Harvey Wasserman of the Columbus-based Free Press brings up an oft-overlooked but succinct and essential point with this piece.

As we stumble toward another presidential election, it’s never been more clear that our political process is being warped by a corporate stranglehold on the free flow of information. Amidst a virtual blackout of coverage of a horrific war, a global ecological crisis and an advancing economic collapse, what passes for the mass media is itself in collapse. What’s left of our democracy teeters on the brink.

The culprit, in the parlance of the day, has been the “Mainstream Media,” or MSM. But that’s [the] wrong name for it. Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical. Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.

There is more than enough body of statistically factual evidence available to show that there is a discernible mainstream of opinion in this country and that what passes as ‘mainstream media’ is in fact reflecting viewpoints and agendas to the very far right of it.

Read The Full Article

Good essay by Jeff Cohen, one of the original members of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) and producer of Phil Donahue’s program on MSNBC which was cancelled only weeks before the invasion of Iraq for having had the temerity to question the premise of that war. Ironic that Phil D. lost his show for having tried to point out what now former Bush PR flack Scott McClellan openly and publicly admits in his book to having been the case all along.

We can finally see those who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having to squirm over their role in sending other parents’ kids into Iraq. I say “other parents’ kids” because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.

Given how TV networks danced to the White House tune sung by the Roves and Fleischers and McClellans in the first years of W’s reign, it’s fitting that it took the words of a longtime Bush insider to force their self-examination over Iraq. Top media figures had shunned years of well-documented criticism of their Iraq failure as religiously as they shunned war critics in 2003.

————-

In February 2003, there was huge mainstream media skepticism about Powell’s UN speech … overseas. But US TV networks banished antiwar perspectives in the crucial two weeks surrounding that error-filled speech. FAIR studied all on-camera sources on the nightly ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS newscasts: Less than 1 percent - 3 out of 393 sources - were antiwar. Only 6 percent were skeptical sources. This at a time when 60 percent of Americans in polls wanted more time for diplomacy and inspections.

I worked 10-hour days inside MSNBC’s newsroom during this period as senior producer of Phil Donahue’s primetime show (canceled three weeks before the war while the network’s most-watched program). Trust me: too much skepticism over war claims was a punishable offense. I and all other Donahue producers were repeatedly ordered by top management to book panels that favored the pro-invasion side. I watched a fellow producer get chewed out for booking a 50-50 show.

Read The Full Report

This does invite the question as to where was McClellan all the while this was going down and when he had a chance to actually either publicly try to stop it, or at least not allow it to happen with his complicity. One may wonder whether McClellan clearly sees history’s writing on the wall and this is his attempt at trying to absolve himself from his complicity in this whole criminal affair, hoping to try to avoid having his name listed on the international war crimes tribunal indictments when they eventually get issued. However, some of his comments and his recent efforts, particularly the flack he is taking from the reich-wing of American politics does shed some light on his sincerity in regards to his speaking out. To his credit, he stood up pretty well to the over-the-top and irrational (and factually vacant) assault from TV’s bully boy Bill O’Reilly, which you can watch here in it’s entirety courtesy of The Brad Blog.

You can contemplate the question while watching this humorous little piece.

Watch The Video (from StopBigMedia.com)

Oh, and while you’re at it, tell Congress to put an immediate and unqualified stop FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s latest power play to grant more unfettered control by a small handful of multinational corporations over our media system.

Sign the Petition Here

From the folks at JibJab, an interesting — and unfortunately accurate — take on the relative state of “The News” as it exists in the US traditional media outlets today…

Watch The Video

(Originally Posted November 29, 2007)

The well-oiled machine at work…

It’s no secret that polls are used to shape public opinion at least as much as they’re used to measure it. The website of one major U.S. polling firm, the Mellman Group, boasts its “extensive experience developing effective communications strategies that lead people to choose our client’s product or service, join their organization, hold their opinion, or vote as we would like.”

————

Last year, a poll purported to show strong opposition to “net neutrality,” the principle that networks should provide access to any data, without discrimination. But the poll questions were highly leading, asking participants whether they preferred “new TV and video choice” and “lower prices for cable TV,” or “barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services.” The poll was funded by Verizon Communications, which opposes net neutrality.

Another telecom-related poll was unveiled last month at a press conference in Madison, Wisconsin. According to a press release put out by the newly-formed Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition, “Wisconsin residents across demographic, geographic and party lines overwhelmingly support a state bill that would encourage competition to cable TV.”

By all accounts, the legislation in question is controversial. Why, then, did the poll find such strong support for it?

————

Accordingly, AT&T has devoted major resources to ensure the bill’s passage. Representatives from AT&T and the state cable industry met with legislative staff as the bill was being drafted, reported Madison’s Capital Times newspaper. AT&T also hired 15 lobbyists and ran full-page newspaper ads touting the bill. The Milwaukee branch of the AT&T supported “astroturf” group TV4US ran television ads around the state. In May, TV4US sent every state legislator binders full of what it said were the names of constituents “demanding an end to the cable monopoly” and wanting “real alternatives to cable in Wisconsin.” However, several people named in the binders, including two state lawmakers, said they didn’t support the bill and hadn’t given permission for their names to be used.

There is almost nothing about this legislation that isn’t a fraud. The fact that AT&T can manage to continue to slide these industry-crafted and self-servingly designed business plans disguised as ‘public legislation’ through state legislatures like sh*t through a goose says volumes about the state of our lawmaking processes in our country today.

