NBC and its parent GE (and to a somewhat lesser degree, their red-headed stepchild, MSNBC) are very much a part of the government/media complex. They practically define it. This is common, public knowledge. Or it should be.

But it has little meaning, not when all the major media outlets -- including the New York Times -- are also part of the same continuum of government/media.

The idea that the NYT is somehow purer than NBC because they print stories on their front page about the corruption of Barry McCaffery is simply absurd. Given the NYT's own astonishing and persistent corruption, it is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle and all that. Lots of people just tune that shit out.

Barry McCaffery's self interest in promoting war and all that goes with it has been reported repeatedly. No, the networks that rely on their military experts -- who mostly have similar conflicts of interest -- do not report on those conflicts of interest. Newpapers like the Times will sometimes mention it. And Glenn will use his blogospheric bludgeon to make sure people know what's really going on.

But it seems to me that the problem starts with a rather foolish reliance on the Big Media to act in the Public Interest and to Tell The Truth (and Shame The Devil.) This they do not do, and to a great extent they never have done.

For some reason, Americans either expect them to, believe they do, or wish they would.

But that's what we have alternative media for.

Ahem.

Yes, but that brings in a whole other boatload of conflicts.

Pravda was state owned and not thought to be a beacon of truth. (even if the name literally means "the truth")

The BBC on the other hand is also state owned and it has many documented problems also.

We might want to differ between publicly owned broadcasters and 'state run media'. The BBC is certainly impacted by considerations of the British power structure and UK nationalism, to an extent, but its news organizations hew much closer to actual journalism than their American private clown counterparts -- and they are in the midst of arguments all the time about the role of media, sources, etc.

The same goes for the CBC, or Deutsche Welle, or Radio Netherlands, or even the Voice of America -- also U.S. government supported -- which are routinely trustworthy versus the clownish U.S. commercial broadcasters and the insanely timid, right wing intimidated PBS / NPR.

Kitt wrote:

"The link leads to a story about a Gallup poll taken in 2007 wherein most Americans polled said that we are spending too much on military. That number is growing in spite of Congress, the administration and the very disgraced media we are commenting on in this thread."

That poll in no way refutes my conclusion that "Most Americans" enable the military culture, in spite of their dissatisfaction with the dollars spent.

The reality is as plain as blood on a Palin turkey. If most Americans were really appalled about this government expenditure of lives and treasure here and abroad, they're sending mixed messages.

Glenn has provided ample blogs showing that the very protectors of far-right, hawk profiteers got more than enough help from the left, despite Congressional and, even now, maybe Presidential elections.

The very fact that newly-elected Obama must carefully pay homage to consultants from the higher, military ranks as he meticulously appoints non-ideologues to those defense posts demonstrates the sacredness of that cow.

Americans don't like wasting money like this, but they also like having the military culture available to train and educate their children for careers otherwise unavailable elsewhere.

I'll give you that they are better than anything going here in the states. In fact, my wife has BBC America on most of the day and that is where she gets most of her news --- besides on-line outlets like this one.

However:

The BBC is a quasi-autonomous Public Corporation operating as a public service broadcaster incorporated under a Royal Charter that is reviewed every 10 years. Until 2007, the Corporation was run by a board of governors appointed by The Queen or King on the advice of the government for a term of four years, but on 1 January 2007 the Board of Governors was replaced with the BBC Trust. The BBC is required by its charter to be free from both political and commercial influence and to answer only to its viewers and listeners. (wikipedia)

Perhaps the BBC rid itself of government control in 2007, but I'll wait and see.

Every television and radio station must have its license renewed on a local level every few years. Before it can be renewed, the public has the right to reject it due to improper behavior or not providing the information the public needs to make informed decisions about anything. If you want to send a message to these broadcasters, then reject a couple of these licenses in larger areas. All kinds of people would get really pissed that their favorite shows aren't on tv and the networks might have to clean up their act a bit on issues like this. The Obama campaign managers on the local level have an incredible database of people to mobilize, even outside of the Obama campaign/transition itself. Get the people out and fight these television stations! That's what the campaign was about in the first place. An organization that can mobilize people for the change they want. Make it happen. Its not Obama's responsibility to take care of this. Its our responsibility. I'll be waiting for my email.

BTW, I'm not surprised, that Barstow would fail mention the article "TV's Conflicted Experts" by Daniel Benaim, Priyanka Motaparthy and Vishesh Kumar (two former interns and a free-lancer.) Reporters at the NYT often pretend to a scoop that builds on uncredited info from a previous article in a supposedly "lesser" source.

For instance, in "Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process," Elisabeth Bumiller, on 9/2/08, fails to acknowledge that Anchorage Daily News reporters Sean Cockerham and Wesley Loy published interviews with many of the same folks on August 29 in "Choice stuns state politicians."

For details and links, see my blog post of September 1, "Sarah, Who?: http://bethwellington.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-who.html