Quick Explanation of Why The MSM Eagerly Replays Smears of Democratic Presidential Candidates

[Median Democrat]

We have seen on Larry King and numerous other cable programs how relatively little attention is being given to McCain's direct involvement as a member of the Keating 5, as well as his wife's investments with Keating, while replaying disproved attacks on Obama's "associations." Worse, when discussing the negative attacks, the MSM has pushed the theme of false neutrality to excuse McCain by saying that both candidates have gone negative to suggest that Obama's references to the Keating 5 are equivalent to McCain's reliances on Ayers. The MSM is largely being passive, and merely repeating and replaying these disproved attacks. Also, after many polls and pundits scored the debate in favor of Obama, the stories being shown the day after are largely pushing the theme that the debate was a draw. Again, the MSM is trying awfully hard to suggest that the election is 50/50.

Why is that?

First, as the infamous ABC leaked memo shows, the MSM's corporate sponsors require the MSM to oppose liberals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/air-americas-abc-blackli_b_33123.html

/snip

This week we learned that some 90 major corporations demanded that their ads be pulled from radio stations that run Air America programming, demonstrating the fundamental challenge facing everyone working to promote critical journalism and a vibrant free press.

First off, let's clarify why this is taking place: The crime isn't that Air America is partisan. All or most of these firms advertise on politically conservative talk radio programs and/or stations. And the crime isn't even being "liberal." Some of these advertisers have moderate or liberal executives who donate to Democratic candidates and are far from rabid conservatives.

So what is the problem? While "liberal" Air America clearly favors big D Democrats, unlike virtually all other programming on commercial radio and television, it gives airtime to reports that are critical of corporations and the powerful politicians they keep in Washington.

This is the heart of the problem: Air America commits a crime called journalism. Almost none of the so-called conservative radio shows or networks do any semblance of actual reporting. They merely pontificate -- repeating talking points that seem to be emailed straight from Karl Rove's laptop.

/snip

Second, Barack Obama is an outspoken supporter of a diverse and independent media:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6570325.html

Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/C ... ) last year?

A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.

Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?

A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.

Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?

A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.

/snip

Third, BIG MEDIA is bigger than ever before, and it controls what you see and hear, therefore it controls what you think:

<>

<>

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I have been pointing this out for years, but never so effectively as you did

right here.
Thanks.

[Median Democrat]

6. I Also Think That The MSM Pushes Two Myths To Hide This Bias

First, is the liberal media bias myth. Several times in this election alone, shortly after the GOP raises complains about liberal media bias, the media has sharply reacted by going negative on Obama. The liberal media bias myth gives media the political cover to do things like giving the Ayers smears repeated airplay while also ignoring McCain's role in the Keating Five. Of course, McCain has used the liberal media bias allegation perhaps more than most, thus it is losing effectiveness, particularly since Obama and company have started to call it "working the refs" and pulling a Phil Jackson.

Second, there is the myth that Democrats don't fight back. The media spreads this myth to justify ignoring Democratic responses to Republican smears. For instance, during the Kerry campaign, Kerry DID respond very forcefully to allegations by the Swiftboat Veterans, but these efforts were largely ignored in favor of repeated coverage of the smears.

Finally, there is the story you never hear from the mainstream media, corporate influence over the mainstream media. This is NEVER covered. Think about it. A day does not pass without some sort of reference to liberal media bias, but never does the media examine whether it is influenced by the political views of its sponsors. It would be great if the media would provide a breakdown of the industries that most frequently advertise, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

[OneGrassRoot]

2. K&R and bookmarked, with a huge thank you! n/t

[Overseas]

3. I usually give the short answer -- Media Consolidation into Republican Hands

and post the link to the charts you show above

http://www.corporations.org/media/

With 50 media companies, you got a much broader array of reporting perspectives.

[myrna minx]

4. Excellent post. K&R and bookmarked. n/t

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

5. Thanks, M. D.!

As someone (Harry Truman?) once said, we don't just give 'em hell, we give 'em the truth and they think it's hell.