Has anyone heard any discussion of Olbermann's remarks in corporate media?

[blm]

I haven't - but, I rarely have the AM talkshows on, as I have a 5yo to get ready for school in the mornings, and usually have Magic School Bus in the background.

But, I haven't seen any threads on the AM shows that showed any discussion.

Have we missed any coverage, or is the corpmedia going to collectively IGNORE what was said by Olbermann?

[rodeodance]

1. none that i am aware of.

[blm]

3. So, he makes serious remarks as a journalist and the rest close ranks and

act like it never happened?

Uh - that's their classic method of operation. Remember when Koppel sent a crew to Vietnam and completely demolished the swiftvet lies? The rest of the media never mentioned a word about it the next day or any days following. And just how they froze out Kerry's attack of the swifts at the Firefighters' Convention - media acted as if it never happened.

Coulter's crazed remarks draw tons of attention and discussion on every network. Olbermann's editorial, Koppel's news story, and a presidential candidate making serious news get - - - - a wall of silence.

[eallen]

2. Olbermann IS corporate media.

His show is produced by a corporation. He is paid by a corporation. The product is distributed by a corporation. It is broadcast by local TV companies owned by corporations. It is put on cable by other corporations. You see it on a TV sold by corporations.

Just what isn't corporate about Olbermann?

[blm]

4. Yeah - like Murdoch's donations to Dem candidates prove he supports Dems.

Countdown is NBC's pretend balance. Olbermann knows it and uses it further than they expect in his effort to get some truth out.

[eallen]

8. So views you approve don't count as "truly" corporate?

Because "corporate" is by definition evil?

:eyes:

[blm]

10. Views that promote the fascist agenda are "corporate" and the fact that

Olbermann's serious remarks from last night have been ignored by every other talking head shows that the "corporate" media is willfully maintaining a wall of silence in order to contain and isolate his view.

Coulter makes crazy remarks and the entire media structure trips over themselves to give her more microphones and airtime so a full "discussion" of her remarks can be had.

[eallen]

11. Perhaps you need more accurate term than "corporate." Maybe "right-wing"?

[blm]

12. The corporate media IS and has been RW for a long time.

Corporate media is an institutionalized mindset that puts corporate interest of the parent companies and their political allies ahead of public interest.

[eallen]

13. Except when it's not, right?

Olbermann you'll agree isn't right-wing. The wingnuts hate Google, going so far as to boycott it, recommending other search engines. Salon isn't right-wing. Is the NYT right-wing? What about Paramount Classics, which distributes "An Inconvenient Truth"? What about Magnolia Pictures?

Of course, I guess you could go the other way around, and instead of making excuses for why the product of corporate media isn't always right-wing, define what counts as "corporate" so as to exclude the media you like. Doing that, Michael Moore wouldn't count as corporate, but Rush Limbaugh would. What about a non-profit political organization funded by rich backers? Does it count as "corporate" are not? Does it depend on whether it is the American Enterprise Institute, or moveon.org?

[blm]

14. NEWSMEDIA - the NEWSMEDIA who has taken on a corporate mindset.

You know that is what I am discussing in this thread.

Why not smack people around for saying Republicans in their posts, while you're at it? We all know that not ALL Republicans support the current Republican mindset. I use corporate media the same way, as do most DUers. Why do you see a need to dispute the general thrust?

[eallen]

16. Yeah, I do. I think it's pretty much bogus...

It's part of the anti-capitalist mythology held by the socialist camp, that there is some utopia out there waiting for us if only we were to get rid of corporations. So "corporate" becomes a byword for all sorts of things.

Just because many on the Republican side make themselves defenders of anything and everything that is done in the name of business does not mean that we should take the opposite and equally mistaken tact of painting business as evil per se. Being in the liberal camp -- not a socialist -- I don't view corporate as inherently good or evil. I view incorporation as an important mechanism in capitalism. I don't think corporations should be viewed as people or given the legal rights that people are. But neither do I hold to this mythology that everything wrong with the world is because of the capital-C Corporations. Myths are easiest to puncture where people start stretching their terms to fit reality that doesn't meet the myth. So yeah, I dispute that thrust.

[blm]

17. In the context I am using it is completely appropriate. And why sites like

MediaMatters are so important.

I'll make my next donation in honor of this exchange.

[eallen]

18. Since I like MediaMatters, I am quite happy with that result.

:hippie:

[tom_paine]

33. Read Throstein Veblen, read history, especially "corproate personhood"

The corporation is a tool, and not inherently evil. However, like guns (which are also not inherently evil), both are tools which are favored for use by bad people to do bad things.

Does than make all corporations bad? No. Is it anti-capitalist to take note of the fact that corporations have been historically often misused, from Love Canal to Enron, willfully, knowingly, and to the great detriment of millions?

No, and if I am an anti-capitalist just for saying so, it would be a great surprise to my stockbroker.

Is everything wrong in the world the responsibilty of corporations? Of course not.

But are the Busheviks using the corporation as a weapon to destroy democracy, liberty, and the constitutional system of governance? Yes, absolutely!

Do corporations have too much power? Yes. Neither of those two things are a myth. They are as real, obvious, and demonstrable.

And I say emphatically. It is NOT anti-capitalist to say so. Quite the opposite, in many cases (not all), where criticism is out of caring and concern.

I happen to like capitalism. I believe in it as a system. But ANY system...ANY...is subject to corruption if it doesn't have checks and balanes. Capitalism is no different.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. One can make a compelling case that the NYT is a vehicle of

official government propaganda. When the government is fascist, the NYT will serve as a mouthpiece for fascism. IRAQ QED.

[Roy]

9. His words??????? n/t

[Exiled in America]

34. I think you and blm are in a silly argument...

Because I think you're both right in your own way.

Eallen, you're speaking very technically - and you're technically right. Of course Olberman works for a coproration and his show is put out to the people via the mechanism of the mainstream press, which is corporate controlled.

He gets to do this because - and ONLY because - MSNBC's owners believe he makes them money. When he becomes unprofitable, he will be gone. No matter how right he is.

BUT - we've see a pretty consistent pattern on Olberman. He seems pretty committed to cadidly speaking the truth with a style that keeps him popular enough to stay on the air, even as part of a corporation. This isn't a contradiction - there are decent PEOPLE doing the right thing in many corporate contexts.

So the fact that Olberman works for a corporation is not enough in and of itself to make him a bad guy. There are lots of people who choose to "work from within" for change.

So blm is saying that when talk about a "corporate agenda" or are highly critical of "corporations" we are refering to a big, but legitimate picture. Corporate influence over politics and individuals is huge and it is largely harmful to the majority of americans. Corporations influence over the media is very, very bad. People like Olberman are the extreme exception to the corporate media rule.

The real test would be, what would Olberman do if MSNBC told him to tone it down or hit the road. Then we'd be able to say a lot more about Keith.

Olberman has managed to deliver a message that runs counter to the standard mainstream corporate media messagse EVEN while being employed as part of that machine, because he's skilled and talented enough to continue to generate ratings for MSNBC - so for right now he has the cover to do it. When that changes, we'll get to see what kind of person he is.

[napi21]

5. Lynn Cullen on WPTT (Pgh. Pa) is reading Keith's comment now

on her show. I stream her radio show every day. I used to live there and used to tune in to it every day then too.

I can't wait to see what calls she gets after she finishes reading it today.

[BR_Parkway]

6. Make it impossible for them to ignore - here's something on Yahoo - rate

it up, lets make this the most emailed story out there so it shows up in all searches

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060912/cm_thenation/15120539

[blm]

7. How about sending to all our local papers, too.

.

[annabanana]

19. done. . . . . . n/t

[Raffi Ella]

15. no

And I wrote to Tweety Shit for brains traitor Matthews last night telling him exactly what I thought of him.Asking him HOW he could at this point in our History after so many have died for lies HOW in GODS name he could enable these CRIMINALS to stay in office like he does night after night!??

I asked him how he sleeps at night knowing what he knows and not doing a DAMN thing about it except enable these evil corrupt men to destroy our country when he has a platform to help STOP them.

I wrote to Dan Abrams about it too,demanding truth in journalism.

[grasswire]

20. thank you

Tweety looked pretty sick last night after Olbermann's remarks, didn't he?

[Raffi Ella]

28. ha!He and Joe BOTH did.

Shellshocked almost!

[grasswire]

21. I asked this question after Olbermann's last commentary...

...and got blasted by DUers for it.

Yours is a valid question because there are plenty of media critics in print and broadcast, and I don't see any of them commenting on Keith. Nobody wants to be first, I guess.

I'm trying to remember if Donahue got much coverage in the press from media critics.

[blm]

22. We saw this during Iraqgate - Koppel made the DYNAMITE conclusion that

it was increasingly apparent that George Bush KNEW about the covert financial and military aid that was going to Saddam after Congess had stopped all funding to Iraq.

Not ONE print news or broadcast news outlet mentioned Koppel's report or commentary in the following days news cycles. That assured the story would gain no heat.

Had CJR not covered it, how many of us would have known about Koppel's commentary?

I happened to see that Koppel program, but that makes me one of how many?

[blm]

23. Here's the CJR analysis of how the media killed a "HOT" story

I know you know this - but there are still too many who have never seen this.

IRAQGATE

The Big One That (Almost) Got Away
Who Chased it -- and Who Didn't
by Russ W. Baker
Baker, a member of the adjunct faculty at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is a free-lance writer who regularly contributes to The Village Voice. Research assistance was provided by Julie Asher in Washington and Daniel Eisenberg in New York.
ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop. "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."

Is this accurate? Just about every reporter following the story thinks so. Most say that the so-called Iraqgate scandal is far more significant then either Watergate or Iran-contra, both in its scope and its consequences. And all believe that, with investigations continuing, it is bound to get bigger.

Why, then, have some of our top papers provided so little coverage? Certainly, if you watched Nightline or read the London Financial Times or the Los Angeles Times, you saw this monster grow. But if you studied the news columns of The Washington Post or, especially, The New York Times, you practically missed the whole thing. Those two papers were very slow to come to the story and, when they finally did get to it, their pieces all too frequently were boring, complicated,and short of the analysis readers required to fathom just what was going on. More to the point, they often ignored revelations by competitors.

The result: readers who neither grasp nor care about the facts behind facile imagery like The Butcher of Baghdad and Operation Desert Storm. In particular, readers who do not follow the story of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, which apparently served as a paymaster for Saddam's arms buildup, and thus became a player in the largest bank-fraud case in U.S. history.

Complex, challenging, mind-boggling stories (from Iran-contra to the S&L crisis to BCCI) increasingly define our times: yet we don't appear to be getting any better telling them. In the interest of learning from our mistakes, this reporter examined several hundred articles and television transcripts on Iraqgate and spoke to dozens of reporters, experts, and generally well-informed news consumers.
>>>

http://archives.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp

[Zavulon]

24. Take a look at this

Just look at the sorces when you look up K.O's name in Google News. I don't see much corporate represntation here, to be sure: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=keith+olbermann&ie=UTF-8

[blm]

29. How many times have we seen this exact same m.o. from the press?

Just pathetic. And it's getting worse.

[warrens]

25. It's a bit early

Most are probably unaware of it so far. It only happened last night. But it's going to hit, and probably hit big. He used the impeachment word, and the right wing jackals won't be able to resist calling him a commie.

[blm]

26. But news is supposed to be about what happened a few hours earlier.

I don't think it's "early" at all. It should have been the buzz of the morning shows.

[grasswire]

30. Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post...

...included a link to Keith's commentary in his daily briefing column, which has a very large readership. Everyone oughta be reading Froomkin every weekday, and this day especially. Lots of goodies in the column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/09/12/BL2006091200770.html

[blm]

31. So far, that's all I've seen. Eerie silence from MSNBC yakkers.

.

[Disturbed]

32. How many Liberals are there on TV, Radio and Print Media?

Seems that there aren't many. Most of the Media that is prominent seems to be RWing now.