This has been disproven many times by famous academics and media critics such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti. The media follows a propaganda model in democratic countries that has a pro business/pro government slant to it. In his 1988 book Manufacturing Consent Chomsky and his coauthor Edward Herman list a five tier propaganda model that explains the news media bias. I will list the five tiers and explain them. Remember if one wants to know how something works start with the internal and institutional structure.
1. Ownership of the medium- One needs to think, Who owns most news and media mediums? Well most are owned by major corporations or conglomerates. The majority of newspapers are owned by publishing companies, and most news mediums are owned by their own corporation or a subsidiary Such as CNN being a part of Time Warner, CBS is owned by CBS, Bloomberg is owned by Michael Bloomberg(who is a crook in so many ways but that's a rant for another day), and Fox is owned by News Corp who is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Now since most business are conservative or moderate it t's logical that the companies they own(news mediums) will reflect the desires of their owner. After all it's a law of the jungle that you do not piss off your boss.
2. Funding- All news mediums are funded mostly through advertising. So a company is not going to want to fund something it does not agree with. For instance Why would walmart want to sponsor a business that always slams them about how they should unionize or pay higher taxes? They wouldn't its illogical for any business to do so.
3. Sourcing- The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with major sources of information due to economic necessity. So a news medium is not going to report on anything that can offend major business or government unless they have to. Let me explain this another way. In the 1960's the FBI carried out a series of covert and often illegal projects to discredit activist groups and major social movements. this was called COINTELPRO(short for counterintelligence program). Basically the jist of it was if you were an activist group like a civil rights, feminist, women's rights, or environmentalist group COINTELPRO would have people infiltrate and try to break them up, have the media run smear campaigns, have people arrested etc. Because every system of power throughout history wether democratic or not has always feared rebellions and uprisings from its citizens, all governments used some forms of social control, they have to otherwise there would be anarchy. But back to my point COINTELPRO was largely ignored by the news media because it affected individuals not the major institutions that play large parts in running the country (we only know of it now through declassified government documents. Now things like the Clinton scandals were reported by the media because they effected the major institutions and if they didn't report on them they would go down with them, however they watered down things like they would portray people who believed Clinton had those women threatened, as people who believe in a vast right wing conspiracy or as lunatics, which was the opposite, several of Clinton's people had to plea the 5th under oath when asked if Clinton had women threatened. They had the media portray monica lewinsky as a blackmailer and a stalker(now this was before they knew she had evidence to support the contrary. Now take something like Ralph Nader's run for president in 2000. The media left or right engaged in a Nader smear campaign, the left would say he cost gore the election(which isnt true the supreme court awarded the presidency to bush), and from every election onward ralph nader was used as a scapegoat and a reason not to vote for a third party,and to vote for dem or republican. Now if the media was truly liberal wouldn't they welcome an ultra progressive like Nader with open arms? The right wing media portrayed him as a lunatic and a threat to freedom. So this is an instance where the media was on the same page with one another.
4. Flack- The media portrays individuals or groups that don't agree with them as fringe or lunatics, a good example of this is the alternative energy people. The people who believe Hydraulic Fracturing by companies is evil are discredited and attacked and debated. In 2003 MSNBC fired two of their hosts Jesse Ventura and the host of their highest rated show Phil Donahue(sp?) because they opposed the war. In his 2008 book Jesse Ventura explains that MSNBC paid out the rest of his contract(despite the fact his show was only on air for 2 months) with the condition that he not do any press interviews for 3 years.
5. Fear and social control- The media elicits control over people by feeding them fear and keeping them divided by the social controls of the times before the 90's the major social control was communism. There was a communist on every street, now since the 2000's its terrorism, you have to be afraid that there's a terrorist around every corner. Fear divides people and keeps them from coming together on ideas and as a whole.
Now I'll give you some more examples of things. During the whole occupy movement, when it first started it was ignored at first, then they started to smear the people they would show photos of people dressed funny or like hippies, then they would redirect it as people were against the rich and wealthy banks. Which wasn't the cause at first, people were fed up with the companies owning politicians and lobbying. Now because of the media it has become what they made it into where people hate the rich because they believe the wealthy banks cause the great recession(which is not true the financial crisis was caused by the mortgage companies giving loans to people who couldn't afford them just so the workers could get commissions, because god forbid people start small with starter homes. Then the occupy movement attracted populists and socialists who cried "Its the banks fault they have record amounts of cash". Which is stupid because yes the banks have record amounts of cash but its because their reserves are so high since they couldn't make loans during the recession. Now the media had to redirect the original purpose of the occupy movement which was for the businesses to stop buying our politicians and lobbying. Now because that's a tremendous influence powerful interest groups, the media redirected it to the rich vs. poor and that's exactly what it became.
Now you might be thinking well ok if the media isn't liberal why do they promote things like gay marriage and abortion(very liberal ideas)? Well think about it if they offend major groups of buyers they cannot sell their products and the businesses that sponsor the media institutions will withdraw sponsorship so they aren't affiliated with them otherwise they'll lose major groups of buyers, and businesses NEVER want to offend major potential buyers. Now after reading this I want you to know that I am ABSOLUTELY NOT anti business! I love business and capitalism and would like to own my own someday once I save up money( and don't worry I am fiscally center right, I believe in lower taxes and slight deregulation in business, I only want govt regulation in things like the environment and energy and education. I am a realist though I realize that you cannot have a democracy without having it controlled by the private sector, instead of govt. And while yes at times it may seem bad its the best system a govt controlled by the private sector. Remember Aristotle once listed 6 forms of government in order of how terrible they were. The worst was a Monarchy and The least worst and most stable was democracy.
In the video above Dr. Noam Chomsky, who is regarded as one of the world's leading intellectuals, and others explain why there is no liberal bias in media
Another academic Michael Parenti explains the same thing as well
No comments:
Post a Comment