Anybody who thinks that the US does not control its media is naive. See, for example, how Al Jazeera and RT (granted, the latter is no bastion of independent journalism) are effectively exiled from the US.
Al Jazeera had to set up an "American owned" subsidiary before it could get access to the cable network.
The US government does not control the US media in the sense that China or Russia or Saudi Arabia does. In fact, no advanced country with an even marginally-functioning democracy does.
It does exert direct control in certain limited cases, through gag orders and "national security" secrecy laws. That practice has been expanding in the US for the past 16 years, and that's alarming, but still doesn't amount to anything comparable to China's control of the media.
Private groups and individuals with political agendas do control a significant fraction of the US media, however. But, they achieve and maintain this control through normal business means; by spending money and leveraging their resources to expand and consolidate.
We all know by now that Fox News (just the most famous example) is an organization created to disseminate propaganda on behalf of these private interests. However, this group does not align with "the government" -- as the US government changes in response to the tides of the electorate, organizations like Fox News find themselves basically in alignment with the government, then in opposition, then in alignment again.
These organizations by and large stay true to their core mission, which in the case of Fox News is to further the interests of the very rich by advancing a set of themes and grievances that together form a sociopolitical worldview that resonates with enough Americans — even those who aren't wealthy and won't actually benefit when/if that worldview is translated into policy — to give that worldview increased political clout.
So the US media is largely (but still not completely) controlled by a relatively small group of extremely wealthy individuals and interests. That may be harmful to the public interest and undesirable, but it's not the same thing as actual government control of the media as practiced in totalitarian regimes.
The US government does not directly control the media as blatantly as regimes like Russia or China. But they sure do have the ability to influence the editorial agenda, and they sure seem to have a way to divert the attention of the media when itis advantageous to do so.
Yes, of course they do try to influence the editorial agenda, and sometimes succeed at doing so. Other times, they don't. That's not control, however.
The media collectively did indeed do a terrible job covering the 1991 Gulf war, and the military did a masterful job of manipulating them, with partial information combined with unstoppably telegenic footage that the major networks could not resist (the first footage of "smart bombs", dramatic videos of night raids and anti-aircraft fire, etc).
There was, later, a lot of hand-wringing and postmortem analysis on the part of various media organizations (as there well should have been) to look at how they did their job so poorly.
There was a lot more balance to the coverage in the run up to the Iraq invasion, actually. But that time, the American public really was itching for a fight and very easily persuaded (until the main justifications for the invasion were found to have been completely fabricated, and it became obvious that the war would achieve literally none of its goals, harm the US in various ways, and help the very perpetrators of the WTC bombing immensely).
That invasion, which of course ultimately proved idiotic and counterproductive to the national interest, could perhaps have been avoided through a combination more intelligent government, better journalism, and more rational citizens.
But I don't think government control, or even effective persuasion, of the media was a critical factor.
They do not have editorial control. Do they have considerable indirect means to try to influence the media? Of course. But they hardly have a monopoly on that, which is the key point. When you say "the government controls the media" one has to assume you are saying editorial control, otherwise it's a rather meaningless statement (e.g. "advertisers control the media" or "owners control the media" or "PR firms control the media" etc.). And it certainly not the case that the government has editorial control over the media. If that were the case, would the NY Times have published the Snowden leaks?
Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing?
There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war.
You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled.
The opposition to the Iraq invasion was vast and loud. There were protest marches against the invasion all over the US, and in many other parts of the world. And yet the NYT editorial supported the war. How is this even possible? How can the NYT, this paragon of journalism, not see what the ordinary people could see, that the case for the Iraq war was rigged?
And by the way, it's not just I who consider it wrong; most of the world does so. You may relish the idea of killing innocent civilians, but most of us do not.
Comments
Anybody who thinks that the US does not control its media is naive. See, for example, how Al Jazeera and RT (granted, the latter is no bastion of independent journalism) are effectively exiled from the US.
Al Jazeera had to set up an "American owned" subsidiary before it could get access to the cable network.
The US government does not control the US media in the sense that China or Russia or Saudi Arabia does. In fact, no advanced country with an even marginally-functioning democracy does.
It does exert direct control in certain limited cases, through gag orders and "national security" secrecy laws. That practice has been expanding in the US for the past 16 years, and that's alarming, but still doesn't amount to anything comparable to China's control of the media.
Private groups and individuals with political agendas do control a significant fraction of the US media, however. But, they achieve and maintain this control through normal business means; by spending money and leveraging their resources to expand and consolidate.
We all know by now that Fox News (just the most famous example) is an organization created to disseminate propaganda on behalf of these private interests. However, this group does not align with "the government" -- as the US government changes in response to the tides of the electorate, organizations like Fox News find themselves basically in alignment with the government, then in opposition, then in alignment again.
These organizations by and large stay true to their core mission, which in the case of Fox News is to further the interests of the very rich by advancing a set of themes and grievances that together form a sociopolitical worldview that resonates with enough Americans — even those who aren't wealthy and won't actually benefit when/if that worldview is translated into policy — to give that worldview increased political clout.
So the US media is largely (but still not completely) controlled by a relatively small group of extremely wealthy individuals and interests. That may be harmful to the public interest and undesirable, but it's not the same thing as actual government control of the media as practiced in totalitarian regimes.
The US government does not directly control the media as blatantly as regimes like Russia or China. But they sure do have the ability to influence the editorial agenda, and they sure seem to have a way to divert the attention of the media when itis advantageous to do so.
Consider the Gulf War of 1991 and Iraq invasion of 2003. http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also...
Yes, of course they do try to influence the editorial agenda, and sometimes succeed at doing so. Other times, they don't. That's not control, however.
The media collectively did indeed do a terrible job covering the 1991 Gulf war, and the military did a masterful job of manipulating them, with partial information combined with unstoppably telegenic footage that the major networks could not resist (the first footage of "smart bombs", dramatic videos of night raids and anti-aircraft fire, etc).
There was, later, a lot of hand-wringing and postmortem analysis on the part of various media organizations (as there well should have been) to look at how they did their job so poorly.
There was a lot more balance to the coverage in the run up to the Iraq invasion, actually. But that time, the American public really was itching for a fight and very easily persuaded (until the main justifications for the invasion were found to have been completely fabricated, and it became obvious that the war would achieve literally none of its goals, harm the US in various ways, and help the very perpetrators of the WTC bombing immensely).
That invasion, which of course ultimately proved idiotic and counterproductive to the national interest, could perhaps have been avoided through a combination more intelligent government, better journalism, and more rational citizens.
But I don't think government control, or even effective persuasion, of the media was a critical factor.
The military being a part of the government.
They do not have editorial control. Do they have considerable indirect means to try to influence the media? Of course. But they hardly have a monopoly on that, which is the key point. When you say "the government controls the media" one has to assume you are saying editorial control, otherwise it's a rather meaningless statement (e.g. "advertisers control the media" or "owners control the media" or "PR firms control the media" etc.). And it certainly not the case that the government has editorial control over the media. If that were the case, would the NY Times have published the Snowden leaks?
Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing?
There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
Monica Lewinsky is nothing.
When the drum beat of war in Iraq was happening, even the NYT wrote editorials supporting the war.
Later, in 2004, NYT had an article ready about how Bush lied to get us into the war. But, surprise! it was not published until after the election.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war.
You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.
The opposition to the Iraq invasion was vast and loud. There were protest marches against the invasion all over the US, and in many other parts of the world. And yet the NYT editorial supported the war. How is this even possible? How can the NYT, this paragon of journalism, not see what the ordinary people could see, that the case for the Iraq war was rigged?
And by the way, it's not just I who consider it wrong; most of the world does so. You may relish the idea of killing innocent civilians, but most of us do not.