NO English Al Jazeera

Chomsky and Herman did a great job of describing the filters on media in Manufacturing Consent.

Here is a brief summary...

Using their propaganda model, Chomsky and Herman, attempt to demonstrate how “money and power are able to filter out the news, ... marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public.” (see p.2) They continue to then summarize their propaganda model that allows this “filtering” of news to be accomplished, as consisting of the following ingredients:
  1. Size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms
  2. Advertising as the primary income source of the mass media
  3. Reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power
  4. “Flak” as a means of disciplining the media
  5. “Anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp#ChomskyHermanPropagandaModel

(more detail if you click the link)

it's way more nuanced than "all the media owners love Bush"
 
Tailgater said:
If it was so under-reported, how did it end up on CNN?
Click to expand...

My point is there's no follow up. Little investigative work and holding those in power accountable for the things they do or say. That's the way it used to work. Some of older people here will remember when government claims weren't given the free rides they are given today and scandals weren't ignored. In the old days any leader would have been hammered over this or any number of other things that have fleetingly crossed our news screens in the last 20 years or more.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
My point is there's no follow up. Little investigative work and holding those in power accountable for the things they do or say. That's the way it used to work. Some of older people here will remember when government claims weren't given the free rides they are given today and scandals weren't ignored. In the old days any leader would have been hammered over this or any number of other things that have fleetingly crossed our news screens in the last 20 years or more.
Click to expand...

You hear about these things on the news. Then you complain that the news isn't doing it's job because you don't hear ENOUGH about it, whereas in the old days that wouldn't be the case. You're right: in the old days, you wouldn't hear about it al all, so you wouldn't even know when the news wasn't doing an adequate job.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
My point is there's no follow up. Little investigative work and holding those in power accountable for the things they do or say. That's the way it used to work. Some of older people here will remember when government claims weren't given the free rides they are given today and scandals weren't ignored. In the old days any leader would have been hammered over this or any number of other things that have fleetingly crossed our news screens in the last 20 years or more.
Click to expand...

You must be young to say "older people".:D In the old days, according to you, I had already graduated high school.

Government coverup was easier before people could track emails and follow electronic trails. Propaganda was high during my parents generation. Have you ever watched old newsreels or heard old radio broadcasts from the early 1900s? They were practically movie trailers. You would get pumped up on American spirit afterward and want to run and help stop those evil nazis or commies. And some of what is considered scandals today was considered doing what they had to do to win back then.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
You hear about these things on the news. Then you complain that the news isn't doing it's job because you don't hear ENOUGH about it, whereas in the old days that wouldn't be the case. You're right: in the old days, you wouldn't hear about it al all, so you wouldn't even know when the news wasn't doing an adequate job.
Click to expand...

I get my news from a lot of alternative sources but I also scan major news media to see what they're reporting. I complain the news isn't doing it's job because they aren't. Case in point, the lead up to the Iraq war. Do you remember how there were worldwide protests before the invasion? A large part of the reason why so many people were up in arms was the wide spread reporting (mainly outside of the USA) of news which debunked the lies used to go to war. The lies I'm referring to are the contention that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda (and therefore part of the war on terror) and also the claims that Saddam had and was seeking more WMD's. There was so much information which countered the US admin's case for war it's laughable. How much made it to the US media 'consumer'?
 
Last edited:
Tailgater said:
You must be young to say "older people".:D

Government coverup was easier before people could track emails and follow electronic trails. Propaganda was high during my parents generation. Have you ever watched old newsreels or heard old radio broadcasts from the early 1900s? They were practically movie trailers. You would get pumped up on American spirit afterward and want to run and help stop those evil nazis or commies. And some of what is considered scandals today was considered doing what they had to do to win back then.
Click to expand...

I was taking a shot at your earlier attempt to play the age card. ;) 'When some of us were young, there was three news channels and the city newspapers.'

For the record I'm 38.
 
It's too simple to say the media isn't critical of the government because it's bad for business. The media tends to avoid criticizing what the public likes, because that is bad for business. Today the public doesn't like the President. In 2001, the public did.

In that respect, I'll agree with you. Much of the media today is focused on the profit potential of the news division, and that's changed from the past. Which is, of course, also why we get history channel programs on ghosts, discovery channel psychics, etc. Many media outlets don't care if it's true, so long as people watch.

But that doesn't mean the general public still doesn't have plenty of access (now more than ever before) to real information, other opinions, serious investigation, good analysis, etc.
 
Michael Redman said:
It's too simple to say the media isn't critical of the government because it's bad for business. The media tends to avoid criticizing what the public likes, because that is bad for business. Today the public doesn't like the President. In 2001, the public did.

In that respect, I'll agree with you. Much of the media today is focused on the profit potential of the news division, and that's changed from the past. Which is, of course, also why we get history channel programs on ghosts, discovery channel psychics, etc. Many media outlets don't care if it's true, so long as people watch.

But that doesn't mean the general public still doesn't have plenty of access (now more than ever before) to real information, other opinions, serious investigation, good analysis, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but feel that's largely due to the internet. As far as mass media goes, if you aren't inquisitive enough to look elsewhere, it's made very easy for one to not have to think at all.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I know it's a long story and the revelations come near the end so I'll give you another source and you can hear it from Hersh's mouth...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022607A.shtml
Click to expand...
I read it. It doesn't say what you claim it does. You said:
the current US administration has secretly, recently funded some Al Qaeda members.
Click to expand...

The story says:
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing, is it?

At any rate, suppose you're a reporter at a Bush press conference. Bush calls on you, what will your one question be? I doubt it would be about the minutia of the Seymour Hersh story.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I agree with you but feel that's largely due to the internet. As far as mass media goes, if you aren't inquisitive enough to look elsewhere, it's made very easy for one to not have to think at all.
Click to expand...
If you aren't inquisitive enough, you aren't watching the mass media news programs either. After all, there's always a new episode of I Love New York or Ultimate Fighting or whatever brain dead thing you want to watch.
 
WildCat said:
I read it. It doesn't say what you claim it does. You said:


The story says:


Not quite the same thing, is it?

At any rate, suppose you're a reporter at a Bush press conference. Bush calls on you, what will your one question be? I doubt it would be about the minutia of the Seymour Hersh story.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the story states that the U.S. has financially aided Jihadist groups connected with Al Qaeda. Perhaps my language is inaccurate but the fact that some of these people have been trained by Al Qaeda and have similar goals would usually be enough to consider them Al Qaeda in the American view or at least the enemy in the 'war on terror'.

And it's not the minutia, the whole story is about a shift in policy which okays supporting Sunni extremists (which is what Al Qaeda are right?) in an effort to get them to target Shias. This policy doesn't seem irrational to you? You don't think it merits many questions?
 
Last edited:
thinkingaboutit said:
This policy doesn't seem irrational to you? You don't think it merits many questions?
Click to expand...
And with everything else going on, this is the one question reporter thinkingaboutit would ask at a Bush press conference when called on?
 
WildCat said:
And with everything else going on, this is the one question reporter thinkingaboutit would ask at a Bush press conference when called on?
Click to expand...

I might not if it meant they'd never call on me again to ask another question. Keep in mind that there are many reporters asking many questions so there's room to cover many issues.

May I ask what your question would be?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I get my news from a lot of alternative sources but I also scan major news media to see what they're reporting. I complain the news isn't doing it's job because they aren't.
Click to expand...

Did I contradict that point? No, I don't believe I did. But those alternative sources are now widely accessible AND widely accessed, and they never were before. The overall problem is getting better, not worse. And it's not peculiar to, or even particularly accute in, the US either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom