Corporate Media Supression of Positive Coverage for Progressive Views and Candidates

Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Corporate Media Supression of Positive Coverage for Progressive Views and Candidates

Post by Ahso! »

I will often check-in with Politico (ties to the Clintons) or whatever I can access of the NYT or WaPo, not really to read their content, but rather, so I can learn what they are not informing their readers of, and it is significant.

The corporate media is biased toward candidates who they can rely on not to alienate their sponsors - those entities that buy commercial time from them.

I'm offering up this article because the author, Paul Street, has done some work to justify his analysis/opinion.

I'll allow the article to speak for itself. I understand the latitude that most Americans give corporations for "job creation". I just think the argument that jobs will be lost if a candidate such as a Bernie Sanders was supported by the general population is, generally speaking, a red-herring. In fact, a new and fairer treatment of workers and access to needs such as healthcare would, I believe do wonders for our society over the long view. But that's just me. Is it any wonder that the nation’s “liberal” cable news stations CNN and MSNBC can barely contain their disdain for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and even (to a lesser degree) for that of Elizabeth Warren while they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street “moderates” Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris? Next time you click on these stations, keep a pen and paper handy to write down the names of the corporations that pay for their broadcast content with big money commercial purchases. I did that at various times of day on three separate occasions last week. Here are the companies I found buying ads at CNN and MSDNC:

[...]

Big corporate lenders certainly have no interest in making college tuition free, a Sanders promise that would slash a major profit source for finance capital. The big health insurance firms are naturally opposed both to the Single Payer national health insurance plan that Sanders puts at the top of his platform and to the milder version of Medicare for All that Warren says she backs. Warren and especially Sanders pledge to remove the parasitic, highly expensive profit motive from health insurance and to make publicly funded quality and affordable health care a human right in the U.S. The corporate insurance mafia is existentially opposed to such human decency. Both of the “progressive Democratic candidates” (a description that fits Sanders far better than it does Warren) loudly promise to slash drug costs, something Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgene, Amphastar, and Abbot Labs can hardly be expected to relish. None of the big companies buying advertising time on CNN and MSNBC have any interest in the progressive taxation and restored union organizing and collective bargaining rights that Sanders advocates. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/30 ... able-news/
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12925
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Corporate Media Supression of Positive Coverage for Progressive Views and Candidates

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1526944 wrote: I will often check-in with Politico (ties to the Clintons) or whatever I can access of the NYT or WaPo, not really to read their content, but rather, so I can learn what they are not informing their readers of, and it is significant.

The corporate media is biased toward candidates who they can rely on not to alienate their sponsors - those entities that buy commercial time from them.

I'm offering up this article because the author, Paul Street, has done some work to justify his analysis/opinion.

I'll allow the article to speak for itself. I understand the latitude that most Americans give corporations for "job creation". I just think the argument that jobs will be lost if a candidate such as a Bernie Sanders was supported by the general population is, generally speaking, a red-herring. In fact, a new and fairer treatment of workers and access to needs such as healthcare would, I believe do wonders for our society over the long view. But that's just me. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/30 ... able-news/


I really don't understand the fascination with CNN and MSNBC and "Liberal News Stations" and all that,



But then, I seldom, if ever, follow anything they are doing (Or not doing) any more that I pay attention to FOX News, or any of the "Conservative" cable rags.

I generally wander through an assortment of media sites. (AP, Reuters, NYT, BBC, China Daily, al jazeera, And several other reliable news analysis sites.)

I don't really see why Bernie of Liz, or any other candidate at this point requires specific media attention for all the wild ideas they are posing.

I want to see how they react under pressure, and how well they work with the other candidates on the platform.

Specific policy actions should be reserved for when they are actually have a line on the nomination.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Corporate Media Supression of Positive Coverage for Progressive Views and Candidates

Post by tude dog »

My favorite paper is the Wall Street Journal which after maybe 10 years or so I quit subscription a few months ago. The reason being I just don't spend the time reading it to make the expense worth it.

I like the idea of a regular paper for the past 10 years or so I have kept my subscription to the Washington Post.

I learned a long time ago any news that matters is local so I read and watch the local news. Actually been thinking of subscribing to the Los Angeles Times is that many years it was my local paper of choice.

With the internet, I can read foreign news sources as it may interest me. Before the internet, there was(still is0 short wave.

If somebody asks I may share my opinion of other news sources but be warned my answer may not make sense.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12925
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Corporate Media Supression of Positive Coverage for Progressive Views and Candidates

Post by LarsMac »

tude dog;1526974 wrote: My favorite paper is the Wall Street Journal which after maybe 10 years or so I quit subscription a few months ago. The reason being I just don't spend the time reading it to make the expense worth it.

I like the idea of a regular paper for the past 10 years or so I have kept my subscription to the Washington Post.

I learned a long time ago any news that matters is local so I read and watch the local news. Actually been thinking of subscribing to the Los Angeles Times is that many years it was my local paper of choice.

With the internet, I can read foreign news sources as it may interest me. Before the internet, there was(still is0 short wave.

If somebody asks I may share my opinion of other news sources but be warned my answer may not make sense.


I Always mind the local papers, and check in on the Denver TV news to see what's happening around the State.

National and World news are left to wandering the web news media.

When I have time, I will wander the big city newspaper sites
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir

Return to “Societal Issues News”