I am constantly and continually A-fuuking-MAZED that otherwise seemingly intelligent, observant, critical people regard the behavior of the USer Media with such apparent confusion and futile consternation. They profess ASTONISHMENT that certain perspectives, candidates, positions in public debates ALWAYS seem to gain the approbation of the 'press,' while others cannot gain any attention at all.
"The Media doesn't treat us FAIR," they whine. "They ALWAYS favor the right-wing candidate/issue position. Why can't they be FAIR?"
Why? Isn't it obvious?
Because they are CORPORATE MEDIA, people!!!
They are, always, no matter what else they seem to do or be, the private, unaccountable, unregulated, highly profitable instruments, outlets, sources for the propaganda of the CORPORATE STATE. That is their only function: to make a profit off propaganda. And they are incredibly successful at it.
As such, they CANNOT, by definition, be "unbiased." They will ALWAYS be biased in favor of the status quo, ante. Because the only way the Corporate State CAN communicate with its constituents is through propagandas (plural: agit-prop against enemies, thorazine-prop against dissent).
The BEST you could EVER have hoped for would have been that their bias would be for the "people."
This was truer--more possible--the farther back into the history of the institution of 'media' you go. The decline in the interest of the press for the affairs and needs of the common folks maps directly on the Corporatization of the industry.
This phrase occupies a prominent place on this blog: In the Corporate State, corporate media ARE State Media. As such, they are indistinguishable in their propaganda function from all the other Institutional State Apparati (Althusser, 1977), such as the schools, and 'entertainment' and public relations industries. The modern, industrial/post-industrial state cannot have 'personal' relations with its constituents. Every transaction must be 'mediated.' Every mediation is approached as a propaganda transaction. Everywhere the State must touch the people, there will you find a corporate intermediary to interpret (spin? propagandize!) for the State interest (Ellul, 1961/66).
Nobody anymore believes the interests of the Corporate State intersect with the needs or interests of the constituent, real, mortal people, other than by accident or coincidence.
There is no meaningful difference between propaganda and advertizing or public relations. Anyone who believes there is any difference in substance between Coke and Pepsi, Ford and GM, Coors and Bud, Burger King and McDonalds, United and American, Democrat and Republican, is a propaganda success story.
Can You Pronounce "Pojoaque?"
4 days ago