Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

October 15, 2011

Murdoch Pattern of Misconduct

Open Letter to the Federal Communications Commission:

Dear FCC members:

Forget the political implications for a moment and envision what you'd LIKE to do to the Murdoch media syndicate.

The Occupy movement is your signal that the time has come to act on visions like that prompted above.

Paul Krugman is right, again: Pattern of Misconduct

Now it's time for the FCC to act.

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Julius Genachowski: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov


gdaeman_scroll_small

March 31, 2011

GDAE Podcast - Episode 44

Journalism & Democracy in Crisis

  • Econ 101: The notion that giving the wealthy class, or owner class, tax cuts to spur jobs and economic growth is a widely held belief in our society... What's the real story today?

  • Feature on the Broken Corporate Media: Communications Professor Robert McChesney on Journalism and Democracy in Crisis

Play Episode 44:


Click to Download Episode 44.


gdaeman_scroll_small

March 5, 2011

Remove Clarence Thomas from Supreme Court: Step 2

Impeach Clarence Thomas

2nd Step: Contact Media outlets. Ask them to follow the Missouri Bar Association's investigation of Clarence Thomas.

Some of the issues regarding Clarence Thomas: Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench

My Message to Media Outlets:

A complaint has been filed with the Missouri Bar Association to investigate Judge Clarence Thomas for allegations regarding his taxes. Given other widely publicized partisan activities by Mr. Thomas, the association is being asked to measure the weight of broader evidence relative to rules of conduct for a lawyer.

I would like your organization to follow this news story. Please add me to an interest e-mail list for people following your future investigations into this matter.

The Missouri Bar contact information follows:

mobar@mobar.org
ph: 537 635 4281
fax: 573 635 2811

For Your Convenience:Step 2.5, Twitter this link of the story linked above:
http://yhoo.it/gYDni2

See Step 1

PS

Go Johnny Saunders

gdaeman_scroll_small

April 29, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 30

Left Right Populist Unity II


  • Bill Clinton mea culpa: On corporate globalization & Haiti

  • Humor: Pope's visit to Britain from "Falling on a Bruise" blog

  • Bush war-crimes-Prosecution Theater: A Play called "In the Loop", by Armando Iannucci

  • MUSIC: "Meet me in the Hills" by Baltimore's Dirty Mothers

  • Right & Left: "Power in numbers" through coordination on advocacy for common goals

  • Taxes: The Pros and Cons

  • Book review: Shari S. Tepper's "The Gate to Women's Country"

  • The Mail Bag: Comments on Episode 28

  • MUSIC: Jeb Loy Nichols: "Dark Hollow."





February 21, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 27

Populist Movements
  • Bankruptcy: Punished by 2005 Law.
  • Worse than Apartheid: Israel's Roads and Weapons.
  • Prosecution of Bush era Officials: More than a pipe dream... Israeli Officials Feel the Heat.
  • Media-Criticism: Falsehoods on Bush Vs Obama's policies to keep us Safe.
  • MUSIC: Gypsy Jazz.
  • Banksters in Obama Administration: Former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
  • Rise of the Right Wing: Prelude to Howard Zinn on American Populist movement.
Play Episode 26 from this page:

September 19, 2009

GDAE Podcast - Episode 18

American Exceptionalism
  • Exploring "American Exceptionalism" with journalism professor Robert Jensen
  • MUSIC: "If I had a Rocket Launcher," by Ryan Harvey
  • Recession Vs Depression
  • Worse than 1930s Depression? Insights from Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips
  • Prosecuting Bush Officials: Rogue CIA Agents who went beyond the torture memos.

Play GDAE Podcast Episode 18 from this page.

