Media Droppings
Jul 12th, 2007 at 8:50 am by Susie
While Glenn Greenwald, as always, writes beautifully and constructs a compelling case, I’m starting to have the same response to what almost everyone writes, no matter how well.
Because it’s the same story, over and over again. I mean, it’s no longer news. Those of you who are “logical” and “reality-based” and legal-minded are constructing a case for the record, but why? The reality is as plain as the nose on yours and everyone else’s (with the exception of Michael Jackson’s) face.
Let me state the obvious: The media is controlled by corporate interests. Those interests are in sync with those of a greedy, corporatist culture that is epitomized by the worst of our political culture. The Republican party adheres most closely to those values, although some of the Democratic establishment does, too.
The media corps can afford to allow an occasional person to stroll off the reservation, a la Keith Olbermann. It makes them look good. And after all, it’s only opinion. It’s not as if they’re letting Keith investigate anything.
When Republican after Republican appears on the Sunday talk shows, read between the lines. Who buys the advertising on those shows? General Electric. Archer-Daniels Midland. Exxon, etc.They’re not buying those ads to reach the consumers who watch - they buy the ads so they can control the content.
So of course the media supports the war. After all, their companies are making money off it.
Just watching the morning news programs today confirms who the media is paid to support:
Lots of talk about a reconsituted Al Qaeda being stronger than in 2001 and whether we should wet our collective pants or not, lots of watered down talk about the failure to show progress in Iraq, but NO MENTION of the GOP folks who are responsible for abandoning the pursuit of bin laden to go start a war in some other country with a dictator who posed no threat to the US.
Pfft.
Well put. I do think, among bloggers, that we still have to increase the blogging we do about the corporate media, and not become numbed by it. If it’s war they want, it’s war they should get - but a war of words and ideas from bloggers, not blood and guts from soldiers and innocents.
I’m not numbed. I’m just pointing out that intellectualizing this is yet another way of delaying the next logical step: action. I mean, at what point have we gathered enough evidence to justify doing something about it?
When Republican after Republican appears on the Sunday
talk shows, read between the lines. Who buys the
advertising on those shows? General Electric…
Better yet, General Electric owns one of the major networks.
They own two, if you want to count MSNBC as a major network.
Bingo.
Chomsky and Herman had it _exactly_ right 20 years ago.
Acknowledge the truth and move on to doing something about it.
If bush gets his way, we’ll be in Iraq for a LONG time. Along with his plans to start another war with Iran, a military draft will be a must.
Then all hell will break loose, action-wise. In the meantime, keep doing what you’re doing. Ten years ago, nobody read blogs. I don’t think you realize just how many are reading these things now, and how they pull us together. And words provide a record. Records are used in courts of law.
Keep up the good work. You are MOST NOT alone.
A Navy vet
Great post.
Well, the Chicago Trib sees money in moving to the left. So we’ll get left-ish news and analysis that benefits the corporate masters. Not really left at all but more of a center. And for that crumb, I have to admit I’m happy for at least these five minutes.
When faced with an array of powerful adversaries, it is sometimes wisest to use the power of one against another.
With the political regime, there may be an oedipal sore spot to poke with a sharp stick: wouldn’t Georgie bridle at being “Dick’s poodle”?
With the media regime, a very tightly-focused advertiser boycott might be worth a try. What would happen if every progressive blogger endorsed a one-week boycott of one specific advertiser in response to a specific piece of poor journalism? What if we noisily boycotted Macy’s for a week after the July 4 NYT travesty?
It may no longer be news to those of us who read blogs like this. If, however, you go to any forum on the Internet where U.S. politics are discussed, you’ll be astounded by the number of people who have bought the Bush version of reality. You’ll be stunned by how completely and blindly they’ve swallowed it. Constructing a case for the record is still a worthwhile activity, as there are many people who don’t see the case as being so obvious as do you.
It’s funny seeing people *talking* about how everyone needs to stop talking and act. Ok, stop talking and act … chirp chirp … See, you’re really clueless about life and politics. Go read Glenn’s response — you’ll learn something.
Susie asks, “at what point have we gathered enough evidence to justify doing something about it?”
I’ve cancelled the subscription to the local newspaper. Time, Newsweek, and USNW&R do not darken our door. I keep looking for alternative means to get C-Span so that I can stop subsidizing FOX. And every dime saved by not buying these defective products is sent to new media, including bloggers. Plus, like you, Susie, I provide promotions of alternative media… and even generate a certain amount of original content.
That’s all the action that should be required of any of us. What’s missing is not the call to action nor the means to action, but broadening the popular will to action.
Tell a friend.
I read Greenwald all the time and, like you, am constantly frustrated at his implied optimism about the corporate media (that unspoken belief that if we continue to expose their lies, we might wake up the public at large or force the media establishment to change for the better).
One way of realizing that a more radical approach is warranted is to take note of how little effort the GE’s and ADM’s of the world put into controlling public discourse - they could easily afford to double or triple their efforts. Greenwald should be applauded for his efforts, but you are most correct to chide him for his illogical optimism.