I think one of the reasons that the media make the story about themselves when there is a spectacular failure--Katrina, Gulf War, etc--is that they fear what would happen if they didn't. If the media was seen to have no desire or ability to police itself--even if its just window dressing--then people would really start to wonder whose interest they worked in.

I mentioned the banking industry specifically because almost all of the very good regulation that limited its investments and activities occurred after a horrifying failure caused by a complete lack of oversight in activities that obviously affected the public interest. It took bank lobbyists several decades to undue that legislation, so the experience of the great depression stuck.

I hesitate to wonder what a similar conflagration would need to be for people to sit up and take notice of the media's complicity in fucking up our nation. If the Iraq war and the president's war on the constitution didn't do it, god knows what will.

I was sure you thought that.

It does leave a dilemma; or a "poser" as the wife likes to say.

I guess eternal diligence on the part of a free people is the only answer. That and perhaps a few laws requiring the public posting of any potential conflicts.

Don't judges have to tell ahead of time if they somehow know one of the parties in a lawsuit? Should not "professional pundits" also have to divulge any conflicts?

Halliburton stock (HAL) went from $7/share in 2002 to $40/share in 2006. There has never been a disclosure of which reporters owned that stock. Is the pro-war, media-driven pump and dump related?

HAL is an exaggerated case, but the defense sector has outperformed the S&P, 113% to -3.5% since 2000.

the FCC rules changes of 2003 that went largely unnoticed by the general public. In your opinion, is there any relationship between the government's propaganda efforts and MSM's complicity (esp NBC) in promoting the war in regards to these changes? If memory serves the consolidation of media ownership and the very threat of this type of deliberate manipulation was a primary fear of such changes.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fccchanges.html

Thank you for your efforts.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/7990

Source: New York Times, November 18, 2008

"Dan Abrams, the chief legal correspondent for NBC News who recently lost his prime-time cable news show, is forming a consulting firm that he hopes will connect a global Rolodex of media experts with businesses that need strategic advice," reports Brian Stelter. "The firm, Abrams Research, may resemble a narrowly focused version of 'expert network' firms that connect investors to industry experts. Journalists and bloggers retained and paid by the firm could consult with corporations, conduct media training sessions, or conduct investigative reporting for corporate clients." Abrams Research says it has also "established strategic partnerships with major PR and media strategy firms" including Dan Klores Communications and the Abernathy MacGregor Group. As Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal points out, "This is about as clear a violation of our conflict of interest rules as I can imagine. Journalists shouldn't be advising companies about how to game their own organization." Similar concerns have been expressed by journalists at CBS News and others. However, NBC seems to think that Abrams can continue to work as both a professional flack and as one of their journalists. "NBC News could not have been more accommodating throughout this process," he told TVNewser, adding that he would be "staying on as the Chief Legal Analyst for NBC News and hope to remain with NBC for many years to come."

In the comments Dan Abrams shows up and asks for corrections, at which point CMD's Sheldon Rampton has to explain to Abrams why exactly hiring out journalists to do investigative and p.r. work for corporations is bad journalism, as well as why it's a bad idea to keep him on as chief legal analyst.

Fellow lefties: while I'm not going to defend a situation in which a giant conglomerate controls a major media company, it should be pointed out that General Electric is not the military behemoth it was when we all learned to scream about it back in the 1980s. GE sold off most of its aerospace business in the early 1990s. It's now the 35th largest defense contractor, in between Rockwell Collins and ARINC, Inc. (and just a few million bucks ahead of Motorola and Hewlett Packard). Here's the list, which is quite interesting:

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/top-100/2007/defense_revenue.html

I'm not saying GE doesn't benefit from war. I'm just saying to update your talking points.

Secondly, as other letter writers have pointed out, this would be a great story for MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to take on. Have you given her a call yet, Glenn?

Hasn't the game changed now that the US government has essentially purchased a stake in NBC/MSNBC? Isn't pro-military analysis simply a form of...public service advertising?

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.

-- behindthecurtain

I reiterated that point in my introduction to the poll. In fact that is the only part of the article that I copy/pasted: the fact that the congress, and all other powers that be, are not listening to The People. The poll clearly stated that The People believe too much is spent on the military. I wasn't saying that that poll (and many others like it that no doubt show the same conclusion) proves that your comment is false, but it does speak loudly that the conclusion you'd come to in your comment was and is not entirely the case.

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.

Trying to find stats.

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

from 2004 does not have more than 32% of the audience believing all or most of CNN and CNN was in the lead.