Barack Obama and the Corporate Media

Let's review what we've had to endure from the corporate media in recent weeks:

Corporate media shills inundated us with "commentary" about a "scandal" they called "bittergate" based on a single phrase Barack Obama uttered at a closed-door fundraiser. These same corporate media mouthpieces jawboned incessantly about whether or not "bittergate" would hurt the Obama campaign. (That's called a "tempest in a teapot" by the way.)

They amplified a non-story about a remark at a fundraiser and then sat around very nice tables in snazzy television studios "discussing" the effects on the Obama campaign of a media event they created. (That's called a "tautology" by the way.)

Even if Obama never said a word about people feeling "bitter" about any aspect of their perfect lives in America in 2008 the corporate media would have found something else to chew on. If "bittergate" didn't offer up the opportunity they would have created another flap.

The same process was in play with the non-story of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Here's a prominent African-American pastor of a large and established church in a large and established African-American community (at least since the Great Migration) doing what he has done for decades. The corporate media then pluck him seemingly out of nowhere -- with ZERO effort to give any context to Reverend Wright's life or his public work in Chicago -- and boil his sermons down to a couple of sound bites. They then throw these sound bites in the face of white America on a perpetual tape loop, played over and over again. And then they sit around their very nice tables in their snazzy TV studios jawboning about whether or not the visual carpet-bombing they just unleashed is going to have an effect on the Obama campaign. (That's called "guilt by association" by the way -- and "propaganda.")

And then there is the even more desperate non-story of the former Weather Underground member, Bill Ayres, and his "associations" with Obama. This is an old Joseph McCarthy tactic where you take a person out of his or her context from an earlier period of their lives and then imply there are all sorts of nefarious relations and associations that took place that somehow discredit the targeted individual. No one really gives a rat's balls about what Bill Ayres did 38 years ago, not even the FBI, but the story is not about Bill Ayres, it's about sliming Barack Obama. This kind of McCarthyite smear is what you get when you allow an entire generation of Joe McCarthys to have their own television and radio shows. If McCarthy were alive today he'd have his own show on Fox News: "The McCarthy Factor" or maybe "McCarthy's America." I bet ole Tail Gunner Joe is rolling in his grave: "Damn! I was just 45 years ahead of my time!" (That's called "McCarthyism" by the way.)

So with all the "opposition research" and all of the digging and all of the traps set and the casting of the wide net trawling for damaging revelations the only things the corporate media came up with is a remark Obama made at a fundraiser, a black preacher who says some controversial stuff, and a few encounters with a former Weatherman? That's pretty pathetic -- and it won't work in the long run.

The bad news about our nutrient-starved, 24-hour media environment is that there will be more news cycles dedicated to destroying Obama or at least slowing the momentum of his campaign. It's inevitable. After "bittergate" and Wright and Ayres play out they will find new fodder. They will build up non-stories to boost ratings for as many news cycles as they can get away with and still rake in the cash from their corporate sponsors. But they know better than most of us that if the American people get bored with a "news" story they will change the channel. And nothing makes these corporate media outlets move on to the next story faster than deflated ratings. Their producers will be breathing down their necks: "To hell with Reverend Wright run the 'Girls Gone Wild' footage of Ashley Dupre!"

And that leads me to the good news, which is no matter how much the corporate media exploit a non-story to degrade or humiliate or damage Obama, the nature of the 24-hour news cycle militates against running it for too long. These "stories" have short shelf lives. One positive outcome of this terribly long election process is that by September "bittergate," Wright, and Ayres will be ratings dogs.

But you can count on Matt Drudge and the rest of them to concoct new "bittergates," and dredge up more scary black men and '60s radicals -- as well as a host of new and clever devices we cannot at this time foresee. (My guess is that one of their smears will mirror the racist ads the GOP ran against Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee that involved -- Gulp! -- a possible premarital hook up with a white woman.) I remember the GOP hatchet man, Lee Atwater, famously declaring that he was going to make Willie Horton so well known that voters would think he was Michael Dukakis's running mate. I wonder who Karl Rove will make voters think is Obama's running mate?

