We Must Do Something About The Media

[JG55]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/336869.php

 

January 24, 2013

We Must Do Something About The Media

It's important.

I already mentioned the media's Hillary Tributes, but there's even more of it.

And I've mentioned this before, but I'm truly alarmed about it: What we are witnessing is the full and seamless fusion of media power with government power.

The media used to hide it a bit, in their actions; they would temper their scorn of conservatism, throw them a bone now and again just to prove they were capable of such a thing.

No longer. The media no longer hides it in their actions. They are fully fused with the Obama Administration and DNC. The only way in which they do hide it is by simply lying when confronted about it: They'll issue a snide denial, then go about doing precisely what it is they were accused of doing.

 

This is dangerous and unhealthy. I keep banging this drum but honestly, some patriotic billionaires do have to band together to purchase or build a media outlet. The outlet would be founded upon a simple premise: that it is dangerous and ultimately fatal for democracy for media power to fuse with government power, that the adversarial press is vital.

 

Fox alone isn't enough. For one thing, any venture needs competition; Fox doesn't really have competition, not for the audience it's targeting.

For another thing, frankly, look: Fox is often pitched too low to do any good with any but the already-alarmed. (Which I consider to be possibly a function of a lack of competition.)

The media considers its adversarial function to consist of serving as adversaries to critics of Obama and the Democrats; thus Terry Moran shaming himself by rushing out to ask what right a Senator has to question the Secretary of State on matters of foreign policy.

They do not consider themselves required to exert any adversarial pressure on governmental power itself (at least not so long as it is held by socialist Democrats; why sure, they'll rough up John Boehner!).

This is dark, and dangerous, and will lead to horrors. It always has lead to horrors before.

I wrote sarcastically on Twitter about this. I'm putting that below, just to have it in one place.

.@terrymoran, wouldn't you agree that it's a wonderful thing that media power has fused seamlessly with government power?

This is precisely what an advanced liberal society is supposed to look like, right? Criticism of political leaders is quasi-criminal?

It's a sign of a perfectly healthy democracy that the "Watchdog Media" fuses completely with the government power.

Nothing bad could possibly flow from this, a "Watchdog Media" fused in every way with the government power.

If you look at history, you'll find that most of the free, liberal periods occurred during a fusion of media power with state power.

If history shows us anything, it's that government functions best when it is vigorously defended and covered-up for by a compliant media.

There is absolutely no reason at all for the media to re-evaluate its short-term politicizing for government power and consider consequences.

Let's face it, the Adversarial Press is an anachronism. Modern times demand a press working hand-in-glove with the government.

As New York Times pundit Thomas Friedman so astutely observes, we can learn a lot from the Chinese government & their media.

A government that wishes Results and Transformations cannot deal with the niggling of press critics, or political opponents for that matter.

Certainly the media (and every other powerful corporation) should do everything within its power to stamp out the subversions of disunity.

Efficiency requires that all citizens, and of course all media outlets, vigorously support the five-year plans announced by the government.

If the American Experiment means anything, it's that we must all be united in the exact same system of beliefs and political desires.

...

Just to add to this: What we call "liberal" politics in this country has always been a mix of actual liberalism (one strain of it, at least) and outright leftism. (This W.R. Meade piece notes that liberalism began absorbing parts of socialism/communism/leftism in order to compete with those groups, when they threatened liberalism politically from the left.)

Liberalism is highly concerned with process. Both the liberal version of classic liberalism and the conservative version of classic liberalism consider process (fairness, equal access, and other such concerns) to be almost as vital as outcomes.

Actually, in reality, process is more important than outcomes, as far as the long-term health of a democracy, and all politically-minded people tend to put outcomes over process; we all do it, we all lapse. But generally we keep process firmly in mind, even if we don't quite give it the priority it deserves.

But leftism is a different beast. Leftism considers concerns of process to be a weakness, and indulgence for sissies and the faint-hearts; the only thing that matters -- the only thing that should be a concern for the properly-masculine, properly-indoctrinated New Man of the Left is outcomes.

Any tactic, fair or foul, is permissible in the quest for the Leftist State.

Now, until recently, liberalism had at least tried to give some lip service, and perhaps some actual consideration, to the faggy notions of process, fairness, access, and such.

But no longer. The press is actually not more nakedly liberal now; in fact, it's never been more illiberal, at least not since some press organizations romanticized fascism, Naziism, and socialist dictatorship in the tumultuous years of the thirties.

What it is is more unabashedly leftist. It no longer has any fears of qualms about government power (power, I mean, held by the Right Hands); it cheers it on, it coddles it, it encourages it, it nurtures it.

Consider: The government locked up a filmmaker because the filmmaker expressed his free speech rights in a way the president found politically problematic. Not only has the press shown no fears about this, they've actively campaigned for the man's jailing.

That's frightening. Even if you come down on the side that the guy did what he's accused of and all that... to have absolutely notrepidations about the government jailing people primarily for their Speech Crimes? That's something.

That's something.

I don't think I'm being alarmist. At every point in history when media power has fused with government power -- whether involuntarily or, for one of the first times in history, now voluntarily -- it has resulted in disaster and misery.

It has so resulted every time before. I don't see why now would be different. And I don't consider our new Media Masters "better" or "smarter" than the old ones -- indeed, these seem like the most incompetent, most callow, and most ethically challenged crop in history.

Among Many Good Comments... is this one, from rrpjr.

You're not being alarmist. It's the single most threatening development in my lifetime. It's hard to believe it has actually happened -- how did the graduates of the finest liberal schools in the world come to a shared conviction in the importance of their own professional corruption, to subvert the essential ethic of journalism and the First Amendment? Amazing, really -- every cautionary tale of the 20th century is at our disposal, right there to see both in reality and in our literature -- and all are ignored or sneered at in the name of ideology and power. What profound ignorance and arrogance.

The true source of Obama's power is completely overlooked (or willfully ignored) by the GOP, perhaps because it is too terrifying to contemplate, too awesome to engage: that he has completely removed an investigative and anti-authoritarian media (in Mencken's famous adage, one committed in part "to afflicting the comfortable") from the political dynamic. Obama operates with the most massive propaganda arm ever been seen in modern history. He is essentially invulnerable. At no point did Romney/Ryan come close to addressing this sick truth so dangerous to our society and freedoms. Nor do any other Republicans. Breitbart alone found expression for his moral outrage and developed a plan of counter-attack. Since he died, however, the game has gone back to carping and chronicling "media bias." We need a battle plan.

[Oh Shoot]

All true, but what are we to "do" about it?

 

BHO's joint interview with Hillary on 60 Minutes is obviously just to strengthen her position as heir apparent for the presidency in 2016, for example.

 

- OS

[East_TN_Patriot]

Agreed, but there is one fundamental fact that everyone must understand about the media.  They are not in the business for the viewer; they are in business for their advertisers.  The news media ultimately does not care what viewers want to see beyond what that means for the money they make from advertisers who pay based on the viewership numbers.  The more viewers or readers, the more the news outlet can charge for advertising space.  So if you want to influence media content, you do it with your pocketbook and threaten to boycott the businesses who pay for advertising space with outlets you don't like and support the businesses who advertise with the news outlets you do like. 

[DaveTN]

Freedom of speech. You may not like it but they can write what they want and put whatever spin they want on it. There are still responsible journalists out there. There are also a million crack pots that can put up a website and be referred to as “Media”.

 

We see it here all the time. Someone post something bizarre from a crack pot and some of us then question it and search out the truth and others just get in line to believe it.

 

Fox News and MSNBC’s target audience are very different with each having their own spin.

[mcurrier]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/58419-the-second-war-of-independence-is-declared/#entry884251

[RED333]

A place to start for ABC

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2049158

[Seabeejason]

We need a viable candidate for 2016.  I have a few in mind.  Rand Paul tops my list.

[Oh Shoot]

We need a viable candidate for 2016.  I have a few in mind.  Rand Paul tops my list.

 

He'd lose worse than Mitt did. Way worse. It's not an uber conservative country, man. Things could change, but I doubt that much.

 

Somebody's gonna have to really have some razzmatazz to beat Hildebeest, though.

 

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

Just sayin'.

[Moped]

I personally don't think Clinton will run in 2016.  She will be 69 and I suspect her health is not the best as evidenced recently. 

 

Back to the topic at hand; I totally agree with the OP.  I've noticed an alarming trend in the last two elections, with the major news outlets putting their most liberal attack dogs on the Republican Candidate's campaign trail.  This year it seemed to me to be Andrea Mitchell.  It was very evident that she was no friend to to Romney and seemed to go out of her way to only report negative articles about Romney. There were others too, but she stood out from the bunch. Yet there was no such journalist or group reporting on the Obama campaign.

 

We are starting to see the press side once again with Obama new pushes for social change.  Lots of negative reporting on the conservative push back, but all happy, happy reporting on the President's agenda. It's sickening to watch, honestly. There was a time when the press was the foil against bad Government.  Seems that's not the case anymore.  They are in bed with the Government.  If you don't believe me, watch all the political shows this morning and you will see.  There will be a group of talking heads most of whom are liberals, with a moderate or conservative (if they want to be edgy) thrown into the mix for "balance".

 

East Tennessee Patriot may have it right on how to control them though.  If enough pressure can be placed on their advertisers, then some of these shenanigans might stop.  The companies to target are almost all, Wall Street type companies.  They are Insurance companies and Investment Funds.  The problem is most are tied to our 401Ks. Hard to boycott them, when you don't have a choice on who you get to use.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Moped

[Alleycat72]

[1pointofview]

He'd lose worse than Mitt did. Way worse. It's not an uber conservative country, man. Things could change, but I doubt that much.

Somebody's gonna have to really have some razzmatazz to beat Hildebeest, though.

- OS

Paul would win. It is called leadership. When you lead the way like paul has been doing people follow. The only reason obama is in office is. Because he sold everyone about his intent. Romney lost because he showed no leadership. The moment he showed some balls during the first debate, he destroyed obama and took over the polls. The moment he started playing prevent defense he lost.

The next gop candidate had better stop smiling and playing defense with the libs and the media and go after them. Paul will do that.

[mcurrier]

No candidate can win if they have a massive media wing opposing them with lies 24/7/365. Bush was not a bad President, but the media spent 8 years trying to pushthat perception and finally succeeded in the end. So much so that 0bama is STILL out there blaming him for things. They said that we were in a "recession" for Bush's last 4 years (we weren't), but the media finally pushed us there in the last year. Yes, the "media" put us there by constantly saying that we were in one that people finally started believing it and acting like it, then there it was.


The media are most definitely the number one enemy. Figure out how to fight them before proposing the greatest candidate ever who "can't possibly lose". The media screwed Bush, although it really affected us citizens and not him so much. The media screwed McCain (yet he constantly goes back for more), and the media screwed Romney (candy crowley had to help 0 bama with his answers - and much more). The "media" is NOT objective or unbiased, they are socialist, leftist and marxist and they have an agenda. Edited January 27, 2013 by mcurrier

[Guest ThePunisher]

Freedom of speech. You may not like it but they can write what they want and put whatever spin they want on it. There are still responsible journalists out there.
 

Maybe a 1 to 10 ratio of responsible journalist. You can write down the MSM as enemy number 2 behind the number 1 Communist Democrats on the list that freedom loving people need to keep and read daily, and never, never ever forget these enemies. Whether number 1 or number 2, in the end they are both the same......enemies of Constitutional, freedom loving people.

[Oh Shoot]

Whether you discuss the media or the electorate, the only thing that will now turn this country toward conservatism is significant national pain in the pocketbook.

 

Which may well happen, but everyone will have to suffer through it, not just those of the ideology that caused it.

 

- OS

[Guest ThePunisher]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="897731" timestamp="1359328123"]Whether you discuss the media or the electorate, the only thing that will now turn this country toward conservatism is significant national pain in the pocketbook.   Which may well happen, but everyone will have to suffer through it, not just those of the ideology that caused it.   - OS[/quote] I remember the pocketbook pain during the Carter years, and most people back then felt the pain. That's how we got a conservative (Reagan) elected that brought everyone pocketbook solace.

[Oh Shoot]

I remember the pocketbook pain during the Carter years, and most people back then felt the pain. That's how we got a conservative (Reagan) elected that brought everyone pocketbook solace.

 

You'd have thought that there was enough pain this time, but I guess it has been felt mostly only by those who try to work for a living.

 

A little bout with king hell inflation will be the tide that lowers all boats.

 

- OS

[gregintenn]

Ever hear of Glenn Beck and Blaze TV? There are people working on alternative media, and I believe it will change the way we gather news and information. Today, the mainstream media are quickly making themselves irrevelent. You won't see it overnight, but the majority of people watching the 6oclock news are old codgers. They'll soon die out and no one will replace them.

 

As the media gets worse and worse, people will simply turn them off. Most news channels keep losing ratings each year, and many newspapers are bankrupting. You won't have to do anything to the media; they are commiting suicide.

[mcurrier]

[quote name="gregintenn" post="899687" timestamp="1359511808"]Ever hear of Glenn Beck and Blaze TV? There are people working on alternative media, and I believe it will change the way we gather news and information. Today, the mainstream media are quickly making themselves irrevelent. You won't see it overnight, but the majority of people watching the 6oclock news are old codgers. They'll soon die out and no one will replace them.   As the media gets worse and worse, people will simply turn them off. Most news channels keep losing ratings each year, and many newspapers are bankrupting. You won't have to do anything to the media; they are commiting suicide.[/quote]The new ones aren't coming fast enough and the old ones aren't commiting suicide fast enough for my taste.

[gregintenn]

I hear ya, but we didn't get in this mess overnight, and won't correct it overnight either. People are going to have to feel some pain first. I can see it starting to happen. I am glad Obamacare goes fully in effect next year before the midterm elections. It'll be a major tipping point in changing the makeup of congress next year. The reason you can't find an AR or ammo at a store right now isn't solely because of speculators. People are getting very apprehensive.

[mcurrier]

Oh, the pain IS coming, unfortunately.  That is what it will take I suppose for many to completely wake up.

[KaNuckles]

Oh, the pain IS coming, unfortunately.  That is what it will take I suppose for many to completely wake up.

I have the same thought. But you have to wonder how many are too far gone. How many will dig deeper rather than try to climb out.