Benjamin, While I appreciate the time and thought that went into this point ... I mean, I thank you for explaining yourself in such detail, I do have some points I disagree with -- points that I think undercut your argument.
Freedom of Speech: I feel you make some generalizations here. You can't simply white wash free speech as a corporate/money issue. This is a complex issue that I don't want to get too bogged down in right now, but in this country, your assertion certainly isn't true. And in places like Palestine, any lack of freedom of speech has more to do with politics and peer pressure than MacDonalds or Coca Cola or AT&T. Who Owns the Media: So what GE owns NBC? The CEO makes damn few news decisions. Even the Editor in Chief makes damn few news decisions in relativeness to the total number of news decisions made. The vast majority news decisions are made by reporters and producers (not as lofty a position as the title suggests). Just like in any company, the executives let the worker bees sweat the small stuff. And the vast majority of worker bees in the news business (and I know this first hand) are hard working, conscientious, professional individuals who do their best to bring fair, unbiased reporting to the public. Yes, there are examples of CEOs spiking embarrassing stories. But I've never seen NBC, for example, shrink from reporting negative stories about GE. I know all about FAIR and their assertion that there is no liberal bias in the media because all of the major news outlets are owned by conservative companies, therefore, the bias must be conservative. But as I said, most decisions are made at fairly low levels. And all survey's show these low levels are fairly left-leaning, so if there is a bias (and I maintain it's usually unintentional), it's to the left not the right. Now, as for money, every good employee wants to see his or her company make a profit and do well -- it's called job security and raises. But I can assure you that the vast majority of reporters and editors, when making news decisions, make them with nary a thought toward profit. They might come up with sexy news story ideas because they know they'll attract viewers or readers, but that has as much to do with stroking one's own ego as it does money. And many, many reporters, especially in print, feel compelled to bring the public stories that readers and viewers ignore -- but they're still important stories and the reporters involved feel duty bound to report them. I see this every day. Fox: If there is a consciously biased news organization, it's Fox. Like the Washington Times, Fox is run by overtly conservative people who feel it is there duty to try and balance the liberal bias they see in other media outlets. The primary motivation of Fox, it is clear, isn't profit (though they want all of it they can get, like any good company), it's ideology. Sure, they want to embarrass, say, CNN by bringing on this author you mentioned, but they don't expect to gain more advertising from that, or necessarily even more viewers. They are hoping to bring professional shame to the others and hopefully turn them from their wicked liberal ways. (Granted, I can't prove any of this; it's speculation. But you can't prove your profit-only thesis either. That's just your speculation. I offer the counter argument to give you (and any fools bored enough to read our exchange) an alternative way of looking at things -- though I'm sure I'm right!<g>). Profits: What's wrong with profits? What's wrong with Colin Powell making $8 million? There's no evidence he was any way involved in the merger decision. I don't think he should have been, nor do I think that his son should have taken that into consideration, and I agree there is an unsavory appearance, but none of that means it was a bad decision. On it's merits, it was a good decision. There certainly wasn't anything that was legally, morally or ethically wrong with it (meaning the actual merger it's self). Have corporations screwed people over before (like the recent Enron fiasco)? Yes? But corporations are not evil in and of themselves. People making millions of dollars through corporations is perfectly fine -- it isn't immoral, illegal or unethical in and of itself. So what's the issue here? I mean, why should it matter that 51 of the top 100 economies are corporations. What's wrong with that? Being Critical of Government: Corporately owned news organizations are critical of government all of the time. Do the phrases Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monicagate ring any bells? Come on -- the competition is fierce and nothing sells better than controversy, and few things are more titillating than government scandal. Remember the whole thing about the $600 toilet seats? If the media has a fault it is that they are a little too anxious to find partisan bickering around every corner and in every issue. The media thrives off of government criticizing itself. There is a huge amount of the evidence weighted against your conspiracy theory of how the media and the government work. Taliban: I saw several reports about Taliban's human rights violations in mainstream media prior to Sept. 11. While it wasn't front page news, it was news. It was reported. But it wasn't something the American people cared about, so there was no demand to bring it front and center. You can't blame that on the media. They do have an obligation to their stock holders, their employees and even their customers (readers, viewers and advertisers) to turn a profit. They can't bore people to death with news people don't care about. Well, I've rambled enough. Good night. H. -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:02 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Corporate Interests (was: Massive blasts rock Central Jerusalem :() This is preciously my point Howard. You state that you don't appreciate being generalized with "these others" as you describe them. My contention is that people across the world are being grossly generalized by the homogenious motivations of the corporate media. What representation do they have access to, for us to judge them without bias? What if you