I have been wondering why the so-called mainstream media has not been talking about the Bush-Clinton Dynasty. Those two families have headed the United States government since 1989. That's right since 1989, seems hard to believe but it's true.So why wouldn’t the media talk about something so obvious?
Could it be that the Bush-Clinton Dynasty has been very, very good to the giant media conglomerates? Bill Clinton after all relaxed media ownership rules with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And the current President Bush has continued down that road with his appointed FCC.
Just this past December Bush controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) once again relaxed media ownership rules. The FCC voted in December to allow media cross-ownership; which means that a media company may now own a TV station and newspaper in the same market. The rule banning such ownership had been in effect since 1975.
It is not in the Medias best interest to remind voters that another Clinton in the White House would mean an unprecedented amount of time that just two families would control the Executive branch of our government.
The question is; what is in our best interest?
What do you think?
Is the media participating in a conspiracy of silence on this?
Do you think the media is quietly trying to influence the race?
12 comments:
I really don't look at it as a dynasty - The Republicans out of pure disdain for liberals voted in one of the stupidest human beings I haven't had to meet. G.W. Bush isn't smart enough to be President. I think that Bill and Hillary are both intelligent and that is why they are there, right along w/Obama. Mostly I just want a democrat in the White House and the Congress (both Senate & House) to have a democratic majority. Maybe some things will be accomplished.
Is the media participating in a conspiracy of silence on this?
Do you think the media is quietly trying to influence the race?
YES. and YES!!! simple as that.
What can we do about it? Revive underground 'yellow' papers? hold on to our internet blogs...
I don't think the media is QUIETLY trying to influence the presidential race. They are quite bold, I think.
You make a great point about media ownership, MDC. This is a big deal, particularly for marginalized groups.
Has anyone heard Hillary Clinton's position on media ownership?
(Heading off to her Web site to check.)
Do I think it's a conspiracy? No. However, you did point an important point about media ownership and news overage.
The relaxation of rules under the Clinton and Bush administrations, in my opinion, hasn't stopped media skepticism of both presidents. Both have received negative coverage during their administrations. However, cross-ownership does influence the type of actual news coverage we get.
Do I think the media is quietly trying to influence the presidential race? Yes.
The media does several things to influence the presidential race: by coverage and the way they refer to candidates.
For example, I believe the media's consistent reference to Obama's "strong" African-American support subconsciously paint him as the "black candidate," thus turning off white voters.
I have heard the dynasty issue mentioned before, so I don't know that there is a media conspiracy of silence on it, but it has not been a big story. I do think that the media always influences the presidential race. They influence all the news period. I never realized how much until during college, when I interned for the Assignment Editor for a tv news station here. I was shocked to see so many stories that were never reported. I'll never forget seeing murders that were just never mentioned.
This is where I think blogging is a huge help. So much news that the traditional media would not deem to be newsworthy for whatever reason still ends up being reported by bloggers. I think we have a really important role in keeping people informed about what is going on. From what I understand, the Jena 6 were only finally paid attention to after bloggers wouldn't let the story go.
If the media doesn't mention the Clinton-Bush Dynasty issue enough then it's up to us as bloggers to make it an issue. If enough bloggers harp on something, then it won't go away.
one of my favorite topics,mdc!
i took a whole seminar to american investigative journalism last year at university...
i wouldn't know about the media ownership proportions in the u.s., but i learned that investigative journalism originally defined itself as socially critical and politically independent, especially since the first settlers often fled from repressive governments...they truly wanted any misdeeds of their new government exposed...
compared to the current state of the media and its 'independency' it
seems that journalism has come a long way, eh?
i wouldn't talk of a conspiracy though, and i also wouldn't say that the mass media quiet anything down...today it's more a question of numbers: whatever story sells best will win the race for the front title...
unfortunately people in general (not only americans) seem to be tired of information on all the corruption, lobbyism, suppression and other misdeeds from their governments...
bitter as it is a good pr campaign can buy you a presidency...it's all about the smile...
Yes, I think the media is always trying to influence the race in some form or fashion. FOX News pretty much tried to destroy Barack Obama from the jump start with false reports of him being a muslim who attended a muslim school as a child.
Hannity & Colmes ripped him apart on their show once. Of course Obama wasn't present.
Good morning, Mes.
Obama did pretty well. I think he's poised for victory. wow @ him winning Idaho.
I wondered that myself, I hear it spoken on NPR quite often, but I haven't seen it elsewhere.
The media is clearly trying to influence the race. They do it subtlely, and I think it's working. They have managed to take the focus of the elections off the issues and put it on unimportant things like rancor among the candidates.
I actually don't think that there is anything inherantly wrong with having the same persons in power for more than 8 years. In fact I think that the constant upheaval every 4 years has drawbacks as well as benefits: it makes politicians think and plan only in the short term. If the fallout for their actions will happen after they leave office, then they don't care at all.
When I was in France, I walked in buildings that were centuries older than America has been in existance, and I understood for the first time how young and impatient we as Americans are.
A 'dynasty' is only a terrible thing when the direction that you're going in is wrong. And that has definitely been the case, at least with the Bushes IMHO.
So it shouldn't be about giving other people their 'turn' as president, it should be about turning the country back from the crap that the past President(s) did when they were in office.
That being said, the FCC is one my highest concerns, and part of a political platform that I am working on. The FCC has crossed the line and become a renegade organization, ignoring the will of the people, and putting untold power into the hands of a corrupt few.
What they are doing should frighten everyone to their very core.
Allowing mass consolidation of media will guarantee the rise of propaganda and mass disinformation... which was how Hitler turned the Germans against the Jews. It is VERY serious business.
As for the political candidates, I don't know of ONE that is standing up to the FCC. They aren't fighting the deregulations, what they are doing is fighting the speed of deregulation.
Thank God for the internet... although talk about privatizing/filtering it has already started!
XJ,
Well on this one I have to disagree with you. :)
I would rather see someone else in the Oval office other than more Clinton-Bush.
_____________________________________
Miriam,
I agree, blogs are a nice little foil to the corporate media.
___________________________________
Tami,
I bet you won't find her position. I'm pretty sure that if she gets (back) into the White House the media will be really happy.
___________________________________
NBW,
I agree the media scrutinized Bush and Clinton, but only after they had no choice.
If the media had really looked into whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. went in, we might have avoided a war.
They acted more like cheer leaders than journalists.
Don't you think?
___________________________________
Anali,
I agree and I intend to do my part! :)
____________________________________
Kayoz,
The media is not and hasn't been independent for a long while. I don't know if you have ever seen FOX news but it's a good example of media being in cahoots with government.
___________________________________
Don,
I know that whole Muslim thing was really crazy. But what is even crazier is that many people still think he's Muslim.
___________________________________
Mrs G,
NPR is like an oasis of truth.
___________________________________
Tasha,
I agree they have chosen race and gender instead of serious issues.
___________________________________
SheCodes,
I don't see any of the candidates standing up to the media either. I wonder if they are afraid to.
___________________________________
__________________________________
I agree that the possibility of continuing the Clinton-Bush dynasty is an excellent reason to give another qualified candidate a second glance [read: Consider Obama]
I see danger in two families running the country in the highest elected office for that many years.
In terms of the media: I am long past trusting mainstream media (MSM). BUT, if you let Bill Clinton tell it, the MSM is "sanitizing" the campaign coverage to make Hillary look bad and Obama look good.
The "tilt" can depend on the station, the day, and/or the current caffeine status of the media elite... That's why I love the blogosphere.
Post a Comment