The corporate media is deaf to the public and the opinions of the public. And it seems that when the public chooses a candidate that is contrary to the corporate media culture's preferences, they ignore it, rig the game, and continue on as if they are simply reflecting the views of the public. The corporate media is absolutely not reflecting the values or views of the public. They make people think they do though. Its beautifully Orwellian. Before I explain the trick they used during the debates against the non-favorite candidates, let me digress, and please give me your tolerance to digress a little.
Recently, I have heard corporate media heads call Cindy Sheehan an "anti-war extremist". Because, you know, everybody in America is for the Iraq War continuing. Ya.
And what is so extreme about Cindy Sheehan? Is it because she withdrew her support of the Democratic Party? Is it because she publicly denounced the charade that is called democracy in Washington D.C.? Is it because she is starting to understand the reality of the political and media landscape of the U.S.?
Truth is radical.
And speaking the truth and not backing down is a radical thing to do in American politics and corporate media. You are expected to be deceptive, to lie, and to back down if your comments are too dissenting against the powers of the status quo.
The corporate media throws the extremist label on left-wingers more than anyone else. Ann Coulter can suggest someone kill Hillary Clinton or Coulter's many peers can call for nuclear strikes against foreign nations, but are they called "extremist" by the corporate media?
No.
Animal right activists and environmentalists in the United States are slapped with the labels of "terrorists". They have never killed anyone.
Anti-abortion activists, on the other hand, have bombed tons of abortion clinics and killed many people. Are they called "terrorists"?
No.
And so, in like manner, the corporate media decides who are the "long shots" and who are the "front runners" in our elections, focus their attention on a select few, and basically manufacture the public's familiarity. Many of the polls they have done in the build-up have completely ignored asking people if they wanted to vote for another candidate or that when asked Hillary or Obama, if they wanted to answer "None" or "Other". They artificially manufacture consent and support for candidates and simultaneously keep other candidates in the dark.
Now, while Dennis Kucinich of the Democratic Party won the Democratic debate in a slam and while Ron Paul of the Republican Party won the Republican debate in a slam (according to the corporate media's own statistics), do you yet see any change in how the presidential build-up is being done? Do you see the polls including either candidate?
Still not different, eh?
Or do you see corporate media scrambling to try to understand what these presidential candidates said in the debates which made the public vote so much in their favor in the debate polls? Not yet?
No.
And you won't.
And it gets worse: they tricked the public during the debates. They attempted to rig it.
The time allotted to each candidate show a clear candidate picking by the corporate media. Thanks to Chris Dodds for these statistics:
Democrats: Obama is given 16 minutes. Clinton is given 14:26 minutes. Kucinich? 9:02 minutes. And he still won the debate. Republicans: Giuliani got 12:35 minutes. McCain got 12:44 minutes. Romney got 11:04 minutes. And Ron Paul who won the debate? 5:51 minutes.
It makes sense. I watched both debates and especially with Ron Paul, he was constantly told to cut his comments short.
There was and is a definite bias in how the debates were carried out.
You'd think that corporate media would do a double take that these candidates which they marginalized still won the debates in the eyes of voters -- despite giving the corporate favorites 40-50% more airtime.
Corporate interests aren't invested politically or financially in Kucinich or Ron Paul. They are invested though in the likes Obama or Clinton.
Thanks to allowing corporate media becoming so concentrated, expansive, and big, the complete lack of diversity results in a public that really can't make informed or fair decisions on who they vote for or even who they decide will be the front-runners.
This is demockery. This isn't democracy.
Let us not mince words:
The dismantling of corporate monopoly on the media is a matter of democracy.
Corporate media: it won't let the public pick the next president, and it won't even let you hear too much of what they have to say either. You are coerced into picking A or B candidates in polls. Polls are released that represent premature predictions (when no one knows who is running) and manipulative in narrowing on just a couple. The pieces that they do is narrowed on a few choices. If no one knows what you are about, it is a simple prediction that no one is going to vote for you.
Indeed, corporate media wants Washington D.C. to be corrupt and democracy to be a mockery.
They want to insulate Washington D.C. from populist support of political candidates and on political issues. They have consistently ignored the majority opinion of the public on important issues.
Likewise, they didn't want lobby reform after the Abramhoff scandal. Their companies and affiliates would sorely be hurt if authentic lobby reform happened. So, they smoke screened it, allowed the politicians pass meaningless "reform" and business to go on as normal.
They even wanted the Iraq War. They were the best drummers for war that the Bush Administration could ever have. They exploited it for ratings. Hell, their media companies are even interlocked with Halliburton (Disney), Lockheed Martin (Washington Post), Chevron (NBC), etc. All companies that would benefit directly from war.
The corporate media presents itself as a voice and guardian of the public interest, but, in fact, the corporate media is the guards at the political gates of "democracy" which intimidate and keep the public interest and voice outside.
For the record and as an afterthought, Olbermann is just another Tums in the same way that the corporate media uses the Darfur genocides as a Tums.
Olbermann isn't a part of the solution. He won't help reclaim democracy. Can you see Olbermann endorsing non-corporate picked candidates? Or talk about issues which those candidates are pushing for? Will you see Olbermann criticize the mass media ownership concentration? No. You won't.
The solution will not come from D.C. or from the corporate media or even from Jon Stewart.
If we want democratic elections, we must encourage everyone to shut off their televisions, shut off corporate radio, and read anything else than corporate newspapers. Simultaneously, we must create our own "tv" videos, our own radio stations, and our own independent media and community publications. We must become the media, community by community, undercut the trust in corporate media and expose how it is structured against us.
We must make people aware of how the election process has been hijacked and that we don't have to accept it.
We don't have to consciously partake in a system that we know is a sham.
We don't have to be chumps.
We can keep our dignity -- the one thing that anti-democratic interests don't want you to keep.
If you can't vote your conscience, don't vote.
And make the corporate media, RNC, DNC, and all such organizations know that you will refuse to vote when they refuse to reflect the public's interests in candidates and give them equal airtime and attention in the media.
It likely won't change how they do business, but it will signal to them that the public is rejecting them and that the public is starting to wise up.
If you can't make them support democracy, then make them sweat and begin to slowly feel the panic that they are steadily losing control of the public.
And trust me, they are beginning to lose control of the public.
You won't, of course, hear about it from corporate media.
By Stewart N. Thorpe (Ramognino) of Citizen Press Revolution
http://www.myspace.com/citizenpressrevolution
Read Part I: Corporate Media Won't Let the Public Pick Their Next President
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
