Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenfield: Rise of the Mediacracy
Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog ^ | Tuesday, December 24, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 12/25/2013 5:41:21 AM PST by Louis Foxwell

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Rise of the Mediacracy

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

A nation where governments are elected by the people is most vulnerable at the interface between the politicians and the people. The interface is where the people learn what the politicians stand for and where the politicians learn what the people want. The bigger a country gets, the harder it is to pick up on that consensus by stopping by a coffee shop or an auto repair store. That's where the Mediacracy steps in to control the consensus.

The media is no longer informative, it is conformative. It is not interested in broadcasting events unless it can also script them. It does not want to know what you think, it wants to tell you what to think. The consensus is the voice of the people and the Mediacrats are cutting its throat, dumping its body in a back alley and turning democracy into their own puppet show.

Media bias was over decades ago. The media isn't biased anymore, it's a player, its goal is turn its Fourth Estate into a fourth branch of government, the one that squats below the three branches and blocks their access to the people and blocks the people's access to them. Under the Mediacracy there will still be elections, they will even be mostly free, they just won't matter so long as its upper ranks determine the dialogue on both sides of the media wall.

The Mediacracy isn't playing for peanuts anymore. It's not out to skew a few stories, it's out to take control of the country. In military empires, the military can act as a Praetorian Guard. In political empires, it's the people who control the political conversation who also control the succession.

In 2008, the Mediacracy elevated an Illinois State Senator who had briefly showed up in the Federal Senate to the highest office in the land. They did it even though he had no skills for the job and no serious plan for fixing any of the country's problems. They did it to show that they could. They did it because they wanted to tell a compelling story and inflict radical change on a country that would have never voted for it, if it had not been lied and guilted into making the single worst decision in its entire history.

Propaganda is a powerful weapon and seizing control of the newspapers, radio and television stations is one of the first things that tyrants do. That wasn't supposed to be an issue in a country where anyone could open their own newspaper. But that changed with the transformation of journalism into the media. The media, plural, embraces multiple mediums, most of them expensive and requiring a license and often, government approval.

Two hundreds years ago, a few friends could open a printing press and take on the big behemoths and often did. Today the only place they can do that is on the internet. Radio and television are walled cities controlled by a small number of interlinked corporations that keep merging together. Their staffers come out of carefully controlled environments, where with the pyramid of indoctrination, political gurus pass down their wisdom to professors who program students with its doctrines, to create the Mediacracy.

FOX News, for all its faults, is under constant attack by the Mediacracy because it is independent of that same rigid coercion. Wrong or right, it represents a view that is fundamentally different from the same mind-numbing conformity to be found everywhere from the weekly news magazine in your dentist's office to the talking heads on your cable channel to the honeyed voices of the anchors giving you the news every 5, 10 or 50 minutes over the radio while you're driving to work.

The real crime of FOX News is not that it's especially right-wing, it isn't. It is far less conservative than CNN is liberal. But FOX News' existence, its patriotic color scheme and attempts at appealing to the heartland while putting a conservative spin on issues, forces viewers to notice how conformist and identical the rest of the media landscape. And that is what makes FOX News truly dangerous. Like a goat among the sheep, it makes you realize the sameness of their generic competitors who all cheer for the same team, shop at the same stores and dream of the day when everyone thinks like them.

They are the Mediacracy and they are the Ministry of Propaganda. They are the smirking people who got tired of telling you how many people died in an earthquake in Indonesia and decided to begin explaining to you why the earthquake is your fault because you don't ride a bike to work. These are the people who longer want to report on a shooting, but want to tell you that it's time for a firearms ban. They no longer want to report on Washington DC, unless they can control Washington DC.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Town Hall debate was that the moderator would relay questions from the audience, but would not ask the candidates any questions or comment on what they say. Candy Crowley made it clear before the debate that she would not abide by those rules and liberal organizations piled on, deploying a petition against the silencing of Candy Crowley. And so Candy Crowley wasn't silenced, in true Mediacrat fashion, she silenced others.

The Mediacracy's insistence on being the third candidate at every debate, its outrage that anyone would expect it to be silent and let the actual candidates speak, reflects its power and arrogance. Its elites are not interested in the conversation except as a means of controlling its outcome. They are not here to let other people talk, except as vehicles for making their own points.

Candy Crowley, in true Mediacrat style, was not there to facilitate a conversation, but to tell us what to think. Unlike Obama or Romney, Crowley had no legitimate reason for being there. She was not a political candidate and had not passed any of the democratic tests that Obama and Romney had to be able to sit there. Her influence had no basis of any kind in the voice of the people. Instead she was there as a representative of the powerful and unelected Mediacracy which was determined to have its say. She was there to remind the pols that even in a Two Party system, the Third Estate acts as the third candidate, never running for office but always winning by controlling the conversation.

It is not in the public interest for the Mediacracy to have its say, no matter how often the Mediacrats trot out their public good routine. Power is either vested in democratic institutions or undemocratic ones and the media corporations and their talking heads are about as undemocratic an institution as can be conceivably imagined. And when Mediacrats try to control the outcome of a popular election, their actions are an attack by an undemocratic institution on a democratic institution.

Mediacrats fill the airwaves with rantings about corporate influence on politics. The 800 pound gorilla of corporate influence on politics is the media. Candy Crowley's employer, CNN, is owned by Time Warner, the second largest media conglomerate on the planet. Not the country, the planet. The only media conglomerate bigger than it is the one that owns ABC News. But the Mediacrats never report on their own influence, never turn the camera back into the studio while warning about the danger of corporate lobbyists. But the corporate lobbyists sitting in the CNN studio don't just want to chat with a few politicians in a closed room, they do their best to dictate the outcome of elections.

Businesses turn to lobbyists when the times are bad. The media is losing the public, so they are turning from being mere media into Mediacracy. Media is subject to the whims of the viewing public, but Mediacracy subjects the public to its whims. And they are dreaming of a country under the enlightened rule of the Mediacrats. One nation under a thousand channels all serving the interests of a dying media state.

The media, with its expensive equipment and its licenses, is confronting an era when everything is being reduced to a single medium, print, voice and visuals falling into the internet singularity and leaving them with some expensive equipment, exclusive rights to broadcast on frequencies that no one watches anymore and the ability to print millions of papers, when they can hardly move a tenth of them. And like all imploding tyrannies, they are confronting the crisis by grasping for power. They know that they will either be a Mediacracy or they will be nothing.

The greatest challenge to the integrity of our democracy may be the coup of the media corporations. Information is the lifeblood of a free society and the consolidation of information outlets in the hands of a small and powerful elite with no ethics and no boundaries is leading us down the road to a virtual tyranny that will maintain the illusory workings of a democratic society without any of the substance.
The old institutions of elections are becoming a charade, a formal routine where the outcome is determined by the employees of a handful of major media corporations that present the public with the inevitable result. And America is falling into the hands of the Government-Media Complex.

The Mediacracy has directed all its efforts into hijacking the public dialogue, turning elections into a cheap sideshow accompanied by sneering commentary. It has insisted on being the third candidate in every election and turned its corporate shills into the pretend voice of the people. It has stomped all over the traditions of this country, its independent institutions and its freedoms with thousand dollar shoes while wrapping itself in any available flag. And it cannot be allowed to get away with it.

A free society does not only become unfree at the point of a gun. It becomes unfree when its mechanisms of freedom are jammed, when the institutions that are meant to provide power to the people are taken over by unelected forces and twisted into the apparatus of a new tyranny. When undemocratic institutions seize control of democratic institutions then democracy dies, strangled by men and women who keep on smiling while they tighten their grip.

