Celebrity Media For The Elite, (Not The Public)

All these stories churned out constantly by CNN, FOX and MSNBC depend on the super-hype surrounding a celebrity in order to exploit the viewer and sell ads-
Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart and Kobe Bryant, to name a few.

But when the spin-meisters come up with their elitist assessments of the situation when it is politically expedient for them to do so, it crosses the line between real news and propaganda for the wealthy.

Take this example from CNN's Aaaron Brown on yesterday's "Newsnight." In the lead question to the much hyped TV story surround Martha Stewart's case, he asked-"this really isn't insider trading is it? I mean, she is accused of lying to investigators, right?"

That is what we call damage control, broadcast by and for America's elites. This is the result of what happens when too much corporate power has the ability to decide the guilt or innocence of a person before the trial has even begun. In this case, an icon of a fellow media giant, Viacom (which owns CBS and broadcasts Martha Stewart) is decided on by another media conglomerate, Time-Warner.

And yet, Aaron Brown has already exonerated her for any wrong doing. He has sent the signal to other media elites, whether movie star or athelete, that,
"We'll protect you, celebs. Its us, your big brother, your media buddy."

Because of course, there is one law for the rich, and one law for the poor. And not only do the rich get a good lawyer, but free PR from the broadcast media.

Before Aaron's 'report' on Martha ended, they had concluded that Stewart would get at most 6 months in jail, if not probation. How quaint. Why bother with a trial at all? Why not just take an online poll and decide her fate?

Interesting also, but not at all different, is how the mega-corporations, CNN and FOX, allow the Washington insiders favorable treament also, when questionable ethics or criminal violations come up.

I haven't seen any stories lately on CNN about Dick Cheney's energy task force case, or Bush's holding documents back from 9-11 investigators, and haven't seen
any updates on the independant investigation in the White House outing a CIA officer who didn't tow the Bush line.

Take this other example from Fox News, who regularly broadcasts news on talk radio station-breaks around the country.

During the preliminary stages of the Kobe Bryant case, they flooded the airwaves with scores of stories surrounding the alledged mental health of the rape accuser. They also repeatedly made statements about drug use, and supposedly 'loose' behavior.

Fox News on the radio has station breaks every fifteen minutes during the normal hour of a radio talk show broadcast. Fox Sports Network also broadcast and has the contract to promote Los Angeles Laker games. If their boy is convicted of rape, will it ultimately effect ad sales and ticket promotions?




[Edited on 21-1-2004 by darkwraith]

Yes we all know (or should know) that the media isn't the most accurate or non-biased form of news. If given a choice between the truth or bending the truth, where bending the truth will net them more ratings, then they will not even hesitate on that decision. What other ways will you learn about daily events though? There's really no choice, you just have to put up with the bull# to find the truth.

Unfortunately trial by media can also damage cases being processed. In the UK, there have been several trials which have been ruined because of the media intrusion.

Fred West (serial killer) tried to get his defence to say that he could not get a fair trial as the media had already condemmed him.

Maxine Carr (partner of Ian Huntley - who killed two children) was threatened with being killed because the media had demmed her guilty. In fact, she was only convicted of perverting the course of justice as she provided an alibi for Ian because she though he was innocent.

There have also been a number of 'celebrities' who have had their lives and careers ruined because of false media intursion. John Lesley (a presenter accused of rape) was dragged through the works by the media and, eventually, the case was dropped by his accuser.

This kind of 'trial by media' has a lot to answer for.

One final case proves my point. A UK tabloid persued a course of 'naming and shaming' paedophiles living in the community. I despise this crime BTW. They published the names and addresses of people who were registered sex offenders and paedophiles and the result was that gangs of vigilantes roamed certain estates "ousting" these people. My point is that the public, on the whole, are dumber than a bag of spanners. What actually happened in one case was that the gang of vigilantes (with a collective IQ of a eviscerated primate) actually ousted and chased (with the threat of violence, a registered paediatrician of the estate.

How can we allow the media to permeate our society when they have, to quote Ben Elton, "the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn".