Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 84 of 84

Thread: Rev. Wright

  1. #81
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CTM;2516985]Surely I can see that but I can also see it as being both. If RM owned a large percentage of traditional media viewership in a key battle ground state this fall and choose to not allow anti-McCain swiftboat ads, or to give more favorable rates to anti-Obama swiftboat groups, surely you can say that would be problematic.

    In a country split nearly down the middle, the ability to even slighly influence large percentages of the populous become problematic[/QUOTE]

    Dan Rather went on national news and perpetrated a fraud against George Bush with the intent to damage his re-election chances in 2004. A DUI story about Bush was "held" until right before the 2000 election by the MSM for the same purpose. The NY Times recently made a laughable attempt to imply that McCain was unfaithful to his wife based on no evidence whatsoever with the intent of damaging his election chances. This stuff happens and will always happen. The circumstances of the time (what is and is not a battleground state any any point in time, for example) are not germane to the types of laws we are going to live under as a nation and we need not re-write things based upon ehpemeral circumstances (not saying you think that, just being clear). Further, the notion that RM could control all of the available media in a battleground state such that he can essentially determine which candidates win and lose (which is I think what you are implying) is not reasonable, in my view, particularly in light of the wide swath of available information today and the fact that if RM did discriminate blatantly like this (1) it would be covered extensively in the national media, press and on the net and (2) it would be a very foolish long term business model and a sure-fire way for him to gaurantee that his large market share would shrink very fast.

    Obama has been accused of being a cray muslim sharia madrassa student, in addition to smears above. This stuff has always gone on. I agree, it's bad and it's why people should use many sources. I just think that today, those sources are avaliable and if people choose not to use them, it's their own fault.

  2. #82
    [B][SIZE="4"] The Mass Media & Politics: An Analysis of Influence [/SIZE][/B]

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    —The Wizard
    The Wizard of Oz

    "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

    —A.J. Liebling

    ". . . to take apart the system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent understanding of contemporary reality [is] not a task that requires extraordinary skill or understanding. It requires the kind of normal skepticism and willingness to apply one's analytical skills that almost all people have and that they can exercise."

    —Noam Chomsky
    The Chomsky Reader

    All of the American broadcast media, and most of the print media as well, are owned primarily by wealthy individuals. Direct ties to the biggest of big businesses are almost unbelievably extensive (see our analysis below), and, we believe, these ties cannot help but seriously bias and compromise news coverage. Moreover, the media empires are, first and foremost, profit-making corporations that conduct themselves like other corporations when it comes to corrupting American politics. That is, the parent corporations of many make so-called "campaign contributions" and also act against the public interest in other ways. As big winners in the corruption game, they show no signs of serious interest in political reform. (As large corporations themselves, the mass media want the same preferential treatment, and have the same desire to grow without bounds, as all other corporations.)

    Allegations of political bias in the media are common, although there is considerable controversy concerning the nature of this bias: neither liberals or conservatives are pleased. Conservatives allege that the media exhibit a liberal bias. On the other hand, liberals allege that the media exhibit a pro-corporate, plutocratic bias. However, we believe such charges rely on a faulty and simplistic analysis of the American political and economic spectrum (for a better understanding of that spectrum, see the linked diagrams, politics and economics). The truth is that the apparent liberalism of some of the mass media is primarily cultural, and rarely economic. In effect, and like most other American institutions, the mass media advance the economic interests of the wealthy few at the cost of the interests, and values, of the majority; and the self-indulgent, empire-building interests of the wealthy few are not those of either liberals or cultural conservatives.

    At the heart of media pseudoliberalism is a shallow but highly serviceable relativistic ethic. We say "serviceable" because the fundamental corporate ethical premise, "if it's profitable it's good," is fully compatible. In some ways, the personification of this "liberalism" is Howard Stern, who represents nothing in the end but cynical profiteering. The similarly corrupt music industry thinks nothing of merchandising utterly debased music to children. This form of "liberalism" nicely advances the corporate profit agenda. No matter how low the least common denominator, executives need feel no moral qualms. The media is being entirely consistent when it also manifests pro-corporate, economic "conservatism." Though the names and the products are different, the underlying ethos is not: the corporate culture that brings us, say, Eminem also brings us Enron, offshore tax havens, media corporations that bribe politicians—and the nightly "news."

