Thursday, January 22, 2009

What will replace the “media?”

A study in over reaction? Sure, unless you like be lied to. 75

All kinds of things are showing up in the light of day. Stinky old secrets that were paying good wages only a few months ago seem to be shamelessly, well, exposing themselves in public places. These media giants, once the envy of the world, have become trailer trash so obnoxious that not even their truth masters can get the lip stick back on them.

Staggering about with vague credentialism from the the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “Big Five” media corporations have, probably, terminally “soiled” themselves. The news manipulation so brazenly crafted by these opportunistic corporations is now growing more damagingly obvious every day. The dark creatures who had guided and protected these deceit peddlers have, judiciously, withdrawn from the new light. Like comatose patients awaking after a long sleep, even the most credulous viewers are growing suspicious of a massive public deception. Suspicious, and a little embarrassed.

By “credulous” we mean “automatic.” Automatic viewers are those who spend no time with alternate sources of news and are unaware of the tide of voices warning the public about what’s gone on. For years these stalwart media fans could be counted on to fill the roster of the millions of users these media conglomerates exploited so profitably. Regardless of the clear disconnection between even the reporting offered to viewers on one day and contradictory reporting on the same story a few days later, these automatic viewers had been artfully coaxed into, well, habits.

That habit was to park the car, pour a drink and relax with the news, then discuss it as if it were fact the next day at the water cooler. The factual nature of what had been reported as fact was reinforced by others in the conversation who had seen an almost remarkably similar story on another network. In the absence of any reporting done outside the editorial control of these media monsters, things meshed. Stories supported each other. There might have been an occasional debate about what appeared to be the substance of these stories, but never a debate about the credibility of them.

After all, every newsworthy network always agreed on all the newsworthy facts.

Precisely what media monsters do we mean?

Easy. CNN (AOL Time Warner), NBC (General Electric), Fox (News Corp.), CBS (Viacom) and ABC (Walt Disney). Of course there are many more, but these are the specific corporations presently enjoying the great masses of viewers, followers, acceptors, addicts, subjects, you know, believers. This handful of companies represents only the mountain tops. For example, CBS owns 37 television broadcasters, 47 radio broadcasters and more than 20 publishing houses. Between all of these organizations we see a dismal presence in every major media market in the country.

Major media market? Of course. That’s where they were convinced the treasure rested.

The treasure? Narcotized addicts, lockstep volunteers for their toxic hypnosis. Why, the zombies could vote, send their sons to any war made necessary, and, most important, elect without question.

So what’s the crime? Think about it. Some years ago we received First Amendment reporting that Sadam Hussein had poison gas, bacteriological weapons and delivery systems. Think about it. You received that reporting, didn’t you? Try to remember.

It was, of course, false. We could care about its source, but for right now, let’s consider whether or not broadcasting known falsehoods is consistent with First Amendment protected Freedom of Speech. By the way, that broadcast propagates itself through airwaves owned by the recipients of the lies.

That would be us. We’ve been gang raped.

Keep thinking. Was there a retraction? Was there a correction? Was there more later? Any in depth reporting as to the exact story of how this got broadcast to us? Who benefitted? Why it was done? Keep thinking. Try to remember.

What about 911? Keep thinking. Who knows if there was a conspiracy -- probably no one in my acquaintance knows. Who is interested in whether or not there was a conspiracy? Just about everyone I know. Try to remember. What news organization spent so much as a second on this story after its fabrication had delivered the public opinion to start the war? Was there a retraction? A clarification? An explanation? Were there any questions asked and answered? Try to remember. Did we get our First Amendment Free Speech’s money worth from the free press broadcasting over our air waves? Try to remember.

Was there some innocent reason we’ve never seen coffins returning from Iraq? Was it just an oversight? Perhaps, never -- never once -- newsworthy? Try to remember. Try to understand. Never newsworthy?

Is it a coincidence that every neo-con knuckle dragger on Fox came up with the identical talking points day after day? Maybe it was simply a sign of very thoughtful selection of newsworthy topics. Maybe some blogger left his group address enabled. Try to understand.

Was Reverend Wright so newsworthy that his ranting somehow deserved millions or billions of dollars worth of free press news treatment? Did so many Americans worry whether or not Obama was a Muslim that the question had to be resurrected day after day? Did a same or similar calamity befall all the candidates equally? Try to remember. Was there a retraction? A correction? An explanation? Think about it.

Let’s pause for a moment. All these companies has every right to maintain and promote an editorial policy and make editorial comments, all well protected by the free press clause in the First Amendment. Because they are profiting from their control of our air waves, it might not be out of line for us to require them to identify these editorial comments of theirs in a way which would prevent them from being promoted as news or fact. That would be something like “public interest.”

Further, can we countenance outright incompetence in this news reporting process? Sure. Everyone can make a mistake. But what else might we expect? A correction? Try to remember. Were there corrections? Even more important, would corrections have had anything to do with “public interest?” Does accuracy have any place in the First Amendment’s protection of a free press? Even when the lie is covered with American blood and treasure? You know, accuracy? Fact?

The worst transgression of all, and exactly the one which should push all these parasites out of business and into the dustbin of neo-con failures is the 5% lie, the innuendo, the uncorrected minor mistake. Now we will see that what these giants have been reporting to us, every word and utterance of it, has been carefully toxified by their ownership to produce just the “automatic” reception they wanted. The reception they needed. To keep their vampire scheme well oiled.

This contamination is not manifest in flaming, outrageous lies. It is carefully presented with omissions. Ever hear a story about why Al Quaeda wanted to hurt us? Wait. The “they hate our freedom” thing is no more than odorous rubbish. Not newsworthy? Doesn’t exist? Try to remember.

How about stories explaining why the Palestinians are attacking Israel? Try to remember. Are they just crazy or is there actually some kind of reason? We wouldn’t know. Why would anyone want that one sided war to happen? Is it First Amendment Free Speech? Is it “fair and balanced?” Is the reporting we get complete? Try to remember. Maybe there just isn’t any reason that’s newsworthy? Try to remember. Take a moment. Do you really understand anything about what’s happening in Gaza? Does anything in the story we got make sense?

This posting gives examples which are present in our immediate thoughts. There are thousands more. Just when our democracy was in the most threatened moment in its history, our view went blank. The pablum oozing from our television screens was an insidious, yeah, you got it, conspiracy. Everything we received from our First Amendment Free Press, everything being broadcast over the public airwaves in the “public interest,” had been tilted just enough.

Now they've already started in on our new President.

As an informed public, we have no idea what is going on. Somebody thought that was a good preparation for selling us all sorts of stupid, destructive half truth. They delivered their media torpedo of deception and lies. We bought it. When the main players began the looting, the manipulation, the fear mongering and the lies, they assumed that we were entirely prepared to do our part.

Our part? To believe.

Pissed? Try to remember. They are counting on you to not be able to remember. They tell you that your memory fades in a few days. In fact, they tell you that over and over -- sort of like “they hate our freedom” and “cut and run” and “appeasers” and “stay the course.”

God. What were we thinking?

Anyone else in favor of dumping this “free press” of ours before it destroys us? Oh my. What could replace it?

How about a free press?

An educated electorate needs to know what’s happening in the world. You know. What’s really happening. Both sides. Bad news. Questions. Answers.

Yeah, that stuff.

For an interesting self-test concerning media objectivity (you own view...), try:

and an interesting, short visit to Al Gore's book:

No comments:

Post a Comment