Who Controls the Corporate Media Message?
This is the kind of information I suspect the FCC was hoping to tease out in their planned "Multi-market Study of Critical Information Needs" [PDF] which, as I wrote last week at The BRAD BLOG, sparked a right wing firestorm in recent weeks when Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai went public with a Wall Street Journal op-ed accusing his colleagues of "meddling with the news" by simply asking voluntary questions of newsrooms. The study was part of the FCC's statutory requirement to report to Congress every three years, as they have for decades, on identifying "barriers to entry into the communications marketplace faced by entrepreneurs and other small businesses."
The question for reporters from the CIN study that was most disturbing to Pai: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?"...
From a purely journalistic point of view, having a government agency intrude on the autonomy of a news organization by asking questions about how they decide what to cover does seem improper. But from the reality of corporate driven news agendas, where truth is often obfuscated for reasons of profit or politics, the question is spot on.
Every news organization does have some kind of bias, and it can be found in the stories they choose (or don't choose) to cover. In response to my earlier piece on this topic, BRAD BLOG commenter "karenfromillinois" asked about a recent Guardian story on the NSA helping "their British counter parts spy on private video chats and capture naked pics of Americans which were then run thru some NSA program....creepy huh?" She noted that she'd only seen MSNBC's Chris Hayes pick up the story briefly, and asked "does a memo go out to ignore something that damaging to the government, or do all reporters just 'know' the msm rules?"
in the interest of full disclosure, I am "karenfromillinois"
That, of course, doesn't mean they are serving the public interests well. As we learned from the corporate media's response to the CIN study kerfuffle, they would simply prefer not to answer any questions that reveal how poorly they are serving the public interest. And they won't have to. Late last Friday, an FCC spokesperson said the study "will not move forward," and that the agency will "reassess the best way to fulfill its obligation to Congress."
That fact that few, if anyone, in Washington are following this story reflects the higher agenda: a police state requires a captive press -- whether run directly by corporate stooges or serving at will of the Secret Government.
FTR: Your post is the first time I heard the full story on the "government in newsrooms" story, questionseverything. Thank you, infinitely.
and has worked tirelessly trying to return our airwaves to the "public good''
What passes for "News" these days is endless broadcasts of the salespeople for the 1% telling us what the 1% want us to hear.
Look at CBS this morning. They can't seem to ever find a Democrat or liberal who is free on Sunday mornings.
which is why it is important to support independent journalists like bradblog and sue Wilson
they are fighting to get the truth to us...I was thrilled sue actually answered my question as best she could and amazed at the background she provided
How we have gone from over fifty different media companies 30 years ago down to just six now.
If I were a tin foil hat wearer I would think that this was actually by design. That someone was interested in controlling the news. But that would be crazy
at one time I was a ct peop but turns out I was right all along
bradblog was named along with greenwald and others in the persona dump
Corporate media represents the have-nots only to the extent that is uses them to make the haves richer.