Read The Full Report from PR Watch

Bullseye. No suprise that this video, part of the TV Funhouse series by Robert Smigel from Saturday Night Live, was never allowed to be shown again after its debut appearance. Of course, the fact that it was pulled out of circulation after only one airing completely reiterated the point of Smigel’s work in the first place, what with how special interests have taken over the media

Watch The Video

A bit caustic, but unfortunately pretty accurate….

Yet another AP piece on franchise reform that fails to note the laws AT&T and Verizon are lobbying for strip away eminent domain rights, eliminate consumer protections, legalize cherry picking, and will kill off public access television. And that’s one of the good ones.

No questions asked about whether local municipalities REALLY delay phone companies deploying TV and prevent them from competing with cable companies. No questions asked about whether letting a company cherry pick next-gen broadband deployment results in broad competition or lower prices in a duopoly market. No mention of the fact that Texas has had one of these laws in place for two years, and cableTV prices continue to rise, and broadband competitive utopia has not sprouted from between sidewalk cracks like f***ing angelic weeds.

Read The Full Posting

Go Here to watch the video of and read the transcript of the Bill Moyers’ excellent documentary “Buying the War,” which examines the media’s coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy. And four years after the invasion, Mr. Moyers wonders what has changed? So do we.

Watch The Video courtesy of Truthout

This is an excellent report by Bruce Kushnick of Teletruth on the role of corporate industry influence in controlling the public debate. This brings some real-world examples to light of the cynical extent of the disinformation campaign these unaccountable corporations will go to in order to ensure maximization of profit for themselves, at any civic expense whatsoever (costs which are termed in the corporate accounting world as ‘externalities’). All of this is especially relevant to the ongoing telco legislation issues surrounding state video franchising, including legislation like Ohio Bill SB 117.

DEFINITIONS:

* Astroturf—An organization set up by a large corporation or corporations to put forward the corporate agenda but to look like an authentic ‘grass-roots’ group. 

* Co-opted—An authentic group that is given funding by a large corporation or corporations, where the group lobbies for corporate initiatives even if they are contrary to the needs of its members.  

* Skunkworks—A well coordinated campaign funded by large corporations (or industries) that incorporates Astroturf and co-opted groups, research think tanks, PR firms, lobbying firms, state and federal politicians to put forward the corporate agenda on a specific topic.

Over the last few weeks numerous groups have been lobbying and hyping the corporate position of AT&T and Verizon for relaxed cable franchise requirements or to stop any net neutrality legislation.

————-

You would think the consumer groups would be outraged and want an investigation of where all the money allocated for fiber optic broadband went or about the large increases to the price of service. Instead, the AT&T and Verizon-funded groups—some authentic but ‘co-opted’, others, such as Video Access Alliance, simply made up—are now attempting  to confuse Congress, the FCC and the public into thinking that the phone companies have the support of blacks, Hispanics, seniors, the disabled and low-income families. (Click here to see what we’ve written on many these groups.)

This is all very sleazy. It is about deception. It is about playing on America’s caring about the public interest and about minorities getting a fair shake. Video Access Alliance claims that blacks and Hispanics care about Verizon and AT&T cable plans and it is important to help these ‘poor’ misunderstood companies deliver cable services.

————-

Teletruth has no problem with large corporations donating money to non-profits. In fact, we encourage it. But the line should be drawn when a group starts lobbying for the phone companies, even if the money it received has nothing to do with the corporation’s business, or when a group takes the money in exchange for doing corporate favors – like lobbying.

The reason Astroturf, co-opted, and skunkworks groups should be ‘outed’ is simple – these  organizations have very deep-pocketed funders with lobbying groups, PR firms, and others to get them the loudest “volume” in the media or access to regulators and legislators. They often overwhelm the message of independent consumer groups. 

————-

When AT&T and MCI were separate long distance companies they had their own ‘Astroturf groups, research firms, etc., that gave balance to the political forces. Today, with the mergers and consolidations, AT&T and Verizon not only own the local phone companies and the long distance companies, but they are also the largest wireless companies. There is no longer a serious ‘other side’. The Cable companies are simply not going to defend customers’ rights against the abuse of other large corporations.

The public voice needs to be on equal footing with the deceptive organizations that are using ethnic diversity or disabilities as ‘marketing’, putting corporate initiatives over the public interest. 

Read The Complete Report

With the political debate fully engaged in regards to state video franchising, especially in regards to Ohio Senate Bill SB 117, it is important to understand where some of the facts, figures and sourcing for information included in that debate are coming from, and who is bankrolling the political and PR campaigns in support of this rather legislation.

Articles, advertisements, opinion polls, etc.. will often be attributed to groups such as TV4US, FreedomWorks and others, which are astroturf organizations being funded by the telco corporations in order to pursue their business agendas.

For those unaware of what an ‘astroturf’ organization is, here is some background information.

What is Astroturfing?

What are Front Groups?

Who are the Bell Corporations Engaged In Astroturfing?

Mark Glaser at PBS weighs in on Being Vigilant Against Astroturf Comments

As for comments placed by agents of these astroturf groups, regular readers here at USTV know that we have run into this phenomenon on more than one occasion, including here, as well as these rather silly postings here and here.