Mainstream Media Mainlining

That Mainstream Media is one crafty critter, an exemplar of Darwinian perseverance. It's secured a place at the top of the food chain by seducing its rivals, secreting a soporific perfume to subdue its prey, sinking its fangs into the main artery of the body politic, draining said body of its will and soul and becoming king of the beasts.

It's also an unrivaled crap trap as evidenced by talk show hosts-cum-journalists Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asking stupefyingly dumbass questions of Barack and Hillary.

But then it's so much easier to keep Hillary's wince-inducing attempts at folksiness and Barack's well intentioned statements that continue to rankle and confuse the Subtlety Impaired as banner headlines, retarding any progress their earlier debates may have made in the semi-consciousness of America.

Why does idiotic minutiae that shouldn't take more than a moment to explain away continue to soak up every second of air time? Because "If it bleeds it leads" has utterly supplanted "All the news that's fit to print" and, as seems to be the ineluctable norm, profit trumps truth.

Broadcast news landmarks, like the stolid but penetrating Watergate hearings and the jaw dropping hubris of the Iran-Contra hearings, were beamed on all major networks and took up most of the broadcast day, giving the viewing public a shot at parsing information without a chaperone. But the cheese-puffed spectacles which we are witness to today (i.e., roid-enraged major leaguers testifying in front of a gassy congressional panel) are mere proxies for the truthful relaying of current events and information (or "news"), something that the MSM has learned to avoid as it might potentially increase the brain power of its audience and subsequently decrease sales of its sponsers' wares. The MSM's hard-on for toxic froth all but renders thoughtful views about as profound as a cover story on that cultural touchstone Brittney Spears, the clumsily bedazzled Marilyn Monroe 2.0. (Marilyn, bless her peroxided soul, at least attended the Actor's Studio and married up. Brittney's incestuous ladle dips no deeper than the scum atop her mall-hick gene pool and pretty much leaves it at that.)

Today's synthetic versions of yesterday's actualities are not so light and disposable as they make themselves out to be, proving instead to possess a staying power that clings to the psyche for a generation or more. They and their participants possess little or no depth or have only enough to get them bought and hastily digested by the public, who themselves seem to have a substantive information intolerance. And for whatever reason, society has lost its get up and go unless it's to the toilet or to the gas station. Incuriousness is encouraged and even forms a subliminal armature that drives the media. And in spite of history frantically waving its arms and yelling "Here! Look over here!" the majority of people still prefer to take the easy route to gathering information, never thinking beyond their own stomachs or their screens.

In spite of perceived improvements in mass communication (the boon, for example, that was supposedly satellite television) it's all just a horizonless, polydimensional platform to launch an armada of commercials into all available psychological real estate. I myself confess to liking the relatively no-frill programming on the Discovery Channel ("How It's Made") or much of the schedule on that noblest and loneliest outpost in the galaxy C-SPAN, providing more data and less duh. I enjoy the power of knowing how aluminum foil is manufactured and I have captivated many with its tale (captivity being the key to the telling.).

And children's programming is in many cases superior to even the old Bugs Bunny nitro-glycerin/snark-fests that constituted my own childhood neuronic nutrition. But for the most part, the Mainstream Media's bottling of the news and the harvesting of the droids that read it from life-sized GI Joe and Barbie and Skipper molds is just one more indication that America the Beautiful is now America the Bathetic.

With our information gathering and distribution in such a sorry state, the resemblance to cultish films like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "John Carpenter's They Live" and Mike Judge's virtually censored "Idiocracy" is inescapable: representations of reality feeding watered down data to the open, quivering mouths of the masses who accept the regurgitated spew without question. But at some point people either wise up and do battle or continue to live as they are, ensuring the country's evolution towards dystopic daymare, avoided by the rest of the world except when well-heeled Euro, Yuan and Riyal toting foreigners need a place to go to point at the sated specimens from behind protective glass.

Comments

[stephenkirkwoodmack]

First rate as always!!! Beautifully written, cogently argued and very funny.Thank you!

[wayoutleft]

HuffPost's Pick

it's all so globally historically significant, isn't it: barack and hillary waltzing around with mr magoo, trying to feed the cable talkers slime on each other? i mean it's significant beyond our understanding, globally earth-shaking who the hell gets to rub up against brass frog petraeus after bush? and who gets to devise an economic plan just after the big boys are safely out with the loot? my life is in the balance; i am transfixed by history in the making and the din of the shreiking tweety mathews, so murrow/cronkhite-like.
on the other hand, there's poor britney, floundering in the "mall-hick gene pool". so unlike marilyn monroe, who got out by marrying older, successful guys. poor britney, along with her friends, is despised for living within her own culture instead of seeking status from established men. all britney and her friends have is worldwide adulation that small time candidates can't even imagine. they are maybe the only popular americans in the world (certainly by far the most popular). at least it wasn't obama who used the phrase "mall-hick gene pool". back when the historcal colossus that was john edwards cast his mighty shadow of significance across western civilization, paris was the object of contempt by the Serious Intellectuals. it says it all that the democrats think they need to go bowling and hunting to reach the people - while insulting the most popular americans in the world.

[tsipos]

There was a time when mainstream media served a purpose. Network news was a public service (not part of entertainment, nor was it subject to ratings pressure), and there was a fairly clear distinction between news and opinion. Regardless of the opinions held, we all worked from a simlar set of facts. Not a bad thing. The differences between right and left were much less vitriol. People had a sense that the commonality of being part of the American experience was more potent than any of our differences. The entire country felt shame when news allowed us to bear witness to violence against non-violent civil rights protestors. Even those that may not have already valued social justice. Eventially leading to support for the Civil Rights Act. It allowed us to be progressive in a way that seems impossible today. Now, everyone easily finds ways to hear only what reinforces what they already believe. To hell with the facts. Especially any that might challenge us to reconsider what we already believe.

[nosanity]

america is plenty dumb , see american idol ratings

[LeonBNJ]

From what I have read, this 'debate' was a joke. I hope that the discussion of how bad this session was is a low point from where future debates will have to improve and stick to discussions of real issues like health care policy, the economy, government regulation, dealing with Iraq, not of trival ones.

[oldtree]

what is content up to in an hour show these days? 8 minutes?

[galaxian]

Our current soap opera nation status has me hopping mad as well. I say I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this--
Hey, look, Uma's nipple popped out to say hello! She lays out the riveting details right here in the HP.
The guy at CNN does meth! Which is better, meth or nipples?
It's tough to get angry with so many temptations.
Anyway, I feel better now.

[sa]

it just occurred to me
why so many people
mention "karma"
on huffington (including myself).

because it appears there
is no law or justice in america
while watching the
criminals at the helm
conduct business.

so we all hope for a prevailing
universal law the supercedes
the horrors we've all witnessed.

i truly believe in karma.
and that's all we got left in america.

a christian nation
suddenly turned to hindu/buddhism
for solace,
by its arch "christian" leader.

irony, hello.

.

[billydog]

Gotta tell you Steven, most people would prefer the pablum on TV than try to get through reading one of your labored writing pieces. Dear lord, why do you try so hard to sound smart with words? Reading your pieces is like cruising down a street with a speed bump every 50 feet.

[peacebypiece]

Good for you, billyd. You actually got the point of this story. But I bet you don't even realize it. You are EXACTLY the kind of person SW is talking about.

[raker]

I used to watch hours of TV news and comment until I realized I was wasting my time on that manipulative drivel. I haven't watched in years, and judging by the clips here on Huffpo it gets worse every day. Just don't watch. Get news from real - non-network/non-cable - sources. Don't let the likes of Charlie Gibson tell you what you think.

[stellanoir]

There is nothing remotely "mainstream" about the cacophonious corporate media. At least it's not mainstream in my little world.

That so called debate was not just an insult to all our intelligences, but an assault on the democratic process, because it focused on thoroughly non relevant issues.

Some people should take their "symbols of faux patriotism" lapel pins and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqJ00D_UIc8

[itmaybetoolate]

What happened on ABC is par for the course. Really, who is surprised?! This is what we have "voted" for with our dollars - How many of you are willing to call ABC and/or your cable company and tell them you are turning off your TV, cutting off you cable - pulling your $$ out of the visual media industry until things change? What would happen if millions of amuricans turned off cable - that would get their attention - but we are addicted and, as with any addict, we will take whatever fix we can get - crack is as good as the pure stuff. So, those of us who are still able will moan and complain and rage and cry and call for change, but when all is said and done, we'll offer up the vein for the needle.

[Stirner]

Blog sites, such as Huffpost, have already proven to be a growing alternative to T.V. news. They offer a diversity of viewpoints and, just as important, almost all allow for a dialogue. The growing reliance of the T.V. news shows to feature emails and their own websits indicate their recognition of a serious rival. Dialogue, such as our comments, will soon replace the dictatorial monologue of the talking heads and their masters. Unless, and it can happen, Uncle Sam decides (under lobby pressure) to "regulate" the internet, there will be freedom of discussion. Ron Paul seems the only candidate who is against governmental control (i.e., corporate) control. For that he has been suitably punished by being shunned and ridiculed by the corporate media. It is not simply a matter of "bias" it becomes a matter of actual censorship. Sheep must all be white.

[ginnypoo]

I don't know why it takes up so much time....perhaps it is people like yourself, who days after an event, are still regurgitating it ad infinitum, wondering what happened. Maybe, it was their chance to ask the questions, all of them, that Obama has been ducking for months, it was a list of associations and stories that have come out in the last month since the last debate, they have always asked questions about issues that have arisen and events that have been noteworthy in the last stretch of time since they were questioned before. It has happened each debate. I don't understand how anyone was surprised that all the different issues and stories that have come out in the time since Texas and the other primaries....it really is no biggie if you support Hillary as it is normal, put her on the spot, ask stupid questions, make innuendoes and judge her....now you guys cry foul when it happens to Obama, maybe if you had pushed for fairness when it was "Get Hillary day" we would have more empathy, but you didn't so we don't.

[batgirlevi]

yawn. Completely went over your head.

[kevingiampa]

The press (people in the press) makes a mistake when they the believe that it is the voice of the populace, like it's all just us (the people and the press) versus those darn politicians. As many bloggers make apparent, the voting public views these debates as a dialogue between two elite political classes- the politicians and the press- and most of the time the interlocutors are viewed as separate from the viewing, listening public. Every now and then, a majority of viewers will side with one side over the other.

The point is, the press can screw up and ill serve the public just like the politicians can. The politicians aren't always the ones that are wrong in these debates. If the "press" wants the benefit of the doubt in their exchanges with candidates, it's going to have to do better freakin job.

The William Ayers issue was/is simply stupid. What the hell is the journalistic standard? How does that question count as anything but innuendo? Are we just wrapping anything and everything under the "patriotism" issue Obama supposedly has? Is this the standard for ABC News? Or is it that the specter of the Republican attack machine makes everything and anything fair game? Does today's press even know what journalism is, anymore?

The debate was pathetic. This time, sorry press, Obama is right. Get over it. You're not immune to mistakes or public criticism.

[Tzu]

Great post Mr. Weber. This one in particular, reminded me of the great scene from the 1976 film, Network.

Please see link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI