencing groups of

people with whom we disagree, forces them to express themselves in

less constructive ways. Censorship paves the way for violence.

 

The present system is so narrow ideologically that it is destructive

to the basic principles on which the country was founded. Themedia

offers no protection for the basic rights laid out in the US

Constitution. Rather, it has become the soap-box for fanatical

government officials spouting their rationalizations for torture,

rendition, aggressive warfare, and spying on American citizens. All of

these extreme forms of human rights abuse have been normalized by the

commercialmedia . It demonstrates that there is a concerted effort to

soften public's attitudes towards fundamental moral issues like

corruption and war crimes.

 

While the media has ignored the damage to our constitution and the

perils of an all-powerful executive, it has intentionally mitigated

the disastrous effects of global warming, nuclear proliferation and

global energy depletion (Peak oil). These are issues that require

public engagement and mobilization to affect drastically needed change

in policy. Instead, themedia diverts attention to meaningless drivel

like gay marriage, " color-coded " terror alerts, or Jennifer Aniston's

marital problems.

 

Time and again the media has revealed itself to be the adversary of

the public interest and the common good. In its present configuration

it is a direct threat to civil liberties, social equity, and world

peace. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring this monolithic

octopus which has extended its tentacles into every corner of the body

politic. The damage it has caused is already far too great.

 

Dismantling America's media monopoly should be a central part of any

progressive political platform. Democracy is impossible where

information can be controlled by a few powerful corporations that

shape the narrative to suit their own self-serving objectives. There

must be unrestricted access to the facts that we need to make informed

decisions about the issues that affect our lives and the future of the

country. By increasing funding for independent and publicmedia and by

applying strict regulations to the size and influence of the media

giants, we can resuscitate the " marketplace of ideas " and create an

environment where divergent points of view can flourish. This will

ignite greater citizen involvement and fuel the national debate.

 

Given the tremendous power of the media-giants this seems like an

insurmountable task. Regrettably, there are no easy options. If the

present system persists, civil liberties will continue to dwindle

while the nation lurches from one war to the next. We're better off

steeling ourselves to the job ahead, broadening our base of support,

and breaking up thismedia-monster once and for all.

[Guest guest]

Your question here, points up the fundamental problem people have with media; a

persistent, stubborn self delusion. The " shareholders " spoken of here, are in

large part, members of that richest 1% of Americans, who happen to be about 98%

Conservatives.

 

What " s worse, is that media are so dominated by conservative talk show hosts and

news personnel, and true liberals are so fastidiously eliminated from having a

voice in media, that the few remaining people in media, that do not mouth right

wing rhetoric and support anything the administration says, but actually happen

to be little more than " moderates " politically, can be characterized as liberals

by the remaining and dominating group of ominpresent conservatives, giving the

public the impression that moderates are actually liberals, since actual

liberals are " absent " from mainstream, corporate, network, media, so that

comparisons cannot be legitimately made, thereby producing an even greater

conservative straglehold on media.

 

jp

 

-

califpacific

Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:07 AM

It's Time to break up the Media

 

 

A

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:12:06 -0000

It's Time to break up the Media

 

It's Time to break up the Media

Mike Whitney

(snip)

 

 

And, why do people continue to expect independent, evenhanded coverage

from organizations that have no allegiance to anyone other than their

shareholders?

(snip)

 

We Made Changes

Your email is all new.

 

Learn More

 

 

Share Feedback

 

Recent Activity

a.. 50New Members

Visit Your Group

[Guest guest]

My answer to this has been to turn off the television and simply make the

propaganda vanish. I get my news fro varied sources. The benefit, asside

from not having to hear marketing (ads) for the products of the

corporations, the babble and pap that is fed folks to dull their minds and

" entertain " is also pleasantly absent.

Believe it or not, television is NOT neccesary to live.

Turn it off; or better yet, get rid of it.

That is also one form of boycott. If enough folks simply tuned out and

turned them off, it would affect their pockets and dilute their propaganda

machine.

Turn the damned thing off and turn them off as well.

 

 

 

On Behalf Of John

Polifronio

Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:52 AM

Re: It's Time to break up the Media

 

 

Your question here, points up the fundamental problem people have with

media; a persistent, stubborn self delusion. The " shareholders " spoken of

here, are in large part, members of that richest 1% of Americans, who happen

to be about 98% Conservatives.

 

What " s worse, is that media are so dominated by conservative talk show

hosts and news personnel, and true liberals are so fastidiously eliminated

from having a voice in media, that the few remaining people in media, that

do not mouth right wing rhetoric and support anything the administration

says, but actually happen to be little more than " moderates " politically,

can be characterized as liberals by the remaining and dominating group of

ominpresent conservatives, giving the public the impression that moderates

are actually liberals, since actual liberals are " absent " from mainstream,

corporate, network, media, so that comparisons cannot be legitimately made,

thereby producing an even greater conservative straglehold on media.

 

jp

 

-

califpacific

Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:07 AM

It's Time to break up the Media

 

A

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:12:06 -0000

It's Time to break up the Media

 

It's Time to break up the Media

Mike Whitney

(snip)

 

And, why do people continue to expect independent, evenhanded coverage

from organizations that have no allegiance to anyone other than their

shareholders?

(snip)

 

We Made Changes

Your email is all new.

 

Learn More

 

Share Feedback

 

Recent Activity

a.. 50New Members

Visit Your Group