Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read
by ilene - October 6th, 2010 8:49 pm
Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read
Courtesy of Michael Snyder at Economic Collapse
Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don’t even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest.
Most Americans don’t really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.
The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.
But it is the "big six" that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don’t call it "programming" for nothing.
Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people….
by ilene - September 22nd, 2010 8:56 pm
Courtesy of Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds
Resentment, frustration and anger are now ubiquitous features of U.S. culture. This is the consequence of several factors, none of them positive.
"Horn broken, watch for finger." This bumper sticker perfectly captures the zeitgeist of the nation: the horn is broken, and everyone is giving everyone else the finger.
Why are simmering resentment, frustration and anger now ubiquitous features of U.S. culture? I would posit the following factors:
1. A culture of entitlement: the U.S. is now a culture of takers obsessed with getting their "fair share" of the swag/borrowed money. "We were promised!" (public employees); "I earned it!" (Social Security recipient, though only the first 3-4 years of benefits are drawn from his/her contributions, and everything after that is welfare drawn from the hides of current workers); "healthcare/income security/housing is a right!" (everybody’s got rights, but nobody seems to have any duties or obligations); "it’s for the children/elderly!" (that is, my expense account, million-dollar pension, etc. are nominally protected by the banner of "education" and/or "healthcare"), and so on.
Those with access to "private welfare" such as CEOs are a privileged class; most of us have to elbow our way to the crowded public trough. The truly select feed at the Wall Street trough, which combines private welfare skimmed from shareholders and investors, and Central State welfare issued in unlimited billions via bailouts, Fed purchases of toxic debt, backstops, loan guarantees, etc.
But like the story about the attractive young lady who blushingly agrees to share her favors for $10,000, but balks when the suitor downgrades his offer to a paltry $100 (with the punchline being, "We’ve already established what you’re willing to sell, now we’re just haggling over the price"), the recipient has sacrificed autonomy in accepting the entitlement, regardless of the source or size. This is how complicity to a host of embezzlements, corruptions and exploitations is purchased.
2. A culture of victimhood: Victimhood is rewarded, shouldering ones’ own load and thrift are punished. Like rats in a maze, Americans respond to incentives and disincentives: as a result, everyone is shouting out their claim to victimhood. The cacaphony is reminiscent of a classroom of spoiled children all claiming excuses for their odious behavior and poor performance.
by ilene - September 6th, 2010 5:15 am
Courtesy of JESSE’S CAFÉ AMÉRICAIN
When the US government announced a ‘better than expected’ headline growth number in its non farm payrolls report for August, a loss of ‘only’ 54,000 jobs versus a forecasted loss of 120,000 jobs, people had to wonder, ‘How do they do it? We do not see any of this growth and recovery in our day to day activity.’
Here’s one way that those reporting the numbers can ‘tinker’ with them to produce the desired results.
As you may recall, there is often a very large difference between the raw, unadjusted payroll number and the adjusted number. Seasonality plays the largest role, although there can occasionally be special circumstances. Since this is designed to be a simple example I am going to lump all the various adjustments that could be and call them the ‘seasonality factor’ since it is most usual and signficant.
Here is a chart showing the unadjusted and the adjusted numbers. As you can see, a seasonal adjustment can legitimately normalize the numbers for the use of planners and forecasters. This is a common function in businesses affected by seasonal changes. Year over year growth rates, rather than linear, comparisons, can also serve a similar function.
Quite a variance in numbers that are very large.
Since it probably is in the back of your mind, let’s address the infamous "Birth Deal Model" now, which I have advised may not be such a significant factor as you might imagine. This is an ‘estimate’ of new jobs created by small businesses. A comparison of the last few years demonstrates rather easily that this number is what is called ‘a plug.’
How can the growth of jobs from small business not been significantly impacted by one of the greatest financial collapses in modern economic history?
Certainly the Birth Death model offers room for statistical mischief. It is important to remember that it is added to the RAW number before seasonal adjustment, and that number has huge variances. So the effect of Birth Death is mitigated by the adjustment for seasonality. If it were added to the Seasonal number from which ‘headline growth’ is derived it would be a huge factor. But it is not the case, although the timing of the significant annual adjustments and additions is highly cynical, and supportive of number inflation.…
by ilene - July 11th, 2010 2:46 am
Courtesy of Richard Metzger of Dangerous Minds
As someone who works in the mainstream media myself, believe me when I tell you: This is 1000% on the money. Hilarious, but all too true. No really!
by ilene - April 24th, 2010 4:41 pm
Courtesy of David DeGraw, AmpedStatus Report
This report was originally released as a six-part series. The first part was published on February 15, 2010. The last part was published on February 27, 2010.
- I: Casualties of Economic Terrorism, Surveying the Damage
- II: The Rise of the Economic Elite
- III: Exposing Our Enemy: Meet the Economic Elite
- IV: The Financial Coup d’Etat
- V: Overcoming the Divide and Conquer Strategy
- VI: How to Fight Back and Win: Common Ground Issues That Must Be Won
> Download full report with graphics and links.
> Download printer-friendly version.
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts
on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions
and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.”
– Michael Lind, To Have and to Have Not
It’s time for 99% of Americans to mobilize and aggressively move on common sense political reforms.
Yes, of course, we all have very strong differences of opinion on many issues. However, like our Founding Fathers before us, we must put aside our differences and unite to fight a common enemy.
by ilene - March 30th, 2010 11:30 pm
Courtesy of JESSE’S CAFÉ AMÉRICAIN
"The Biggest Fraud in the World"
I do not know what to think about this, except to just offer it up to you for your own information.
I am disappointed, however, that only the blogs, and almost no one in the mainstream media, have bothered to cover this story and to speak to the principals, and to either debunk them, support them, or even consider what they have to say.
This really is like the Harry Markopolos story, trying to get a hearing on the Madoff ponzi scheme, and being repeatedly ignored, intimidated, and discouraged in every way possible by the establishment, and even fearing for his life.
Even if this is a mistake, a hoax, some conspiracy, it deserves a proper hearing and an airing in the public. Ignoring it raises even more questions, and serious concerns about the integrity of the US markets. If instead of a proper airing there are only the smears, and disinformation, and the usual sly ad hominem attacks, or even worse, I will begin to believe that it is true.
I cannot believe that testimony is being completely ignored. I do not understand why this is a ‘national security’ issue. It seems just too bizarre to me.
Do people inside the trade know something that we don’t know? Are these fellows frauds or just mistaken? Is this a hoax? Part of some conspiracy?
Or is this something coming right at us, that will end up hurting the public once again, as the rampant fraud in the financial markets has done so thoroughly.
Is there is something going on then it is time to bring it out into the open. If it is national security concern, or more properly the national interest, because it involves the US banking industry, how long do they think they can keep this sort of thing quiet?
If this is something else, why is it not aired, investigated, and nipped in the bud?
I am trying to keep an open mind on this, but it is not being made any easier by what looks like a curtain of silence while the stories and counter-moves are prepared.
I was disappointed that in the interview they never seemed to discuss the hit and run car incident.
by ilene - February 24th, 2010 9:10 pm
Courtesy of Washington at Washington’s Blog
Retired General Barry McCaffrey sits on the board of a giant defense contractor, DynCorp, and lobbies for war.
And many other "pundits" interviewed by the mainstream news are really high-level lobbyists for giant companies, pushing their agendas.
And yet they are treated as "independent experts" by the media.
Indeed – 2 years after Jones asked the large networks why they don’t have a disclaimer on the screen beneath the pundits’ names saying who they really work for – nothing has been done.
The corporate media are acting like virtual "escort services" for the powerful, selling access – for a price – to viewers and to powerful government officials, instead of actually investigating and reporting on what those in power are actually doing.
And see this.
Artwork by Elaine Meinel Supkis at Culture of Life News
by ilene - January 29th, 2010 8:14 pm
Courtesy of PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS at CounterPunch
The election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate by Democratic voters in Massachusetts sends President Obama a message. Voters perceive that Obama’s administration has morphed into a Bush-Cheney government. Obama has reneged on every promise he made, from ending wars, to closing Gitmo, to providing health care for Americans, to curtailing the domestic police state, to putting the interests of dispossessed Americans ahead of the interests of the rich banksters who robbed Americans of their homes and pensions.
But what can Obama do other then spout more rhetoric?
The Democrats were destroyed as an independent party by jobs offshoring and so-called free trade agreements such as NAFTA. The effect of "globalism" has been to destroy the industrial and manufacturing unions, thus leaving the Democrats without a power base and source of funding.
Obama and the Democrats cannot be an opposition party, because Democrats are as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups for campaign funding.
The Democrats have to support war and the police state if they want funding from the military/security complex. They have to make the health care bill into a subsidy for private insurance if they want funding from the insurance companies. They have to abandon the American people for the rich banksters if they want funding from the financial lobby.
Now that the five Republicans on the Supreme Court have overturned decades of U.S. law and given corporations the ability to buy every American election, Democrats and Republicans can be nothing but pawns for a plutocracy.
Most Americans are hard pressed, but the corporations have only begun to milk them.
Wars are too profitable for the armaments industry to ever end. High unemployment is now a permanent state in the U.S., thus coercing job seekers into military service.
The security industry profits from the police state and regards civil liberties as a hindrance to profits. By announcing that he intends to continue the Bush policy of indefinite detention, a violation of the Constitution and U.S. legal procedures, Obama has granted the Democratic Party’s consent to the Republicans’ destruction of habeas corpus, the main bastion of individual liberty.
Jobs offshoring is too profitable for U.S. corporations for Obama to be able to save American jobs and restart the broken economy.
by ilene - December 2nd, 2009 10:37 pm
Let’s say that you’re a market commentator or financial blogger…
If earlier this year you predicted that unemployment would climb higher than 10% and that the market would be crushed, would you now be considered half-right or half-wrong by your followers? Will you be rewarded for nailing the unemployment number or hated for keeping readers out of the biggest market rebound of all time?
We’re starting to see the beginnings of the backlash against many financial bloggers, especially those of the gloom/ conspiratorial kind. Most of the hate is actually coming from other bloggers.
For all of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, we were being force fed troughs full of lies and obfuscation about what our true financial picture was and what was being done behind the scenes. It was in this environment that many in the investor class turned to more, shall we say, alternative voices for a different take on the parade of financial meltdowns.
Bloggers were no longer relaying the news, they were digging for the truth in the data and making the news.
Now, 7 months or so removed from the bottom for most financial assets, many are tired of the conspiracies, even if they contain some truth and even if they do constitute an incredibly unlevel playing field. The attitude is starting to shift more toward the traditional “Hey, I know these guys are stealing and screwing me and are pulling all the strings, but what the hell? I can make money in the market now, too, and what can I do about it anyway, might as well join the party.”
The Fly said recently that he hates these gloom bloggers, and if CNBC also hates financial bloggers, than by the transitive property, he must love CNBC. He said it 20 times cooler than I could paraphrase, but I can totally relate to that notion
Sean O’Brien (Ex-Wirehouse), now writing at The Davian Letter, recently laid it out for the “tin foil hat and black helicopter crowd“:
It is with curious amusement that I have watched the explosion of the Govt/Fed/Vampire Squid conspiracy theory genre within the bloggeratti and the mainstream media. They all act as if they have just discovered something so secret and nefarious. They (and I
by ilene - October 31st, 2009 2:24 pm
Courtesy of Edward Harrison at Credit Writedowns
You judge for yourself: is Jon Stewart right to skewer Fox? Before you decide, listen to the last minute of the segment.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|For Fox Sake!|