America can be a Democracy or a Mediacracy. It cannot and will not be both. And the only way to preserve democracy is to challenge the Mediacrats and force them out of the public space that they have usurped and back into the private sphere of their financial interests where they belong.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: government; greenfield; mediacracy; politicians; sultanknish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Sherman Logan

Yes, but is your root motivation the desire to possess those things or the status and adulation you would acquire by having them?

Motivations are not always so easy or certain to be sure of, but I would say that my root motivations are neither status and adulation or desire for possession, but rather to accomplish what I want to accomplish.

I have to add, that my assumptions did not include great amounts of hard work. I assumed that the money was there to be spent, and I did not have to work to get it. I was merely illustrating that it is easy to come up with ways to spend money that many could consider useful, fun, or interesting.

Were Carnegy’s libraries produced with the same motivations as the Pyramids, or might they be of genuine desire to improve the lot of the American people?


21 posted on 12/25/2013 7:25:03 PM PST by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
....wow.

One of his best.

And he has written a lot of very very good pieces.
22 posted on 12/26/2013 12:47:24 AM PST by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus sum -- "The Taliban is inside the building")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; mrsmith
I think you both miss the point.

It is about money, but in a different way. The media is a leech on politics, sucking the money from the people who become our government.

Campaigns are very expensive, and they end up becoming a wealth-redistribution scheme that nobody talks about. Candidates take donations from corporations and people, and then hand much of those donations over to the collective "media" in the form of campaign advertising, i.e., ad buys on regional and national television and radio stations.

Look at what happened to Newt Gingrich in Florida. Mitt Romney blanketed the state in negative ads for weeks between the South Carolina and Florida primaries. While the Republican candidates were slandering each other, the "media" was laughing all the way to the bank.

And don't get me started on the Senate campaigns. Those are 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. If we repeal the 17th amendment, we eliminate 100 elections over a six year period, and we eliminate all of that wealth transfer from candidates to the "media."

-PJ

23 posted on 12/26/2013 1:12:19 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
You make some good points, but strongly disagree about:

If we repeal the 17th amendment, we eliminate 100 elections over a six year period, and we eliminate all of that wealth transfer from candidates to the "media."

No, all we'd do is transfer the money and the corruption to the state legislature which would then elect the senators. State legislature elections used to be to a considerable extent proxy elections for federal senator. Witness the Lincoln/Douglas debates. The senator would be elected by the legislature, but the senatorial candidates traveled the state debating each other for the national election.

The problem, as always, is the influence of government on business. As long as government controls whether a business is able to make money or even survive, businesses will strive to influence it. Any CEO who chose not to do so would violate his moral obligations to his stockholders.

The more government is incapacitated from shading laws and regulations to provide a competitive advantage for one business over another, the less a business will be incentivized to try to influence the government.

24 posted on 12/26/2013 6:02:09 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; Sherman Logan

The media made (in round numbers) $3 billion in the 2012 election and $1- 2 billion in the 2010 election- the most ever.
Over that same 4 year period the media made $32 billion from just the SNAP food stamp reditribution scheme. About 10% of food costs go to advertising and SNAP spends $80 billion a year.
so SNAP provides 7 or 8 times the ‘fiscal motive’ for the media than campaigns do. That’s a huge ‘influenece on business’.

That’s just the media’s income from SNAP redistribution. Numerous other programs also take saving and investment money and redirect it to the consumer spending that media profits from. The ‘War on poverty’ has destroyed the wealth of the nation but the media has profited hugely from it. The Democrats get media favor because they pay for it.

Sure, Sherman’s point is good. Ads with beautiful girls next to cars, cookie-buying mothers surrounded by loving children, the Marlboro Man riding the range all show this point. Salesmen make their wages on the fact that people have non-fiscal motives for their purchases and actions.
But it’s the ‘sellee’, not the sellor, whose motives are described by him. The sellor (and his advertiser) is in it for the money.

