emphryio

(sigh) For anybody who doesn't mind reading. The best book on the media is Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. It does a good job of explaining what the news bias is and how it happens in a convincing and extremely hard to refute manner.

Other books include Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti.
The Myth of the Liberal Media by Edward Herman.
What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman.

I strongly suggest Manufacturing Consent to anyone who doesn't want to be politically ignorant. I also very much like Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast gives a lot of examples of exactly why his investigative reporting of American business / politics rarely gets aired outside of Britain. (Also the Palast book isn't so dry as Manufacturing Consent.)

If you want something that appeals to emotion, gives a few anecdotes and lacks substance go to any chain book store and read about the liberal bias of the media.

Daniel Consolatore

It's more complicated.
For instance, what is an easier news product to produce? Top of the line investigative journalism that exposes the corruption of the extremely powerful, or journalism that simply relays whatever spin the extremely powerful give out?

Pretty easy answer. If you go for the real investigative journalism, not only is it more work, you can be exposed to "flak." Flak can range from advertisers no longer supporting you to actually being sued, (by people who can afford to rack up the court costs.)

Also the entire American mass media is now owned by 5 corporations. These corporations have extensive ownings outside of the media also. Now what kind of bias do you think the owners of these media outlets might have economically? The owners at least love capitalism. They love deregulation. They love tax cuts for the rich etc.

Next question: How can they force their employees to have this same bias without it being a conspiracy?
Here's an example of how it isn't a conspiracy:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...21&ItemID=3118
OK, I'm not a genius writer. I'm going to leave it at that for now.

(The z net media section has quite a bit more on the subject for anyone here to do something other than expel hot air.)

Kamchatka

That is utter bullshit. Mainstream media has been showing Al Jazeera's footage all f'ing day.

They showed the Iraqi Info Minister's whole damned propaganda spew fest.

They have shown protests all over the country and the world.

There is no satisfying the opposition to what will be the liberation of Iraq and to the eliminating of a tyrannical regime.

Mr. Superbad

Did they show the kid with half his head blown off on tv? I haven't seen it.

Kamchatka

Try opening your eyes and ears. The opposition has a voice in America. Try finding that voice in Iraq, North Korea, or for that matter Russia.

Kamchatka

Yes, what we need is a station that will tell the truth, "It's all our fault! Not just Iraq, but North Korea. In fact we are the root of all evil in the world and George Bush is the cultivator of that root. If we only had Al in office, it would all be okay."

Kamchatka

It is quite obvious that you haven't been watching the news, consciously. You are in some kind of dream world where you're couch is your mighty steed and George Bush is your evil foe.

Wake up and see the windmill, before it's too late.

cjack

As a member of the mainstream media, I think I can give a little bit of insight as to the nature of the war coverage.


At the beginning of our war coverage, our boss made an interesting statement. He said "remember, we aren't much more than pawns in this game."

Keep that in mind when you watch the news.

At this stage of the conflict, almost ALL of the information related to the conflict is controlled by the military. The media are only able to report what the military wants them to report. The military will only release information that serves their purposes, and every bit of that information must be viewed in context.


That is true on BOTH sides, btw.

Kamchatka

Actually, no I have not seen that snapshot. That does not change the fact that mainstream media ran Saddam's Spew minister's speech informing the world that there were (allegedly) 207 injured civilians.

Should I expect the media to show a photo of every dead person resulting from this conflict?

I also have not seen the American soldiers that have died in the conflict.

And?

Kamchatka

Thank you for that "insight."

cjack

"You're welcome."