Corporate media a major part of the problem!

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

By Jack E. Lohman

I wrote about it in February, but Mike McCabe, Executive Director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign said it best on Sara Schulz’s radio show: our TV stations are a major part of the problem. (Mike is on the first hour… listen while you work.)

Political corruption is the number one reason America is in such dire financial straits, and most of the corruptive money filters directly to CNN and Fox and others for political ads. Why would they blow the whistle on our corrupt politicians and stop that flow of corrupt cash to their TV station???

They obviously wouldn’t and haven’t, but there’s another problem. If every time a corrupt politician were to appear on their shows, which is always, and the host were to nail them for their corruption, they’d soon have no politicians to interview!!!

Where in the hell are Fox and the other “values” stations on this issue of “honesty?”

The money originates with the Koch Brothers, passes through the politician, ends up in the media’s bank account, gets the politician re-elected, and the media buries the corruption.

Nice. And the politician keeps voting on legislation that increases his/her net worth (by typically 10-15% per year). How else would Nancy Peloci reach $35 million in net worth?

So by not disclosing this corruption and fraud upon the American public, we concentrate our ire away from the politicians that caused the economic crash. Good strategy folks!

10 Responses to Corporate media a major part of the problem!

  1. Politicians have long forgotten the American people, they know exactly what they must do to be elected in today’s society, and that’s bend over backwards for special interest groups who fund their extravagant campaigns. Without these funds, they don’t have a prayer in hell to be elected.

    If the same politicians get reelected next term, I’m afraid that it’s game over for America as we know it.

    Good article my friend, keep them coming.

  2. Thanks much Michael, and you are absolutely correct. We MUST force a major turnover in 2012. We should cede the presidency and let Obama win or lose on his own. But the Dems must recapture the House and expand their control of the Senate.

    Eugene Barufkin sent a link on Dr. Jill Stein running for the Green Party, and I think her only chance is to primary Obama. Without IRV/Ranked Choice Voting people are going to be afraid to vote for her for fear of throwing their vote away.

    Just like our corrupt duopoly likes it.

  3. Man MKE says:

    The corollary to this is that, increasingly, vapid, good-looking broadcast “journalists” use their celebrity as a springboard into public office. Our current nut-job lieutenant governor is only the latest example.

  4. And incidentally, that politicians can make or break broadcast media through FCC regulations (or not) adds a credible threat to their behavior. Media is licensed by the government yet are not charged for the use of the airways.

  5. GreggP says:

    Since media is a part of this problem, how do we solve this? If campaigns are publicly financed, can we tell the media (since they are licensed by the government – we the people) that:

    1. campaign ads are not to be charged for the air time
    2. they must provide equal time for all legitimate candidates
    3. time slots for the candidates political ads must be equivalent
    4. campaign ads not directly endorsed by the politician running for office are forbidden
    5. no more issue ads from independent 3rd parties
    6. town-hall meetings don’t count as campaign ads
    7. single party candidate debates count as campaign ads and competing parties will get equal time either for additional ads or their own candidate debates.

    Along with other campaign finance reforms, how about limits to the duration of a campaign. Aren’t campaign’s starting earlier and earlier these days. Heck, Walker started campaigning against his recall before they even started collecting signatures.

    I realize there are all sorts of first amendment issues here, but there are existing advertising restriction (like on tobacco products) due to health concerns.

    • All are excellent ideas Gregg, though as you guessed there are 1st Amendment issues with 5 and limiting the time of campaigns. But congress can pass these requirements (and should) but whether they would want to is another issue. They indeed would be “fair,” but fair is not in their vocabulary.

  6. GreggP says:

    If they can’t stop issue ads, maybe they can be forced to provide equal time for the opposing view. If the group representing the opposing view cannot afford the air time, then it must be provided free of charge. This way, the information will be balanced. Then the special interests can keep expressing their views and buying these ads, but it must be balanced with the other side’s response. So, running these issue ads might not be as effective if the other side always gets to respond (for free – because, after all, they are licensing the public airwaves). This might have a huge impact on the revenue the media companies currently get from these PACs.

    I suspect the editorial and “news” slant of these major media outlets is currently influenced somewhat by these lobbyists and PACs. I don’t think they want to bite the hand that feeds them, just like our moneyed politicians. If you take away a significant chunk of the political money, they might not be quite so slanted.

    I think this is a small price to pay for good government.

  7. “Equal time” for all candidates is okay, but matching funds is not (according to the Supreme court).

    • GreggP says:

      Well, I’m not really suggesting matching funds. For example, if some SuperPAC buys a 30 second ad during a prime time slot from one of the networks, the network would have to provide at no charge, a 30 second time slot during prime time for the opposing viewpoint.

      To me, the government giving the other party, who represents the opposing viewpoint, the funds to pay for the prime time slot is matching funds. I do not want the government to be paying for the time slot. Since it is the publicly licensed airwaves, I think the network should be required to provide the time for free.

      If the network doesn’t like this, they have 2 choices: 1) charge the SuperPAC a rate that covers both time slots; or 2) stop selling airtime to these SuperPACs that try to sway people with these issue ads. If the networks make it a standard practice of charging double for these issue ads, maybe the SuperPACs will be discouraged from buying these ads.