The mass media choose which fluff they promote and to what purpose

[JackRiddler]

The media choose which fluff they promote and to what purpose. This is done in newsrooms and boardrooms, with secretaries taking minutes, and does not require a secret handshake, though generally the rules of business discretion apply and the minutes are not published. (Just leaked to a blog, once in a while.)

The media could turn Gannon into Lewinsky II. That would get ratings, you can be certain.

They could cover the Enron trials and the AIG case with all the same lurid passions applied to Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart. That would get ratings, the characters are ostentatious and compelling and the Cliff Baxter "suicide" could be done up on A Current Affair.

Instead of allowing a few hundred 100 Schiavo feeding-tube activists to dictate their programming for several weeks, they could allow a few hundred 9/11 skeptic activists to dictate their programming for several weeks.

Oh, that would get ratings! Or don't you think so?

[President Jesus]

1. who is the managing editor over at 'the mass media' these days?

[arikara]

2. MSM news is nothing more than brainless "entertainment"

and I refuse to watch it anymore. They've put those half hour entertainment gossip shows out of business. Remember "Current Affair" I think it was called? I get so disgusted just get up and leave the room when my hubby puts CNN on. Last night, he flicked over and there they were speculating about whether the stupid runaway bride should be charged. I think they'd run some sort of a poll. I couldn't believe it.

btw... were there really as many as a few 100 Schiavo feeding-tube activists? I thought that there was a couple of jugglers, a guy with a parrot, a bagpiper and a couple dozen or so assorted other fruitcakes.

[Robbien]

3. When they start to promote a story the conservatives do not like

there is a big organized group of conservative activists which write and call the media harrassing them to stop the story. Some part of this organization is paid, another part is from the christian coalition and part is from right wing radio.

Until there is a movement from the left which is as organized, the media will of course listen to the complaints from large right wing activist groups.

[JackRiddler]

6. Do you really think that's it?

I'll guess the major media have been hit with MILLIONS of viewer and reader requests to cover the Iraq war lies, and they have seen MILLIONS of people protest the war on the streets. But although the lies were already obvious long before the invasion, the media still haven't spoken of anything other than mistakes and intelligence "failures," and they still in the main support the occupation.

Don't let the existence of a vociferous right-wing lobby obscure the most important facts:

As long as the televised media and nearly all major dailies with an appreciable budget for investigations are owned by a dozen interlocked conglomerates, in turn owned or controlled by a handful of multi-millionaires and billionaires;

and as long as those conglomerates derive the majority of their media business income by selling audiences (you) to three dozen corporate advertisers, and the bulk of their capital in credit from a handful of banks;

and as long as the ideological system limits the debate acceptable in polite society to the narrow bipolar bounds of "conservative" (as defined by Republican operatives, associated think tanks, etc.) and "liberal" (as defined - in the main - by Democratic operatives, think tanks, etc.);

the mass media will continue to work for the same agenda, whether it is given a conservative or a liberal guise: "free" markets, "American" hegemony, "family values," entertainments and fluff stories designed to distract from vital issues (Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart), create hysterias that serve elite agendas (Schiavo, Pope) and just plain dumb down the populace (the coverage of American Idol or The Apprentice as news).

Uh oh, did I mention the use of sports in this regard? (And I speak as one who enjoys watching'em.)

[bpilgrim]

8. yeah, but this was NEVER a story to begin with.

cept on the INTERNETs

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[G_j]

4. and they could cover the Sibel Edmonds story, damn it!

passing thought: there are lots of places 9/11 skeptic activists are not welcome

[ailsagirl]

5. "The Runaway Bride" story is ludicrous...

It's not a STORY even-- I mean, who cares??

I hate being told by MSM what's important.

That's why I find my news on the internet. The only reason I know about the bride story is I overheard some people talking about it.

I just rolled my eyes and uttered an oath.

:eyes:

If it were a slow news day (which is rarely is, since the neocons have taken over), that's one thing. But when you think of all the critical stories that are, as usual, being ignored... well, it gets my goat.

[bpilgrim]

7. it proves that all the M$MW are hopelessly corrupt, IMHO

this story even has the supposed requisite sizzle, SEX, and it still doesn't sell, give me a fucking break.

we are ALL being played and everyone is simply pretending everything is going fine and if it weren't for the DU i'd be in a straight jacket by now :crazy:

peace

[arendt]

9. See my thread in Gen Discuss (Of Kangaroos and Corporations) n/t

[JackRiddler]

10. Of course, I should add more of the sociology...

For the most part, people want to belong.

The concentrated corporate ownership and the business plan based on advertising are ultimate conditioners, having their greatest (and surest) impact over time. GE need only rarely intervene in the management of NBC; hiring decisions and structures set up long ago more or less guarantee the result.

It's easy for everyone within the organization to soak up the resulting culture of their workplace, and to understand the conditions of career advancement.

Most people want to belong, and to better their station. Journalists and their managers (the real operative culprits here: it's editors, publishers and producers who decide what the news is) are no different.

"Scripts" or easy-to-understand prefabricated formulas for stories are culturally programmed, or at least readily available in a shared cultural language. These are commonly held ideas that jump to mind directly, and they further ease the path of least resistance in what the media find of interest and how they cover it. If there's a terrorist attack, for example, or pretty much any disaster, or if a statesman or pope dies, most of the story is already written by the shared cliches. Just add the most dramatic and moving footage you can get, you're done.

Something like Schiavo or OJ Simpson offers an easy, instant script, and it's very low risk for the media to focus on it. Other stories, like Gannon, provide a fantastic script that would get high ratings, but it's easy enough to understand the risk inherent in pursuing it.

The "conspiracy theory" cliche is very important in drawing the border for acceptable reporting. Journalists fear the label as a kind of terminal cancer. In the common vernacular, this term is applied to pretty much any narrative that sees interests operating behind one's own country's social institutions, or nearly to any criticism of one's own country at all. (For example, a corruption story that would be "conspiracy theory" if it was about the US government might be more than acceptable, if it's about a foreign one.)

[JackRiddler]

11. But I should also add the planned nature of the sociology...

Of course, the ideas of sociology and social psychology are not foreign to those who design and run corporations. They're generally aware of the above mechanics and after more than a century and a half of mass semi-instant media (starting with papers) you can bet they understand how it all works. The sociology and "culture" ultimately become what the owners of the society want to see.