Why are DU'ers now referring to the Corporate Media as the MSM?

[David Zephyr]

I really take exception to the use of the terminology "mainstream media" by those who should know better and should be concerned about the corporate stranglehold over our newspapers, local television broadcast stations, local radio broadcast stations, national broadcast networks, national cable television along with magazines and even, sadly, public-financed media.

Since the earliest days here at the DU I have urged all here to use the more informative term, "corporate media", to counter the right-wings effective and potent term "liberal media" in our language and postings.

There is no liberal media in the United States, there is only corporate controlled media and news organs and the media consolidation ushered through by George W. Bush and his lackey, Michael Powell (selling out really runs in the Powell family, doesn't it?) has only made this worse.

Sinclair Broadcasting, Clear Channel, General Electric News (NBC and MSNBC), AOL/TIME/WARNER News (CNN), Newscorp (Fox, NY Post, Weekly Standard) and MOOONIE, INC. (UPI) have a clear lock on what Americans read, watch and listen to each and every waking day. There is nothing whatsoever "mainstream" about any of these predatory media corporations.

Gore Vidal wrote in "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" that "to keep information from the public is the function of the corporate media."

Please don't help facilitate the myth that there is a mainstream media in the United States. It's Corporate Media, not "mainstream media" or MSM.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. I use the terms interchangably

There is something mainstream about them in a perverse way. As Charles Foster Kane said:

I'm something of an authority on what the public will think.
--From the motion picture Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941), screenplay by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles

[David Zephyr]

36. You do indeed.

Thanks.

[bpilgrim]

81. there is no doubt that they are the MAIN-stream media as well as M$MWs

for the elite and as you noted quite powerful thought shapers and any real media person knows that.

:hi:

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

94. Mainstream media refers to where most people go to get news/entertainment

That is still the three big airwave networks, a few cable networks, radio conglomerates like Clear Channel, newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post, and magazines like Newsweek and Time.

I go back and forth about whether FoxNews should be classified as MSM in this respect. It's certainly a place where many people go to get information, but what it does is far removed from acceptable journalistic practices. That's not true of CNN, even if CNN practices journalism poorly nowadays. One who watches FoxNews does so less to be informed than simply to have his world view validated and thereby get a false sense of security.

Notice that all of the media named in this post is owned by large corporations, most on the Fortune 500. Most of this media was "mainstream" before it was corporate.

The real problem is that mainstream media is now in fewer and more homogeneous hands than before. Those hands are corporate hands. That should be enough to justify the use of the terms mainstream media and corporate media interchangeably as I do.

Moreover, many of these hands are the same hands that foot the bill for Mr. Bush's rise to power. It's no coincidence that this media has been slow to criticize the regime. It is not a healthy state of affairs for a democratic society that assumes an informed public to have so much information controlled by people with an interest in giving the public one particular narrow viewpoint.

[David Zephyr]

95. Thanks, bpilgrim

You hit on something using the word "elite". Isn't ironic that moneyed, country-club corporate-types have manipulated less-educated and poor working-class whites into supporting them (against their own interests) by brandishing words like "elitists" against progressives, labor unions and civil rights advocates.

As I know you know, it's really a multi-national "elite" that is at the root of much of the world's woes now.

Great to hear from you. :hi:

[oblivious]

2. Clever term that by definition marginalizes all who disagree with them.

mainstream

[David Zephyr]

28. The Right wing became very savvy with words. I give them their credit

Yes, there is nothing "mainstream" about the media anymore and you are right, using that term does marginalize those who disagree with it.

Just a few from the top of my head:

CIA trained killers = Freedom fighters
ketchup = vegetable
secular, non-religious and journalistic reporting = liberal media
hateful discriminatory conduct = family values, traditional values
war-mongering = supporting the troops
expressing dissent during war = aiding the enemy
affirmative action = quota system
environmentalists = tree huggers
feminists - feminazis
civil rights = special rights
suicide bombers = homicide bombers
journalistic bias = fair and balanced reporting
corporate media = mainstream media

I'm sure that the bright folks here at the DU can come up with hundreds more.

[mitchtv]

63. the big one

Pro Life= Anti choice
my pet peeve
also shouldn't we be saying Republic Party?

[David Zephyr]

66. More examples.

Yeah, the right wing has really done a number on the American lexicon.

