could the corporate media end up saving us? . . .

[OneBlueSky]

sounds ridiculous, I know . . . but think about it for a moment . . .

the bottom line for the CM is profits . . . and to get profits, you need viewers/readers . . . it's a highly competitive field, with each constantly trying to outdo the other by "being first" . . .

all it's going to take is for ONE major newspaper to start telling the truth about BushCo and the war . . . if that happens, the others will eventually have to fall in line or risk being irrelevant (I know, I know) . . . this is what happened during Watergate, when the NY Times finally had to start reporting the story because the Washington Post was making them look thoroughly inept . . .

and what's interesting is that some of the media seem to be starting to cover BushCo a little more critically . . . newspapers particularly can only refuse to print the truth for so long before their readers start getting fed up . . . fewer readers means fewer advertisers . . . and this is even MORE unacceptable than criticizing Bush . . .

so watch for one of the major papers -- the Times, the Post, the LA Times, the Trib -- to start really investigating and reporting about BushCo and the war . . . when that happens, the floodgates will open and the truth will start flowing . . .

because in the corporate media, profits trump everything else . . . including George Bush . . .

[Melodybe]

1. Considering that a Carlyle man sits on the board of the NYT

A halliburton chap sits on the board of Disney, the WP has a long history of Bush love, the Saudis own the largest chunk of AOL/Time/Warner, GE owns NBC and makes BILLIONS off of weapons, etc, etc, etc

I'm not holding my breath.

Viacom may break the trend as they don't seem to have too many corporate links to the big evils, but I don't expect much.

But hey, I really, really want to be wrong. The majority of Americans are coming over to our side and they would have to suffer the fate of being completely irrelevant.

Here's hoping your right.

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Theu are going to safe themself

Limit up. time to do real work, wait for new puppet.

[LightningFlash]

3. Depends if they give a shit or not....

If they give a shit, and we make them and force them to cover all the DSM events it could do the trick. No matter what, we have to get the truth out.

[punpirate]

4. There's no evidence that corporate media has the public...

... interest at heart, so there's no expectation on my part that they will be "saving us." Whatever they have done, do now, or will do in the future is in their interest, not ours.

Every time there's even the slightest, most minute shift on the part of the media toward the truth, the left prays and hopes that the corporate media has seen the light. And it never turns out to be a permanent shift in any sense of the phrase. That's an indication of just how desperate the situation has become--denied three squares a day for decades, people are ravenous and appreciative for the least of crumbs.

It's important to remember why Bush has gotten a pass for so long--he's been helping corporations, especially the media corporations. If those corporations sense he can no longer help them, they'll attack him until he begins helping them once again--if he can no longer help them, they'll try to dispose of him in favor of someone who will. It's a thoroughly pernicious process which has nothing to do with either the truth or the public interest, sad as I am to say it.

[LightningFlash]

5. Also, IWTNews will probably be in full service....

It's soon going to permeate the airwaves.....So corporate so called "media" is going to lose every last viewer it had anyways.

[punpirate]

9. Hope you're right...

... but to have any significant effect, they have to have a couple of billion up front. Doing without advertising money means having to get the operating funds from somewhere else, and from what I can see, that sort of seed money is not forthcoming.

Top-notch investigative reporting and a world-wide network of foreign bureaus isn't cheap. Anything less relegates them to a niche market which will seek them out, rather than the network placing itself into the consciousness of the general public.

Cheers.

[LightningFlash]

12. They'll probably join together with the radio....

And get advertising through radio, internet, all those forseeable ads. It can happen. And it'll be bigger than Democracy Now because it will be cable available.

[punpirate]

13. This is their statement about...

... advertising: "will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists--without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising."

Cheers.

[necso]

6. It is fear as much as

or more than greed that rules media actions.

The neocons will savage any organization (and the individuals in it) that goes too far.

And once one of these media types loses their luster -- and their job -- what do you think their (average) prospects are?

Ain't happening.

[Oversea Visitor]

7. Nah

We are the mighty peasants with pitchfork and uber computer. This leeches need us to survive. If those damn leeches go out of line just pluck them off and throw them into salt. They know when they go too far. Lets just see who they will offer as sacrifice to us in appeasement.

[LightningFlash]

8. You mean blackmail right?

Force the media to get off its damn ass and consistently report the truth, by vowing to never watch it again....It just might work, it might make some spines grow.

[Oversea Visitor]

10. Hey we the peasant

spend money they need our money all coporation does. If we dont buy their papers then they are dead. Cause advertiser will just run.
IF we get real nasty and boycott advertisers in the paper too then drop like a rock.
See we fucking powerful just dont they get us all mad or they be crush by the peasants.

[LightningFlash]

11. Nice way of putting it....

Let's spread the word to the 60% of america and counting who wants this shitstorm to end....... :evilgrin:

[newswolf56]

14. Sorry to be the thread curmudgeon, but I don't think...

...it will happen. Moreover, I don't think it CAN happen. Here's why:

In the old days, reporters were hired by editors. But since the monopolies have taken over, they treat journalists like production-line workers or retail clerks and force them to apply through personnel offices. This is very deliberate: the "human resources department" approach to editorial hiring has packed newsrooms with conformist brown-nosers who lack the intellect (not to mention the skill) required for serious investigative reporting or analytical writing. Proof? The fact that newspapers are nearly as bad as broadcast media when it comes to the "all-Lacey-Peterson-all-the-time" mode of journalism. The Washington Post becomes ever more like The National Inquirer.

This is by far the most devastating-to-democracy result of media monopolization: not merely the death of editorial independence, but the methodical purging of the old-style reporters who knew how to birddog a story and were fearless enough not to be scared away from it. Even if the publishers had the inclination to truly rock the boat -- which they don't (because -- Iraq be damned -- the inherent contradictions of capitalism have once again become too overwhelming) -- the journalistic talent simply isn't there any more. And -- thanks to the HR hiring mode -- it won't ever be there again.

The Internet will help us, but by itself it is woefully inadequate, just as the 2004 election proved. Given these realities, the only thing that will save us is the emergence of a leader forceful enough to genuinely command headlines -- another FDR at the very least -- and I doubt there is such a person now alive.

[necso]

15. I like the points that you make.

There have been fundamental changes in media culture, and not for the better -- And this problem is probably irreparable, at least as regards TV.

However, I do hold out some hope for the internet. News (linking) sites that can provide context, interpretation and "un-spin" could provide a useful service with little or no news-creation capabilities. (And there isn't a huge amount of the kind of news that one really has to pay attention to generated (uniquely) in any given day. And much historical context -- and much of the contextual and intellectual framework -- can be carried forward (once created) for most "news".)

And if some of these sites can keep neutral political tones and build reputations for reliability, then they could (in theory at least) grow considerable followings -- and have considerable influence.

But yeah, this most likely isn't going to happen either.

...

And the sort of thing that you talk about happening in the media is happening elsewhere. Over my life, I have seen a new ("newish", perhaps -- and additional) candidate filtering process, one using both head-hunters and HR people as initial hurdles to hiring, gain increasing importance. And I have also seen what are essentially bureaucratic standards (as opposed to meritorial ones) -- standards based on the concept of the trained and experienced oxen (and wage-slave) -- come to increasingly dominate thinking about hiring "talent".

But then, I see very few hopeful trends in my society.