were a non-violent Palistinian and wished the world would stop seeing you as a rabid terrorist? What freedom of speech do they have to proclaim their innocent? Freedom of speech in the current world is really the freedom to buy speech at a cost. The amount of freedom you have is determined by your budget and it's the global corporations that have the most 'freedom of speech'. Just today for example I witnessed what I find to be a very good example of another method of subtle media manipulations. Fox News had a segment with a guest who wrote a book concerning the obsurd (my inflection) "liberal bias" of the mainstream media. A book whose contention was to convince the reader that the mainstream media was in effect "left leaning" and liberal in orientation. This comes from a cable news network that is most definately not liberal but seeks exclusively in these times to gater more support/viewship by discrediting its competition (CBS in the case)... This kind of information selection is very powerful as the net effect is not to declare oneself politically as either/or but to accuse other stations of being one or the other (although I doubt you would ever find a station accusing another of being right wing! After all, that would almost be a compliment in these times) By way of simply selecting certain guest/stories etc the all powerful corporate media chiefs contruct the picture and 'educate' the population on adgendas that are inline with those who run the network and who run the country. In fact, this logic could be extended. The networks power is exercised not by what they choose to air, but what they choose not to air. Furthermore, these adjenda's are also inline with those who are in power as the primary focus in US politics is big business. It doesn't take too much time research to a) find out who owns the major media outlets and b) establish their motives. Here are some examples: NBC: Owned by General Electric Co. MSMBC: Joint partnership between Microsoft and MBC ABC: Walt Disney Company CBS: Westinghouse Electric Company FOX: News Corp Ltd CNN: AOL Time Warner Now having mentioned those companies (all multi-billion dollar operations), it's not difficult in understand that they have far reaching global economic interests that well and truely intersect with federal politics. ( Side note: Did you know that of the top 100 economies of the world 51 of these are corporations and not countries). So it then follows that they are going to cooperate with govenment actions and in doing so promote the causes of the federal govenment which inturn promotes the causes of these massive global companies (especially in times of war). You could call it a mutually symbiotic relationship. Take the current so called 'stimulus' package which contains contriversal tax breaks and concession for big business. The govenment and media will tell you that this is to promote the economy and stimulate grow and economic recovery for the little man when in reality, it's big business that most benefit. In many cases however, large companies now 'in trouble' are not in trouble because of 9/11 but because the have spent the last decade outspending their competition in an attempt to put their competition out of business for market share. Lobbists on behalf of these companies seeks this lucrative tax cuts to profit from the current circumstance (however immoral that may be if you consider the laid off workers and the stratespheric salaries of the corporate executives). What does the media tell us? What does GWB tell us? That the govenment is trying to help though poor workers who lose their jobs and that this is what the package is designed to do. Simply, yet effective propaganda organised, designed and delivered by media outlets with vested interest in these policies as they stand to benefit. After all, if a corporately owned media outlet is too critical of it's govement what happens when the corporations lobbists walk into Washington... it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Here is another example of insider dealing. Colin Powell's son is chairman of the govenment body that approves corporate mergers and aquisitions. He was in part responsible for allowing the Time/AOL merger. His father made something like 8 millions dollars from this merger. Whose interests do the media really represent? My point this that corporate owned mainstream media deliver shrink wrapped 'news' to a public always in need of consumerable information (and our palate is beginning more any more limited just as our diet becomes more and more dependant of processed foods). Demand for this information is not inate, it's manufactored (as early as the fifties I believe corporations where endaged in the practice of 'consumer engineering'). And just as demand is manufactored, so to are the stories, for it's through the stories that the networks 'captivate' their audiences in order to sell more advertising. As Will pointed out, western govenments (and I'll extend this to western media) have had no interest in Taliban's human rights offences. Only when it becomes useful to prop up the western powers moral standing (and provide the basis of a good multi-part series of news stories) does it every become an issue in the west. Forming oppinions of the Taliban based on this information is no different from having an oppinion of the entertainment value of Harry Potter. And of no more significance. This may be a long post Howard, but I resist your desire to boil down my position. Point simply, my understanding of the world is more complex then the 2 or 3 lines you chizelled out of my post. I'm not in any hurry, I don't have a commerical break to cut to, so I my statements don't need to fit into a 30 second time slot. My attention span is greater than that. I could go on for days explaining the even more intricate motivations behind these companies and those people in washington and you wont... no let me rephrase that... you will NEVER get this kind of information from corporate owned networks. I like to resist the forces that would attempt to own my mind. This is what the media does best. Benjamin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
