Skip to main content

View Diary: Research Study Explains How U.S. Media Brainwashes The Public (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's a master's thesis in a fairly obscure school. (7+ / 0-)

    Published nowhere. What do you expect?

    Also, mainstream media always represents a more or less mainstream view of society. Maybe with some slant to the right. Saying that changes in media necessarily drove the changes in society is imho incorrect. It's a cooperative process.

    •  Obscure, perhaps, but also Jesuit. (8+ / 0-)

      Those guys keep high academic standards compared to many well-known state universities, and can be tough as nails. My computer won't let me open the PDF, so I'll take the word of pico and a gilas girl. It is also quite possible that parts of it could be made into a publication later or serve as a review for more stringent research.

      Furthermore, it was during my master's work at a Jesuit university that I learned about the consolidation of media ownership when I read one edition of Ben Bagdikian's books, The Media Monopoly. Most of the US media are controlled by five corporations:

      Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

      http://www.corporations.org/...

      Much, much more at commondreams, but a snip:
      A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests.]
      There is nothing mainstream about the corporate media. If we let them, they control the agenda for public discourse to the financial benefit of other corporations that serve on their boards.

      For example, click the link to see names, and you will find the five corporations who own most of the US corporate media have as board members representatives of big banks. If you see Ray's previous diary, The Obama Administration Protection of Wall Street Criminals - A Possible Explanation, you'll see that most refuse to believe there is an ongoing state/federal investigation of bank fraud. Even with comments from a long-time Kossack who is working on the investigation and links to hard news are met with disbelief. Their lack of coverage is brainwashing.

      Why? Because the corporate media are the public relations branch of the corporatocracy. Their goal is to protect and serve their "partners," thereby preserving the elite and perpetuating hegemony via withholding information on some issues and ramping up the rage on others.

      See? It works!

      "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

      by cotterperson on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:07:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ray finds conspiracies everywhere. Thanks for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster

        mentioning the investigation. But doesn't it mean that the premise of many diaries that nothing is done about Wall  Street fraud is wrong? Of course, it depends what the results of the investigation are. I don't expect much.

        People sit on each other's boards of directors. It's extremely common in every industry.

    •  From the tone in your replies I have a question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      that keeps coming up when I read your stuff.  Just out of curiosity, are you involved with the Democratic party or a mainstream political organization at a high level?

      I know this is kind of sensitive, and I'm not accusing you of anything.  It's just that it appears to me that you are a very careful and measured centrist.  Again, there is nothing wrong with that, and of course, feel free to reject answering that question.

      On the most important point, and putting aside the issue of attacking the source when it comes to controversial issue, do you reject the main premise of the thesis?  Does it make sense?

      Keep in mind that I've done extensive research about this subject; a subject I've been following for almost two decades now.  I actually wrote a paper about one time in college, over 20 years ago.

      •  fg was right. (0+ / 0-)

        you really do see conspiracies everywhere if you're seriously asking if he's a higher up in the party.

        this report, and your view generally, consistently get the causality backwards: the mainstream media takes the views it does because that's how most people see the world.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site