Last summer I followed a link from the Project Censored homepage (http://www.projectcensored.org/) to an opinion essay that dealt with the corporate news media and authoritarianism that was posted at the NYC Indy Media Center homesite. Anyway, I thought the essay was interesting and have reposted it here below. I also included my response (you can post responses to these kind of things on the same page sometimes, isn't that neat?) because it ended up buried so far down the page that I figure no one's ever read it. So I'm reposting it here where virtually no one else will ever read it. Here's the URL for the original essay and a whole host of people's responses; most are fairly intelligent:

http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=10276&group=webcast

Here's the essay:

by one Sarah Bellum (hmm...)

Do you trust CNN's motives?

Trust or faith in the corporate media to deliiver the goods is rooted in authoritarianism. What gives the "real" media credibility or authority? Why should we trust that they are telling us the truth? Is it because the mainstream press is officialy sanctioned by the government and brought to us by Coca-Cola? After all, the major media outlets ALL have offices at the Pentagon. And of course the Pentagon wouldn't lie to us would they? Are the corporate media more credible because they have the massive capability to broadcast their view of the world across the globe, with the latest in expensive technology? Comfortability with authority is the only thing to explain our passive and uncritical acceptance of their "take" on the world. "Take" being operative here because this seems to be all they want to do. We are in awe of their power and authority, meanwhile dismissing what Jane out on the street with a video camera says because she is not "real media". This is also why we allow Indy reporters to be harassed by the police at demonstrations, while corporate media gets personally escorted for their footage in the back of a squad car. Then they present what the 'authorities' want them to present. This is how it works all the way up to the White House.

I heard Dan Rather the other day saying "if the white house says its under threat then thats it." Meaning that they uncritically report what the govt. officials spew out to them. And to think of questioning them would be equal to heresy and being "un-american".

Here's my response:

I think one has to first consider the people that actually pay attention to the corporate news media. Firstly, we must admit that most Americans are too busy being amused to death to be bothered with important issues: most people are indoctrinated to believe that the cultural artifacts called "news" are simply boring--these are the majority of citizens who do not usually vote. The Americans who read newspapers and watch news programs typically see themselves as part of the economic and cultural elite (while not realizing that, at best, they are only working for the elite...). This self-view allows these would-be elitists to buy a lot of bullshit. In other words they accept the conventional "wisdom" because that's what the "important people" whom they wish to emulate seem to accept. I don't think this is a conscious process. That is, the consumers of corporate news products don't believe the corporate/elitist line because they think it will make them more powerful; rather it makes them feel more powerful by their ideological association with "important people." This psychological phenomenon is kind of like what motivates the archetypal pathetic, worm-like, ass-kissing, groveling, nerdish teacher's pet of grade school.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$