Media from a Marxist Perspective

[Orange Juche]

Hello!

In a class in my local community college, I've been given the option to write a paper on anything media (of any form) related. I've decided that I'd like to do something I've titled The Corruption and Misuse of Modern American Journalistic Media
From a Marxist Perspective.

I'd like to use it to analyze and interpret the media in the United States (which is obviously atrocious, and a device for wealthy interests to propagate whatever they like in society), obviously from a Marxist perspective. Its modern use and value, versus its necessity for social change and how it should and could be used.

If anyone could give me any ideas/site some sources (sources would be excellent), I'd appreciate it beyond belief. I hope it isn't an irritant that I post something for school here, I apologize in advance if so. I figured that if I could choose the topic, something like this would be perfect for it :D

Thanks, comrades!

-cory!

[mikelepore]

A controversial topic in the U.S. is the concentrated ownership of the media. For example, one company, Clear Channel Communications Inc., owns about 1,200 radio stations.

[JWG]

Although I'm new myself and can't give you good sources, I'd like to wish you luck.

Comrades, please do help our fellow comrade here. Any new writing that shows downfalls of capitalism and enlightens people of communism is a step forward for our cause.

[Dhchen]

If you haven't already, read the article "the Propaganda Model" by Edward Herman and Chomsky. The article talks about filters through which our media is censored. Noam Chomsky in particular is a guru on media critique from a socialist perspective and he is a self identified anarchist. You can probably find a lot of readings from him that would be of use, although his writing style is not the most accessible.

As Mikelepore said, the concentration of ownership is a problem. Since you're talking about journalism, other big issues would be ideology and and framing. Also the role of advertisers in determining what kind of content the media places forward.

You may also want to check out Stuart Allen who wrote a book called i believe "news culture" which provides a pretty good overview.

In addition check out Bob Hackett and Yuezhi Zhao who have written independently and collaboratively a number of really good articles in the area.

Aah.. As well you should check out Project Censored which is a critical media organization that puts out a list of the years most under reported stories.

The documentary "Weapons of Mass Deception" by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber which chronicles how the media was used leading up to the Iraq war to mislead the country. Definitely worth watching if you can get your hands on it.

Feel free to contact me if you need more information/sources

IF i can make one suggestion it would be that your topic is probably way to broad to cover in any meaningful way in one single paper. I would suggest you further narrow it down.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

U.S. media generally takes a bourgeois reactionary perspective. It is generally quite biased, if you notice most issues discussed whether it is on the radio, on television, in the paper, etc. generally represents a bourgeois viewpoint- a view of the owners of the media, not an unbiased view of the average person. Many things are not discussed in the media.

Notice how the major television networks broadcasting news in the U.S. don't ever mention the amount of Iraqis who have died during the war but the american soldiers. They leave out most details they don't choose to share.

They also never represent views with even the slightest opposition to Capitalism, misrepresent the situation in Chiapas (as many times as I could possibly count), equate Putin to soviet politicians. Even the Wallstreet Journal during the french election remarked on the good celebrity qualities of Ségolène Royal during the french election. I recall an article on the front page of the newspaper remarking in the headline that she was "sexually attractive". In that regard, not only is U.S. media completely biased but complete bullshit. I have a few friends who have been to Chiapas. It definitely isn't like the american media says it is from their experience.

[MT5678]

Then there is the thing about the recent Venezuelan referendum. The LA Times, Washington Post, and NY Times and more have all been like how the Venezuelan people have repudiated Chavez and challenged the state apparatus.

Bullshit.

The reasons for the (close) opposition victory include a massive corporate propaganda offensive (warning of "imminent economic collapse" and that firstborns will become "wards of the state"), general fearmongering, falsified polls to discourage Chavistas, and the KKK-resembling antics of younger opposition members, which include Molotov Cocktails and vandalism. We have sources on the revleft newswire about Operation PLIERS, which details this stuff, and some articles on ZNet (i'll find them later).

BTW, the state really doesn't have "an apparatus". Private capital controls most of the media. It will continue to screw over Chavez until he dissolves it, or starts a "cult-of-personality".


On another note, I still remember the "Fight for Iraq" on Fox News. Television is even worse than newspapers are concerned.

In Year 501, Noam Chomsky brings up how the media referred to Suharto as "Jakarta's new moderate leader".

Bring up Pinochet and how the media backed his madness.

Also talk about apartheid South Africa.