U.S. “state run” media?

[Yojimbo]

You hear/read, often, that certain reports from foreign countries are being given by “state run” media. Which, of course means the media is owned and run by the current government, usually some kind of authoritarian regime and should be viewed with skepticism.

Here we have “free” media owned and run by corporations. So, since corporations own our government, would that not be the same thing as “state run” media?

[hollodero]

(10-24-2018, 09:55 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: You hear/read, often, that certain reports from foreign countries are being given by “state run” media. Which, of course means the media is owned and run by the current government, usually some kind of authoritarian regime and should be viewed with skepticism.

Here we have “free” media owned and run by corporations. So, since corporations own our government, would that not be the same thing as “state run” media?

I very much regard FOX as a state-run media, in case the state happens to be represented by Republicans.
Which, sure, leads back to corporations. And certainly is not restricted to FOX and right-wing outlets, propaganda is everywhere within the US system and throughout the spectrum, but they are by far the most blatant ones.

Not that my country is much better. But what goes for "news" in the US still is astonishing. Spin and opinion and falsehoods and bubble news for bubble folk. Propaganda. Just like in the authoritarian states.

[Yojimbo]

(10-24-2018, 10:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I very much regard FOX as a state-run media, in case the state happens to be represented by Republicans.
Which, sure, leads back to corporations. And certainly is not restricted to FOX and right-wing outlets, propaganda is everywhere within the US system and throughout the spectrum, but they are by far the most blatant ones.

Not that my country is much better. But what goes for "news" in the US still is astonishing. Spin and opinion and falsehoods and bubble news for bubble folk. Propaganda. Just like in the authoritarian states.

It’s pretty obvious by now, that both major parties are controlled by corporations via money. So, regardless of which one is in “power” it’s still “state run” under the premise of corporations own the state.

[hollodero]

(10-24-2018, 10:22 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: It’s pretty obvious by now, that both major parties are controlled by corporations via money. So, regardless of which one is in “power” it’s still “state run” under the premise of corporations own the state.

Fair enough. The bucket doesn't stop at FOX for sure.

"State run" can still mean different things, especially regarding the means used. There's still variations of grey to that black and white. MSNBC (I figure) is left-wing controlled, and they spew a lot of nonsense and opinion that isn't news-worthy either. It's hard to completely avoid the special interest influence. But really spooky, really propaganda-like is just FOX, not the "democrat" outlets apart from fringe ones. The popular "left" ones still have some journalistic standards.

But to really change that, that is hard. You would need harsh state regulations regarding media ownership (something Americans collectively hate) and a really passionate effort in political education to get to a populace that isn't satisfied by news just confirming their initial political beliefs. Which would mean an enormous shift away from regarding money as the holiest of all power factors. That's not what your country is built on, for better or worse.

[Dill]

(10-24-2018, 10:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough. The bucket doesn't stop at FOX for sure.
"State run" can still mean different things, especially regarding the means used. There's still variations of grey to that black and white. MSNBC (I figure) is left-wing controlled, and they spew a lot of nonsense and opinion that isn't news-worthy either. It's hard to completely avoid the special interest influence. But really spooky, really propaganda-like is just FOX, not the "democrat" outlets apart from fringe ones. The popular "left" ones still have some journalistic standards.

I don't watch all the MSNBC offerings, but I don't find that Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes "spew a lot of opinion that isn't newsworthy." Nor does one of their frequent guests, Steve Karnacke, whose specialty is reading polls (and explaining how they work).

Maddow's MO is generally to frame a current issue through precedents. So lots of information about law and history.  In other words, she works to provide context. She brings on expert guests, summarizes an issue (e.g. a legal problem) then asks if she has it right. Usually she does. She takes care to present accurate information. That's her show.

Chris Hayes is also worth watching. Both he and Rachel provide what I call "evidence-based" commentary and reporting. 

I should add that neither calls people names. The tone may shift from jovial to serious, but it is ALWAYS civil. When friends stand in for them, like Joy Reid, they hold to the standard.

This is so far from Fox--from Gutfeld, Pirro, Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, Stossel etc. From them one hears all about liars and traitors and stuffed suits and calls for "vile" people to be fired or jailed or to resign.  All evening long.

(10-24-2018, 10:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: But to really change that, that is hard. You would need harsh state regulations regarding media ownership (something Americans collectively hate) and a really passionate effort in political education to get to a populace that isn't satisfied by news just confirming their initial political beliefs. Which would mean an enormous shift away from regarding money as the holiest of all power factors. That's not what your country is built on, for better or worse.

This sounds like liberal bias.

[hollodero]

(10-24-2018, 11:17 PM)Dill Wrote:
I don't watch all the MSNBC offerings, but I don't find that Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes "spew a lot of opinion that isn't newsworthy." Nor does one of their frequent guests, Steve Karnacke, whose specialty is reading polls (and explaining how they work).

Yes. I watched a bit of MSNBC and I agree with you on all counts. But there's other guys on. Let's say Lawrence O'Donnell, I didn't watch too much, but most times it was him holding a monologue about nothing, using a lot of flawed logic to get to an artificial "shocking" point, getting all worked up over it and then interviewing selected guests that agreed with him.

Or Chris Matthews, a special bird... let's not get into it. Maddow, sure, that's (almost) all proper and accurate and news-worthy. Also interesting and well done overall. I don't know the polls guy, but I trust your instincts on that one too. I also can accept what Morning Joe does, as some kind of opinion show before the news day starts. But there are examples of things going quite far in spinning and posing as news. 

[Jeez, I watched that one day they passed that Roger Stone aide around who wanted to ignore a Mueller subpoena or something. That stopped being news early. Yet it kept on going and never seemed to get old. Yeah sorry, that's just not newsworthy either, that's just drooling.]

[NATI BENGALS]

Is there a difference in state run media and media run state?

Asking for a friend whose country's leader appears to make decisions based on fake news media personalities' opinions.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-24-2018, 10:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough. The bucket doesn't stop at FOX for sure.

"State run" can still mean different things, especially regarding the means used. There's still variations of grey to that black and white. MSNBC (I figure) is left-wing controlled, and they spew a lot of nonsense and opinion that isn't news-worthy either. It's hard to completely avoid the special interest influence. But really spooky, really propaganda-like is just FOX, not the "democrat" outlets apart from fringe ones. The popular "left" ones still have some journalistic standards.

But to really change that, that is hard. You would need harsh state regulations regarding media ownership (something Americans collectively hate) and a really passionate effort in political education to get to a populace that isn't satisfied by news just confirming their initial political beliefs. Which would mean an enormous shift away from regarding money as the holiest of all power factors. That's not what your country is built on, for better or worse.

You're in America.  (sorta)  It's "gray".  Fox isn't state run media.  They cater to a group of people, and are very successful.  That's what drives their content.  If people stopped watching, their content would change, and the state couldn't do anything about it.  If a Democrat wins the presidency and both houses over the next two years, and they start going off against all of them with they then be the anti-state run media?

[GMDino]

(10-25-2018, 08:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You're in America.  (sorta)  It's "gray".  Fox isn't state run media.  They cater to a group of people, and are very successful.  That's what drives their content.  If people stopped watching, their content would change, and the state couldn't do anything about it.  If a Democrat wins the presidency and both houses over the next two years, and they start going off against all of them with they then be the anti-state run media?

Exactly.

The incestuous relationship between the GOP and FOX aside they are only pushing the "state's" news when they are in control.

The rest of the time they are just shills because they know it makes them money.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-24-2018, 11:17 PM)Dill Wrote: This is so far from Fox--from Gutfeld, Pirro, Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, Stossel etc. From them one hears all about liars and traitors and stuffed suits and calls for "vile" people to be fired or jailed or to resign.  All evening long.

The Left doesn't need their commentators to call for incivility, they have actual politicians already doing that.  Example?  Just look at the thing HRC claimed about not being civil until the Democrats regain power, or Maxine Waters calling for the direct confrontation and harassment of Conservative party members and supporters. 

[hollodero]

(10-25-2018, 08:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You're in America.  (sorta)  It's "gray".  Fox isn't state run media.  They cater to a group of people, and are very successful.  That's what drives their content.  If people stopped watching, their content would change, and the state couldn't do anything about it.  If a Democrat wins the presidency and both houses over the next two years, and they start going off against all of them with they then be the anti-state run media?

Sort of, yeah. Sure FOX isn't state-run, it's run by corporations who do have political interests that align with the GOP, so it's more or less party-run. In times where the GOP controls the government, it is effectively state-run. And it is, it's even comically visible at times. E.g. Trump praises them, retweets them, gets advice from them, picks cabinet members from there, allegedly phones Hannity every other night or so.

And people won't stop watching, it offers confirmation bias and usable talking points in a highly politcised atmosphere, and that works just fine. They have their core audience that doesn't stop watching, rendering their theoretical power irrelevant. And that's why I'd rather call FOX a party propaganda outlet for party people.

(10-25-2018, 09:40 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Left doesn't need their commentators to call for incivility, they have actual politicians already doing that.  Example?  Just look at the thing HRC claimed about not being civil until the Democrats regain power, or Maxine Waters calling for the direct confrontation and harassment of Conservative party members and supporters. 

And the right has Trump - which makes that sort of criticism, while probably not totally unjust (these things aren't desirable for sure), a bit strange. Trump beats those examples basically every day.

