Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
How our “Mainstream” Media Is Tilting the Election towards Romney
It is highly unfortunate that today most of our communications media are owned and controlled by very wealthy people who have far more interest in maintaining the status quo than in informing the American people on the important issues of our time.
That is not the way that democracy is supposed to work. Though national news in our country has always been slanted in favor of the privileged over the vulnerable, it has nevertheless long been rightly recognized in our country that the use of the public airways is a privilege rather than a right. That is why, as early as 1927 our government began requiring licenses for use of the public airways, in the Radio Act of 1927, which was expanded in the Communications Act of 1934. Since then, the underlying standard for radio and television licensing has been the "public interest, convenience and necessity clause", which is explained here by Sharon Zechowski:
The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting – the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license…
But with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we began to see a rapid decline in the quality of the news we receive. By relaxing rules that prohibited monopoly control of telecommunications, that Act led to the concentration of the national news media of the United States largely into the hands of a very few wealthy corporations, to an extent never before seen in our country. This, more than any other event, has allowed the content of the news received by American citizens to be determined by a small number of very wealthy and powerful interests. Hence the pervasive blackout of meaningful news.
The implications for national politics have been quite unfortunate, as Democrats feel the need to move further and further to the right, lest they risk being ignored, mocked, or attacked by our corporate news media.
This situation is intolerable. A free and independent press, which provides unbiased accurate information to the people, is crucial to a healthy functioning democracy. When most of the press is under the control of corporate interests, which strive to tilt elections in their favor, democracy becomes nothing but a fig leaf. The result is not only a playing field tilted heavily towards the conservative (Republican) Party, but also that the more progressive (Democratic) Party is intimidated into moving to the right. The American people suffer for that because the corporate interests are served at the expense of the vast majority of people.
Campaign Trivia and Post-Truth Politics
A recent article by Eric Alterman, titled “Media at Work – Campaign Trivia and Post-Truth Politics” (See page 11), provides great explanations and examples as to how slanted media coverage of the current Presidential campaign is threatening the future of our country. It is doing this in two ways: 1) It provides cover for the myriad lies and distortions of Mitt Romney and other Republicans, thus giving them a much better chance to win elections than they (or the American people) deserve; and 2) it drives our national dialogue on all issues way to the right, while ignoring issues of central importance to the American people. I think it is useful to illustrate these points with some excerpts from Alterman’s most recent article on the subject:
On the abject failure of our corporate owned “mainstream media” to provide meaningful substance to their campaign coverage:
It’s been all but substanceless – when it hasn’t been deliberately deceptive. For despite the participation of tens of thousands of journalists spending tens of millions of dollars… devoted to covering the campaign, the system ultimately fails to justify itself in its most essential purpose: to ensure accountability for citizens and their leaders and to offer the kind of information necessary to help voters make an educated choice for the future of their country. The problems are myriad… First is the role that the relentless focus on campaign trivia plays in the coverage…
On the failure to address the far right wing radicalization of the Republican Party:
The second, and related, dynamic involves the inability of mainstream reporters to admit to, and account for, the radicalization of the Republican Party – whether it involves the candidates’ commitment to extremist ideology, or their refusal to allow observable reality to compete with their economic theories, their scientific ignorance, or their loyalty to billionaire funders like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. So intense is journalists’ belief that they must find a way to blame “both sides” for whatever one candidate happens to say or do – whether it’s telling an outright lie, making a 180-degree change in position, or refusing to accept a simple economic or scientific fact – that the Republicans have largely been given a pass for the consequences of their Tea Party takeover…
This tendency not only creates a false “center” between the two parties – one in which ideologically driven, reality-denying… together with outright, deliberate lies, are treated as perfectly legitimate positions from which members of the punditocracy feel compelled
to demand “bipartisan” compromise from Obama and the Democrats. It also pretends that the ultimate contest will be fought out between two relatively moderate individuals, one
who governs from center-left and one who can be expected to do so from center-right, as if President Romney will somehow not be answerable to the radicalized party he represents.
This tendency not only creates a false “center” between the two parties – one in which ideologically driven, reality-denying… together with outright, deliberate lies, are treated as perfectly legitimate positions from which members of the punditocracy feel compelled
to demand “bipartisan” compromise from Obama and the Democrats. It also pretends that the ultimate contest will be fought out between two relatively moderate individuals, one
who governs from center-left and one who can be expected to do so from center-right, as if President Romney will somehow not be answerable to the radicalized party he represents.
On widespread abuse of the truth and failure to make the slightest effort to get to the truth:
During this campaign season, “news” outlets such as Fox, the Wall Street Journal editorial page… and other sources of conservative misinformation and propaganda ramped up their efforts to abuse the truth in support of their political and economic interests – in Fox News’s case, by booking guests who regularly lie about the president, and by hiring Republican operatives and fundraisers like Karl Rove and Dick Morris as “analysts” without disclosing their true professional identities…
On Meet the Press, NBC’s David Gregory failed, during pretty much his entire interview, to pin the candidate down on a single issue of substance, instead peppering him with questions like: “As a candidate now, when was the last time you really got to spend some – some quality time with somebody who is out of work….?
On Meet the Press, NBC’s David Gregory failed, during pretty much his entire interview, to pin the candidate down on a single issue of substance, instead peppering him with questions like: “As a candidate now, when was the last time you really got to spend some – some quality time with somebody who is out of work….?
On the free pass given to Romney’s many lies and distortions:
Indeed, it was just this kind of superficial focus on the horse race/personality-driven aspect of Romney’s candidacy, together with a willingness to ignore almost every other relevant factor, that created the opening for Romney to pivot from liberal Republican to far-right Tea Party wannabe and (finally) at least part of the way back again during his first debate with Obama, without any sense of accountability for anything he has said or done previously…
At no point did the moderator challenge Romney on any of the specifics in his answers, regardless of whether they proved consistent with the public record of Romney’s career, the plans put forth by his campaign or the famous economic plan of his vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, or reality as generally understood outside the confines
of Republican ideology…
When asking Ryan about Romney’s criticism of alleged “apologies” for US foreign policy, Raddatz allowed him to insist “that we should not be apologizing for standing up for our values,” without bothering to ask when, in fact, anyone in the Obama
Administration – much less the president himself – had ever done so.
At no point did the moderator challenge Romney on any of the specifics in his answers, regardless of whether they proved consistent with the public record of Romney’s career, the plans put forth by his campaign or the famous economic plan of his vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, or reality as generally understood outside the confines
of Republican ideology…
When asking Ryan about Romney’s criticism of alleged “apologies” for US foreign policy, Raddatz allowed him to insist “that we should not be apologizing for standing up for our values,” without bothering to ask when, in fact, anyone in the Obama
Administration – much less the president himself – had ever done so.
On the acquiescing to Republican talking points, no matter how foundationless, in particular regarding the Vice Presidential debate:
Raddatz didn’t try to correct any of the fantastical statements Ryan made to support his and Romney’s economic assumptions. But she did adopt a rightwing Republican talking point (and a demonstrably false one, at that) when, in raising the issue of entitlements, she asserted that “both Medicare and Social Security are going broke.”
On the failure to introduce issues of grave importance to the American people at the debates:
How can it be that neither moderator thought it worthwhile to ask about housing in the midst of a horrific foreclosure crisis? And what, for goodness’ sake, about the future of the American judiciary, especially when… as many as four new justices may be appointed by the next president…
Or what about climate change? Virtually the only time this issue has inspired any debate was when pundits argued over the effectiveness of Romney’s foolish and nonsensical convention speech quip: “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.” As Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm observed… “It would be great if a member of the media actually asked even one question on what most of us think is the story of the century, which is that we are in the process of ruining this livable climate of ours. And we can
still solve the problem if we act now. But, obviously, if no one talks about it, it’s very hard to solve the problem.”
Try to find any decent discussion of the federal government’s role in reducing poverty during the next four years. And this at a moment when fully 16.4 percent of American
families are experiencing “low food security,” according to the Agriculture Department, and 46 million are officially poor.
Or what about climate change? Virtually the only time this issue has inspired any debate was when pundits argued over the effectiveness of Romney’s foolish and nonsensical convention speech quip: “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.” As Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm observed… “It would be great if a member of the media actually asked even one question on what most of us think is the story of the century, which is that we are in the process of ruining this livable climate of ours. And we can
still solve the problem if we act now. But, obviously, if no one talks about it, it’s very hard to solve the problem.”
Try to find any decent discussion of the federal government’s role in reducing poverty during the next four years. And this at a moment when fully 16.4 percent of American
families are experiencing “low food security,” according to the Agriculture Department, and 46 million are officially poor.
On Republican hysteria over the slightest attempt to introduce truth into the debates:
The most controversial moment of the evening came when moderator Candy Crowley corrected Romney on a matter of undeniable fact: that Barack Obama had used the term “act of terror” in his Rose Garden address on the day following the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi. Conservatives squealed like a pen full of stuck pigs over this allegedly unfair intervention. Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson compared Crowley, somehow, to Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth, adding that what she had done was “fundamentally dishonest” and “exactly what moderators are not supposed to do.” On Fox Business News, contributor Doug Schoen, allegedly an “influential Democratic campaign consultant,” called it “the single most outrageous thing I’ve seen in thirty-odd years of watching presidential debates.” … Hysteria aside, the whiners had a point. Given all the shameful reporting in the 2012 election, the last thing any Republican thought Romney would have to worry about was being faced with the truth when making one of his countless false and fantastical statements during a presidential debate….
And most important of all, on the potential effect on the election of not holding Republicans accountable for their lies and distortions:
A vigorous, serious and unstinting focus on Romney and the Republicans’ plans for the country, coupled with sharp and sustained analysis of the disjunction between their actual views and the ones they profess for the purpose of winning elections, would demonstrate that they are well outside the consensus of American voters. Yet because the mainstream media cannot be depended on to provide even the rudiments of an accurate portrayal of the two parties’ positions on the major questions facing the nation, the United States now stands on the brink of four years of catastrophic misrule.
Amen.
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
