Search This Blog

Showing posts with label corporate media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate media. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The importance of alternative news

As you will see in the book, the mainstream media are owned by for-profit corporations, and as a result, many important stories are either downplayed or ignored altogether.

Here are a few examples that are found today on the news website, Truthout, but not mainstream media outlets:

Doctors Warm to Single-Payer Health Care

Doctors Warm to Single-Payer Health Care

By Rachel Bluth, Kaiser Health News | News Analysis
Single-payer health care is still a controversial idea in the US, but a majority of physicians are moving to support it, a new survey finds. Fifty-six percent of doctors registered either strong support or were somewhat supportive of a single-payer health system, according to the survey by Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment firm.

  Renegotiating NAFTA Will Only Serve the Rich -- Just Like It Always Has

Renegotiating NAFTA Will Only Serve the Rich -- Just Like It Always Has

By David L. Wilson, Truthout | Op-Ed
Both Donald Trump and his neoliberal opponents seem to agree that NAFTA has been good for Mexicans, but in reality, the pact caused Mexico to lose millions of jobs, especially in the agricultural sector, and resulted in a sharp increase in migration to the US. If NAFTA is renewed, it will continue to benefit transnational corporate moguls rather than workers.
 

Betsy DeVos's "School Choice" Is Really Crony Capitalism

By Jeff Bryant, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed 
 
"Trump TV": How the Sinclair Merger Would Move Media Further Right

"Trump TV": How the Sinclair Merger Would Move Media Further Right

By Janine Jackson, FAIR | Interview 
 
Now, would you expect to see these stories on CNN or Fox? Why or why not?
 
 

Monday, October 6, 2014

Here is why corporate ownership of the media matters!

From Alternet today:

The following are all relevant, fact-based issues, the "hard news" stories the media has a responsibility to report. But the business-oriented press generally avoids them.

1. U.S. Wealth Up $34 Trillion Since Recession. 93% of You Got Almost None of It.

That's an average of $100,000 for every American. But the people who already own most of the stocks took almost all of it. For them, the average gain was well over a million dollars, tax-free as long as they don't cash it in. Details available here.

2. Eight Rich Americans Made More Than 3.6 Million Minimum-Wage Workers

A recent report stated that no full-time minimum wage worker in the U.S. can afford a one-bedroom or two-bedroom rental at fair market rent. There are 3.6 million such workers, and their total (combined) 2013 earnings is less than the 2013 stock market gains of just eight Americans, all of whom take more than their share from society: the four Waltons, the two Kochs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett.

3. News Sources Speak for the 5%

It would be refreshing to read an honest editorial: "We dearly value the 5 to 7 percent of our readers who make a lot of money and believe that their growing riches are helping everyone else."

Instead, the business media seems unable to differentiate between the top 5 percent and the rest of society. The Wall Street Journal exclaimed, "Middle-class Americans have more buying power than ever before," and then went on to sputter: "What Recession?...The economy has bounced back from recession, unemployment has declined.."

The Chicago Tribune may be even further out of touch with its less privileged readers, asking them: "What's so terrible about the infusion of so much money into the presidential campaign?"

4. TV News Dumbed Down for American Viewers

A 2009 survey by the European Journal of Communication compared the U.S. to Denmark, Finland and the UK in the awareness and reporting of domestic vs. international news, and of "hard" news (politics, public administration, the economy, science, technology) vs. "soft" news (celebrities, human interest, sports and entertainment). The results:
  • Americans [are] especially uninformed about international public affairs.
  • American respondents also underperformed in relation to domestic-related hard news stories.
  • American television reports much less international news than Finnish, Danish and British television;
  • American television network newscasts also report much less hard news than Finnish and Danish television.
Surprisingly, the report states that "our sample of American newspapers was more oriented towards hard news than their counterparts in the European countries." Too bad Americans are reading fewer newspapers.

5. News Execs among White Male Boomers Who Owe Trillions to Society

The hype about the "self-made man" is fantasy. In the early 1970s, we privileged white males were spirited out of college to waiting jobs in management and finance, technology was inventing new ways for us to make money, tax rates were about to tumble, and visions of bonuses and capital gains danced in our heads.

While we were in school the Defense Department had been preparing the Internet for Microsoft and Apple, the National Science Foundation was funding the Digital Library Initiative research that would be adopted as the Google model, and the National Institute of Health was doing the early laboratory testing for companies like Merck and Pfizer. Government research labs and public universities trained thousands of chemists, physicists, chip designers, programmers, engineers, production line workers, market analysts, testers, troubleshooters, etc.

All we created on our own was a disdainful attitude, like that of Steve Jobs: "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

6. Funding Plummets for Schools and Pensions as Corporations Stop Paying Taxes

Three separate studies have shown that corporations pay less than half of their required state taxes, which are the main source of K-12 educational funding and a significant part of pension funding. Most recently, the report, "The Disappearing Corporate Tax Base" found that the percentage of corporate profits paid as state income taxes has dropped from 7 percent in 1980 to about 3 percent today.

7. Companies Based in the U.S. Paying Most of Their Taxes Overseas

Citigroup had 42% of its 2011-'13 revenue in North America (almost all U.S.) and made $32 billion in profits, but received a U.S. current income tax benefit all three years.

Pfizer had 40% of its 2011-'13 revenues and nearly half of its physical assets in the U.S., but declared almost $10 billion in U.S. losses to go along with nearly $50 billion in foreign profits.

In 2013 Exxon had about 43% of management, 36% of sales, 40% of long-lived assets, and 70-90% of its productive oil and gas wells in the U.S., yet only paid about 2 percent of its total income in U.S. income taxes, and most of that was something called a "theoretical" tax.

8. Restaurant Servers Go Without Raise for 30 Years

An evaluation by Michelle Chen showed that the minimum wage for tipped workers has been approximately $2 an hour since the 1980s. She also notes that about 40 percent of these workers are people of color, and about two-thirds are women.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Quick, go to the mainstream news ...

... pick any source:

TV
Newspaper
Internet
Radio
Magazine
whatever ...

Think mainstream, like

ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/CNN
NY Times, Washington Post
Yahoo News/Google News
NPR/Talk radio
Newsweek/Time
whatever ...

Now, how many of these stories do you see there?

2014.1.21.RX.thumb

Six Drugs Whose Dangerous Risks Were Buried So Big Pharma Could Make Money

By Martha Rosenberg, AlterNet | Report    
 

The Toxic Chemical Spill Crisis in West Virginia Will Happen Again. Here's Why

By Dennis Trainor Jr, Popular Resistance | Video Report    
 
2014.1.21.Obama.NSA.thumb

Five Criticisms of Obama's NSA Speech

By Kevin Mathews, Care2 | News Analysis    
 
2014.1.21.Jamail.Main

BP Employees, Outraged by Lack of Compensation, Warn Oil Spill Victims

By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report    
 

Children Burned With Cigarettes by Israeli Soldiers in Illegal Settlement

By Nora Barrows-Friedman , The Electronic Intifada | Report    
 
Go ahead, check. Seriously, do it.
 
I bet you won't find any.
 
Why not?
 
Read the material on corporate ownership of the media. If they don't want you to know it or don't feel it is profitable to show it, it will not be there. It is that simple.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Stories you WON'T see in the mainstream press today

One the main points of the book is that you cannot (and should not) rely on the mainstream media exclusively for your information. Why not? Because it is owned and operated by corporations, which clearly have a bias in terms of keeping some things out of the news.

So, you can check out alternative sources on the left or right of the political spectrum, as well as objective advocacy journalism organizations for stories about powerful people that do not tend to appear in the mainstream news.

Here are some examples from today...now why would the corporate owned media NOT be interested in such stories?

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Why some Americans are actually shocked about the election

I closely followed the news heading into the recent elections, like I always do. And so I knew there was actually a very good chance Barack Obama would be re-elected President. By election day, the odds were better than 90%, according to statistical wizard and New York Times blogger Nate Silver over at www.fivethirtyeight.com.

His predictions were based largely on polling data in the battleground states, those handful of states that could go either way (since most are very stable and reliably go one way or the other). Maybe this is why?

Slave holding states and Republican voting states today: Nearly identical

But anyway, back to the point ... those polls in the battleground states were almost universally pointing to Obama wins in all of them, with the only exception in North Carolina and perhaps Florida. Obama would end up winning all of those states, except North Carolina, and is leading by a tiny margin in Florida with 99% of the votes counted.

So, the only people who could have been surprised by this are those that were not paying attention.

Or, perhaps, those getting their news from organizations that were not paying attention.

Take Fox News and talk radio, for example. As you may know, I listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I know he was predicting a huge Romney win. So too was Sean Hannity on his radio show, as were all the guests he has on his show. And then these are talking heads like Dick Morris on Fox News who were also confidently predicting not only a Romney win but a huge win.

In fact, all these folks said there were three possibilities on election night: A huge Romney win, a small Romney win, or a small Obama win. No one in these organizations was saying Obama could win big. Which he did.

Why? The answer is simple. They dismissed the polling data, attacked it, and relied on internal polling data produced by Republican operatives. They insisted that their people were being under-polled and would actually show up in higher numbers than Democrats. But, they were wrong. Very very wrong.


Yesterday, the day after the election, Rush Limbaugh actually said that no one saw this coming and no one could have seen it coming because the only thing that showed that this could happen was the polls! But then he went on to dismiss the polls because, according to him, they showed the two candidates were tied (which they did not). Of course, many people saw this coming and boldly predicted it online (see Nate Silver).

So we've arrived at a point in time when some people are getting their information (the point of the news) from sources that are not only biased but also factually inaccurate. The minimum cost of this is a group of miserable people who end up gullible and easily distracted and even misled.

This has enormous consequences for our nation and the policies we create or don't create to try to solve our problems. And much of the problem can be blamed on for-profit news organizations.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/fox_discovers_constant_lying_isnt_consistently_effective_electoral_strategy/?source=newsletter

Monday, January 23, 2012

A great example of why media ownership matters

This is from 2005. But it is just as true today as it was then.

"[President] George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the al-Qaida terrorist network — notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay.

"Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies.

"As the Pentagon has learned, deploying the American media is more powerful than any bomb. The explosive effect is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand.

"When it comes to issues of war and peace, the results of having a compliant media are as deadly to our democracy as they are to our soldiers. Why do the corporate media cheerlead for war? One answer lies in the corporations themselves — the ones that own the major news outlets.

"At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show."

.... the article continues here> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-25.htm

__________________________________

It is quite literally the case that the war in Iraq would not have even been possible without the lack of critical coverage by the mainstream media, those sources owned and controlled by the mainstream press.

And yet, maybe you still don't care:

* About the more than 4,500 dead soldiers (and far more dead contractors and troops from other countries).
* About the more than 300,000 Americans who now suffer from long-term disabilities like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injuries
* About the million dead Iraqis
* Or even the one trillion dollars we have already spent there.

But whether you like it or not, you will be paying for it. And so will your kids. And theirs.

So perhaps you can at least try to understand why media scholars and reformers are so concerned about the state of the mainstream media?

Sunday, January 22, 2012

So you wanna' know who owns the media?

As a citizen dedicated to staying aware and NOT being taken advantage of, of course you want to know where your information comes from, especially your news. Right?

Find out here:
http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership

Find out what they own and control, how much they make, and why it matters.



And of course there is more.

Monday, August 15, 2011

I see WHITE people

Turn on CSPAN and you'll see lots of white people. Whites are highly overrepresented among lawmakers.

And the mainstream media are becoming whiter too.

From the article:

"As the American Society of Newspaper Editors has reported, racial and ethnic minorities make up less than 13 percent of newsroom employees. Minority ownership of television stations hovers around 3 percent, while radio station ownership is at 7 percent, despite the fact that the minority population of the U.S. is roughly 28 percent."

In the book I show the benefits of alternative media. One of them is non-corporate owned media are more demographically diverse. They also show a wide range of viewpoints that you don't tend to see in the mainstream press.

As noted in this article: "The role of the news media is to provide a forum for discussion and engagement for all people in society."

But if you rely on the corporate media for information, you're getting very limited, pro status quo viewpoints from an increasingly white population.

http://www.truth-out.org/media-growing-more-white-what%E2%80%99s-fcc-doing-about-it/1313244498

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Stories you almost never see in the mainstream press

In the book I explain how mainstream media are owned by large, for-profit corporations.

While there is still some variation in what news they cover, as well as how they cover it, the bottom line is certain stories are just less likely to make it to the airwaves. That is, corporate ownership of the press limits the breadth of the stories we see.

That is where organizations like Common Dreams come in. Common Dreams is a nonpartisan, independent media organization. Stories there today include:

[field_image_caption-raw]
 

Mark Engler:
 
... and more! These are stories largely being ignored by the corporate controlled media, ignored because they deal with issues of power and poverty.

Friday, March 4, 2011

So much for the "liberal media"

From the article:

"Remember the first stirrings of what came to be termed as the "Tea Party" uprising? Never mind that it was created by powerful conservative corporate entities like the Koch Brothers. Never mind that the "Tea Party" was nothing more or less than the GOP base with a new coat of paint. Never mind that virtually everything they were yelling about was based on lies and deliberate misinformation. Never mind that most of them really didn't know what they were talking about, and couldn't spell to save their lives.

"Three blivets wreathed in American flags and automatic weapons could stand on a streetcorner with signs reading "Keep Your Damn Government Hands Off My Medicare," and they would find themselves surrounded by camera crews from CNN, MSNBC and, of course, Fox News. But put 50,000 people a day out on the streets of Madison, put tens of thousands more on the streets in every state in the union, and those same news cameras are suddenly too busy covering the Oscars and Lindsey Lohan's ongoing crime spree to make an effort at coverage."

His point is they are ignoring what is really happening in Wisconsin. And he claims it is due to the corporate ownership of the media.

So much for the so-called liberal media.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Goodbye to public media???

We've talked and you've read about the threats of corporate media and the importance of public media.

Yet, after only a few weeks into the 112th Congress, and Republicans are already attempting to pull the plug on public media.

In a budget proposal made public on Wednesday, House Republicans announced plans to zero out all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the nonprofit responsible for funding public media including NPR, PBS, Pacifica and more.

If the Republicans are successful, it would be a tremendous blow to the entire public interest media sector.

We cannot allow Republicans to destroy public media.
Tell Congress: Fully fund NPR and defend public service media!

Republicans are disingenuously claiming that they need to cut funding for public media because of budgetary constraints. But what they fail to highlight is that national public broadcasting is remarkably cost effective, providing local news and information, free of charge, for millions of viewers while only receiving about .0001% of the federal budget.1

More to the point, it's nearly impossible to put a price tag on the actual value of public broadcasting.
Public media is one of the last bulwarks against the corporate media where the combination of consolidation and profit-motive has long since shifted the focused to infotainment rather than substantive news. In many rural and less affluent communities, broadcasters rely on federal funding to provide the only available high-quality news and public affairs programming.

Without public media, corporate media monopolies would increase their already large control of what we see on television, hear on the radio or read in the newspaper.

This outcome should deeply worry all of us. The increased accumulation and consolidation of corporate power is a threat to our democracy. And nowhere is this more evident than in our media.
At a time when media consolidation is shrinking the number of perspectives we have access to over the airwaves and when newsrooms are shrinking, we need more diversity in our media not less. And we simply cannot afford to lose what public media brings to the table.

Tell Congress: Fully fund NPR and defend public service media!

Conservatives have longed for any opportunity to defund NPR, PBS and other public media. And with Speaker Boehner wielding the gavel, it looks like they may finally get their wish.

Don't let Congress pull the plug on NPR and PBS! Tell them reject cuts to public broadcasting.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/save_npr_pbs/?rc=fb_share2

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Stories IGNORED by the corporate media

These are the stories of ordinary people taking a stand, trying to make a difference. And you won't see them in the mainstream media.

Ah, leave it to Truth-out to tell us about them

Yay for independent media!

http://www.truth-out.org/85-year-old-woman-arrested-bank-protest-six-revolts-tea-party-obsessed-corporate-media-overlooked669

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

It's the corporation stupid

An argument about why the problem with the media is corporate, not violence:

"The real problem with the media is not overt violence, but an unchecked market that churns out content strictly for bucks. The only solutions, then, are far more radical: the establishment of a truly public broadcasting system, as opposed to the limp vessels of PBS and NPR. Let the corporate-owned networks program whatever garbage they like. Providing true alternatives to commercial media would give viewers more choices. And even if a fraction of the audience watches the alternative channels, their presence would help put things in perspective, onscreen and off."

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/20/media_influence_intro.html

Monday, January 17, 2011

Happy Martin Luther King day

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. day.

The day we honor one of the most important men in history.

So I thought you should learn a bit more about what Dr. King really stood for.

It's a story you won't see told in much of the mainstream press.

From the article:

"It's become a TV ritual: Every year in mid-January, around the time of Martin Luther King's birthday, we get perfunctory network news reports about "the slain civil rights leader."

"The remarkable thing about this annual review of King's life is that several years — his last years — are totally missing, as if flushed down a memory hole."

Indeed, in the year before King was assassinated, King was talking about shutting down the US government through national sit-ins to force change to reduce poverty, as part of his Poor People's Campaign.

You almost hear about this, like it never happened.

Is this further evidence consistent with the goals of the corporate media?

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Why did he do it?

This article was emailed to me by an anonymous source.

The term "corporate media" caught my eye.

The claim seems to be that the mainstream media's claims about why the Arizona shooter carried out his violent acts are wrong.

This may be a good example, however, of why we need to be careful where we get our news. I'm pretty sure "infowars.com" is not a reliable source.

They claim he did it due to drug use. Sigh.

http://www.infowars.com/corporate-media-portrays-loughner-as-gold-and-silver-advocate/

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Wikipedia article about Corporate Media

Not a big fan of Wikipedia, but here is a brief article you should read about corporate media.

There is a good example there of interlocking directorates (pictured), showing you some links between major media companies. Enlarge the image at the website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media

And here are some more examples.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Who owns the media?


Find out here:

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/media-ownership/dashboard.php

Notice its the same companies for each type of media?

This is a good example of horizontal integration.

This helps explain why these corporations are so powerful.

(oh, and they all focus on crime, A LOT!)

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Media control and bias

On the lower right side of this blog is a poll asking if the media are biased in a liberal or conservative manner?

This is obviously a potentially controversial question, and the answer depends on who is being asked.

Feel free to respond to the question.

Before you do so, visit this web site with links to articles, books, websites and more that deal with potential bias in the media that result from corporate ownership.

Look for sources from authors cited in the book as well as others, and for topics that pertain to issues like propaganda in the press.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html