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:

GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9 March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

gdaeman_scroll_small

June 22, 2009

Top 8 Media Conglomerates

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium, including our news sources. In 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. In 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. By the end of 2006, there are only 8 giant media companies dominating the US media, from which most people get their news and information. These Are:

  • Disney (market value: $72.8 billion)

  • AOL-Time Warner (market value: $90.7 billion)

  • Viacom (market value: $53.9 billion)

  • General Electric (owner of NBC, market value: $390.6 billion)

  • News Corporation (that's Fox, which now owns the Wall Street Journal, market value: $56.7 billion)

  • Yahoo! (market value: $40.1 billion)

  • Microsoft (market value: $306.8 billion)

  • Google (market value: $154.6 billion)

The market failure is that these conglomerates have become part of the establishment on which they are supposed to report. They have become beholden to short term profits and entertainment value. Corporate commercial interests have blunted their ability to speak truth to power at a management level, where the control lies.

The high-flying celebrity status of the hosts, and fear of loosing that status, creates a strong aversion to taking the risks associated with speaking truth to power.

The reduced numbers of employees in this consolidated industry make even the technical jobs rare plums. Thus, young people who want a job in the media industry will tend to do what ever management wants... no questions asked. It doesn't matter if these young people, and the vanishing news reporters, are "liberal"; they don't pick the stories to be covered and don't decide what makes it into print or on the air.

Bottom line is that the media industry reflects corporate conservatism, not liberalism.

gdaeman_scroll_small

May 25, 2009

Enough Cheney Justifications on Torture

Libhom's post of a couple days ago inspired me to amplify his message, and contact the media, which I urge you to do with the handy link below. Here's the message with my revamping:

[Think "Dear Corporate Media Outlet"]

There are a lot of "the people" wondering why corporate media is taking Dick Cheney so seriously on his Torture Justification Tour.

Never mind that interrogation experts agree that torture is an ineffective means of gathering reliable intelligence and counter-productive in the way it undermines our moral high ground.

Never mind that Dick Cheney got himself put in charge of the Bush administration's terrorism task force and was so inept that he didn't hold a meeting until October 2001.

Never mind that Cheney sent our Air Force on highly distracting exercises at the same time when the Bush administration had numerous credible warnings from a variety of countries that Al Qaeda was going to stage terrorist attacks using commercial airplanes.

Sure, we understand "he was the vice president." We understand, controversy helps generate ratings, and corporate media needs to profit to survive. But, we also understand Cheney's credibility on this matter is questionable and his ulterior motives are palpable.

Cheney has had his say on torture. It's no longer news, a phrase we hear from the corporate media when explaining why historical context is often left out when nightly news headlines are broadcast.

You can stop giving Cheney a platform now.

Sincerely, GDAEman


Psssst... Do Something


Sources:
Art/Graphics from: Beachblogger

gdaeman_scroll_small

February 27, 2009

War Slave

Click on the image and look more closely.

Sources: Art by Myztico

gdaeman_scroll_small

January 26, 2009

Is Tide Turning on Impunity of Western Power?

We've seen some unbelievable headlines in recent years. We saw a US presidential election stolen in 2000-2001. We saw the twin towers in NYC collapse in 2001. We saw our nation initiate a war of aggression based on lies in 2002-2003. We saw Enron implode and Enronian blackouts in California. We saw the US looking like an under-developed nation as the government failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina. We are seeing headlines talking about economic depression. We've seen the headlines of the first African American president of the United States.

Is it really so unimaginable to envision headlines of war crimes being brought against high officials in the US and Israel? This thought recently reached my consciousness in reaction to a critique of my GDAE Podcast. The critique challenged my criticism of the main stream media:

I take a little exception to your characterization of mainstream media's coverage of the Gaza debacle. CNN has had some good reporting about the situation inside Gaza within the limitations of access granted by the IDF. One of their reporters was in one of the tunnels leading to Egypt and commented that whenever humans feel trapped they will try and tunnel out and Palestinians in Gaza certainly feel trapped.

I could quibble about this, but that's not the point.

This critique was in reference to Episode 3 of GDAE Podcast (Jan 15, 2009), in which I claimed the establishment media was perpetuating several false narratives about the Israel/Palestine conflict. In addition to this critique of GDAE Podcast, I saw the following Yahoo News Headline:

"Israel promises troops legal backing over Gaza war"
, the opening line of which put Israeli war crimes on the table:

International calls to investigate Israel over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday to promise military personnel state protection from foreign prosecution.

It goes on to quote Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, who said,

It does not mean there is an immunity against legal actions...More of such efforts will be seen also in the near future.

Is it possible the US media is beginning to ponder the imponderable?

So the thought occurs to me... we've seen some amazing headlines in the past few years. It's conceivable that a ground swell of demand for justice could spawn headlines about US and Israeli officials being charged and convicted for war crimes. It's possible.

Psssst... Do Something
Sources:

Associated Press,
Israel promises troops legal backing over Gaza war
, January 26, 2009.

Graphic Credit: Poet515 from DevianArt.

gdaeman_scroll_small

April 23, 2008

Americans: Target of Military Psychological Warfare

[This blog entry is still under development]

It's more than a scandal. It's military psychological operations (psyops) illegally directed at American citizens. The Pentagon's use of biased retired military officers on television is a deliberate effort to undermine civilian rule, which constitutes a threat to our democracy. (MORE).

Below are brief profiles and photos of the participants in this military propaganda campaign. They include the so-called the "military analysts," bush administration officials, and media executives.

Thanks to the liberal newspaper, the New York Times, we now know many details about what we already knew was happening. Former military officers were hand-picked by the White House to attend invitation-only briefings. Afterwards they knowingly spread Bush administration talking points via the corporate media, and continue to do so:
From the start, interviews show, the White House took a keen interest in which analysts had been identified by the Pentagon, requesting lists of potential recruits, and suggesting names. [Pentagon assistant secretary of defense for public affairs] Victoria Clarke's team wrote summaries describing their backgrounds, business affiliations and where they stood on the war.

The hand-picked TV "military analysts" were invited to take Pentagon-funded trips, following which they echoed Pentagon talking points on TV as paid "experts." The success of this domestic propaganda operation is exemplified in the following correspondence:

“We’re hitting a home run on this trip,” a senior Pentagon official wrote in an e-mail message to Richard B. Myers and Peter Pace, then chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“Rumsfeld ultimately cleared off on all invitees,” said senior Clarke aide Brent Krueger, who left the Pentagon in 2004.

As exemplified in the personal narratives below, the vast majority of the hand-picked Pentagon pundits often had conflicting business interests profiting from the war.

Beyond the miss-conduct of many of these these analysts as individuals, Pentagon officials might have violated fundamental laws. US laws prohibit the use of US military propaganda on Americans. The rationale for these laws rests on the basic democratic principle of ensuring civilian primacy over the military.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.





Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret, is one of the Fox News participants who is speaking out against the Pentagon's domestic propaganda operation. “It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.’ ” More: Bevelacqua comments on WMD.



James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over a conference call with analysts following the death of 14 Marines on August 3, 2005. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.

“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”

William V. Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group (More). At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body a
armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. (See Carlton Sherwood)


Wayne A. Downing (deceased), one of NBC’s most prominent analysts, was on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. He also had his own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.

Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor. Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV.

John C. Garrett is a retired Marine colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. His promotional materials state he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,”

David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst.










Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons.

James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies.

Barry R. McCaffrey, one of NBC’s most prominent analysts, was on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. He also had his own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors. He was also involved with the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.


Jeffrey D. McCausland, appears on CBS TV and radio. He is a defense industry lobbyist. He has been a frequent commentator on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for CBS since 2003. In this capacity he has been quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Christian Science Monitor. He has appeared on the CBS Evening News, Morning Show, and Up to the Minute. He has also appeared on CNN Morning Show, CSPAN Booknotes, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera. [1]

“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”







Montgomery Meigs, a retired Army general and NBC analyst, appeared on “Today” after being flown to Guantanemo by the Pentagon. “There’s been over $100 million of new construction,” he reported. “The place is very professionally run.”






