Letters to the Editor
-
Various response
Ondolette:
Sounds pretty top-down driven, pretty corporate to me. Do you want someone from the press to actually use the word "conspiracy" or "corporate"? Do you have to have all of them get together in one room and plan together?
I already acknowleged that in 2002 and 2003, news executives were feeling pressure from advertisers not to be too anti-war. But that's hardly suprirsing. Advertisers never want to be associated with controversial ideas. And in 2002, with the 9/11 Effect still very fresh, anything that was depicted as "anti-American" was controversial, because most of the country was behind Bush (see, for instance, the reaction to the Dixie Chicks).
I don't think that's nearly as much an ideological motivation as a business motivation. Cowardly all the same, but not proof of the Ideological Propaganda Model.
The problem that is always encountered in these discussions is that people who believe in Theories like this always take contrary evidence as proof that the theory is right. For instance, MSNBC puts on Keith Olbermann. Because of his ratings, they just tried him out on NBC - they didn't try out Joe Scarborough or Tucker Carlson - they tried out Olbermann. He's as anti-war and anti-Bush as it gets. How does that fit into the theory?
Also, several networks just refused to run ads from that new organization of Ari Fleisher's. Why? Because they want to avoid ads that are too controversial. How does that fit into the theory?
Paul Rosenberg
But Steve's main thrust seems just as sound: with the intense concentration of media oligopolies over the past 30 years, the veener of what journalists are "supposed to do" has completely worn away. They are simply hirelings, producing what they've been paid to produce, including, especially, their own bamboozlement, as documented in the Daily Howler excerpt provided by Jim Montague.
I agree with this completely. There are all sorts of influences and pressures embedded in the corporate environment that destroy real journalism. Diktats from secret councils of Corporate Matsers aren't even necessary.
___________________
Danny Sleator
One problem is that Glenn's comment falls into the categeory of the typical bogus anti-conspiracy-theory "argument". There's a great chapter about this in Michael Parenti's book "American Besieged". It's well worth reading the whole thing, but I'll just quote one paragraph here:
I'm not responsible for other people's misuse of words. The fact that some people use "conspiracy theory" as an insult doesn't mean I do. I already said I don't. I believe in some "conspiracy theories." The term is descriptive, not insulting. Usually, the reaction has more to do with the sensitivities of those espousing them than anything else.
I'm sorry if you don't like the term. It doesn't change the fact that it's what you're espousing. That is NOT an argument against your theory, just a description of it.
______________________
Michael Harold
The word "conspiracy", although it is legitimate as a definition, is often used to poison the well of anyone who argues that a social system is rigged to preserve the interests of those people who control it. Things that get named conspiracy, don't always happen in secret or as a result of direct personal communications. Sometimes it's just day-to-day normative behavior on the parts of people who intend to preserve their interests by any means possible.
Again, I don't disagree, with regard to explaining how journalists work, that there is " day-to-day normative behavior on the parts of people who intend to preserve their interests by any means possible." In fact, I agree with that. That is NOT what I labelled a conspiracy theory.
Anyway, here's a little something on GE and Disney from 2004:
Sorry - I don't find that article credible. It contains many assertions with no link, no citation, no nothing. Also, it handpicks a few corporate heads who are conservative. Yes, there are. There are some who are liberal. Neither proves that they issue Diktats to their journalists about what to say.
___________________
Danny Sleator
Was the memo secret? Probably at the time. So this serves as a perfect example of what you glibly claim does not happen.
All this memo does is instruct that there ought to be context for facts. Editors do that every single day. Companies want that in cases where a lack of context would provoke controversy.
Again - to be clear. That corporations, driven by profit motives, control our most influential media DEFINITELY influences how news is reported, and for the worse. I am not contesting that.
I am contesting the notion that these matters are explaining by a "simple truth" that corporate heads are right-wing and force their journalists to read from right-wing scripts. That is fanciful and dramatic but extremely simplistic.
-
@shaunnarine
You are heroically wrong in referring to Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure.
Sure, America's right-wingers have been programmed to get the vapors when the name Clinton is mentioned, and this time around in the form of a (horrors!) woman.
You claim she won't reach across the aisle, but in fact she's so far across the aisle you can scarcely find a progressive with any enthusiasm for her campaign.
As you observe "american media is garbage" (which these days is largely true), so please be careful not to adopt its baseless memes, such as "Hillary is a polarizing, far-left figure."
She is a unifying figure; though she's the nominal front-runner, almost anyone with a passion for American politics agrees that she's not someone they want as their president, beyond being a possible compromise in the event she gets the nomination.
This talk about "polarization" is a Beltway fabrication that is whipped out whenever there's fear that the Overton Window will shift back toward its natural center, instead of the right-wing gutter where it's been slumming since St. Ronnie captured the media's dull-witted and bought-off imagination.
-
Re:Corporate Media Control
Glenn,
I've run across the 'corporate masters' argument many times in personal discussions and the most troubling thing about it is the self-assured nature of the delivery, as if to say; "That's just the way it is", and as if it should be followed with a resounding 'DUH!' to emphasize its' obvious and incontrovertible rightness. Unfortunately, it signals the end of thoughtful investigation. Any time analysis is stopped with those kinds of bold, generalized pronouncements the subleties and nuances that are much more likely to drive individual behavior go unexamined.
On Wednesday, in a rare moment of honesty, Chris Matthews, in discussing Bush's failure during Katrina said this:
MATTHEWS: "I always say the fish rots from the top, and I mean that. I mean... I watch people dress like the boss, behave like the boss, end up talking like the boss."
If you've ever been exposed to the upper hierarchy of any corporation, you have seen this dynamic in action. They drink the same wines, watch the same television programs, use the same phrases. That isn't coercion from above - it's individual weakness and groupthink. And Matthews, without knowing it, was describing the exact dynamic that is on display practically every time he assembles a panel.
There are of course other factors, but I think the sociological factors may be the most important - and damning. After all, if the shots were actually being called by some manipulative, totalitarian, puppet-master, these 'journalists' would in essence be victims. That's not the case. Their decisions and ability to rise above sociological pressures is their responsibility and to the extent that they don't do that they should be held to account. It may not matter a damn if the Director of an credit card corporation plays that fit-in-at-all-costs game, but it does matter in the media because it ends up polluting and skewing our discourse.
As far as the MSNBC memo, yes that is direct corporate interference and clearly someone was troubled enough to leak it. Amy Goodman, to her credit, brought up that memo on an appearance (sometime this past year) at which time Matthews denied having any knowledge of it - an all but certain impossibility. Should we believe that a producer was demanding Matthews play dumb and issuing threats into his earpiece, or was it simply Matthews showcasing, once again, his appalling lack of character and honesty?
One note regarding Mr. Harold's remark about 'monopoly capaitalism'. He is absolutely right, we are practicing monopoly capitalism in this country and the difference between that and 'free market' capitalism is vast. There are several reasons the distinction won't be discussed anytime soon by our media: a)many of them aren't bright enough to understand it, b)many of them are too lazy to care, c)of those who could get past the first two obstacles, few could move beyond their conditioning to treat it as anything but heresay, and d)any competent spokesperson, say Ravi Batra, if he were invited to discuss it, would probably be belittled and mocked and his arguments, rather than being explored, would be made to seem 'fringe' and 'extreme' and the whole process would simply be used to further cement the conventional wisdom. And none of this would need the slightest bit of urging from anyone in the corporate suites.