Wednesday, April 13, 2016

THE PAY TO PLAY SYSTEM OF POLITICS, MEDIA AND PRESS CREATED THIS MESS


CABLE NEWS HAS MORE THAN A SUBTLE DISLIKE FOR BERNIE SANDERS, ELIZABETH WARREN, MICHAEL MOORE AND OTHERS 

AS QUICKLY THE THRONGS OF SUPPORT APPEAR, THE QUICKER THEY ARE DISPATCHED TO A POLITICAL NEVER-NEVER LAND 


THE MEDIA FOCUS BECOMES ONLY FOR THE SELECT FEW 

FROM AN EARLIER POST / UPDATED 
 Thursday, April 14, 2016

Early Wednesday afternoon I raised the notion of media bias. No it is not just a notion. It is real. 

Money has always reared its' ugly head in American politics. With the end of WWII and beginning of the Cold War, special interests or lobbyists have lined the pockets of congress and other high officials to gain favor in military  and other government contracts. But, it evolved into the "pay to play" dynamic that breeds the enormous corruption we see today. This rather repulsive system of influence became acceptable to a point where only "registered lobbyists" are allowed near the Capitol.

The media slowly became an extension of this unsavory political practice. As mega corporations and billionaires purchased favor with the lawmakers, they found their bribes would remain unknown or under-reported if they threw a few dollars to the press. 

However, the moneyed interest in how our government officials govern became the norm, not the rare occurrence. The military industrial complex with banks, Wall Street and big Pharma to follow all got into the game. But, paying off a few beat reporters with a few bucks to look the other way became no longer practical. This was big business, I mean big business and there was always the threat of a Woodward and Bernstein (Watergate) who's integrity could not be bought. They (as others before and after) happened to believe in a small notion as the Truth and Freedom of the Press. 

The infusion of dirty money from politicians then found a welcome first with print media, newspapers and those fifty-cent word magazines without pictures. For the sake of simplicity, Big Business and the Billionaires i.e. Koch Bros. found it impractical and too risky to pay off a gaggle of string cub reporters.

What America saw next is the acquisition of these newsprint and tabloids by these same corporate interests or individual billionaires. They moved onto radio and TV.  Rupert Murdoch perhaps best known for buying up foreign and then American media. Kaiser Broadcasting (radio) has 5,000 stations nationwide who syndicate such gurus and prophets as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck and on. Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's charity has a large stake in Kaiser.  Ted Turner bought up radio and eventually one of the largest cable TV networks. If you investigate as I have you will find huge conglomerates own most all of the television, print and radio media.
NBC, once an independent television network, eventually was too lucrative for large military oriented corporate interests such as GE to buy. Huge profits in your normal appliance markets and bigger in secret weapons industry found they had to put their money somewhere. 

Onward, it was Disney-Pixor Films to merge with NBC Universal.  Everyone knows Disney from their family-oriented, G-rated, pixel filled love gushing movies as Dorie. What most families do not know or may not care to know is how Disney engages in some of the most repressive employee practices and use of foreign workers at slave wages. Future world and Fantasy Land are built for those of means and not the yahoos working there. 

Enough?  No, as here comes Comcast that gobbled up every small cable provider in forming their monopoly on one end, distribution. So Comcast, what do they do with their profits? They purchase the whole enchilada. NBC, Universal, etc. Now they own the means to broadcast news and the companies that produce TV programming and gather news. Now it is simply up to a small few who determine who will gain favorable coverage, who will be frozen out or made to be non-existent or not relevant to the world. The "pay to play" broadcast media is the brain behind just what America sees, how they see it and how long it plays. And when the media tools in and you tune in, they soon have your brain. 

Donald Trump grew large crowds and performed with outrageous opinions and slanders to every race, religion, color, sex etc. He played his big boss Apprentice role for the public consumption and the TV news crews who ate it up and put out an endless 24/7 news feed across the country. Here is the self proclaimed billionaire, not spending a dime for a televised campaign day in and day out. His outlandish language and behavior went viral as well. Someone did an Internet study and found if you spent any amount of time online, Donald Trump's face appeared at least ten times. Putting your face out there is PR-101 for totalitarian governments or dictators. Sadaam Hussein comes to mind as one can still see his image in any memory of the Iraq War. Sadaam, by the way one the world leaders Trump finds to be palpable. 
The media routinely practices a selective script with programming, expert commentators, guest pundits, polling experts and journalists from the print media. From my observations, media bias is most apparent within the content of major cable news networks such as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, FOX and others. 

The event that grabbed my attention was the interview question posed by a seasoned correspondent from MSNBC. I since have had time to give additional thought to events. From my view, this question is one directed by that of a corporate entity, a television network with an agenda and not necessarily the employee.

At 12:14PM, Andrea Mitchell is again putting the question brought forward by the editorial board of New York Daily News opinion of Bernie Sanders. “How do you break up the big banks?

She was interviewing Sen. Jeff Merkley, OR (D), who today announced his endorsement of Bernie Sanders.  How long will this misleading line of questioning continue? It is MSNBC again attempting to undermine the Sanders political revolution. At this time, this negative view should be a non-issue. The repetition of one example of an editorial view can influence the outcome of the New York Primary. This propagation of radical right propaganda must be addressed. 

SANDERS RESPONSE – NEW YORK DAILY NEWS INTERVIEW

Sanders responded by summarizing his knowledge based on Dodd-Frank current reform and Glass/Spiegel legislation of dating to another time where financial institutions run amok. Sanders indicated that if Congress failed to pursue action, an Executive Order as President allowed his intervention.

To the contrary by Robert Reich (economist) stated that Sander's response was accurate as well as sufficient. It was the lack of knowledge of basic civics and history by the editorial board was to blame. Of course they ran sensational tabloid headlines that Sanders did not know in detail as to how big banks can be broken up!

All of the network and cable news media seized on this tabloid mentality to advance their own relevance and ratings. They “worked” this slant long enough to damage the Sanders image before bringing forth the Truth. But, they (media) knew the damage was done.

An alternative to the words of Andrea Mitchell, if I may suggest may pose the question in a more objective manner and tone. She may have taken a more objective question to Sen. Markey.

“... recent editorial opinion by the New York Daily News that misled many voters as to Senator Sanders’ knowledge, how do you believe it will impact his success in upcoming primaries?

Or, may I suggest one other approach or slant on this issue? In an early debate Hillary Clinton, moving farther to the left due to Bernie Sanders discovered the threat of "banks to big to fail." 

Here is a question for Secretary Hillary Clinton, who was quick to seize on Daily News take down of Bernie Sanders (and transcripts) “What are the steps you would take to break up banks too big to fail?”

THE DIE HAS BEEN CAST AND IT IS THE DEMOCRATS IN SHAMBLES.

After all, Hillary was following the Sanders lead in adopting a critical economic issue. This was then, the primaries. But, upon selection at the July Convention, Clinton abandoned putting forth to an angry electorate her plan to end income and wealth inequality. The HRC campaign began to focus only on temperament and lack of knowledge of one Donald Trump.

But, the angry masses he endeared himself would not see or hear it. The press and the media ignored what they should have seen coming, what they refused to believe. They bought the half-truths and misinformation they gathered in their own polls. They failed. They made a liberal group complacent as well as their candidate. The polls were so favorable and so flawed. Donald Trump won with barely a blink of a camera or an eye.