The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits — who do engage in noisy editorializing — leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media’s bias is conservative, not liberal.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

So Jews do control MSM and of course Banking. Wow! No wonder the Israel lobby is so strong. And now I am starting to fell suspicious about the media fanning the flames of hate against Muslims – are the media Jews encouraging Christians to fight Israel’s wars?

JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN JUDEN REIGN

BBC – not owned by Jews but run by them and many of the presenters and newsreaders are Jewish by name or ethnicity. There is a definite bias for Israel, eg they refused to air the Disaster Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza after Operation Cast Lead in January this year on the grounds that they had to be impartial!

The services are paid for by licence fees which you have to buy even if you watch or listen to the programmes on the internet. Cost this year £139.50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

There used to be a Board of Governors but this was replaced by a Trust with a chairman Sir Michael Lyons. The Trust reports to a Government minister but as most of the politicians are members of Friends of Israel lobby groups, you can judge how impartial the governance is.

The Director General is Mark Thompson who has a Jewish American wife called Jane Blumberg from memory. They both went to Israel to visit Sharon when he was PM. Enough said.

Linda is absolutely right. It’s important to know who controls media because it’s those groups who determine, or at least approve, TV programming. Because of this, what we see and how it’s depicted is essentially controlled by these commercially- and politically-affiliated groups. It’s not their control of these TV stations, but that control in conjunction with their other interests (insurance for most, oil and consumer goods for many, and liquor for AOL/Time Warner)that determines these controls. According to proper capitalistic goals, these conglomerates must provide a service/good that sells, turn as much profit as possible to increase capital, and invest that capital back into their business interests to improve and better sell those products/services. This leads to the use of mass media as a marketing tool to increase profit, affecting programming. I’ll argue that what can be perceived as restrictive or biased TV programming may not actually be from malicious intent–these companies may just be operating as they are intended to operate.

Now for something a little bit political. I try to follow news programs from a variety of sources, and really enjoy those that hold and express political views/tendencies because they allow us to see the source of the ways in which they cover the news. What’s troubling to me is those that don’t, especially in local news channels supported or owned by such media giants as ABC, NBC, CBS… Everything we see has political and social implications, and when news programs are promoted as politically neutral or, even more dangerous, don’t address political affiliation at all, that type of news information becomes normalized as “just regular news” and we don’t have a framework within which to inform our interpretations. This, not the overt censorship or conspiracies that some claim, is how our perception of the world and cultural ideologies are controlled. Again, I’m not going to say that this is of any conscious intent, because all I can see is the social implications of the above.

We can also talk about the ways in which this TV control perpetuates (I’ll argue this is in part due to the success of the types of programs shown) the problematic normalization of heterosexuality; gender, race, and class inequality; and a variety of and the justification of many forms of violence. However, this is already a HUGE post and I’m starting to run out of steam! xP

So here are two closing observations. First, there is a huge discrepancy between the news shown on syndicate giants’ stations and that shown on PBS (notably Democracy Now! and World Focus), both in form and substance. I’ve seem much more coverage of Iran’s election drama and less of the North Korean issue on PBS than in other news sources. I’m still trying to figure out what to make of that, lol.

Second, something interesting brought up by the article that led me to this website. News coverage deeply affects our understanding of and reaction to war. The Vietnam War was, afaik, the first widely publicized war (again, please correct if wrong!). This may have influenced the (in)famous related anti-war movement and protests. The Gulf War was covered much more sparsely, and the first invasion of Afghanistan was almost entirely omitted. Neither of these military movements instigated the same outcry as the Vietnam War. The invasion of and war in Iraq has received voluminous coverage, possibly more than the Vietnam War (?), again inciting wide-ranging anti-war sentiments. Yet these sentiments have slowly dissipated and growing sense of ambivalence has been taking hold. I wonder if this is the result of “too much” media coverage–if we have become partially desensitized to the conflict. I’m not saying this is true of everybody, everywhere, but it’s an undeniable presence in at least some communities.

Thanks to anybody who actually reads this instead of saying “tl;dr”. I hope it makes some sort of sense. FYI, this is all coming from an undergrad sociology student disillusioned by but willing to work with both primary US political parties.

A book called “Under the sign of the scorpion” by Juri Lina describes how the Russian Revolution was ORCHESTRATED by the Bolsheviks.600 million people were murdered for the purpose of thievery and enslaving the Russian people. The wealth of the Russian nation was plundered and transferred to a few indivs.

Also, if you’re worried about being brainwashed by tv… don’t watch it. i don’t, and I don’t miss it.

Comcast owns a few channels like E!, Style, G4, Versus, The Golf Channel and AZN. They have partial ownership of SNY with Time Warner and the New York Mets baseball franchise, and partial ownership of TV One with Radio One and DirecTV. They also own a few Philadelphia-based sports teams.

PBS is funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Carnagie Corporation, Zionist Jewish charities, individual grants from Zionist Jews and viewers like you!

And it’s crazy to imagine anyone wonders what effect media ownership has, or compares it to book companies? After seeing Fox TV at work during the Bush years, let alone depicting foreign news?

Is there an HTML version of this post that you could send me?

Thanks for doing the research for us.

It does not own 80% of the US radio stations. It may seem so but to believe that for fact would be a gross error. There are more than 12,000 radio stations licensed in the US; Clear Channel owns around 1200 of them.

The result is the laws in place to PREVENT this from happening are being removed 1 by 1 which is allowing more and more pure capitalism to take hold. 50+ years ago this would have been impossible to do legally.

I hope the server keeps!

American TV is not TV in general, go abroad sometimes.

How typical.

and most importantly, if you are going to tell us that only a few companies control what we see, you really need to provide more input on the smaller alternatives…

b

Wendell is right about A&E – I’ve changed the text, but don’t have time to edit the picture right now.

Yes. The media concentration is the same, but the companies are different. Take a look at some library books. Publishing giants like Simon & Schuster, Penguin etc. are the book publishing equivalents of The News Corp. and Time Warner. It’s the same deal, simply different players.