"Bourgeoisie press"

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The capitalist class own the newspapers and so on, but how much of the content is really "bourgeois"?
Journalists are either workers or work on a freelance basis.

[Led Zeppelin]

How many anti-capitalist articles have you read in those "news"papers?

Let me count how many I have read...umm...oh yeah, zero.

[RedStarOverChina]

The media in general is clearly, without a doubt reactionary and supports the status quo.

KMC, I've known you for a long time and I'm sorry to say that you seem to have gone way backward.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 29, 2007 08:25 pm
The capitalist class own the newspapers and so on, but how much of the content is really "bourgeois"?
Journalists are either workers or work on a freelance basis.
I don't think journalists are workers.

They don't create commodities. They write rambling articles. And if they work on a 'freelance' basis, surely that would make them petty bourgeoisie?

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the individual journalist thinks, its what the editor of that newspaper thinks is correct.

And whom hires the editor?

Also, you can't just simply categorize content into 'bourgeoisie' or 'proletarian.' For example, if there was a cooking article which category would that fall into?

Not everything has to do with class struggle.

But when it does come to real political matters, they either whole heartedly side with the bourgeoisie stance, or take a pretense at being non-biased and represent the side of the opposing political party (so, they might site the opinion of a Labor MP). Of course, we rarely hear from the workers themselves, or indeed a communist or anarchist perspective.

And they call this being objective!

And the most important thing they can do to support the capitalist epoch, is to simply ignore politically decisive matters all together.

Why do we hear so much shite about Paris Hilton or [insert celebrity name here]?

The media's main aim is maximum audience, that means sensationalized stories and celebrity worshiping. It means that they have an interest in making as much money as possible!

That should, in itself, show what side they really bat for.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

They write rambling articles.

Those working in the yellow press, yes.

There are plenty of journalists writing for serious leftist newspaper like Le Monde Diplomatique, what, a worker?

The quality of work does not determine class. Just because you don't like their work doesn't mean they belong to the capitalist class, or to say more precisely, doesn't change their class relations.


But when it does come to real political matters, they either whole heartedly side with the bourgeoisie stance

Just like the majority of the population.

And whom hires the editor?

The same that hire the workers. Does the workers become capitalist because they are hired by the capitalist? Yes, it is a rhetoretical question.


The media in general is clearly, without a doubt reactionary

Like most people.


Does opinions determine class? If so, something like 99 percent of the population is capitalist :rolleyes:


KMC, I've known you for a long time and I'm sorry to say that you seem to have gone way backward.

Is asking questions and discussing going backward?



Yes, media is owned by the capitalist.

Yes, media is influenced by the capitalist class.

But to say without thinking twice that the press is "borgeois", isn't that a bit of a mistake? Those who write the articles, the reports, etc. are workers.

[Tower of Bebel]

most media are reactionary because they want to stay 'neutral'. They take everything for granted except sudden change.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Just like most people. Never said otherwise.

Point is, those who write for the newspapers, magazines, and so on, are workers. What we see in the printed media are generally written by workers. So perhaps mindlessly saying its "bourgeois" press is a bit of an overstatement?

Surely the media is owned by the captialist class, but what we read, are produced by workers.

[Connolly]

Just like most people. Never said otherwise.

Point is, those who write for the newspapers, magazines, and so on, are workers. What we see in the printed media are generally written by workers. So perhaps mindlessly saying its "bourgeois" press is a bit of an overstatement?

Surely the media is owned by the captialist class, but what we read, are produced by workers.

The thing is, there is a filtration process that only allows certain types of views through. You have probably heard of Noam Chomsky's "propaganda model".

If you are really interested in this, I would suggest you watch the following youtube video's of both Chomsky and some other guy who's very good at explaining it - and he's running for Mayor I believe!


Noam Chomsky - manufacturing consent 3 or 4 parts to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKTaEA

Dominant Numerical Minority I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pm7WwOn6kw


manufacturing consent....

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%2...Prop_Model.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Media under the bourgeois state is controlled by the bourgeois ruling class, so it cannot represent an unbiased viewpoint. Point being, you don't see articles in newspapers giving non-capitalist viewpoints. Especially in the U.S., it is quite rare- as they are owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie. So "free" press in that case means something entirely different - "free" for those who own it. It's press under the bourgeois state, it can't represent viewpoints opposing capitalism- because it wouldn't benefit its ruling class- who ultimately own the press.

[Connolly]

Media under the bourgeois state is controlled by the bourgeois ruling class, so it cannot represent an unbiased viewpoint. Point being, you don't see articles in newspapers giving non-capitalist viewpoints. Especially in the U.S., it is quite rare- as they are owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie. So "free" press in that case means something entirely different - "free" for those who own it. It's press under the bourgeois state, it can't represent viewpoints opposing capitalism- because it wouldn't benefit its ruling class- who ultimately own the press.

Yet it is workers who write and research the material.

I think he is looking for the processes by which the media, written by workers, comes out with a bourgeois slant.

Its not simply a case of "Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp and therefore it must produce bourgeois geared media". The fact of the matter is, those who own the media do not actually "run it", or edit it - workers, or petty bourgeois do that.

The editors of the news papers and media are appointed by the owner, and serve the owners political viewpoint.

From there on, its a hierarchy, or a chain of command. The editor choosing his assistants, the assistants choosing their assistants and eventually it comes down to the journalist and the writers - who's head is on the line if they deviate from the political line being pushed from above.

Sometimes you might get a journalist who makes a reputation for himself as "an excellent journalist", and the editor might be abit reluctant to sack him, and therefore he might get away with saying stuff he might not otherwise get away with.

Vincent Brown over here would be an example. Though it caught up with him and he lost his radio program on RTE.

[Tower of Bebel]

They are not just workers. I sometimes compare them to the police. The way they portray other workers, they way they portray reality or the State(s) is not different from the way the police reacts to other workers and the way it supports the State.

[Connolly]

Here's the whole documentary:

Manufacturing Consent

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1...annel=219646953 (http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1171894513&channel=219646953)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:31 pm
They are not just workers. I sometimes compare them to the police. The way they portray other workers, they way they portray reality or the State(s) is not different from the way the police reacts to other workers and the way it supports the State.
Well, just as the police are instruments of the bourgeois state, so is the press- so there is quite a comparison there.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is correct to say that the popular media tends to assume a conservative position and does not cover a wide range of different perspectives on issues of political concern. As such, the media plays an important role in securing the consent of the working class and obscuring the central socioeconomic contradicitons of a capitalist society; i.e. the media disseminates ideology in the marxist sense of the word.

There are many different reasons for this disposition and it is wrong to assume that this trend exists simply because of the prejudices or class interests of individual media owners; rather, the trend exists due to the underlying market structures and economic dynamics of the media industry.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well, just as the police are instruments of the bourgeois state, so is the press- so there is quite a comparison there.

Too simplistic. This is only true in societies where the state maintains a monopoly on the dissemination of information and restricts the activities of private entities - in essence, dictatorships. In modern capitalist societies such as the United States, there are no legal restrictions on news such that, with sufficient financial resources, anyone could potentially disseminate a critical critique of capitalism without the obstruction of an external authority such as the State. The press is thus very different from armed bodies of men.

Witness the fact that the mainstream press has, on ocassion, often posed a challenge to the policies of the state, when these policies have been inconsistent or in direct conflict with the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Example - Venezuela, very recently!

Seriously, your statement was very sloppy in argumentation.

It is also important not so treat 'the press' as a single monolithic entity with no internal divisions. Newspapers produced by the revolutionary party (such as Iskra in tsarist Russia) can also be considered part of the media (albeit not the minstream) and this component of the 'press' is an essential precondition for generating class consciousness.

[Connolly]

rather, the trend exists due to the underlying market structures and economic dynamics of the media industry.

Yes, very well put.

[Luís Henrique]

Journalists are workers.

Newspaper owners are bourgeois.

Newspapers, in any normal situation, print the ideas of their owners, not of their workers.

Luís Henrique

[Wanted Man]

If journalists are workers, it doesn't change the overall nature of bourgeois media. Government workers are just that: workers. But the government still represents bourgeois class interests because we live in a capitalist system. The jeans you wear are made by Indian children, but it doesn't mean that they are objectively "proletarian jeans" or "childish jeans". Of course, it is useless to explain such a thing to a retard like Karl Marx's Camel. So what follows below is more for anyone who is actually interested in learning about the media (the media ARE plural, folks!).

Karl Marx's Camel doesn't understand that no matter how many workers a company employs, it doesn't change the fact that we live in a capitalist system. As such, the workers do not control what they produce. Government workers do not reform the government into the dictatorship of the proletariat. Likewise, journalists do not generally write for proletarian class interests.

Anyway, there are much more significant reasons for the fact that the media represent bourgeois class interests. The background of individual journalists is really irrelevant. In these days of liberalization, journalists cannot report in a "fair and balanced" way for a variety of reasons.

First of all, there is the concentration of media into large companies (at least in the Netherlands, but I'm sure all countries have large media imperiums). Some of the biggest Dutch newspapers (Volkskrant, Trouw, NRC, nrc.next, AD and the free paper DAG) are all part of the PCM company. The editorial board not only has to worry about journalistic integrity, but also about representing the interests of the company, of gaining advertisers, and making money with the company. The increasing corporate influence over the editorial boards is sometimes referred to as "the separation of church and state."

Because capitalist companies need to cut expenses, genuine journalistic reporting is put on the back burner, especially in international affairs. Why spend time and money travelling to a country, when somebody else has already done so and written about it for a press agency? Many western journalists in the third world do not speak the language, mostly stick to expensive hotels or expat communities, and are therefore detached from the reality of the country. They write for a press agency, which has set up shop in the capital of said third world country, and usually stay there. Journalists for newspapers also have to deal with time and money, so they just copy from the press agencies. With that in mind, it's easy to see why the bourgeois media tend to propagate prejudices about other countries. There just isn't much time and money for real research.

Moreover, the countries often politically and culturally differ from the west. In an impoverished dictatorship, it is difficult for a journalist to decide what to report. The taxi driver may give you anti-government rantings, but isn't he just trying to appease you? The guy on the market might say that the Holocaust never happened and that all Jews should be driven out of the holy land, but is that really "the word on the street"?

There are all sorts of interests going on. Politicians or leaders of resistance movements will hold strictly regulated press conferences, where you will only hear the official stance. Aid organizations will send you to camps with starving children with bloated bellies, so you can talk about how we should all feel sorry for these pathetic beings (not humans with their own hopes and desires, but monkeys in a zoo). Imperialist armies in Afghanistan or Iraq will not let you in on their operations, unless you go along as an embedded reporter.

And even then, they might censor something unfavourable. A Dutch embedded reporter went to the Battle of Chora, in Afghanistan, where the Dutch army fought the Taliban. In the news, we got "heroic" footage of Dutch soldiers and Afghan collaborators shooting at Taliban, plus some military tough talk ("we can't clear our north flank, that sucks ass"). We also got a mention of the "armoured howitzer" firing on enemy positions. However, that reporter also interviewed an Afghan man, who told him that said howitzer flattened his village, slaughtering 120 civilians. The reporter was "politely asked" by the army's PR to not broadcast this.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the trouble that journalism faces. The misunderstanding and hypocritical western attitudes towards journalism add to the trouble. Journalism becomes detached from class relations, and "objectivity", "neutrality" and "independence" become popular buzzwords. A country like Cuba is condemned for imprisoning journalists who got paid by a foreign power to destabilize the country. Meanwhile, outright murder of ANY dissident journalists in other Latin American (and African, and Asian) countries is ignored.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:17 pm
It is also important not so treat 'the press' as a single monolithic entity with no internal divisions. Newspapers produced by the revolutionary party (such as Iskra in tsarist Russia) can also be considered part of the media (albeit not the minstream) and this component of the 'press' is an essential precondition for generating class consciousness.
Very true. One could even add: why not the mainstream? Not that communist papers are extremely large in capitalist countries, but they have not been completely insignificant, either. For example, the Dutch newspapers were, even after WWII, still very much "pillarized": the catholic, protestant, social-democratic and "other" (liberal) sections of society all had their own papers. The communist paper "De Waarheid" (The Truth) was a bit smaller, and Dutch society never really had a "communist pillar".

But it was still significant enough that everybody knew that the CPN existed, as well as its youth movement ANJV. Everybody knew of De Waarheid, it was a large daily paper, partly because the paper and the CPN played a great role in the anti-fascist resistance (whereas the conservative government in exile and 'resistance' gave information about the communist resistance to the fascist occupiers, to make the communists weaker after the 'liberation').

Of course, now that the CPN no longer exists, the neo-liberal reforms are going on, fuelling imperialist wars, things are completely different. But many other countries with strong communist parties also have communist mass media which are widely circulated. Even in Britain, where the revolutionary left is fragmented and ineffectual, you can still read "The Morning Star" daily. A socialist daily, produced with both marxism and journalistic standards in mind, is a great asset in the class struggle.