|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 16:01:06 GMT
Who owns the media.
Published on Oct 28, 2012 A video on media ownership in the U.S, but i suspect all over the west. Sumner Redstone real name is Sumner Murray Rothstein owns CBS Corporation, Viacom, MTV Networks, BET, and the film studio Paramount Pictures, and are equal partners in MovieTickets.com.. Fox news owner Rupert Murdoch also owns many papers world wide. TV, news papers are owned more and by fewer people. A concentration of news papers and media into a few people hands allows what is happening now in the west, a propaganda media that promotes only what thier agenda says to promote. Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don't even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest. Most Americans don't really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.
The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.
But it is the "big six" that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 16:02:02 GMT
another good example of corporate media being shills for Republicons. Both corporate mainstream media AND Republicon congressional leadership whore for those who pay them....6 conservative owned corporate media conglomerations. It irks me even more when so called "left" leaning alternative media (i.e. Jimmy Dore and others) do the same thing although they may have different motives (laziness, pissed at lefties who aren't left or progressive enough, etc.) How the Mainstream Media Is Propagating GOP Mythswritten by The Thom Hartmann Show / AlterNet July 8, 2014 www.alternet.org/2014/07/how-mainstream-media-propagating-gop-myths/
"Journalists" from well-known and respected outlets fail time and time again to tell their audience the truth about why Washington is so screwed up.
The Caucus Room Conspiracy is alive and well, and it’s getting a big time boost from the mainstream media.
On Sunday morning, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson went on NBC’s “Meet the Press” – or as I like to call it, “Meet the Republicans” or "Hassle the Democrats" – to talk about the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with the surge in undocumented mostly Central American children crossing the US-Mexico border.
That surge is a real problem – the number of children showing up at the border has skyrocketed over the past few years – and it’s exactly the type of thing “Meet the Press” should be talking about.
The only problem is that David Gregory, the host of the “Meet the Press,” is more interested in repeating Republican talking points than he is in getting to the bottom of what’s really going on at our border.
For example, his first question to Secretary Johnson was essentially a rewording of the Republican myth that the main cause of the border crisis is President Obama’s decision to stop deporting some undocumented immigrants who meet DREAM Act standards.
Secretary Johnson then corrected Gregory – explaining that the real cause of the surge in border crossings by minors has to do with the situation on the ground in Latin America. But David Gregory refused to let it go and kept trying to blame the Obama administration before being shot down once again by Jeh Johnson. That interaction between David Gregory and Jeh Johnson is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with the mainstream media.
Whether it’s because they’re secretly Republicans themselves or because they think telling “both sides of the story” means echoing conservative talking points – mainstream “journalists” fail time and time again to tell their audience the truth about why Washington is so screwed up.
Even NPR, supposedly the most trustworthy news source around, is guilty of doing this.
Just this morning, for example, NPR’s Cokie Roberts made it seem like Capitol Hill is gridlocked because Democrats and Republicans just can’t find a way to get along.
Cokie’s wrong.
There isn’t a “partisanship” problem on Capitol Hill; there’s a "destroy the Black guy in the White House" problem.
Since the night Obama was inaugurated, Republicans have been trying to sabotage and take down his presidency.
Way back on January 20, 2009, a night when most Americans were out celebrating the end of the Bush years, a group of powerful Republicans was planning the end of Obama presidency before it even really began.
At the Caucus Room restaurant right here in Washington, DC, Republican leaders drew up a plan to intentionally sabotage Obama at every point possible and deny him any sort of legacy
They wanted to make sure that decades from now Americans would say, "Boy, was it a mistake putting that Black Guy into the White House!"
The whole thing was orchestrated by Republican propaganda mastermind Frank Luntz and over the course of four hours, a group of the most powerful conservative lawmakers in the country committed to a plan of action.
On the guest list for this “invitation only” meeting were Republican Senators like Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign and Bob Corker.
Also in attendance were Congressmen Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy.
They promised each other that they would filibuster and obstruct any and all legislation supported by President Obama.
