This is an extract from the article
Big Media Myths by Norman Solomon, published originally at www.projectcensored.org
MYTH: FREE PRESS = PRIVATELY-OWNED PRESS
Equating freedom of the media with private ownership of the media is a convenient myth for the likes of Time Warner, Disney, and General Electric. In the real world, however, the freedom of expression that flourishes in mass media is confined to messages that are acceptable to such corporations.
Although dissenting voices are heard once in a while, the essence of propaganda is repetition-and what's repeated does not rock the big corporate boats. The favorite perspectives of economic elites are commonly mistaken for journalism. The narrative is usually narrow; for example, we hear much more about the concerns of investors and shareholders than workers or consumers. Mass-media employees seem to rise to the level of their utility to corporate America.
Bankrolled by major corporations, mainstream media have done a lot to render "big government" one of the leading pejoratives of American political rhetoric. In contrast, the private sector largely eludes media scrutiny; we rarely hear warnings about "big business." Not coincidentally, the Pentagon's huge sacrosanct budget is a cash cow for some companies that own large media outlets, such as General Electric (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS). Many more firms are hefty advertisers-as well as contributors to the campaigns of politicians selectively lambasting "big government."
As corporations increase their power, they meld with the journalistic air and blend into the media atmosphere-so that a defacto corporate state appears to supply us with the oxygen we breathe. Under such circumstances, accepting corporate power seems natural and neutral; opposing it seems "ideological."
The corporatization of media is part of broader developments in public and private life. We're invited to choose from choices made for us by wealthy and powerful elites. Democracy has very little to do with the process.www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/BigMediaMyths_ProjCensor.html
It might be worthwile to pick up a copy of the book
Into The Buzzsaw if you have a chance.
Between them, the authors of the incendiary new book "Into the Buzzsaw," out this month from Prometheus, have won nearly every award journalism has to give -- a Pulitzer, several Emmys, a Peabody, a prize from Investigative Reporters and Editor, an Edward R. Murrorw and several accolades from the Society of Professional Journalists. One is veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration and a best-selling author, another is a Nieman Fellow at Harvard.
And most of them are considered, at best, marginal by the mainstream media. At worst, they've been deemed incompetent and crazy for having the audacity to uncover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by government agencies and corporate octopi.
<snip>
Borjesson describes "the buzzsaw" as "what can rip through you when you try to investigate or expose anything this country's large institutions -- be they corporate or government -- want to keep under wraps. The system fights back with official lies, disinformation, and stonewalling.
<snip>
The majority of the eighteen pieces in Borjesson's book are about hard-working mainstream journalists, dedicated to the ideals of their profession, who stumble into the buzzsaw and have their careers and reputations eviscerated. Though the subjects and personalities involved are wildly diverse, the stories echo each other in disturbing ways. Journalists are sent by their bosses to do their jobs -- in the case of Borjesson, to investigate the crash of TWA Fight 800 as a producer for CBS news. Sometimes what they find is impolitic, other times it brings threats of corporate lawsuits. Suddenly, editors kill the story, or demand changes. In some instances, like that of TV reporter Jane Akre, who was investigating the use of Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone, reporters are ordered to insert outright lies in their pieces or face firing.(my emphasis /jc) Other times, like with Gerard Colby's book about the Du Pont family and Gary Webb's San Jose Mercury News series about the CIA's role in the crack epidemic, the bosses are spooked after the fact and withdraw their support from work already published, hanging reporters out to dry.http://www.freedomofthepress.net/intothebuzzsaw.htmHere's an excerpt from an interview with Into the Buzzsaw's editor at BuzzFlash:
BuzzFlash: In journalism, how is going into the buzzsaw different from just "spiking" a story?
Kristina Borjesson: They are two different terms. "Spiking" a story means to kill it, to not run or air it. "Into the buzzsaw" is an expression that applies to both journalists and sensitive stories. With respect to journalists, it describes a series of traumatic and destructive experiences that those who have reported, or are reporting on sensitive stories can go through: the loss of one's job or career, long legal entanglements, financial ruin, being widely and falsely discredited in public, being attacked by one's colleagues, death threats, etc. With respect to sensitive stories, the buzzsaw is a sophisticated system consisting of myriad elements, including self-censoring journalists, reporters who pander to powerful people and institutions, major media conglomerates with specific business and political agendas, propaganda machines both inside and outside of government, etc., which ensure that the American public remains virtually ignorant about how this nation’s--and the world's--arenas of power really function. The buzzsaw system ensures that stories lifting the veil on what powerful institutions and people really do, and how their activities affect the nation and its citizens, never hit the mass public consciousness.
BuzzFlash: Why do you think there is such gullible acceptance of government explanations and policies among the mainstream press? As you point out in your essay within the book, many of the government's explanations of dramatic events amount to conspiracy theories themselves. Just look at the Bush propaganda campaign before the invasion of Iraq and how Saddam Hussein was allegedly associated with everything from Al Qaeda to 9/11 to WMD that were supposed to be on the verge of being launched against us. But the mainstream media didn't question THAT conspiracy theory, did they?
Kristina Borjesson: The press' acceptance of the government's explanations had nothing to do with the mainstream press being gullible. Post 9/11, news executives got the message from the American public that it was time to rally around the president and that asking tough questions about 9/11 or the decision to go into Iraq would not play well and would result in lower ratings. Lower ratings mean lost revenue. It's nothing personal; it's just business. Most journalists will tell you that a reporter's job is to tell people what they need to know, not what they want to hear, or what the government wants them to hear. In the news business, however, upsetting the government or the public makes no sense for the bottom line and should be avoided. Don't expect to be well informed if you rely on mainstream media alone. As some of the stories in Buzzsaw clearly illustrate, mainstream media's limitations are extensive. There's no point in getting upset at the mainstream media. It's better to just move on to better news sources--and there are lots of them.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05002.htmlInto the Buzzsaw covers the story of Jane Akre and her husband Steve, two reporters who were fired for refusing an order to lie in a documentary they were preparing on Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone. The judgement went against the reporters because the judge basically said that the media is under no legal obligation to report the truth therefore the Akres didn't have any legal grounds to contest their employer's orders. More details here:
The reporters also provided details of their suit which charges Fox television, strongly pressured by BGH-maker Monsanto, with violating the state’s whistleblower act by firing the journalists for refusing to broadcast false reports and threatening to report the station’s conduct to the FCC. Their complaint also claims the station violated the reporters’ contracts in dismissing them for those reasons and it seeks a ruling from the court to determine to what extent the reporters’ contractual obligations limit their ability to speak freely about the rBGH issue.
The journalists filed the suit after struggling with Fox executives most of last year to get the story on the air. According to court papers, they were ultimately dismissed December 2, 1997.
"Every editor has the right to kill a story and any honest reporter will tell you that happens from time to time when a news organization’s self interest wins out over the public interest," said Steve Wilson, the station’s former senior investigative reporter who helped Akre produce the story and is now one of the plaintiffs.
"But when media managers who are not journalists have so little regard for the public trust that they actually order reporters to broadcast false information and slant the truth to curry the favor or avoid the wrath of special interests as happened here, that is the day any responsible reporter has to stand up and say, ‘No way!’ That is what Jane and I are saying with this lawsuit," Wilson said. http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