    Against this, some have objected that the media often attack corporations. It's true, certainly, that this or that individual corporation may be subjected to media criticism, sometimes even harsh criticism—but it strikes us as significant that the sort of stringent and fundamental reforms needed to bring about real change are virtually never mentioned, let alone advocated. For example, how often are severe penalties for white collar crime advocated? How often is the revocation of corporate charters mentioned? And public financing of elections, arguably the single most urgently needed reform in America today, has made less headway than it should despite overwhelming public support, in part because the mass media profit enormously from paid political advertisements.

    Unfortunately, even public radio and television, which is supposed to provide programming in the public interest, is currently headed by former Voice of America executives. (Voice of America is the official American propaganda network of radio stations overseas, a relic from the Cold War.) Moreover, an ever accelerating commercialism has been evident in public radio and television for some time. While its news coverage is generally far less misleading than that of the corporate media, when NPR is used as a conduit to bring Americans the message that "globalization is inevitable", any pretense that it truly provides journalism in the public interest stands revealed as a sham.

    To illustrate how pervasive the corporate influence is throughout the major media, the table that follows identifies the interconnections between the six largest or most influential broadcasting companies and other major corporations.

    In that table, corporations color coded in red are those that have connections with more than one broadcaster. Corporations coded in green also have connections to the top 28 most interconnected companies. (In addition, a few of the connections through social clubs for the wealthy and/or powerful are listed.) Thus, companies coded in red or green are in a position to exercise significant media influence; and companies coded both red and green, such as Chase Manhattan, are super offenders. We would also single out the former Citicorp (now merged with Travelers to form Citigroup) as a corporation deeply immeshed in secret FTAA negotiations, and which also has an exceptionally bad environmental record.

    Unsurprisingly, and again consistent with a pro-corporate bias, all of the major broadcast and print media have been either directly involved in secret FTAA negotiations (which even Congress was kept ignorant of) or else had an interlocking directorate with a company that was, except for Viacom and Fox. As international trade and globalization are among the most important and newsworthy topics today, the failure to adequately inform the American people of their own role and interest in these matters is a severe rupture of journalistic integrity. Of course, corporations owning media corporations have no business whatsoever making "campaign contributions" (bribes) to presidential candidates.

    click on the link for the chart......

    [url]http://www.progressiveliving.org/mass_media_and_politics.htm[/url]

  3. #83
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2517429][B][SIZE="4"] The Mass Media & Politics: An Analysis of Influence [/SIZE][/B]

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    —The Wizard
    The Wizard of Oz

    "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

    —A.J. Liebling

    ". . . to take apart the system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent understanding of contemporary reality [is] not a task that requires extraordinary skill or understanding. It requires the kind of normal skepticism and willingness to apply one's analytical skills that almost all people have and that they can exercise."

    —Noam Chomsky
    The Chomsky Reader

    All of the American broadcast media, and most of the print media as well, are owned primarily by wealthy individuals. Direct ties to the biggest of big businesses are almost unbelievably extensive (see our analysis below), and, we believe, these ties cannot help but seriously bias and compromise news coverage. Moreover, the media empires are, first and foremost, profit-making corporations that conduct themselves like other corporations when it comes to corrupting American politics. That is, the parent corporations of many make so-called "campaign contributions" and also act against the public interest in other ways. As big winners in the corruption game, they show no signs of serious interest in political reform. (As large corporations themselves, the mass media want the same preferential treatment, and have the same desire to grow without bounds, as all other corporations.)

    Allegations of political bias in the media are common, although there is considerable controversy concerning the nature of this bias: neither liberals or conservatives are pleased. Conservatives allege that the media exhibit a liberal bias. On the other hand, liberals allege that the media exhibit a pro-corporate, plutocratic bias. However, we believe such charges rely on a faulty and simplistic analysis of the American political and economic spectrum (for a better understanding of that spectrum, see the linked diagrams, politics and economics). The truth is that the apparent liberalism of some of the mass media is primarily cultural, and rarely economic. In effect, and like most other American institutions, the mass media advance the economic interests of the wealthy few at the cost of the interests, and values, of the majority; and the self-indulgent, empire-building interests of the wealthy few are not those of either liberals or cultural conservatives.

    At the heart of media pseudoliberalism is a shallow but highly serviceable relativistic ethic. We say "serviceable" because the fundamental corporate ethical premise, "if it's profitable it's good," is fully compatible. In some ways, the personification of this "liberalism" is Howard Stern, who represents nothing in the end but cynical profiteering. The similarly corrupt music industry thinks nothing of merchandising utterly debased music to children. This form of "liberalism" nicely advances the corporate profit agenda. No matter how low the least common denominator, executives need feel no moral qualms. The media is being entirely consistent when it also manifests pro-corporate, economic "conservatism." Though the names and the products are different, the underlying ethos is not: the corporate culture that brings us, say, Eminem also brings us Enron, offshore tax havens, media corporations that bribe politicians—and the nightly "news."

    Against this, some have objected that the media often attack corporations. It's true, certainly, that this or that individual corporation may be subjected to media criticism, sometimes even harsh criticism—but it strikes us as significant that the sort of stringent and fundamental reforms needed to bring about real change are virtually never mentioned, let alone advocated. For example, how often are severe penalties for white collar crime advocated? How often is the revocation of corporate charters mentioned? And public financing of elections, arguably the single most urgently needed reform in America today, has made less headway than it should despite overwhelming public support, in part because the mass media profit enormously from paid political advertisements.

    Unfortunately, even public radio and television, which is supposed to provide programming in the public interest, is currently headed by former Voice of America executives. (Voice of America is the official American propaganda network of radio stations overseas, a relic from the Cold War.) Moreover, an ever accelerating commercialism has been evident in public radio and television for some time. While its news coverage is generally far less misleading than that of the corporate media, when NPR is used as a conduit to bring Americans the message that "globalization is inevitable", any pretense that it truly provides journalism in the public interest stands revealed as a sham.

    To illustrate how pervasive the corporate influence is throughout the major media, the table that follows identifies the interconnections between the six largest or most influential broadcasting companies and other major corporations.

    In that table, corporations color coded in red are those that have connections with more than one broadcaster. Corporations coded in green also have connections to the top 28 most interconnected companies. (In addition, a few of the connections through social clubs for the wealthy and/or powerful are listed.) Thus, companies coded in red or green are in a position to exercise significant media influence; and companies coded both red and green, such as Chase Manhattan, are super offenders. We would also single out the former Citicorp (now merged with Travelers to form Citigroup) as a corporation deeply immeshed in secret FTAA negotiations, and which also has an exceptionally bad environmental record.

    Unsurprisingly, and again consistent with a pro-corporate bias, all of the major broadcast and print media have been either directly involved in secret FTAA negotiations (which even Congress was kept ignorant of) or else had an interlocking directorate with a company that was, except for Viacom and Fox. As international trade and globalization are among the most important and newsworthy topics today, the failure to adequately inform the American people of their own role and interest in these matters is a severe rupture of journalistic integrity. Of course, corporations owning media corporations have no business whatsoever making "campaign contributions" (bribes) to presidential candidates.

    click on the link for the chart......

    [url]http://www.progressiveliving.org/mass_media_and_politics.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
    Do you own stocks?
    If you do who would you rather be on the Boards? No surprise that successful companies have successful people from other companies on their boards. Who would you rather have on your board as a shareholder- Bill Gates or Al Sharpton?
    If companies are evil to you what is in your retirement plan, CD's?

  4. #84
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2517490]Do you own stocks?
    If you do who would you rather be on the Boards? No surprise that successful companies have successful people from other companies on their boards. Who would you rather have on your board as a shareholder- Bill Gates or Al Sharpton?
    If companies are evil to you what is in your retirement plan, CD's?[/QUOTE]

    no one is saying that all corporations are evil, thats not even the argument. The issue is the very real prospect of media conglomerates manufactoring and changing opinions by having excessive control over a large segment of a media outlet. The idea that, because there are more sheer numbers of outlets and that somehow that means more open discussions on issues is short-sided and ignorant. You can have thousands of channels but if they are owned by six wealthy and well-connected billonaires, there is potential for stunting true free speech.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-30-2008 at 01:07 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us