And by lie, I mean the lie is calling any sort of major media organization left wing or liberal, much less the entirety of it.
I should implement a general policy that says if you are going to use terms like left wing, liberal, right wing, etc. then you should explicitly define them when asked. You should already, but I think it might be good to prompt people, in order to get people thinking about what words actually mean, rather than blindly accepting vague connotations given to them. But for this post, I'm specifically addressing the narrative of our media.
The most accurate term I've seen used is 'corporate media'. Comcast and General Electric own NBC. Disney owns ABC. Viacom, News Corporation, and CBS are media conglomerates each their own.
They are bound, if not by their corporate owners, by the corporate advertisers who sponsor them. When you see an advertising program for a company like Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, it's not because they're selling -you- something.
They are buying the media's silence.
At least if one of them was truly liberal - as in, valuing the concept of personal freedom - one of them might take a stance against the growing attempts to return copyright to its original function - as a tool for censorship. Which of them is up in arms about ACTA
So, as a personal plea, kindly stop referring to modern major media as 'liberal' or 'left wing'. Ever. Certainly here. If you want to convey your derision of the modern media, call them corporate by all means - I've seen conservatives do that more than liberals, honestly. My only complaint about 'corporate media' is the implication that they provide some form of journalism rather than demagoguery, via the word 'media'.
There are of course liberal news outlets, and calling organizations like the Real News
'liberal' is fine, but since the term is so corrupt and blatantly false on its face, I would appreciate it if the phrase itself was simply not used. It is a lie, and every time it is uttered just gives that lie weight.
In addition, I am, personally, quite tired of this false equivalence being thrown about. Keith Olbermann was suspended
from MSNBC for making three political contributions. And Fox?
MSNBC suspended one of its most popular hosts for making three
political donations.Fox has both raised millions for, and donated millions to, Republicans.
Fox used one of CBS's own photos of the Tea Party Rally, overlaying it with the claim "Where did CBS cover this?"
CBS's own photo.
Fox sued for, and won, the right to lie
. Edit: The specific ruling that the Fox station argued for and won on appeal is that the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation". If you consider this, with Fox's current political power, as separate from the 'right to lie', that is your decision, but I certainly feel that it is.
Like all media, Fox has that right to lie, and Fox exercises its right to lie, lying often and lying repeatedly. We joke about Fox's lies, and the liars they give voice to - highlighting, for example, when poll results add up to 110% and other amusing things. I pulled a video of Glenn Beck's at random and picked out one of his lies in another thread, here.
The truth of the matter is, calling the liars at Fox a 'news' organization insults even the portion of corporate media they claim to stand in opposition to.
The rest of the media, as the recent suspension of Olbermann indicates, still have some shred of integrity remaining. It isn't a great deal, and certainly, without Fox as an example of how low one could stoop, I'd be blasting Olbermann right now, myself, and consider what MSNBC did to be the bare minimum.
But we don't live in that world. We don't have a journalism-focused media, we have varying displays of demagoguery.
And pretending it is something that it is not does nothing to help.
Thank you for reading.