Trump is
right about the corporate media: Major media controlled by just 24 companies by Robert Romano, 10/18/16
“The most powerful weapon deployed
by the Clintons is the corporate media. Let’s be clear on one thing: the
corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism.
They are a political special
interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an
agenda. And their agenda is to elect the Clintons at any cost, at any price, no
matter how many lives they destroy. For them, it is a war — and for them,
nothing is out of bounds.”
That
was Donald Trump in a West Palm Beach, Fla. speech on Oct. 13 offering a bleak assessment of the current state of not
only the presidential election, but also journalism and even the health of our
democracy. Trump’s comments came amid a barrage of media attacks on his
candidacy over his video comments about his treatment of women in 2005,
followed up by numerous accusations against him of inappropriate conduct, and
as Wikileaks revelations showed the Hillary Clinton campaign colluding at the
highest levels with major media entities to advance her candidacy.
That part of the charge is clear
enough. As the most devastating disclosures against Clinton from Wikileaks were
coming, the media assault on Trump reached a fever pitch to obscure just how
corrupt and criminal the Clintons really are. Imagine the uproar if it had been
discovered Donald Trump had deleted evidence subject to a Congressional
subpoena. And then, if it had been revealed that the Justice Department
colluded with the government to cover it up.
The nation certainly remembers the
uproar when Richard Nixon deleted 18 minutes of the White House tapes that were
under subpoena. And then his infamous Midnight Massacre as Justice Department
officials were fired until he got the outcome of the investigation into himself
he wanted. Then, major media outlets played a role in holding corrupt
government officials accountable. Now, media outlets are very much a part of
the cover-up of Clinton’s crimes.
But this goes beyond mere liberal
media bias — as if the problem was merely confined to the hiring practices at
media outlets. That trivializes the issue. Trump went deeper, offering a wider
context in his indictment of corporate influence over the country.
“The Washington establishment, and
the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason:
to protect and enrich itself,” said Trump, adding, “For those who control the
levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they
partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat. This is not simply
another 4-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our
civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control
over our government.”
To Trump, the corporate media in its
current form represents a threat to democracy itself: “This is a struggle for
the survival of our nation. This election will determine whether we are a free
nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in fact
controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system.
This is not just conspiracy but reality, and you and I know it. The
establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through
means that are well known.”
Here’s the thing. Trump is basically
right. Most of all media in this country is owned by just a few companies, Free Press finds in
a 2011 of study of media consolidation
across print, television, radio and the Internet. Just 24 companies are listed,
but the assets owned number in the hundreds. A chapter on the topic in Censored
2006 by Bridget Thornton, Britt Walters and Lori Rouse, “Corporate
Media is Corporate America” noted the
massive overlap of individuals who sit on the boards at major media outlets and
those of non-media corporations.
Throw in the new social media
giants: Google, Facebook and Amazon — or Internet domain name system
megaopolies ICANN and Verisign — and the same pervasive trend towards
consolidation and liberal politics emerges.
To be fair, these new companies have
created digital platforms that on the surface allow all sides the argument, the
marketplace of ideas, to compete. But even now, accusations emerge of
suppressing stories and growing online censorship, not just in the political
realm, but also the business realm. Robert Epstein, Senior Research
Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology,
painstakingly put together an eye-opening piece for U.S. News & World
Report, “The
New Censorship.” He compares these Internet titans
to public utilities and notes numerous ways that Google censors content on its
search engine every day.
As Epstein warns, “When Google’s
employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news
item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift,
reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online
censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse
when they have been harmed.”
All the while our corporate
overlords assure us there is nothing to it. Just
Google, “Google suppresses search results,”
without the quotes. See how many pages of “nothing to see here” mouthpiece
articles you find. Then imagine what might happen if the water company could
just turn off the water to dissidents.
In the information age, we marvel at
all the seeming alternatives now presented to us, but the vast majority of
those outlets are again owned by those same 24 companies, a number that could
shrink even more in the future. Is that a real choice?
It must be said that simply the fact
of consolidated ownership is meaningless in itself but just glance at the front
pages of major media publications in your region and you will note a definitive
trend in favor of Clinton. Granted, some are better than others. But less
obvious to the naked eye, these outlets seem to almost universally seem to
agree on certain issues: Open borders, bailing out banks, expanding trade
agreements beyond what we already have, global warming, gun control, abortion
and government as the solution. All of the airwaves singing with one voice.
Isn’t that nice? Meanwhile, Republicans who embrace these issues get a pass.
The fact is, media reflects the
biases of those who own it. In a marketplace of ideas with unlimited space,
this would not be a problem. But in reality media operates on platforms, and there
are only so many of those and so much spectrum to go around, and recent
history, they have been in fact consolidating at lightning speed. So let’s
consider the trend and its implications.
When we observe pervasive bias
consistent with consolidated ownership, as we do today, we must then call the
very structure of our democracy into question. The very choices we are able to
make depend greatly on the options that are presented to us. If in that process
of self-reflection, we discover that the deck is stacked — indeed, that it is
rigged by these corporate interests where one set of options is preferred and
the other blacklisted — we must reject it and seek out alternatives to this new
brand of totalitarianism.
The whole body of federal
communications law and media ownership rules
in the U.S. was designed to prevent this very outcome from occurring, to
prevent media monopolies, yet here we are.
Of course, there are exceptions,
including the voices of individuals who deviate and speak out against the
obsessive groupthink. Talk radio and a few conservative news sites stand out.
There is also what remains of the locally owned and operated newspapers and
broadcasters.
Wikileaks too is performing a public
service as one of the few remaining press organizations devoted to holding
government accountable for their crimes. But how long will it last?
These remain exceptions to the rule
of corporate control, and like other endangered species, for how much longer
they will be allowed to operate is anyone’s guess given the establishment’s
penchant for control we see on display today. No less than total domination is
the true end here. The ship may have already sailed.
So what to do? To editors who take
umbrage at this narrative, prove me wrong. Publish this article. For everyone
else, the only thing left to do with the corporate media is to simply reject
it, just like Britons did in the Brexit vote. They were promised financial
armageddons and a thousand other lies but had the good sense to ignore it. So,
do the opposite of whatever the corporate mouthpieces tell you to do or think,
naturally within the constraints of the law, which I only mention because the
nature of our new masters is take out of context what you say and then attack
you for what you didn’t say.
For example, Trump has flat out said
the election could be rigged this November, and his campaign points to examples
of dead people and non-citizens voting in past elections. So, naturally, that
means he’s calling for armed revolution if he loses. Right? Actually, it likely advises for stricter voter ID
laws and more poll watchers in battleground states. Meanwhile, Democrats
routinely accuse Trump of working with the Russians to steal the election, but that’s “news.” But I digress.
If, by doing the opposite of the
party line being fed to you, that means voting for Trump, realize there may not
be another viable alternative to the corporate state, a true alternative,
presented in your lifetime. This could be it.
Trump is a well-established and very
successful businessman but it is hard to countenance somebody with a real
chance of winning ever again raising the issues he has, of control of media, of our financial and
political institutions, so pervasive in
our public life.
The only reason he has succeeded to
date is because of his built-in name and trusted brand recognition. He
successfully cast himself as an agent of change in the primary. But that alone
was not enough to prevent the onslaught now being waged against him. In many
ways, it’s the reason for it.
As Trump noted in his speech,
“Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe
and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will
seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even
more.” Again, that’s basically true. The ink of Trump’s West Palm Beach speech
was barely dry before the same media voices who never gave him a chance to win
the Republican nomination now
told us his indictment of internationally controlled corporate media was
somehow anti-Semitic and other similarecho chamber
nonsense.
Again, it’s bigger than Trump. In
truth, Trump is standing up for U.S. sovereignty, which depends greatly on the
strength of our democracy, our freedom to choose.
Having a one-sided media promoting a
one-sided global corporate agenda, again, “open
trade and open borders,” in the words of Hillary Clinton, will simply result
in one obvious outcome. And that is one-party rule. Throw in media
consolidation on the single-platform Internet and competitive democracies could
already be in dire jeopardy very shortly into the so-called information age.
This new order does not offer the
freedom to choose. Instead, it offers freedom from worry. Freedom from choice.
Freedom from thinking. It hides alternatives.
Only the naïve will ignore it. And
only the evil or fearful will embrace it. It is the same groupthink that
pervaded much of Soviet life in the 20th Century. Don’t ask questions. Don’t
speak up. Lest you be singled out.
Given the constraints imposed on the
political process by the very same corporate media that Trump now wars with, we
rarely if ever again will be given a choice as real as the one we have been
given in 2016.
In short, if you really believe the
system is rigged, Trump’s your guy. Or you can go with a career criminal who
will never be held accountable by the corporate media or Congress. Your choice,
but be fully advised going in what you were signing up for.
Surely, a Trump presidency will have
its share of challenges, but the one upside you can count on is that he will
serve as an actual, real counterweight to the corporate media, to foreign
countries and to those international institutions that do not have America’s
best interests at heart. It may not be a perfect choice, but it is the only
viable, true alternative to the status quo being offered on the ballot on Nov.
8.
Robert
Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.
http://netrightdaily.com/2016/10/trump-right-corporate-media-media-controlled-just-24-companies/
No comments:
Post a Comment