The Corp. Media's Propaganda against Progressive Ideals; What are we doing about it?

[FrenchieCat]

I'm just curious as to why so many progressives ignore the fact that the corporate media is an
uncontrollable entity that fights against progressive ideals each and every single day of the week?

Why do some progressives believe that we can control the media and the message that they put out in their diligent attempts to sway the masses each and every day?

Why do some progressives choose to ignore the media in their rants of all that is wrong,
and actually believe that somehow, if we had a diffent approach, we'd be better off?
Why do you think it would be so easy? And if it is so easy, why do you think it hasn't been tried?
What proof do you have that your methods would work any better?

I have watched the corporate media closely since Lewinski on.

Here's what I have seen the corporate media accomplish to date:
Helped defeat the 1993 Health Care bill.
Helped get Pres. Clinton impeached.
Helped demonize Hillary Clinton.
Helped in the undoing of Candidate Al Gore.
Helped get Pres. Bush into the White House in 2000.
Helped us pass the Patriot Act.
Helped Bush get 90% approval after he allowed us to be attacked on our soil.
Helped get us to invade a Country that hadn't done anything to us.
Helped us hate the French.
Helped Howard Dean lose the Primaries.
Helped destroy John Kerry's military heroics.
Helped get Pres. Bush into the White House in 2004.
Helped progressives fight among themselves during the primaries of 2008.
Helped make the Obama Vs. McCain election results be closer than it had a right to be, considering.
Helped us get into a recession by promoting Free Market Ideals, and being Wall street's best bud while it benefitted them.
Helped demonize the Public Option,
and encourage the meme that Health Care reform is dead.
Enabled Sarah Palin's bullshit as viable.
Encouraged teabaggers by covering them as though they were many when they were but a few,
and make it appear that Republicans are somewhat reasonable in their complaints.

So why is the media not a force to be reckoned with, and if it is,
what are we going to do about them?
What are the suggestions on this?

And if they are an unsurmoutable force,
why do we, at the very least, not place the blame where it belongs,
and include them into the context as to why things are as they are?

The Constitution is clear about its reference to the right of the American people to be informed and kept engaged by a FREE press....but the press that we currently have is neither Free nor is it helpful.

So what are we going to do about them?
They are, after all, much more effective in shaping and directing this country's debate than the Republicans, the conservadems, the people, and the President, all put together.

I want to know if anyone, especially those who gripe about how Wall Street owns us, that this President is a corporatist, that Single Payer is the only way to go, that this HCR plan is a give away, have a plan with how to deal with a corporate media that is owned by corporate powers who are only interested in what's good for them.

What can we do that will actually work in restoring "Free Press" power to media voices
who have a genuine interest in seeing our country progress positively?
Why is this goal not a unifying and priority issue that we fight for as hard as we
do for everything else? Why are they not held responsible, and instead we buy their talking point
and use them against each other? Why?

[IndianaGreen]

1. You are the ones that surrendered without firing a shot on Single Payer

then stood cheering as the House passed an anti-abortion rights amendment and Harry Reid gave us a Public Option In Name Only.

Instead of blaming the RW, we should be blaming ourselves for giving in so easily to the corporatists among us.

As to your speficic question, it was Obama who came out against restoring the Fsirness Doctrine.

[FrenchieCat]

5. The "Fairness Doctrine" is not a panacea......

and to think so, is to think simply and without a mind toward politics.

The Right and the media raised such a big stink about its restoration (and this wouldn't touch cable anyways), the last time that it was brought up, that the idea was dead on arrival. Google it up and see.

Your suggestion is like asking the Senate to change the rules and to allow less than 60 votes to pass certain legislation....but needing 60 votes to pass that precise rule change.

If you, for one second, believe that there is any chance that the media and Republicans will allow a reasonable conversation to even be had in reference to the Fairness Doctrine, than you are even more naive about the state of affairs that we live under than I previously thought.

You have good ideas, just no clue as to achieve anyone of them.
Being loud but ineffective in actually getting something done is very easy,
and if you haven't notice, a lot of us do this....
but at the end of the day, now matter how many threads blaming this and that
we put up, we are nowhere closer to changing
those things of which we speak of.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Points of order:

Single Payer was not "surrendered". It was never even put on the table and there is no evidence whatsoever for this specious claim I keep hearing repeatedly here that pushing for SP at the outset would've helped produce a more progressive bill or stronger PO. We can debate the merits of whether SP should have been on the table but President Obama, even if he did support it at one time, did not campaign for it last year and neither he nor anybody else promised it consideration during the current debate. The way things are right now with our cadre of Blue Dog Dems, particularly in the Senate, it seems as though we will be quite fortunate if we are able to pass the relatively moderate legislation that is currently working its way through Congress. SP may well eventually come to fruition but it will take years of activism and getting like-minded progressives elected to Congress and the WH to get us there. If we are able to get SOMETHING through now, we will have a foundation upon which to build momentum for something like that in the future but there was NEVER any realistic hope for implementing SP in one fell swoop NOW.

Also, who exactly "stood cheering as the House passed an anti-abortion rights amendment"? I think that many of us (myself included) supported the passage of the House Bill (for pragmatic reasons- it had to get through) but I don't recall many (any?) of us being happy/supportive about the Stupak amendment and I think that we can all agree that it needs to be gotten rid of (and probably will be eventually). If you haven't noticed, *pro-life* Harry Reid did NOT include it in the Senate bill thus making it less likely to be in the final conference report and even President Obama is on record as opposing it.

[Laelth]

2. We need a liberal billionaire (or two) to open up liberal TV networks to oppose Fox.

Not being a liberal billionaire, there's not much I can do about that, but the answer seems obvious to me.

If we want to be treated fairly in the media, we must compete in the media. All the other TV media outfits are owned by conservatives. If we had some liberally-owned competition, we could actually offer the American people a liberal alternative to 24/7 conservative brainwashing.

So far, the liberal billionaires have not stepped up to the plate.

:dem:

-Laelth

[chill_wind]

3. Major Media Reform badly needed. MORA -- would be a start, seems to me

Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 Would End Media Consolidation

The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.
Media Ownership Reform Act
(Please note that Hinchey will be introducing an updated version of MORA in the coming weeks.)

Bill Summary
I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting

Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.

MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.




II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations

Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.

There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.

* MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households.
* The legislation would re-establish a national radio ownership cap to keep a single company from owning more than five percent of our nation's total number of AM and FM stations.
* The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.
* Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from aving conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.
* Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.

III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation

MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.

IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process

MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.

V. Requires Reports for Public Interest

MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.


Co-sponsors:


Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 7/14/2005
Rep Filner, Bob - 7/14/2005
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 7/14/2005
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 7/14/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara - 7/14/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim - 7/14/2005
Rep Moran, James P. - 7/14/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. - 7/14/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 7/14/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 7/22/2005
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh - 7/14/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 7/14/2005
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 7/14/2005
Rep Waters, Maxine - 7/14/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 7/14/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 7/14/2005

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

It's been laying around since 2005. I don't know what happened to it.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Yes, we need something like this.....

Because the Fairness Doctrine really no longer is helpful unless it is unlinked from the fact that the Airwaves are public, since cable is not considered public airwaves.

I believe that consolidation is the problem.......many media outlets all owned by 5 large corporations.

I think that we should start writing to our representatives in reference to this....them and the White House. In addition, I think we should start letting the media know that they do not represent a free press, and that they are not upholding the intents as they were spelled out in the constitution. Further, I think we need to stop watching the garbage known as cable, because since so few watch to begin with, a movement to boycott certain shows, being loud about it, and contacting the advertisers who run ads on those shows could bring us some progress.

CNN, MSNBC, and Fox as wells as the network can scream that they are "fair" in their reporting, but we all know that this is a lie, and they should be challenged each and every day by way of phone calls and letters. The right has done this to great results, and I believe that instead of all of us working so hard at tearing each other down, we should be focusing like a laserbeam on the real scoundrels in this ordeal, and their name is Corporate media, i.e., Viacom, Disney, NewsCorp, General Electric and Time-Warner. They are the fucked up face of most of the media that we digest.

I've been about fighting the media for a long time, but apparently, me and the ones who fight with me are simply not large enough in numbers.

[chill_wind]

7. I'd agree.

re: Fairness Doctrine- not a panacea

Here's a pretty good treatment at F.A.I.R. on the subject and its history. and they argue for bringiing it back, but they essentially concede that it's just one tool, and not the ultimate one:

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

The MORA Bill has made it it's top pillar. Which maybe does explain why it went totally no-where in 2005.
Even today, there is not a lot of seeming broad appeal for the doctrine, even on DU, from what I can remember of these debates in the past. But there are other good provisions in the bill. I hope they will revisit and rework such a bill. We NEED it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. First thing is to repeal the Murdoch/Clear Channel enabling act of 1996

The Fairness Doctrine is not a solution. We don't need Thom Hartmann and Rush Limbaugh on the same radio stations, we need Thom Hartmann on a radio station in every market where Limbaugh has one. Then watch the ratings and see whose message really is preferred on that equal playing field. In the markets where both are currently allowed to compete, Thom comes out ahead.

And the ownership problem needs to be dealt with NOW, before Comca$t is allowed to silence the three (arguably 4, when Tweety's good personality shows up) hours of reasonable news coverage that exists on MSNBC.

[chill_wind]

9. Good points.

[FrenchieCat]

12. For once in a few times, we agree!

That's heartening!

[Ghost Dog]

8. Study the like of AIPAC's methods and get serious

about this?

[bertman]

10. Frenchie Cat, your analogy about trying to change Senate legislation so it doesn't

require 60 votes when you need 60 votes to change the rule is an apt one and applies to the media problem as well.

The people who own the media are the same people who have bought our President and Congress and who control the airwaves that we need in order to educate the masses. To think that those same folks are going to just give up that power and that money without a bloody fight is naive. Control of the media is the single most important strategic necessity to controlling the country. It's even more important than controlling the military or the police. Revolutions have been successfully instigated by individuals who were able to gain control of state-controlled media. These people know it's their most important asset and they will not willingly give it up.

Even having unfettered access to the internet will not overcome the entrenched power of the Teevee, radio, and print media to dictate the direction and tone of political "debate". Too few people rely upon the internet for their news--at least now. And if that were to change, rest assured that there would be a government takeover of the internet to ensure that the "wrong" factions did not gain power.

[Cha]

11. Good List Frenchie..I'm going to save it.

The corporatemedia is America's Public Enemy Number One and they don't try to hide it.

It will take the masses to dissolve it but of course there are many people who benefit from Corporate Facist Central.

[RepublicanElephant]

14. k&r nt