Is the Corporate Media Deciding This Election For Us?

Are you following the election coverage? Here are some recent stories: The media pounds candidate Hillary Clinton to release her tax forms, because the public has a right to know. And she does release her and her husband's returns, going back a decade. The media trumpets how much income they have been receiving, how rich they are, and drills down into details. If you follow the news, it is inescapable. At the same time candidate John McCain releases only partial forms that show all assets are now in his wife's name, and he won't release his wife's tax returns. The media is mostly silent on this; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.

Another story: Candidate McCain won't release his medical records. Again from the media there is mostly silence; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.

And here is the big story: Unless you have been in a coma you know that for several weeks video clips of statements by Barack Obama's former minister have been aired nearly 24 hours a day on the news shows, especially on FOX News. These clips are considered scary by certain demographic groups who are not familiar with the speaking patterns of black minister.

Interestingly, at the same time as this "Obama's minister" story is saturating the news there is another presidential candidate with a "scary minister" problem of his own. But the news media is not providing the public with any information at all about the things this minister has said. In this case the presidential candidate is John McCain and the minister is John Hagee.

This minister has issued statements condemning Jews, is described as "virulently anti-Catholic," and says that 9/11 and Katrina are examples of God punishing America. Yet John McCain sought out this minister's endorsement and insists that he is "proud" to have received it.

While saturating the airwaves with scary video clips of Obama's scary minister the corporate media is providing the public with almost no information about McCain's.

In the article, The McCain-Hagee Connection, the Columbia Journalism Review asks, "Why is the press ignoring this hate-monger?"

Why, indeed?

A well-functioning democracy depends on an informed public. There is no question that the public deserves to know these things about Senators Clinton and Obama. The information in the examples cited here could and should have an effect on the election, because the public will weigh these factors into their voting decisions. But the public also needs the information about Senator McCain, presented with equal emphasis. And clearly this isn't happening.

So with nearly identical stories -- a relationship with a minister who makes scary and hateful statements -- the corporate media chooses to present the information about only one to the public, and does so in a way that is guaranteed to scare the... excuse me... bejeesus out of everyone. The other is given a pass and a free ride, and the public is left without the information it needs to make an informed choice.

Why is this happening? Here is some background on our media:

In the United States the broadcast media used to be required by law to serve "the public interest" ahead of profits. Use of OUR airwaves was licensed out to private interests that were allowed to use them to profit to a limited extent in exchange for providing the public with information and news. We did this because it served our interests and those of our democracy.

The rules allowed very limited commercialization of this public resource. For example, in exchange for the license to make a profit from the use of the public airwaves the companies were required to provide educational content for children, news coverage, documentaries, arts and other public interest content. And by law the information had to be objective and balanced.

At certain times of the day the companies could then present commercialized content. But even then the commercialization was to be limited. They were limited in how much time during a show could be used for commercial advertisements -- and the shows themselves were not allowed to be commercialized. There were even restrictions on what the commercial advertisements could say. Public benefit was the priority, commercial profits were limited.

It was an exchange -- they get to make some money using our resource, and we get news and information that educates us and strengthens our democracy. Why else would we have allowed private companies access to our airwaves, but to serve the public?

This changed. In the early 1980s the Reagan administration unilaterally dropped the requirements that broadcast media serve the public interest and these companies promptly stopped serving the public interest and started serving their own corporate interests. As happens with any for-profit corporate interest commercialization became the only use of our public airwaves.

Shocked by this seizure of a public resource for corporate commercial interests the Congress immediately voted to restore the public benefit requirements, but Reagan vetoed this. Then, under President George H.W. Bush the Congress again voted to restore the public benefit requirements, and this was again vetoed. Under President Clinton the requirement was against brought before the Congress and again a majority voted to restore placing the priority on public benefit but Senate Republicans filibustered and blocked the bill.

So today there is no requirement that our mass media serve the public interest. Instead the only interests that are served are private, corporate interests and the only information the public receives through these outlets is information that benefits the corporations that control them.

Is this why we are seeing such dramatic disparities in the way information about the candidates is presented to the public? Should we be surprised?

Control of our information sources is now in the hands of corporations with no requirement that they serve the interests of democracy. So shouldn't we expect that corporate interests are placed ahead of the public interest? If for-profit enterprises control the information the public receives then why wouldn't they promote candidates who would be more favorable to their commercial interests?

Let me provide a clear example of how this affects all of us: When was the last time you saw or heard on a corporate outlet information about the benefits of joining a union? Of course you haven't, and you wouldn't expect to. And, in the years since the requirement that the broadcasters serve the public interest by providing balanced information, we have seen a dramatic decline in the percent of the workforce that is unionized. At the same time we have seen a dramatic increase in commercialization of everything, and in the power of corporations over the decision-making of our government.

What else should we expect?

Click through to Speak Out California

Comments

[gtalkspolitics]

This is a well received news story. You forgot to mention That Bill Clinton's campaign callers have been caught calling elderly African american women telling them they so not have to vote!!! MSM is not covering this story because it will reflect badly on Hillary Clinton, MSM wants to keep this campaign going between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama for ratings sake. they could care less about the Ameican voters, When the average voters finally get the message it going to be August 08,

[CapitalCat]

Speaking as one who recently left journalism, I warn you not to be too hasty in denouncing the MSM for rigging the elections. The media, cable TV in particular, do play favorites, but as prophets they're a loss.

I seem to recall the NY Times speculating that we could have an all-New York contest: Hillary Clinton would sew up the Democratic nomination quickly, Giulliani would eventually take the Republican crown and Bloomberg would run on a third party ticket. That went well.

How many pundits wondered why McCain was still soldiering on after his money woes last summer? It was conventional wisdom that he was a dead man walking, unlikely to win the nomination.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, one of the side effects of it was that TV stations refused to show Ronald Reagan's films when he was running for office because they would be obliged to hand over a couple of hours of airtime to his opponents. Maybe Bonzo just got tired of losing all those residuals!

[lookingAhead]

simple answer YES !!

[THEhillbilly]

Barack Obama is well defined by unsavory associations that voters should hear about, and the media happens to be the diverse herd of entities with the obligation and the resources to inform us. Listen to all of them, being aware of their biases, and come to your own conclusion. Trying to stifle those with one bias is worse than that bias.

As to Obama, we have-so far- the alleged communist "father figure"; the hate-fueled anti-America "spiritual guide"; racketeer/buddy Rezko; the maniac Ayres, who figures he hasn't done enough bombing of U.S. citizens and their property; and a wife who has had only one transient episode of respect for her country. It's likely that more of these will come to light whenever, if ever, the Republicans start digging for them. "His Magniloquence Obama" should take his act back to Illinois and out of the nomination process, if for no other reason than to deny those nasty Republicans their turn.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

See Dave Johnson's Profile

These are outrageous lies and I did not write a post so you could come here and post right-wing smears about "communists." Pretending you are somehow a Democrat is pretty transparent - enough that it might cost you your bonus, hopefully.

[THEhillbilly]

It would be funny as hell to see you try to defend your "outrageous lies" reflex--but don't bother; I've heard most of it from some of your fellow Obama thralls, who all react like a school of fish to the documented facts I mentioned. To your discredit, however, you're the first to call "trying to stifle those with one bias is worse than that bias" a lie.

"Pretending you are somehow a Democrat is pretty transparent - enough that it might cost you your bonus, hopefully."

That infantile outburst was even more idiotic than your original jeremiad. It is not possible for anyone with an IQ even a few points higher than "NO" to conclude that I was "pretending to be a democrat."

[castlerider]

Don't worry about him, Dave. He's just another idiot who's strayed too far from his Public bathroom stall. The fact that he hardly really reads anything beyond what he wants to and watches little more the American Idol is quite obvious.

[Opus007]

Great post! The USA and only one other country (New ZealandI I think) allow the direct marketing of pharmeceuticals to consumers. The Broadcast networks are just a propaganda machines. We have a FASCIST goverment only concerned with the needs of corporations. So sad when you think that our country was founded by brave souls challenging that kind of tyranny.

I wonder how far corporations will go in bankrupting the middle class? Who is going to buy their goods and services?

[picodegallo54]

dude, where ya been? when candidates are denied access to televised debates because the network has determined they lack "electability," then... DUH! catch up, man.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

Corporate Media already decided who the candidates would be.

How much does John Edwards pay for his haircuts?
Edwards put out position papers on several issues. Describe ONE of them.

QED.

[rogerbarton]

I would like to know why noone is talking about Magnaquench and the comment made to O'Reilly Yesterday stating "Rich People God Bless Us". If that isnt elitest I do not what is and had Obama said it, well it would be headlines and their campaign states it is not what they said. Seems Hillary cannot stop lying. To see both stories go to the Jed Report. Other than a small story from ABC, noone has mentioned much about this. Considering that Huffington Post started Bittergate, it would be nice to see them be "fair and balanced" LOL..

[60at]

This is such an informative post. It would be great if all voters could or would read this so that they know the outrageous attempt to pursuade their selection of a president is a contamination by the media. While most of us can see it anyway, there are those who actually place a lot of credence in the talking heads. But the voices these pundits is getting over the top lately with this incessant talk about Rev. Wright, flag pins, and "Bitter comments." And, the race baiting is getting ridiculous! Then they have the audacity to brag about how much it changes the views of voters! When they have drummed on and on about it until we are all sickened by it.

[zigzag1]

Add to this very informative background that the larger and more monopolistic the media corporations become, the more power they wield to sabotage the candidacy of anyone who threatens them. Their main focus is to maximize profits, and use their muscle to eliminate any FCC regulations that would threaten their ability to merge and become absolute monopolies. That will require a Republican administration. While selected programs and commentators may seem to favor Democrats, the main message from the MSM is decidedly slanted to the candidates that will sell out the public interest. Just observing the continuous drumbeat of Rev Wright while McCain floats by unscathed is very telling.

[lvdragonlady]

MSM has become a bigger player then they should in this election and because the American people do not know how to think for themselves anymore(would rather be told what to do ). I believe MSM needs to be regulated again. Billie boy deregulated those corporations(I think) along with the cable companies and many others, that we are getting screwed by now with their outrageous prices and no one telling them that they can not do that.
America we have a problem and the people have become part of it by not caring, not thinking and not standing up for what we believe in.

[RamonBackwards]

I mean, I mostly agree, but there are a few things going on.

1) it's generally more interesting to take down the top dog. Obama is the top dog, and both Democrats are 'top dog' compared to McCain (who will NEVER be president by the way). as a side effect, those stories generate more ratings, so there's a natural tendency involved there, probably irrespective of the specifics of the candidate or party.
2) the Democrats are still having their primary. people just care more about an active race than a finished one.

i'm rambling a bit but the point is that we're likely to see more hit pieces on McCain when the Dem primary is over. At which point the Republicans will again roll out the liberal media excuse/whine, and the Democrats will quietly stand by and watch and smile.

[likeicare]

Mr. J. --

You've uncovered only half of the corpse. The part(s) you're missing is that the corporate/Big Business interests in this country have been positioning themselves to undo everything that FDR put in motion in the 1930s ever since he put them there. That's what's really going on, and media ownership of the public podium is just one piece of the strategy.

As an example . . . it used to be that a private company would bid on a contract to provide the very best, state-of-the-art technology to the armed forces for, say, a rifle, and would deliver a cutting-edge weapon to our troops that would be the envy of any fighting force on earth.

Instead, what has happened is, a private defense industry contractor pimps one of its retired, armed forces "consultants" to write a generous, no-bid contract with his old Pentagon cronies to produce a tweaked version of an inherently flawed weapon -- the M16 -- which will require frequent modifications and and adjustments, and which will be anything but state-of-the-art. This will ensure a neverending need for even more contracts, and more taxpayer dollars, as the problem will never really be resolved, only finessed.

It's a nice little scam if it's pulled off right -- and that's where the media comes in -- perception is everything.

Big Business runs this country. It always has. It always will, unless we call out the Wall Street assholes for what they really are -- schoolyard bullies on steroids.

[laserbob]

I had posted this over in the comments on Arianna's
blog where she questions the complete media
blackout on the pentagon/media push scandal.

As for re-instating some type of fairness doctrine:
I still remember as a kid when at the end of a news show,
Joe Q. Public, anyone, could get their 10 minutes on the
air to complain, praise, or just dissemble about whatever
was on their mind, or the issues of the day. And fair time
had to be given to anyone that wanted to rebut!
What a concept for a democracy, this was really a
pre-cursor to today's "blogging". And it even went to
the point that you could go on the air and critique the
station that was putting you on the air! Can you imagine
your local, and network news allowing this now? This
is the way it was, and should be, the concept and
practice was tossed without any thought by the
Reagan crowd..

lb.

[Manx]

It's clear after the media (especially TV) aided and abetted the swiftboating of Kerry in the 2004 election and cable television's present swiftboating of Obama, that the presidential race is decided by the media, not the people. It is an illusion that the people elect the president.

[JavanDyer]

this was an excellent piece, very good facts and objectivity

[BethStuart]

McCain's association with Hagee goes back beyond Hagee's recent endorsement of McCain and their public embrace. Last July McCain was invited by Hagee to attend and address Hagee's CUFI(Christians United for Israel) conference in Washington. McCain accepted and addressed the conference as an honored guest. During that address, McCain told Hagee's organization:

"It's very hard trying to do the Lords work in the city of Satan and I'm very grateful to have all of you here. "

Hagee will hold another CUFI conference this coming July in Washington. Last year, the CUFI conference included groups of Hagee's followers calling on members of Congress to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and to consider a military preemptive strike against Iran.

[izAriver]

Better and better.

[SamThornton]

It's not just Sen. McCain who's getting a pass on his association with a radical ministry. Sen. Clinton is getting a pass for her association with a ministry founded by an admirer of the Third Reich that boasts among its favorites some of the most virulent dictators in the world.

According to a September 2007 article (http://tinyurl.com/26eyz5), "Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.

For details about the fellowship, http://tinyurl.com/2oycog.

[izAriver]

More and more examples of repugnican chicanery. The more that gets out there, the better!

[ndolomar]

The question isn't "What are we going to do about it?"; it's "When?"

[Thorn]

Such breathless theories. If you can tell me that you watch, say, MSNBC and think they're anti-Obama -- to say nothing of being pro-McCain -- then ... well, wow.

[runswithscissors]

Seen lots of Rev. Wright, the "bitter" speech, and that Obama isn't "black enough" on NBC and affiliates. Only thing remotely negative I've heard about McCain in MSM is that he's old. Nothing about his flip-flopping act on torture, his 100 more years of Iraq policy, his desire to extend Bush's economic policies, or his lunatic supporters in Hagee and Falwell (both of whom routinely say things that anyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells find far more offensive even than Wright's taken-out-of-context statements).

[fraziersview]

We should expect a courageous and ethical politician to come forth who understands that there is a place where pragmatism and conscience intersect. Someone who comprehends that it is from this place that successful Governments and moral leaders rule.. . This politican must also inspire the public 's confidence,,not just in him,/her, but in themselves. For if given the support, the voters are fully capable of deciphering fact from fiction, regardless of what the media airs or whose interest they serve.. .

[JM51]

Dave: You state that "In the early 1980s the Reagan administration unilaterally dropped the requirements that broadcast media serve the public interest...' What was the legal authority held by the Executive branch to unilaterally change the policy. It must not have been a law passed by congress, for it were, the action would not have been legal or binding.

[Spoons]

Yes.

[Incredulous]

Howard Dean talked about the need for media re-regulation in his 2004 campaign. That's why the MSM crucified him. Media deregulation has created a monolithic corporate empire for a very small handful of very very very rich white men. The Republicans deregulated the media, continue to serve that cause, and the media will in turn be a Republican propaganda tool for time immemorial.

[Promisin1]

Hey incredulous, I hope you did not mean to sound like Reverend Wright who said something very similar. Paraphrasing Wright, "America is run by a few White men."