American Media: Will We Get Fair Coverage This Year ??

[welshTerrier2]

it's hard to predict just how much integrity, if any, remains in our mass media ... and there can be very little arguing with the statement that the press has been little more than a mouthpiece for the bush adminsitration for far too long ...

on the other hand, there can be no denying that the press has been fairly aggressive with the AWOL thing ... at least over the past couple of weeks ...

the key question is, will the media finally awaken and start doing their jobs during the general election ?? i see several factors at work regarding the media:

1. 9/11 gave bush a very long honeymoon with the press ... American corporate media are risk averse ... there is no way any loose-lipped talking head or columnist was going to be allowed to "take down the enterprise (i.e. their company)" with "un-American" rhetoric while bush enjoyed 90% popularity ratings ... even many of our own candidates felt more or less compelled to go along ...

2. the American mass media are a bunch of profit-seeking corporate whores ... they want nothing more than a really exciting horserace ... lots of people turn off the game when the score gets lopsided ... if bush still held a 90% popularity rating, not many Americans would be glued to their sets to watch the latest election news ...

3. many in the media are likely to resent the stiffling control of the press that had been present after 9/11 ... watching Helen Thomas get banished to the back of the room like a naughty child in a classroom must have had a chilling effect ... we can only hope that the media is now seeking to balance the scales from the free ride bush had ... perhaps it's time for some payback ... the punishing of Judith Miller at the NY Times for her bogus WMD reporting might be, you'll pardon the pun, a sign of the times ...

there is no question that the hideous trend toward centralized media control is bad for democracy ... and there's no question that those who control most media outlets have a right of center ideological bias ... websites like DU, MoveON and many others may be able to temper at least some of the damage ...

what's not as clear to me is whether the American mass media are as motivated by ideology as many on DU suggest ... while i have no strong basis for disbelieving this, I think the bias is far more towards profits than it is towards ideology ... and with this view, i hold out at least some optimism that democrats may be dealt a better hand this year than they have been dealt for some time now ...

[still_one]

1. No reason to expect the media to be fair

As far as the AWOL, they were just trying to generate interest in the race. They will go back to their bias reporting.

Here is my list of the worst to the best, with the worst listed first:

FOX
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS

[tom_paine]

3. I agree. No reason to expect the to do their jobs

Unless that job is polishing the Imperial Apple and downplaying (or refusing to cover) Der Fuhrer*s shortcomings...

[Cat Atomic]

2. Read Manufacturing Consent.

Media bias isn't about Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilley, or an underhanded interview by Chris Matthews.

It's about narrowly defined public debate, framing of issues, and the omission of very important stories.

Anyway, I have no idea how the media will cover this election season. Bush isn't exactly a popular guy.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. If the democrats keep the spine they are beginning to grow..

They may be able to force the media to report things they would otherwise ignore..but I still think the cards are against us.

[welshTerrier2]

5. not sure i agree

i have no argument that the press narrows the national dialog to issues it's willing to put on the table ... many issues and points of view never see the light of day ... so yes, there is a massive media bias when viewed through that lens ..

but this seems to miss the point i was raising with my question ...

and this is because i see most, if not all, of the democratic candidates as also being fairly mainstream ... to the extent that the media suppresses candidates who espouse socialism, communism or even libertarianism, i agree ... but most democrats, to one degree or another, believe in capitalism ... so, it's not just the media that "manufactures consent", it's our own candidates as well ...

the question i'm asking is whether our candidate will get fair coverage relative to the coverage bush gets ... the fact that an honest debate on a wide variety issues has been stifled is as much a fault of democrats as it is of the press ... it seems to me that the only real solution to this "push towards the middle" would be the growth of multiple new parties ... and i don't see that happening anytime soon ... and for this year, at least, until bush is gone, that's probably a good thing ...

[sweetheart]

6. economics and the media

There is a flaw in the public media "free market".
News programmes must target a significant demographic and keep it.
This attempt to segment and target demographics is purely linked
with the "majority" rules. As they all pitch to the majority "with
us or against us", they're all with us, and protesting this
banal "separation" of media from state is discouraging. There is
editorial conflict of interest in american media, through ownership
collusion.

As reporting complex real life journalism, and investigating
official claims against truth, is no longer the objective of
the "news" sheets, and stations... the programming is
simply "entertainment" and as relevant to life as "The Oakland
Raider's coaching changes." The only way to get honest truth out
of this market flaw, towards exploiting public paranoia to the
bottom in a race of populist journalism. The only way around this
is through market intervention.

The journalists are put to an equal time, truth in journalism
collar, that can "disbarr" a journalist for reporting nontruth.
Similarly, a news organization can be disbarred from broadcasting,
much as banks are for serious deriliction of professional conduct.

I think this the precursor to introducing plurality in media, that
all of multicultural america is included in the great melting pot.

To achieve excellence in news, a news reporting station should have
to show a 50% expenses going towards investigative journalism.
There are ways to regulate the industry from the balance sheet, to
force it to administrate a plural opinion common. The ability for
media to steam off all issues of the hot smelter, is only in its
depth to divine the public conscience... and speaking freely on
behalf of only the agency of "truth" is the bellweather.

To really fix the market imperfection, it should have to service ALL
the demographics of american people equally. That no media
supports fringe ideals, the mainstream actually is a systematic
repression of political free speech. A network transmission system
must accomodate all demographics of american life in their
programming, including prison programming, military programming,
gay programming, feminist programming, sexually liberal
programming, drugs liberal programming and all the repressed
segments of real-life america that are misrepresented by
the "truth"... when in fact, their very esistance speaks to the
truth of REAL america. Programming needs a regulator, i believe,
modelled on the british "http://ofcom.gov.uk" Putting all media
regulation under 1 regulator, including telecommunications and all
communicationss.. ALL. That single regulator is charged with
ensuring the public service objectives of the british media. The
office is very new and not wholly understood, by people outside
softswitch regulation. the methods are to be admired.

[Atlant]

7. That question has already been clearly answered: NO. (NT)

[JanMichael]

8. No. For one thing the Bushites have them nuetered.

As in terrified to offend the great one. They don't wish to be "Unpatriotic" or "Divisive".

Also they've believed the Reich's, I mean Right's, lies about Bush being a "Normal" guy and all Liberals are snobs.

So no. We'll get skewered again