I really believe the single biggest issue that prevents this country from moving forward ........

[Stinky The Clown]

...... is the media. There is no news source. It is all lightweight entertainment. That includes even the media "heroes" lauded often on DU.

To be sure, Rupert Murdoch honed faux news to a fine edge, but is not the only one who is a problem.

People in this country, by and large, are ignorant. Not stupid or dull. Ignorant. They know only what TPB want them to know.

I'm of a mind that news is public utility, not a form of entertainment. Talk and opinion and spin and even what Fox serves up is okay, but only if there is real, unbiased, deep, probing news first. Walter Cronkite may have been the most trusted man in America, but his colleagues and competitors were all first rate. Now we have blow dried airheads like Brian Williams and Bill Hemmer. We get Katie Couric and that blond moron, Gretchen Whatsername on Fox and Friends.

On the blood boiler side we have Olbermann and they have Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and all the rest. Olbermann tries facts and righteous outrage. The others just make shit up. You also get Matthews doing Inside Baseball as he regularly fellates the right wingers who do his show.

Good Morning Today's Early Show is a wasteland, too. Its saving grace is innocuousness and vapidity.

This ragtag troupe of court jesters, mimes, clowns, camp followers and general hangers on is the best and brightest America's Media Barons will allow we the people to have in our living rooms.

Radio is no better. Stations are an endless 15 minute loop of weather, traffic and sports with an occasional headline thrown in for the sake of a nod toward the genre's name, News Radio. And those are the good stations. The 5000 watt local AM stations broadcast hate from morning to day's end, only to start it over again. You can hear about Leviticus and St Matthew, or you can hear right wing bloviators spew venom. In short, there's no news on News Radio.

And then there's print media. That can be summed in three letters: R. I. P.

If people knew the truth about the Arkansas Project, there might not have been a Ted Olson to argue successfully for his client in Bush v Gore.

If people knew the truth of the August 16 PDB, there may never have been the opportunity for a dry drunk rich brat to go play army with real soldiers.

If people knew the royal fucking they were getting by their banks and lenders, the housing crisis may not have happened.

If people had even a hint of what Phil Graham was up to way back then, Enron would never have happened and Jeff Skilling would have been jailed much earlier, right behind Kenny Boy.

The truth about insurance companies and peak oil and FannieAndFreddieAndSallie™ and why we left Afghanistan so precipitously wouild have minimized or actually prevented so much pain we've suffered.

News is NOT entertainment. It is a public utility.

It needs to be regulated as such.

No need for the Fairness Doctrine. Just regulate the news to make it honest and unbiased.

No one will do that for us, though, will they? They need the sham. Every damned lying, spinning, self-interested, damned one of them.

[begin_within]

1. That, and selfishness.

[BlooInBloo]

2. I'm an electorate blamer. The weak point of any democracy. Just like V said.

[Oregone]

3. I blame the electorate's moms

[treestar]

35. Right. They choose not to look further than the entertainment light

treatment of the subject in the media.

They could read, they could watch CSPAN, they could look on the internet. They have those options and can learn more if they chose.

[ashling]

4. Great! Now how?

I'm interested in your 'no need for the fairness doctirne, just regulate like a public utility."

Rightly or wrongly, opponents of this concept would say that government regulation is tantamount to government control, i.e., government run, ergo, Pravda, blah, blah ...

What type of regulations, and how to enforce?

I know it sounds like I am just one of those DUer naysayers who think that everybody else is wrong. That is definitely not where I am coming from. I am very intrigued by your concept ... you might even say that I agree .... well, I'll just say it . I agree, but how to go about it?

[MindandSoul]

5. I absolutely agree with you! If the media was not trying to spin every minute

of the day, the politiciens wouldn't have any reason to "act" and would get done to doing business!
They may still not do a perfect job, but at least there wouldn't be so much posturing and stupid "play to the crowd!"

[Ardent15]

6. People not realizing they are slaves to the owners

That's the biggest issue.

[Lorien]

7. I was with you until "No need for the Fairness Doctrine". I remember the

Fairness Doctrine; the news media didn't become fairly unbalanced until Reagan (who knew what the end result would be) did away with it. Reinstating it is EXACTLY what we need! It worked then, it can work now.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. The Fairness Doctrine is about points of view

Facts (news) have no point of view.

I am not opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. I simply content it doesn't solve the issue.

[whathehell]

37. You are correct!...I remember the Fairness Doctrine as well

and how it all became a circus once it was gone.

[Moochy]

8. How is the reulation of news going to happen ?

specifically:

News is NOT entertainment. It is a public utility.

It needs to be regulated as such.

No need for the Fairness Doctrine. Just regulate the news to make it honest and unbiased.

I've often thought we needed to start over with public media in the US. If we could somehow try to copy the BBC's model and shift PBS away from the CPB and erect real firewalls for investigative journalism. BBC News is not without it's biases, but they do seem much more ready to discuss important events.

If we had a public news organization that was 100% independent and not subject to political oversight or influence... with the freedom to investigate anyone and everyone, that could be a great step in the right direction, and hopefully influence the other media outlets coverage of events.

[caty]

9. This is why I change

the channel "a lot". And I don't just watch American news networks. I make a point of watching CBC and BBC America just to get a different spin on what's happening.

[autorank]

10. k*r The corporate media

Fox is really the worst. That Supreme Court decision was really to keep Fox alive since they violated McCain Feingold every election - blatant campaigning 60 days prior to an election with corporate funds. imho, the administration was ready to make that charge. They must go out of business. In light of their support for the AZ hate law, I'm hoping there will be some serious boycott action against them. That would be a start, wouldn't it?

Fuck 'em!

[kentuck]

11. The media used to be full of intelligent, bright people...

Now they are mostly made up of very mediocre minds. They have about the same IQ level as the average "tea-bagger".

[flygal]

13. They're made up of "spokes models"

They aren't news professionals - they're actors. The inflections are getting worse everyday - the added uses of their own opinions make it not news but just one big talk show.

[Cid_B]

12. This cracks me up...

Olbermann tries facts and righteous outrage. The others just make shit up.

I'm sure Rush's listeners say the same thing. If you think that KO or Rush or O'reilly aren't ALL spinning everything like mad to fit their particular view you are deluding yourself.

[wickerwoman]

14. I think that's one of three interconnected problems.

1.) The quality of the news is poor, yes, but

2.) It's what poorly educated Americans consume. You could show wall to wall News Hour with Jim Lehrer on every channel and nobody would watch it because they couldn't understand it and would think it was boring. You have to create an audience for intelligent news and our educational system has done a shitty job of this for the past thirty years, and

3.) People need free time to devote to staying aware of what's going on and to get involved in the political process. Nobody comes home from a double shift at KFC and flips on the BBC. American workers have been shafted for decades- they're exhausted and scared. And that doesn't lead to rational involvement in the political process no matter what kind of media they consume.

So yes, improve the quality of the news. But it won't help unless you improve the education and material security of the people who should be consuming it and aren't.

[NanceGreggs]

15. Could not agree with you more ...

"If people knew the truth about ..."

If people knew the truth about a LOT of things, the country would be a very different (and better) place.

And what stands between the truth and the American people is, ironically, "the news" - or what's passed off as the news nowadays.

:kick: and REC'D!!!

[Tsiyu]

16. " Freedom of the Press."

Yep.

Here in 'murika, you are Free to spend as much blood money as you've got making up shit about people who might hinder your "progress" in making even more blood money.

Then you package the lies and call it "News."

The best we can hope for is that the media, like Newtie Pie, become so enamored of themselves, so myopic and so convinced that no one can see through them, they let their guard down too many times.

In a way, they're already hanging themselves with that long rope of tolerance Americans have given them. Corporate Media continue to try to sell Americans their slave-wage, foreclosed, war-torn shit sandwich, but fewer Americans are biting.

I hold out hope for America's enlightenment, but not too much.

These days, it's just better to have lowered expectations.

[lostnfound]

17. There's plenty of news on DemocracyNow!

Not disagreeing with you about the state of the corporate media. But that's because it IS corporate media. The goal of corporate growth deeply conflicts with truth and democratic principles, now more than ever.

[ejpoeta]

19. isn't that what the rules that we used to have regarding ownership of media was for?

to prevent the mass conglomeration of the news by a few rich people? i mean we have the internet at least, but for how long if net neutrality is destroyed.then those same outlets would be able to keep us from the facts that way as well. and not everyone has access to the internet these days either. but the news being based on ratings is making sure it's not real news. as long as it isn't it's own entity with the focus being on getting news out instead of ratings.... then don't expect real news.

