Absolutely! And here's another great little piece that should be shared with all of the mainstream media outlets. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/british-media-puts-it-true.php

Let's help them out. They don't seem to be able to locate actual information on their own. We're doing a public service.

"I ruled out the possibility of all MSM being "evil", i.e. right-wing or anti-Obama. I've heard them say good things about him in the past, so they must not be inherently against him.

Jumping Jack, I like your homework idea. But please consider that if the MSM prefers McCain over Obama and intends to try and take Obama down at some point because they think he is less friendly to their corporate interests, the MSM MUST say good things about Obama now and then so they don't lose all credibility and influence at the key moments when they try to take him down. The MSM's ability to try to influence people with propaganda requires viewers who trust what they peddle. For people to trust in what they peddle, there must be an appearance of "balance" enough of the time that they don't lose all the viewers' trust. Why do you think CNN names itself "the most trusted name in news." Their influence depends on viewers that trust them.

It's too little too late if the MSM doesn't vigorously investigate the WMD claims Bush made until after the war in Iraq began and trillions of the taxpayer money in the treasury had already been transferred to large corporations who were helping in the unnecessary war. It's a little too late to say, gee, if only we'd known, we would not have been playing Paris-Hilton-type stories 24/7 and diverting the public attention away from the main points. Sometimes things like this are legitimate failures and oftentimes they are not.

The next reason seems more likely: fatigue or perhaps laziness.

If the MSM wanted to do their homework, they would. It's a corporate media we are speaking about and that's a big part of the problem. Their goal is to further their corporate bottom line and big-business political interests, whether that is by diverting people's attention from important issues, outright propaganda or whatever. Corporate interests often clash with the interest of the greater good. In any case, they mix in objective and balanced news that is well researched, on things that ARE NOT key and don't threaten the status quo or when they have to get real because people are starting to question them. For example, their stories on wildfires or the best places to travel or about some kidnapping will be balanced. Also, some of the time their coverage of a political candidate they may want to take down must also be balanced.

I just posted this, but feel compelled to post it again. For a peek at media methods, and who influences the talking heads and others, see this informative interview with Murdoch:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/16/murdoch/

The inteview is about Murdoch's commendable decision to make News Corp a carbon neutral company. Murdoch talks about his change of heart on global warming once his son convinced him it was real and he realized going green in his content and his corporation would be profitable. He essentially says here that once HE decided global warming was real (and profitable for him), he decided to allow his network to clue the public in and give global warming more space and credibility in the news and other shows.

The interviewer asked brilliant questions, so through his answers, one can catch a little glimpse into the systematic way Murdoch coordinates content across many shows, and the news. One can see how easy it is for media to manipulate public perception of issues like global warming.

Here is an exerpt from the intro:

"...Messages about climate change will be woven throughout News Corp.'s entertainment content, he said, from movies to books to TV sitcoms, and the issue will have an increasing presence in the company's news coverage, be it in the New York Post or on Hannity & Colmes. Yes, as Murdoch told Grist in an exclusive interview on his climate plan, even Fox News' right-wing firebrand Sean Hannity can be expected to come around on the issue..."

Murdoch interview responses that caught my attention:

Can you give some examples of how you'll infuse this issue into your programming?

answer Oh, the opportunities are endless. We own SPEED [a cable channel focused on cars and motor sports], for example -- that's got 60 or 70 million homes it goes into. We can get a lot of green programming in there. We're going to encourage this effort among the writers on all of our entertainment programming, whether it's sitcoms or movies or reality shows. Then there's the online arena, where we have MySpace, where we've already launched a channel dedicated to climate change. MySpace has got 175 million profiles on it, and that represents huge reach among the grassroots.

question Do you worry that it will seem awkward to wedge the climate issue into your programming?

answer No, we've got to make sure it doesn't happen that way. There's got to be a certain degree of gradualism -- it has to feel natural, it has to make sense. Can a hero drive a hybrid car? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But what about a biodiesel SUV?

But do you see Fox News and your newspaper outlets covering the climate issue differently as a result of this program?

answer Well, certainly giving it more attention. There will be more articles, more references, but the same broad range of opinions.

Some of the commentators on Fox News have expressed skeptical views about climate science -- take Sean Hannity, for instance, or Bill O'Reilly. Have you heard any reaction from them to this program, or any backlash within News Corp.?

answer I haven't discussed it with them yet. And, no, I haven't heard any talk about it. Probably Sean's first reaction will be that this is some liberal cause or something, you know? But he's a very reasonable, very intelligent man. He'll see, he'll understand it. As will Bill -- he just likes to get debate going between people. And that has its benefits -- someone says "No there isn't," someone says "Yes there is," and they have it out for

recommended!!!

The idea of doing their homework for them is interesting, but I think it's not realistic. Why? Because I don't think they are that unresourceful. They have tons of money and tons of staff. The talking heads are not the journalists. Their staff is. And they are very well connected, so they get information before we do. And their masters, like Ailes and Murdock and their equivalents at other media companies, are ultimately determining the slant. Who do you invite to be a guest? What is the mix? What will make good theater and raise ratings? What will further our corporate agenda?

It's true that they'll attempt to appear unbiased, and that their focus may shift from time to time (other than Fox, which is not news, but really pure propaganda). I think you're correct about the influence Fox has, and the fact that it can manufacture or recycle whatever message it wants. However, I am skeptical that the idea of doing the homework will be effective as you propose.

However, it would be effective in one way, and that is to remind the MSM that people are paying attention, and DO know what's going on, and that they look like fools or the corporate shills that they are when what they say is so easily refuted. So I'm in favor of your plan, but not sure it will accomplish exactly what you expect.

I will say this, however. Information is power. I have been a senior editor on two national magazines in my past, and I can tell you that information came to me - everyone wanted me to know what they were doing - and I had more power and more ability to shape message than I have ever had in any other situation. So information is good.

The thing is, we need to share truth with the people the MSM is duping. I'm not sure we'll really change the MSM message only by this tactic, though we can also protest to them and to their advertisers, and keep relentless pressure on them. Even if we can't change Murdock & Friends (aka Fox), maybe we can get CNN and the others in the echo chamber to start thinking about rebranding themselves against Fox abuse.