Mainstream Media

[shawmutt]

Or, as inept bloggers put it, MSM. This phrase seems to have displaced "that Liberal media", and is repeated over and over again by dittoheads and blogs alike. It smacks of elitism--the "cool kids" don't need no mainstream media!

In looking at different sites to see what folks are saying about last night's debates. One stands out at Fox News, from contributor Cal Thomas. He states "Biden made several factual misstatements regarding McCain’s voting record and some of his positions, but don’t look for the mainstream media to correct them." Last time I checked, every "mainstream media" site has a "fact check" link.

Is "mainstream media" simply the updated version of "liberal media? What is considered "mainstream media"? What isn't? Where do bloggers and talking heads get their news, if not from "mainstream media"?

[Jack]

Does that mean he considers Faux News to be a marginal news source? I would agree.

"Mainstream media" has become a pejorative term for "everyone else but us". I'm baffled how that happened and why, but it's obvious from watching almost any nightly news cast.

[RickSp]

MSM has the advantage that is an all purpose pejorative. Left wing bloggers use it at least as often as the rightwingers. The right wingers often prefer the "media elites" slur. That is the one that Simple Sarah seems to like.

My favorite political slang these days is related to the claims of media bias. The right claims that the MSM is "in the tank" for Obama, whereas the left claims that the MSM is "in the tire swing" for McCain.

The "tire swing" started after the McCains hosted the DC press corps at a barbecue at their Sedona estate. McCain's daughter put up a Youtube video of of the festivities. Many of the MSM or "media elite" are featured grilling ribs with John and/or swinging in his tire swing. So these days a slant toward McCain is referred to by the lefty bloggers as "swinging in the tire swing".

In the Tire Swing

[shawmutt]

OK, so the left is using it as well? That's would be a good reason it's now called "mainstream media" instead of "that liberal media"

[Okieslims]

Quote by: shawmutt Or, as inept bloggers put it, MSM. This phrase seems to have displaced "that Liberal media", and is repeated over and over again by dittoheads and blogs alike. It smacks of elitism--the "cool kids" don't need no mainstream media! In looking at different sites to see what folks are saying about last night's debates. One stands out at Fox News, from contributor Cal Thomas. He states "Biden made several factual misstatements regarding McCain’s voting record and some of his positions, but don’t look for the mainstream media to correct them." Last time I checked, every "mainstream media" site has a "fact check" link. Is "mainstream media" simply the updated version of "liberal media? What is considered "mainstream media"? What isn't? Where do bloggers and talking heads get their news, if not from "mainstream media"?

That is simply fox's way to draw the line in the sand. They have been doing it for years. They have been largely successful because they market to close minded right wingers and simpletons that buy the whole "were looking out for you" bs...
They have KARL ROVE as a "fox contributor" on s regular basis.. not to be interviewed... to contribute to fox's overall right wing message. The "main stream media" has begun pointing the unfairness of the network out and Fox's only defence is to call them "liberals" so that the simpletons and hard rightwingers will go back in their shells.

[Nono]

I use the much more precise term "corporate-owned media". That ain't partisanship, it's just fact.

[megadeth425]

Quote by: Nono I use the much more precise term "corporate-owned media". That ain't partisanship, it's just fact.

^ This. When people talk about 'mainstream media', they're usually referring to media owned by large companies that seem to have a vested interest in promoting those corporate ideals. My problem with Fox News isn't that they show an outright bias, it's that 1) they lie, and try to claim complete objectivity 2) ignore facts and report with an agenda, often one handed down by big-wigs looking to push a larger agenda of their own.
The problem here is bias, pure and simple. Having so few, powerful groups controlling the ways most people get information is a cause for concern. Politicians who accept hand-outs from corporations are lauded as putting their own interests and the interests of their benefactors before the people, but when the news they recieve is entirely devised by those same people, it's reliable and balanced.

[Shade]

Last night, Fox had a poll of their viewers about who won the debate. 86% said McCain.

Now, I don't like McCain or Obama. But, c'mon. 86% ??? Haha.

I think the "mainstream media" is neither liberal nor conservative, although there are flavors of each. Rather, the MSM is corporate.

The are owned by large corporations, all of which have a vested interest in promoting the stats quo, and particularly in supporting pro-government (statist) ideas.

They rarely interview people who challenge statist ideas. They only ask which of two flavors you like.

If they can frame the question, they don't care how you answer. The key is to refuse such a false choice.

[shawmutt]

Last time I checked most media outlets get their stories from AP and Reuters. If we don't think the news is "unbiased", shouldn't we be attacking the news provider instead of the news messenger? Yeah, FOX giving McCain a win by that margin is silly, but is it simply ineptitude, journalistic dishonesty, or a grand conspiracy in which leading corporations rule the country by ensuring "their man" gets in the White House?

It just sounds too much like conspiracy theory and authority hate to me.

Another thought--should public radio be considered authoritative in most issues?

[thebuescherman]

Quote from John Mayer's Waiting On The World To Change from the album Continuum.

And when you trust you television,
What you get is what you got,
Cause when they own the information, oooh
They can bend it all they want.

For the record, it sounds a lot better then it looks in words.

[shawmutt]

sooo...I should trust crappy musicians?

[thebuescherman]

Just went to one of his live concerts, wouldn't really call him a crappy musician. Sure as hell better then a lot of the garbage around these days, including 100% of all rappers. Just passing on the lyrics anyways.

[Okieslims]

I went to the guitar music festival in dallas a few years back. John Mayer was allowed to play on stage with Clapton, BB King, Jimmy Ray Vaughn, and the greatest blues man I have ever seen Buddy Guy.. you don't get on that stage if you suck.. it just doesnt happen.

[Spartan 117]

The media is liberal, but there are a few conservative media outlets and they are mostly radio talk shows and the fox news channel. The fact that democrats in the government are trying to pass a fairness doctrine.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Spartan 117 The media is liberal, but there are a few conservative media outlets and they are mostly radio talk shows and the fox news channel. The fact that democrats in the government are trying to pass a fairness doctrine.

Ya know, wikipedia is an excellent resource to use before posting. It would certainly help you make more educated posts.

Start with the fairness doctrine.

[ironeagle]

Liberals have taken over the media there's no doubt about it. The news also rarely reports the newsin an unbiased manner. They go for political sides and stand there and only report for the group they are secretly working for. Ie the liberals have monopolized main stream media. I personally like to listen to talk radio where I can actually hear real people's news not the preselected, mainstream garbage.

[Okieslims]

Quote by: ironeagle Liberals have taken over the media there's no doubt about it. The news also rarely reports the newsin an unbiased manner. They go for political sides and stand there and only report for the group they are secretly working for. Ie the liberals have monopolized main stream media. I personally like to listen to talk radio where I can actually hear real people's news not the preselected, mainstream garbage.

Fox is right wing.. msnbc is left wing.. cnn is left of center but closer to the middle than either.. Add to that am radio is flooded with right wing stations, and I think it's fair to say that the media balances itself out.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Okieslims Fox is right wing.. msnbc is left wing..

No, MSNBC is not "left-wing." They certainly would never "embrace the far fringe left." It sounds like you get your political definitions from FOX News.

Anyway, Scott McClellan admitted to Chris Matthews actually that "the White House made a deliberate effort to use FOX News commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly to disseminate White House talking points":

Matthews: "Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?" McClellan: "I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House." [...] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from. Matthews: "So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople." McClellan: "Well, certainly." McClellan: White House gave FOX commentators talking points | Crooks and Liars

Take that for what it's worth.

[megadeth425]

MSNBC isn't truly left, it's just left if you look at the partisan dichotomy. The Democratic Party itself isn't even truly left in the glocal political scale, just the Americans because they like to reduce things to one or the other.

On the issue of Fox News, like Bill Maher said, they and the White House should just merge already.

[Sonart]

.

Mainstream Media refers to media whose original mission was to appeal to the broadest general audience possible, in order to attract the largest corporate advertisers -- your car makers, airlines, banking, etc. Therefore they made a clear effort to appear objective in their reporting, or at least by reporting what the largest cross section of Americans wanted to hear, lest their advertisers get the idea that the general public found that media less than trustworthy.

This harkens back to the "Good 'ol" days, before cable and the Internet.

Daily Newspapers -- targeted to the broadest possible audience within a region, they were massive advertising machines for metro and local businesses.

Their objectivity varied from owner to owner, but in general, each metro paper sought to remain as objective as possible, and usually rely on non-partisan wire services (AP, UPI, Reuters) for most day to day stories.

Weekly News Magazines -- This used to include such notables as LIFE, the Saturday Evening Post, etc. but only TIME, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report still remain. Again, they are targeted to the broadest possible general market (again, to attract the biggests advertisers)...

...or at least the market of people still interested in reading in-depth, long form news reporting. As far as objectivity, TIME is considered a bit left of center, while Newsweek a bit right.

Nightly Network Television -- Same thing... 3 networks competing for the broadest possible cross section of viewers, and therefore the deepest pocket corporate advertisers. Except maybe public television, which attempted (still does) to present the highest quality programming, but which didn't necessarily appeal to the broadest possible cross section.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The common feature of these mainstream media was that it was in their interest to remain as objective, and most importantly, ACCURATE, as possible, albeit with varying degrees of success. Accuracy meant credibility, and credibility meant higher advertising rates. To this end, large -- and therefore well resourced -- mainstream media developed editing practices and procedures, confirmation, etc., that would most likely guarantee accuracy.

(and no, please don't inundate me with every screw-up you can think of. They're still vastly better at it than anyone else. Period.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scoops -- Despite constant whines of "liberal media bias", all mainstream media has one major bias... scoops! Getting the big stories first, partisanship be damned. That's why the VRWC was so successful at keeping the mainstream media in pursuit of Bill Clinton for year after year... by presenting one seemingly plausible scoop after another. No sooner would one "scandal" start to fall apart, then, presto! Weeee, up popped another. And another. And another. Until finally they stumbled on something with actual big-time scoop traction. Monicagate.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 hr. Cable and the Media Explosion -- With the explosion of cable Television it became obvious that niche marketing was a better guarantee of success than trying to compete with dozens of channels for the same general audience. So soon we had sports channels, movie channels, comedy, SciFi, cartoons, family, history, manly-men, etc. etc. etc.

FOX News -- CNN was the first to offer all news, but Rupert Murdock's FOX News was the first to combine news and niche. Rather than compete head-on with CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for a 20% of the huge general audience, why not peel off a guaranteed 35-45% of the market by appealing directly to conservative viewers. A brilliant business move that worked like a charm, with marquee conservative red-meat attractions like Bill O'Reilly, Hannity & (mumble), Greta van Susteran and now, Karl Rove.

Indeed, in the last year or so, MSNBC has attempted to appeal in the other direction with their red meat throwers, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow.

The Internet -- The Internet provided a media explosion on steroids. With Cable television, you still needed significant capital to operate, thus you needed significant advertisers, and therefore a reasonable audience. With the Internet, any damn fool can throw up a site, and as long as they can appeal to a core niche of SOMEONE, they can thrive... whether it's Nazi Midgets, lawnmower racers, or whatever.

Which leads me to....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My view... is a story "Playing Vegas"?

Several years ago when I was teaching college graphic design, one of my bright young students was regaling me at a party of her boyfriends adventures at a seance. He was absolutely convinced, and had convinced her, that the medium had actually contacted the dead and had actually levitated this huge table.

"Okay, but if that were true," I responded, "If they REALLY COULD do all those things, then why are they still selling seats around a table in someone's house for $5 a pop? If I could REALLY DO all those things, man, I'd be making millions, doing two shows a night in La Vegas"

And so it is with media. Internet News Boutiques and blogs really aren't that concerned with accuracy. They'll say any damn thing, as long as their target audience will lap it up and come back for more. But mainstream media relies on a reputation for accuracy to attract those big, mainstream advertisers, so while they have no problems picking up on a good scoop from the Internet, they'll go to far greater lengths to corroborate a story.

And if the Mainstream can't corroborate it, then they don't report it... the story "doesn't play Vegas". It stays on the Internet, in the house around a table with the few people who want to believe it.

(The exception being FOX. Not that they don't corroborate news to get it right, but what they do present is usually one side of the story. So you can be assured that FOX got right "what the Bush administration said". Whether "what the Bush administration said" was right or not is another matter, and often of no particular concern to FOX News. Should Barack Obama say something, on the other hand, you can bet FOX is corroborating the hell out of every word.)

Anyway, that's why, when sourcing information for this board, I'll go out of my way to find it in the Mainstream Media, rather than blogs and Internet News boutiques.

.