Nance Greggs: Ain’t Buying It

[DemocratsForProgress]

[center][/center]

I realize that with the upcoming presidential election in November, the MSM will be doing what it does best over the next few months: i.e. not reporting the actual news, but using every effort to boost their viewership – which, sadly, is what the MSM is now all about.

The importance of this election is of no interest to the talking bobble-heads. The importance of ratings and audience share is.

As a result of the aforementioned, the issues will be ignored, the facts will be forgotten, the statistics will be skewed, and the ever-changing opinions of self-proclaimed political experts will be trotted out like an all-you-can-eat bread basket at a cheap restaurant – in hopes that the patrons will be too stuffed to notice that the meal they’ve ordered will be not only be slow in arriving, but equally lacking in substance.

The MSM doesn’t just want a horserace – they need one. Whoever is in the lead one day will be relegated to also-ran status the next. Poll results that favor one candidate will be loudly touted in the morning; completely opposite survey findings will be proclaimed by eight p.m.

More at: http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/06/17/aint-buying-it/

[monmouth]

1. As usual, Nance never disappoints. Great article..n/t

[thelordofhell]

2. Too much ad money at stake

M$M has to keep it close

[mlevans]

3. What a great pleasure to find a genuine Nance Greggs piece on D-U.

And as usual, it is not only entertaining, but right on the money. I've missed seeing these a lot. "et cete-fuckin’-ra"...love it. Thanks for posting, ma'am.

[wiggs]

4. Good analysis. But I think there's a another significant factor that causes

the public to be misinformed, in addition to ratings concerns.

Most of our media is owned by giant corporations and it's fair to say that giant corporations generally look out for the bottom line more than anything else. Some corporations look out for the bottom line by donating to candidates that are sympathetic to their specific industry needs and/or who are sympathetic to the needs of corporations, CEOs, and Boardmembers in general. Others spend unlimited money on lobbying or spend on Superpacs anonymously.

But corporations that own media are in a unique position. Not only can they exert power through their ability to throw money around in an effort to sway voters and legislators undemocratically....but they can actually shape public opinion directly by selective reporting, programming, biased reporting, false equivalency analysis, etc.

It's certainly what Fox News is all about (previously named GOPTV by Roger Ailes in a proposal to Nixon on how to strengthen the party). And I don't believe for a minute that the largest defense contractor in the world doesn't ask its subsidiary media outlets to help support the home team. The sociopathic code of corporate ethics demands nothing less than 110% effort to increase profits. By any means. They wouldn't pass up opportunities to shape public opinion.

90% of talk radio is conservative, pounding the airwaves 24/7. Is this because of ratings...when america is not 90% conservative?

No....this was the vision 40 years ago when conservative think tanks and media consolidation were viewed as keys in the effort to consistently win elections when the GOP is on the wrong side of issues that concern mainstream America. It's how you can convince a fair number of voters that Obama is an elite, out of touch candidate trying to buy the election while Romney is looking out for the average guy.

The damage being done to public discourse can't just be the result of a ratings race....I believe there is a strong corporate directive to push information, elections, legislation, and the courts further and further to the right even when the american public is moving to the left on most issues. The basis of a strong democracy is a well informed public (Lincoln).....We have neither and it's not because of sweeps week.

[dougolat]

5. Yes indeed, the owned media know who signs the checks

[Ghost of Huey Long]

6. boost their viewership? Why? Koch brothers pay them to manufacture consent either way

Corporations pay all of the networks to manufacture consent.

They don't care whether we watch or even believe them, they are there to create the idea that we are all following along with this corporate takeover of our government.

As long as everyone else thinks someone else is believing it, they will just go along with it too.

The media no longer serves the public interest as per the terms of their FCC license.

They work for the highest bidder, the Koch brothers.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked, recommended and I also agree with wiggs' post up-thread.

Thanks for the thread, DemocratsForProgress.