The trick for us is to find alternative sources of information and reject the frames and narratives the corporate media system imposes on our political discourse. It will require greater grassroots organizing and mobilizing and a lot of hard work among the citizenry, but it can be done.

Finally, we should all be very grateful for the work that Media Matters and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) are doing keeping the shovels moving as fast as they can behind that big fat Republican elephant.

Comments

[renaissance]

Your analysis leads me to believe that you are more interested in supporting your candidate, than in the Truth.
Any fair-minded observer of the MSM can see that Obama has benefited greatly from the coverage. He has been portrayed as an "honest", "decent", "uniter", etc., while Hillary has been the evil "manipulator".
Watch MSNBC for 2 seconds, and you will see Obama being given the benefit of the doubt on anything and everything. CNN is similar. NYTimes, LATimes, etc are similar.
And you accuse "others" of racism?? How about yourself? Why do you support Obama so rabidly?
Why do blacks vote by 92-8 for a black man? Is that racism?
Why not??

[navalflightofficer]

Wow. You are obviously much smarter and more objective than everyone else. Congratulations!

[ShawnMichel]

If you're watching MSM news, or reading MSM papers, or listening to MSM pundits on the radio, you are part of the problem, Chester, not the solution. Got that? It's really quite simple.

That you will ignore this only speaks to your utter stupidity.

And thus the circus continues....

[johnie2xs]

F*CK the MSM. I don't really care, at this point, what they do relative to the Democratic candidates. I would welcome my own death before I'd be able to live with another Repuglican administration. I had wanted Edwards, Accept Obama, and would even settle for Clinton, if it comes to that. Hell, Kucinich or Gravel would have been better than what the 'Pugs have to offer. Don't be looking for the Democrats to fail, in the way the media expects. We have a not so secret weapon. I have full faith in the self-immolating abilities Of John Sylvester McC.A.N.T..

[YvonneH]

I can't even watch CNN anymore. Thank you for calling it like it is.

[WorkingClass]

This is Bull. The media are not trashing Obama for ratings. They want Clinton.

[AshevilleVoice]

You are so right. We have this endless buffet of commentary rather than news.

It also brings the phenomena of colorblind racism into crystal clear focus for me.

http://www.nd.edu/~rmcveigh/reap/Bonilla_linguistics.pdf

The Linguistics of
Color Blind Racism:
How to Talk Nasty about Blacks
without Sounding “Racist”

[Manx]

I agree. I've watched the corporate media for a long time (fortunately, they're not my only source of news) and it has never been more transparent that ABC, CNN and FOX are doing everything they can to sabotage Obama's chances. They don't want Obama because they fear he will vote against legislation that would be favorable to the media and telecommunications companies. Together, they are very powerful and are trying to usurp the people's right to choose a president. Not only scary but disgusting. I've never watched FOX but now I've stopped watching ABC and CNN. CNN has become a one-issue channel - boring!

[renaissance]

you have gotten so used to the media propping up Obama with no investigation into who he is, that when anything that could be negative is discussed you think it is unfair.
You have had it easy, now you don't like a fair fight.

[kira181]

What are your thoughts on the Clinton-bashing?

[halfdemhalfgop]

The HuffPoat is a 24-hour media environment and there will be more news cycles dedicated to anointing Obama or at least speeding the momentum of his campaign.

[stockton2malone]

Great read.

[esky]

Do you even look at, or listen to, or read the corporate media? They are in the tank for Obama and have reviled Hillary foerever. He is their leading man, their hero. They've got it all scripted. No room for
Hillary, now in the role of plot device. Just watch them.....Matthews and his posse, Rachel Maddow, Richard Woolf, Cris Cilizza, and most alarming, Keith Olbermann, all media whores, corporate flunkies, following the corporate talking points. Rev. Wright? No big deal. After all a man chooses a church, among all others, where the sermon is always the same, but he pays no attention to the preacher. Twenty oe years with his fingers in his ears. Got that? Way to keep it real. Either he's lying to us or to is spiritual advisor, the one he hand picked, who married him. No big deal, hardly even know him? He's senile, old y'know. just humoring him. The flunkies? Oh, no big deal. We know he's not like that. But if it was Hillary? The NC goveror says she make's Rocky look like a pansy? Olbermann's on it. It never ends........and neither does the apology, expanation, empty word repudiations............

