Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On corporate media controlling our democracy.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:34 PM
Original message
On corporate media controlling our democracy.
We do quite a lot of complaining about the biased media. Just the mention of Rupert Murdock gives many progressives a physical sick feeling. But really, has it ever been any different? Wouldn't Ben Franklin be the Rupert Murdock of his day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hell no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Explain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. democraticization of media
imo, the greatest democraticization of the media has occurred with the advent of the internet/web

sure, the conventional media is controlled by a few corp's.

but the internet is controlled by nobody. and the conventional media is the PAST.

there has never been a time in history when more examples of alternative media (from all over the political spectrum) is readily available to so many people.

of course the signal/noise ratio is disturbingly small, but oh well

just a few keystrokes away one can access everything from the north korean govt. website, to indymedia, to reason magazine, to national review, to the nation, to mother jones, to michael moore's website, etc. etc. etc.

that has never before been true. alternative viewpoints are legion. it's never been easier to get access to a medium that allows citizens from all over the WORLD (let alone the US) have access to YOUR ideas, nor has it ever been easier to get access to foreign based news sources as well as the us based ones





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Welcome to D.U. sgxnk and I totally agree however
I don't believe we are out of the woods yet. The Mass Corporate Media want their power to brain wash the American People back and I believe their attempt at killing Net Neutrality is a step in that direction. I do not believe their attacks against the democratization of information will end there either.

I also believe this was the fundamental motivating factor in their War Against Gore beginning in March of 99 and the enabling of Bush to power.

Again welcome to D.U.



:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. thank you
thanks for the welcome

let's also not forget that dean used the new media (the internet) to great effect in his run

and now the conventional media is so more often looking to the new media (realizing they are in their death gasp)

who woulda thought BLOGGERS (who even knew what blogging was a few years ago) would be interviewed for their opinions on major "news" shows?

imo, the basic assumption behind the 1st amendment is that given a free marketplace of ideas - the best ideas will win

clearly, often the best ideas do NOT win. but unlike any other country in earth i am aware of, we do not criminalize icky ideas (as do the UK, Canada, Germany , France, etc.) or their dissemination


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Democratization can equal demagoguery...
... and particularly astroturfing.

The advantage of a professional and ethical press is that there is something of peer review as well as a name to associate with potential falsehoods. The net CAN be a good journalistic tool but it is all too easy to manipulate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Too bad we don't have one of those "professional and ethical presses"
you are referring to, perhaps you know were we could get one? I believe our Mass Corporate Media has set new records in demagoguery.

Also what is astroturfing, I have not heard of this term before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Astroturfing
Once you read the definition you'll recognize it alright :-)

"In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Word origin
The term, said to have been used first in this context by former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), is wordplay based on "grassroots" efforts, which are truly spontaneous undertakings, largely sustained by private persons (and not politicians, governments, corporations, or public relations firms). "AstroTurf" refers to the bright green artificial grass used in some sports stadiums, so "astroturfing" refers to artificial grassroots efforts.

As of October 2005, "AstroTurf" remains a registered trademark of Textile Management Associates. Use of the word "astroturfing" in certain contexts may be restricted in the US by the 1995 Federal Dilution Trademark Act and in the UK by the 1994 Trade Marks Act. This would generally only apply in commercial transactions, where genericide (use of a trademark to refer to any maker of a product such that the mark becomes a generic) would be a violation of law.


Techniques
A form of propaganda, astroturfing attempts to selectively affect the emotions of the public, whether trying to win a campaign, be the top music record seller, the top book seller, or gain political support.

The most frequently identified cases of astroturfing are found in recent political history.

Astroturfing techniques usually consist of a few people discreetly posing as mass numbers of activists advocating a specific cause. Supporters or employees will manipulate the degree of interest through letters to the editor, e-mails, blog posts, crossposts, trackbacks, etc. They are instructed on what to say, how to say it, where to send it, and how to make it appear that their indignation, appreciation, joy, or hate is entirely spontaneous and independent; thus being "real" emotions and concerns rather than the product of an orchestrated campaign. Local newspapers are often victims of astroturfing, by publishing letters that are identical to letters other newspapers have received.

It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign because the cost and effort to email (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom email) is so low. Companies may use a boiler room, full of telephones and computers, where hired activists locate people and groups that create enthusiasm for the specified cause. Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. This correlates with the merge-purge technique that combines information about an individual from multiple databases. Companies can then turn hypothetical supporters into activists for the cause. This leads to misuse of the Internet, for one person is able to play the role of a whole group of like-minded people (see also Internet sock puppet).

