It’s undeniable that the media is very slanted against liberty and compliant with the state, but my question is why? Wouldn’t being a truly alternative venue prove profitable? I would imagine it probably has something to do with the typical view that government is a wonderful entity and its rigorous expansion is praiseworthy, with this outlook stemming from statist schooling and dependency on its largesse? That and that it’s easier and doesn’t make your brain hurt to be a sheep. These considerations seem still wanting, though. Anyone have other takes?
The government controls the MSM via the FCC, FTC, SEC, et al. This is why the government wants to control the Internet.
Do you know what sort of restrictions? Refusing to renew the licenses of rowdy news outlets, etc.
And they’ve all went through state run education.
I think it’s all about who their audience is. The people who watch those stations want to have their beliefs reaffirmed.
It’s also worth noting that most of the MSM media is owned by large banking groups and corporations that benefit directly from the current central banking complex, through credit creation via fractional reserve banking, since they are the primary and first recipients of this new credit, and are able to use it to expropriate much wealth to themselves, exploiting Cantillon effects before the effects of inflation are channeled into the system, and felt by everyone else. Hence this is why it is in their interests to hush all serious, critical talk about central banking. Being an ignoramus probably heps one’s chances in getting hired by them.
Strange I say this, when my sister’s entering the newsmedia business…
The television media is basically a state cartel. The state places a limit on the number of channels that can be provided via telecom monopolies, which means all the channels can be bought up by a few tycoons.
Its difficult to say what the motivations of these tycoons are, though. I’ve watched a couple of documentaries which explained that the government will help, in the form of information/privileges, media companies who are friendly to their views. For example, a war correspondent who shows how cool american airplanes are is a good thing, and the military wants them around. If the reporter instead focuses on ground zero, shows brutality and the like, that’s harmful to the military’s PR and that reporter and their media company start becoming blacklisted.
In short, the government controls information about what it does, and the only way to get on the inside is to report state-friendly views. Also consider that its expensive to go around gathering statistics, so its often easier to report what the government has already collected.
But this is pretty unsatisfactory to me. There are a lot of juicy morsels out there without the state having to provide them. I would suspect, and I have researched this and turned up squat, that the financial interests of the media are highly intertwined with those of the state and its co-conspirators.
The media is in an awesome position to influence public support of things. And the more they can get the public to support, the more that government can get away with. As the only sources of information on TV, it would be very easy for them to get together with the state and agree to support their programs.
It would not surprise me if rupert murdoch had invested heavily in the military industrial complex and pharmaceuticals. But again, I can’t find any hard information about it. I started a thread a while ago asking this question and turned up nil. Unfortunate, because something really fishy is going on.
^err really sorry for wall of text. I try to edit it and repost but it seems to be ignoring my paragraphs… will cut it down some.
The people who pursue the opportunity to speak their mind the most aggressively are the craziest people. So, the crazy people tend to fill up public speaking positions in unusual proportion.