What shall we call it?
by Chris Bowers, Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 08:26:45 AM EDT
by Chris Bowers, Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 08:26:45 AM EDT
Old Media has more punch, and Top-down Media too, but i use Mainstream Media, or just Media.
Since it's all owned by corporations, it is literally the Corporate Media. It also makes a good alliteration to call it the "corrupt corporate" media or even "corrupt and incompetent corporate" media.
Traditional emphasizes that blogs are new. Mainstream implies that bloggers are weird -- the teenager-typing-away-in-his-parents'-bas ement effect. Establishment media implies that blogs are trying to take over their role, which I don't think we are.
Calling "it" the Corporate Media is the best way to differentiate the blogs. Blogs aren't run by money; they're run by people. There's no marketocracy here, it's all meritocracy.
as the right wing fascist hate media have shown us (and as someone at a recent convention explained). We want to create a frame, not a definition.
Therefore, I feel "Corrupt Corporate Media" really does the job. It's short, punchy, fits on a bumper sticker, and best of all, it's accurate!
And, if you're not a corrupt corporation, you can sit back in well-earned smugness while joining in the chorus.
I like "Corporate Media" because it's the truest characterization of what they are, and why they became so risk averse.
They're all owned by stockholders and corporate entities who have a political interest in maximizing profit and not rocking the boat.
Moreover, most of their owners have much more in common with Republican interests and priorities than those of everyday people, and those interests influence their reporting priorities.
On newspapers I think there are some hard working reporters who want to get at the truth, but they are often undercut by their editorial page, and the lickspittle reporters who tout the company line are often given the prime promotions.
The disconnect between the Wall Street Journal's editorial page and John Harwood, as well as that of the WaPo's editorial page and some of its reporters, are evidence of this.
In the case of the broadcast outlets, the "talent" has become so high-priced and lacking of journalistic background that even the reporters will never care about the concerns of average people.
I mean, these are millionaires...do you think they care what happens to Social Security or Medicare?
If we are trying to distinguish CNN from Fox News, it doesn't work--as both are corporate, but only the latter is overtly partisan
Or traditional, because they like to do things the same way ovr and over. And they support the traditional (which is the same as conventional) view of things, likie the story lines they peddle over and over.
And it makes them seem stodgy and unhip, which is exactly what they are.
Just like the conservative movement, they promote the traditions they like (even ones they have to make up) while ignoring the ones they don't like.
Blogs are actually much more traditional, much more like The Philadelphia Aurora, the prime media target of the Alien and Sedition Acts, for example, than CNN or The Washington Post are.
I went with "corporate" just because it seems the most descriptive of the media's role in our society -- they are shills for big business and big business' paid whores, the Republicans. Period.
I've always called it, Pravda.
Next up. PentagonNews.
i've taken to calling it the "mmm"..."multi-millionaire media."
because, well...that's what it is.
a media of the millionaires, by the millionaires, for the millionaires.
Broadcast Media. The use of "broadcast" came from the analogy of a farmer casting seeds. Broadcast is push media which contrasts with pull media where the user initiates contact. The Internet is pull media. Broadcast media has limited public access, gatekeepers, high barriers to entry and access to an audience. By definition, it is not designed to be interactive.
While large conglomerates and top-down media can deploy pull media technologies, they have no distributive advantage over competitors using publishing systems like blogger.com. Interactive features and populist content are not required but sites that push top-down messages and those that do not permit interactivity are at a competitive disatvantage.
Net Neutrality centers on technical attributes that enable populism, bottom-up, user driven content.
Corporate media is I think most descriptive. It sums up the bias in favor of profits over people, consumerism over citizenship, individual ignorance over individual awareness.
I have mixed feelings on this. I suspect that "establishment media" is the most accurate and unbiased of the claims above, and it certainly distinguishes the collection of entities such as
NYT, Washington Post, USA Today
Chicago Trib, LA Times, Miami Herald
NBC, CBS, ABC
Time, Newsweek, USNWR
New Republic, New Yorker
AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
from the new media such as blogs, Salon, IndyMedia, MediaMatters, Air America, Counterpunch, etc. These latter entities are clearly not the establishment; those above are established, if nothing else. (I think the labels "corporate" or "non-profit" are simply bad at distinguishing these two categories; many of these latter organizations are corporations, and some are even attempting to make a profit. And why does the left need to be against profit in all cases? And why does filing papers of incorporation make one's views or reporting less trustworthy?)