I saw a bumper sticker on a pick-up truck years ago that read "Anyone who believes the Liberal Media is a fool". I thought to myself how clever the right wing had become. Here was this poor fellow riding along in a jalopy brandishing his message to the world against a phantom image that troubled his mind: a "liberal media".

[Turn CO Blue]

96. Try this one: "Republan"

Props to the DU'er who taught me this:

Since they are so petty, and insist on removing the "ic" from our party name to form Democrat Party, then remove the same letters "ic" from their party name.

From Republican - to Republan.

[VaYallaDawg]

101. One more:

Politically correct = anything the RW chooses to disagree with.

[LoZoccolo]

3. There is a more accurate name that /you/ are not using.

Can you guess what it is? I didn't think so. You are unenlightened on this.

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[David Zephyr]

37. Ha.

Yeah, well I think you are referring to what the late, but great MediaWhores.Com called them.

[Greyhound]

4. Thanks for pointing this out

WORDS have MEANING!

[David Zephyr]

38. And thank you for helping.

:thumbsup:

[cynatnite]

5. I started using corporate media about a week or so ago

It finally got through that they are bought and paid for. They are there to serve their own self-interest.

[David Zephyr]

34. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[nonconformist]

6. I never use that term

I reminds me of freepers.

I usually just say media, propaganda-spewing media, entertainment media or whatever term seems appropriate for what I'm saying. Generally though, just 'media'.

I will have to add corporate media to my repartee.

[David Zephyr]

39. Thanks.

Nonconformist. :thumbsup:

[KharmaTrain]

7. Excellent Post...It Is More Corporate Than Mainstreet

Remember, corporate is what is destroying Mainstreet. Corporate is Wal-Mart...that's surely not Main Street.

You also need to include the "under-the-radar" broadcast entities such as Salem Communications that owns some of the most rabid hate radio stations in the country and the thousands of non-commercial and religious stations pumping out the fundie message 24/7.

As one who worked in "the media", I can say it's the money that drives what we see and hear...what the advertisers will pay for, not what the listeners/viewers want to see...and most definitely not non-profitable public service and community access programming.

Corporate Media represents their own special interest...not of the "public" that their licenses state they must serve. Yes, they're not Mainstreet. I've never used that right wing term...and have called it Corporate Media for years. I encourage all to do the same. It's not only educational and information, it's dead-on.

Next, we start re-introducing the word corporate welfare.

[David Zephyr]

9. Salem certainly belongs in the forementioned.

I appreciate you helping out in using the accurate and informative term "corporate media" KharmaTrain.

[Cha]

8. I've been refering to them as

mswm. I think we all know what the "w" stands for.

But, I can do "corporate media"..it works for me.

[Itsthetruth]

11. The Term "Corporate Media" Nails It

I agree.

[David Zephyr]

15. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[HR_Pufnstuf]

25. I second that emotion.

Corporate Media, corpmedia, thugs, etc.

[David Zephyr]

41. No more MSM.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

30. Thanks zidzi.

:thumbsup:

[karlrschneider]

10. I often use "SCLM" in conversations, mostly because it generally brings

on the obvious question and gives me a chance to list the ownership of what is usually referred to as 'mainstream.'

[David Zephyr]

32. And the obvious question is?

Hi KS- glad to see you here. I'll bite: what is SCLM?

[Just Me]

12. I usually call them corporate HOs or CM or CPM (corporate propaganda,....

,...machine) or corporatate infotainment,...never mainstream co media.

[David Zephyr]

42. Thanks.

If Americans have no qualms whatsoever about referring to PBS and local symphonic radio broadcast stations as "public financed media" then the corollary and honest term of "corporate financed media" or just "corporate media" should be a real easy capsule for them swallow, to understand.

[KoKo]

13. Agree, DZ and I've been guilty of using MSM when it should be CMM.

There was some discussion about this, but in the end, we all caved and started to use the MSM (Mainstream Media) thinking that everyone would know what we were talking about and sort of giving in.

I'm so sorry that "Media Whores Online" folded tent and passed on, because so many "Newbies" didn't get a chance to see what it was all about. And if they had they would understand how we need to "Reframe the Issue of MSM into "Corporate Mainstream Media" because they are all "Media Whores" and owned by the "Corporatists" no matter how many of us might like Olbermann/Stewart/Tweety/Imus or whatever shows we "think" might have a few "soundbytes" to throw our way.

