Corporate media vs. state run media

[bluestateguy]

I need to add an important caveat to our criticisms of corporate media, and that is to warn people of the dangers of state-run media. I'm not saying it's an either-or choice, but it can be very difficult to find a third way alternative to this choice. A media outlet is either going to be a private for-profit enterprise, or it won't be. If it isn't, how will they generate revenue to stay on the air and pay their personnel? That's a real challenge.

But I would warn people about the inherent dangers of state run media, for it is deficiently worse than corporate owned media (which I also dislike, btw). A state run media is nothing more than a microphone for the government, and right now we know what that means. Imagine if tomorrow Baby Bush said that all corporate media was being nationalized and put under state control. The government would decide what news stories aired, what TV shows aired, what ads aired and who would be hired and fired at the networks. Would you trust Baby Bush and his team with those powers?

Some people will say that that is what we have now. I disagree. At least in a corporate media there is accountability due to ratings. If the Iraq War becomes unpopular, the corporate media has to acknowledge this and air stories that are increasingly critical of the war. If people don't like the Bush Social Security plan, the corporate media has to air stories that raise questions about the plan. Networks that fail to do this will lose viewers to the networks that do.

P.S. I would only ask that in responding to this post people respond to what I actually said, not to a straw man of what I did not say, or what they think I implied.

[Tace]

1. Good Point -- Although We Definitely Have A Corporatist Media

The biggest problem in the US media has been the consolidation of ownership into only a few hands. Something like five companies own 95% of TV and radio outlets, and newspapers.

[sam sarrha]

2. todays Media is Fascist, both coporate and state they create the ratings

[Gregorian]

3. It's how they are managed.

I've been thinking about this also. And I actually think corporate media is better than state run. But regardless, it is more the oversight than the mechanics of how it works. Forced fairness is what has to happen.
The bottom line is, when honesty pays, we will tend to get honesty. But above and beyond that, there must be a mandate to force attention to all sides of issues. You know, that bullshit that Fox says they have. But don't. It's funny how being fair and being balanced is really what we need. How ironic that Fox would actually have our answer.



Plus, open air time to all candidates should be given equally. And only that amount of time per candidate.

[mazzarro]

4. I do not agree - what is BBC or NPR or CBC, etc

There are a whole lot of national mediae in the world that have more balanced approach than what currently obtains in the US.

[Barak And Roll]

6. Agreed

In and of itself, there is no problem with state-run media. There are many examples of public media that provides a better service because it does not have to worry about ratings and advertisers to stay afloat -- hense more real news, less car chases and missing white girls.
The problem isn't with state-run media it's with who runs the state. A state-run media doesn't have to be any less free than an independant media outlet if the people running the state (and the state media) have respect for free press and the public's right to know.
Right now, BushCo sees the media as a threat when free, but a major tool when they control it.
Since we have a corporate media and a corporate-friendly media the difference between our current media and a controlled state-run media is little. Both the media and this administration share common interests ($$$) and will work together to present a reality friendly to their goals.
For the public media we do have, Bush has done everything he can to appoint political cronies to run it, assuring that the people who run these outlets share his vision of a controlled media as a propaganda wing of the Republican Party.
Neither state-run or corporate-run media is not in and of itself bad. Bad media is media run by people whose first goal is anything but the public's right to know. That's what we have right now and that's why our media sucks.

[mazzarro]

11. I am in complete agreement with your view on this -- n/t

[thefool_wa]

5. It doesn't work like that...

<snip>
At least in a corporate media there is accountability due to ratings. If the Iraq War becomes unpopular, the corporate media has to acknowledge this and air stories that are increasingly critical of the war. If people don't like the Bush Social Security plan, the corporate media has to air stories that raise questions about the plan. Networks that fail to do this will lose viewers to the networks that do.
<snip>

I would really like to believe that this is true, but with the current diversity of mass-media outlets, they really don't have to change anything about *what* they are reporting based on the current political climate of their viewers, all they change is how. Modern corporate media's audience doesn't change the channel, they pick the station that is the mouthpiece of their viewpoint and stick with it. The networks have to change or "spin" their stories to suit the audience they already have. This gives them the 'freedom' to literally talk about whatever suits their agenda (and ANY national corporation worth over seven or eight figures has an agenda) in the way that best promotes it. They don't need to worry about the attitude of the general populace towards their stories, just that of their target demographic, and even then all they have to do is tell them what they want to hear.

Long gone are the days of FOX needing to drag viewers away from MSNBC, or fear loosing viewers to them. Those who want to hear the agenda each is promoting will be drawn to them and stay there. Its how these things work now, and it is evidenced in everything from Bill O'Riley to Anderson Cooper to even (dare I say it, for I love the man) Jon Stewart. Again, they don't change what they report to the sway their audience, they spin the news the way the audience wants to hear it.

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Not always true

They can also try to swing the war back into a popular place in the population. Of course you are correct they then have to adjust if that does not work.

[Hidden Stillness]

8. The Larger Issue--Uncensored

By the time I re-read this thread today, there were already several really good replies to it, so some points will not have to be mentioned again, but I did want to reply to the general attitude of "corporate is better than government" exhibited by the thread-starter. This is a very strange and distressing attitude, especially during a time of total takeover of the government's policies by corporations whose sole interest is jockeying for position as profit-makers and controllers of market share. I apologize if I am exaggerating your attitude, but this is a common opinion and I think the larger issue should be paid attention to.

As one poster has already described, (#5 thefool_wa), the media no longer relies on "ratings" and "appealing to the general audience" to get advertiser dollars--or, soon, Euros, as Bush makes us collapse. Disney has already several times been found faking their attendance and gross profit figures for movies, and their audience size for TV, so what does it mean to claim that they will "change" to bring their ratings up? They are not even believable numbers anymore. Apart from that, it isn't true: recall when MSNBC cancelled the great and still-missed Phil Donahue--that network's #1 rated program!--because the buildup to the Iraq invasion had begun, and Donahue would have been a problem, speaking openly and all. How is that not heavy-handed censorship, by corporations? Of course, they are all censoring stories all the time. When was the last time you got straight news about a strike, union-busting, price-gouging, outsourcing and the real unemployment rate, the need to raise taxes, or anything else economic?

When Jon Lieberman spoke up, then quit, at Sinclair Broadcasting, because of its lying program attacking John Kerry during the election of 2004, the entire story was censored by the corporate media (which supposedly loves conflict and news biz stories; "odd"), and only covered, a little, by C-SPAN. Lieberman, who had won many journalism awards, was never hired by anyone else. So much for only wanting a well-run news department that will cater to popular opinion. Sounds like an agenda, and a purge.

A large part of the problem nowadays is that it is hard, with the new fascism, to even distinguish between "government" and "corporation." The entire current Administration is from the corporate world, and Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., are still there. Roger Ailes, media consultant to the Bush I Administration and Presidential campaign, Repub contributor and consultant, heads Fox " 'News,' " and local Fox stations routinely censor news stories and fire reporters, always when exposing corporations (the Monsanto case in Florida, etc.). The entire campaign of lies against John Kerry during the election, as one example, was completely undertaken by corporations, working with their Republican Party think tank/corporate allies. They concentrate themselves and hammer this propaganda into our heads as never before, because now only about five, or whatever it is, corporations monopolize all air-time. (Everybody can do the Dean scream, because of corporate repitition that censored everything else.) Apart from that, the activity of government is suspiciously corporate: what government of the people and their legislators, for example, would systematically, completely destroy the much-needed AMTRAK, and leave people with nothing, but leave the airlines with endless, economy-killing subsidies? The problem is not government, it is corporations, the corporate takeover of governing.

If anything, corporate media is worse than government would ever be, (another poster--mazzarro, reply #4--also made the point I was going to, that that is what the BBC is, and it is still one of the world's great news/documentary sources, as are the others). The corporate control of media goes far beyond censorship or revelation. Corporations spend countless millions on psychological studies on what makes up people's thoughts, different kinds of attention--active and passive, where they look on the screen, sounds, trigger-words, associations, etc., etc., like a mind-control cult, and all to manipulate you to their advantage, get money out of you, keep you ignorant and holding the opinions that benefit them, convince you not to use the time-honored political avenues to get change in your society anymore, and get everyone else you know to be equally materialistic and ignorant. Propaganda is not even considered bad anymore--if it works. What governments spend so much time and money--just to control you for their benefit and against your own--as this, apart from Nazis and Communists? This is not even democracy anymore.

A corporate media is nothing more or less than a mouthpiece for the global corporate empire--they are not even separate operations anymore. It is a quaint fiction to still refer to "ABC," and "NBC," rather than the now-correct Disney, Time-Warner, General Electric, whatever it is down to. They are not even broadcasters anymore, (unless you actually believe that people who love writing and journalism grow up wanting to cover endless stories on "an exciting new product," or "all the buzz" about some new TV program aimed at teenaged males). The New York Times sat on a bombshell story about Bush illegally spying on ordinary Americans, for over a year, the media now whines "Who leaked?" and still will not admit that Bush uses a receiver to get answers through an earphone, or that Bush is a drunk and a cocaine addict; and apart from that, the only thing the Federal "Government" does anymore is give favors to corporations by way of their lobbyists--doubled since 2000--and so there is only commercial activity. Which is which?

This post may seem to be all over the map, since the question was about media, but I think it was important to take some time to describe the position that the problem--with censorship, exploitation and everything else--is corporate; it already is the worst. After all, why did corporate lobbyists go to such an effort to kill the Fairness Doctrine, a government protection, so long ago (Reagan Admin.)? Their very aim is to censor and control.

[arendt]

10. Great reply...ratings are bullshit these days

Not only does the corporate media suppress news (case in point: NYT sitting on
NSA story for a year.), but it corrupts all the shows with product placements and
politically correct censorship of scripts. Not to mention series concepts that never
get past the buyers because they incoveniently depict reality instead of fantasy.

Did you know that PBS has a policy that they will accept no programming that was
paid for in any way by union money?

The media is nothing but a filter to distort the news and the culture into that which
serves our corporate masters.

I tend to agree that it would be very hard for state-run media to do worse. They would
be ham-handed, compared to the psychological mind-fuck games that marketers
have learned from decades of selling soap.

arendt

[blm]

9. The news groups don't care about RATINGS - Washington Times doesn't

operate for profit, at all.

The news media has become the Public Relations Dept. for the Defense Industry parent company that owns it.

Get real.

[mwooldri]

12. Nope, not true at all.

But I would warn people about the inherent dangers of state run media, for it is deficiently worse than corporate owned media (which I also dislike, btw). A state run media is nothing more than a microphone for the government, and right now we know what that means. Imagine if tomorrow Baby Bush said that all corporate media was being nationalized and put under state control.

As posted earlier it depends on _how_ it is done. If you're Nazi Germany then yes, taking over the media (then it was just print, cinema and radio) is making it a government mouthpiece. Many people in Britain enjoyed listening to Lord Haw Haw, who spouted out the German diatribes from what was Radio Luxembourg.

However, if it is done correctly like it is with the BBC, then you get a better alternative in some respect to the corporate media. The BBC run consumer affairs programs where corporations get taken for a ride and shown how bad they've been (and usually the corporation makes up for it). Commercial broadcasting doesn't do that because a) the audience figures aren't big enough and b) it would scare away the advertisers. Admittedly the BBC has been manipulated in the past (certainly anti-WW2 messages didn't get much airtime on WW2 BBC) but certain events like the Suez crisis, and the "sexing up of WMD" made it to air - and shows that the BBC is for the most part independent of government control. In the terms of sexed up WMD reports, the BBC didn't get off because there was an "inquiry" done (resulted in the Hutton Report), which was then contradicted a year later by another inquiry (resulted in the Butler Report). This caused the BBC to lose probably its best Chairman in a long time.

[Greyhound]

13. Where to start *sigh*...

"I'm not saying it's an either-or choice, but it can be very difficult to find a third way alternative to this choice"
Wrong. It is very simple, so simple we had a system in place for 40 years that worked very well, that is, until a major campaign contributer named R. Murdoch found it inconvenient. Foreign nationals and foreign corporations are forbidden to own American media. No person or company can own more than (I've forgotten the percentage) of any given market.

"A state run media is nothing more than a microphone for the government, and right now we know what that means... The government would decide what news stories aired, what TV shows aired, what ads aired and who would be hired and fired at the networks... Some people will say that that is what we have now. I disagree. At least in a corporate media there is accountability due to ratings". Replace the words state and government with the word corporation and you describe exactly what we have.
As for the "accountability due to ratings", herring that is also , they are losing viewers and listeners and readers every single day, and they have no intention of changing how they operate. If the quote from Other People's Money ("The surest way to go broke is to gain a larger and larger share of a shrinking market") is accurate, and I believe it is, why do they not change? Because they have an agenda that is dictated by the owners. The notion that as the crime in Iraq becomes unpopular the stories get more critical is just plain wrong. The crime became so unpopular they could no longer ignore it, though they still play it down. The corporate media never raised any questions about the SS scam, the hugh and cry just got too loud for them to ignore.

I do not endorse a government controlled media in any way, but your assertion that what we have is preferable, is just so wrong.