HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » uhnope » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 23, 2011, 05:20 PM
Number of posts: 6,419

Journal Archives

Stop using the term "MSM" or "Mainstream Media" It's a BS term invented by the RW.

I've noticed that it's usually CTers and what I call the Orthodox Left (those that think RT is a legitimate news source) that use the term "mainstream media" or "MSM" on DU.

Here's Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas on the subject back in 2007:
"MSM" vs. "Traditional Media"

It's become in vogue by progressives to adopt the right-wing acronym "MSM" to refer to the "mainstream media". It's quite common on this site as well as elsewhere (Arianna uses it here).

I've written before about this (too lazy to search for it). It's a ridiculous term to adopt.

First of all, it's a right-wing pejorative, and I'd rather we not adopt their language and frames.

But more importantly, by calling them "mainstream media", we are saying that we ourselves aren't mainstream, and that's not something I'm willing to concede. This site gets far more readers than most "mainstream media" publications, so why are they mainstream, while we are, by definition, the fringe?

Let the right wingers place themselves out of the mainstream. That's where they belong, with Mr. 25% and the dead-enders who believe fairy tales of a pacified, democratic, pro-Israel Iraq and raft-building kangaroos.
Read more

Mouslitsas essentially predicted the future. As this analysis of Nate Silver and the 2012 election shows, it was the GOP's shunning of the "MSM" that divorced it from reality so badly that they actually thought that Romney was going to win:
How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File
Nate Silver was right. His ideological antagonists were wrong. And that's just the beginning of the right's self-created information disadvantage.
Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike four years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday's result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout -- Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes.... Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.

Those audiences were misinformed.

Substitute RT for FOX News, Counterpunch for the Drudge Report, "The Real News Network" (I just can't write that without quotes) plus Ring of Fire for talk radio, and sources like Firedoglake.com, ConsortiumNews, Robert Parry, & John Pilger for conservative blogs. You end up with the same separation from reality that got the GOP in big trouble.

Now, I know the New York Times, and most of the traditional media, horribly blew it during the WMD days. They will continue to be less than perfect at best and to be blowing it again at worst. But that doesn't mean we ignore the entire traditional media; what that means is we have to use these sources critically; to take the info as part of our general background of knowledge. It's totally ridiculous to say you'll never believe the "MSM" ever again; in fact I notice those that use the term as a punching bag are the first to cite the traditional media when it supports them. They just don't like the news that disagrees with their dogma.

I read tons of news from different sources. Many news magazines are doing great journalism, to not much notice. I read magazines like The Economist because the scholarship and breadth of their reporting is outstanding, but I know that their fiscal conservatism limits what they present.

I listen to Democracy Now, and I suggest that those who need convincing on this subject do what I do, in reverse. I listen to Democracy Now because they cover stories that are not covered very often in the broadcast media, but I listen to it with my critical filters turned on, because I sometimes find them to be less than thorough, a bit lazy, and a bit too Orthodox Left. That's the same way you take the traditional media--don't automatically believe everything you hear, but don't mindlessly reject it all, either.

And in the meantime, stop saying "MSM". It looks stupid.

Don't link to COUNTERPUNCH. It's a far-RW racist trojan horse (No Click On It)

Most DUers already know that Counterpunch has no credibility, but this new analysis is the final nail in the CP coffin. They draw you in with Chomsky or Amy Goodman but they mostly publish far-right, racist (white supremacist) authors.
ON EDIT: And clicking on CP gives them revenue so don't do it (Hat tip NuclearDem)

How ‘America’s Best Political Newsletter’ Mainstreams the Far Right

CounterPunch, which bills itself as ‘America’s best political newsletter’, offering ‘independent investigative journalism’, tends to figure quite prominently in the reading lists of left-leaning activists, who doubtlessly appreciate its consistent antiwar stance, its critical analysis on US economic and foreign policy and US-sponsored Israeli apartheid, and the regular contributions from such leading Left writers as John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Paul Street, Jeremy Scahill, and Tariq Ali. Indeed, CounterPunch generally tends to be thought of as a Left media outlet. However, in writing for, and sharing articles published on, CP, Leftists are unwittingly helping to promote the agenda of the far right.
In addition to the authors relied on by CP for its left cred, ‘America’s best political newsletter’ also regularly publishes ‘independent investigative journalism’ by a wide variety of white supremacists, including Paul Craig Roberts, editor of the white nationalist website VDare, Ron Paul (who poses for photo ops with neo-Nazis and warns of ‘race war’), and Alison Weir, holocaust denier Israel Shamir, and that perennial saboteur of the Palestinian solidarity movement, Gilad Atzmon, author of the racist The Wandering Who.

Although there are some who have expressed concern on this problematic mix, when I have raised this issue in discussions with others in left activist circles, I have often found that it is dismissed as a triviality. In these discussions, the white supremacist contingent tends to be attributed to an unwillingness to bow to ‘political correctness’ or a mere desire to ‘piss off liberals’, and generally believed to be an insignificant deviation from an otherwise clear leftist editorial line, the sort of thing only an ‘ideological purist’ could get excited about.

My own research into the editorial practices at CounterPunch shows otherwise. Not only have white supremacist authors long been a fixture at CP; their ideology is shared by members of the editorial collective. All in all, it is entirely reasonable to say that the formation of a Querfront (an alliance between the far right and the left) is a longstanding project of the newsletter, consistently endorsed by the decisions taken by CP editors and their own stated positions.

READ IT http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/post/2015/07/19/counterpunch-or-suckerpunch/
Go to Page: 1