William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst, with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, was reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. “It is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,” he said. “It is my life.” However, in April 2006, after an emergency briefing of seventeen analysts with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the midst of the "Generals' Revolt," Nash was repulsed. “I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions."

Joseph W. Ralston is a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by former defense secretary William Cohen.






Carlton A. Sherwood executive vice president the wvc3 Group. At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. (See William Cowan)





Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio, heads a consulting company that advises several military firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq. He exchanged e-mail messages with the Pentagon that reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. “Recall the stuff I did after my last visit,” he wrote. “I will do the same this time.”

Donald W. Shepperd, a retired Air Force general, was flown to Guantanamo Cuba to tour the prison after abuse claims were raised. He reported live on CNN by phone from Guantánamo stating that “The impressions that you’re getting from the media and from the various pronouncements being made by people who have not been here in my opinion are totally false.”






Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare. “We lost the [Vietnam] war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.” (At least he's willing to admit we lost the Vietnam War.)



... and on the Government Side

Victoria (Torie) Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.”




Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld’s closest aides, said in an interview that a “conscious decision” was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract “the increasingly negative view of the war” coming from journalists in Iraq.




Brent T. Krueger, a senior aide to Victoria Clarke, was the point person for a small group of political appointees analysts who catered to they analysts. He indicated he was well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.” “They have taken lobbying and the search for contracts to a far higher level,” Mr. Krueger said. “This has been highly honed.”

Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said. (So compliant corporate journalists were a secondary way for the Pentagon to use push propaganda onto American citizens).

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.






Active Military Officers involved in the propaganda operation:

Richard B. Myers

Peter Pace

Update:

Pentagon, House to Investigate Propaganda Program:

The Pentagon’s inspector general office has announced an internal probe into the military’s domestic propaganda program. Last month, the New York Times revealed the Pentagon has used retired military officers to generate positive news coverage and push for the war in Iraq. The move comes one day after the House approved a measure ordering investigations by both the inspector general and the congressional investigative body, the Government Accountability Office. The House probe will focus on whether the program violates laws barring government funding of domestic propaganda.


December 21, 2007

Senator Mikulski on Media Ownership Consolidation

Senator Mikulski's response to my letter opposing FCC rules to allow greater consolidation of media ownership:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to media consolidation. It's good to hear from you.

I share your concerns about media consolidation and changes to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that would allow for greater consolidation of media ownership. I want to make sure that competition, localism and diversity of media ownership is preserved. I also want to make sure that the free exchange of ideas, on which our nation is based, continues unabated.

You can be sure that I will be watching this process very closely. I also want you to know that your views on media consolidation will be very helpful to me should the Senate consider any legislation related to media ownership rules in the future.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please feel free to let me know.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

P.S. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please visit my website at http://mikulski.senate.gov or call my Washington D.C. office at 202-224-4654.

December 12, 2007

Write the FCC and Congress on Media Ownership

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman, Kevin Martin, is on the cusp of ramming new regulations through a Bush-majority commission. The rules woudl allow corporate media to consolidate even more than the 1996 Telecommunications Act. By adding newspapers to the cross-ownership mix, Bush's FCC would allow a single corporation in a particular city gain more dominance by owning the main newspaper, broadcast TV, radio and possibly the cable/internet network. That's too much consolidated power.

The vote could occur very soon.

Write the FCC
, it's easy. You can simply send the canned letter, or write an original letter. Here's what I wrote:
In a democracy, the voice of the majority can choose non-economic values over "market efficiency." That voice is saying we want an FCC rule that reverses the trend of media ownership consolidation among a small number of powerful corporations.

This fundamental policy should not be dictated by whoever happens to be in the White House in disregard to the voice of a majority of the people.

While your at it, Write Congress and tell them to pass the Media Ownership Act of 2007.

