A Toxic Media Environment

While channel surfing this week I unfortunately caught a few minutes of the hateful and uninformed Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News. Why does this specimen have an hour each night to spew his toxic ideological waste? It was like watching one of those TV shows where animals attack people. Beck breathlessly smeared Barack Obama in the most infantile terms for about a five-minute segment and then tossed the next segment to his guest to help him pile on more McCarthyite venom. The guest: Ann Coulter.

During another odious Glenn Beck segment I happened to catch the host was telling his viewers how wonderful Big Oil conglomerates are and how we all should get behind drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve and off the coast of California. His guests this time were two right-wing crazies: Yaron Brook from some Social Darwinist outfit calling itself the "Ayn Rand Institute," and Jonah Goldberg, who has recently come out with possibly the worst book written since Gutenberg invented movable type. All three of these far-right charlatans agreed, as if it were common sense, that 1). America can drill its way out its current energy woes; and 2). The oil companies are on the side of the angels in this thing and their obscene profits are wonderful indicators of the miracle of American capitalism. Yaron Brook advocated drilling for oil everywhere, even in "your living room."

When you combine this kind of claptrap with Beck's constant tirades against anyone who thinks that human-caused global climate change actually might be a problem, one can only conclude that we are consciously being propagandized. This is not an "ordinary" opinion show. It is deliberate disinformation and it is disgraceful in a democracy.

The corporate media are currently in the process of willfully ignoring the Pentagon's elaborate psychological warfare program it ran AGAINST the American people to sell the invasion of Iraq. The "message force multipliers," which in Pentagonese means "propagandists," were largely retired military officers who had consulting and other contracts with corporations that stood to benefit handsomely from the Iraq war. In other words, the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld sent out a small army of former officers with astounding conflicts of interest to appear on the nation's major "news" shows to sway public opinion in favor of a war that has now cost us over $800 billion. It is illegal for the Defense Department, or any other government agency, to use Congressionally appropriated funds to propagandize the American people. Heads should roll. Professional journalists should be outraged about this program since it undermines the credibility of their profession. It was the biggest psy-op ever run domestically. But like the Downing Street Memo and other stories, the corporate media have greeted this shocking revelation with a collective yawn.

The Pentagon's domestic psy-op program was running full tilt when MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's show because he was practicing real journalism. And today MSNBC and its parent NBC are blackballing Arianna Huffington from their news shows because in her new book, "Right is Wrong," she takes to task the mealy-mouthed "conventional wisdom" of one of the network's prima donna stars, Tim Russert.

So on NBC we can see Mayberry Machiavellians, market fundamentalists, neo-conservative warmongers, McCarthyite blowhards, and retired generals pretending to be "neutral" war commentators -- but we can't see Arianna Huffington?

There must be fundamental changes made to the make-up of the Federal Communications Commission and new legislation passed to begin to clean up this toxic media environment. We need to pursue aggressively anti-trust prosecutions against the media oligopolies to break them up into smaller, more competitive entities. We need to reinstate some form of the fairness doctrine. We need the companies to provide free airtime to presidential candidates to reduce the obscene amount of cash they milk from our "democracy" every four years. Maybe then, mercifully, we will see less of Glenn Beck and his ilk, less propaganda, and more credible journalism.

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comments -- Ed above thinks the oil conglomerates are mom and pop stores just makin' a livin', the Max guy thinks that Olbermann and Begala are equivalent to Beck and Coulter -- now, that's interesting, people who sling mud and have no facts at all are put in the same category as people who actually fact check their stuff -- Beck on global warming, and Coulter on everything else are NOT equivalent to Olbermann and others who pay attention to facts. Ed: the oil conglomerates are price-fixing, supply controlling oligopolies that do not play by the rules of anything relating to a "free market" -- if you count the tax dollars we US citizens pump into Big Oil, low taxes, subsidies, military spending to protect their pipelines and sea lanes, pollution, global warming -- we probably really pay about $10 a gallon.

[piquet]

Until the "mob"(us) turn our collective backs on this level of hate, hypocrisy and to be honest lame programming. NOTHING will change. These are corporations with money as their only God. Personally I would like to a cultural revolution against this dribble. It starts in places just like this. Make it the most un-cool thing you could possibly do to quote Rush, Coulter or Beck.
You have to understand people are animals and animals flock to whatever they assume is safe and like themselves. When you drive a wedge in their circle they will have to widen their view in order to "see". Until this mentality is shattered there is nothing anybody will or can do.
Honestly...we will NEVER see it in our lifetime. Be for real we still have f*****g pilgrims in this country.

[provgrays]

Pitch perfect!

[TMAN]

You said a mouthful there. This is the crux of the problems facing our democracy. This is one of the first things that must be on the agenda as this is still how a large chunk of the population gets their information. It is still an information outlet "funnel. And it (the FCC) is as corrupt as possible owing to the current neo-conservative Republican strategy in effect during the Bush debacle.

[EdThompson]

Dear Joseph,

You rail against "obscene" oil company profits. But Exxon Mobile"s profits are currently at 9.72%, which is more or less in line with industry standards, while profits at Microsoft, Google and other companies range upwards of 2-1/2 times that rate. Why do you single out oil companies when, by your standards, other industries operate beyond obscene? Is it that you are ethically opposed to oil companies and/or profits, regardless of fact, but give others a free pass? The purpose of business is to make money, i.e., to profit from an endeavor. Exxon, Microsoft et al produce products for which we all willingly pay -- we profit from their existence. This is by way of a good-natured query into the nature of your apparent contradictory position, with a view to learning how you can hold it without reference to fact, or in contravention to fact. If you can grasp the inherent contradiction of your contention that oil companies " enterprises that make our lives possible " are somehow evil, then you can begin to see the flaws in the rest of your article.

[RoloTomassi]

Ed, simply put, you're full of it.

[stanjz]

The media are corporations, and consequently, their shared goal is to maximize profits. How can they be allowed to report on elections under the guise of objective third parties when their goals are low taxes and wage supression ala the Republican Party?

[blackchaps]

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[MariaHopeful]

Are we enablers? Are we active participants in the destruction and dumbing down of our society? I think so. I use the ridiculous Flava Flav (who rivals Carville on the ugliness scale) as an example: For the first season if I am surfing and come up on it, I would watch until my ADD kicks in. I was shocked to learn that this bit of nonsensical train wreck was one of the highest rated shows ever. So now we have this ugly, wizened shell of man on for 3 seasons now because people watched that crap. I have been congratulating myself that I am able to turn off Fox quite easily and when I do watch, I tell myself that it is good to know what the enemy is thinking. During the Rev Wright manufactured controversy, Chris Matthews boasted that is increased ratings is a sign that people wanted the media to discuss that issue. Of course that wasn't true but that argument underlines why we have Beck and Dobbs and Hannity and Buchannan and all the hate-peddlers. People listen them which means an increase in ratings which means an increase in revenue and that is ultimately what the game is all about. It is like slavery wasn't just about people thinking Africans were inferior but it was primarily about the economics. Right-wing pundits peddling hate is good for business. What are we going to do about it.? How can we disrupt this scheme of things?

[bumpersticker]

The scary goal of MSM is to develop "the stare" in the customer that drifts from dead soldiers to Toyotas without snapping out of the trance.

There is growing evidence that free-market capitalism is not a good base for health care because it is not motivated by the best interests of the population. Perhaps "news" is another example. The danger of the flashing logos, orchestra soundtracks, and yelling anchors is that the mind quickly adapts to find "meat" tiresome, and develops a sugar-shock addiction for more and more...which is the goal of the sponsored based media - to turn self-actualizing brains into ones that just stare..

[RoloTomassi]

The bottom line is that free-market capitalism isn't good for anything without sufficient regulation. This is true for healthcare, national staple comodities [outrageously priced crude oil comes to mind, but applies to any form of energy], and it certainly applies to the MSM.

Until we correct the misdeeds that have left us with this mindless, non-journalistic mess, we will be continually fed this diet of dumbed-down propaganda posing as news, nonsense-spouting pundits posing as political analyists, and idiotic faux-reality shows posing as entertainment.

[NYSF]

To see the major cable network news shows play this dumb ass game with the public is sickning!
Its so obvious how they do it.
Their trick with Obama is to begin by talking good about him to lure you into thinking that they love him, but really just gaining your trust. Then when they get the chance they talk about him like he is less than a man. It is really clever. Years ago when I first started watching FOX News I was caught by the nice graphics, and the pretty women, or the FOX NEWS ALERT. Then came Katrina. I witnessed how they covered that tragedy and it was like I took the "Blue Pill". All of a sudden I could see and understand what they were doing. Half of my family is from New Orleans, so when I witnessed what FOX was doing, it was real personal. The way they were disparaging the victims down there was awful.
Of course there were some very ignorant folks down there doing some ignorant things, but they painted a broad stroke and called them all looters, and thieves.

But Fox is just the worst, and it makes MSNBC, and CNN seem like they are pretty even handed, but the truth is that they may be worse because they hide it so well. At least you know what you are getting with FOX.

[NYSF]

WOW. As a young African American I realized that I had to stop watching BET because it was probably the worst thing on TV. Dont get me wrong, I like to see T&A, but this channel had turned into the worst representation of my community. Cut the news programs, and anything else that was worth watching. I thought it was the worst thing on TV. Until this presidential race!

[LeonBNJ]

Part of the problem is the sponsors, mainly huge companies who want their way and to promote such one sided pro-business views and conterversial persons who attract viewers/listeners. It's all about the money. Perhaps if more people wrote to the corporations and complained about their support of such toxic thugs as Beck on CNN and Rush Limpburger on the radio, telling them they will not buy their products, then something might happen. In the past, people could complain to the advertisers about tasteless, family unfirendly or offensive programing and at times it has worked quite effectively . Many companies will not advertise on shows that are not family friendly or seen as offensive to their customers and such polices should be encouraged.

[MacTheBlogger]

First of all, Glenn Beck does not pretend to be a "journalist". He is a commentator. He comments on the news, gives his opinion. Just like Rush, Olbermann, Hannity, Begala, and the rest of the "pundits" who get paid by the networks to transparently spew party line. Perhaps you're confusing objective journalism with opinion. Well, obviously you are. You really don't know the difference? Seriously?

Secondly, I notice you attack Beck and (ugh) Coulter. What a coincidence, they're righties. Do you get this angry when Olbermann and Begala go off the other deep end? No? Please tell me you don't consider Olbermann and Begala "journalists."

Finally, why is the left wing so intent on silencing all those with whom they disagree? Well, news flash: your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't make you "right" and others "stupid" or "evil". People like you are responsible for the fact that our First Amendment is a memory, since we are virtually all paralyzed by Political Correctness.

Let me guess: You're going to argue that those who disagree with you are "dangerous" and "don't deserve to have their opinions heard." I can think of a few totalitarian regimes that would say precisely the same thing. Even our own partially-conscious President doesn't try to shut YOU up.

I don't know. Perhaps your column isn't serious. Surely you understand the difference between journalism and opinion. Surely you're not afraid to allow those with whom you disagree to have a voice.

Right?

[RoloTomassi]

Are actively trying to miss the point, or is it the case that you just don't understand simple logic, and really don't have a point to make?

No one is suggesting that anyone should be censored, but that is always the kneejerk accusation by those on the right when anyone suggests that the playing field be leveled [as it once was].

Just imagine that for every ligimately identified "false claim" made by a journalist or a pundit [on the right or the left], the network of origin were required to offer equal time to the offended party to "correct the record" on the "false claim" issue...I guess you think that would just be entirely out of the question--I mean, how could they make any money in a situation like that, right?

Well, that's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should be again. Regulations on corporations to act and behave fairly are the ONLY things that compel them to do so. Such would not preclude lame-brained pundits like Beck from spewing their hate [which you seem so fond of], but would require them to NOT make KNOW FALSE STATEMENTS as a means of entertainment, unless of course the network of origin doesn't mind ponying up the free time for rebuttal.

That's a fair and just approach to broadcasting, but since you're quite obviously a rightwinger, I'm sure it doesn't strike you as such.

[InofTouch]

I love your idea of oppresing someone speech, no matter how wrong they are

[jsmedia]

It is not about oppressing speech. It is about accuracy on what is advertised as a "news" channel. For example, on Foxaganda News, Sean Hannity has an hour long Obama special which is basically a right-wing propaganda hit job. Hannity raises false controversies that have no real substance and then poses questions about these "important matters" then has a right-wing hack answer the questions as if they are legitimate and serious.

[Osprey3]

What alarms me most is the "Idiotocracy" that buys into this garbage...and many of them vote against their own interests because of it! (witness the reelection of Geo w. Bush).

[BadChristian]

"When you combine this kind of claptrap with Beck's constant tirades against anyone who thinks that human-caused global climate change actually might be a problem, one can only conclude that we are consciously being propagandized."
----------------

Joe,
I can't believe people still wonder.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
"How the military analyst program controlled news coverage: in the Pentagon's own words."

The Corporations decided liberals were declaring war on them, they declared war back... And they are winning. Simple.