How capitalism Corrupts media

[Anarchist Freedom]

Its been know by everyone in the world that the media is corrupt to some extent. But Is capitalism to blame for the corruption of the mass media? There are now what 3 major news stations? NBC FOX and CNN(we dont include other subnews like MSNBC). But is that really enough news for the nation? What about the fact that all the major news stations have become monopolized by the very few rich people in our nation? What brought about the media being so corrupt?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 6 2005, 03:04 PM
Its been know by everyone in the world that the media is corrupt to some extent.
…Anyone to be taken seriously. It is just too obvious to hide; better to just find scapegoats.


But Is capitalism to blame for the corruption of the mass media?

Yes, the media corruption is on the ruling class agenda, without it, they would be quickly uncovered, so it is likely one of their highest priorities.


There are now what 3 major news stations? NBC FOX and CNN(we dont include other subnews like MSNBC).

Maybe, all the major ones blend together...


But is that really enough news for the nation?

Any of that "news" is more than enough. We need sources of current information, not insignificant facts and "spin," or as they are calling it these days "no spin".


What about the fact that all the major news stations have become monopolized by the very few rich people in our nation? What brought about the media being so corrupt?

That has been going on for a while but has become particularly bad of late; I think mostly due to the movement of the far right. They had regulations "relaxed," so we can have the sources concentrated in even fewer hand and get more of the same BS while forcing out any quality services.
I believe the media has been corrupt since it came into existence in the larger sense; the ruling class is just becoming more adept at using it as a source of disinformation.

[Anarchist Freedom]

agreed

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

Capitalism definitley corrupts the media for several reasons. You are right when you say there are not enough news stations but we have to be careful not to have too many, otherwise people will only watch the mouthpiece of their views and will not be exposed to different thought.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 6 2005, 03:04 PM
What about the fact that all the major news stations have become monopolized by the very few rich people in our nation? What brought about the media being so corrupt?
They're monopolised by the rich alright : rich socialists.

[cormacobear]

Please name one rich socialist running a major news network, hell i'd settle for a rich socialist.

Publicly owned news media is the only method of preventing the type of degredation we have witnessed in news outlets over the last half century. Corperations have as their key goal making money, when corperations control news delivery we see the type of news that preserves their investers and managements strangle hold on market elements. We also see as a symptom a glossy user friendly delivery of the type of stories that make people keep watching, without being upset or shocked ,wich could potentialy result in a reaction, their greatest fear. Rather than deliver accurate detailed news which could affect the status quo their editors strain the news looking for any possible long term effects which could effect their bottom line. and remove those or in the case of American News media just lie.

[Rage Against the Right]

I don't think mass media intentionally corrupt. The media circuits mention (CNN, NBC, and FOX) both report on facts fairly un-partisaned. They shows they have tend to be partisaned to the right, but those are just shows, the actualy "news" portion of their programming isn't that corrupt, all they do is present facts. The only corruption of the facts is that they censor the details that the public doesn't want to hear. Even if there existed a far leftist circuit of media it would only be us, the poeple previously interested and educated in the area that would watch. The real corruption is in the people viewing the media.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 7 2005, 05:56 PM
I don't think mass media intentionally corrupt. The media circuits mention (CNN, NBC, and FOX) both report on facts fairly un-partisaned. They shows they have tend to be partisaned to the right, but those are just shows, the actualy "news" portion of their programming isn't that corrupt, all they do is present facts. The only corruption of the facts is that they censor the details that the public doesn't want to hear. Even if there existed a far leftist circuit of media it would only be us, the poeple previously interested and educated in the area that would watch. The real corruption is in the people viewing the media.
You should have seen what they were saying when the attempted anti-Chavez coup was going on in Venezuela; were calling it an "massive uprising" and basically were reporting the oppisite of what actually happened.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 7 2005, 07:30 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 7 2005, 07:30 AM)
Anarchist [email protected] 6 2005, 03:04 PM
What about the fact that all the major news stations have become monopolized by the very few rich people in our nation? What brought about the media being so corrupt?
They're monopolised by the rich alright : rich socialists. [/b]
Fucking hilarious. You have ceased even trying to make any arguments that are in any way based in reality; instead, you simply try to provoke the ire of our membership with ridiculous comments like this. How much longer are you going to keep this up?

With regards to the topic, I think Chomsky nailed it when he said that it doesn't matter what specific subset of capitalist ideology the media elites subscribe to, because they are all corporations and thus support that which is good for corporations. And somehow, people like Professor Moneybags end up labeling anyone who is pro-government intervention on the side of corporations a "socialist." :rolleyes: :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Dan Rather ? *chuckle*

Oh, let me guess; he's a "corporate puppet " :rolleyes:


Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

Link (http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#THE%20MEDIA'S%20POLITICAL%20A FFILIATIONS)

What's the bet we'll find the same trend in TV news, too ?


With regards to the topic, I think Chomsky nailed it when he said that it doesn't matter what specific subset of capitalist ideology the media elites subscribe to,

But they don't subscribe to any subset of capitalist ideology, so who cares ?


because they are all corporations and thus support that which is good for corporations.

Why do you think that the involvement corporations automatically makes eveything "capitalism" ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Capitalism corrupts media for the simple reason that media is used to generate capital. principles are thrown out the window in the race for profits.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Also I dont think that capitalism has everything to do with it. If everyone has noticed "news" is all about sensationalism."Someone was murderd today 2 die in plane crash". People want to hear about the misfortune of others it makes them feel better.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Capitalism has everything to do with it. Sensationalism sells.

[zangetsu]

I think people should look to the BBC as what media can be, as opposed to what happens when you let private enterprise run things. When you let the same people who sell you products sell you your ideas aswell, ofcourse there is going to be distortion... but then i guess that's what happens when politics is owned by private enterprise in the first place.

[Raisa]

Capitalism is also to blame for making a commodified ass of everyone's culture on TV. They think with liberal minds that they are doing people favors by representing them with sterio types, but all their doing is perpetuating something stupid and making money off of it.
Capitalism and capitalist media degenerates art. And a prime example of this is rap music.
Rap music started as a rather political expression, and it was often confined towards black listeners because it talked about alot of issues that affected mostly black people. More and more, rap got famous and now rap music THAT IS PUBLICIZED BY THE CAPITALIST INDUSTRY rarely talks about anything real, all it talks about so often is just money and objectifying women. It shows children (maybe not so many white ones) that the thing to be is gangsters and players and people who forget where they come from and capitalize off of their own people's struggles for " bling bling", much more then it ever is allowed to whisper a peep about revolution or class contiousness.
And I think it is no conspiracy. That is just straight up capitalism, in all honesty!
Revolution devides the audience and turns alot of potential consumers off. Especially people with money. If someone has the money to buy a Jah Rule, a Lil John and a 50 Cent CD, you dont want to chase them away with your sad songs about the ghetto and your crazy music about self determination and uprisings. Talk about booty, even stiff white accountants like alittle booty. ;) He can walk to the store with his penny loafers and his suit case whistling " Get Low" and buy the CD.
There are one or two songs every so often about the struggle, to add some depth to peoples music collections, but they know they will sell more CD's if they put CD's out that talk about pleasure and indulgence because those two things can be enjoyed by everyone, and more people are likely to buy that CD. It is a bad investment (and thats all art is to them, an investment) to put all your funds into publicizing music that affects only a certain audience, when you can make a rediculous thing you are able to sell to everyone and make 12 times as much as you spent.

The art form has been degenerated, and a culture has been mocked before the masses so now suburban white kids can go " yo homie G, im black" and laugh at each other, having no clue about anything real. And this is how some people make their fortune. But hey, at least it wont start a revolution!

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:12 AM
And I think it is no conspiracy. That is just straight up capitalism, in all honesty!
I agree with your post and it was a good example but I am going to have to disagree on capitalism not being a conspiracy. I doubt that many people will disagree that it became a conspiracy shortly after it was created.

Conspiracy may be used as a buzzword for crazy postulations about underground organization but (lets no give capitalists a word to discredit us with) here is the actual definition:

con•spir•a•cy (k…n-spîr“…-s) n., pl. con•spir•a•cies. 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.

Capitalism is all about closed circles of exchange, networks of power and attempts to control people behind closed doors, it is a conspiracy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 9 2005, 10:04 AM
I doubt that many people will disagree that it became a conspiracy shortly after it was created.

When was it "created" ?


Capitalism is all about closed circles of exchange,

It was about free exchange last time I checked.


networks of power

What sort of power ?


and attempts to control people behind closed doors,

If you control another individual's money, you contol that individual. So what exactly are you doing when you demand the redistribution of wealth, in not attempting to control people ?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2005, 11:41 AM



Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

Link (http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#THE%20MEDIA'S%20POLITICAL%20A FFILIATIONS)


Reporters don't get to decide what is released editors do. The editors of the media in question are all registered republicans.

[bur372]

Perphaps it is more adverts than news staions?

Fox news definatly does bend the truth for example they said that the BBC was going to have to pay the goverment over the Hutton report (which is bollocks). They did this so people would watch there program the ads would come on and more people would watch the ads more people watching ads=more money for Fox.

The BBC has no ads in. Therefore they do not need tomake money. They show programs because they want people to enjoy the programs (well it does use up taxpayers money). This means they do not twist or corupt programs. Also because they use up the taxpayers money AKA the people's money they show programs that the people want. A quick visit to http://www.bbc.co.uk/a-z/ shows us that many different programs are represented.

The BBC also has debates http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/default.stm
( recomend the above program) Which ask for people's views on an important question (e.g stem cell research) provide facts and letting you decide the result. which you would very rarley see on fox, CNN etc (correct me if I am wrong).

All in all the BBC is The peoples television program run by the people for the people.

Of course capatalsim privitizes so capatalisim is the route of "media corruption"

[synthesis]

Oh, let me guess; he's a "corporate puppet "

Well, actually, yes. He gets paid by corporations; he says what they want him to.


What's the bet we'll find the same trend in TV news, too ?

Only in your wacko fantasy world (you and Rush Limbaugh) does 'liberal/Democratic' translate to "socialist." :D


But they don't subscribe to any subset of capitalist ideology, so who cares ?

They subscribe to the idea that the people who own the means of producing wealth now should be owning them. Since we are in the capitalist mode of production, that makes them capitalist.


Why do you think that the involvement [of] corporations automatically makes eveything "capitalism" ?

Again, corporations own the means of producing wealth; they have direct interest in maintaining the status quo, and as the status quo is capitalist (privately owned means of industrial production), they stand as the defense of capitalism in the hearts and minds of their viewers.

[encephalon]

the day any news corporation reports that their CEO did something wrong, or the day they show what really happens in war, or the day when advertising doesn't dictate what constitutes as "news" and what isn't even mentioned, or the day that a news station supports ANY revolution (and not one set up in another country by the united states)--that's when I'll maybe believe the news is factual and objective.

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, actually, yes. He gets paid by corporations; he says what they want him to.

Why did the corporations think it is in their interest to back Kerry over Bush ?


Only in your wacko fantasy world (you and Rush Limbaugh) does 'liberal/Democratic' translate to "socialist." :D

It's the same in priniciple and achieves the same end in practice.


They subscribe to the idea that the people who own the means of producing wealth now should be owning them. Since we are in the capitalist mode of production, that makes them capitalist.

No, the democrats think that all of everything belongs to the govenment; the republicans do too, to a lesser extent. No one says it belongs to the individual, so none of them are capitalist.


and as the status quo is capitalist (privately owned means of industrial production),

Then the status quo does not represent capitalism; this is proven by the fact that private ownership exists only defacto.

[synthesis]

Why did the corporations think it is in their interest to back Kerry over Bush ?

Most of them don't, but for those that do, there are a variety of reasons. CEOs, being more educated than the majority of Americans, are often socially liberal (on abortion rights and things like that) even if their economic interests lie elsewhere.

