Two Year Old Article Shows Problems with Corporate Media

We recently came across an article more than two years old on www.consortiumnews.com called "The Rise of the 'Patriotic Journalist'". If you are looking for an example of what is wrong with the corporate owned media in America, this is the article for you.

The article's author, Robert Parry, who used to work for both Newsweek and the Associated Press, gives example after example of how, starting in the seventies and continuing on in the eighties under Reagan and Bush, the corporate owned media carried water for Bush and Reagan on issues such as Iran-contra, right-wing death squads in El Salvador, and the involvement of the contras in Nicaragua in drug trafficking in America. He gives example after example of how editors and managers in so-called "mainstream" media outlets like the AP and Newsweek either ignored stories of Reagan and Bush misdeeds or, indeed, attacked journalists who revealed such information.

This kid-glove treatment of conservatives and Republicans continued with the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the suppression of stories about how Al Gore would have carried Florida if an honest count had taken place. Then, of course, came Iraq and the so-called weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post and the New York Times in particular became cheerleaders for George W. Bush's invasion by allowing its reporters, particularly Judith Miller, to basically become in-house reporters for the Bush administration.

It is not surprising that news corporations want Republicans to win because Republicans stand for allowing corporations to do what they want without regulation or oversight. Of course, we are never told that this is the agenda of these organizations. Instead we are told that they are dedicated to giving us vital information that we need to be informed. All while maintaining a profit margin of around 20% or so.

Thankfully the Internet has the promise to change this situation, but only if it does not become dominated by the same corporations that control other news organizations. That's why the battle over access to the 'Net is so important.

Media Elites Don't Share Concerns of Ordinary Americans

Why does Maureen Dowd write crap like this, focusing on the personalities of politicians as opposed to their policies? Well, the first reason is that it is a lot easier. If you write stuff like hers, you don't need to do any research, other than occasional Google searches. Another reason is that it pays well. Maureen Dowd makes a lot of money as a columnist for the Times, and then makes more money selling books and has the opportunity to make even more money appearing as a guest lecturer. The most important reason, though, is that Ms. Dowd, like most members of the media elite don't have the same concerns as other Americans.

She makes a good deal of money, she has health insurance, she probably has a good pension, and, since she doesn't have any children, doesn't have to worry about what happens to America after she is gone. What in the world does she have in common with people who are working at relatively low paying jobs, worried about paying for health insurance, and worried about how they are going to support their children? The answer, of course, is not a damn thing.

This is why Ms. Dowd, and other media elites, can sneer at Democratic candidates and spend a great deal of time analyzing their personalities, or their marriages, or how much they did or didn't spend on an haircut. This is why they can write articles that pretend to reveal deep psychological motives of people they have seldom, if ever, met or talked with.

The best thing that could happen to progressive candidates would be for about 75% of the media to lose their jobs so they could see what it is like for the rest of America. Maybe then they would care more about policies and much less about personalities.

"Moderate" Republicans & the Corporate Media

Okay, so last week the corporate media was breathlessly reporting about how Senator Arlen Specter was coming down hard on Gonzales and the Bushies over Fredo's possibly perjuring himself before Congress. Well, if you thought Arlen's backbone would once again collapse, you were absolutely right. Yesterday, he told a talking heads show that he wanted to wait until there was a intelligence briefing before deciding whether Gonzo had committed perjury.

This is from an AP story linked to in this entry's title:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he wanted to wait at least until a briefing Monday by the Bush administration on classified spy programs that could help him decide whether Gonzales lied to Congress.

Once again a so-called GOP "moderate" is backtracking and enabling the Bush Administration to continue pursuing its illegal and reckless policies. What the media tends to overlook is that none of what Bush has done to America and the world could have been done if GOP "moderates" like Specter, Voinovich, Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, McCain, DeWine, and others hadn't supported Bush in the Congress. Bush couldn't have gotten his reckless tax cuts through Congress, couldn't have started the Iraq War, couldn't have appointed ideologues to the United States Supreme Court, and couldn't have ran huge deficits if "moderates" from his own party hadn't supported him.

Now, of course, after enabling all of the above, Republican "moderates" want to back away from the destruction they have caused and be seen as "breaking" with Bush. The sad thing isn't that they think they can get away with it. The sad thing is that the corporate media will let them get away with it.