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2018, 10:22 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: It’s pretty obvious by now, that both major parties are controlled by corporations via money. So, regardless of which one is in “power” it’s still “state run” under the premise of corporations own the state.

If the media is controlled by the state then why is a large potion of it so critical of Trump?

How do you define "state" in "state controlled media"?  When I think of "state run media" I think of a media that supports the current power structure and is not critical.  Or else a media that buries major issues.

[Yojimbo]

(10-25-2018, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the media is controlled by the state then why is a large potion of it so critical of Trump?

How do you define "state" in "state controlled media"?  When I think of "state run media" I think of a media that supports the current power structure and is not critical.  Or else a media that buries major issues.

State being the ruling government. My point being if corporations own the government, then corporations are the state. Corporations own the media, so it’s state run media. There’s gray areas in there because corporations aren’t lock step in their wants, outside of profit above everything.

The more I think about this dynamic, the more I find wrong with our current governing arrangement. Keeping with the premise that corporations = the government, corporations own the media, military (military industrial complex fighting for control of oil), medical industry (big pharma and private insurance companies) and in some aspects they own all of us that have debt. I’m okay with the debt part because that’s private citizens making deals with private companies. I’m not ok with corporations running the government and military that’s supposed to be of the people and for the people.

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2018, 09:55 PM)Yojimbo Wrote:  So, since corporations own our government, would that not be the same thing as “state run” media?

No.  The term "state run media" assumes that the SAME people/groups who own the media run the government, but you have just admitted that different corporations control the government than the ones that control major portions of the media.

I don't like the amount of influence that corporations have in this country but as long as there is competition it insures that the media can act as a check against the state. "State run media" is only a huge problem when it silences all dissent.

[Benton]

(10-24-2018, 09:55 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: You hear/read, often, that certain reports from foreign countries are being given by “state run” media. Which, of course means the media is owned and run by the current government, usually some kind of authoritarian regime and should be viewed with skepticism.

Here we have “free” media owned and run by corporations. So, since corporations own our government, would that not be the same thing as “state run” media?

There isn't a super perfect solution.

Media owned by corporations has a handful of positives. One is that there isn't anything to prevent people from starting up their own media. This is a good and bad thing, and has been around for as long as we've had a free press. It's bad that it gives voice to spreading false information under the guise of news (such as Breitbart), but it also provides an outlet for news that wouldn't otherwise get a voice. Really, the whole "corporate media is trying to control the world" is tin foil hat stuff. I've worked in corporate media for 20 years... nobody from upper management ever sent me a memo that said "hey, you need to do less stories on X because we're heavily invested in Y." No, their memos were usually "you made 16% above budget last quarter... try for 18% this quarter."

There is bias, sure, but it generally comes from the people themselves trying to make their own name, or because of their own beliefs. Fox News is one of the rare exceptions where upper management consciously decided to hire, promote and cultivate pro-conservative voices, but that's not the norm. And that's why Fox News is generally garbage. 

The drawback there, of course, is what I just mentioned, the people who are trying to make a name for themselves, or middle management who thinks upper management wants bias.

State run media, on the other hand, is too easily influenced by parties in power. It's the same with any aspect of government. There are folks who break out their resume every election because the assumption is if the other party comes into power, they're losing their job (and it happens with both sides). The only way state run media works is block funding, like the old funding set up for NPR. Governments give a chunk of money to keep the agency upright, but then step away. 

And like NPR, there are nonprofit news agencies out there. They're just not as common

[Yojimbo]

(10-25-2018, 01:50 PM)Benton Wrote: There isn't a super perfect solution.

Media owned by corporations has a handful of positives. One is that there isn't anything to prevent people from starting up their own media. This is a good and bad thing, and has been around for as long as we've had a free press. It's bad that it gives voice to spreading false information under the guise of news (such as Breitbart), but it also provides an outlet for news that wouldn't otherwise get a voice. Really, the whole "corporate media is trying to control the world" is tin foil hat stuff. I've worked in corporate media for 20 years... nobody from upper management ever sent me a memo that said "hey, you need to do less stories on X because we're heavily invested in Y." No, their memos were usually "you made 16% above budget last quarter... try for 18% this quarter."

There is bias, sure, but it generally comes from the people themselves trying to make their own name, or because of their own beliefs. Fox News is one of the rare exceptions where upper management consciously decided to hire, promote and cultivate pro-conservative voices, but that's not the norm. And that's why Fox News is generally garbage. 

The drawback there, of course, is what I just mentioned, the people who are trying to make a name for themselves, or middle management who thinks upper management wants bias.

State run media, on the other hand, is too easily influenced by parties in power. It's the same with any aspect of government. There are folks who break out their resume every election because the assumption is if the other party comes into power, they're losing their job (and it happens with both sides). The only way state run media works is block funding, like the old funding set up for NPR. Governments give a chunk of money to keep the agency upright, but then step away. 

And like NPR, there are nonprofit news agencies out there. They're just not as common

A couple problems I see that you actually made good points on, when corporations own media, their goal isn’t to provide honest journalism, the goal is to maximize profit, which definitely influences what stories are covered/promoted. Example being “ Hey, running stories about Trump gets more views, so run more stories about Trump”

Secondly, you say state media is influenced by the party in power, the corporations that own Fox, CNN, MSNBC are using media to influence which party is in power. So, maybe instead of state run media, we have a media run state.

I’d like to see the law that was changed under Clinton put back in place that used to Prevent too few companies controlling too much of the media. Also, I’d like to see the law/fcc regulation that prevented corporations from profiting on news segments, reinstated. I can’t find a link on that change, maybe you (Benton) know what this change was called. I’ve read about it before and I want to say I recall it being done under Reagan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

[Benton]

(10-25-2018, 02:19 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: A couple problems I see that you actually made good points on, when corporations own media, their goal isn’t to provide honest journalism, the goal is to maximize profit, which definitely influences what stories are covered/promoted. Example being “ Hey, running stories about Trump gets more views, so run more stories about Trump”

Agreed. To build on that a little, there's also the aspect of telling people what they need to know versus what they want to know.

A taxing district like a library board meeting doesn't generally generate a lot of interesting news, so agencies don't generally cover that... but it may really impact the community if the board opts to not raise tax and purchase books, raise taxes and sit on the cash, etc. It also makes people think a situation is more common than it is, especially in the "everything all the time" news cycle.

And, then there's the consumer appetite. I remember two elections ago, an advertiser came in my office, saw a pre-election story we had and asked when we were doing a "candidate thing." I told him that was it, we were covering every race with a feature on every candidate in the weeks heading into the election, their work history, experience, etc. "I can't read all that," he said. "I just want something with bullet points."

Quote:Secondly, you say state media is influenced by the party in power, the corporations that own Fox, CNN, MSNBC are using media to influence which party is in power. So, maybe instead of state run media, we have a media run state.

I don't think it's a media run state. I know it's popular to blame the media right now, but it ultimately goes back to what I've criticized for 15ish years: we're a corporate run state. 

You've got a handful of super profitable companies and industries that dictate legislation. And when some legislation looks to reduce that (Dodd-Frank Act is a good example), they use their resources to manipulate the system to their advantage. That involves any media resources they own, true, but it's a bigger problem than that because their reach extends beyond just their parent company and owning a media agency or production company.

Quote:I’d like to see the law that was changed under Clinton put back in place that used to Prevent too few companies controlling too much of the media. Also, I’d like to see the law/fcc regulation that prevented corporations from profiting on news segments, reinstated. I can’t find a link on that change, maybe you (Benton) know what this change was called. I’ve read about it before and I want to say I recall it being done under Reagan.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

There was an act passed in the 70s preventing newspapers and broadcast companies from being owned by the same parent company, but honestly I think that hurt small to mid-sized media companies more than it does corporations like Viacom/CBS back in the day.

[Dill]

(10-24-2018, 11:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yes. I watched a bit of MSNBC and I agree with you on all counts. But there's other guys on. Let's say Lawrence O'Donnell, I didn't watch too much, but most times it was him holding a monologue about nothing, using a lot of flawed logic to get to an artificial "shocking" point, getting all worked up over it and then interviewing selected guests that agreed with him.

I have to agree with you about that.  I change to CNN or Fox usually when he comes on. No data, no history, just a lot of monologuing about the irony of Trump behavior and Republican Kow towing.  If you just watched Rachel and Chris, nothing new. Just rewound with "irony."

Also, I forgot about Morning Joe.  Not much there either, really. Not as incendiary as Fox and Friends, but Joe and Mika were Trump enablers early on. Not much insight from either one.

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2018, 09:55 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: You hear/read, often, that certain reports from foreign countries are being given by “state run” media. Which, of course means the media is owned and run by the current government, usually some kind of authoritarian regime and should be viewed with skepticism.

Here we have “free” media owned and run by corporations. So, since corporations own our government, would that not be the same thing as “state run” media?

No, in this scenario you'd have media run state. If we're even accepting this premise of corporations owning our government (which I do not), we'd have to distinguish between corporations and the first two media groups on the list of top donors are like 16th and 17th on the list. Combined they don't even match any in the top 5. So they don't really own the government.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-24-2018, 09:55 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: You hear/read, often, that certain reports from foreign countries are being given by “state run” media. Which, of course means the media is owned and run by the current government, usually some kind of authoritarian regime and should be viewed with skepticism.

Here we have “free” media owned and run by corporations. So, since corporations own our government, would that not be the same thing as “state run” media?

Been saying this for years....... :andy: