Stop using the term "MSM" or "Mainstream Media" It's a BS term invented by the RW.

[uhnope]

Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I've noticed that it's usually CTers and what I call the Orthodox Left (those that think RT is a legitimate news source) that use the term "mainstream media" or "MSM" on DU.

Here's Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas on the subject back in 2007:

"MSM" vs. "Traditional Media"

It's become in vogue by progressives to adopt the right-wing acronym "MSM" to refer to the "mainstream media". It's quite common on this site as well as elsewhere (Arianna uses it here).

I've written before about this (too lazy to search for it). It's a ridiculous term to adopt.

First of all, it's a right-wing pejorative, and I'd rather we not adopt their language and frames.

But more importantly, by calling them "mainstream media", we are saying that we ourselves aren't mainstream, and that's not something I'm willing to concede. This site gets far more readers than most "mainstream media" publications, so why are they mainstream, while we are, by definition, the fringe?

Let the right wingers place themselves out of the mainstream. That's where they belong, with Mr. 25% and the dead-enders who believe fairy tales of a pacified, democratic, pro-Israel Iraq and raft-building kangaroos.
Read more

Mouslitsas essentially predicted the future. As this analysis of Nate Silver and the 2012 election shows, it was the GOP's shunning of the "MSM" that divorced it from reality so badly that they actually thought that Romney was going to win:

How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File
Nate Silver was right. His ideological antagonists were wrong. And that's just the beginning of the right's self-created information disadvantage.
...
Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike four years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday's result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout -- Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes.... Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.

Those audiences were misinformed.

Substitute RT for FOX News, Counterpunch for the Drudge Report, "The Real News Network" (I just can't write that without quotes) plus Ring of Fire for talk radio, and sources like Firedoglake.com, ConsortiumNews, Robert Parry, & John Pilger for conservative blogs. You end up with the same separation from reality that got the GOP in big trouble.

Now, I know the New York Times, and most of the traditional media, horribly blew it during the WMD days. They will continue to be less than perfect at best and to be blowing it again at worst. But that doesn't mean we ignore the entire traditional media; what that means is we have to use these sources critically; to take the info as part of our general background of knowledge. It's totally ridiculous to say you'll never believe the "MSM" ever again; in fact I notice those that use the term as a punching bag are the first to cite the traditional media when it supports them. They just don't like the news that disagrees with their dogma.

I read tons of news from different sources. Many news magazines are doing great journalism, to not much notice. I read magazines like The Economist because the scholarship and breadth of their reporting is outstanding, but I know that their fiscal conservatism limits what they present.

I listen to Democracy Now, and I suggest that those who need convincing on this subject do what I do, in reverse. I listen to Democracy Now because they cover stories that are not covered very often in the broadcast media, but I listen to it with my critical filters turned on, because I sometimes find them to be less than thorough, a bit lazy, and a bit too Orthodox Left. That's the same way you take the traditional media--don't automatically believe everything you hear, but don't mindlessly reject it all, either.

And in the meantime, stop saying "MSM". It looks stupid.

[Darb]

1. Among others. Let's start a list.

Partial Birth Abortion.

You're it.

[RoccoR5955]

3. Don't forget the deceptive laws they write like:

The "Help America Vote Act" which should been called "Keep America From Voting Act"
or the "No Child Left Behind" which should have been called "No Child's Behind Left."

[hopemountain]

10. add "saving our forests dot org" which really means

"free range clearcutting our forests with abandon with no government oversight.org"

[frylock]

8. ***** Derangement Syndrome

Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RoccoR5955]

2. Perhaps we can call them what they really are...

The BSM!

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. Nice try at wordsmithing. lol

Trying to assert your own definition of the
mainstream definition of "mainstream is futile.

The KOS link is a sad attempt to "re-frame"
the contemporary use of the term for self-serving purposes.

Mainstream refers to a current of thought that is presently widespread.[1][2] It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media. It is to be distinguished from subcultures and countercultures, and at the opposite extreme are cult followings and fringe theories.

Mainstream media, or mass media, is generally applied to print publications, such as newspapers and magazines that contain the highest readership among the public, along with radio formats and television stations that contain the highest viewing and listener audience, respectively. This is in contrast to various independent media, such as alternative media newspapers, specialized magazines in various organizations and corporations, and various electronic sources such as podcasts and blogs (Though certain blogs are more mainstream than others given their association with a mainstream source.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

MSM, M$M is here to stay.
If the Oligarchs don't like it, oh well.

[BKH70041]

5. For the sake of communication, I'm going to use the term.

And I'm specifically using it to ask a question.

Conservatives don't watch the MSM because they view it as too liberal. I have no doubt that's how they view it.

Liberals don't watch the MSM because they view it as to conservative (corporate). I have no doubt that's how they view it.

So who's watching? The mushy middle?

[WDIM]

6. How about we just call them the propaganda arm of the 1%.

Corporate owned media propagandist for the 1%.
Or the megawealthy appologist for the megawealthy
Maybe we should call them oligarch media.

Or just straight up liars and crooks that shape public opinion to support criminal actions undertaken by our Government and the megawealthy. Like the Iraq war for example.

Or maybe we should call them the fear monger media that pushes stereotypes and fears to cause division confusion and brainwashing of the populous.

[libdem4life]

7. It's kind of like the Bell Curve...20-60-20.

Most every news source has a slant to it. The Bell curve itself ebbs and flows. It's been lilting to the Right, now a bit to the Left.

I remember how the anacronyms PC shifted around in meaning.

But I think a way to tell is those who resent or do not like the MSM are seldom a part of it and vice versa.

[Nye Bevan]

9. You mean like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=192875

[yurbud]

11. If you think John Pilger, Robert Parry, & the Real News Network are just like Fox, why are you here?

If you find Democracy Now "a bit lazy," shouldn't you find the MSM comatose, or at best somewhere between and idiot savant or someone that only tells the truth because of occasional Tourette's syndrome?

I don't agree with 100% of the stuff said or guests on Democracy Now, but they do jam a hell of a lot of real news in one hour. I stopped listening to corporate news after 9/11, not primarily because they lied but because there was so little news in their news, and if they interviewed a powerful politician they could just save everybody's time and flash their talking points on the screen instead of going through the pretense of asking questions.

The credentials of those leftists journalists you mentioned are pretty impressive, and their older work usually holds up pretty well. The same can't be said of Fox News, right wing talk radio, and unfortunately, from the 90's forward, most of the MSM.

[global1]

12. How About 'RSM'.....

'Right Stream Media'

[Rex]

13. Corporate media, state run media, all garbage. I'll stick with alt media.

[Egnever]

14. Right I will add it to the rest of the words I am not supposed to use.

It's getting quite long.

[joshcryer]

15. It was actually a clue on Jeopardy! tonight.

[moondust]

16. Not a big deal.

In the real world outside the RW bubble I think it's usually just shorthand for media owned and operated by corporations and billionaires, as opposed to independent/alternative media that may not be under pressure to serve corporate interests or turn a profit for shareholders.