Is The Corporate Media Deciding This Election For Us?

Here are some recent election stories:  The media pounds candidate Hillary Clinton to release her tax forms, because the public has a right to know.  And she does release her and her husband's returns, going back a decade.  The media trumpets how much income they have been receiving, how rich they are, and drills down into details.  If you follow the news, it is inescapable.  At the same time candidate John McCain releases only partial forms that show all assets are now in his wife's name, and he won't release his wife's tax returns.  The media is mostly silent on this; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.

Another story:  Candidate McCain won't release his medical records.  Again from the media there is mostly silence; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.

And here is the big story:  Unless you have been in a coma you know that for several weeks video clips of statements by Barack Obama's former minister have been aired nearly 24 hours a day on the news shows, especially on FOX News.  These clips are considered scary by certain demographic groups who are not familiar with the speaking patterns of black ministers

Interestingly, at the same time as this "Obama's minister" story is saturating the news there is another Presidential candidate with a "scary minister" problem of his own.  But the news media is not providing the public with any information at all about the things this minister has said. In this case the Presidential candidate is John McCain and the minister is John Hagee.  This minister has issued statements condemning Jews, is described as "virulently anti-Catholic," and says that 9/11 and Katrina are examples of God punishing America.  Yet John McCain sought out this minister's endorsement and insists that he is "proud" to have received it.

While saturating the airwaves with scary video clips of Obama's scary minister the corporate media is providing the public with almost no information about McCain's.  In the article, The McCain-Hagee Connection, the Columbia Journalism Review asks, "Why is the press ignoring this hate-monger?"

Why, indeed?

A well-functioning democracy depends on an informed public.  There is no question that the public deserves to know these things about Senators Clinton and Obama.  The information in the examples cited here could and should have an effect on the election, because the public will weigh these factors into their voting decisions.  But the public also needs the information about Senator McCain, presented with equal emphasis.  And clearly this isn't happening.  

So with nearly identical stories -- a relationship with a minister who makes scary and hateful statements -- the corporate media chooses to present the information about only one to the public, and does so in a way that is guaranteed to scare the ... excuse me ... bejeesus out of everyone.  The other is given a pass and a free ride, and the public is left without the information it needs to make an informed choice.

Why is this happening?  Here is some background on our media:

In the United States the broadcast media used to be required by law to serve "the public interest" ahead of profits.  Use of OUR airwaves was licensed out to private interests that were allowed to use them to profit to a limited extent in exchange for  providing the public with information and news.  We did this because it served our interests and those of our democracy.    

The rules allowed very limited commercialization of this public resource.  For example, in exchange for the license to make a profit from the use of the public airwaves the companies were required to provide educational content for children, news coverage, documentaries, arts and other public interest content.  And by law the information had to be objective and balanced.

At certain times of the day the companies could then present commercialized content.  But even then the commercialization was to be limited.  They were limited in how much time during a show could be used for commercial advertisements -- and the shows themselves were not allowed to be commercialized.  There were even restrictions on what the commercial advertisements could say.  Public benefit was the priority, commercial profits were limited.

It was an exchange - they get to make some money using our resource, and we get news and information that educates us and strengthens our democracy.  Why else would we have allowed private companies access to our airwaves, but to serve the public?

This changed.  In the early 1980s the Reagan administration unilaterally dropped the requirements that broadcast media serve the public interest and these companies promptly stopped serving the public interest and started serving their own corporate interests. As happens with any for-profit corporate interest commercialization became the only use of our public airwaves.

Shocked by this seizure of a public resource for corporate commercial interests the Congress immediately voted to restore the public benefit requirements, but Reagan vetoed this.  Then, under President George H.W. Bush the Congress again voted to restore the public benefit requirements, and this was again vetoed.  Under President Clinton the requirement was again brought before the Congress and again a majority voted to restore placing the priority on public benefit but Senate Republicans filibustered and blocked the bill.  

So today there is no requirement that our mass media serve the public interest.  Instead the only interests that are served are private, corporate interests and the only information the public receives through these outlets is information that benefits the corporations that control them.  

Is this why we are seeing such dramatic disparities in the way information about the candidates is presented to the public?  Should we be surprised?

Control of our information sources is now in the hands of corporations with no requirement that they serve the interests of democracy.  So shouldn't we expect that corporate interests are placed ahead of the public interest?  If for-profit enterprises control the information the public receives then why wouldn't they promote candidates who would be more favorable to their commercial interests?

Let me provide a clear example of how this affects all of us:  When was the last time you saw or heard on a corporate outlet information about the benefits of joining a union?  Of course you haven't, and you wouldn't expect to.  And, in the years since the requirement that the broadcasters serve the public interest by providing balanced information, we have seen a dramatic decline in the percent of the workforce that is unionized.  At the same time we have seen a dramatic increase in commercialization of everything, and in the power of corporations over the decision-making of our government.

