The progressive blogosphere has yet to entirely settle on just how to refer to long-established media outlets like daily newspapers, newsweeklies, and most broadcast and cable news, radio and TV, local and national. ‘Mainstream’ media (MSM) is quite popular. ‘Traditional’ media is also used. For a while, I just called it ‘old’ media, but then allowed myself to be convinced to use the more respectful ‘legacy’ media.
Not for long. Since August 2009, when mainstream/traditional/old/legacy media outlets of every description couldn’t go far enough in presenting the delusional, manipulated, frightened teabaggers at the congressional town hall meetings as the very substance and soul of all of Middle America’s reaction to the ‘overreach’ of federal government, I’ve been going with ‘corporate media.’ (CM) Yes, it can be interpreted as disrespectful; I generally mean for it to be.
And just what motivates CM in its blind, heedless flight from the reality-based, objective, investigative approach that at least some outlets used to at least sometimes try to attempt? Here’s what I think, for what it’s worth. (I know this is the subject, at least in part, of many diaries. This is just my take.)
First, as one who tries to think scientifically, it’s rare for me to present a ‘big’ declarative statement as if it’s meant to be regarded as established fact. But I’m doing so here:
The fundamental purpose of all corporate media is to promote corporatism.
Like blood and lymph coursing through the body, the corporate mindset suffuses virtually all that its media propagandists do. And since corporatists prefer conservatives in positions of power, that’s the spin. I’m not going to provide a long list of examples, because I’m confident that, in this forum, 90+ percent of viewers know exactly what I’m typing about. (In any case, I already provided a definitive example, about the town halls, above.)
Second, there’s a perceived need to play to a conservative-leaning audience. The demographic fundamentals are well-established: younger people are getting their news from websites, The Daily Show, and the like. This is increasingly leaving only the old fuddie-duddies, who tend to be more conservative, for old media. Since much of the latter is hanging on only by the most fragile of gossamer strands anyway, it can’t take a chance on offending aging righties.
Actually, the Boomers (born 1946-64) tend to be a little less conservative than the succeeding Gen-Xers (born 1965-83 or so), but, whatever. I’m sure that all CM’s pricey consultants and focus groups tell them that right-wing spin is the way to go, so that’s what we get. (Regional demographics also come into play, for example suburb/inner city, but that’s beyond the scope of this diary. A lot of things are; when you get to thinking about it, this is a big topic.) The all-but-blatant corporate conservative propagandizing also ties in with (1), above, and (3), below.
Telling the truth and letting the ratings dice tumble as they may apparently isn’t regarded as an option, even though the present course involves sacrificing the prospect of long-term credibility for short-term survival. It’s unclear to me why they don’t try to come up with a way to do both.
I tend to accept that the majority of those who actually do the work at CM are center-to-left leaning in their politics, compared to the contemporary American populace (the part of it that actually votes, that is) as a whole. In that context, I consider it quite likely that many, privately, aren’t entirely pleased with what they’re made to do in exchange for their paychecks - implying, for example, that it’s President Obama’s fault Bushleague’s administration didn’t make Big Oil or Big Coal take even minimal safety precautions regarding the circumstances surrounding certain current events, or bellowing the neocon party line on Iraq. But they have mortgages to pay and young’ns to feed, and feel they have to make the proverbial deals with the devil.
Well, who hasn’t? Let’s face it, it’s not so difficult to ‘stand on principle’ when you’re just another volunteer content-provider. The only strictures (if they can even be called that) that I operate under in this capacity, that I know of, are "Keep it real" and "Don’t embarrass the blog." So, in that sense, it’s not so hard for me to figuratively cast stones. But this is about the content of corporate media, not the people who feel compelled, for reasons I don’t presume to pass personal judgment on, to provide it.
Third, pushing the meme of ‘Obama failure,’ with an enormous conservative/‘moderate’ backlash, in the hope that such prognostications will become, at least to some extent, self-fulfilling, is attractive to CM on more than one count. Primarily, corporatists want any efforts at reform, even those that many might consider quite limited, to disappear...and, of course, the prospects of reforms beyond the incremental terrify them. Also, the drama of Obama with a hostile, quite possibly impeachment-minded Congress, might lead to better ratings or circulation. And it’s what they believe their target audience wants to see.
That sounds incredibly cynical, I know. But I’m letting it stand.
Fourth, CM is filled with black, bilious rage at progressive domination of political content on the Internet. Especially when it comes to quality. In fact, they don’t much like progressives in general.
That’s somewhat exaggerated for effect, but the fact, and it is fact, remains that CM has consistently refused to acknowledge the left as the real rising force in American politics. (At least, I haven‘t seen CM acknowledge it; if I’m wrong, I’d welcome being corrected. Fat chance, I’m thinking.) The evidence - voter demographics, actual results of recent elections, to name just two pieces of it - is for real. Are we about to take over? H***, no!/I wish! But we’re not mayflies, either, and they know it. They just won’t admit it, for all the reasons aforementioned.
Don’t get me wrong, CM’s choosing to try to present the realities of the left to its remaining audience with maximum efforts at minimizing, condescending, &c., doesn’t bother me. There’s much to be said for working under the radar.
I do think that what I’m calling corporate media has a worthwhile place in society. They just need to abandon, or at least deemphasize, the ‘corporate’ part. But bringing that about is likely to take a major industry-wide crisis, much worse than it’s undergoing now, I’d wager.
(Cross-posted from MN Progressive Project, where my username is 'dan.burns.')