Flush Rush FB account - Page 2

BINGO.

The source appears to be credible and authoritative, with Jhally as the founder of MEF.  I don't have an hour at the moment, but I am interested in what he has to say. 

I'll look forward to your comments.

Watched a good bit of the piece; excellent.  A few observations; first, the work is over 15 years old, so it does not necessarily reflect current content.  That in and of itself isn't a deal breaker, because I don't view the value of the work to be predominately an accurate survey of the content of the news outlets in 2013, rather, what I would agree with is a working model of the way the industry operates.  Some of the most important themes, IMO, are these:

-journalists do not control the news, the corporations who own the media control the news (ie. Murdoch vs Blair)
-with so much external influence, the practical differences between Democrats and Republicans becomes nill (in terms of what is allowed through the through the filters)
-all of it serves a very specific set of interests
-massive consolidation means an increasingly narrow focus

Honestly, I believe the contributors establish a viable working model of the news media, one that is as relevant today as it was 15 years ago, perhaps more so.  In terms of quantifiable data as to on air content, the piece offers only one such study (at least in the first 40 min.), referencing research from 95' which indicated a significant bias toward the citation of conservative economic sources in the media.  (One issue here is that there is no context given; a large number of those contributions may have been shown in a negative light. Still, I don't detect any ridiculous biases here)  I tend to agree with the model they suggest, and they do a lot to dispel the myth that the news media is controlled by liberals, or persuaded inordinately by liberal agenda. 

I do think some additional context is needed.  First, it is obvious that what is being dealt with here are "layers".  The piece explains the way in which the news media is manipulated by the self interest of a select minority.  I am of the opinion (and this is exhibited on this forum to some extent within some of my posts, including this one) that essentially, the democrat vs republican dynamic is much less relevant than the overall subversions taking place on other "layers".   These high rollers have little allegiance to their country, much less any one party.  The example of Rupert Murdoch slapping the wrist of Tony Blair is a perfect example.  Because I do think there is value in the model, I have to believe that overall, the success of the liberal agenda is not in the best interest of those controlling entities.  That doesn't necessarily mean that in order to wag the dog, the content won't be liberal in nature.  What better way to effect reactionary behavior than to galvanize a bloc by fueling negative opinion?  True, if ownership itself was largely persuaded by the liberal agenda, some of the hot button topics not often touched on would receive far more attention.  In the end, the greatest tragedy is one I eluded to earlier in the thread.  We allow our opinions to be dictated to us by the media, and remain ignorant to the fact that what is waning is our overall awareness and education on the issues.  For this reason, I tend to allocate much less time and energy to supporting one party over the other, and focus more on trying to bring awareness to the fact that our political system has been hijacked.