One of the new narratives spinning around the Biden campaign, and among Biden supporters after his disastrous debate last Thursday, is that the press is in the bag for Trump.
This all makes a lot of sense, if you ignore the fact that 40 years ago there were over 50 media companies, and now six massive corporations own 90% of all media outlets. It's not hard at that point to get everybody literally reading the same script on air, which they do, as demonstrated in a regular montage segment on "Last Week Tonight," in which local talking news heads are cut together using the exact same language and phrasing to describe a story from one outlet to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next. Yes, media CEOs actually are writing our headlines, and no, not a single one of them is a liberal. It's not so much that reporters are "marching in lockstep" -- that suggests a consciousness of behavior. It's more that they instinctively swarm together like a school of fish, feeding on whatever is sprinkled into their tank from above, bound together by the promise of another fat paycheck. Never underestimate the depths of what people will go along with for job security.
This plays into what I’ve been saying since halfway through Trumps first run for president - all the jokes about Trumps hair and orange skin, and all the bad impressions of him are SO TEDIOUS. Please vote in a way to allow us to avoid four more years of that!
Michael, I respect your opinion and enjoy the heck out of your writing, but I don’t agree. The media is absolutely biased - look at the number of stories stating that Biden needs to withdraw after the bad debate performance. And then look at the number of stories after Trump was indicted for 91 felonies, convicted of felonies, came up in the recent Epstein files, had the Project 2025 documents released, etc. I haven’t seen any. Seems like disparity, doesn’t it?
I think a lot is us would like the news media to cover the Trump-Epstein link and that vile Court document that I’ve seen circulating detailing sex acts he had with young girls. Seems like that would generate a lot of views and clicks. Feels like there’s more manipulation of the news than you posit here.
The other day, the NYTs covered the British election outcome by saying that a landslide win wasn't really a landslide, basically because not enough people voted. Call me stupid, but any party losing 252 seats, and retaining only 100 something seats is a drubbing, no matter how many people voted for the winners. The NYTs is increasingly losing the plot.
I say, they [those at the top] don't have to conspire, because they all think alike. The president of General Motors and the president of Chase Manhattan Bank really are not going to disagree much on anything, nor would the editor of the New York Times disagree with them. They all tend to think quite alike, otherwise they would not be in those jobs.
- Gore Vidal
Yes, they are not all in the bag, but where the checks are cut they are by definition.
Ok, so I get it. I get that we are all supposed to, as liberals, have in high esteem this idea of progress and in the last four years we have watched a lot of progress be smashed by the supreme court and by the administrations desire to continue support to Isreal in the murder of Palestinians, but what the EFF do people think would happen with Trump as president again?! I know people don’t like the lay of the choices but is this really the time to redesign? No one really liked the option last time but no one wanted the traitorous (I still see Jan 6 as one of the greatest movements of treason against the US I have ever seen in my life time- yes i know it was post election but still) Trump back in office, but now we as liberals are hemming and hawing about not liking our choices? Uhm, who is to blame for that? It isn’t Biden. So sure, choices suck, but goddamn that’s a long term battle NOT a complaint to lodge now, and honestly I personally am sick of the conditionals Libs will lob when things are dire but when there are real things that could be adjusted (like local and state governments) no one’s seems to dog those choices very much.
I take your points here, but there were a lot of remarkable trump statements (and I mean remarkable even for him) that we're just now starting to hear about. In my case, it's mostly from blogs like this rather than prestige media. I think that counts as a failing.
Also there's a reason why outfits like Media Matters exist - to point out that the way media frames the news and what (and how much) they choose to cover can have a significant impact on narratives, etc. As an example, think about all the stories recently about how a statistical majority of Americans, according to recent polls, think crime has increased/is increasing, despite the opposite being true. A lot of the media framing seems to come from a place of befuddlement. This is deeply frustrating because the media was driving a lot of the concern about crime in the first place, like with stories about "organized retail theft," for example.
If there is video of something it is more likely to rise to the top of the news budget—regardless of its true merit. Policy stories are seldom as compelling as disaster footage. This is also why reporters go to the scene—at times putting themselves in danger—to witness for themselves and bring their viewers along. And I agree, that editors know who their audiences are and what they are interested in reading/watching. But to suggest that “the media” is some monolithic force with an intentional agenda, is laughable. News people are as varied as any other random group of people and are often at odds with each other in their very own newsrooms.
There are actually stories in the news about how newsroom are, in fact, not that varied in the kinds of people that work there. Not enough viewpoint, racial, socioeconomic etc diversity. Such stories generally talk about the kinds of blind spots that emerge as a result.
That doesn't mean the media is a monolith, but it does help explain the way certain issues are framed (eg why the costs of social programs is always mentioned in a way that defense spending isn't) or why certain kinds of stories seem to happen on repeat, regardless of source (eg small town diners aka "cletus safari" stories.)
I’m mostly agree, but also, isn’t Americas descent into fascism “news”? Wouldn’t the media need and want to help prevent this? The answer we’re learning is “no”, because it’s not profitable apparently, and thats very disappointing and disturbing. Which is a big reason why everyone’s freaking out and disgusted with them.
Okay cool. Can’t help but notice the media is a few multinational players with a profit agenda, and it isn’t crazy to suggest that meta-agenda just might work it’s way into issue framing, such as all those “Bullet kills so and so” stories.
FYI : NEWS came not from “new” but from points on a compass.
I didn't really think "news" came from it being new. And yes, I wholly agree with that media consolidation is bad, but I don't think (based on limited experience) that the multinationals are going out of their way to influence coverage except in the case of Murdoch's Fox News and, even then, I think it's more about tone than actual stories. But, of course, I very well could be wrong. As I said, I'm speculating.
This is a fair take but all of these major news corporations are owned by Billionaires who dictate the type of coverage they want to their subordinates. Its not just Murdoch and Fox News, its ALL of them. All of these billionaires want Trump re-elected and the big 4 networks and major papers have all put their thumbs on the scale for Trump if you are paying attention. It is not a conspiracy to acknoledge that the rich are using the media they own to convince Americans to vote for a fascist so they can stop paying taxes. It's just the reality of what is happening here. I don't know how to combat the entire American media apparatus acting in bad faith, but here we are and its just as bad for America as you would expect it to be...
well you are certainly level-headed. nice perspective. i was just discussing the "media unfairness" with my houseguest a few minutes ago. thanks, michael.
This all makes a lot of sense, if you ignore the fact that 40 years ago there were over 50 media companies, and now six massive corporations own 90% of all media outlets. It's not hard at that point to get everybody literally reading the same script on air, which they do, as demonstrated in a regular montage segment on "Last Week Tonight," in which local talking news heads are cut together using the exact same language and phrasing to describe a story from one outlet to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next. Yes, media CEOs actually are writing our headlines, and no, not a single one of them is a liberal. It's not so much that reporters are "marching in lockstep" -- that suggests a consciousness of behavior. It's more that they instinctively swarm together like a school of fish, feeding on whatever is sprinkled into their tank from above, bound together by the promise of another fat paycheck. Never underestimate the depths of what people will go along with for job security.
This plays into what I’ve been saying since halfway through Trumps first run for president - all the jokes about Trumps hair and orange skin, and all the bad impressions of him are SO TEDIOUS. Please vote in a way to allow us to avoid four more years of that!
Bravo!! 100% correct! And... thank God we live in the U.S. where we still have freedom of the press.
Michael, I respect your opinion and enjoy the heck out of your writing, but I don’t agree. The media is absolutely biased - look at the number of stories stating that Biden needs to withdraw after the bad debate performance. And then look at the number of stories after Trump was indicted for 91 felonies, convicted of felonies, came up in the recent Epstein files, had the Project 2025 documents released, etc. I haven’t seen any. Seems like disparity, doesn’t it?
I think a lot is us would like the news media to cover the Trump-Epstein link and that vile Court document that I’ve seen circulating detailing sex acts he had with young girls. Seems like that would generate a lot of views and clicks. Feels like there’s more manipulation of the news than you posit here.
The other day, the NYTs covered the British election outcome by saying that a landslide win wasn't really a landslide, basically because not enough people voted. Call me stupid, but any party losing 252 seats, and retaining only 100 something seats is a drubbing, no matter how many people voted for the winners. The NYTs is increasingly losing the plot.
I say, they [those at the top] don't have to conspire, because they all think alike. The president of General Motors and the president of Chase Manhattan Bank really are not going to disagree much on anything, nor would the editor of the New York Times disagree with them. They all tend to think quite alike, otherwise they would not be in those jobs.
- Gore Vidal
Yes, they are not all in the bag, but where the checks are cut they are by definition.