In the end...they are all "Mainstream Corporate Media Whores." Their producers and managers and hairstylists and drivers and go-fers allow them to live like "movie stars" did under the Goldwyn's and Mayers and the rest of the Hollywood Studios did when they "groomed" and paid the way for their Stars. Including the PR Campaigns that kept them in the spotlight and covered over their affairs and whatever.

Today our MEDIA CABLE Personalities and MANY in the PRINT MEDIA...i.e. Howie Kurtz, Mike Issikof and added to the list Dana Milbank and so many others...feed from the "Corporate Trough." And they all went to the same prep schools, Colleges and Grad Schools that those people they seve attended! Sort of an Incestuous relationship...ain't it? :shrug:

"Corporate Mainstream Media." CMM!

[David Zephyr]

43. Thanks.

There's nothing mainstream about the corporate media. Historically, it never was, although today's control by a very few over everything Americans read, listen to and watch is something to behold. Thanks.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. "Mainstream Media" is definitely a bad term

It legitimizes as broad-based what is narrowly controlled and fringe oriented.

Whether "corporate media" is the best term or not, I don't know, because it connotes some kind of base of support that it doesn't have either, and it hints at a bit of socialistic dislike of corporations. It's certainly a hell of a lot better and more appropriate, and MSM needs to be replaced by something.

[David Zephyr]

29. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[Eloriel]

16. Guilty as charged. And thanks for the reminder/admonition.

I concur wholeheartedly. You are totally correct.

[David Zephyr]

31. Thanks.

I found myself using MSM the other day and then was shocked at how easily I'd slid into using the term. As others have posted here, there is nothing mainstream about the media in the U.S. anymore.

[Walt Starr]

17. I'm as guilty as the next DUer

I'll try to use the term "CM" from here on.

[David Zephyr]

45. Thanks Walt.

I posted this thread because I found myself using this MSM term that has popped up here at the DU of late and then nearly broke the keyboard. Thanks as always! :hi:

[kliljedahl]

18. I use M$M

Corporate News Networkkk, MSRNC, & Faux.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[David Zephyr]

46. Well, M$M is pretty good, too.

:thumbsup: Anything but "mainstream media". Thanks.

[Karenina]

91. Robert Parry calls 'em out...

http://consortiumnews.com/2005/061605.html

LMSM, the 'Lying Mainstream Media'

By Robert Parry
June 17, 2005

The Washington Post is reasserting its august judgment over what qualifies as news in the face of citizen complaints that it and other mainstream media outlets neglected leaked British memos about the deceptions behind George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

The Post’s lead editorial on June 15 mixed a patronizing tone with derisive comments in assuring its readers that “the memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration’s prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.”

Oh, really?

While it may be true that some people were alleging what the secret British memos now confirm, those people were vocal opponents of invading Iraq and were treated by the Post and other pro-war news outlets as fringe characters fit only to be ignored.
For example, many war critics asserted that Bush’s decision to take his case against Iraq to the United Nations was a ploy designed only to justify a predetermined course for invasion. In other words, the critics felt that Bush and his allies were not acting in good faith, but simply wanted some political cover for an illegal war.

That, of course, was not the judgment of editorialists at the Washington Post, the New York Times or other major newspapers who praised Bush for going to the UN on the advice of supposed moderates such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Indeed, looking back to late 2002 and early 2003, it would be hard to find any “reputable” commentary in the mainstream press calling Bush’s actions fraudulent, which is what the British evidence reveals them to be...

<snip>

[orpupilofnature57]

19. Check out Marshall McLuhan's " Gutenberg galaxy" MEDIA AS A MEDIUM

MSM is candy coated bullshit to placate our convenient interest for information, usually to feel a part of, more than to be informed.Corporations instinctively have only one function for all tool's

[David Zephyr]

47. Marshall McLuhan and Paddy Chayefsky

:thumbsup: "MSM is candy coated bullshit..."

[aresef]

20. Additonally

The job of corporate-owned media is not to report the news. It is to report what sells. Stories about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are sadly more interesting to many people than the Downing Street memo, so they keep reading/watching/listening, and the media outlet makes money. Corporate owned media outlets report what people want to hear, not what they need to hear.

[David Zephyr]

48. Exactly.

And the point you make, aresef, makes it important that our language reflect it. CM not MSM. :thumbsup:

[NNN0LHI]

21. Corporate Media is more accurate. I am with you David n/t

[David Zephyr]

49. Thanks NNNOLHI.

As I posted earlier, I found myself using this MSM and nearly smashed my keyboard. :hi:

[dsc]

22. I'll try to be a reformed sinner

I am guilty as all get out on this.

[David Zephyr]

50. Thanks, DSC.

:hi:

[dalloway]

23. well noted n/t

[David Zephyr]

51. Thanks dalloway.

I've not met you here before so let me say :hi: and thanks for keeping our language informative and honest. Corporate media not MSM.

[kster]

24. I like "WHM"

White House Media,or Whore House Media which ever you prefer.

[David Zephyr]

53. Except that the White House is just a tool of the corporations

George W. Bush really understands, to his credit, even more than his father did, that it's the multinationals that will keep him in power and protect him...not the people.

[tuvor]

26. "MSM" is a myth? I don't understand.

Seems to me by definition ("prevailing current thought"), it's what the mainstream pays attention to. I don't get this "myth" you're talking about.

I've never thought that "mainstream" was something to be respected. Maybe it's my musical tastes, but "mainstream" anything has always had something of a negative connotation for me for 20 or 30 years.

At any rate: corporate, mainstream, it's two sides of the same coin IMO.

Maybe it's a matter of definition.

[I Have A Dream]

52. I agree with you that "mainstream" isn't something to be proud of.

However, most of the country doesn't think this way. I don't see saying mainstream media here at DU as being so bad since we all understand what's involved with it. However, by using it here, it's more likely that we'll use it when we speak with non-DUers. I'm just going to use "corporate media" all the time so that I'm in the habit of using it when it matters.

[tavalon]

83. Most people do in fact see mainstream

as the comfortable middle. It conjurs happy conformity. It makes one think that it's "OK" and lends one to give credence to what the comfortable middle says.

Whereas, corporate media conjurs that which we distrust and that which we doubt has our interests at heart.

Which one would you rather Joe Q Public associate with the Whores?

[Pepperbelly]

27. easier to type.

I fear it's a fait acompli.

[David Zephyr]

55. Maybe not.

I've seen greater usage of "corporate media" in the last five years.

[tavalon]

84. That was Will Pitts argument

I think it's a cop out.

[Pepperbelly]

89. how can an observation be a cop-out?

It's human nature.

[tavalon]

90. That it is a habit

so therefore can't be changed, is, IMO a cop out.

[mzmolly]

33. Unfortunately they are the same thing these days. I suppose we could

say CSM? Or CCM? ;)

[David Zephyr]

57. I like CSM, mzmolly.

It is the natural corollary to PSM (public sponsored media). It would be easier to type than Corporate Media, a point that Pepperbelly makes above. Corporate Media or CSM works for me if it works for you. Just not "mainstream media". :hi:

[yodermon]

35. The 3 letter acronym you are looking for is:

CMC

Corporate Media Cartel

[David Zephyr]

58. Another good acronym.

I also like C$M that mzmolly proposed above. Just not "mainstream media".

[I Have A Dream]

40. Very good point!

It's a war of words and the words "corporate media", unlike "liberal media", are actually true. This is where the right usually beats us -- they come up with succinct (even if not true) phrases that sway the mostly-uninformed American citizens.

I will, henceforth, only use the term "corporate media".

[David Zephyr]

59. Many thanks, I Have A Dream.

You write most correctly: " It's a war of words and the words "corporate media", unlike "liberal media", are actually true."

:hi:

[Independent_Liberal]

44. I agree that we should still call it Corporate Media...

However, I have noticed that the media has been trying to change lately. Perhaps it's because their ratings started dropping and it sent them a message. I guess they realize that people are sick of the propaganda and want to know what's going on in their government. For that reason, maybe they've decided to go back to being journalists.

[David Zephyr]

60. Corporate Media.

Thanks. We can hope that the recent revelation about Deep Throat and the focus on Woodward and Bernstein might inspire a few journalists to do their job and perhaps, maybe even a corporate media conglomerate to be a better citizen. :thumbsup:

[tavalon]

85. They will be allowed to do that

only as far as the corporations who own their journalistic asses, let them. The phrase corporate media needs to stand, no matter what minor waffling the pretend journalists do.