[lostnfound]

18. There's plenty of news on DemocracyNow!

Not disagreeing with you about the state of the corporate media. But that's because it IS corporate media. The goal of corporate growth deeply conflicts with truth and democratic principles, now more than ever.

[annabanana]

20. And both of us listeners really really appreciate it, too. . . n/t

[babylonsister]

21. Rec'd. You've been railing against the media for years, with good

reason. They sure haven't changed much, have they.

[Vinca]

22. You're right. Hate speak is a cottage industry and the rest of them

would rather chat about Lindsay Lohan, the world's smallest horse or local news stories about missing toddlers. I was disgusted at how health care was "disappeared" other than coverage of the the idiotic teabagger events. No mention of people whose lives depended on it.

[Dr Morbius]

24. You've hit upon one of my top issues here.

I disagree with you, though.

I believe in, and miss, a free press. I think there's no need for regulation of the press, nor is it appropriate. Such regulations would create a defacto "Fairness Doctrine" anyway.

I believe there's no freedom without independence. I'm in favor of restricting ownership to the extent that in every radio and TV market, there must be 25% or more independently owned stations. If there are fewer than four stations in a market (very common in radio) then at least one station in each market must be independent. Those stations can then subscribe, if they like, to a national broadcast like Rush Limbaugh, but that will be the choice of the station owners.

If I owned a radio station, I would not be pleased by some law forcing me to air conservative opinions. The trouble with such policies, apart from the fact that they interfere with freedom of the press, is that they reinforce the fiction that there are "two sides to every story," even when that story concerns factual things like global climate change. Obviously, a story has as many sides as it has, and there are two prevailing perspectives from which to view that story. This reinforces the false dichotomy of ideology, that one is "either" liberal/progressive or conservative, again supporting the two party system.

No regulation. No fairness doctrine. Just independent media; then the press can operate as it was intended to operate, as a check on power. This "public utility" cannot be regulated by government; you can count on government (at least, when it's run by Republicans) to abuse such power. I must oppose it.

[nannah]

42. well said

i use the flat earth analogy when explaining the issue of "both sides" so they have a reference point for how that concep;t doesn't fit fact based information and issues.

it is so hard to recognize the misdirection of corporate media and feel powerless because people are so polarized by the emotional, values laden issues of the day that get so much face and air time.

[madinmaryland]

25. The government regulating the media?? NO THANKS!

I think that is commonly what happens in totalitarian states. I'm sorry, but I do not want the media controlled and regulated by the government. We have something called the freedom of speech.

IF we did not have freedom of speech, many of those things you reference may actually never have seen the light of day, and you could very well be paying over a dollar/KWH to Jeff Skilling.

[southern_belle]

26. I believe there are 3 things...

that would change this country for the better. One of those is bringing back the Fairness Doctorine and any other checks that would encourage fairness in the media. That may include a different way of financing the stations, or??? - OK, I'm not smart enough to know the solution, but I am smart enough to think 'out-the-box'! And, about a couple of times a month, there could be a media fact check committee (both parties) that could check the fact news reporting, inflections and all. This would be shown at prime time and be done creatively enough to make it interesting as well as informative.
That brings in my second solution - consequences! Until we have consequences for our actions, no one can learn from their mistakes and, frankly, this country will not progress into the country it could be. Just think of all of the lies that have been told in the past 18 months and the damage it has done. Had there been consequences we would have seen a more productive time JMO! I let this to you to imagine how it could have been with consequences.
Third is education - No, I am not talking about 'brainwashing'. I believe our education system needs an overhaul.
Guess I could go on but I won't. These are JMO in my utopian thinking!

[Dr Morbius]

32. You mention consequences.

And it's an excellent point. We need stronger libel laws, and we need laws which enable lawsuits to be filed for knowingly false reporting. Like providing for automatic penalties: every time Fox mislabels an errant Republican politician a "Democrat," the Democratic party is entitled to a million dollars. That sort of thing, some real teeth in the law to strongly discourage deliberate misinformation in the name of "news."

Or, at the very least, if a "news" station is going to lie, don't let them call themselves a "news" channel!

[spanone]

27. k&r we have no reliable source for news...it's spinfotainment

[bvar22]

28. One of the last remaining "Journalists" is retiring this week.

Bill Moyers....
...and then there were none.


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

[earth mom]

29. Well, even DUers won't give up watching the bullshit news on cable t.v.

Myself and others have been saying for years that DUers need to stop watching the lies and crap Faux, CNN and MSNBC spew but instead, DU is loaded with whatever bullshit of the day that those assholes spew out.

You only have to look through GD and see a gazillion threads on the same topic to know that's the swill the networks are serving up for the day.

If DUers aren't smart enough to realize they're being taken for a ride, how do you expect the average Joe on the street to know that our "news" media is nothing more than propaganda?!

[Blue Owl]

30. +1

n/t

[glinda]

31. I still say "fine for lies and have retractions at the same hour on the same program".

[southern_belle]

33. Agree with glinda

In my Utopia, everyone would need to sit in a chair that would record an immediate lie, or, for the debates and talk shows, each of the guests would be in a booth that would go dark after their minute of speech, allowing the audience to hear each side clearly. No more "WHO CAN YELL LOUDEST"!

[glinda]

34. I think that is the only way to deal with it because I do not see where the conservatives will

give up the 80% control of the media. So if that is the case, they should have to be accountable for the crap.

[southern_belle]

36. 100% in agreement n/t

[L0oniX]

38. I respectively disagree. IMO the main reason for our destruction is military spending...

and I blame almost every congress person and senator for it. There's no need for us to be the world police. There's no need for us to spend more than half of everyone's federal taxes on some sort of military expense. Russia is spending 50 billion this year. Why isn't 100 billion enough to keep ahead of them? The media is of course complicit in this (GE=NBC). You can't tell me GE doesn't want all this money spent on their subs and detonators. Is there something wrong with learning from Russia's mistake? They spent themselves into a hell hole and they are still paying for it with a horrible economy ...just like we are. Say we only spent 100 billion this year instead of 700 (and that is not all of the military spending), don't you kinda think bailing out of the bankster pirates which was and is a crime against us all would have been less of a hit on our economy? We have no money for things we should have it for and what money we do have goes to the fucking military and to all the congress persons and senators who profit from stocks and election campaign donations ...and then later on they become lobbyists for those MICs. The MIC and the military are the major enemies of our country. They don't give a fuck about us little people and they never will.

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. - Henry Kissinger

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight Eisenhower

Become an internationalist and learn to respect all life. Make war on machines. And in particular the sterile machines of corporate death and the robots that guard them. -Abbie Hoffman

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them! – Albert Einstein

[Ignis]

40. This is a great point, BUT...

I do think that the MSM was responsible in a big way for the love-affair that America entered with the MIC after WWII. Ike's warnings to the contrary, there was just too much money to be make by allowing the MIC to sponsor various "edutainment" films/shows/whatnot, so no laws were passed to restrict such.

Decades later, here we are with the vast majority of the American media owned by large corporations with big stakes in the MIC.

So it goes.

[hunter]

39. I think I'd shut it all down.

Don't license any of the airwaves for anything but common carrier types of activities. Structure it all so everybody has equal access to anything. If your home studio television show has a billion subscribers it doesn't cost you anything more than if you are talking to yourself. Anybody big or small could open a radio or television station just like anyone can set up an internet site, except the entire bandwidth would be entirely paid for by subscribers.

Same with the mail: It would all be first class priority, overnight, or nothing.

Kill the news networks, kill satellite television, kill cable television, kill radio networks, kill junk and bulk mail. Let there be zero public support or subsidy for any kind of "mass media." Don't give anybody preferential access to the radio airwaves, internet, or the mail.

[BrklynLiberal]

41. Instead of being out side looking in and reporting, the media is inside..and owned by

politically motivated millionaires.

[Bonobo]

43. I agree, Stinky. Good post! K&R!

"Amusing Ourselves To Death" by Neil Postman. Please recommend to everyone.

[AlinPA]

44. Great post. Adding that CBS radio "News" is trashy with their sound effects that they play

in introducing their "stories" that the announcers shouts out like a carnival barker. Garbage.

[1955doubledie]

45. k&r

nt

[webDude]

46. Google "Operation Mockingbird", please. Okay, here's a link:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=operation+mockingbird&aq=5&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=%22operation+m&gs_rfai=&fp=3f73b7d243bf661

[RufusTFirefly]

47. Yes, corporate control of gov't often leads to this situation, but even so...

... I agree that it lies at the heart of our problem.

[samplegirl]

48. Damn.....................

this post deserves a standing ovation!!!!


I :applause: you!!!!!!!


R& :kick: