I think I know what is wrong with the MSM reporters (theory)

[rpgamerd00d]

In some cases, the reporters themselves are just right-wing nutjobs (Hannity comes to mind), but I am not talking about them.

I am talking about some of the more "normal" reporters who, for whatever reason, spin absolutely everything to favor Bush and Republicans.

Most of you feel that its purely a business thing. Business is business, and they promote Repukes and right-wing ideology because its good for business, and that's that.

I disagree.

I think many reporters became reporters because they feel its their job to be a check + balance on government, and they would never "sell out" simply to make a buck, when they could break HUGH stories and advance their careers just the same as if they "drink the koolaid." I think there ARE good reporters who report the Spin on a daily basis, and I have wracked my brain to figure out how and why they would do it. And I came to just one, simple, obvious conclusion.

They think they are protecting America.

Rove and his cronies have made sure that all reporters (through their management) have been convinced that portraying America as "weak" (by revealing the crimes of a sitting administration) would endanger the country. The reporters have been absolutely convinced that they MUST hide the truth of the current situation for the good of the country. They actually believe that they are protecting America by spinning all news so that every action we take is seen as a strong, positive action. They cover for the administrations mistakes so that the rest of the world doesn't see America as inept or prone to making mistakes, because America is universally seen as the most powerful country in the world, and for us to reveal our "achilles heel" of ineptitude and mistakes, would reveal to the world that we are, after all is said and done, just another country, albeit a powerful one.

I am convinced that many reporters (again, not all, but a good number) are drinking the koolaid themselves and have been convinced that surpressing or spinning the truth is in the best interests of the country, and that that is why they can bring themselves to do it. We need to get the message out to all reporters that the Truth protects America FAR BETTER than hiding our mistakes and ineptitude in the White House. With truth in reporting, comes oversight, which brings collboration and consensus, which brings higher excellence. With lies and subterfuge, ineptitude simply grows to monumental proportions.

Write directly to your favorite reporter, and instead of detailing a specific issue, let them know that its OK to tell the truth, and that lying and spinning is NOT what is best for this country. Let them WE GOT THEIR BACK on telling the Truth.

[AX10]

1. If your theory holds water...

what do you suggest to change this situation?

[rpgamerd00d]

3. Dems need to take this issue head-on

Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Feingold, etc. need to make this an issue.
They need to call MSM reporting into question. They need to challenge the entire industry, call it biased, and question why that bias exists. Bring the issue directly out. And the Republicans CANNOT get involved, because the Dems would be questioning the MEDIA, not the Republicans. If the Republicans DEFEND the media, they IMPLICATE the media. Sorta like if Abramoff tried to defend DeLay....
:D

[seabeyond]

2. interesting but throw in, the love of bashing dems. they got off on it

with clinton. they are successful at it and enjoy it too. they know they can say the most absurd, adn look all cool,..... and get away with it. human nature on their part. abuse of power. so easy to happen to a person, pumped ego..... yada yada

[Armstead]

4. Good point

I don't think that's a new dilemma. The difference now is that the other half of a reporter's instinct -- "keep the bastids honest" -- no longer has an institutional support system.

Put another way, in the past, there was a basic understanding that reporters should tell the truth "without fear or favor." Reporters and editors often found themselves having to wretle within themselves about the same choices as they do today. And they didn;t always make the right choices.

However, in the past the media -- both collectively and within individual organiations -- supported the basic notion of presenting the truth as the priority over all else. Therefore, reporters had a system than made it more palatableand easier to see the truth on its own terms and report it that way as their first priority.

Today, between commercial pressues and the interests of corporate owners, there is no longer that support system for the good, conscientious side of reporter and editors. So the path of least resistance is to cave in.

[Bake]

5. I'm not buying it.

Executive Summary: They are sell-outs.

They love the money, "fame" (such as it is), and access to power. Their corporate masters have given them their marching orders, and if they don't comply, they will lose the money, fame, and access.

Couple that with the general dumbing down of the media - i.e., recruitment of "news bimbos" like Kyra Phillips on CNN, and the story is complete.

A few of them may have actually drunk the koolaid because they are NOT "regular folks," they are among the rich, ruling elite. They want their tax cuts and they want to keep their grip on everything.

Bake

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. Exactly! n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

8. I thought that too, until I look at reporters like Keith Olbermann

Keith doesn't drink the koolaid and is in NO DANGER of losing his job.

This lead me to refute the thinking you refer to and led me to my new viewpoint.

[donkeyotay]

11. I think it's tokenism

MSNBC has KO, and CNN can claim Lou Dobbs as their anti-establishment figure. But it's nothing more than a token to make people like us feel like we have some say... but we don't. Nothing will change until this system collapsed under the weight of its own corruption.

And people like Tweety, he can tell himself whatever he needs to hear to keep cashing the check. It's the golden chain.

Bill Moyers said, "The farther one gets from power, the nearer one can get to the truth."

If Tweety, or any other talking head, spent a few months in one of those detention centers being built, I bet he'd have a different take on the powers that be.

[Bake]

16. I think it's KO's attitude

He has his moral center and he does't give a damn. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he told them regularly to screw themselves, he can always go back to ESPN with his buddy Dan Patrick; he doesn't NEED their job!

Wish there were more like him.

Bake

[Cleita]

6. I believe it's because the talking heads aren't real journalists.

Like Dan Rather, real journalists have been pushed out of the mainstream media business. We hardly ever see Christianne Amanpour on the air anymore for instance. If anyone should be reporting the wars we are involved in it's her.

With all this talk of invading Iran, she should be on the teevee everyday, doing background stories, particlularly since she is Iranian and has many contacts there. There is not a sign of her that I can tell. She also reports for 60 Minutes and since this is a really important story she should be doing pieces for them, but there is not a sign of her anywhere.

If you think back before the 2000 election, about the only familiar face from that era on CNN is Wolf Blitzer. All the rest of his peers have disappeared and have been replaced by mostly RW nutjobs with few if any credentials as credible journalists.

[rpgamerd00d]

10. Wolf is precicely the person I am referring to.

He is "drinking the koolaid" now. Look at his "interview" of Harry Belafonte. That is not the real Wolf Blitzer, that is a koolaid-drinking version of his former self. They "got to him" and converted him.

[Cleita]

13. Either he drank the kool-aid or he values his job

above his career and will do anything to keep it.

[Bake]

17. Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

You nailed it.

Bake

[Mnemosyne]

9. Helen Thomas is my favorite reporter.

When they shut her down after dimson stole the WH, I realized how bad it was going to get. This was before 9/11.

In peace,
V

[zbdent]

12. Plus, the big checks help

ease their "troubled" minds . . .

[MadHound]

14. I think most reporters aren't doing their job right because they can't

95% of this country's media is controlled by six, count them, six corporations, half of whom are making direct profits off of this war, and all of which are benefitting from Bushco's misadministration.

The reporters know this, and know that if they stray to far, if they dig too deep, not only will they be fired, but they will be black-balled throughout the journalistic community. Witness Dan Rather, forced off the evening anchor spot, and is now hardly mentioned on CBS, much less anywhere else, all for telling the truth. That sends a very chilling message to any reporter. Thus, in order to preserve their jobs, careers, family and in some cases their very lives, the reporters have now gone into soft shoing the news. Don't ask the hard questions, don't investigate what's really happening, instead praise bush and pass the missing blonde.

We can write these people until our fingers bleed, but what we say is nothing to them compared to what their bosses or the government can do to them. It isn't about having drunk the koolaid of national security, or that the reporters think that they're protecting America. I think it is just one more example of the coin that both Bushco and corporate America deal in, fear. Fear of losing their livelihood, and possibly their very life if they say the wrong thing. Thus we stick to Michael Jackson and missing blondes, can't go wrong there.

[Kansas Wyatt]

15. Climbing the corporate ladder, means not rocking the boat for their

Corporation, which includes subsidiaries of their corporation. So they climb the corporate ladder, rather than building their career based on genuine merit.

As Miles O'Brien likes to look at it, he gets lucrative job security, while those losers at Ford lose their jobs.

[Village Idiot]

18. What you seem to forget is that a LOT of these idiots are NOT reporters.

They are merely "window dressing" for the teleprompter. All they do is regurgitate prettily for the masses whatever their corporate masters instruct them to.

There are those who ARE reporters and have drank the kool-aid, and there are those who reason that they are bargaining for the ACCESS they need. They are knowing and enabling whores and propagandists. As for the talking heads, they are just retarded actors, reading the script.

[MrPrax]

19. Misbegotten sense of loyality? Maybe...

But I think the disconnect between the public and the media is simply that journalists are made up of educated professionals and educated professionals in any industry generally don't have share the same political agenda as the public.

The higher up any food chain you go, professionals tend to hold the public and democracy in general, in contempt.

Face it, the elites that program news media tend to think that the public can only relate to car crashes, house fires and the latest fad drug epidemic that law enforcement happens to be marketing this year.

If journalists generally don't have a high regard for the public, then they are not likely in the mindset to divulge information to the public and for the public's interests. The public doesn't really have a role in the media. other than viewership. Just like the public doesn't really have much of a role in the policies and descion-making of any thing else, including government.

The public is strictly reactive, not active in day to day affairs.

[davekriss]

20. I highly recommend you read...

...Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions, available on-line (if you'd like, I'll dig up out of my "favorites" folder and post the link).

Necessary Illusions expands into systemic theory the thinking started in the more widely known Manufacturing Consent. Both works were written in the early eighties, long before the near monopolization of the major media we see today. The latter has greatly amplified the effectiveness of Chomsky's Propaganda Model.

The Orwellian march into Iraq (both in 2002-2003 and in 1990-1991) are perfect empirical proofs of the Propaganda Model. I have not come up against any convincing critiques yet.

There is an element of self-inhibition in much of MSM reporting, but this inhibition is due to the chilled environment established by the owners of the media (now reduced to 6 transnational firms), the boardrooms that select the executive editors, the executive editors that select the managing editors, and finally the flak that many journalists receive when they stray beyond the narrowly defined, institutionally understood permissible agenda.

Regarding flak, just ask Amanda Amanopour or Ashleigh Banfield. It gets even worse on the blogosphere (though, because the sphere is generally drowned out by the MSM, there's much more wiggle room within the narrowed agenda -- but note what happened to Steve Kangas, and to voxnyc, and the kid that ran monkeyfist.com).

The aim of the oligarchy is to maintain the illusion of freedom, the illusion of democracy, while installing the mechanisms that will chill impermissible exchange of "dangerous" ideas.

A functioning police state needs no police.
-- William S. Burroughs

The servants of the owning class have gotten much more crafty at how to exercise control.

[davekriss]

23. That would be Christine Amanpour ...

... not "Amanda Amanopour" as mistated in my post above (opportunity to edit and fix has past).

[TahitiNut]

21. Media corporations are like many/most corporations.

The socioeconomic dynamics within authoritarian sub-cultures such as corporations should be well-known. Seeking some simple sound-byte explanation ignores the obvious: that a multitude of simple factors combine to create an understandable dynamic.

Media corporations are "cheap labor" enterprises, like banks and retail, where the ratio of CEO compensation to average wage is highest. Whether broadcast or print, these enterprises feed upon unpaid and low-paid labor, from interns to newspaper carriers. Individual contributors with such industries are easily indoctrinated to 'Social Darwinism' since promote-or-perish is very real.

Media corporations are more advertiser-driven than product quality dependent. As such, the consumer demographics are driven, not by appealing to the cautious and analytical but those most easily separated from their money - pleasure-seekers. The market for 'agreeable' news is larger and more fruitful than the market for 'truthful' news. The most salient motivation of any news media consumer is the degree to which (s)he is equipped by such media to survive or thrive in social interactions - it's the wampum people use in social interactions, gaining acceptance or 'respect' in their peer interactions. Where such 'interactions' are economic (business people and investors), the selection of media reflects that emphasis.

Corporations are only partly meritocracies - some far less than others, depending on how tangible the product or service is. Promotions are political far more than empirical, especially in media corporations. Sycophancy is cheap and conflict is costly - and both the economics and sociology of these drive the definition of 'success.' Bosses tend to promote subordinates in their 'own image' ("God created man in His own image") - or, more appropriately, subordinates who make that image most pleasant to the boss. (Who buys fun-house mirrors?)

Individual contributors, in any corporation, have several tactics for gaining promotion, all of which have to do with "managing perceptions." (1) Ninety percent of everything is showing up. (2) Bosses want subordinates to make their jobs easy. Deliver 'solutions,' not problems. This means being agreeable and leaving disagreeable behavior to others - or even fomenting that disagreeable behavior without being seen as disagreeable. (3) It's often easier to kneecap an opponent (a competitor for a promotion) than outperform him or her. Passive-aggressive behavior works 95% of the time. (4) Bosses like subordinates that make other subordinates more productive. Ensure that all assistance given is seen by the boss. (5) Bosses like to please their bosses. It helps to belong to the same club, church, and political party as your boss's boss. (6) Manipulating others to do your work for you is often seen as 'managing' not 'sloth' - if it's seen at all.

People base their choice of vocation on one of two core motivations: (1) Monetary (tangible) rewards or (2) Psychological (intangible) rewards. One will always predominate and all dilemmas will be resolved in favor of the predominating motivation. In any autocratic (sub)culture, subordinates are driven to Survival needs rather than Actualization needs in Maslow's Hierarchy. At that level, they're easier for the autocrat to 'manage.'

[Tsiyu]

22. There is only one thing wrong with the MSM and our congress

They all went to the wrong parties, where their pictures were snapped doing naughty things. Can you say, "blackmail" or "extortion?"

If they didn't go to one of the parties, the NSA spied on them enough to know their business...to the same end. Even if they are squeaky clean, they can get that intimidating phone call from Rove threatening them with harm if they make Pissypants look bad.

IN short, reporters and congresspeople are keeping their own asses safe and private because of secrets and threats. One of the oldest rackets in the world, really.