"Hold the media accountable?" Ain't gonna happen.

[Ron Green]

In every thread about the hegemony of the corporate media, someone says we've got to hold them accountable, somehow. There are phone numbers and email addys galore, and petitions online for media fairness and so on.

Look, people - - they are simply giving the American people what they want! As long as the market is in place, the media will follow, not lead, the taste and judgment of the masses. The best-rated shows tend to be the most shallow, and that goes for "news," as well.

If anyone sees a way around this basic fact, I'd like to hear it.

[plcdude]

1. I think

you are diminishing the power of public relations to influence the will of people. For example it is not particularly difficult to create trends by advertising utilizing famous people as advocates of this trend. People in the United States draw their desires, wants, and material goods based on what they are shown to be cool and attractive. They are not simply giving the people what they want they are determining for people their wants. So I think they can be held accountable. Unfortunately the fairness doctrine which help to control the power of the media is no longer an option. Now it is up to independent groups to seek and demand objectivity and fairness into the media's offerings. This is the great challenge we have against the growing fascism of the * administration.

[Ron Green]

3. I'm glad you brought up the Fairness Doctrine and I agree that it should

be reinstated (although I don't give it much of a chance.) And yes, consensus can be manufactured, but the gut will always trump the brain when people are offered a choice and the votes are counted.

The "independent groups" which must seek and demand objectivity and fairness are, I'm afraid, small potatoes compared to the circuses of our modern mental environment.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I see it quite differently .... they're perhaps not the market whores ....

.... they're accused of being.

*If* they were 'market whores' going for the biggest profit, they'd see the absolute logic of going after a woefully under served market demographic ..... the liberals! We're right at one half of this country if the election is even faintly an indicator. Quite likely we're more than 50%.

Put on a quality alternative to the right wing blather and you'd have a very profitable business. I'm not talking about what NPR and NPT used to be (boooooooooring) ...... I'm talking about modern aesthetic sensibilities, very high production standards, a smattering of eye candy .... all that the right wing media is now .... but with a leftward tilt ('leftward tilt' not to be read as biased .... just honest).

So, if that scenario seems reasonable (and I believe it is), then why are the media doing what they're doing?

For the obvious fucking reason ..... their corporate owners are more interested in propping up a republican regime than anything. Consider 'the media' as their off the books political contribution ... one that keeps on giving.

[Ron Green]

5. I'd like to agree with you that the liberals are a large and shining

market, but somehow they just don't seem to have the numbers. What I see is intellectually-lazy, junk-food eating, junk-TV watching folks in HUGE numbers who would rather be titillated than challenged. And challenges are what we've got, if we want to fix the economy, environment, foreign policy, etc. -- a quality alternative to the RW media couldn't hold the attention of the masses simply because the leftward tilt will lose them. It appeals to the cerebral cortex rather than to the lizard brain, where they're so much more comfortable.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. What you described is not what I had in mind

Not taking anything away from your sense of what's needed (I agree with you) ...... but I'm talking about a left leaning network that 'grabs' in the same way Fox grabs its viewers ...... tabloid shit ... vitriol ... all that we complain about ... think Randi Rhodes-ish instead of Dick Cavitt fer the yakkers ..... and Nat'l Enquirer for the fluff shit ..... but delicately balanced to give a liberal slant. And with real news.

You want scandal? You want sex? You want obvious villans? Just look to Bushco. Its ***all*** there ... if we play that with the same sort of production values, the same sort of vitriol .... we get our views out ... grab the mouth breathers .... and the new network makes money.

I'm not lookin' for pretty and I'm not lookin' for PC .... I'm lookin' to WIN.

[PowerToThePeople]

4. They are dieing fact, like the repukes

They are fighting for their life now. I haven't had a TV in 4 years. Get all my news, etc from the internet. And I know many young people who do the same thing. I don't miss MSM at all. They will lose advertising $s and eventually go under. They are a scared animal who knows that he is gonna die.

[Ron Green]

6. But aren't the cable and satellite outlets taking up the slack left by the

networks? Are you sure that TV watching as an activity is diminishing in this country? I'd like to think so, but I have the feeling that more TV's are being sold all the time. Does anyone have the statistics on this?

[ClassWarrior]

8. Read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" for a primer on how the...

...Republicons "worked the refs" in the Corporate Media.

NGU.

[Morose]

9. How do you detox a country addicted to it's Soma?

Especially when they love it so? I'm fairly worried you are correct. The problem is you have to get them OFF the soma before they'll be rational enough to realize the Soma is bad.

And we don't have a fraction of the power or pull it would take to get THEM to stop taking their daily dosage.

And it sucks to be the only sober one at the party.

Sigh.

[evolvenow]

10. Here's my idea for being our OWN MEDIA, what do you think about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3603092

[Ron Green]

24. I love it, and I love your enthusiasm!

I'm just feeling to old and tired and cynical to have much hope.
x(

[Jacobin]

11. The ARE accountable.....

to those that keep their FCC licenses in place, keep their 'reporters' in the WH press corp (if they'll be nice), not report anything damaging about their masters.

The problem is that they are not accountable to the public.

[BurtWorm]

12. The news media are not giving the people what they want.

And certainly not what they need. The corporate programmers give the people what's cheapest to produce and supply. But the demand for the product goes down and down and down and down.

[Dr Fate]

13. I agree. Lets hold Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Reid, Obama etc accountable.

The high-profile, house-hold name, quoteable DEM leaders can speak up on issues that the media wont cover- but they often ignore issues unless Wolf Blitzer vets/defines the issue 1st.

A perfect example is the new UK Iraq memos- of course the media ignores them- but so far, so does Kerry, Dean, Hillary,Reid Obama, etc- what is up with that???

We cant expect Wolf & Tweety to "cover" somthing if the top DEMs wont touch it either.

[Morose]

14. But are we assuming incorrectly

that they don't raise these issues? how are we to know if the media simply fails or refuses to carry their POV when they do speak out?

[Dr Fate]

16. I just heard Dick Durbin on the Ed Schultz show. No mention of it.

And Kerry, Obama, Dean , Hillary, etc could get slots on Air America or those network & cable interview/debate shows and bring up this issue too.

At the least, they could go on local news shows in their states/districts, Air America, The Daily Show or Bill Marr and bring up the memo.

They could try writing op-Ed pieces to major news papers about the UK memo as well.

[Dr Fate]

19. Just heard Obama on the same show- not a peep about the UK memo.

But some still have me believe it's purely "the media's" fault that no one knows about this.

[Morose]

22. I wouldn't have you belive it's ONLY the media's fault

I simply questioned whether or not we're validating our assumptions as we go along.


Good example today with Dick Durbin. On the other hand, Kerry was repeatedly accused of things like not talking tough about Bush...only to find that he had, and most of the times he had, it wasn't covered.

Now perhaps he saw this as a careful strategy...perhaps it was cooperating with the system. I don't know. I just like to have my facts checked before I claim knowledge.

In this case...could OUR leaders do a lot more? probably. In fact I'm pretty darned pessimistic about everything they're doing (or not doing). I just don't want to whitewash it all and forget the efforts when they do make them...or forget that many of their efforts aren't covered.

In the end, I suppose I see media and politicians as both having been largely bought out by corporate interests and ultimately serving those masters. But a small glimmering speck of hope in me keeps me looking for exceptions .

:D

[Dr Fate]

23. Oh I agree- you cant wait to be "covered."

Kerry's speeches, press conferences and press realeses were not fully "covered"- but all of his TV interview shows were. So were the Debates.

Plenty of news papers and local/network/cable deabte/interview shows would be glad to have him, Dean, Hillary, etc on.

Everything you say is right-we have identified the problem- I'm all about figuring out ways to get around it.

We KNOW the media will not repeat DEM talking points for us-so the top DEMs need to go out to what ever forums they can find and do it instead.

[globalvillage]

25. Like This?

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/usatoday/usatoday5130.php

[Dr Fate]

30. Yes- that is one way. I donated $15 bucks towards that effort.

Not a lot, I know, but I'm no Rockerfella.

The media IS covering, or at least talking about those issues in that ad, BTW.

He needs to put out an ad about the UK memo- or even better, team up with 10 or so top-name DEMS and go on all the TV interview shows and get this on Red State TV screens.

Iraq is the #1 issue for me- I realize it's not the most "safe" issue- but it is the most important.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. That's my take too

We are more screwed than just the media being against us, if our party leadership isn't for us either.

And this, I fear, is the truth of the matter. Either they don't want to be McKinney'ed or Daschle'd, and/or they like the corporate perks.

[Dr Fate]

17. Or they like losing elections. n/t

n/t

[Clark2008]

18. You'll be happy to note that Faux's down 8 percent, too

But, for the life of me, I can't find the link.

Read it on the Clark blog, yesterday.

[kentuck]

20. The media was complicit...

In the whole, lying affair now known as the Iraq War..

[Oeditpus Rex]

26. Not complicit

Misled. Lied to. Just like the rest of us.

Those who kept repeating the lies when the truth was known were/are complicit.

[txaslftist]

21. When the truth becomes too big to ignore, then and only then...

...will the truth, or some version of it, come out.

What will it take for the corporate media whores to become objective journalists instead of panderers? Never gonna happen.

Faux news is not going to go through some sort of conversion to report unspun truth. They will spin the news at the bidding of the powers that own them until they either go out of business or they get bought by other powers that dictate some other spin.

The other major news outlets are the same. The propaganda machine of the third reich kept on spinning out tales of victory against the Russians right up until after the shells were falling in Berlin. They kept lying and covering up the holocaust until they were ultimately destroyed.

It took the discovery and actual liberation of the death camps in Germany and points east to convince people that the rumors of them were reality. Still there are apologists who contend that the holocaust never happened, wasn't severe, didn't really kill eleven million people, etc. ad nauseum.

There is neither objectivity nor freedom in todays "objective, free press". If you want to know the truth you have to go and see for yourself, otherwise all you will ever get is some bullshit spin on the truth. What really happened in Fallujah? Do you think you know? Depends totally on who you ask, doesn't it? And will you get an objective story from anyone? How will you identify which story is the truth?

This is the information age and we are discovering that, like all truths, laws or theories, objectivity is relative.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. To use the Media as our Medium, in this day and age is naive.

[Djinn]

28. exactly they ARE accountable

to their shareholders and that's all they're ever going to be

[sweetheart]

29. It will take direct action

It may take a level of tactical violence to get media corporations to
consider whether they value their money more than their well being.

Its too bad there is no Yakuza in the USA, as this would be a perfect
job for the yakuza. Then any swift boat liar would have to watch his
back until one day, he just had an accident. Then increasingly, the
same sort of thuggery the corporatists employ against the poeple using
the police state could be responded to in-kind.

Until then, as you say, not bloodly likely.