If you're still wondering why the almost the entire US news media (with only a few exceptions) are so vehemently anti-President Trump, an infographic dating back to 2012 has all the explanation you need. You can see the whole thing here - and it's worth it - but I've snipped out this excerpt to illustrate the point. Click the image for a larger view.
Note in particular that last segment:
232 MEDIA EXECUTIVES
CONTROL THE INFORMATION DIET
OF 277 MILLION AMERICANS
THAT'S 1 MEDIA EXEC
TO 850,000 SUBSCRIBERS
CONTROL THE INFORMATION DIET
OF 277 MILLION AMERICANS
THAT'S 1 MEDIA EXEC
TO 850,000 SUBSCRIBERS
That's your explanation, right there. The progressive left doesn't have to control the entire news media. It only has to control those who control the news media. I'd wager a goodly sum that if you checked on the political affiliation of those 232 executives, and looked into which political parties and political pressure groups they support with their donations and time and expertise . . . it would be eye-opening. They control who's hired, what's programmed, and what's trending on their networks. Those under them may protest that they have 'editorial independence', but let them cross the owners of their networks, and see how long they last in their positions. (For example, see what happened to Sharyl Attkisson. Q.E.D.)
That's why the news media is so solidly opposed to President Trump. Those who own and control it are opposed to him; so their media outlets reflect their views. In the past, with dozens of companies and thousands of individuals controlling relatively few media outlets each, a diversity of opinions was ensured. Now, with the concentration of media ownership in so few hands, that's no longer the case - or even possible.
Peter
Which is why Glenn Reynolds has been recommending for quite some time that conservatives (eg., "Republicans") focus on buying media outlets, specifically, women's magazines, medium-size city newspapers and, eventually, television networks.
ReplyDeleteThere are just under 1900 TV stations in the U.S., and they would be worthwhile investments for conservatives, but their programming largely comes from the six members of the Rogues' Gallery you listed. Independents in the media biz rarely achieve much impact.
The media severely damaged itself in the 2016 campaign, but that damage aside, the constant drip of leftist propaganda in the form of progressive-friendly programming will take its toll, politically and socially. Until conservatives gain a sufficient foothold in the realm of Major Media we'll be fighting an uphill battle.
"232 MEDIA EXECUTIVES
ReplyDeleteCONTROL THE INFORMATION DIET
OF 277 MILLION AMERICANS
THAT'S 1 MEDIA EXEC
TO 850,000 SUBSCRIBERS"
277m/232 = 1,193,965
Witness the power of .gov run education...
@Phssthpok: Not necessarily. The graphic speaks of SUBSCRIBERS, not PEOPLE. There are probably a lot fewer subscribers than people.
ReplyDeleteSharyl Attkisson.
ReplyDeleteI've seen scores of people mistakenly write Atkinson as you did, but you're the first I've seen get her first name wrong too.
I can see the CBS execs who made her life under them impossible reassured by how few people bother to get her name right.
@Pascal Fervor: Corrected. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI get my news from rumours and small children, it's more reliable ...
ReplyDelete