News consolidation services, such as Google News, as well as PR Watch and Sourcewatch, have made it easier to spot such campaigns through the search of specific key phrases that bring up results showing identical letters, articles, blogs, websites, etc.


Examples

Early examples
At the turn of the 20th century, it was common to have newspapers in major American cities sponsored by local political parties. Some were open about this practice, but many of these relationships were hidden. Other examples include political "clubs" which front for voter fraud and intimidation, letter-writing campaigns organized by local ward bosses, and some union-organized political activities.

One case, documented in the book All the President's Men, the Committee to Re-Elect the President orchestrated several campaigns of "public support" for decisions made by President Nixon in the period preceding the 1972 election, including telegrams to the White House and an apparently independent advertisement placed in The New York Times.

Another case is that of Bolivian dictator General Luis Garcia Meza Tejada, who at the end of his promised one year rule staged a televised rally and declared "Bueno, me quedo," or in English: "All right, I'll stay."


Examples from the 1990s
In 1991 a memo from PR firm van Kloberg & Associates to Zairian ambassador Tatanene Tanata was leaked, containing references to the "Zaire Program 1991". The memo outlines steps the firm was taking to improve the image of Mobutu Sese Seko's regime, including placing dozens of letters to the editor, op-ed pieces and articles in the American press praising the Zairian government. <1>

In 1998, Paul Reitsma, former member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, was accused of writing letters to newspapers under assumed names praising himself and attacking his political opponents. A Parksville newspaper had asked a former RCMP handwriting expert to compare a sample of Reitsma's handwriting to that of letters to the editor submitted by a "Warren Betanko", and then ran a story entitled "MLA Reitsma is a liar and we can prove it". For this, Reitsma was expelled from the caucus of the British Columbian Liberal Party and then compelled to resign his seat after it became obvious that an effort to recall him would succeed. <2>


Recent examples
In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. <3>

USA Next, a seniors' organization which supports the privatization of Social Security, has also been accused of being an astroturf group funded by corporate interests, especially those of pharmaceutical companies.

In recent years, organizations of plaintiffs' attorneys have established front groups such as Victims and Families United and the Center for Justice and Democracy to oppose tort reform.<4>

In 2005, PalmSource reportedly instructed its employees to make posts to various PDA sites around the world in an effort to counteract the growing negative sentiment surrounding both PalmSource and Palm OS.

In March 2006, a supposed environmental group called the Save Our Species Alliance was exposed as a front group that was created by a timber lobbyist to weaken the Endangered Species Act. The campaign director for this group is Tim Wigley, the Executive Director of Pac/West Communications. Wigely was also the campaign director for Project Protect, another front group that spent $2.9 million to help pass President Bush's Healthy Forests legislation which has been criticized for its pro-industry bias. "<5>

In the 2005 UK general election, the Labour Party packed press conferences with party workers who appeared as genuine, concerned members of the public. The Labour Party and The Liberal Democrat Party workers also sent letters to the local press purporting to be ordinary members of the public; all of the letters fit a common template covering specific party issues. Aside from deceiving the readership, such tactics also deny space to genuine local residents.

In late 2005 an organization known as Working Families for Wal-Mart sprung up, claiming to be consisted of ordinary folks who claimed to believe that Wal-Mart was helping the ordinary person. However, the spokesperson claimed that the majority of their funding came from the corporate entity they were trying to compliment.

Manipulation of public opinion was also used in the Soviet Union, when political decisions were preceded by massive campaigns of orchestrated 'letters from workers' (pisma trudyashchisya) which were quoted and published in newspapers and radio.

Slobodan Milošević, a former authoritarian leader of Yugoslavia, also used astroturfing by broadcasting, on state television, numerous "letters of support" containing emotional expressions of love and support for his policies, creating an artificial impression of legitimacy.

In May, 2006, SanDisk launched a site called iDon't, appearing to be a blog started by individuals opposed to Apple's domination of the portable music player market. It's actually an advertisement mechanism for their own device, the Sansa e200.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Thank you for the definition alvarezadams, it is amazing
that between this and "think tanks" financed by industries ie: tobacco and oil for the sole purpose of misleading the people, that anyone can get the truth.

I am still of the mind however that it's easier for a handful of Mass Corporate Media owners to manipulate and mislead the people through conventional means than doing it through the internet. As the owners cut the pay checks for all those below and who you wants to buck the boss? The lifeblood of the MCM is commercials and the industries that pay for them, these are their true clients, the people are just customers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Yes, I agree internet has revolutionized information
or rather it will if we can keep the power that be from destroying it's ability. On a personal note in just a few short years of access, the internet has totally changed my outlook on right and wrong, and my view of the world as a whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. While it's true that the internet is, at the moment,
not controlled, it's also true that the majority of people turn to the few mega-news corporations for all of their news.

Even here on DU, how many posts are talking about what the tv or radio corporate news or talking heads say? The corporate status quo infects the internet, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. corporate personhood was not an issue before 1886
before then, there was not enough centralized power to do as much damage as we see being done now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote from 1816:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson (1816)

I think it was at least an idea at that time.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. true, it was alreadyforming... but it was nowhere near as bad as it is now
Edited on Wed Jul-19-06 01:34 PM by redqueen
so if the OP asks if it has ever been any different... the answer is clearly: yes, it has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Oh, yeah, he knew the idea. The greatest part of the British Empire
was in India, which did as the British Army told it to do, which in turn did as the British East India Company told it to do. The British East India Company, which was responsible for the imposition of the Tea Tax. The Boston Tea Party was not a rebellion against the crown, but against the British East India Company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Is it a matter of scale?
Perhaps the same principle on a smaller scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. scale matters.
Edited on Wed Jul-19-06 01:01 PM by redqueen
it would be overly simplistic to say that it all depends on scale... however it is clear that , things could never have degraded to the point they have now without such a centralized assault on fair media / reporting the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. uh, not even close
Read up on Franklin. He was a truly one-of-a-kind American Original, a Rennaisance Man, and a credit to Humanity.

Murdoch is a fascist putz, IMO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I'm not talking about personality.
Franklin's profits from his paper enabled him to have the financial ability to be a major player in our revolution. It also enabled him a huge voice in controlling the debate. I've read quite a few things on the American Revolution that say if it weren't for Franklin's media abilities and the wealth it provided him, it's very likely colonial citizens would never have been won over to the idea of spliting with England and we would not be USA now.

I'm not saying the two are equivalent in a moral or personality sense but there position in society, regarding media seems to have some parallel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, for one thing
Franklin did a lot of things besides print The Pennsylvania Gazette. Instead of amassing a newspaper empire, he chose to be an inventor and scientist. It is his fame for inventing the lightning rod that helped him a great deal when he was Ambassador to France.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yes, it has been different
Today we have a media consolidation that is unparalleled in history. Rupert leaves William Randolph Hearst (the closest precedent) in the dust in all senses. In the past virtually every town had at LEAST one paper, most of them family-owned and ideologically tilted towards the owner's politics.

Franklin had to compete with dozens of papers, ranging from loyalist to whig, revolutionary to religious.

At the same time, for a few decades at least, journalists exercised some ethics. This had to do with the fact that the readership, which drives sales, had an interest in how things were run and what was really happening. INVESTIGATIVE journalism sold papers and was thus common.

Editors today are part of the corporate beast. And the media owners have their hands in many pies which means that there is a significant conflict of interests when corporate and editorial policies run against journalistic ethics.

Oh, it has been VERY different. It has never been so bad - even with wartime censorship. Drew Pearson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pearson_(journalist)) or even Jack Anderson would have no place in today's media, while even the Watergate reporters have been emasculated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. Flash from the past
...the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor. ...


...There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

Teddy Roosevelt on Muckrakers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. nice lil reminder...thanks for that alv
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
22. Only if he had been a Tory, and was supported by the
British East India Company. Then he would have bought up all the competing papers and used them to support his own agenda, the defeat of the revolution.

Actually, Tom Paine had far greater influence on the average colonist than Franklin did - his best efforts were in diplomacy in Paris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. The biggest difference was independence of the media
Back in the day, media were independent. We even had (quaint) laws to ensure they were independent. We even gave them a (quaint) name: The Fourth Estate. Some were truly fair and balanced while some were exceedingly partisan. But there were enough of each type that anyone interested could get the real story on any issue.

Today ..... it is, effectively, one single coordinated voice. A GOP voice. A Radical Right voice. Today the media is an arm of the Republican Party as surely as Pravda and Tass were Soviet controlled.

That's the difference: Independence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC