The Lies of "Liberal" or "Conservative" Media
While going through my undergraduate program, I became very much interested in the politics of media and media politics. I am not talking so much about how media shape perspective, though I find that interesting, I am talking about ownership structure and how much of a given market media companies own. Robert McChesney, Ben Bagdikian, Sy Hersh (who I named my dog after), Noam Chomsky, et el were very important to my evolution on how I view media, and its place in our society. In fact, my studies on media are one of the main reasons I, for lack of a better word, despise Bill Clinton and his time as President. Clinton is the man who signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, of which only five senators voted against.
This particular post is triggered by my stupid decision to go over to TOP. I got into an argument with someone who assumes that all media companies are like News Corporation and owned by Republicans, news flash, they are not!! I posted something similar to what I had posted here yesterday about how the Democratic Party fails to articulate a coherent, progressive vision for America. In response, he said:
Articulated them over what media? I hear wonderful things articulated all the time from Democratic leaders but that’s because I do real work to find them and don’t listen to network news. Sorry, but our fellow citizens are terribly propagandized 24/7. The right wing owns nearly all. But go on and read your Rupert Murdoch National Geographic for all the news about the environment and get back to me on what you learn. I’m appalled by how little people around me know about what’s going on currently and even less about the history that brought us to where we are. You can’t blame that on the Democrats.
I tried to point out to this particular person that right wingers are not the owners of media companies. In fact, media companies, their employees, and the CEOs of the companies actually give more money to, wait for it...Democrats. I know that this article is from 2012, but this not is not inconsistent with their political contributions.
Comcast's top 10 contributions, the top three were Republicans, the next seven, however, were Democrats. The amount of money given was: $389,400 to the GOP and $483,915 to the Dems. You can find the numbers here. Of course Comcast was aggressive in contributing to politicians on both side because they had legislation they wanted passed.
AOL gave less money than Comcast, but they too gave more money to Democrats. Six of their 10 top donations were to Democratic Party, or Democratic Party aligned, organizations. I was too lazy to look up the other four candidates or PACs. Of the ones I was able to identify as Democratic Party groups/candidates, AOL gave $217,400 of their $266,950 contributions. This can be found here.
I am too lazy, and don't want to spend my entire lunch break looking up media company political contributions, but I'd be willing to bet that this is pretty consistent with most other companies' political contributions.
It drives me a little bat shit crazy that so many Democrats think that these media companies are Republican-led organizations, they are not. Their contributions tend to be given more to the Democratic Party, but their overriding goal is profit. The media corporations are not, even though they give more money to Democrats, allies to progressives. They are corporate entities who only care about accumulating more for their owners and less for everyone else.
I guess I wanted to vent here a little bit, but I did say something in response that will probably get me a TO if the diary gets any traffic from Hillary supporters.
Please before you make stupid fucking statements, look up the owners and who they support. You should be surprised by what you find, but we both know you won’t. You are a sycophant who cannot acknowledge that this party can do any fucking wrong.
I suggest, whenever you hear that the media are anti-Democratic Party, you push back. The media are not anti-Democratic Party, but they are definitely anti-democratic. They are also anti-progress. They are pro-business. They are corporatist and will support any corporate candidate, like Hillary!!
Comments
I disagree a bit.
The media are not just pro-business, they are pro-war and pro-Israel. The Washington Post and New York Times, supposedly "liberal", led the banshee cry for war with Iraq and have pushed for confrontation with Russia, destabilization of Libya and Syria, and for war with Iran. In recent memory, all of the big TV networks were owned directly or indirectly by corporations with large defense divisions that benefit from a pro-war stance. The media push to lie us into war in Iraq was close to universal.
You're right in that they're not necessarily pro-Republican or anti-Democratic. They are pro-whoever-will-get-us-into-the-most-wars.
Well...
war is good for business. Armed conflict brings in viewers. Remember the old news adage, "If it bleeds it leads."
They are corporate
and unfortunately so is the Democratic party. I think the lure of the intellectual property rights in the TPP has big media frothing at the mouth and $Hillary is their best shot. I think Time-Warner is a top HVF and superPAC donor.
What blows my mind is public media...both NPR and PBS. Their pro Hellery bias is palpable. I knew Cliff Durr. In 1935, he was appointed a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). There, Durr gradually began focusing his work on protecting the public interest rather than advocating for corporate banking or broadcasting interests. At the FCC he fought for advertisement-free public broadcasting and open public access channels for community participation in the newly emerging television industry. - See more at: http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1254
Now our public broadcasting seems as corporate as Disney's or GE's or any of the rest. My regular news hour has become Democracy Now, and my regular read is the Evening Blues. My observation is that young folks support Bernie because they access their media online and have learned to fact check for themselves.
I used to think Fox Fraudcasting was the evil one, but I now think all broadcast media and most media in general is complicit in maintaining the corporate power structure. And yes that includes perpetrating war.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
And "public" ownership is equally ambiguous now
My 88-year-old Mom is about to give up on NPR, since she has heard for the past 2 days on her favorite morning news show there that NPR is now sponsored by Koch Industries, "providing more than 60,000 jobs nationwide." (She also just finished reading Dark Money.)
BTW, here's a list of 100 companies providing more U.S. jobs than Koch Industries brags about, and there are undoubtedly others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers_in_the_United_...
Euterpe2
I read over at Counterpunch today
that Comcast is one of the big money sponsors of the Democratic National Convention. Only one of them though, there are lots. And I do believe you are correct that most companies have been "hedging" their bets by donating to BOTH parties, not just the Repugs. Although the oil and gas industry might lean mostly Repugnant, the Koch brothers appear to be fine with Hillary....
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
They are pro-business and pro-war and anti-progress. After all,
when you're winning, why would you want to change the rules? But that does make them pretty much the definition of modern conservativism. Just because they donate to both parties doesn't make them any less conservative. They just think the money will persuade whoever is in power, so their side wins regardless. I agree they're not Democratic or Republican. But that's only because both sides are bought. That's also why they're anti-Bernie.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.