Thursday, September 4, 2008

It's the Money Stupid....

For some time now I have been contemplating the issues surrounding the Main Stream Media's coverage of not only the Presidential election but also of the latest Primaries. It has been evident throughout these past 18 months that the large news organizations prefer Senator Barack Obama above all others. Through their very powerful forums, ABC, NBC, and CBS along with their newspaper affiliates have committed about every act of journalistic bias that could possibly be conceived. If you do not know this already my friends, I suggest you turn on the news a few nights this week and take a look at the coverage afforded to the Democrat candidate and compare it to that of the Republican.

What you will find is a disproportionate amount of time is spent on Barack Obama, sometimes as much as twenty minutes in a half hour broadcast, and about 2-3 minutes on Senator John McCain. Along with this slant, you may also notice that the video, still photo's, and sound is in stark contrast and again that it favors the Democrat over the Republican. I will not go into great detail over the unethical nature of this type of reporting, or of the frightening revelation that our news agencies have become mere Propaganda machines, as that is for another time. I wish simply to address two one word questions.

Why? and How?
Now some people believe that the current media bias is a product of liberal colleges and institutions and that those who now are in charge of the networks are of the mindset fostered while they attended those schools and colleges. This has some fact to it, however it is not the whole truth for it takes not into consideration a few factors that must be looked at, such as personal growth, Individual beliefs, values etc. All of us, no matter the school we attended, continue to grow and learn as we age. This growth is fostered through a myriad of ways not the least of which is honest discourse and debate. People discuss topics they find of interest, read up on them and form their own opinions accordingly. With the advent of the Internet the search for information and ideas is but a keystroke away. As each of us gathers more information about a subject we then form our individual beliefs based upon that data. This is important in that it leads to the heart of media bias as a crime. For, if denied varying points of view and ideas, the information by which beliefs are formed is tainted thus lessening the integrity of the decision based upon the slanted view. I digress.

To believe that the network moguls of the "Big Three"(ABC,NBC,CBS) are somehow all of the same mindset, that they have not grown since college and that they wish to further the liberal agendas of the sixties radicals, is hard to swallow. These executives must have great power indeed if they are able to control their tens of thousands of employees with such an iron fist that no dissent ever is heard. They must be men and women of outstanding charisma to convince all of their employees to follow the path of liberalism regardless of that employee's personal beliefs. Look around your workplace and ask yourself this; Do I agree with the politics of everyone in my building? Of course you don't, I bet there are four out of ten people right off the bat that you can think of who vex you with their political outlook. So how is it that the news media organizations with their vast amount of employees have managed to gather up all liberals and radicals? Was there a test? Simply put, the scenario that Americans would work for such places is out of touch with reality. Yes there is a predominance of liberals in journalism today, but the idea that somehow the conspiracy of the current bias stems from a political philosophy is rather weak. I realize that most Journalists are mere cardboard cuts outs sent hither and yon with no thoughts in their head but let's be honest, many are not, and those reporters have ideas, thoughts and beliefs of their own.
So, a core belief in Liberalism, may play a small part in what we are experiencing in the news coverage today, but it cannot be realistically labelled as the main factor.

Here is the "why" of it.
It's the Money stupid.
Lest we forget, the media outlets in this country are business'. They make decisions based upon revenue like every other business in the world and it is their responsibility to make a profit for their stockholders. Simply put.... Barack Obama is good for their business.

How so? well lets look at how the media generates revenue. Newspapers collect a little from readership i.e. those who actually buy a newspaper, but the bulk comes from advertising. The readership is measuring stick by which advertisers decide to spend their budgets with certain papers. The higher the subscription and sales of a newspaper the greater the audience an advertiser has in which to try to sell his/her goods and services. The same goes for television only they base their advertising fees on what is commonly called "Ratings". These ratings are the life's blood of the television and news agencies. High ratings mean they can charge more for advertising time on air, high readership causes rates to go up in newspapers.

So, ultimately the goal of the business side of the media outlets is to either get you to read or watch their shows so that you can help them sell the goods and services of their advertising customers. Up until recently, newspapers have been a great source for advertising dollars, but the Internet, cable news broadcasting and a loss of interest in the printed word overall has caused the decline in readership and so too revenue. The evening news broadcasts are feeling the same pinch in that more and more people are tuning them out and searching the net for their news.
How does Barack change this backward slide? Well, he brings readers and ratings, but not for the reasons that he should.
Barack Obama if elected President would be the first African American (Black) man elected to that high office. Every action he took, be it walking in the rose garden, or speaking with other heads of state, would be historical firsts. People will want to view history in the making and so they will turn on their television sets or buy such rags as the NY Times, or Boston Globe, to get a glimpse of events unfolded never yet to be seen. This means what to the media? Readership, Ratings, and ultimately money. It is in the media's best financial interest to see this man become president so they can ride the commercial wave that will come their way. But at what cost?

The media has chosen the Democrat candidate for the 2008 election through gross propaganda tactics and misinformation. All in the hopes that by electing this man to the Presidency they will fill their coffers and line their pockets. Would that it was Liberal political bias that motivates their prostitution of the journalists trade. For if it was a political philosophy that caused them to deceive America, then at least it would be not so a shameless crime. A crime it is though, for it says to us that no more does merit, integrity or love of country matter, nay, Elections are now about ratings and revenue, and henceforth the media shall decide our fate.



Yahootie Jabootie said...

If your contention that fewer and fewer people are getting their information from the big media outlets is true, it stands to reason that fewer and fewer people are influenced by them. So the networks attempt to promote Obama would all be for naught. Secondly, as a Republican, shouldn't you be praising the networks for finding a way to generate revenue in this current economic climate? Free market baby!

Anonymous said...

If you want proof of the liberal bias in the media, just look at this:

How dare they treat the Republican party that way?

Blighter said...

Yahootie- Your logic is sound however, the reality of the current situation dictates a different outcome. Perhaps my failure to use the proper tense caused a bit of confusion but I thought that the reasoning and examples proved the point adequately. Evidently not.

To Boost ratings and readership, the MSM has made an Icon out of Barack Obama. As this buzz starts to circulate and more people begin to tune in the snowball effect begins in full. This has already occurred, the media outlets are looking ahead as well as at today's ratings, they have seen a marked boost in sales since the advent of the persona Barack and are greedily anticipating the next stage. This is the point I was attempting to convey but mayhap I left some in the dark on that subject.

As to being a Republican who appreciates those who create jobs and foster our economy you are dead on. However, I also have a wee thing called "Standards" and those standards must be kept to have my support. If you call yourself a News Program than that is what you as a business should produce. If you are a hospital that can generate more jobs a greater revenue for the stockholders do you start performing unneeded surgeries? No matter that it is morally wrong? By your own reasoning you are saying that so long as jobs are produced then no wrong can come of it. Do you not see the failure and fault of such a shortsighted stance? I for one believe that job creation and a free market are of great importance, however if it can only come about by lowering the basic standards of decency and fair play, then I say it is not good for our country or economy. Drug dealers employ lots of people too, do you think they should be given license simply because of that fact?

Anonymous- Your not seeing the real point but from someone who thinks that John Stewart of Comedy Central as a newscaster I am not much surprised.

Read slowly.....

John Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, are not part of the Mainstream Media. They are commentators, and entertainers only. Thus John Stewart being broadcast on such a serious network as Comedy central. So your link merely points out Commentators taking shots at one another and ignores the real story which is the Propaganda machine that the major networks have foisted upon us as a nation.

Try again....


Tira said...

As a student of the media and former DJ (hopefully future again too), I believe you have to take a look at something not mentioned in your post, though you raise all accurate points save one.

There are, indeed, MORE liberals in the media than in the mainstream. I believe the last count (I saw) was near 80% registered Democrats? Though that data's over a decade old by now. Still, much higher than even public education teachers. My observations at school of my instructors seems to say "Yeah that's mostly true" (I won't count students as that's disproportionate automatically).

Something new to add to the equation, and something anyone in the media will tell you, IF they're honest: It takes an ego to be in the business. It DOES, it takes a person who isn't afraid to say why they're better than the next guy. Material is stolen constantly between broadcasters in an effort to dull the competition within days of when you heard it (contrasting to, say, a business that might want to see if a strategy is PROFITABLE first, we just do it to do something new).

Now combine these two factors. Massive egos, plus a predominant Democratic alignment. Well, why WOULDN'T the Dan Rathers and the Walter Cronkites and the Boll O'Reilly's know better than anyone else? In their own minds they don't see how. Those hicks who lean the other direction just don't know any better.

We are taught in our journalism courses that "fairness" simply means "did you try to present the other side". It's OKAY, by journalistic ethics, to do a story ENTIRELY about Barack Obama taking a stance on poverty, and giving John McCain a paragraph or two. It's what we are taught, by industry professionals, and it's what I presume has been taught, if anything was taught at all.

And of course, whenever the teachers wish to discuss media bias, 9 times outta 10 it's Bill O'Reilly's smug mug on the screen.

Whereas at your place of work, wherever that may be, it's probably company policy to leave politics at the door, in the media the very nature of the job makes that impossible. And when your other coworkers hate you, it makes works very hard.

Not to detract from your points, I was just adding a new factor.