Media Controversy

[Mongol-Swedes]

Hail, members of Europa! Your friendly neighborhood Media Agitator is hard at work to bring you clear-cut evidence of the truly despicable journalism that is going on in Corporate Media.

 

The issue at hand today is a farewell letter that was written by the late Saddam Hussein. I have before you two distinctly different accounts of exactly what was on that letter.

 

According to the UK's Guardian, Saddam has urged Iraqis 'to unite against the US and Iran'.

 

However, according to The Houston Chronicle, Mr. Hussein stated that he wanted the Iraqis not to hate America.

 

Keep in mind that when the corporate media of America collectively decided to support the war, there was virtually no dissent, no journalistic examination of the Bush Regime's intelligence claims, and a significant amount of evidence floating around suggesting that Mr. Bush's true intention was to capture Iraq's oil (which was never reported, and to this day, Faux News continues to deny this as 'liberal hogwash').

[Damak Var]

The media will present information that they consider profitable for the public to hear. Anti-Bush/Anti-War is just the popular movement right now, so they present information to escalate it.

 

well thats what i think

Edited January 2, 2007 by BlackJackEmperor (see edit history)

[Vanarambaion]

I'm not aware of the status of the UK's Guardian as it pertains to widespread readership, and would not presume to comment on another country's media choices without more research, but I'm quite sure that I've never laid my hands on, much less read a copy of the Houston Chronicle. To argue that a paper that includes a "GunBlog," a "Thinking Christian" section, and caters to the Houston Texans is part of this fictional "Corporate Media" is ludicrous. Why don't we look at the New York Times, where a blistering front page article blasts the New York Republican power bloc, or half-way down the page, where an equally blue article lays into President Bush for his chaotic handling of Iraq in 2006? Or maybe the LA Times, for which the top stories are: "Democrats prepare to kick off 100-hour agenda," "Israel loses a founding father," (which bemoans the loss of a man who tried to sew up the wounds in the Middle East, and turns into a criticism of the Bush Administration), and "Gay marriage threatened in Mass." Surely the so-called "Corporate Media," if it has decided anything as a cohesive unit, has not decided that the Bush Administration in general and the Iraq war in particular is a good thing. In fact, I'd say quite the opposite.

[Mongol-Swedes]

Whatever's popular at the time. I hear Faux News is still trumpeting the Iran card, further isolating News Corp.

 

And the Houston Chronicle has a history of reporting for the greater pocket. The Right Wing Watch has listed them in their reports. It may not be the 'Corporate Media' bloc that you seem to invision (I don't imagine every media outlet operating as a singular massive entity, because they're still owned by private citizens).

[Vanarambaion]

That's much more reasonable than the original statement. I don't care whether people say the media leans left or right, but let's not go overboard.

[Mongol-Swedes]

It's still plenty reasonable to assert that few media outlets value the journalist's responsibilities to the public, and instead take the interests of their shareholders into account when it comes down to the final edit (e.g., not pissing off the FCC, which continues to rape us at our own expense entirely, and incurring the wrath of 'decency' fines).

 

We've become so blatantly lazy that many don't even bother to double-check their sources (the point I was trying to illustrate with this dual-reality), and many media outlets are only too happy to capitalize on the one-stop shop mindset. With this, I feel, with a wholehearted determination, that journalists need to be held to a higher standard, and not become so slavish to the powers that [questionably] be.

 

As a matter of fact, you may recall the case of 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to OIF. The Army wants to supoena an interviewer that got his story out to testify against him in a special courts martial, clearly a case of state terror in my book, man! Journalism has lost its sacred independence.

[Tagmatium Rules]

Journalism has lost its sacred independence.

It lost that a long, long time ago, man.

[Mongol-Swedes]

Just another symptom of centralizing everything, really. People only see the big, vague picture, and to hell with the details.

 

Also, Van, don't forget that just because a paper is local doesn't mean that its highest ownership is also local, just like Faux News isn't its own entity all by itself.