Sources:

Stop Big Media

December 10, 2007

The End of the World

Classic funny Flash media animation:




The End of the World

October 4, 2007

Media Censorship in Iraq

U.S. authorities confiscated an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told the AP the government of Iraq had made it illegal to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks.


Sources:

Associated Press, Polish ambassador hurt in Iraq bombing, BUSHRA JUHI, October 3, 2007.

September 14, 2007

Ouch!

Sometimes the establishment media slips through a poke in the eye of authority:
The president's speech marked only the latest shift in direction — and rationale and packaging — for a war that has lasted 4 1/2 years and cost a half trillion dollars and nearly 3,800 American lives.

- JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press

This indicates that a significant fraction of the establishment have had enough of the Iraq war.

Source:

Associated Press, "Bush preserves big troop level in Iraq," JENNIFER LOVEN, September 14, 2007.

August 18, 2007

Tony Snow's Money is Running Out

According to Think Progress, In an interview on the conservative Hugh Hewitt show, the President's Press Secretary explained why he would be resigning:

HEWITT: Your intention to go the distance, Tony Snow?

SNOW: No, I’m not going to be…I’ve already made it clear I’m not going to be able to go the distance, but that’s primarily for financial reasons. I’ve told people when my money runs out, then I’ve got to go.


You see, Tony Snow has colon cancer, and the medical bills are stacking up.... or maybe his Press Secretary income isnlt enough to support the lavish life style expected by a media celebrity. It seems that an elite life style is more important than serving the president until the end of his term.

Sources:

Think Progress

May 30, 2007

Improper Media Contact by Security Contractor

Today I read that the U.S. government has outsourced the monitoring of al-Qaida messages to contractor, IntelCenter.

We also read that Ben Venzke at IntelCenter interpret the information, saying the group likely did not believe any of its demands would be met; "It essentially allows al-Qaida to say that it has provided fair warning and is thus no longer responsible for the outcome."

Aside from the obvious security risks of having a for-profit corporation responsible for screening intelligence data, why is the contractor allowed to have contacts with the media? Interpretation of that information for public dissemination
should only be developed by US officials who are are properly accountable.

I certainly hope agents of the U.S. government are spying on IntelCenter.

Sources:

Associated Press, Al-Qaida video threatens attacks on U.S., ANNA JOHNSON, May 30, 2007.

April 1, 2007

Bensky's Law

Larry Bensky's law applies to journalists:

The more they pay, the less you say.

"If you look at Katie Couric and the network anchors pulling down seven figures, even eight figures, that axiom would seem in general, with some exceptions, to be true.

And the flip-side, people in public radio, under paid as they are, often volunteers getting paid zero, they not only often have a lot more to say than the big ticket anchors, but more importantly, they allow and enable those who have a lot to say to get to the microphone, and that's just crucial."

Observations of Norman Soloman interviewed April 1, 2007 on Media Matters on WILL Radio from the Campus of the University of Illinois, in Urbana.
.

February 26, 2007

Why is Mainstream American Journalism Failing?

"The problem with the MSM is that they don't want to educate they want to sell." That suscinctly sums up the mainstream media, which is why I call it the corporate media.

With the help of commentary by journalism professor, Bob Jensen, lets exlpore the question, "Why is the American corporate media failing to provide independent and critical journalism?"

1) Commercial, for profit, enterprises have a structure that constrains their capacity to operate.

2) Journalistic practices have evolved to foster the notion that they must rely on official sources.

3) American journalists are socialized to believe that the United States acts with benevolence in domestic and world affairs. This is based on the mythology that the US, as an early democracy, is a break with history and thus unique in its benevolence.

Another question is the paradox of so-called "liberal journalism." How is it that statistics can show individual members of the media trend toward describing themselves as moderate or liberal while the media is so conservative? First, the definition of moderate has shifted significantly to the right since the 1980s, so what might seem moderate today was less so in years past.

Second, those who are "liberal" towards gay rights and other liberal social norms aren't necessarily economic liberals.

