What story is main stream media creating?

Historically, it could be argued that all forms of journalism lack objectivity.  When mass printings became less cost prohibitive, newspapers were born and were first made available to the affluent.  Publishers quickly realized that profit was to be had, not in subscriptions, but in advertising sales.   Accordingly, the capturing and keeping the attention of a desirable demographic meant a steady stream of advertising dollars.  From the get go, there were a variety of foci for papers from high brow to the sensational which caught the interest of different segments of society.

The editorial shaping of news drew in an audience of like-thinkers.  People seek out other people and resources that reiterate their own beliefs.   Thus,  journalism is inherently biased given its history.  And the shift from newspaper to television just made shaping the big story that much more costly and risky.  A greater number of eyeballs are requirement to make televised media work (print news survives on a much tighter budget) so a much more common denominator must be found, but there’s still a bias present in terms of what stories are told and from what angle.

Ultimately, media companies are beholden to their advertisers.  Yes, companies want to reach consumers, but they’re not going to bring revenue to media conglomerates that are hostile to their industry.  Company X isn’t going to support the production of news pieces (via ad coin) that may be detrimental to their own bottom line.  So an oil company’s culpability in the destruction of the Amazon or a class action law suit against a big box chain for its systematic discrimination against women probably won’t be the lead news item in print or on TV,  The news is colored to balance the ideology of viewers with the bottom line interests of advertisers.

In an election year, I have to wonder how much of the Presidential race we really get to see.  As someone who seeks out news media with a very liberal bias, I, no doubt, am only getting one piece of the story.  When watching more centrist news nibbles, I wonder where the coverage of McCain’s incessant flip flopping is  (his positions seem to change daily based on his audience, and he either is oblivious or doesn’t care the the internet makes stringing his constantly renegotiated positions  together a relatively simple feat) or his complete disregard for differences between sects in Iraqi culture (Will Joe Lieberman be McCain’s permanent cultural attache?).

While media harps on whether or not Michelle Obama is proud of her country, few main stream sources seem to point that McCain A) recently commented that it’s sometimes “tough” to be proud of America and B) until he was a POW, he didn’t love America.  Seems like those comments, in fairness to Mrs. Obama, should be looped over and over again at prime time for several nights.  Haven’t we heard, for what seems like months, that Obama has a problem with women voters, especially angry Clintonistas? And yet he’s taking a 19-point lead with women over McCain.   When Republican women are exposed to the no-longer-the-maverick McCain’s anti-feminist and anti-choice positions on abortion, family planning, and pay discrimination in the work place,  many reconsider who they plan to vote for in November.

And I’m sure if you have conservative leanings in your media consumption, you could likely list off a variety of Obama gaffes in his own speaking (such as his reference to well more than 50 US states).  Wouldn’t it be great to put both candidates on one of the sundry trivia game shows? Senators Obama and McCain, Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

Joking aside, where is the story coming from? And why? Clinton lost her shot at the primary many weeks before the media began discussing the impossibility of the delegate math.  Yet, her constant moving of the candidacy goal posts was accommodated. (A neck and neck, prolonged primary season means more eyes glued to the news and more ad pricing at a premium.   McCain is still dubbed a “maverick” despite siding with President Bush’s positions 95% of the time.   Obama, as the media would have it, is practically the second coming of Jesus Christ.  Who’s controlling the story, and what are the ulterior motives?

Murdoch admitted, sans hesitation, he was behind the New York Post’s endorsement of Barack Obama.    It would be naive to think other media conglomerates didn’t experience the same behind the scenes maneuvering.  Evidence doesn’t seem to be pointing to a neck and neck nail biter this November, what with Obama’s 15 point bump in a recent poll, but you couldn’t tell by main stream media.

Conspiracy theorists have long conjectured that the “men in dark suits” control the trajectory of the world.  I’m more concerned with corporate interests that don’t have citizens’ best interests at heart.