If We didn't have a RW leaning Corporate Media , do you think this country would be different

[FrenchieCat]

Poll question: If We didn't have a RW leaning Corporate Media , do you think this country would be different

or the same?

I personally think that it would be a much more progressive nation, and our elected leaders would be much more bold and straightfoward.

I see the media as an obstacle that one has to strategize against in order to get to where one wants to go. I also consider it an impediment to this current Presidency, just like I found it helpful to the last presidency.

What I don't understand are those who underestimate the power of this media. It really is still very strong, even if it may seem like it is less so.

I think the media has really affected this country adversely since the 80s, and in particular since 1996!

[elleng]

1. Yes;

couple of elections answer that question.

[Howzit]

2. If it was the media that got Bush elected, was it the same media that got Obama elected?

I think you give the media too much credit; people are not as gullible as you seem to think.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Obama elected was not so much thanks to the media, but more like Thanks

to the Internet!

You can always verify what I am saying by calling up Reverend Wright and asking him...he'll tell you about this media!

As for gullibility, I think there is quite a bit of that in this country. Most of it comes from folks who don't read a newspaper except for the headlines, and sit their asses in front of the television and actually believe they are watching "the News".

[Howzit]

7. "News"

News is just propaganda with enough entertainment stirred in to make commercials seem more pallatable...

[firedupdem]

11. Word! n/t

[Old Hank]

3. The media is one of America's most dangerous threats

Changes in media ownership need to occur sooner than later. Hopefully before the end of this administration, so we can progress as a nation.

[Lorien]

4. If you watched the news pre-Reagan when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced

then you know the answer.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Cable and the 1996 Telecommunications Act is what really turned the screw!

After OJ, it was all downhill.
Then came Fox News and the selling of CNN.
Then Disney bought up ABC,
and General Electric begin owning more media than it knew what to do with!

[Kaleko]

8. Taking control of the media is absolutely essential in any major political takeover.

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."

- Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister to Adolf Hitler

It's interesting to think if the Bush crime syndicate could have succeeded without the collaboration of Australian right-winger Rupert Murdoch.

[Writer]

9. Other: There are many forms of news media.

All media are, to some extent, profit-driven, as they dwell in the private sphere and are owned by private interests, whether they be individual, family, company, or corporate-owned.

Some media have explicit ideological goals, such as Democracy Now!, The Fox News Channel, and Air America Radio, who seek to promote a particular political view.

Most media are simply profit-driven. One mistake we keep making is assuming that corporate control immediately translates into conservative ideology. MSNBC, owned by NBC Universal, has discovered a revenue-generating value in airing programming that appeals to younger, more liberal viewers. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are two examples.

But if your belief is that a specific type of ownership - corporate ownership - means that conservative views are in order, then what is the solution? Strip the media of corporate ownership? Individual ownership or family-ownership doesn't always translate into "noble" ownership. William Randolph Hearst is one example. The Smith Family - owners of the Sinclair Broadcast Group - is another example. Time and time again owners have been abusive of the media they have owned, regardless of how much money or how much corporate structure underlies their funding.

We also continue to assume, time and time again, the antiquated and long-dismissed notion that the public is one large amorphous mass and passively absorbs without question. This is related to the poorly conceived direct-effects model for media. All of this has been roundly dismissed as a naive and incomplete view of the relationship between the media and society. And it has cost media activism a lot over the last few decades. Too often we have focused on corporate structures, and not enough on how, constitutionally, we can find ways to place the news in the public sphere despite the limitations that the First Amendment places on government intercession in media content. The old broadcast model is dying if not dead, and it is no longer reasonable to assume that the FCC is anything but the toothless tiger it has always been. Stop focusing on what has never existed, and what can never exist legally in this country for our media. We are not Western Europe who assumes that the government has a role in preserving speech for the sake of human dignity. We are built on individual sovereignty in spite of the government. This has had huge ramifications for how much constitutional room the government has to create a "media for the people."

But we keep resorting to these same failed arguments about the condition of our news media. My question is WHY???

[Uzybone]

10. The media is very complicit

its not that they don't know how to do their job, its clearly apparent that they only do it at certain times.

Now that Cheney is speaking his lies I've heard multiple media folks say that we are now having the debate about torture etc. that we should have had during the campaign. Why don't they tell us why we didn't have this "debate" over torture earlier? Or why we didn't debate the Iraq War during the 2004 elections? Or why we didn't debate the legality and direction of the war in 2003 (when they were all cheerleading Bush)?

Because our corporate media pretended that none of those things were worth talking about. Instead they wrote mea culpas after the war was well underway apologizing for not doing their jobs.

[jillan]

12. The media takes a couple of stories everyday and that's all the report on.

It's not even news anymore, it's just a contest to see who can yell the loudest.

[JohnnyBoots]

13. Like this country needs a Fourth Estate. That Jefferson guy had no

idea what he was talking about.......If they could see this country now I wonder what The Founders would say?

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. The corporate media is one of two things that MUST be eliminated, if we are to save this country.

ElectroFraud "voting" machines being the other.

[HopeOverFear]

15. Frenchie check your inbox nm

[Vidar]

16. Hell yes! The Fairness Doctrine & Walter Cronkite made the news worth watching.

[WeDidIt]

17. After the eight year long free ride they gave Bush

It's amazing anybody would call them "liberal" watching them do everything they can to try and bring Obama down.

And their new game is to no longer play him up as "liberal", they're trying to get the liberal Democratic base pissed off at him with their made-up bullshit.

Hell, I even fell for some of it.

[PBS Poll-435]

18. The problem isn't ideology, the problem is that the media is lazy

nt

[GreenArrow]

19. I don't think the media is lazy at all.

Most in the mainstream media work very hard at their jobs; the problem is that the ends they are working towards are not the ones you and I would prefer they work on.

The corporate media exist not to inform opinion, but to create it. Just as a hammer doesn't drive a nail by itself, but needs a hand to guide it, the corporate media is also the object of manipulation.