Third, liberal reporters answer to editors who in turn answer to management who in turn answer to owners and advertisers; the commercial pressure in a concentrating market imposes a conservatism toward questioning the status quo along the chain of command down to the reports. At the apex of the chain are now huge transnational corporations. The primary US media has consolidated from about 50 outlets in the mid-1980s to about six today:

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations),

General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations),

Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines),

Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations),

Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and

Bertelsmann
(Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner + Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries).

These giant corporations, almost by definition, are conservative institutions that answer to investors and commercial culture.

That status quo is one of corporate globalization, and deregulation that includes the telecommunications industry. The result includes concentrated wealth among the executives and many media figures who, as celebrities, are part of the wealthy elite. If they want to maintain their status, they cannot rock the boat. Even the lowly media research assistant faces job security pressures that lead to risk averse (conservative) behavior; getting a job in main stream media is competative to begin with. Then, you have to toe the corporate line to move up the chain. And if you're lucky enough to advance, you become an insider who doesn't want to blow it by challenging the dominant corporate structure. There simply aren't a bunch of liberals at the top questioning why they're getting disproportionate benefits from recent tax cuts, why the US has an imperialistic foreign policy, why bankruptcy laws were written to favor large financial institutions rather than common people, why campaign finance laws are failing our democracy while funneling huge profits to television outlets in the form of campaign advertizing revenue.

So, these huge multinational media corporations are conservative, not liberal. But what of the first three points? We've dealt with the first one; corporate rule is not liberal and it dominates mainstream media.

The second point is actually a symptom of the first point, and we've alluded to it in reference to celebrity media figures. The Scooter Libby trial pulled back the curtain on this to some degree. Mainstream journalists are not pressured by their editors to get controversial stories about US fostering death squads in Iraq; they didn't cover it in Central America in the 1980s, and it's not being covered now. The editor isn't pushing for investigative reporting, in part because the budgets have been cut as part of the media consolidation process (news isn't a huge revenue generator and investigative journalism costs money). It's easier to report what the government officials say at their press conferences or (wow) private conversations!! It's also safer to one's career; you can't make mistakes by simply reporting what you're told by "government officials". And, to maintain this comfort zone, it's important for reporters to maintain good relations with their sources. As a consequence, there is pressure to avoid being too critical of government official sources that reporters have invested time cultivating. The bottom line is that the vast majority of mainstream reporters and producers don't want to rock the boat... this how the media works, and it is a conservative mode of operation, not liberal.

The third point, about the Amarican mythology that "we're the good guys," also points to conservatism. The mainstream media didn't spend much time describing the cozy US relationship with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when reporting on his recent hanging (little mention that the US allowed sales of pesticide base ingredients the were ultimately used on Kurdish villages). In fact, you rarely ever hear about the pattern of such relationships: The US creation of Osama bin Laden during the Afghan war, nor the fact that the US helped engineer that war (the "Bear Trap" designed to create a Vietnam for the USSR according to Zbigniew Brzezinski), Manuel Noriega in Panama, Diem in South Vietnam and support of dictators like Marcos in the Phillipines and the Shah of Iran, not to mention the current monarchy of Saudi Arabia and dictatorship in Pakistan.

The contradition of the US supporting these bad guys isn't questioned by the mainstream media. The US government routinely supports brutal dictators who in turn allow US corporations to exploit their resources (oil, minerals, agricultural plantation products, cheap labor); the dictators and corporations get rich, and the US government officials are treated well by the corporate elite, often rotatng through jobs in the private sector, while the peasants of these countries and US middle class are squeezed. The mainstream media doesn't report on this to any appreciable degree, why? In part because it doesn't fit the American mythology, "We're the good guys."

Sources:

1. Media Matters, with Bob McChesney, Interview with Bob Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin, February 25, 2007.

2. Why Media Ownership Matters, April 3, 2005 by the Seattle Times by Amy Goodman and David Goodman.
.