I don’t know why I have such difficulty getting the point across that redistribution is big money for the media. Maybe there’s a media conspiracy against me... that’s most people’s explanation for the media’s favoritism towards Democrats.


25 posted on 12/26/2013 9:48:07 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

I don’t disagree with most of what you say.

However, I think you overstate the media’s incentive to favor redistributive police. That incentive exists not for all consumer spending, but only that portion of consumer spending generated by redistributive policies.

Take food. While SNAP spends $80B a year (I will assume your numbers are accurate), it’s not like this is “new” spending on food. Quite obviously, some considerable majority of this would be spent on food if SNAP did not exist. They would still have to eat.

SNAP mostly allows people to spend cash on other stuff they would otherwise have had to spend on food.

Advertising dollars in mass media will always be aimed at consumer items, since trying to sell locomotives or architectural services in this way would be immensely expensive for the tiny percentage of the audience that is a potential buyer.


26 posted on 12/26/2013 11:09:24 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
No, all we'd do is transfer the money and the corruption to the state legislature which would then elect the senators. State legislature elections used to be to a considerable extent proxy elections for federal senator. Witness the Lincoln/Douglas debates. The senator would be elected by the legislature, but the senatorial candidates traveled the state debating each other for the national election.

You seem to think that this is a bad thing. I'm not so sure.

First of all, the corruption is contained to the state, where it belongs. If all politics is local, then let the locals deal with it by voting in or out their own corrupt politicians. At least it makes them pay attention to the down-ticket races.

Second, even if the local politics is corrupt, at least each state is looking out for its own interests. That's not the case with the conversion of the Senate to a bloc of national party interests. Why do the Democrats in the Senate vote lock-step for the party on all legislation, while Republicans splinter and cower to pressure all the time? I don't think we would see this if the states controlled the Senate, no matter how corrupt the state-by-state Senatorial selection processes may be.

And third, back to the original topic point about money and power, campaign "warchests" are fungible today. Long-time secure Senators like Chuck Schumer still raise millions of dollars each campaign cycle, but they then donate their own donations to other Senate candidates. This creates a patronage system within the Senate, where junior Senators become beholden to the senior Senators, who then become the enforcers for the national party bloc interests. If we eliminate the Senate elections, we take away this power structure within the Senate.

That's not to say that some new power structure would emerge, but it won't be based on campaign funding and doling out money for favors. And it won't be based on a redistribution scheme that transfers Senate campaign funds from the people to the media.

-PJ

27 posted on 12/26/2013 12:53:24 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Sorry, I didn't read ahead. I should have included you in my reply #27.

-PJ

28 posted on 12/26/2013 12:56:12 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Bear in mind we’re about to undergo the REAL Chri$tma$ when the FSA gets their 3-4000.00 ‘earned’ income credit in Feb.

There are two Americas, and there are two Christmases now.


29 posted on 12/26/2013 1:08:41 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
In 2008, the Mediacracy elevated an Illinois State Senator who had briefly showed up in the Federal Senate to the highest office in the land. They did it even though he had no skills for the job and no serious plan for fixing any of the country's problems. They did it to show that they could. They did it because they wanted to tell a compelling story and inflict radical change on a country that would have never voted for it, if it had not been lied and guilted into making the single worst decision in its entire history.

I would think that this paragraph alone makes the case that the media is a fifth column, not a "fourth estate." Their boy is now in charge, and playing Santa Claus. Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' constitution.

The destruction of the country continues...

5.56mm

30 posted on 12/26/2013 1:10:11 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
The media made (in round numbers) $3 billion in the 2012 election and $1- 2 billion in the 2010 election- the most ever. Over that same 4 year period the media made $32 billion from just the SNAP food stamp reditribution scheme. About 10% of food costs go to advertising and SNAP spends $80 billion a year. so SNAP provides 7 or 8 times the ‘fiscal motive’ for the media than campaigns do. That’s a huge ‘influenece on business’. That’s just the media’s income from SNAP redistribution. Numerous other programs also take saving and investment money and redirect it to the consumer spending that media profits from.

