Posted on 08/13/2002 6:40:37 AM PDT by bert
Dan Chavez
08/05/2002
The issue of whether or not a conscious conspiracy exists among the members of the "mainstream media" has exercised many minds among their opponents. How to address this topic needs to be clearly understood by those dedicated to reducing the power of the media. First, so we can clearly identify our target and second so they cannot smear and vilify us with one of their favorite terms of opprobrium, namely, "conspiracy theorist".
There are many of us who believe that a conscious conspiracy exists among the liberal media to advance a left-wing, pro-statist agenda. Despite the odium attached to the term, a conspiracy is merely an agreement between people to pursue a common goal or engage in certain actions, chosen in advance. Whatever the reason one believes there exists a conspiracy among the media it is best, for tactical reasons, to simply use these beliefs, whatever they may be, as a motivator to action rather than a position for debate. Reason being that exceptions may exist to any conspiracy theory and will undoubtedly be trotted out by the media. Plus we must not give our opponents any excuse to marginalize or weaken our cause by smear tactics.
It is true that the majority of journalists and editors in the "mainstream" media characterize themselves as Democrats. It is also true that in a hierarchical structure the values of those lower down in that structure will reflect echo or at the very least not be a threat to those higher up. For our purposes it is better to articulate our struggle as being a combat against those who share certain values and assumptions. This, by the way, will be entirely true.
One of the reasons for the power of the media is that they have been able to function as a conspiracy while yet being able to claim it does not. Not so much by argument as by ad hominum and vilification campaigns against those who were against them. Or, by simply ignoring them. When you have a group of people that share certain values and assumptions, like the media's editors and journalists do, you can predict with a certainty what their political slant and biases for or against certain issues will be. Add to this the structure of the media being a hierarchy where those above can weed out or deny advancement to those on the lower levels and you already have what to an outsider would appear a conscious conspiracy. But what is in reality a series of assumptions expressed by a group of people that takes on the appearance of unanimity. But, at the same time is something that can be denied as a conspiracy. So, the mainstream media has had the best of both worlds, namely, to be able to function as a conspiracy, albeit an unconscious one, and to be able to mock, denigrate and point up rare exceptions to their otherwise unanimity on most issues, when they are not otherwise ignoring their critics, which is most of the time.
Bernard Goldberg in his book "Bias" writes of network newscasters "Liberal bias is how they see the world" and " It just happens. News isn't just a collection of facts. It's also how reporters and editors see those facts, how they interpret them, and most important, what facts they think are newsworthy to begin with". These are the terms and the context within which the issues of a "conspiracy" within the "mainstream" media should best be articulated. If we can reduce their power and influence in an effective fashion then the opponents of the "mainstream" media will be well served no matter what their views on media "conspiracies" might be.
That's 'cause they want you to buy the book, LOL!
We are watching Socialism try to steal this country one more time through biased professors who still teach about the Utopia of Russian Socialism...forget that those leaders slaughtered tens of thousands of conservatives; our Journalism Schools no longer teach objective reporting, they teach young men and women to opine, they no longer seek the truth of an issue. However a new form of reporting can be found on the Internet with honest and hard working reporters who DO tell the truth. Biased newspapers and their reporters will soon find themselves out of work as more and more people realize they are being duped.
How do you know this?
I already answered that. Because it would be reported almost the same day that it happened.
FR's Common Tator, himself a long-time vet of radio and a former station owner, says that he's seen a LOT of people during his career and can state the following with absolute certitude:
1. All DJ's love music;
2. All sportscasters love sports; and
3. All newsmen LOVE government.
If you love something, there can never be too much of it. Plus, covering government gives reporters a feeling of eliteness, which those IN government do nothing to dissuade. By the time someone has been in the "nooze bidness" long enough to rise sufficiently up the broadcast or newspaper chain, they are so deeply wedded to the idea of Government-As-Savior that it's akin to water as sustenance.
Something else is at work, too. Newsies, predisposed to be Democrats, will be courted shamelessly by Democrats in government - they're much better at it than Republicans who feel that the force of their great ideas should win them favoritism. Democrats know better - they know that newsies are usually underpaid, and take as their currency proximity to power, elitism, and free food and booze. So Democrats always buy lunch, have plenty of free shrimp, crab, and open bars at their events. Even if someone starts out in the profession as a political ambivalent, the raw power of the Press Perks as heaped by the Democrats is certain to win a soft spot in every reporter's heart.
And then there are the issues near and dear to reporters. First, their lifestyles tend to the bawdy. Sex is the same commodity it is in Hollywood, so abortion is seen as a handy convenience. They like the environment, because espousing "clean-n-green" gets them access to mindless blondes of the same persuasion. And, of course, they crave popularity - and being a liberal Democrat is KEY to being popular amonst their own crowd.
Last but not least is "Feelings." Newsies love to concentrate on feelings and emotion because they know their editors and news directors will give them more ink and air time if they do. So they play the game of "Put A Face On It" to nauseating distraction. It's never enough to report the facts of a story. No. You must ALWAYS show how the facts AFFECT a "person like you," the reader or viewer. A prime example of this is NBC Nightly News' "Lifeline" segment, which they run almost every evening as a profit center for pharmaceutical companies paying a premium for their ads to run next to the segment. These reports are produce by the net's science correspondent, Robert Bazell (whose name Tom Brokaw pronounces "BRA-ZELL."). Each report starts out with a vignette of a person or couple. Every last report is about one person or family, and they all follow the exact same script. Bazell no doubt does these by the dozen and cans them for later news droughts. In "Lifeline," Bazell never just tells us the news. There always has to be an "Obligatory Person Like You" in the setup. You really wonder where they get all these people, and if some of them aren't actors. It's the media's way of reporting the news with feelings.
Once you understand where all these newsies are coming from, it's easy to see why they do things the way they do. It's really NOT a giant conspiracy. The "conspiracy" is really just the way these people are - and how they act in a group.
Michael
I used to believe this as well. But how do you explain the news divisions of the big TV media outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) steadfastly refusing to change their ways despite hemmorhaging viewers and money for years now? Any normal show would have been radically changed or cancelled after losing as many viewers as these guys. Bernard Goldberg wrote his book because he tried to warn his colleagues about this years ago and they refused to listen to him.
Do a google search on "Mockingbird."
1. After a story aired on CBN concerning Vince Foster's suicide note , the major networks agreed not to do anymore stories about Vince Foster. I think it happened on April 8, 1996 but it could have been earlier.
2. Peter Jennings finally did a special about the Jessie Durkins (sp?) story and how biased the media was about it. He said that even though half of America was talking about the story, he and his collegues "agreed" that it wasn't newsworthy.
3. Evans from Newsweek said that he and his peers had a policy that matched the liberals on the environment which is why environmentalist weren't asked tough questions.
The list is incredibly long. Of course the media is biased. What is also incredible is that some liberals think that the news is "coporately biased". They are just clueless.
That one's easy. Since most of the media are (1)lazy and (2)Democrats, they simply read the DNC FAX Talking Points Of The Day. It gives them crisp language crafted by their friends. It never occurs to them how silly they all look reading the same script as everyone else - because each has such an ego that they truly believe the reader or viewer ONLY listens to HIM and no other media sources. That's how 'gravitas' showed up in 30 different places all at once. DNC fax machine at work.
Michael
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.