If you’re looking for a reason why Washington has been so screwed up during the Obama years, the Caucus Room Conspiracy is your answer.
Republicans decided the night Obama was inaugurated that they wanted to “Jimmy Carter-ize” him.
They don’t care that millions of people have now seven gone months without unemployment insurance.
They don’t care that our highways are crumbling.
And they don’t care that a generation of young Americans is now burdened with over $1 trillion of student loan debt.
They don’t care about any of that.
All Republicans care about is destroying the Obama presidency and destroying any legacy he could have.
And if that means screwing over the American people in the process, then so be it.
Everything goes back to the Caucus Room Conspiracy, especially the ongoing debate about immigration.
Which is why because their number one goal is to sabotage President Obama, Republicans have turned the surge in undocumented children crossing the border – a humanitarian crisis – into a political crisis.
Republicans know that as long as they spread lie after lie about what’s causing this crisis, it will distract from the fact that John Boehner still hasn’t brought the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate this session to a vote in the House.
Republicans also know that if they can keep this gig up long enough, most Americans will chalk up the failure of immigration reform to President Obama, not GOP sabotage.
It's really as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 16:03:45 GMT
Profits are the mainstay of corporate mainstream media and all capitalistic endeavors as pushed by today's crony conservatism. True capitalism would not allow it.“Automated Journalism”, Robots in the Newsroom: The Future of Corporate Media silentcrownews.com/wordpress/?p=4689
The Main-Stream Media (MSM) or corporate media has recently began making moves to replace humans with robots or “automated journalism” to produce its news stories. Not to say that the corporate media journalists who currently work under the propaganda machine are independent and are committed to the truth. However, more than ever, corporate media conglomerates are slowly replacing those same traditional journalists with robots that can produce twice the amount of stories at a faster rate to beat out their competition is just one of the reasons for the change. But there is a bigger picture to this new advanced technology.
Robots as we know, have replaced humans in several industries especially in the automobile industry where robots are already replacing humans on production lines. The media is no exception. Recently the New York Post (a tabloid propaganda newspaper) reported that Bilderberg attendee and Bloomberg’s Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait told Bloomberg’s 2,400 journalists in an internal office memo that he was creating a 10-person team that will study how to “use more automation in writing and reporting.” Micklethwait reportedly said:
“Why do we need you, if the basic idea is to get computers to do more of the work?” Micklethwait asked in the memo, obviously addressing an unspoken concern among his staff.
“One irony of automation is that it is only as good as humans make it. That applies to both the main types of automated journalism. In the first, the computer will generate the story or headline by itself. But it needs humans to tell it what to look for, where to look for it and to guarantee its independence and transparency to our readers. In the second sort, the computer spots a trend, delivers a portion of a story to you and in essence asks the question: Do you want to add or subtract something to this and then publish it? And it will only count as Bloomberg journalism if you sign off on it.”
“Done properly, automated journalism has the potential to make all our jobs more interesting,” he saidMost of the articles about crony capitalism are authored by conservatives and libertarians pinning the concept and practice on liberals and socialists. They say it is the same thing as socialism. With socialism the masses benefit. But when practiced by conservatives and libertarians it is called fascism and only the 1% benefit. Pick your poison.Republicans and Crony CapitalismBy MICHAEL TANNER August 12, 2015 8:00 AM www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/carly-fiorina-republicans-crony-capitalism/
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 16:05:03 GMT
MAINSTREAM MEDIA, EMBRACE YOUR LIBERALISMBRIAN BEUTLER / FEB.8.18 Written By: Brian Beutler crooked.com/articles/mainstream-media-liberal-embrace/
If you get your news from conservative media these days, you probably don’t know that President Donald Trump’s lawyers believe he is likely to make criminal false statements to Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, as the mainstream media has reported, but you do know (or believe) that President Barack Obama meddled in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and that Obama’s DOJ has been caught red-handed abusing surveillance authority to spy on the Trump campaign. crooked.com/article/release-the-memo-gop/
Both storylines have dominated right-wing media for days now, and both are false. Wildly false, and easily disprovable. But disproving them requires taking a detour through the confusing funhouse of right wing conspiracy theories, and digesting the scattered memoranda and innuendo strung up on the walls.
This misinformation campaign, concocted to delegitimize the Mueller investigation, isn’t limited to presenting conservative news consumers with incorrect information; it also includes telling their readers and viewers that the mainstream media is in on the coverup.
Conservatives have used this same basic method for decades now, treating liberal bias in the mainstream media as a fact, and a conspiracy in and of itself. For just as long, mainstream media institutions have gone to great lengths to refute the right’s liberal-bias accusations, and make good faith efforts to appease their critics. It was arguably this self-defensive reflex that drove leading news outlets to generate a kind of equivalence between Donald Trump’s campaign promise to turn America into a racist kleptocracy, and Hillary Clinton’s email practices at the State Department. By noting that both candidates had question marks hanging over their heads, they could (they believed) preempt accusations of liberal bias from the right.
The conciliatory approach has never worked, and because the accusations themselves are deployed in bad faith, it, importantly, can not work. The goal of movement conservatism is not to make media more representative of American politics at the margin, but to destroy journalism as a mediating institution altogether. What might work instead, though, would be for the targets of right wing criticism to embrace the liberal epithet (in a manner of speaking) and then treat the endless right-wing bleating about partisan bias as so much obnoxious noise.
The word “liberal” is loaded with multiple meanings. When conservatives use it to bash the mainstream media, they are invoking an American colloquial definition of “liberal” which is roughly synonymous with “inhabiting the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” A major project of the conservative movement over the past 30 or more years has been to convince Republican voters that mainstream media organizations (big national newspapers, network news broadcasts, etc.) are little more than private-sector satellite arms of the Democratic Party.
This malicious branding exercise rightly makes big news outlets recoil—in part because it’s not true, and in part because the outlets themselves were created to have mass, cross-political appeal. The first step toward ending the soccer-flop-style relationship between mainstream media and its right wing antagonists is for journalists to accept that the fight is over, and conservatives have won. There are many ways to gauge that victory, but the clearest illustration comes from Pew, which has studied the issue extensively and found that while liberal voters tend to get their news from a wide variety of sources, conservative voters overwhelmingly turn to a smaller number of right wing outlets, and seldom venture out of Fox News-dominated echo chambers to learn about political events. www.businessinsider.com/13-things-we-just-learned-about-conservatives-and-liberals-in-america-2014-10 www.journalism.org/2017/01/18/trump-clinton-voters-divided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/
Mainstream media organizations would like to reach these consumers, but the conservative movement has successfully siloed them; no amount of pleading with the public that the “liberal media” epithet is unfair will reach or persuade the conservative masses. So there is little to lose by simply tuning out the ref workers.
Step two is for journalists to accept that while their organizations aren’t “liberal” in the American-partisan sense of the word, the vocation itself is “liberal” in a more profound and important sense, which is why the right wants to crush it.
In American politics we often refer to Democrats as liberals and Republicans as conservatives, but that distinction is usually drawn relatively: We all notionally share similar precepts, but our political objectives differ, and the two parties are vehicles for sorting out which faction’s objectives carry the day—the relatively more progressive one, or the relatively more regressive one.
Outside of the specific American context, the word liberal describes something more abstract and less partisan. Internationally, it describes a philosophical approach to organizing society that is capacious enough to include people who believe governments should provide robust safety nets to citizens, and people who believe taxes should be low and the poor left to fend for themselves. What those people share is a common commitment to basic Enlightenment-era ideals like equality, democracy, and empiricism.
In recent years, political science tells us, the two American parties have polarized, and the polarization has been asymmetric. Republicans have become more conservative faster than Democrats have become more progressive.
It is increasingly clear that asymmetric polarization is the wrong metaphor for what has happened in American politics. To say the parties are asymmetrical is to imply that they’re fundamentally similar, but that one has become distorted in some way—that while Democrats and Republicans are still committed to basic Founding values, Republicans are rapidly adopting more extreme policy prescriptions. They’ve changed, but they can change back.
Whether or not that was ever true, it clearly no longer is. The parties aren’t two different animals of the same species. They have speciated.
Democratic politicians, liberal activists, and journalists have different purposes and respond to different incentives, but they are all liberal in that global sense. Two decades after Newt Gingrich redefined what it meant to be a Republican, it is clear that Republican politicians, conservative activists, and the right wing media have become adherents to a fundamentally different political tradition.
Most conservatives are not aware of this anymore than liberal people walk through life meditating regularly on their historical connections to John Locke and John Dewey. But some conservatives are perfectly conscious that they’ve rejected the small-l liberal canon.
Paul Ryan is an Ayn Rand acolyte. In his political biography of Steve Bannon, Bloomberg writer Joshua Green details how Bannon became enthralled with the antimodernist thinking of philosophers like René Guénon and Julius Evola, the latter of whom helped create the intellectual foundation of Italian fascism. Bannon is an admirer of the great propagandists of totalitarian Europe, including Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein, who used information instrumentally to mobilize (rather than inform) the citizenries of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. For years now, Bannon and his acolytes in right-wing media have made no secret of their desire to destroy mainstream journalism as a vocation in America. His understudy Matthew Boyle has boasted that his organization’s goal is nothing less than “the full destruction and elimination of the entire mainstream media,” through the “weaponization of information.” www.amazon.com/Devils-Bargain-Bannon-Storming-Presidency-ebook/dp/B0728KHFD5
Bannon has been banished from the Trump White House and driven from his chairmanship of Breitbart for saying mean things about the president to reporters, but his imprint on the modern conservative media is enormous and undeniable. While he has consciously rejected the underpinnings of the liberal west, it is impossible to watch Fox News in prime time, or Devin Nunes at the helm of the House Intelligence Committee, or Rush Limbaugh bellowing at dittoheads, and not conclude that they have done the same, consciously or otherwise.
The job of the mainstream media isn’t to cast judgment on people with different value systems, but journalists can’t do their jobs well if they aren’t aware that the value systems of mainstream journalism and American conservatism are different and in conflict. It should be perfectly possible to apply the neutral rules of modern journalism to both American political parties while accepting that Democrats (and journalists and scientists) descend from the enlightenment tradition, while Republicans (and their allies in conservative media) descend from a different, illiberal tradition—and that this makes the parties behave in different ways.
It is why the right has felt comfortable spending the past weeks fabricating whole-cloth conspiracy theories about the FBI and setting about to cajole and intimidate impartial journalists into taking the theories seriously—or at least into offering liars big platforms to spread disinformation. Journalists have spent decades responding to this kind of manipulation with varying levels of appeasement, hoping to escape the curse of the liberal epithet. They should try embracing their own particular kind of liberalism instead, and letting their bad faith critics scream into the void.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Sept 13, 2020 13:26:07 GMT
The "Liberal Media" Is Actually Highly Conservative
We’re told to watch out for the “liberal media.” Mainstream media is anything but... Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Appearing on NBC’s Today Monday morning, Bloomberg Politics host (and kinda-MSNBC host) Mark Halperin gave PresidentBarack Obama low marks for his Oval Office speech on terrorism Sunday, calling it ultimately bad for the country.
“Are you surprised that in this speech he didn’t offer anything new in terms of strategy or policy, that it was basically stay the course?” hostMatt Lauer asked.
"I’m surprised by that. I’m also surprised that he didn’t do a good enough job — or maybe any job — of reaching out to the Republicans,” Halperin said.
“This is the time when we need national unity; we’re in the middle of a presidential campaign, he’s leaving office in little over a year. The reaction from Republicans… uniformly bad, not just the presidential candidates but the Capitol Hill leaders,” he continued.
In the end, Halperin wasn’t a fan of the speech: “I think nothing new, no sense of bipartisanship: bad for the country.””*
|
|