Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Of course I recognize the open nature of GE's relationship with NBC as compared to the somewhat more covert nature of McCaffery's unethical associations and actions. I say "somewhat more" covert because in fact, as you point out, McCaffery's various shenanigans have been reported on in the past. Which demonstrates why GE bought NBC instead of The Nation or New Yorker: a huge slice of the populace -- especially those who remember Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley et al. -- take network news at face value and are happy to be relieved by the networks' legendary claim to legitimacy of having to question, analyze, compare or in general use their brains. More thoughtful publications, again as you pointed out, don't have the readership; they're widely suspected of being subversive at worst and are at least certainly inimical to the American Barcalounger Comfort Zone.
So no, I never doubted you were aware of the GE/NBC connection. I was only chiding gently at the outrage in your tone. GE bought NBC because it's a handy and effective mouthpiece -- and they will fail to disclose whatever they feel they can get away with failing to disclose in their goal of promoting war or whatever other enterprise they feel can be turned to a profit. Didn't we all already know that?
As we review the actions of NBC and GE in this matter, it is wise to ask ourselves one thing.
Who are the neoconservatives?
The movement is not confined to political figures - Bush, Cheney, et al are not the only devotees to this viewpoint.
Many corporate heads, from Fox's Rupert Murdock to GE's Robert Immelt are true believers, and have interests in the status quo far beyond the profit angle.
Yes, NBC's ownership is public knowledge, but so is the the bias of McCaffrey! The NYT just did a front page story on it!
It is public now; it wasn't public before today. It wasn't public for years when NBC was presenting McCaffrey as an independent analyst on these issues.
Public knowledge means that if you go looking for it, you can find it without breaking into secret files. The Freedom of Information Act renders a lot of things "public knowledge". That doesn't mean they are publicly known.
Fair enough, but some information is more publicly known than others.
Anyone interested in knowing who owns GE could easily find it. That's not the case for Barry McCaffrey's business relationships.
NBC's ownership may be public knowledge, but that doesn't mean that the public has knowledge of it. Joe the Plumber may very well believe that NBC is a corporation unto itself, with no bigger owner. And it is this lack of awareness that is causing the damage to truth, justice, and the American way.
I don't disagree that it's harmful, but what's your solution? As long as media companies remain privatized, rather than state-controlled, they'll be subject to these conflicts.
I don't think you were advocating state control of media, but it sure sounded like it:
"As long as media companies remain privatized, rather than state-controlled, they'll be subject to these conflicts."
As long as media companies remain privatized, rather than state-controlled, they'll be subject to these conflicts.
One suggestion: reverse the trend toward consolidation by employing anti-trust laws more aggressivley. I believe that news outlets function best when news is their only business. Yes, there will always be some financial conflict of interest but it can be contained. As an adjunct, I think we ought to foster, not vilify, publicly-run news services such as PBS.
I don't think you were advocating state control of media, but it sure sounded like it:
No, my point is the exact opposite. Those who are claiming that disclosure of conflicts is insufficient -- or that there's no real difference between disclosed and undisclosed conflicts -- don't seem to have any solution for the problem they're decrying -- other than state-owned media, which is the only way these particular conflicts can be eliminated altogether.
I don't think there are any solutions that don't include state mandates. However, one thing that is rarely talked about is structuring companies that are involved in news media differently than others. We are not a real free market economy, certain corporations already are under a certain amount of regulation, their interests and activities are circumscribed (as with the banking industry, until a short time ago). Those industries that are seen to be working in the common good, or at least bear a great amount of influence over the economy or governance, must abide by certain rules of conduct.
To some extent its something that already happens with the FCC, and lobbyists seem to undo most of that anyway. Perhaps a total economic and political collapse will get things moving in the right direction. (that's sarcasm)
...which is that the corporations that run the networks have agendas that REQUIRE the distortion of news and analysis.
there may have been a sainted time when the newsroom was insulated from such pressures. but that time is long gone. let's not forget jack welch in 2000 called nbc news to tell them to call the election for bush. these days, no call to the newsroom is necessary: the news personnel themselves consider any audiences that DON'T understand what the marching orders are to be saps.
that is, the personnel don't need any external pressures; they internalize the value system as their own.
and let's not forget how the bush administration showed them how to do it (if they didn't already know): with the illegal warrantless wiretaps, the bushites didn't deny it, they just kept on doing what they wanted, knowing that no one in a position to call them on it would do anything. and they were right: congress and the courts and the msm all gave them a pretty free pass.
nbc's behavior follows that m.o. -- not unlike union-busting corporations taking their cue from reagan's breaking of patco.
One suggestion: reverse the trend toward consolidation by employing anti-trust laws more aggressivley. I believe that news outlets function best when news is their only business.
These two goals -- (a) blocking consolidation and (b) maximizing the number of news outlets owned by companies exclusively in the news business -- are completely distinct, even in conflict.
Using anti-trust laws would only prevent consolidation -- meaning preventing companies from owning too many media outlets.
But that has nothing to do with whether news is their only business. In fact, it's almost certainly the case that there aren't anywhere near enough corporations who could or would fund major media outlets as their only business. Thus, preventing consolidation -- as you suggest -- could likely increase the number of companies which own media outlets but which also own all sorts of other non-news businesses.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
