How have the corporate media violated our right to assembly?

Jump to: navigation, search

The anti-'corporate media' rhetoric seems very misguided here. The corporate media do not collaborate with police in suppressing demonstrations.

Television coverage -- with the exception of the Fox affiliate -- has been quite objective, and even sympathetic. (For example, I heard a host explain that Occupy is protesting the extreme inequality of wealth in the U.S., inequality which, he said, has grown much worse in recent years. The TV news host explained this because Occupy's own activists failed to do so. In a series of 3 interviews at Pioneer Square, one Occupy activist after another referred only to "our message" and "the message" without even hinting at what the message really is! So afterward, the host graciously and accurately stated what is probably Occupy's primary concern. And the host made it very clear that Occupy is concerned with a very real socio-economic problem.) And of course, even negative coverage, does not equal a suppression of rights to assembly or rights to free speech.

If the complaint against "corporate media" refers to the print press -- like an Oregonian editorial that reportedly called for the encampment to be closed -- then protesters are failing to accept the newspaper's freedom to exercise its own right to free speech.

And before one accuses The Oregonian -- or just about any other newspaper in the United States -- as big business, one ought to examine just how much newspapers are struggling to survive now.

American newspapers are, in fact, are victims of our Wall Street-dominated, speculative economy. No longer are reliable, but relatively small margins of profit, deemed sufficient by investors. In this respect, a big part of the problem is the fact that so many newspapers are corporate. But they have become undesirable corporations from the point of view of investors. And that's unfortunate.

The public interest will suffer without newspapers. Indymedia and bloggers cannot substitute for dedicated, professional full-time investigative reporters. As Robert McChesney (founder of freepress.net) argues, we need the government, acting in the public interest, to subsidize the press in the United States today.

184.100.203.16319:27, 27 November 2011

Fox news is "corporate media" that suppresses the message. A large precentage of Americans depend on Fox news for their information.

It's interesting that you only saw interviews with activists that needed to be "graciously" re-stated by the TV news host, when there are numerous well educated protesters who are very capable of articulating "the message."

No one accused The Oregonian or any other news paper of being "big business." If you re-read the statement you are referring to, you will see it says "Corporate media."

Signed, Daniel Keller

174.25.150.24001:16, 28 November 2011
 

You need to go back and re-read the statement you are referring to. Nowhere does it say that the police collaborate with corporate media. It seems you are cherry picking to build your argument, not unlike the corporate media. Hey, are you corporate media?

174.25.150.24001:39, 28 November 2011