Even if the direct profit motive from elections is smaller than from other engagements from other government programs, it's still a symbiotic relationship. The media supports those candidates that favor programs that will kick back money to the media.

Take the food stamp program again. I remember Rush Limbaugh talking about how food stamp enrollments late in the Bush term were so low that the federal government was considering advertising on the radio to boost enrollment, rather than see this as a sign that people are either more interested in being self-sufficient or they are getting their charity elsewhere.

If you were a media special-interest, would you rather promote a candidate who supports a growth in faith-based charities (or secular foundations) to feed the poor (who don't advertise on radio), or would you support a candidate who wants an increase in government spending to advertise increased enrollment in government programs?

So, the media get their money coming and going. They profit from the campaigns, and then they profit from the actions of the elected government officials.

It's one thing to say that our media is only interested in supporting liberal left-leaning candidates (to the point of rabidly despising right-leanding candidates), but that is mostly the "boots on the ground" journalist mind-set. The exectuive elites in the media are also motivated by the profits and special access they get by supporting the candidate and then receiving the payback once elected.

-PJ

31 posted on 12/26/2013 1:18:45 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“SNAP mostly allows people to spend cash on other [advertised consumer] stuff they would otherwise have had to spend on food.”
Precisely- ALL of it goes to spending that the media gets a cut of for advertising.
The same is true for housing assistance, heating assistance...ad infinitum.
Some of redistributed money ends up in investment (SS payments for example can allow some recipients to maintain savings instead of having to spend them) but mostly they are spent.

The money is redistributed from wealth creating activity- that the media gets no advertising revenue from- to consumption. ( I’m reminded of that poor senator who was ridiculed for saying “there’s too much consuming going on!”.

So the media’s approximately 10% cut ( which corresponds to a salesman’s commission for moderately difficult sales) of redistributionist policies strikes me as very strong incentive to support those who favor the policies.

Of course I don’t mean to make this a “philosopher’s stone” of media behavior. But I do find it impossible to ignore- yet everyone, like the good Sultan Lnish, does.


32 posted on 12/26/2013 8:19:45 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Sure, appointment of Senators would have much benefit and the states are diversified enough now that corruption would not be the issue it was.
Plus it would end the national media’s overwhelmng influence upon these elections- but it’ll never happen.

Boy, the national media can drain a Senatorial candidate’s campaign chest with one manufactured hit piece. And make a tidy profit doing it!

The national media have not been able to affect the campaigns of Representatives. IMO that’s why we have a good number of conservative (anti-reditributionist) House members.
I expect the media to make an all-out efffort to do so in 2014 though. A constant generic anti-Tea Party attack combined with specific attacks on some candidates. It will be interesting, the media have a lot of money at stake.


33 posted on 12/26/2013 8:37:52 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: abb

This brilliant essay and the thread discussion may be of interest to your Media Deathwatch pinglist, if you are still doing it.


34 posted on 12/27/2013 9:48:12 AM PST by Albion Wilde ("Remember... the first revolutionary was Satan."--Russian Orthodox Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde; All
Two hundreds years ago, a few friends could open a printing press and take on the big behemoths and often did. Today the only place they can do that is on the internet.

It is my considered opinion that the internet is by a factor of 100 more powerful than printing presses. What we conservatives lack is the will to organize our own media system and realize the dream of citizen journalism. We have conservative opinion writers on the 'net by the hundreds, all writing the same thing. Any of us could easily write such stuff.

What we don't have is real conservative "reporters" and "journalists" who report on events, meetings, state houses, city halls - and then systematically publish that news. THAT'S how credibility is built, and then readership. We have to become the news source of choice for the masses.

We have the tools and it can be done.

35 posted on 12/27/2013 10:07:23 AM PST by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson