The Myth of Liberal Media

[MarijuanaClock]

Often I hear conservatives complain of the "liberal media." This is absolutley absurd! To answer, I will enlist the help of Mike Parenti. Additionaly I suggest you read Dirty Truths, great book.

quote:
Free Speech--At a Price
From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti

What does it mean to say we have freedom of speech? Many of us think free speech is a right enjoyed by everyone in our society. In fact, it does not exist as an abstract right. There is no such thing as a freedom detached from the socio-economic reality in which it might find a place.

Speech is a form of interpersonal behavior. This means it occurs in a social context, in homes, workplaces, schools, and before live audiences or vast publics via the print and electronic media. Speech is intended to reach the minds of others. This is certainly true of political speech. But some kinds of political speech are actively propagated before mass audiences and other kinds are systematically excluded.
Ideologically Distributed
In the political realm, the further left one goes on the opinion spectrum the more difficult it is to gain exposure and access to larger audiences. Strenuously excluded from the increasingly concentrated corporate-owned media are people on the Left who go beyond the conservative-liberal orthodoxy and speak openly about the negative aspects of big capital and what it does to people at home and abroad. Progressives people, designated as "the Left," believe that the poor are victims of the rich and the prerogatives of wealthy and powerful interests should be done away with. They believe labor unions should be strengthened and the rights of working people expanded; the environment should be rigorously protected; racism, sexism, and homophobia should be strenuously fought; and human services should be properly funded.

Progressives also argue that revolutionary governments that bring social reforms to their people should be supported rather than overthrown by the U.S. national security state, that U.S.- sponsored wars of attrition against reformist governments in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola, and a dozen other countries are not "mistakes" but crimes perpetrated by those who would go to any length to maintain their global privileges.

To hold such opinions is to be deprived of any regular access to the major media. In a word, some people have more freedom of speech than others. People who take positions opposing the ones listed above are known as conservatives or rightwingers. Conservative pundits have a remarkable amount of free speech. They favor corporations and big profits over environmental and human needs, see nothing wrong with amassing great wealth while many live in poverty, blame the poor for the poverty that has been imposed upon them, see regulations against business as a bureaucratic sin, and worship at the altar of the free market. They support repressive U.S. interventions abroad and pursue policies opposed to class, gender, and racial equality.

Such rightists as Rush Limbaugh, William F. Buckley Jr., John McLaughlin, George Will, and Robert Novak enjoy much more exposure to mass audiences than left liberals and populists like Jim Hightower, Jerry Brown, or Ralph Nader. And all of them, conservatives and liberals, enjoy more exposure than anyone on the more "radical" or Marxist Left.

It is the economic power of the rich corporate media owners and advertisers that provides right-wingers with so many mass outlets, not the latter's wit and wisdom. It is not public demand that brings them on the air; it is private corporate owners and sponsors. They are listened to by many not because they are so appealing but because they are so available. Availability is the first and necessary condition of consumption. In this instance, supply does not merely satisfy demand; supply creates demand. Hence, those who align themselves with the interests of corporate America will have more freedom of expression than those who remain steadfastly critical.

People on the Left are free to talk to each other, though sometimes they are concerned their telephones are tapped or their meetings are infiltrated by government agents and provocateurs-- as has so often been the case over the years. Leftists are sometimes allowed to teach in universities but they usually run into difficulties regarding what they say and write and they risk being purged from faculty positions. Likewise, they are free to work for labor unions but they generally have to keep their politics carefully under wraps, especially communists.

People on the Left can even speak publicly but usually to audiences that seldom number more than a few hundred. And they are free to write for progressive publications, which lack the promotional funds to reach mass readerships, publications that are perennially teetering on the edge of insolvency for want of rich patrons and corporate advertisers.

In sum, free speech belongs mostly to those who can afford it. It is a commodity that needs to be marketed like any other commodity. And massive amounts of money are needed to reach mass audiences. So when it comes to freedom of speech, some people have their voices amplified tens of millions of times, while others must cup their hands and shout at the passing crowd.

[launderedculture]

At 2/7/04 02:45 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: Often I hear conservatives complain of the "liberal media." This is absolutley absurd!

ah Michael Parenti this guy is good. I will have to check out his book.

i think many mainstream media institutions are secretly happy when they are labeled as ‘liberal.’ it makes them sound like they are more in touch with the people.

it fools the people who are watching or reading into thinking that these companies are really working for them--instead of against them.

liberal media bias is a myth! conservatives own the airwaves!

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I think that that is a 'little' bit exaggerated. I will admit that the Right Wing does have significant corporate backing, it is just plain naive to make the claims that are made in that quote.

By making the same claims that Republicans have made about the media you only make yourself seem like a whiner. Both wings are extremely well funded, and not by individuals.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 2/7/04 03:49 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I think that that is a 'little' bit exaggerated. I will admit that the Right Wing does have significant corporate backing, it is just plain naive to make the claims that are made in that quote.

By making the same claims that Republicans have made about the media you only make yourself seem like a whiner. Both wings are extremely well funded, and not by individuals.

Liberalism is not left wing.

Neo-liberalism or “big-L Liberalism” advocates a laissez faire economic regime, i.e., the right of property-owners to exercise the power of money unhindered by regulations, redistributive taxes and so on. Economic liberalism therefore easily makes common cause with the traditional sources of conservative politics — the landed aristocracy and Christian fundamentalists. Neo-liberalism favours reliance on market forces to resolve social problems, rather than methods of state regulation.

[D2Kvirus]

Just remember this - Rupert Murdoch has a major voice across the media in the US, UK, and anywhere else that gets Fox/Sky news. And, of course, he's the pin-up boy of the Left.

Note sarcasm.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

At 2/7/04 06:32 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

Liberalism is not left wing.

Neo-liberalism or “big-L Liberalism” advocates a laissez faire economic regime, i.e., the right of property-owners to exercise the power of money unhindered by regulations, redistributive taxes and so on. Economic liberalism therefore easily makes common cause with the traditional sources of conservative politics — the landed aristocracy and Christian fundamentalists. Neo-liberalism favours reliance on market forces to resolve social problems, rather than methods of state regulation.

I think you're thinking of classical Liberalism. But for the sake of argument, can you name a few Neo-Liberals, I'd like to analyze their political stance, mostly because I think you've confused yourself. (that's my cop-out way of saying, 'maybe I'm wrong')

It sucks that no one really tried to prove me wrong or anything but I posted a part of Manufacturing Consent where it explained how victims in poland, an enemy state of the U.S. at the time, received way more coverage than victims in South America, communist devils at the time.

How unbalanced was this coverage? clickity-click.

There is no liberal media and there is no conservative media, there is only the corporate media.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/8/04 06:12 PM, punk_hippy wrote: There is no liberal media and there is no conservative media, there is only the corporate media.

I'd say the conservative and the corporate go hand in hand.

At 2/8/04 06:20 PM, red_skunk wrote: I'd say the conservative and the corporate go hand in hand.

touché! Of course, there are some exceptions where the mass media will follow any liberal policy but for the most part, corporate = conservative.