What else should we expect?

Click through to Speak Out California

•  What can be done about it?

  by FundaMental Transformation on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:19:11 PM PDT

  •  Boycott corporate media and their sponsers n/t

    by doctorgirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM PDT

    •  start with the local talk radio station

      the talk radio monopoly has been the main source of the coordinated  widespread uncontested repetition that was necessary for steering the rest of the corporate media into this state.

      the local talk stations are the power centers of the GOP and they can be picketed and their local sponsors can be boycotted and called on the phone.

      as long as they maintain their monopoly they can intimidate their minority to maintain a veto-proof status and kill any media reform.

      by certainot on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:14:15 PM PDT

  •  Entirely New 1st Amendment.

    There is nothing wrong with the media under our system. They're protected by 2 rights to push their agenda and lock out opposing views.

    If most of the papers, village greens and town halls had been owned by the East India Tea Company, the framers would never in a million years have written this same 1st Amendment protecting them from the people as it does today in our time.

    by Gooserock on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM PDT

  •  Restore the Fairness Doctrine

    As I wrote in 2006, Restore The Fairness Doctrine
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Got a few comments, too.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM PDT

    •  some new Fairness Doctrine essential to democracy

      as long as the talk radio monopoly can maintain its coordinated  uncontested repetition to 50-70 MIL bipartisanship and democracy is impossible.

      by certainot on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM PDT

•  Revolution Planning Party at my house

  tonight!

  by dlh77489 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:19:59 PM PDT

•  You need

  a tip jar!  This is a nice piece and deserves the recs.

  by doctorgirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM PDT

  •  Tip Jar

    Thanks.  But your presence is in itself a tip.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

•  The US Supreme Court certainly is

  trying to decide it for us again.  That Indiana case can become a major impediment.  Wait until you see the piles of "provisional" ballots that get thrown away.

  by smartcookienyc on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM PDT

•  God Bless Chris Matthews!

  He just did it, he called a Hillary supporter on repeating the talking points. He asked about the Obama ad he just ran, and the Hillary guy, started to go to the Pastor Wright talk. Matthews said are you going to do that every time I ask you a question turn it into Pastor Wright. I am glad someone did that.
  Also earlier John Kerry let the blonde on MSNBC, I don't know her name but I hate her voice, have it and told her to knock it off, and move on to the issues that really effect the lives of Americans, get off the Pastor Wright issue. We need to have more of this.

  by Vera Lofaro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:50 PM PDT

  •  Do you remember

    who the guy was on Hardball?

    by ElizabethAM on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM PDT

    •  Some heavy set black guy, I really didn't

      get his name, I know he said it, but lately, I can not hold that information in my mind long enough to tell you. Sorry, but all the African American Hillary surrogates are on the airwaves today. The networks have also been playing the Maya Angelou commercial over and over. Is that supposed to be some overt message to the black Obama supporters, in light of the recent denouncing of Pastor Wright?

      by Vera Lofaro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:28:09 PM PDT

    •  "Republican strategist"

      I saw it, can't think of the guy's name, a very dapper looking young AA guy.  He's on MSNBC a lot.

      Matthews peddles whatever sells.  He'd prob. tell you he hates to do it, but he has bosses, too. I've heard him grumble about how intrusive and coercive the Clinton campaign is with higher ups at MSNBC.

      by smeesq on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Let's never use the phrase, God Bless

    Chris Matthews, please!

    by dlh77489 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM PDT

    •  once in a while he ges something right

      could it be a good influence from KO? :-)or is just  random chance?

      by nicolemm on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM PDT

      •  More like once in a decade.

        by dlh77489 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM PDT

      •  Yeah but...

        ...he's still a couple right answers short of a stopped clock.

        by Menehune on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM PDT

  •  Screw Matthews, he opened his show with a

    histrionic Wright pile o crap after saying yesterday if the issue doesn't die down, Obama could lose.

    Newsflash Matthews: it won't die down if all you do is talk about it.

    by ksh01 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:26:18 PM PDT

    •  Kerry told them when he was on MSNBC to

      knock it off. Sorry about the comment on Matthews it was a momentary expression of delight that someone called this guy on exactly what he was sent on that show to do. Now he is talking about the money gap between the DNC and the RNC I delete the messages I get from the DNC asking for money, since most of them are from Clinton surrogates, Carville, Begala and others. If I am going to give money, I will send it to Obama, and screw the DNC, until they tell Hillary it's over.

      by Vera Lofaro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM PDT

  •  Please, please, please

    This was not an anti-Hillary diary and not an anti-Obama diary.  It is an anti-McCain and anti-corporate media diary.  PLEASE take the pie fight somewhere else.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:34:44 PM PDT

•  You're right!

  And please don't be persuaded by the upcoming "pseudo" reasons, such as "But he's known him for 20 years".

  The point is Barack did know the man a long time, and that should make him a good judge of his minister. He can actually vouch for him McCain, had no relationship with this minister, and sought him out.

  What's worse? The fact that he had no friendship with this man, and sought him out for purely political purposes, is even worst.

  He could of let that one go by.

  by Excelscior1 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM PDT

•  Over my cold, hard,

  dead body. They have been trying to push Clinton on us as ineveitable for almost two years. Not this 55 yr old white female that will never vote for that lying poor excuse for a woman. We as woman finally had a chance at sitting in the Oval Office and she blew it big time. She needs to pack her bags and go home.

  by Alohaleezy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:55 PM PDT

  •  Off topic

    PLEASE, this is an anti-McCain and anti-corporate-media diary.  PLEASE.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM PDT

•  What's the name of the black rightwing pastor

  MSNBC has had on all day?  They allow him to run roughshod over guests and sometimes have him as the only pundit.  He has an obvious anti-Obama bias and has been bashing him all day.

  by ksh01 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM PDT

•  Get together with

  some people who have money and buy out a couple of the media companies.

  Simple!! ;)

  by dfarrah on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM PDT

•  as an edwards supporter i can't say no

  i think edwards is far better a candidate to initiate change than those who remain and i think that is why his candidacy, rhetoric, and policy positions were stiffled and went unreported in the media.

  by kuvasz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM PDT

  •  I live in NC

    Edwards was my Senator.  He started running for President the day after he was sworn in to the Senate.  The Senate was never anything but a step up for him, he wasn't there to represent the people of this state.  His Iraq War vote was taken for the same reason that Hillary took hers, bec. it looked like Bush was gearing up for another perfect little war like his Daddy had with Iraq, and they wanted to be on the winning side with the "war president." Edwards would not even listen to fellow Democrats and members of the bar who tried to discuss the war vote with him. I know, I'm one of the people he threatened to have arrested if we didn't leave his office - 6 lawyers pleasantly and politely asking for a few minutes to talk with him about the war, just days before he took his vote.

    I actually like Edwards, he's a good guy and perhaps would make a very good AG.  But he's just not presidential timber, IMHO.

    by smeesq on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM PDT

    •  that is your opinion

      and if you are truly an adult then you ought to know that the iraq war is not the only thing to be concerned about, but apparently you don't.

      and listen to yourself, you just admitted to civil disobedient action but chastise normal reactions to it by society, and use the sum of that difference as your political ruler.

      sorry, but i hold to different and i believe better measures.

      by kuvasz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:45:12 PM PDT

      •  I'm not only an adult

        I'm 63 years old.  I did nothing at all "disobedient."  Walking into my Senator's office in a public building in Raleigh and asking if he is available is not an illegal act.  We didn't refuse to leave his office, he made the threat immediately after we asked for his time.

        Actions taken by senators leading up to and including the vote on the Iraq War are the single most important reference point for many Democratic voters on how to judge the candidates.

        And of course thats "just my opinion."  What else are blogs like this for?

        by smeesq on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:25:01 AM PDT

  •  Follow the money -- if Edwards

    had raised as much money as Clinton and Obama did, he would have gotten as much free TV coverage as the other two.  Far from being squeezed out, Edwards' ratio of paid for to free TV coverage was better than that of Clinton and Obama until the IA caucus.  Since then Clinton and McCain have had the better ratio, unless we include Wright for Obama.

    by Marie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:44:15 PM PDT

•  Dear ol' Gravel

  knows that the corporate media is deciding the election for us.

  by dsharma23 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM PDT

•  They're framing this election

  in very conservative frames.  This whole recent obsession with "toughness" is just another example.  Sure, being president is "tough"...but that doesn't require that we search out the biggest a**hole to fill the position.  This does play right back into Lakoff's work, though...that strong, authoritarian father figure...and we're being told, day in and day out that this is what we need.  

  by tjb22 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM PDT

•  Fix this typo

  the requirement was against

  I think you meant "again"

  Thanks for a nice diary! rec'd

  by yaddab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM PDT

  •  Done

    Thanks.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM PDT

•  Fairness doctrine never covered cable

  Therefore, restoration of the fairness doctrine would not cover Fox News, CNN or MSNBC.

  Or youtube.

  by science first on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    But if we brought back the idea of serving the public interest, defense-contractor-owned MSNBC would sure stand out as NOT serving the public interest, and the public might "get it."  it's a start.  And an awakened public might start looking for other places where corporations could start benefiting US.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:40:40 PM PDT

  •  TV, print ignores - talk radio promotes

    the talk radio monopoy has been the main culprit dumbing down the media.

    talk radio's uncontested repetition is great for pushing molehills into mountains and keeping them in the news.  it's great for prechewing talking points and making them acceptable to the lazy celebrity talking heads on TV to use later. it's great for threatening journalists and pols who stick their necks out.

    by certainot on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:08:21 PM PDT

•  The Mass Media Arose During Strict New Deal

  regulation of the Depression through the 60's.

  Had they been invented in the Gilded Age they would have owned the public discourse as large corporations come to own all mainstream activity. There never could have been a New Deal, and democracy would have terminated probably around WW1.

  The framers' system is absolutely airtight against an informed electorate and rational mainstream discourse, once industrialization gets under way.

  There is no remedy for this situation.

  by Gooserock on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:34:47 PM PDT

•  They are certainly trying to

  While the corporate media had quite a bit to do with the outcomes of the 2000, 2002, 2004 they did not succeed with the 2006 elections.

  I would hope they don't succeed in 2008 and the streak continues.

  by MindRayge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:34:54 PM PDT

  •  They came close...

    Scarily close. Joe Lieberman is the Dem's "majority"? Karl Rove's math was slightly off, but had a few more media smears worked out, the Dems would still be in the minority. They didn't count on the Macaca tape getting out on the tubes.

    by Menehune on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:05:01 PM PDT

    •  But they learned from it...

      look at "Bittergate"--that was the direct lesson they learned from Macacgate.

      by Menehune on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM PDT

•  Yes. I said most of this in a post yesterday:

  I have a master's degree in Journalism--and what is practiced in the corporate media is NOT journalism. If it was really important to "test" Obama using his minister's spinned statements, then the media would be "testing" Clinton and McCain with the dubious religious people surrounding them, too.

  This whole Wright thing is a contrivance by the corporate media, because they can't find anything else to create a firestorm to keep this primary going. Plus, they don't want Obama to win. They're holding back on Clinton right now, but if she does somehow steal the nomination, watch how fast they go after her. McCain's base, as you've been told by Chris Matthews, is the media; so again, he'll slide right on through.

  We just need to keep sending the emails and the letters and to keep the pressure on the media to start reporting on the issues.

  And, please, turn your televisions off. Don't give the talking heads ratings. Cable news is no friend to democrats.

  Just keep the pressure on them. Otherwise, this will never go away.

  by zelda1010 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:36:42 PM PDT

•  Well Done!!

  One of the more interesting diaries I've seen here in weeks

  by mel70 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:36:55 PM PDT

•  Sure. Their failure to ask the hard questions of

  Obama early on is a big reason this fiasco with Wright was left to ride until it blew up.

  It's been on the internet for at least six months about Wright and his radical Black Nationalist church.  I was amazed that no MSM outlet said a word all this time.

  If something was said earlier, Obama might have been able to cut ties and move on instead of doing a huge speech on race in Philadelphia six weeks ago only to have Wright throw it in his face and make Obama look like an idiot.

  by bethrsingleton on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM PDT

  •  They would have found something else

    Or just made it up.

    by davej on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM PDT

  •  this hide rating is for your diary

    about Obama "Swinging in the Wind," as you elected not to post a tip jar in it.

    by kate mckinnon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM PDT

•  they sure as hell are trying to...

  Though I'm not quite sure who they're really pushing, at least on the Democratic side.  They're more interested in stretching it out than actually backing HRC.

  They're more interested in obsessing over the next Dean Scream or Rather memo or swiftboat than in actually covering the crucial issues facing us in choosing the next head of the executive branch.

  by N in Seattle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM PDT

•  Very informative...this should be

  on perma rec'

  by David Kroning on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM PDT

•  Duh!

  by LRT on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM PDT

•  Wow, you had me up until the last paragraph

  I am perfectly in line with you on every point you made and have been harping for years that some much more stringent control be exercised over our media and diverse sources of content be required.

  I was thinking about using citing your excellent diary on a blog I frequent that is a mix of liberal, conservative, and centrists and then I got to that last thought where you said that the media should have to tout the benefits of joining a union and your message suddenly became one that anyone center or right would have their eyes gloss over and they'd invalidate all the information because of the diary's obviously liberal slant.

  I fall into that category where, even though I see the incredible need for unions at times when corporations get ultra-greedy, I've also seen the evils that can grow in them in corporations that intrinsicly take care of their workers. I understand why some folks would not agree that touting a union environment would be a public service announcement.

  Now here on Kos that message fits the audience and you're well within rights to post it.  I'm just saddened that there are often diaries on here that do so well to get out information that should resonate with all Americans and they contain statements that put a huge bullseye on them for the neo-cons as evidence we're part of some vast Communist conspiracy.  

  A diary about the great benefits of labor unions to workers is a marvelous topic as is the one you chose.  However by mixing them, I think you watered down your message.  Still worthy of a rec though.

  by artmartin on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM PDT