However, I also think that any umbrella term is going to lose fine distinctions which are useful for thinking about the topic seriously. So "establishment media" seems the least offensive of the choices available, but I would suggest trying to avoid such labels to the extent possible. All of the above forms of "establishment" media are very useful in some respects, and while all deserve some criticism at some times, there's no point in coming up with an epithet that tars them all with the same brush. This is important for thinking. Avoid stereotypes except when accuracy is not compromised by them.
Actually, this was my response to Eric Alterman's SCLM -- So Called Liberal Media.
SCLM is a snarky rebuke, but it uses a right wing frame, and snark is self defeating . . .
THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA, FOLKS!!!
Which is why I favor calling them what they are -- the Lying Right Wing Media; or just the RWM -- Right Wing Media, for those who want to avoid the editoral comment.
Of the others, Corporate Media is best, but none of them get to the essential problem -- the old line print and broadcast media has been co-opted or cowed by the incessant right wing attacks.
Which is how they have become the LRWM -- the Lying Right Wing Media.
Frontal assault pushback -- it's the only way to get their attention.
ATTACK ATTACK ATTAAAAACKKKK!!!
"Lying Right Wing Media" is a little too long and Coulter sounding for daily use.
Can't call it traditional media, I don't think -- sounds too much like traditional values.
Can't call it broadcast media -- too wonky, and doesn't 'broadcast' well to indepedents, who are our real targets with this phrase. That's the demo the Repugs targeted with 'Liberal media.'
I think maybe Rove media? Or Republican media? Cuz it's not really conservative, it's Bush/Rove/Cheney republican. I think establishment media has a nice ring to it -- like we're actually crashing the gate.
I dunno, like some long gone things - big, dumb, and slow from the past that couldn't adapt to cataclysmic changes and which are now used in our popular culture to scare little children...
Capitalist Media best describes its nature, as that is its audience - as opposed to its readership, which is really its product.
Bourgeois Media best describes its character, as that is its class, and therefore its ideology.
Corporate Media encompasses both of the above, and is probably best, since "corporatism" brings with it the connotation of Fascism, our current stage of capitalism in the US>
...it doesn't follow that your blog is so beholden to corporations that it's part of the "corporate media."
No, I don't think that's what Chris meant.
I think his point was that myDD is a corporation.
Corporate and Traditional both have merit, but the words don't capture the essence of the problem -- Establishment Media does.
Even though the New Yorker is corporate media, when it prints a Sy Hersh expose, it is explicitly Anti-Establishment.
for pretty much the same reasons.
However, I do also like amberglow's suggestion, "Old media". That would be a close second choice for me.
Corporate Media is up big -- looks like we're staging an insurrection to the dictatorship of Markos!
There is something subtly disturbing to me about this post. The blog world is not a rigid ideological movement that needs to impose a strict vocabulary unto its adherents. If the progressive blog world wants to continue to increase its relevancy, I am not sure that discussions like this (what terms will we enlightened citizens employ?) are of much benefit.
Six months ago, Matt Stoller went on a tear through the pages of MyDD berating people for using the term "mainstream media." While I dont question Matt's sincerity or motivations, there was something distasteful about the crusade. In attempting to keep MyDDers "on message" and "to define the narrative" (bad enough) he came across looking like he thought this was his secret club, and everyone who didnt use his special language would be expelled.
As an intellectual excercise, I think the discussion is interesting and may be potentially useful. However, I fear that once the front-pagers settle on a term, it will be required usage, and neophytes who are so pedestrian that they dont realize using terms like "mainstream media" plays into the enemy's hands (or advances a non-progressive narrative) will be berated and dismissed.
Don't get caught up in accuracy. If accuracy was important, "liberal media" wouldn't have been so successful in convincing Americans that there is really a liberal bias in the media. This is a misconception that many moderates, in addition to right wingers, unfortunately believe to be true. Corporate media is the best choice because the term best delineates the problem: big business control of the mainstream media.
Corporate or Establishment media are a toss up. Both of them portray the coopted and narrowly owned major media.
"Capitalist Media" - It's been ruined by profit motive, after all.