The Incredible Shrinking Jury

"We have evolved into  a system of pleas, rather than a nation of trials."

                -Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

   If a conservative is a liberal who has been robbed, than a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. According to 2005 Bureau of Justice figures, between 90 to 95 percent of cases are resolved thru the plea bargaining process. Many people think this works in the favor of the accused. Actually, the opposite is true. It has become the preferred method of disposal of massive caseloads for both prosecutor and public defender alike.

   The Judicial System has long been not about dispensing justice. It is about conflict resolution. It is war, between prosecution and defense lawyers, and the spoils are careers, paychecks, prestige, and advancement. The victim, the accused, they are merely the pawns in the game.

   Achieving actual justice is and expensive endeavor, and it does little to advance the careers of those who participate in the process. A prosecutors career trajectory is based on a high conviction rate. Judges who are accused of being 'soft on crime' are vulnerable to demagoguery from politicians come election time, and Public Defenders, (Prison Deliverers) who are often prosecutors in waiting, are hired and paid by the same State that is trying to put you away.

   The State does not have the time, money, or any incentive to properly vet each and every case that comes before it, so what has evolved is a system where the states attorney and the Public Defender use the plea bargain as a way to bypass proper investigative procedure and the significant expense of a trial by jury. This is done using a coercive process of intimidation that utilizes lies, the threat of lengthy "enhanced" prison sentences, and carefully arranged legal technicalities to bully and frighten defendants into accepting whatever final outcome the State has decided to impose.

   Typically, the defendant is presented with a long list of charges, often different re-wordings of a single action, that carry an imposing array of lengthy sentences. This is called the "greater or lesser included offense". Your public Defender then meets with the States Attorney to determine precisely what kind of result the State desires. Often, there is a trade off: the Prosecutor will give on one defendant, and in exchange, will give the PD the opportunity to negotiate a better deal for certain clients. (I'll give you this one, if you give me that one).

   The PD is not there to win your case, or to vigorously pursue your acquittal. They are there to expedite the process of running the enormous caseloads quickly and efficiently through the system. Often, they receive a stipend from the State for cases that are quickly expedited. They often do only a cursory investigation, rarely (if ever) depose witnesses, and generally will meet with you briefly, and only to explain your options and present the states offer. Discussion of strategy, your arrest, and the actual subtleties of the case are rarely topics of discussion unless you do some legal research on your own, a very difficult proposition with the limited law library time, copying facilities, investigative resources, and counseling available to those who are locked up. This is because these things are expensive. (Of course, there is no expense spared by the state to obtain your conviction). In County lockup, where the accused await trial,  you can usually tell which resident has a Public Defender. They are the ones who are still there, or have been shipped to IDOC facilities..

   Nor will the prosecution properly investigate whether there is a reasonable basis for the charge. Once a case is in their hands, there is every disincentive to learning any additional "facts", that may serve to undermine all the work they have put into it, as well as make it more difficult to prosecute any new suspects in the crime (Your honor, the prosecution has already had ample evidence to accuse someone else of this crime. Can't they get their story straight?") It is easier and cheaper to intimidate the suspect they have into accepting an offer.  

   One legal tool prosecutors can use to strong-arm defendants is the threat of "sentence enhancements". The court employs Sentencing Officers, who assemble information for the judge to consider when deciding how much time a defendant will be required to serve. Although there are sentencing guidelines that a judge must adhere to, sentence enhancements are in addition to, and not included in these guidelines. Sentencing information may include things like your work history, family situation, previous criminal record, etc. As a practical matter, though, the information in the report is provided entirely by the prosecution and the police. One of the factors typically considered is "relevant conduct". This is where time can be added to a sentence for actions that the defendant has not even been shown to have committed. In one example, a man was convicted of conspiring against the US Postal Service, but twenty three other more serious counts had to be dropped for lack of admissible evidence. In the sentencing report, however, these charges mysteriously reappeared as relevant conduct, without any determination of any kind that the accused engaged in it. The two year sentence was "enhanced" to five years. Not only is this a form of double jeopardy, it is an obvious violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.Although the Supreme Court has ruled that "...any factor...that allows for extending a defendants sentence must be admitted to by the defendant, or proved to a jury" (Blakely v. Washington) the precise wording has allowed prosecutors ample room to manoeuvre, and according to the most recent inventories, 44% of current sentencing have involved sentence enhancements. For PDs and prosecutors who are looking to entice a defendant into taking a proffered deal, the threat of a judge actually imposing a stiffer sentence than mandated is a very persuasive argument.

   Another little prosecutorial trick is "cross-referencing". In cross referencing, a defendant can have his sentence enhanced for having any kind of demonstrable relationship to a crime committed by another person. A business owner bought a cell phone as a favor for a friend who had poor credit, who later used it to deal in rock cocaine. Afraid that he might be implicated in the drug charge, he testified that he himself had never used the phone. Later, he reversed himself, admitting that he and the friend sometimes shared the phone. He was convicted of perjury, which would have netted him  a sentence of about a year, but by using "cross referencing", prosecutors demanded a sentence based on the drug dealing, something he was not even accused of doing, much less being convicted of. Under this sentence enhancement, he was now looking at nearly ten years, until an outraged appellate judge determined that while he could still be sentenced as a drug offender, he would only enhance his one year perjury sentence to three and a half years.

   These practices essentially give prosecutors "twos bites at the apple". If a case cannot be proven in court, prosecutors can still send a defendant away during the sentencing process, even though they were unable to prove the charges they would like to have. These unproven charges then follow the accused around in a pernicious document known as a "Statement of Fact". This is a narrative prepared by the states attorney that is attached to  the defendants permanent record which presents the prosecutions description of the "actual facts" of the case, regardless of the outcome of any trial or plea arrangement. This account can then be used as a basis for determining conditions of parole, what type of facility the inmate will be housed in, or the determination of any "good time" credits the inmate may (or may not) be eligible to receive. It also follows him around in perpetuity as the "real' story: the defendant may have beat the rap, but here's what he "really" did. The State has created a fact, and once it's on the official record, it is now the truth,regardless of what the real truth is. The State does a lot of that: if the State says it's true, it has now become true.

   By the way, yes, a defendant is allowed to challenge his pre-sentencing report, but by doing so, he risks any credit he may have received for co-operating with the process. And though in a trial situation, he is allowed to present factors in mitigation, in a plea arrangement, it never comes to that point. There is no discretion, only the deal.

   Speaking of perjury, the State, at all levels, is legally allowed to lie at any stage of the process in order to obtain convictions. This has been affirmed many times by the Supreme Court. (Frazier v. Cupp, 394 US 731,1969) I'll use my own example. A potential witness was told that I had a "long criminal record", in order to convince them that they were helping to convict a "career criminal". I have never had so much as a parking ticket.

   Prosecutors can sometimes renege on a plea bargain, choosing instead to bring a case before a judge after an agreement has been reached in order to try for harsher sentencing. Since a plea bargain involves an admission of guilt, any trial that ensues will now include a signed confession. Your Public Defender may also lie or misrepresent in order to expedite a case, not revealing what strategies or options are allowed, varying aspects of the law. In my case, I was told that Dupage County had no such thing as a "402" conference. A 402 is when your lawyer, the prosecutor and the judge meet in chambers to work out an equitable deal, amenable to all parties. This is a very common procedure, and, being a legal naif, I believed my PD. You may of course file an appeal based on "lack of sufficient  representation", ( this often happens when a defendant (now inmate) has learned through research and conversations with others what other options or approaches his lawyer could have taken ) but very few convictions are ever overturned on this basis. There are cases of lawyers having actually slept through trial procedures and still deemed to have provided "competent representation". More often than not, you don't even realize you have grounds for an appeal until you are sitting in your cell and have the time to read the law concerning the travesty that was made of your case.

   The appeals process itself is structured to make further due process difficult. After a conviction, only thirty days are allowed (in most cases) to assemble the materials, do the research, and marshall the resources necessary to file. And since the appeals process usually takes several years to resolve, there is little incentive to pursue a case in which the appeal takes longer than your actual sentence, with you sitting in your cell all the while. It is easier and less expensive to simply accept and serve the time, whether you are innocent or guilty. The only  advantage is that defendants have a slightly better shot at justice at the appellate level. In Dupage County, for example, the States Attorney enjoys a 98% conviction rate at the circuit level, but only a 75% success rate at the Court of Appeals. Although appellate attorneys are also employed by the state, they are nonetheless a whole different animal then the circuit level Public Defender. This is another reason why prosecutors work so hard to keep cases in the lower courts

   You are definitely better off hiring a private criminal attorney, but not by much. A high priced defense attorney is usually well-connected, knows all the judges and prosecutors on a first name basis (he probably was one), and can usually hash out a deal favorable to his client over drinks at the club. Nobody in here had one of those. Almost every inmate incarcerated where I was had a Public Defender, and the inmates who did hire attorneys got entry-level, unconnected, incompetent, or uncaring ham-and-eggers who played along with the prosecution in order to ingratiate themselves, so they could "join the club", or who fumbled their cases so badly that the defendant would be lucky not to hang. Mounting a strong defense against a criminal charge costs a lot of money, and if you don't have that kind of resources, you're going down. It is a cruel myth that the law applies equally to all citizens. There were no wealthy people where I was, or even middle-class.

   Finally, well, there is no finally on this subject) there is little incentive for Prosecutors, Judges, Public Defenders, and Criminal Attorneys to proceed any other way. Their practices are rewarded with lucrative careers, prestige, and success, and their is no voice or public demand for any of it to change. The public, like the legal community believe that if you have come to the point of being arrested, you are guilty, if not of the crime you have been accused of, then surely of something. Nobody wants to spend anymore taxpayer money defending criminals, even if a "few" innocent people have to pay the price. That is, until they or one of their loved ones gets caught in the machinery....

       More next week.....

http://www.tinfulton.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/How-unproven-allegations-WSJ.pdf

http://reid.com/educational_info/r_tips.html?serial=1086208648124137&print=[print]

http://reid.com/educational_info/r_tips.html?serial=1086208648124137&print=[print]

http://www.lawcourts.org/LPBR/reviews/Fisher1103.htm

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6094&context=law_lawreview

Eleven Myths About the American Criminal Justice System

  We get all our information about the judicial system from TV shows,movies and the news media. It is easy to develop our attitudes about crime from cop shows, detective novels and revenge fantasy movies-it feels good to see the cowboy bring the guy in the black hat to justice .Unfortunately, this is mostly intentionally misleading propaganda propagated by the people who have an interest in retaining the system as it is,and bears little relation to reality. The criminal justice system is a complicated subject with thousands of factors that need to be taken into account before an intelligent opinion can be formed. The fact is that the system is broken, dysfunctional and counterproductive, and has little to do with justice and crime prevention, and more to do with money and power politics. Unless you do a little digging on your own, and read the somewhat dry but voluminous research that has gone into this subject , the American public has little clue to what is really going on in their name. Yet it is a crucially important subject, affecting millions of lives, your quality of life, and to an amazing degree, your pocketbook. Here are eleven myths that we are led to believe, but that are demonstrably not true.

1.- YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Every single person involved in the judicial process, the judge, the prosecutor, the public defender, the court reporter – even your defense attorney- takes it as a given that if you have reached the point of  arrest, you are guilty, if not of the crime you are accused of, then of something else. (70% of Americans have done something that could land them in prison.) Most will admit this. The determination of guilt is made by the arresting officer (and they think that everyone is guilty!) The process of judicial proceedings is a dog and pony show to give the illusion of a due process and to determine sentencing, as well as provide employment for the army of attorneys and bureaucrats affiliated with the justice system.

2. - YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. If you get to a trial at all (most cases are resolved via plea bargain) you will square off against the full power and might of the state, which has unlimited resources, manpower, training and time. Against this you will be armed (if you can afford it) with a defense attorney loaded down with dozens of other cases. If you can't afford it, you get a public defender, whose job is not to get you off but to facilitate a plea arrangement. Your chances go up in direct proportion to what you can afford, so that unless you have vast resources yourself you are hopelessly outgunned. If you have little or no money you have zero chance (there's a reason why there are few rich people in prison – several reasons, actually). Even with a decent defense budget, it cannot compare to the states, whose expenses are covered by the taxpayer while you are selling your home and draining your life's savings. If you are not one of the fortunate few, you can't even afford bail, so you wait in jail where there are rules in place for the express purpose of making it difficult to mount a defense: limited phone calls, access to legal materials, copying and word processing, counseling as to legal procedure. Remember, the prosecution is not interested in the truth- once a case is in their hands they will fight tooth and nail against the introduction of alternate theories or new evidence. A trial is not about truth, it is about conflict resolution, and the goal is not justice but victory. In the  Herrara decision, the Supreme Court said that innocence is not necessarily a factor in the outcome of a trial, but that the process was correctly followed. States Attorneys job security depends on conviction rates, and the DA who says “Wait a minute, maybe we're wrong" will soon be out of a job. The SA, the police do not make mistakes.

3.- IF YOU'RE NOT GUILTY, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF. If you are arrested and charged with a crime you have exactly as much to fear as a guilty person. The awesome machinery of the state has committed itself to putting you away, and are not listening to your protestations of innocence (they're all innocent, right?). It takes at least six months or more to bring a case to trial – in the meantime you have mortgaged your house to make bail, spent your life savings to pay for a defense attorney, lost your good name due to having it in the crime reports. If you can't afford bail or an attorney, you've spent the time rotting in a cell, lost your job, can't make house or car payments, take care of your loved ones. As stated before, the damage is done at the accusation. Even if you are cleared, that money is not refunded to you(it should be!) and the stigma remains – did he just beat the system? Was he really guilty?

4.- YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF YOUR PEERS. Except that now, in the era of the Imperial Magistrate, a jury is hamstrung by lengthy and specific instructions that prescribe exactly the verdict the judge wants to receive. A jury member can be cited and jailed for contempt of court if a judge feels his instructions have not been followed to his satisfaction. There was a time when jury nullification allowed a jury to render the verdict it believed was just and fair, regardless of the law or the judges instructions. This has almost entirely disappeared from the courtrooms. In addition, a judge controls what evidence, testimony or legal interpretations a jury is allowed to consider, which presents a limited view of the defense position.

5.- ALL CRIMINAL SENTENCING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REINTEGRATE THE OFFENDER INTO SOCIETY. So it says in the Illinois Constitution, as well as the IDOCS mission statement. (Other states have similarly worded clauses.) Mention rehabilitation to a prison administrator and you will be lucky if he doesn't laugh out loud. Nobody even thinks in these terms anymore. In fact the US Supreme Court specifically says that the purpose of incarceration is “retribution and the removal of the offender from society”

   The legal system goes out of it's way to make it difficult if not impossible for a released offender to make a go of it by placing roadblocks in his path that almost guarantee a return to prison. Probably the most pernicious is the requirement that a felon discloses his criminal record when applying for a job, and publishing it as much as it can. This makes it extremely difficult for an offender to find a job, and since one must live, eat and sleep, the offender may turn to other, less legal, sources of income. Other restrictions include the loss (in some states) of the right to vote, a ban on Internet use, denial of educational funding, access to certain jobs or licenses, access to parks, restrictions on housing, weapons and a whole list of penalties that continue after the debt to society is paid. Add this to the fact that the ex has already lost his job, home, car and life savings, and he is at a considerable disadvantage. The system wants him down and wants him to stay there, or even better, back in prison.
Vocational programs are few, inadequate (many certificates and courses are not recognized or transferable to outside universities) and hard to get into, and even these are disappearing due to budget cuts and a lack of interest by prison authorities. The system is dominated by those who believe that inmates should be locked in a cell instead of taking classes. But with very few exceptions, all inmates, sooner or later, will get out. Then what kind of citizens will they be?
6.- THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS THE FAIREST AND BEST IN THE WORLD. Sure, if you compare it to Iran, China, or Saudi Arabia. Compare it to Canada, or most of Europe and you'll find it doesn't do so well. Canada's recidivism rate is at 10%, England, France, Sweden and Switzerland's stand at about !6%. The US's languishes at 67%. Crime rates in those countries, especially for violent crime, are infinitesimal compared to ours. America spends 70 billion a year on incarceration. It is the single highest expenditure in most state budgets (bankrupting many), and the US incarceration rate is the highest per capita in the world, even higher then the aforementioned Iran, China and Saudi Arabia. Because other countries focus on rehabilitation and, practical, result- based rather than ideological and punitive approaches to crime, their outcomes are invariably better. Our system makes good people bad and bad people worse. We have tried getting tough on crime. Now it's time to try getting smart on crime.