Ok, so I get it. I get that we are all supposed to, as liberals, have in high esteem this idea of progress and in the last four years we have watched a lot of progress be smashed by the supreme court and by the administrations desire to continue support to Isreal in the murder of Palestinians, but what the EFF do people think would happen with Trump as president again?! I know people don’t like the lay of the choices but is this really the time to redesign? No one really liked the option last time but no one wanted the traitorous (I still see Jan 6 as one of the greatest movements of treason against the US I have ever seen in my life time- yes i know it was post election but still) Trump back in office, but now we as liberals are hemming and hawing about not liking our choices? Uhm, who is to blame for that? It isn’t Biden. So sure, choices suck, but goddamn that’s a long term battle NOT a complaint to lodge now, and honestly I personally am sick of the conditionals Libs will lob when things are dire but when there are real things that could be adjusted (like local and state governments) no one’s seems to dog those choices very much.
I take your points here, but there were a lot of remarkable trump statements (and I mean remarkable even for him) that we're just now starting to hear about. In my case, it's mostly from blogs like this rather than prestige media. I think that counts as a failing.
Also there's a reason why outfits like Media Matters exist - to point out that the way media frames the news and what (and how much) they choose to cover can have a significant impact on narratives, etc. As an example, think about all the stories recently about how a statistical majority of Americans, according to recent polls, think crime has increased/is increasing, despite the opposite being true. A lot of the media framing seems to come from a place of befuddlement. This is deeply frustrating because the media was driving a lot of the concern about crime in the first place, like with stories about "organized retail theft," for example.
If there is video of something it is more likely to rise to the top of the news budget—regardless of its true merit. Policy stories are seldom as compelling as disaster footage. This is also why reporters go to the scene—at times putting themselves in danger—to witness for themselves and bring their viewers along. And I agree, that editors know who their audiences are and what they are interested in reading/watching. But to suggest that “the media” is some monolithic force with an intentional agenda, is laughable. News people are as varied as any other random group of people and are often at odds with each other in their very own newsrooms.
There are actually stories in the news about how newsroom are, in fact, not that varied in the kinds of people that work there. Not enough viewpoint, racial, socioeconomic etc diversity. Such stories generally talk about the kinds of blind spots that emerge as a result.
That doesn't mean the media is a monolith, but it does help explain the way certain issues are framed (eg why the costs of social programs is always mentioned in a way that defense spending isn't) or why certain kinds of stories seem to happen on repeat, regardless of source (eg small town diners aka "cletus safari" stories.)
Literally the first time I've thought about the origin of the term "The News." How embarrassing!
Okay now I see from your response to someone else that you were not being literal. I'm a regular Amelia Bedelia over here.
I thought it was plausible but, no, I was joking.
I’m mostly agree, but also, isn’t Americas descent into fascism “news”? Wouldn’t the media need and want to help prevent this? The answer we’re learning is “no”, because it’s not profitable apparently, and thats very disappointing and disturbing. Which is a big reason why everyone’s freaking out and disgusted with them.
I agree that it's depressing. On the other hand, I still think we have excellent journalism out there.
I miss Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, and several other voices I trusted.
Okay cool. Can’t help but notice the media is a few multinational players with a profit agenda, and it isn’t crazy to suggest that meta-agenda just might work it’s way into issue framing, such as all those “Bullet kills so and so” stories.
FYI : NEWS came not from “new” but from points on a compass.
I didn't really think "news" came from it being new. And yes, I wholly agree with that media consolidation is bad, but I don't think (based on limited experience) that the multinationals are going out of their way to influence coverage except in the case of Murdoch's Fox News and, even then, I think it's more about tone than actual stories. But, of course, I very well could be wrong. As I said, I'm speculating.
I have bad news for you: the word "news" absolutely does come from "new."
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=news
IT DOES?
Umm, Murdoch isn't confined to Fox News, they're a global print news empire, the influence is real, not imaginary, and well documented.
This is a fair take but all of these major news corporations are owned by Billionaires who dictate the type of coverage they want to their subordinates. Its not just Murdoch and Fox News, its ALL of them. All of these billionaires want Trump re-elected and the big 4 networks and major papers have all put their thumbs on the scale for Trump if you are paying attention. It is not a conspiracy to acknoledge that the rich are using the media they own to convince Americans to vote for a fascist so they can stop paying taxes. It's just the reality of what is happening here. I don't know how to combat the entire American media apparatus acting in bad faith, but here we are and its just as bad for America as you would expect it to be...
well you are certainly level-headed. nice perspective. i was just discussing the "media unfairness" with my houseguest a few minutes ago. thanks, michael.