The Wingnuts Have A Point

The Right Wing is always complaining about the "liberal media", which of course is BS: There is no "liberal" media... in the sense that there is no "Democratic media" or, more accurately, "anti-Republican media". What we have is a sensationalist media, which presents news in a way that brings in viewers, and makes money. Unfortunately for the wingnuts, that means dead bodies and crying mothers in Iraq, dead bodies and crying mothers in New Orleans... dead bodies and crying mothers everywhere. Even Republican-leaning Fox news is in on the act, with The Missing White Girl Show playing 6 to 8 hours a day. How important is a teenager that goes missing in Aruba in the scope of all national news? Pretty low if you look at it in a balanced way... but if you are a sensationalist media, it ranks well above Republican plans to fix Social Security, or the United Nations anniversary party in New York, et cetera, et cetera.

To better educate you on my point, sensationalist media finds the Monica Lewinsky story more interesting than the Valerie Plame story; liberal media would have their interests the other way around. A balanced media would find both... oh... about equal in gravity. As it is, most average Americans are still saying, "Valerie who?"

However, the Wingnuts do have a point: The mainstream media (the MSM in blogspeak) are not independent. This editorial which is summarized and dissected very well by this Daily Kos post, shows all too well that news organizations are corporations which get purchased by other corporations, who then get all tangled up in the politics of business and politics itself, and eventually news is no longer dictated by what sells so much as what benefits (and does not hurt) Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, and GE.

When critical news coverage by CBS could lead to Viacom losing a billion-dollar tax break, do you think that Viacom allows CBS free reign to say whatever they want in their newscasts? When half of Iraq's new electrical grid is built from GE product, no wonder MSNBC, their subsidiary, were huge supporters in the runup to the war.

It's not just the MSM kissing Republican hieney either:

And lest anyone think there’s no connection between Murdoch’s business and editorial, several news organizations have noticed a détente between the New York Post and Senator Hillary Clinton because Rupert needs congressional Democrats on News Corp.’s side to oppose a change in the Nielsen ratings that could harm its TV stations.

So, as you can see, MSM is directed and controlled by large corporations who are making sure that the news content never harms their corporate interests. Yet one more reason to turn to blogs for your news instead of TV. Yes... it actually requires you to use your brain and ability to reason (because you will have to read 1 or 2 liberal and 1 or 2 conservative blogs each day) to figure out the big picture and reason your way through the retoric and see both sides of the story, but at least, for the first time in history, you have that opportunity... instead of being fed corporate-approved, sanitized, toned-down news that doesn't take any risks, offer any criticisms, or bother to often even confirm what they've been told. Now, you have to go out and "figure out the news", and draw your own conclusions.

Welcome to the age of thinking for yourself. Nitwits not welcome.