7.- PUTTING PEOPLE IN PRISON REDUCES CRIME. Not that you'd notice. We keep getting tougher on crime and the rates keep going up, so we get tougher and the rates keep...in an endless spiral. The old rule that “when you're in a hole, stop digging” applies. The idea that punishment deters crime has been blown out of the water for fifty years now. Study after statistic after research paper have continually shown the futility of the present approach, yet we stubbornly keep digging- tougher, longer, harsher. The dirty secret is that putting people in prison is not a crime reduction program, it's a jobs program and a money making proposition. Powerful unions lobby for laws that ensure overfull prisons and job security. Prison industry vendors kickback to insure lucrative contracts (there's a reason why people like Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan and Bob Barker are invested in the prison industry). Too many people have their hand in the till so nobody wants prison reform- it would kill the golden goose. That's why there is such resistance to programs that could result in lower prison populations. There is little to no oversight to what goes on behind bars (they're criminals, right?) so all manner of skimming, abuse and outright theft are regular occurrences. Legal reform in this country is dead in the water without confronting the entrenched interests.

8.- PRISONS ARE FULL OF DANGEROUS VIOLENT HARDENED CRIMINALS-THE WEAK ARE PRAYED ON AND RAPES, GANG FIGHTS AND ASSAULTS ARE COMMON OCCURRENCES. Yeah, in the movies. There was a time twenty to thirty years ago when some of that was true, but since the bar has been lowered for what is an incarcerateable offence the prisons are full of pretty normal, decent, and even considerate people, most of whom have either made a mistake a single time, or have broken a law that shouldn't be a law, or have been railroaded by the judicial system itself (see #1, above). Very few, even murderers did what they did out of calculated malice or inherent evil. Most are one time crimes of passion or selfishness and are not habitual or hardened criminals. Most inmates get along surprisingly well, considering, and many go out of their way to be polite and to help out others. Many volunteer to assist aged or disabled inmates, or to tutor classes. The only bullies and psychopaths can be found among the Cos, who often have self-esteem issues or other dissonances that being given power over others exacerbates. The truly violent inmates can be found in max joints, but there they are locked down in their cells twenty four hours a day. In my three years in prison, I saw maybe three fights (minor) and was aware of one sexual assault, and even that started out as consensual.

9.- INMATES ARE CODDLED AND PAMPERED, WITH CABLE TV, SPORTS, GYMS AND RECREATION, ALL PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS. Inmate leisure time activities are paid for out of an Inmate Trust Fund, which is funded with proceeds from the inmate commissary, where inmates are allowed to pay ridiculously inflated prices for food and basic amenities. It is necessary to supplement the basic three meals, which are either inadequate or inedible, and the state has stopped furnishing soap, toothpaste, laundry soap etc. ,which it used to be required to do. Taxpayers are actually saving money by not having to pay for basic hygiene and clothing. The Inmate Trust Fund is constantly raided by prison officials for almost any purpose and there have been repeated lawsuits and judgements against the IDOC concerning the corrupt administration of the fund. Inmates who do not have some form of mental or physical activity deteriorate rapidly, resulting in violence, and mental and physical illness that the state has to eventually pay for. If you think inmates are pampered, I suggest you try it for a week and find out for yourself.

10.-IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T GET SENT TO PRISON. This is a catchall phrase that is usually used to excuse abusive and excessive treatment of prisoners. As stated above, most violent and abusive behavior in prisons is perpetrated by the guards: beatings, starvation, bullying, falsification of disciplinary charges, racism and other guard behavior that crosses the line from duty to outright brutality. There is a lawsuit currently against Big Muddy, Menard and others that document particularly egregious practices by “Orange Crush”, the IDOCs tactical unit, which include broken bones, sexual humiliation, isolation, and a particular practice, called “nuts to butts” that comes right out of Abu Ghraib. There is little recourse because nobody cares. Inmates are supposedly incarcerated for breaking the law. There are laws governing prison policies and guard behavior too, and these are routinely violated with little repercussion, and excused by using the above phrase. There is a grievance system, but to file a complaint you have to file it with the very people you are complaining against, so inevitably grievances are lost, misplaced or thrown away until the filing deadline passes.

11.-WE DO NOT PENALIZE THE MENTALLY ILL IN THIS COUNTRY. Ronald Reagan's most enduring legacy is surely the cuts in mental health funding and the closing of state facilities for the mentally ill in the late eighties. The result is the marked increase in the homeless population that we have seen on the streets of every city. The ones we don't see are in prison. Fully 20% to 30% of the inmate population is either severely mentally ill, or physically handicapped, many barely able to put a coherent sentence together, follow orders, or find their way to chow hall. Since they are incapable of functioning in society, and there are no longer facilities for their care, the solution has been to lock them up. While locked up they are given high doses of psychotropic medicines (which are freely prescribed) and thrown in a cell, there to stare at walls. One of the saddest things I witnessed is the sanctioned abuse of these prisoners by guards who have no training in dealing with the mentally ill, and find it humorous to torment those who cannot possibly defend themselves. Once again, there has been some success in litigation to improve conditions for these unfortunate individuals, most recently at Dixon Psych, but the bottom line is that these people belong in a caring, professional facility, rather than in a harsh and brutal prison environment. Prisons, of course, are an incubator for mental illness. The standard prison solution to evidence of inmate mental disturbance or the possibility of depression or suicide is the “Butt Naked Room” where inmates are thrown with only a blanket - no clothes, no books, no stimulation, just four brick walls. Upon leaving the Butt Naked Room, inmates are understandably in worse shape then they entered. As mentioned above violence rates are low in prison. Suicide rates, however, are quite high. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a society that we allow these policies to continue.

Who Is The Liberal Media?

WHAT-TVs Jack Hammond digs into the people and companies behind the 'vast left wing conspiracy'. (This is a re-post of an article I did for WHAT-TV in 2012)

 “You get on your little 21 inch screen and howl about America and Democracy.  There is no America. There is no Democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT,  and AT&T. And Dow and DuPont, Union Carbide and Exxon. These are the nations of the world today. ” 

                                                         -Ned Beatty (as Arthur Jensen) “Network” 1976

   Everybody quotes the wrong line from “Network”, Sydney Lumets prescient 1976 film (based on Paddy Cheyevski book)  about  corporate/ media synergy. Howard Beales (Peter Finche) plaintive “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!” has certainly become a rallying cry of unfocused anger,  but few people have apparently actually seen the whole movie. 

   It’s well worth watching again.......When Beale uses his populist TV show to stop a huge international business deal from going through, a deal in the interests of the company that owns his show, we are shown where the true limits of journalism lie. Beales moralistic rants against the powers that be are amusing and useful as long as they brought in listeners and sold product, but become much less useful when they actually touch on something that affects the real world agenda and goals of the company he works for. 

That is the reality. Media, in the end, serves the interests of the people that own them. When those interests are challenged or threatened, ideas like free press, democracy, America, or  journalistic integrity become naive pretensions that are easily discarded. 

  Here is Jensons complete speech, delivered masterfully by Beatty, who apparently had to go thru a lot (Deliverance!) to get this part!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=network+ned+beatty+speech

The Corporate Keyboard

     “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

                                                                                      -Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebels

   In 1983, Author Ben Bagdikian predicted in his book The Media Monopoly.  that as media control consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer companies, increasing corporate and thus government control of the news, would result. Bagdikian posited a future where less then half a dozen corporations, owned by industries dependent on and in control of the government, controlled all media in America. Back then, about 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of American media. The media, huge surprise, called Bagdikian an alarmist, and a conspiracy nut.. 