[David Zephyr]

97. I agree.

Terms like "media whores", which I find both truthful and humorous, don't help the American people understand who is providing their daily information...and that would be multi-national corporate conglomerates.

[bvar22]

54. I've been using a contraction "CorpoMedia" for a while.

"CorpoGanda" is cool also as long as I am on the DU Boards. If I'm writing a letter to the Editor or other outside sources, I will use "Corporate Owned News Outlets" because it sounds more professional, educated, and less partisan.

[David Zephyr]

61. Thanks, bvar22.

:thumbsup:

[lala_rawraw]

56. Honestly

Symantics with regard to the MSM/Corporate/Whorish/etc. media is not something that we need to worry about... bigger fish to fry me thinks.

[tavalon]

86. Then you don't understand framing

and given who you are, I highly doubt that.

[lala_rawraw]

104. okay, thank you... though

If I were to get involved in this discussion fully, I would state that neither term is good as "frame" and that "framing" itself is a fabricated term. I am writing a whole book on this (should I actually finish it, we can use it for a doorstop). The issue of a fabricated language are so insidious that re-framing MSM to Corporate Media is still not speaking to the people... similar to the Romantic movement ... the poets "brought the language to the people" and this was seen during Reformation as well. So it is not a question of "re-framing" rather, it is a question of no longer using words "to create effect" and speak simply actual, real, defined, honest terms. Just my 2 cents.

[Peace Patriot]

62. Thank you, David Zephyr! I totally agree with you, and I've been ranting

about this for ages. The so-called "mainstream media" doesn't even come close to reflecting true mainstream American opinion. The true mainstream is that 63% of Americans oppose torturing prisoners UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES--yet they've had the torture memo writer Alberto Gonzales inflicted on them as US Attorney General! Does the wrongly called "mainstream media" ever point out that Bush FAILS TO REPRESENT true mainstream America on this matter?

True mainstream America opposes the Iraq war by nearly 60%, and in fact opposes every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range, and is giving George Bush an approval rating of about 40%, and has given him a consistently bad approval rating over the whole of the last year (so bad, pollster Zogby said it was not possible for him to be re-elected). On Iraq. On Social Security. On the federal deficit. On the Iraq war. On torture. You name it. Neither George Bush nor the his lapdog news monopolies represent majority opinion on it.

WHERE ARE THESE MAJORITY VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE SO-CALLED "MAINSTREAM MEDIA"?

Further, as Zephyr points out, we are CONTRIBUTING TO the brainwashing of the American people by our use of this phrase "mainstream media" (MSM). They are brainwashed and assaulted with lies and delusions enough as it is. We shouldn't be ADDING to it, by giving this propaganda machine more weight than it merits.

My substitute phrase is: the news monopolies. Better: the corporate news monopolies.

Monopolistic (predatory) practices are key to their control of what people are permitted to know. Monopoly is a word that should be used in describing these entities. And it tells people a lot about news content. It's a monopoly--and by implication a monoculture. Not good. Not healthy. Overly controlled, and monotonous.

Corporate is accurate, of course--although it's gotten to be a rather lame word when you're talking about predatory, global conglomerates who prey on the poor and earn obscene profits from war.

I'm still thinking and revising. Maybe: the predatory news monopolies.

The predatory American news monopolies?

For the time being, this will do: corporate news monopolies.

PLEASE, EVERYBODY, STOP USING "MSM"!!!!

[David Zephyr]

65. I enjoyed reading your observations about the term "mainstream"

It's been one of my big rants for years, too Peace Patriot. :hi:

[Bravo411]

64. We need a Poll ...

Lets pick the best alternatives, then put it to a poll as to which one to use.

M$M - Main Stream Media (with emphasis on the money)
CMC - Corporate Media Cartel
CMM - Corporate Mainstream Media
CPM - corporate propaganda machine
CFM - corporate financed media
COM - corporate-owned media
MSM - Main Stream Media (tuvor has a good point. Post: 26. "MSM"
is a myth? I don't understand.)
PDM - Profit Driven Media ( I had to throw one out there myself.)

Anything else to add?

[David Zephyr]

68. Poll away.

There were many good suggestions here. I will probably continue to write out Corporate Media, but as long as people refrain from using the disingenuous term "mainstream" I'm content.

[Bravo411]

70. I'm not a doner, so I can't creat a poll. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

67. The information sources we've believed in for years left us long ago.

It was so gradual we didn't notice until it was simply GONE when we really needed it.

I remember reading in the 1980's about the effort being made to produce new right-wing writers, lawyers, etc. I never expected it to pick up much momentum, as I believed Americans were basically too smart to indulge them much.

Have you read this article by Manuel Valenzuela?

Manuel Valenzuela: Land of ‘Murka’
Thursday, 10 March 2005, 10:58 am
Opinion: Manuel Valenzuela

Land of ‘Murka’

An Inside Look at George W. Bush’s ''Murka''
By Manuel Valenzuela
From: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8210.htm

.....(snippet is found a little beyond 1/2 way down the page) Using fear and the threat of insecurity to manipulate the people, corporate media, in bed with government, over the years having become the mouthpiece of government control, unleashes a barrage of propaganda, in images and pro-war commentators, to arouse in the population the false sense of security that justifies military action. This way, debate is silenced and dissent is disappeared on the airwaves as once again the corporate media, the gatekeepers of information, allow us only to see and hear the point of view they want us to incorporate into our psyche. Voices of reason and of intelligence are ignored, banished from imparting important thoughts of wisdom, thus making it virtually impossible for the population to ever know there are other options besides the horror of war.

With corporate anchors, journalists, reporters, commentators and executives pushing into our monitors an exclusively pro-war, jingoistic viewpoint, blitzkrieging us with their propaganda-laced images and opinion, over months of constant threats of fear and insecurity, denying the public from ever seeing or hearing truths and realities, it therefore becomes rather easy, with a population addicted to television viewing, to mobilize a nation for war. With the marriage of government and corporate power, truth disappears just as much as falsity prospers. With both entities profiting from the spoils of war, it is in each other’s best interest to work together to disseminate the seeds that will invariably spawn the rebirth of a dormant war culture.
(snip/...)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00072.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks so much for bringing this up. I'm going to make a deliberate effort not to return to the traditional and misleading you-know-what expression.

"Main stream" should refer to upright, sensible, trustworthy. Reliable. Sound. That's not what we're seeing in this country. Our old resources have all been poisoned.

[David Zephyr]

71. Edifying post, Judi Lynn

And much thanks for the helpful and insightful article penned by by Manuel Valenzuela. I liked his "corporate anchors" phrasing.

I also found this paragraph by Valenzuela sound: "Corporate media will distort, deceive and manipulate so-called news to suit the needs of a government and corporate world trying to convince a mostly placid citizenry of the significant need for war."

But, thhe Corporate Media wouldn't really whip up the populace for a war or into a fear of terrorism, would they? Well, they certainly sold a lot of duct tape, didn't they? :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

73. You bet. It's even more outrageous now the world knows

how much was pure trickery, treachery, and deceit.

They must have laughed themselves sick over that duct tape gag. I'd like to think WE will have the final laugh, one fine day. :hi:

http://www.sentryoveramerica.com.nyud.net:8090/Images/Dept_Homeland_Security_125H.jpg http://aztlan.net.nyud.net:8090/ridge_duct_tape.jpg

[demgurl]

69. I sometimes call them 'MSM' but .....

always in quotations to denote that I think it is the so-called 'MSM'. That is what I call them in a sarcastic mood. When I am in a good mood I always call them the corporate media.

[David Zephyr]

72. Then I want you in a good mood.

Many thanks. :thumbsup:

[moof]

74. Your "Sponsored" has many good qualities

First and foremost in making it clear who/what is responsible for the content being offered.

But to be even more precise it is indeed propaganda and not news.

To combat the torrent of "creeping surrealism" that this thread seems to be doing a decent job of concerning the bogus "msm" it would be a great relief to see the enlightened folks here at DU start to address more bogus terms by their proper labels.
One of the most annoying is the constant use of the terms election and president. What took place in America in the year 2000 was known worldwide as a "coup" an electronic coup but a "coup" none the less.

It always seemed odd to hear the Corporate Sponsored Propaganda outlets refer to "elections" in Iraq where Saddam claimed to have gotten 100% of the "vote", well of course if the event is still refered to as an "election" when a dictator/puppet like Saddam calls himself "president" then why would there be any reason to describe any of it differently when the corporations held the "2000 election" here in America and installed their "dictator/puppet".

In summary, a hearty it's about time on the "corporate sponsored propaganda" adoption here at DU and please start refering to the drug
addict at 1600 penn. ave. as anything but the president and knock it off with the mass denial about there being elections taking place in America.

Thank you David Zephyr for the attempt to rid DU of "msm", it is a first step in the correct direction or at least toward some semblence of sanity.

[David Zephyr]

75. You are welcome.

For a long time, we referred to Mr. Bush as the pResidnent here at the DU. He was appointed, not elected as you say correctly. No more MSM!

[moof]

76. if you have the time and inclination what do you think is the correct

terminology for the position being filled for the moment by a deserter of the armed forces of the United States ?

From this end of the net it seems like people waste their time discussing this or that meaningless pronouncement or personal shortcoming of the pawn instead of looking for the proper questions that will yield useful answers for reversing what has taken place in America.

If you are unwilling or unable to see reality then it is going to be much harder to plot a course toward a true civilization.

BTW there seem to be many new terms that are needed to facilitate a discussion of the current state of the world and it is not going to be an easy task to get people to think different and forsake their dissonance but in the interest of at least getting the "president" term
eliminated the closest word to describe the position at this time seems to be sockpuppet or to be a bit more precise
" Current Corporate Sockpuppet ".

[OneBlueSky]

77. I kinda like BPCM . . .

as in "Bought and Paid For Corporate Media" . . .

or, as an alternative, RWCM . . . as in "Right Wing Corporate Media" . . .

or maybe SCM . . . as in "Sleazy Corporate Media" . . .

or how 'bout LACM . . . for "Lazy Ass Corporate Media" . . .

[stickdog]

78. Because we like acronyms: C$M it is. (nt)

[David Zephyr]

98. Anything but MSM.

I'll continue to write "corporate media", but C$M is a good one, too.

[Radical Activist]

79. It only hurts if we define ourselves as outside the mainstream

and that's exactly what we do when we call it the mainstream media. I call it the corporate media as well.

[David Zephyr]

99. Brother in arms.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. Agreed. The media is to politics as scientology is to religion

VERY OBVIOUS BRAINWASHING.

[David Zephyr]

100. Thanks.

:hi:

[tavalon]

82. I tried for some time to argue against the MSM name

using much the same argument. I got pretty much nowhere. Now, I play dumb and ask what that acronym means and if it is another name for the corporate controlled media. Somebody always tries to enlighten me, thereby giving me a humorous platform. That seems to have worked a little better.

[David Zephyr]

102. Maybe...

you won't have to argue anymore. We seem to having a consensus here of distributive logic at its best. I thank you for your past vigilance here.

[tavalon]

87. I wholeheartedly agree with you

and mentioned in another post that I've been fighting this fight for a while. But, reading this very good discussion, it has crystallized for me what the problem is. There are too many acronyms for the framing we want. There are only two from the right-wing framers. Damn it, I hate it but they are good at this! Much better than we are. I think it's because of our tendency on the left to assert our individuality rather than toeing the line, something the right is uber-good at.

CCM
CSM
CMC
corporate media
corporate owned media outlets

Yikes! There's our problem right there. The issue isn't how to get people to reframe, it's how to get the lingo standardized.

[I Have A Dream]

88. Kick.

:kick:

[PATRICK]

92. But it's short

and it isn't Mud Slinging Murderers? I am chagrined.

There are several areas where a la Jerry Springer and others oozing respect or good will to intransigent criminal assh****s way too much respect and legitimacy both in an institutional and personal sense is granted to the Great Untouched, the Unaccountables.

More than slightly addled even for the most saintly Christian, as if it were a wayward brother who might come together with us an smooth over a slight disagreement.

In hindsight it was a bad choice to settle on these three initials, that also sounds too flattering much like MSNBC. Corporate Pravda(which I think I might have originated but it is a natural fit), Three Monkey Media, The National Embalmer, the good old Yellow Press of "Remember the Maine" days. Just as with W. Chimpy McCokespoon, Cheney's Sock Puppet, Shrub or the terms WASP, pigs and the fortuitous harmony of their own terms like CREEP. Yes, there is no way of telling what will catch on and it never an objective superiority of choice but mostly resonance and accident at the right time.

Probably every communique with the self styled MSM should contain a disclaimer where we disavow any faith or respect or admission of their role(now abdicated) as the 'free press" in America. it should be cold and simple thought the temptation to get them to face at least the murders and crimes they have collaborated abetted and even created is feast for many a rant.

Instead of talking to them like obtuse journalists a bit on the hard of hearing side we should openly make a deal with them as they are- butt scratching squatters on the public domain of current event forums, analysis, investigation and promulgation of "facts". They can get to the job or get royally booted. We can do this by exerting pressure on their bottom line, sponsors who need the people's business and who thus will pay attention to the people's business when it becomes clear partisan splits will now invade their consumer base. You should always make these self assured roosters know the hen house is emptying, the farmer is grinding the axe. We are not impressed by anything except the wasted potential they tyrannically keep locked away even as their counterparts in all the world, democratic or otherwise, pity and scorn and are ashamed of their monumental betrayal of the facts and the profession.

Move your car off the road, sir, you are blocking traffic and people have to get to work. That is the tone to address this wreck of a third estate, not hurt or outrage or pleas that they will see the light. They HAVE the light and put on horn-rimmed opaque glasses. They can't even parade their cynicism competently anymore. This flunky flunky press is- by the extreme test of history- the most accomplished failure in the history of non-state owned journalism.

Et tu, Tom Brokaw are a simpering member of that Worst Generation.

[mcscajun]

93. I insist on "Corporate Media" at all times. No credit as "Mainstream"

will I ever give to the bought and paid for unbalanced press we currently have.

[Dr Fate]

103. I like to say "Bush/media". Use the terms interchangeably.

What is the difference between the two, exactly?

[many a good man]

105. Sorry. Corporations are mainstream.

I think the distinction is totally lost on the average American. To tell ya the truth, I think only die-hard political junkies ever even refer to it as mainstream media. Most people don't see corporations as the unmitigated evil that most of us do.

To them its just "news." Its just another one of millions of entertainment options for niche audiences.

People who aren't junkies don't have the time or the background to digest or discern the many different news stories and commentaries that flash across their consciousness every day. People want news from a source they consider legitimate. Our goal must be to convince them that the infotainment they're getting is not legitimate and its not to be trusted.

We need to find a much better frame to use to get this point across than the word "corporate." I wish I had a compelling suggestion to offer. IMHO I think our time would be better used trying to find one instead of bickering over the terms mainstream versus corporate.

[David Zephyr]

106. No they are not.

And it is really sad that you think that they are.

But instead of hijacking my thread, why don't you start your own thread and title it "Corporations are Mainstream". Flesh out your justifications for such a peculiar comment. I welcome reading it there when you do.

[many a good man]

108. According to the precise dictionary definition of the word "mainstream"

main·stream

adj.

Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group: mainstream morality.

You're right and I'm wrong. :blush:

Unfortunately I think most people have the same connotation I do. The "main stream" is the big river running through town that all townsfolk go to to fetch their water. Lacking the scientific means to test the water's potability, I drink the water because everybody is. How do we tell everyone the water is contaminated?

IMHO Calling the water "corporate" would not be effective. Look at the NASCAR fans happy enough to cover their bodies with corporate logos. Look at the studies on corporate branding and customer loyalty. Look at the effectiveness of commercial advertising.

I still think we need to find an even better adjective. Most people will hear anti-corporate and dismiss us as extreme leftist conspiracy theorists. As disenchantment with the administration grows we have to pin much of the blame on the media monopolies for not fulfilling their vital responsibility in our democratic system.

[hemp_not_war]

109. you have a good point

that a lot of people don't think there is anything wrong with corporations. I don't think there is anything wrong with small corporations myself. The problem is it's only 5 corporations and they all work together. 'mainstream media' is a memes that has been out there recently, caused me to use it, now I see, it's designed make people who don't agree with it out of the mainstream. I often call it establishment media because it serves the elites, Bush or Kerry, the elites on each side. People like Dean the establishment media works to discredit and slander, so you know he's somewhat for the people. But corporate media might be good.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

107. For an Acronym, I Like CCM: Corporate Controlled Media

But that's just me. :-)

DTH