Are sensational news stories de facto RW propaganda?

[UdoKier]

Are sensational news stories de facto RW propaganda?

I say that they are, but I often have trouble even convincing liberals of this.

Considering that all the news outlets are owned by a handful of huge corporations (often far right-wing and/or weapons makers), the fact that those corporations have a vested interest in keeping W in power to continue their own industry's deregulation, and the fact that any time spent on Scott, Amber and Laci will be time NOT spent on serious discussion of Bush's plan to destroy social security, or any number of other outrageous Bush initiatives, it seems a given to me that ALL sensational stories with no real news value are de facto right-wing propaganda and a deliberate attempt to dumb down and distract.
Remember how conveniently the "Beltway Sniper" stories were timed with the Iraq war buildup?

Are sensational news stories de facto RW propaganda?

[w4rma]

1. The "Beltway Sniper" is a bad example. That was a valid story. (nt)

[UdoKier]

3. No, it wasn't.

It was a local story, and blown WAY out of proportion. It deserved some mention on national news, but not the 24/7 coverage it got, especially in light of the buildup to war that was happening. It even overshadowed the Iraq war vote, iff I remember correctly.

[GR]

2. They Are The Modern Equivalent of "Bread and Circuses"

They distract from reality, like sports and entertainment. Of course I consume these things like everyone else. Don't mean to be holier than thou...

[UdoKier]

5. I switch the channel when they come on.

Honestly, I'm terrified that if I let it seep in too much I'll become one of THEM.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Exactly. "They distract from reality"

While this country crumbles around us, we get to watch the soap opera news of a murdered person for 6 months straight...night after night.

I'd be interested in seeing polling data that says we are more interested in what happens to Scott and Lacey then we are about stolen elections, Iraq, 9/11, etc. Independent polling data.......

[Radical Activist]

4. It's a corporate bias, not always conservative

They can talk about anything and distract people as long as it doesn't conflict with the financial interests of the corporations that own the media. The Scott Peterson case is fine as long as it takes up space.

[UdoKier]

7. Aren't corporate interests pretty much inherently right wing?

n t

[Radical Activist]

15. Usually except that they allow liberal viewpoints that

don't contradict their financial interests, especially social issues. So when Republicans complain about the liberal media they can always point to coverage of gay issues, the lack of coverage on religious issues, or all the sex and violence in the media. Since liberal viewpoints are allowed on social morality issues it allows Republicans to continue the liberal media myth without realizing that they're being duped by a conservative corporate media.

[LSdemocrat]

6. No, just a ratings grab by the mainstream media

Serious policy discussions don't get ratings. "Sexy" personal interest stories do.

The rise of corporate-owned 24 hour news networks made this inevitable. These channels are run as profit-making businesses not news organization. Except for Fox News, these networks don't care about ideology, just what sells more ad dollars. If its trash celebrity news, then they run that. If there market research indicates that right-wing jingoism sells, then they'll do that. It's about ratings, not ideology.

[UdoKier]

9. Funny that for all Fox's bragging...

They still don't get a tenth of the ratings of CBS Evening News...

[Nite Owl]

8. I just came to that conclusion too

The whole Laci Peterson thing had no real news value and it just occured to me that what it was used for is to fill up all the time on the cable news. Time that if they didn't have such a story they might have to spend on actual news. They should be talking about all the things that are going on with Iraq and all the stuff that has been passed in Congress and we are just finding out about. Sounds quite Rovian actually. Distract, change the subject is all it is.

[rman]

11. other: it's "filler" and distraction from more important issues

as such it is in fact part of "the propaganda model" as put forth by Chomsky.

Manufacturing Consent
A Propaganda Model
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm

Propaganda model
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

[depakid]

12. Can't they be both?

Something to think about....

[proud patriot]

13. Needless distractions more than propaganda

IMHO

[Swamp Rat]

14. Turn off the TV!

I get pissed if I hear the words Scott, Lacie and Peterson during Air America commercial breaks, and especially in between segements of Thom Hartmann's show.