Sunday, November 22, 2009

S I N I S T E R Sponsors

Today's title asserts that S I N I S T E R Media did not come about without the distinct aid of sinister sponsors. Let's look at what supports it.

Media is now what was once solely the province of newspapers. Newspapers were so much an essential element in our republic's functioning that our Founders were counting upon a free and independent journalism class to provide another check in their checks and balances scheme. So much so that they are the only profession mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Adding even more distinction to their importance, they were dubbed the "Fourth Estate" by the father of modern conservatism, Edmond Burke, without a trace of the irony hanging over his grave.

So media is heir to the Fourth Estate. As such, it is given somewhat more of a blank check in gaining access to the halls of government to ask nettlesome questions of those in power.

Why, with all the hoopla attendant to lobbyists in the halls of power, is there not even more hoopla over who influences the Fourth Estate and its editorial policies which affect what questions are asked of whom? Surely if it is a public concern over whether or not the money of corporations and other entities can influence government officials, whose sole source of money is not those entities, then surely similar concerns ought be raised of the money which principally sponsors the Fourth Estate and thereby affects its biases.

One of the biggest players in this game is General Electric. Not finding it sufficient to be a big sponsor for many TV programs and advertising in newspapers, GE bought RCA in large part to gain control of NBC, and with it control of its satellite operations like MSNBC, CNBC, and assorted other outlets. Gee, is it any surprise that one of the biggest gainers from the election of Obama and the Dems has been GE. I've warned of the rise of Minitrue before. How much further down the road are we to when the sponsors don't even have to pay to influence those in government? They can force your tax dollars to do it for them.

I could develop this further, but I am tired. As I have said many times before, I hate writing. But I see the news and I weave it together in a manner that I know many of you also can see but may simply shrug off.

Some days my analysis is better than other days. I had other thoughts that I was going to lay down here today, but they have fled my tiring mind. However, I'm determined to continue on with this series on sinister forces, so I will post this admittedly incomplete screed rather than leave it to wane in my drafts basket like so much else I've started. Besides, if you read that thought above that is highlighted in yellow, and repeat it in your own words far and wide, then publishing this imperfect entry will have been worthwhile.

What with the Senate bound and determined to destroy our health care system so that it resembles something out of the Soviet Union, I think it is important that I continue trying to weave it all together. I hope you agree.

In a badly dis- and misinformed society, where many who help spread the false information are well-meaning themselves, persistence in exposing the sinister roots of those in charge matters a great deal.


  1. I keep dropping by and reading. Though not always leaving a comment. (I yak to much as it is.) It should be remembered, at least as far as the print media goes, there has always been (to some degree or another) bias in thier reporting. What balanced things out was up until the last 20-30 years, there was at least two opposing "voices" availible to most folks in their respective cities and towns. Many had a much larger choice than that. Chicago, as late as the mid 60's had "The Chicago Tribune", "The Chicago Sun", "Chicago American", "Chicago Times", along with a host of smaller suburban papers. Now there is just the "Trib" and "Sun-Times", along with "The Hearld" which sprung up by absorbing a very large chunk of the old suburban rags. And it could be argued that not one of these papers holds to an across the board "conservative" point of view. (The Trib used to, but hasn't for at least the last 20 years or so, quite possibly longer than that.)

    And there in lies the rub. If you are only able to get one side of the story. You are not able to inform yourself or pass this information along. Plus the loss of compitition between papers tended to keep em a lot more "honest" than they are now.

  2. Obviously, the reasons for the demise of papers began before the Internet. But they love to blame on their current losses even though so many readers have learned they can't be trusted.

    Customers are, always have been, the ad buyers, not the reader who is merely the consumer. Customer's ad prices are based on circulation which is tied to the consumer's pittance as proof they exist.

    Sponsors who like government working for their interests pay newspapers who carry their water. It may have been a gradual thing at first, but why would a winning corporation pay a newspaper whose editorial policy worked against their interests? Same thing for electronic media. Statism is often called by another name, corporatism, not without reason.

    As far as individuals are concerned, whatever moniker fits the tyranny matters little. Sponsors who pay media to continue pumping government growth are hardly conservative (usually the exact opposite of what the radicals paint them as) in any principled way. It's in that vein where their sinister side most resides -- mostly hidden as any good oligarch prefers.


View My Stats