Also, there is a portion of the ruling class that is not afflicted with the sort of social myopia that penetrates laissez-faire capitalism, and thus recognizes the need for a welfare safety net to prevent large-scale resistance to the system.


Then the status quo does not represent capitalism; this is proven by the fact that private ownership exists only defacto.

What exactly does this mean?


[Liberalism and socialism are] the same in priniciple and achieves the same end in practice.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


No, the democrats think that all of everything belongs to the govenment

:lol: :lol: :lol:

At least us radical leftists are actually trying to figure out why no one takes us seriously :lol:

[encephalon]

Then the status quo does not represent capitalism; this is proven by the fact that private ownership exists only defacto.

That's right. Nobody owns anything for real in this world void of capital. I think the status quo would disagree with you.


Why did the corporations think it is in their interest to back Kerry over Bush ?

They didn't.


It's the same in priniciple and achieves the same end in practice.

No, it isn't. Know what your opposition is before you're going to oppose it.

[EMS]

All news in America is produced by two syndicates: Associated Press and Retuers, which both use very similar techniques. Patriotism is profitable, so stations wont portray unprofitable news(anti-establishment), only BBC and PBS would dare do that because they have nothing to lose from telling the truth.


The reason why PBS never does a report on Cuba: Doesnt want to lose its donor base which consists of many liberal capitalists.

[Professor Moneybags]

What exactly does this mean?

It means we live under a mixed system. More accurately, semi-fascist.



[Liberalism and socialism are] the same in priniciple and achieves the same end in practice.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

^ This is not an argument.



No, the democrats think that all of everything belongs to the govenment

:lol: :lol: :lol:

^ Niether is this.


At least us radical leftists are actually trying to figure out why no one takes us seriously :lol:

^ Nor this.

[inquisitive_socialist]

Moneybags you have to be the dumbest person on earth. Seriously, you try and argue points most capitalists who are even slightly educated would avoid. But your some sort of moron, so you'll try to argue anything if you think its a good reactionary point.stupid cappie, no wonder your a banned member.

[synthesis]

I didn't put forth an argument because doing so would legitimize your deluge of non sequiturs. Statements like "liberalism and socialism are the same ideas and do the same things when put into practice" and "Democrats think everything belongs to the government" and "the media is owned by socialists" do not require refutation; they are self-defeating.

[inquisitive_socialist]

i have to agree with DM. you can't argue points that don't have meaning. its like trying to argue that the Earth is flat. you can't do it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:39 PM
Moneybags you have to be the dumbest person on earth. Seriously, you try and argue points most capitalists who are even slightly educated would avoid.
^ This isn't one either. It's an ad hominem; the substitution of an argument for a personal attack.

[Professor Moneybags]

Statements like "liberalism and socialism are the same ideas and do the same things when put into practice"

They do. It's because they have the same underlying principle; collectivism.


and "Democrats think everything belongs to the government"

They do. Both in word and in deed. Their arguments are never "to tax or not to tax", but only "how much shall we tax ?"


and "the media is owned by socialists" do not require refutation; they are self-defeating.

Then explain how they are self-defeating, instead of making glib assertions.

[synthesis]

Then explain how they are self-defeating


Their arguments are never "to tax or not to tax", but only "how much shall we tax ?"

NO government has ever had that quandary. All governments have accepted taxes as a reality of class society. You'd be putting the ancient Greeks, Romans, the medieval Europeans, the African empires and the Chinese dynasties all in the same category because they all have a common feature.

Saying that a government is only capitalist if it is completely withdrawn from the economy negates the possibility of "capitalism" because there will always be the wealthy and powerful who are able to pull a few strings to get government intervention in their favor.


They do. It's because they have the same underlying principle; collectivism.

I'd ask you to elaborate, but I fear it would be pointless. The idea that you even suggest that liberalism and socialism are the same in practice, let alone in theory, is stupifying. It has nothing to do with "glib assertions"; there are some things that simply defy logical discussion.