  When the 6th revised edition of “The Media Monopoly” came out in 2000, Bagdikians predictions had proved accurate. The Big Six: Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann (BMG) of Germany, Viacom (formerly CBS)  and General Electric's NBC --  had swallowed the other 44, and now controlled almost all media in the U.S.
       These six corporations  and their subsidiaries reach in to and profit from every aspect of our lives, from information access to shampoo, from military defence systems and disaster recovery to theme parks and sports teams. Washers, dryers,  prescription drugs, automobiles, medical care and equipment, hair color, TV, Radio, Cable, Print, movies ...  between them they control nearly all access to information: consequently, and more importantly, they control information content itself.
      Each employs huge armies of “K” street lobbyists, (who argue for huge tax breaks and incentives, brand and monopoly protection), finance election and ‘issues’ campaigns via shadowy action committees, and create think tanks and consortium that spend huge wads of cash influencing the press, the news and who is elected,  (now, without even having to disclose who they are!). Just as importantly, they work to insure that those elected continue to support their multi-layered interests. .., which are so woven into the fabric of American society, that their continued profitability is considered a matter of national security. And inversely and symbiotically, the government has grown dependent on them.

    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

                                                                                                      - Adolph Hitler

 ...and, according to the liberal media, the liberal media has a strong liberal bias.  We know this because the liberal media tells us so. We know how liberal talk shows dominate the airwaves (five to ten per market!), liberal well-selling authors such as Coulter, Beck, Hannity ...Bill O’Rielly and Rush Limbaugh, they all tell us. The conventional wisdom has it that the liberal media are a liberal propaganda machine, working tirelessly to subvert American values by promoting liberal causes such as radical environmentalism, the gay agenda, socialism, and secular humanism. We all know this right?
      Tea Partiers are sure convinced. And the liberal media rewards them by showering them with coverage. The Tea Party demonstrations have seen puny crowds compared to the antiwar rallies before and during the early years of the Iraq war, or even the Stewart /Colbert rallies recently. Yet the liberal media continues to tell us about their vague agenda (socialist causes like ‘lower my bosses taxes) and what an important movement it is.     Anti globalization demonstrations, focused, world-wide in scope, and consistent over the years, are almost always more passionate and with much larger numbers. You can usually find the story on page 14, of your liberal newspaper, a 100 word summary, if at all. There are few round table discussions of what ‘meaning’  the anti globalism movement has for the country, or of anti globalism arguments.
      Sure am digging watching Sarah Palin round the clock, tho, on the ol’ liberal media. Instead of having to pay for campaign advertising, she is actually paid for it, in her folksy eight part campaign commercial on liberal TLC. (in partnership with News Corp.), in her books, (published by Harper-Collins, a division of  News Corp.) her not yet announced presidential campaign (with it’s own liberal TV station and publicity empire,News Corp.), No news coverage has been spared to make sure we know every thought and opinion that her handlers have worked so hard to give her:  the most irrelevant tweet, the most most banal observation. Looks good in shorts, tho, or gutting an elk for democracy.
Who, then, are these people, the subversive practitioners that subsidise the undermining of our traditional values, and attack our American way of life.  Who are the fellow travellers and doctrinaire Marxists who’s propaganda pervades our every moment, and poisons the minds of our young people. Who is ‘The Liberal Media”?

Naming Names

   GENERAL ELECTRiC is the owner of NBC, Universal, Telemundo,  MSNBC (in partnership w/Microsoft), CNN,  Sci-Fi, and hundreds of cable and broadcast channels, TV and radio stations across the country. It is the 6th largest media company in the United States. (Important: Since this writing Comcast has purchased a 51% interest in NBC/Universal See GE/Comcast addendum.)

   It is also the nations first largest defence contractor,and literally profits from a state of war. GE Infrastructure, it’s construction and manufacturing division, builds highways and dams and, for example, the canals and water management that prevent the southwest from reverting back to desert. (That’s right, the “Don’t raise our taxes” western rural states get much more government money per capita then the states with large urban populations!) GEI also rebuilds areas destroyed by disaster or wars (around the world) that they themselves supply the armament for. (Nice arrangement, huh!) In these endeavors they work closely with companies such as Halliburton and The Carlyle Group, exhibits “A” and “B”  as examples of the “corporation/nation” Jenson referred to. GE (and Halliburton and Carlyle!) get lots of government money to do this.

        GE Finance, an extensive (some would say pervasive) network of  banks and financing organisations finances our purchases, GE Healthcare supplies the medical equipment industry, GE Consumers appliances line our kitchens. Each, also, get lots of government money in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. (Many  directly subsidize the closing of American plants and the relocation of them to China!)

   It is also a leading member in dozens of international trade and business enabling groups, which work closely together to manipulate the world economy (again, along with our friends at Halliburton and Carlyle, etc.). These companies and the American peoples interests are not the same. GE is a global nation unto itself.

   Don’t even want to get into Jack Welch...

   The profits from it’s huge US media holdings are puny compared to GEs global enterprises,(NBC is perennially the last place network.) and news divisions traditionally  lose money, anyway.. yet GE continues to pour money into a marginally profitable industry.  Why? 

GE’s continued success depends on the support, consent and participation of the American populace, it’s consent to go to war, it’s consent to live in a oligarchic system, it’s consent to continue in an unsustainable life-stye. GE’s

media arm enables all of it’s other operations.

   Militaristic, internationalist, oligarchic monopoly, the definition of American capitalism...NOT LIBERAL.

   

"The essence of democratic society is the engineering of consent.”    

                              -Edward Bernays, advisor to the Creel commission.

Militaristic, internationalist, oligarchic monopoly, the definition of American capitalism...NOT LIBERAL.

Lee Atwaters Ghost

   Rupert Murdochs News Corp. as touched on above, is not even under discussion. Any cursory examination of its mercurial owner, or its corporate hierarchy and creative talent will reveal an all star roster straight from the ranks of the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. From long time GOP media-meister and FOX news chairman Roger Ailes, who has brilliantly turned the whole idea of journalistic integrity on it’s head, thru a ‘news’ staff and on air personalities (Beck, O’Reilly, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Bachman, Kachich, etc...) that interchanges readily with operatives and candidates of the Republican party. In addition, News Corps. donates millions of dollars to The US Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads, and other Corporate/GOP affiliated groups, organizations which had a huge influence on the 2010 elections. Calling it  anything less then a media arm of the conservative movement transcends reality. .

One little known tidbit, tho. News Corp. is heavily financed from  Saudi Oil interests, including Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of the company, while simultaneously sponsoring the ‘Ground Zero’  mosque FOX has been railing about for the last half year. The Saudi royals and that wing of the American conservative movement have extremely close oil based ties that go back decades. (Google  ‘The Carlyle Group’ for some infuriating reading!!) That amazing story of corporate two-facedness is worth it’s own book. NOT LIBERAL! Duh!

   CLEARCHANNEL is the largest owner of radio stations in the United States (over 1200 stations at last reading) and has 240+ stations overseas. It is the producer and owner of the Rush Limbaugh show, Dr. Laura, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and most of the other conservative and reactionary corporate mouthpieces we all know and love. 

It works in close conjunction with News Corps (FOX), and GE in promotion and advertising synergies. Its broadcasts are relentlessly core conservative, and because of the gutting of the Fairness In Broadcasting Act, publicly owned and taxpayer financed airwaves are now being used to air well financed right wing corporate propaganda. 

In the largest media markets, Clearchannel owns ‘clusters’, four or five stations, each programmed with competing right wing gasbags. Occasionally, a half liberal imbecile such as Geraldo Revera or Greta Van Sustern is thrown to the wolves under the pretence of fairness, but even this thin veneer is not even bothered with much anymore. This was enabled by the last Bush administrations (under the FCCs Michael Powell,)  gutting the rules and regs concerning monopoly ownership of media in markets. Clear Channel can own all the major radio in a market now, and does in several major cities. 

In that same ruling, restrictions on companies owning more then 35% of nationwide TV stations were also struck down, after a joint suit brought by all the Big Six, (working together!) This was done, believe it or not, under the banner of ‘Free Speech”, and “Creating Opportunities for Smaller Companies”.

Ideological Brothers

   Henry R. Luce and Walt Disney were at the forefront of the corporate/governments early interest in the use of mass media to manipulate American culture, political opinion, and buying habits, in the period before, during and after WWII. Building on the work of The Creel Commission ( a  WWI government /Hollywood partnership, and likely Americas first corporate/government propaganda arm.) Freud and Pavlov, the use of propaganda in the controlling of human behaviour was just coming into its’ own. Both were early admirers of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebels, as were many in the US in the mid ‘30s. These three men were to take the manufacture of consent to new levels.

  Skull and Bones alum Luce was the founder and editor of  Time, Inc., a media empire which included not only it’s namesake magazine, but also LIFE,LOOK, FORTUNE, Sports Illustrated, and dozens of other ubiquitous magazines and newspapers, back when magazines and newspapers meant something, and were the main source of news and information for most people. A rabid anti-communist, he wrote the blueprint for American expansionism, ‘An American Century” for LIFE magazine,  a toast to American exceptionalism, the principles of which (US military hegemony around the globe, US cultural superiority, US ‘Manifest Destiny”,) he promoted ardently with his media empire.  

   Times coverage and editorials supported Sen. Joe MaCarthy during the House Un-American Activities era, and supported Central and South American (Cordoba, Noreaga, Allende, Pinochet, just a few from a long, long list) and Asian (Cambodian butcher Pol Pot) right-wing dictatorships under the guise of fighting communism during the 70s and 80s. 

  Luce remained editor-in-chief of all his publications until 1964, but even then maintained a position as an influential member of the Republican Party., and was once considered as a possible Secretary of State. His name still crowns the masthead of Time Magazine. 

The much more well known Walt Disney made a media juggernaut out of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Scrooge McDuck and dozens of other characters,most of whom he neither created or drew, (Carl Barks, anyone?) Disneys record of  supporting right wing causes and doing propaganda work for the US government is long and well documente http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_propaganda_pro duction)">(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_propaganda_pro duction) 

  At minimum, a fierce anti unionist, he testified before the House un-American Activities Committee, declaring the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to be a front for the communist party. In the mid to late thirties, Disney, along with Luce and many, many other well known politicians and public figures, industrialists, and media moguls (such as Hitler be-medaled auto maker Henry Ford, aviator Charles Lindbergh, actor Errol Flynn, and Montana Senator Burton Wheeler), were early supporters of Adolph Hitler for his tough stand against communism and labor unions.   These positions changed after America declared war on Germany, and Disney made dozens of anti nazi propaganda films for the US government
   Disney was a founding member of the ‘Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals’, a notoriously anti-semitic group, though there is disagreement as to whether Disney himself was anti-semitic. He and other media giants were members of the Writers War Board, a government funded consortium of privately held corporations, organised to manufacture opinion during the second world war. (Modelled again after the Creel Commission.)

   As “Uncle Walt” was fond of saying, he wished to use the media to “mold the minds of young Americans”. This vision, as was Luces and the rest, has been relentlessly white, Christian based, and conservative, from American exceptionalism, to racial and gender placement. (Lilly white princesses and Steppin Fetchit black characters) From  extensive propaganda work for the government and industry like ‘Our Friend the Atom’, “Der Fuhrers Moustache”, and “Victory Thru Air Power!” to the appallingly xenophobic “Aladdin’, released at the beginning of the Gulf War.             

“Oh, I come from a land 

From a faraway place 

Where the caravan camels roam. 

Where they cut off your ear 

If they don’t like your face 

It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.”

-copyright  2003 Walt Disney Corp.

   Well, good comrades Walt and Henrys little socialist media ‘collectives’ now have their hand in an approximate 50 to 60 percent of all broadcast, news, print, film and music media in the United States. Luces Time-Warner, thru myriad purchases and mergers, is now the largest media corporation in the world, and it is pure media up your skirt and down your pants. CNN, Turner, the CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, MapQuest (!), Moviefone, Warner Bros., Castle Rock and New Line Cinema, and more than 150 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Marie Claire and People. It merged with AOL in 2003, where 25% of Americans log on. It and the Walt Disney Co. were two of 53 groups that donated the maximum $250,000. to the George Bush II presidential campaign in 2004, while lobbying for the massive gutting of media monopoly laws. (See Clearchannel, above)

...and the Walt Disney Corporation is possibly the most pernicious of all. (Well, except for FOX) The list of  it’s media, programming, and merchandise enterprises pervades every aspect of our daily lives  and it’s holdings are way to extensive to list here. Aside from ABC and all it’s hundreds of network and cable affiliates,(The History Channel (!!) ), Disney dominates sports programming thru ESPN. It’s vision and its 226 affiliated companies reach into 99 per cent of US Households. It lobbies constantly for tax credits and subsidies for producing its toys and merchandise in 3rd world countries, where it can employ children and pay atrocious wages, ...the list is sad and long...(for a complete list of Disney's media holdings and those of the other Big Six go to                                                

 http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main)
  Big. Predatory. Core capitalist. Anti Union. American internationalist. - NOT LIBERAL!

Big In Europe

   Other then in the music industry, where it has at one time or another merged or partnered with most of the record houses, (notably Sony, RCA, and Arista), and in trade publishing (Random House, Doubleday,) Bertelsmann Group (BMG), based in Gutersloh, Germany, doesn’t do much in the US, but they’re “big in Europe” ( a near complete monopoly in magazines and broadcasting)

It is wholly owned since 1835 by generational members of the Mohn family, through the Bertelsmann Foundation, a conservative think tank and political organisation. 

   Two Mohns were commanders in the SS during the second world war, when BMG was the graphic designer of choice for Nazi propaganda, (Goebels, again!...all those killer brown and red banners!) and published Nazi authors like Hans Grimm and Will Vesper. BG was forcefully disbanded after the war (for illegal trading, collaborating with the Nazis, and using Jewish slave labor), then refounded shortly after by former SS officer Reinhard Mohn, who controlled the company till his death in 2009.  Great story, and not that influential in this country, but decidedly  NOT LIBERAL.

   Perhaps you’ve noted a certain Aryan theme running thru some of this. That’s because most of the great media dynasties were founded during the early thirties, during Hitlers rise to power, and when his ideas were popular, and even advocated, throughout the highest echelons of American government and business. And ALL factions, whether government or corporate, liberal or conservative, were interested in the developing science of opinion engineering, not only for the marketing of product, but for the marketing of ideas. Goebels, certainly the father of modern mass media, was universally admired as a groundbreaking genius in that capacity, as indeed he was, yet in the long run he paled compared to Disney, and every Marketing 101 student now learns the basic behavioural psychology that was developed during this time period by these men. More accurately, by these men utilizing the insights of Freud, Pavlov, Jung, and Skinner,  et al.

Sumner Reruns

CBS and  VIACOM, while technically separate entities, are actually both under the umbrella  of National Amusements, and National Amusements is Sumner Redstone, who owns an 80% controlling interest in it. While nominally a Democrat, he is a conservative business man, who vocally  supported George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.  The only legitimately progressive news perspective, Jon Stewarts, “The Daily Show” and Stephen Colberts, “The Colbert Report” can be found buried on Viacoms “Comedy Central”. Fortunately, these two shows have gotten bigger then the network they’re on, and have their own channels and distribution systems in place. Neither really needs Viacom  anymore.

Together, however, both Viacoms and CBSs  share (less then 27 billion) doesn’t even compare with News Corps, Disney, or Time-Warner, and are dwarfed by  GE  ($157 billion).  NOT LIBERAL, but at least not rabid, doctrinal right wingers either. For this they are often held up as an example by the right. When CBS News is inaccurate, it is national story (on the liberal media!) FOXs enormous error rate, calculated by the minute, cannot even be kept up with, and so overwhelms coverage that it isn’t even news anymore. This is glossed over by calling FOXs news shows, “opinion” shows. If it’s represented as fact, it is news, not opinion.

When the Redstone family inevitably does sell to the giants, (it is currently willed to his grand children, thru unbreakable covenants. Not a one of ‘em is a Sumner Redstone!) who will be the buyer? Big Six becomes Big Five.

   And it gets worse. Each of these companies participates in constantly shifting  “multiple joint ventures”, partnerships with the other 5 in special projects or ongoing efforts. In all practicality, they function as a single entity. Indeed, according to Robert J. MaChesny and John Nichols, in 2002s, “Our Media, Not Theirs” “...this is a tight community of owners, dominated by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Indeed, thirteen of the hundred wealthiest individuals in the world are Big Six media magnates.”

XTRA!! XTRA!!...Read All About It!

   In print, the Tribune Co., and the Hearst Co. have long histories under their illustrious patriarchs, “Colonel” Robert MacCormick, who fought tooth and nail with Franklin Roosevelt over the New Deal, and American expansionist William Randolph Hearst, who famously used his papers to agitate for a war of his own convenience. His long history of ‘liberalism’ are probably what caused home grown communist guerrillas to target his daughter in a politically motivated kidnapping in 1974.

   The Trib is now of the more business oriented type of conservatism, while the Hearsts , like the Luces and other remnants of ‘legacy print’, generally support  Hearst/ MacCormick  American expansionism.  (Recently,  Trib management has been infiltrated by Clear Channel radio professionals, and has drifted even more to the faux populist right. We’ll see who stays on after the recent Abrams/Michaels dustup. Zell apparently DID pressure the editors to go after Blagojevich over Wrigley Field! All’s well that ends well.)   

   In addition, the Tribune owns the LA Times, the Miami Herald, and dozens of big city newspapers nationally, as well as nationwide broadcast giant WGN. The HearstCo., in addition to it’s vast print media holdings, is hooked up with GE, and Time-Warner at CNN.  

International arch conservative Rev. Sung Yung Moon also has an extensive media presence in the US, including several American news papers (Washington Post), and historic close ties to the Bush family, and other politicians, both Democrat and Republican. He also is a major financier of the Teaparty Express, and other Teaparty organizations 

   These are of course not counting the book publishers, magazines and newspapers owned by one of the Big Six covered above.  The Wall Street Journal, Harper-Collins books, the DowJones (!), Forbes. even Marvel AND DC, and over 400 additional newspapers and magazines are owned by one or more of the Big Six. 

NOT LIBERAL, every one.

   The Gannett Co. main outlet is USA Today, certainly the blandest, most non committal news coverage ever devised. USA Today certainly doesn’t advocate for any causes stronger then cooking tips or  cute animals..NOT LIBERAL. Not anything. 

   One could make an argument, as the right tirelessly does,  for the liberalness of the New York Times Co. (owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family), I’m not willing to grant that. It doesn’t pander to the right, that’s for sure, (well, it did during the lead up to the Iraq invasion) and I could point out many other cases, writers, columnists and editorials where a strong business conservative position is espoused. And, really, it still has few peers in accuracy and coverage.  If this is as liberal as it gets, it more proves my point then defeats it. But for the sake of moving the discussion forward I’ll concede, reluctantly. 

   Even so, the Times is a regional paper (albeit in an important region), and unlike the Trib, or Hearst Co., has few other media and communication holdings, reaching into a paltry amount of US households compared with any of the Big 6, or even the other 20 for that matter. 

...and now, A Message From Our Sponsors!

   But media companies make their money mostly from advertising, right? Don’t advertisers put pressure on broadcasters as to content? They know best  what promotes and sells their product, yes? 

   Newspapers get 80% of their income from advertisers, magazines 50% and television nearly 100%. It is  reasonable to assume that those who pay the bills have some influence over their business and advertising partners. Could it be the advertisers, then, who are pressuring our good American conservative media companies to protect   ‘homosexual, atheist tree huggers, illegally crossing our borders to take our guns.”? 

Here is a top ten list and short bio of these devious socialist moneymen... 

     The top ten advertisers, Jan-Jun 2010 in millions of dollars. (for half year-double for yearly)

  1- Procter and Gamble      $1,501.2
      ...squeaky clean Cincinnati based household goods company is a leading member of the Global Leadership Commission, an organisation of more the 400 companies, military leaders, and politicians that lobby for increased funding for International Affairs, and projection of  US business and political interests overseas.

2-AT&T $1,108.2
  Phone giant and communications reconstituted monopoly made up of 11 of the 22 Baby Bells ‘broken up’ in 1972 antitrust legislation. Big donations to GOP, and George W. Bush II, millions spent yearly in lobbying congress for continued monopoly of American telephony. Between AT&T and other Baby Bell spinoff Verizon control most of american broadband, cable and satellite communications.

3-General Motors $1,043.0

     Auto Giant, long-standing symbol of free market capitalism, except when in trouble.... 

4-Verizon Communication $1,020.2
      More reconsolidated Baby Bell AT&T spinoffs, GTE partners and owners of MCI (see AT&T, above)

5-Johnson and Johnson   $708.9
      Big Pharma, like Pfizer, maintains a huge army of government lobbyists concerning price support and patent issues..one reason why  a drug in Cuba (Cuba!) costs less then half what it costs in the USA. The 3 Johnson Brothers family estate is one of the worlds great fortunes. The New Brunswick, New Jersey, company founded in 1886,  makes a diverse range of products. Besides pharmaceuticals, it make a wide array of medical supplies, soaps, shampoos and health and beauty. Because of pressure from environmentalists about phosphates, J&J now has cultivated a somewhat ‘green’ reputation, maintaining the largest solar power plant in Pennsylvania, and pioneering use of environmentally friendly packaging and ingredients. (See below, Pfizer)

6-News Corp   $700.9
  Rupert Murdochs blatantly right wing media giant, owner of FOX-News. ‘Nuff said. Not only are they one of the biggest content providers, they are one of the biggest content financiers. (See above)

 7-Pfizer   $649.4   
      More Big Pharma,  21 million in lobbying expenses through a crew of former republican politicians, (Paxon, Deconcini, baby Hatch, etc.) mostly lobbying for continued government price supports that keep drug prices in America artificially high, and tough patent laws that keep copyrights in Pfizers hands, and generics from reaching the shelves. It’s partner company, Pharmacia, added 13 million more. (See Johnson and Johnson, above) 

8-Time-Warner   $571.1       Henry Luce founded Media giant, ABC, (see above history) Again, like FOX, both content provider and financier.

9-Toyota   $527.7

   Japanese automaker. Japanese conservative culture hooks up with bffs in American industry. 

10-Ford Motor Company   $524.1
  Auto giant with huge antiunion agenda, Ford family history of anti semitism and fascism is briefly explained above .

Source: Kantar Media, Business Wire

...not a Ben & Jerrys or George Soros in the bunch! Once again, the point here is not to charge these corporations with being blood sucking parasites that manipulate the populace with incredible lies and sophisticated mind control techniques into staying docile as these companies continue to play what Vonnegut called "Idiots Delight": turning power into money back into power back into power....(They may be all fine, altruistic people, far as I know!) 

   Only to show that as liberals go, they are surely not in the hills with Che...

   

Bread And Circuses

“Entertainment today constantly emphasises the message that things are wonderful the way they are.” -Wim Wenders

“Give them bread and circuses.” - Juvenal, (Roman poet, surely the first spin doctor.) 

  Well, what about content, then? How can I argue that there hasn’t been an erosion of traditional values, a decline in religion, and the promotion of non-traditional lifestyles in the media?

   I don’t argue it. Through a combination of capitalist reality, and the evolution of human development  those changes are indeed occurring. But The Six care little about the morality in TV, Radio, and Film content . They really only care if it works. And the publics choices with their entertainment dollar is what determines what works. And, since it also pulls in pretty good money in some circles to rail against our moral decline, The Six have that covered, too. They are quite experienced at profiting from all sides of an argument. Indeed, it is their lifeblood. There is nothing value based about it. 

   In a lot of ways, you could say this is democracy and capitalism at it’s purest. If sex, violence and immoral behaviour is what the public wants to see, as the evidence shows, then that is what they should see, right? 

   It sometimes takes decades for the mainstream media to catch up to societal changes. As public attitudes and demographics change, say, as more old  school, racially or sexually ‘uncomfortable’ people die off,  society and the media eventually changes too. Young people are universally more accepting of people of different races, lifestyles, and choices then the generations before them. 

And to profit, both financially and ideologically, the media needs to cater to both ends of the spectrum: the one waning, and the one waxing. 

   I would also argue that it is the recognition of many different cultures and life styles we are seeing, not the promotion of them. Spanish, Asian, and Muslim culture have existed for thousands of years, predating Christianity .There have always been gays, and gay culture, probably in similar proportion as now.  The transition lies in the fact that in an increasingly smaller, more connected world, the traditional White Christian American population, (descended from Europeans who had not yet learned to coexist with people who believed differently.) has had to confront these differences, and some just plain don’t want to. 

It took a long time for the media to start including gays in their programming, decades behind where society has been. Now every TV show has a non threatening gay caricature. It’s has taken much longer with blacks. Very few black characters populate our TV screens, ‘cept when the game is on. Even the execrable BET, white owned since 2003, (Viacom) is constantly  dissected by serious black thinkers such as Aaron MaGruder, Keith Boykin, Spike Lee  (and many others)  as plain minstralism. 

   The erosion of religions place in society?  This is not the forum for a huge discussion of religion itself. I’ll just point out that the natural progression of science and  human development, revulsion at extremist elements within all faiths,  self inflicted scandals, all coupled with the decidedly nonspiritual nature of naked capitalism has led to a more practical world based tropism. This has contributed to the supposed spiritual decline in public life way more then anything a “godless” media could ever do. 

   In addition, religion does not bring cash into The Sixes coffers, so it is often not a valuable commodity as far as programming. Although some faith based, traditional values shows and broadcasts have found small niches, they are generally not very successful .(That’s why there are so few of them).  Sex, violence, trashy human conflict, ...these are the necessary ingredients of a well run circus. Shakespeare knew it, and modern writers and entertainers haven’t forgotten.

  Religion (and it’s enabler, fear) does bring in millions of tax free dollars into the conservative movement in the form of donations to churches themselves, though. There are all kinds of things wrong with the tax -exempt status of by definition conservative religious institutions, and issues of church and state. Those inspiring “Come home to the Catholic Church” TV adds are taxpayer subsidized. and religious organisations funnel those tax free dollars into voters guides, promotion of religious positions, etc.  Religion is a huge factor when it comes to electing officials and moulding public opinion in a manner that protects corporate interests.

    Again how convenient that the media that profits from  the erosion of cultural values is the same that promotes the doom sayers of Christian cultural decline. That’s why FOX,  for example, can broadcast  nakedly degrading (any reality show, TMZ,), misogynistic, (“Married W/ Children”, “Marry A Millionaire”)  ultraviolent torture porn (“24”), while simultaneously promoting family values and Christian based politicians who campaign against these same types of shows.. The only reason the right wing media cares about sex on TV is that agitating against it is as good a sell as the sex itself. Violence, of course being all-Amuhrican, is rarely in the discussion. (Disclaimer: I LIKE many FOX shows, and have no problem at all with sex and violence. My problem is with the other half of the equation, and the fact that The Six controls both halves.) 

Not Easy Being Green

   The Green agenda? You better believe you’re gonna start seeing more and more messages about environmental issues! Big Oil has scientists too!  For now, it’s in their interest to resist the transition from oil, by casting doubt on current evidence while getting new technology into place. But they know the facts of global warming and the reality of peak oil as well as environmentalists do. (They also have mathematicians who understand about multiples, as they pertain to population growth!) 

At some point that benefits them most, marketing will begin to reflect that reality. Already has, really. Ethanol is being groomed to take oils place in the future, a shame because ethanol is NOT very green, it’s just the resource that has proven most convenient and accessible as oils replacement. ..and GM didn’t build the Volt not to sell them. They just needed a little taxpayer ‘boost’ to get it going. Kinda like taxpayers footing the bill for sports stadiums.

Shooting The Messenger

   One of the most tiresome red herrings thrown up by corporate media propagandists is the fact that journalists heavily vote Democratic. This is not always true by the way. Using FOX news own estimates, 2/3 of journalists voted Democratic in the 2008 election where 54% of the populace voted that way, which means the journalists numbers are only somewhat different then the general population, and about what you’d expect from a group that is much more informed then the average voter is. In Florida this year (2010), journalists gave  17,800 bucks to Republican candidates, 4,800 bucks to Democrats, and $500 to independent Charlie Christ. 

Besides the disparity, you may also have noticed the paltriness of the numbers. That’s right, nationally in this past election cycle, journalists all told have donated less then a million bucks to political candidates. (Journalists have to file reports of their campaign donations with their companies. Keith Olberman was suspended not because he donated to Democrats, but because he did it without MSNBC (Microsoft/General Electric's) clearance.)

   I’m going to take it one step further and reluctantly concede that more educated, creative, and informed people generally vote Democratic, too, and probably by about the same margins. Yes, journalists have opinions, but like most of us, they work for companies and have bosses and editors. The glaringly obvious examples of News Corps. and ClearChannel, where the programming is blatantly guided by  a political philosophy, are only separated by small degree from the better hidden, but well documented agendas of GE, Time Warner and Disney.  Journalists can write any story they want but companies decide who is hired, whose stories are bought, distributed or broadcast....and they are not in the business of promoting ideas that are against their own interests. Ask Howard Beale.

Journalists eventually learn this lesson and tailor their commentary to please corporate, or to get hired in the first place. If I was looking for a job in journalism, I would brush up on my  Glen Beck, be even more ridiculous then he is, hold my nose, and write what would get me hired by corporate media. I might vote differently, tho, in the privacy of the voting booth. 

   We’ve seen who controls distribution. Does anyone think they are in the market for articles disparaging corporate monopoly ownership of the media?  A few authors, Chomski, Nobles, for example, publish on this subject, but publishing of this viewpoint is limited to tiny independent publishing houses, or college press and does not get the distribution that would go with Big Six backing. As a matter of fact, you would have to go a long way to find any large organisation publishing or distributing  actual ‘left wing’ material, and these writings are very difficult to find in bookstores. ALL the major publishing houses are Big Six owned.

   When the media complains about the liberal media, it is actually an attempt to further marginalize those few remaining progressive outlets that still remain. The constant bashing of smart people as ‘liberal’ or ‘academic elites’ , the intentional vilification of even the word ‘liberal’ is part of this propaganda effort. Few successful societies treat their smartest people, scientists, educators, researchers, writers, with such open contempt as this one is encouraged to do. This trend is accelerating, and it is not an accident. Rational discourse and intelligent positions from people who know what they’re talking about is antithetical to the engineering of consent. 

“Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character.”

                             -Joseph Goebels

Corporations are people, too!

“Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to Damn."

                                -Edward Thurlow (often attributed to Andrew   Jackson, who used it regularly)

   In addition to the gutting of the various media anti trust acts in 2005 that allowed a single company to own nearly all media in a single market discussed above (see Clearchannel) and the earlier destruction of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act, the recent supreme court ruling ( Citizens United vs. The US) granting unlimited , undisclosed, campaign spending by anonymous corporations is the single most destructive and corrupting decision handed down in a hundred years. It completes the gradual march to person status being granted to corporations. 

   Already in the recent election, floods of ad money from right wing action groups such as Karl Roves  ‘American Crossroads’,  funded by anonymous, unaccounted for  corporate donors certainly swung many elections across the country. While there are of course left wing groups like that, (Moveon.org), they generally do not represent corporate interests, and must relay on small private donations or the few like minded billionaires (Soros)

    Unions, too, can function under this protection, but again their dwindling influence, (caused by both political design and internal excess and corruption), limits the amount of money they contribute. These amounts pale compared to right wing PACs, who by conservative estimates outspent liberal PACS and organisations more then 2-1 in 2010. Obama, who has largely shunned such donations, and very publicly blasted the Supremes in his State of the Union speech is now under considerable pressure from Democrat operatives across the country to start fighting fire with fire. This accounts for much more of the last election then some manufactured conservative groundswell. Where is the news coverage of this huge, vital, issue?  See Page 26, of “News Roundup”.

Vox Populi

 “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

                                       -Mark Twain

   Most polls suggest that people don’t trust polls. They don’t know the half of it. Most polls, of course, are conducted by newspaper, print, or television affiliates or consortiums of the Big Six.  There are a few somewhat independent polling services, (Gallup, for one, though it’s accuracy record is poor.) , but if you have ever participated in a survey, you know the trick is in how you phrase the question.

A great case in point is the recent debate over health care. Poll after poll after poll early on showed about 70% support for a single payer system, similar to Canada's. That’s because almost every one (especially in the border states) knows somebody who has experienced the Canadian system, by any measure a success (it constantly  rates 90 plus % popular support.) Even the dingbat from Alaska has said her family often crossed the border to take advantage. (Canada's immigration problem?... a booming border business in fake IDs for Americans sneaking in for the health services and cheap meds!)   

   Then the media stopped asking the question that way. Instead of “Do you support a single payer system”, the question became “Do you support the current Democratic health care bill before congress”. This bill, a mishmash of compromises and cave ins with the medical and insurance industries, included their demand of requiring people to purchase their product. There are many good things in the bill, but of course people didn’t support it: they understood and wanted single payer. In the polls, that was no longer an option. The single-payer question had disappeared entirely from polling surveys and data! 

   And if the new congress is successful in ‘fixing’  the health care bill, be assured the requirement to buy health insurance will remain (2.5 million new customers!), but insurance company responsibilities (the good things) will shrink or disappear altogether.

In Our Expert Opinion...

“Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.”

           -The Dead Pool

   But some are apparently worth more then others. The positions and opinions of ‘think tanks’ are often cited by news sources in order to show that the reporter has done at least some homework for his article. Opinions are published copiously as position papers by these consortiums and made easily and regularly available to the news media. This makes it easy for reporters to avoid doing any real journalism and simply regurgitate what is e-mailed to them. 

   And according to a 2005 study done by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, www.fair.org), of the top twenty five think tanks positions that were quoted as expert sources, half were from conservative organisations, and 16% were from liberal groups, and the rest were from centrist, or apolitical organisations. These ratios have remained consistent since that time. 

Duty Now, For The Future.

“The American government and media exists almost exclusively to serve the interests of corporate business.”                                                                                                                  -unattrib.

   I’ma keep hearing how the internet and social networking offers hope of bypassing the Big Six, and counteracting right wing corporate control and bias in the media. I’m not so sure. It’s powerful, all right, and has it’s place, especially in extraordinary situations where traditional media either has broken down, or is not yet on scene. It speeds the news up. When someone is posting Facebook pictures from his cellphone down in the collapsed mine shaft, or co-ordinating  a community disaster response over Twitter, when authorities are not on scene, or someone with first hand knowledge of otherwise inaccessible information discloses it on line, yeh, that bypasses the mainstream media and corporate/governmental filters and is compelling and vital...Wikileaks would be great if Assange would focus more on corporate records instead of just the US government. ...and...does this mean corporate information security is better then our national security? (2015 addendum- since this article appeared Wikileaks has published millions of documents of corporate shenanigans: espionage and spying on private citizens- revealed by my son, Jeremy Hammond, who is now serving  out a ten year term in federal prison.)

   But most of what I see are distorted remixes and rehashes of the already severely compromised material presented by the Big Six in the first place, exchanged between people whose opinions have already crystallised, and who use the internet merely to reinforce each others biases, rather then expand their information. 

   Worse, the bits of misinformation they share are not challenged or corrected in such closed circles, (echo chambers) and so morph into unbending, indisputable truth. When accurate information is later encountered, the bad information has long been internalised: any thing else is now wrong on a visceral level, and has hardened into something more describable as faith, then opinion. Thus, to millions of (voting!) people, Obama is a Muslim non-citizen who raised our taxes, all three certifiably untrue. 

   Then, there comes the question of who controls the internet itself. Of the largest internet companies, AOL and Time -Warner are already joined at the hip, now having the advantage of both internet access to millions of accounts and the rights to millions of hours of content . Microsoft already partners with GE in News coverage. Google already has partnerships in place with Time Warner and News Corporation (which owns MySpace and has just made a grab at Facebook.)  Comcasts recent merger with GE at  NBC/Universal at CNN, also partnering with Hearst)) allows them to partner with (Take a breath!) GE, Disney, Time-Warner, Newscorps, Microsoft, Viacom  and Microsoft, at Hulu.com, the working model and stalking horse for true corporate internet television. (See NBC/Comcast addendum).

   The Facebook engine ingeniously provides it’s own content, but relies entirely on it’s partner Microsofts advertising inventory for income. It has only last year turned a positive cash flow for the first time, and while hugely popular and indispensable, not very profitable, yet. Facebook is a prime target for take-over, as the recent Google attempt shows.  

   Amazon.com, the worlds largest online retailer, is, ...well, the worlds largest online retailer! It by definition partners with all the content providers to sell CD’s, Books, News and product. Amazon is profitable all right, but it’s still just a content delivery mechanism and is also an obvious target. Likewise, other internet content providers such as Netflix have by their nature deep relationships with the Big Six. They, too, are services, and likely to be absorbed.

   These companies are still sorting themselves out: staking out positions, forming alliances. Online companies partnerships with the Big Six are still evolving. In the end, though, most internet companies are services, not producers, and services need something to serve. And in that reality, content is king. And the Big Six control content.

   When large corporations are so completely intertwined with each other in pursuing common purposes, they  can no longer be considered as separate entities. For all practical purposes, they have morphed into one single company. The fact that ownership and control is divided under separate corporate banners only matters in the division of the spoils.

  By the time of this writing, the arrangements and partnerships described above will have changed, but not toward the smaller. Arthur Jensen hadn’t seen anything yet. There is no democracy, there is no America. There is only GE/FOX,/ Clearchannel/Time-Warner/ Disney/Viacom. And they are united in presenting this first and most important  piece of information: We are not long established capitalist conglomerates, military industrialists and right wing agendists: We are the liberal media.

NBC/Comcast addendum:
        Comcast has recently completed the purchase of a 51% ownership stake in NBC/ Universal from GE.  GE continues to hold a 49% share.  This falls under the category of  expanding GEs access to US households thru Comcasts vast network of communications technology, and increasing Comcasts access to, (and control of )  internet media content. As discussed above the internet panorama is new and still sorting itself out. This merger was a big step toward incorporating traditional media monopolies with newer internet media access controllers. ..and as an added benefit, it will be harder  to associate  GE with NBC, blunting the arguments of media monopoly activists, The interests of GE and Comcasts are now the same. They have become a much larger corporate/nation.

A 'hot spot' to watch:  HULU.COM , the internet movie/TV provider. It is the 'chosen one' as far as internet entertainment delivery systems  among the giants, and almost every company discussed in this article has their hand in it, (see short list)  most prominently, FOX and NBC (Only HULU holdout amoung the Big 6? Sumner Redstones CBS/Viacom). Hulu was surely a large factor in Comcasts interest in NBC.
       Hulu, once free, has recently debuted its HULU Plus subscription program, providing access to hundreds of thousands of FOX, NBC, and now Disney and Time Warner, librarys of shows and films. Everybody working together. Nice.

2015 Addendum: I'm re-posting this as it was originally published in 2012. Although some of the pairings and ownerships have changed, we are seeing even more consolidation of media holdings into fewer and fewer hands. The names have changed but the players remain the same. I have seen not one thing to challenge the overall point of the article.