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

The 24-hour news cycle is in full swing like ambulance chasers regurgitating Wright's latest remarks -- they'll milk it for as long as the audience has an appetite to hear and see it -- but we should really keep in mind that Wright is a sideshow -- he has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq or helping the economy or changing the equation for Hillary -- because it's clear that if Hillary is the nominee the Democratic Party is going to be wounded -- the new voters and African Americans and young people who have made this a race in the first place are going to be demoralized and stay home -- so all of this hyperventilating about Wright is really irrelevant to the politics of 2008 -- it's only being made relevant because the corporate media (by which I mean the 6 corporations that control most of what we see and read and hear) are flogging this story not only for ratings but also they don't want Obama in office, he might even do something that hurts their bottom line -- Hillary vs. McCain will be the most boring race in decades. Just remember, Wright is a sideshow, and the media are covering it like a racial train wreck.

[gjck28]

Huh? You've got me scratching my head again. You say the Corporate Media doesn't want Obama in the White House. Why? Precisely what policy position has Obama espoused that would make those corporations, or any other corporation nervous? I'm guessing you don't have anything to back up this ludicrous assertion.

Your writings might be more believable if you'd toss in a fact or two every once in a while. And honestly, what are you implying with this whole "corporate media" conspiracy? That they give a crap about shaping public opinion to suit their evil ends? Nonsense. The "corporate media" are public companies that -- like all public companies -- are expected to perform for their shareholders. To make money. Find the viewers, charge higher ad rates, and bring home the bacon to the shareholders. Again, you don't like what they're showing? Blame the viewer/reader. It's OUR fault. Not theirs.

[jeg]

"We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders."

--Machiavelli, "The Prince", 1513 AD.

[gjck28]

Corporate media? As opposed to what, exactly? Government-owned media? Yeah, that's what we need. (that's called "statism", to use one of your literary constructs). Or how about media that just magically exists somehow. Would you please step out of your utopian nonsensical world for a second and see things for what they are? Let's deconstruct things very quickly: media is a business. Businesses exist to make money. Money comes from advertising. Advertisers go where the viewers are. The viewers go to what they like to watch. You don't like the "news"? You might as well say you don't like the viewers. This is what they want. Wright and "bittergate" and all the rest.

Quit looking to blame some big, bad, boogeyman "corporate media." It's ridiculous. Wanna blame someone? Blame everybody who turns on a television.

[devadasi]

Exactly gjcke28. Everyone should begin weening themselves off televisision. I just threw mine out this weekend, and it felt so good.

Screw the advertisers and the media elite.

Better to live life than watch it.

Obama 2008-l6

[mamacat]

Starting with the Reagan years, efforts were made to legalise the consolidation of the news media, which has resulted in less competition. We are reaping the rewards of that narrow-minded policy, in that we are less likely to find conflicting points of view in the mass media. Today, a few corporations control most of what we hear and see, and news anchors are more entertainers than reporters. In the days when reportage was legally required to be balanced, hate mongers like Limbaugh and O'Reilly were not able to monopolise the air waves with their mindnumbing vitriol.

[gjck28]

What a lot of nonsense. In 1980 there was a LOT less competition than there is now. In 1980 there was no CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CNBC, CSPAN, USA Today, or even the Internet. And as for Limbaugh and O'Reilly ... if people didn't want to listen or watch them, they'd be out of business. It's called a free market. Nobody's twisting anybody's arms to watch O'Reilly. What are you really angry at ... that millions of people actually DO? That's really your problem, isn't it?

Limbaugh and O'Reilly aren't on the air because some spooky "corporate media" is trying to push an agenda. They're on the air because people by the millions want them. And Air America is a joke because hardly anyone does.

[inthenitemare]

"The trick for us is to find alternative sources of information and reject the frames and narratives the corporate media system imposes on our political discourse."

I've already done that. I am SO DONE with "traditional media". They make me sick.
I've also done what Arianna is doing, in starting to call it traditional media in stead of MSM. This term starts the process of making MSM obsolete, hopefully, and making other media outlets with less of an Infotainment venue, more "Main Stream" in the future