Letters to the Editor
omooex
Published Letters: 1167 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Media Corporations Have Their Own Agendas
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is obviously an exciting time as far as media veracity goes—the NYT Pentagon story, Scott McCellan and the opening that these events have had for relatively principle corporate media workers to step forward. However, I have a bone to pick with one of Glenn’s assertions. Glenn says:
“these media outlets are controlled propaganda arms of the Government, of the political establishment generally.”
But there’s little in the piece that supports that conclusion. Glenn notes the experience of Yellin who said:
“They (the execs) would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive...”
Couric also implies that the pressure was mostly corporate, as does Donahue. In fact, the memo Glenn posted about Donahue’s firing from MSNBC clearly states that there is a corporate bottom-line imperative in his firing that has everything to do with competing with other networks “waving the flag at every opportunity”.
The reality here seems nuanced. Of course, these companies are owned by larger companies with complex relationships with government actors—especially, it seems Republican ones. But what comes across as the defining factor in all of these examples is the corporate imperative—as long as Bush and the war had high political ratings, high viewing ratings would only issue from stories that supported the President and his war. Because the country was war hungry, the networks gave the “people” what they wanted. I think an interesting epilogue to that story would be the great success that Olberman has enjoyed in the past year or so, and the prominent place that he has had in nearly all of MSNBC’s campaign coverage. This has mirrored the drop in Bush’s approval ratings.
I realize that the reality is probably more complex than this, but I just wanted to put that perspective out there. Its more complicated than the media just being a propaganda arm--corporations have their own agendas.
-
Che, I agree
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But what I found the most interesting was the memo citing competition in the flag waving department as the reason for Donahue's canning. Add that to Olberman's rise in standing at the network, and a pattern of the corporate media as barometer of public opinion can be seen. I'm not sure its always been like that. My point (or one of them, anyway) is that there may be a new dynamic at play. After all, the media have consolidated to such a great degree and have gained unprecedented power to control everything we see and hear on teh television--maybe they're writing the scripts now for the white house, not vice versa.
-
Adding to that:
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This may now be a case of the wag controlling the tail and the dog. Does that make sense? I like the way it sounds anyway.
-
Glenn:
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, I don't believe its all ratings oriented. As I said in the excerpt you quoted:
The reality here seems nuanced. Of course, these companies are owned by larger companies with complex relationships with government actors—especially, it seems Republican ones.
And:
But what comes across as the defining factor in all of these examples is the corporate imperative..
My comment was meant to point out that there is a very complex mechanism at work here. The examples you used in this post pointed to a mostly corporate bottom line process at work. Yesterday, you used Couric's remarks about White House pressure, but today, you focused on her remarks concerning corporate pressure. Some of the media process seems to be governed by top down government pressure, but, as in the MSNBC example: White House critic Donahue was fired when Bush had good ratings, Olberman is the most popular personality on MSNBC today with his much more aggressive anti-White House perspective now that Bush's ratings are low. Your propaganda model can't explain that, especially because MSNBC, more than any other network, must be aligned with Pentagon dictates since they are an arms and military infrastructure manufacture.
-
Correction
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I meant that MSNBC's parent corporation, GE is the arms and military infrastructure corp.
-
Che
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think its as simple as the media being an arm of the government. It certainly would be a serendipitous arrangement that if, by pursuing a political agenda, you could make your industry one of the most profitable sectors in the history of the American economy. The news outlets of media companies are only profitable when they sell advertising; even while Bill O'Reilly was calling for people to burn down theatres showing Redacted, the FOx network ran ads for Redacted during his show. Couldn't it also be a series of protocols? Do certain stories for profit, but only when the White House does not object? Once the power of the White House is in decline, then all manner of stories are possible, including the NYT's front page pentagon story. I realize that the media have been historically anti-democrat and that that is another component in a very complex chain. That could be changing as well.
-
Now I Remember Why I Stopped Reading the Letters Section
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it looked like we had a pretty interesting conversation going on there. But only for a minute.
-
Sulzer...
[Read the article: CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't disagree with your point at all. But I truly think that the media-military-industrial complex has to be much more complex than we want it to be. How does MSNBC, owned by military contractor GE, give Keith Olberman? Where's the logic in that? Not only that, Keith Olberman basically ran all of MSNBC's primary night coverage for the past 8 or so months, lending his left of liberal views to MSNBC's brand, not just his show.
In a media corp as propaganda model, this makes no sense. There is obviously something deeper at work here. I alluded to it in an earlier post, that the wag maybe wagging both the tail and the dog. Does anyone have a deeper understanding of this cluster&*^&^%?