The Big Three
By: Eddie Clements
So here we sit, at the dawn of the Third Millennium, personal-computing, driving personal transportation, flying freely above Earth, everyone talking on cells phones, getting live high-definition transmissions from half a world away, and we canâ€™t get a decent objective news analysis from the guys whoâ€™ve been at it since television networks were conceived. Political argument in the broadcast media of the â€œWorldâ€™s Greatest Democracyâ€ is reduced to attacking Joe the Plumber for using his middle name. The same media attacks as racist blasphemy the mere mention of the middle name of B. Hussein Obama, like heâ€™s The Creator.
It seems this â€œmainstream mediaâ€ concept started with the ones that were the most widely read or listened to. In television that would be NBC, ABC, and CBS, the â€œBig Threeâ€. Though once featuring a diversity of opinion, it is arguable they have always leaned left. Now, they are all far left. The real problem with the MSM is not what they are saying, rather that they are the largest outfit saying it. They do not have a monopoly on information, but they are the most widely viewed conveyors of it.
With todayâ€™s cheap, readily available information, the problem becomes how to sort it all out. The volume is so a huge a whole field of business college study is devoted to managing information, and how to deliver it to decision-makers. Managers must hire staff to accumulate information and filter out the chaff so the managers get what they need within the right time frame.
You need information to know who to vote for, without the chaff campaigns must offer. Donâ€™t you wish you could afford a private information manager? Well, you can! The media provides that service for a fee, right in your living room or den. Whatever the source, newspaper or magazine, TV, radio, or any other, even the internet, fees are paid accordingly. Television and radio news seems â€œfreeâ€, but your time is taken by advertising. The fee is your time and attention. Note that time is absorbed whether information is heard or read. Reading takes more time but contains more detail. TV and radio trades time for less detail, but sometimes a greater variety of stories than you have time to read.
What kind of people do you want in your living room to relay news? Agreeable types you can trust. Walter Cronkite, famed anchor on CBS Television evening news for eons, was called â€œthe most trusted man in Americaâ€. This may have been a bit of marketing, but he had plenty of viewers. When Walter read a story, it was accepted as authoritative, even though you might disagree with it.
Cronkiteâ€™s heir was Dan Rather. CBSâ€™ fall to hollow journalism came when Rather reported as fact a story meant to harm President Bush in 2004. Complete with a nutty and supremely unreliable witness, and suspicious â€œsupporting documentsâ€ that could not have been typed at the time of the alleged event, Rather claimed the story was authentic, despite evidence to the contrary.
Hiring George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration operative, to succeed the esteemed David Brinkley on This Week signaled any hint of journalistic integrity was banished at ABC News. NBC â€“ fuggeddaboutit. I wonâ€™t even watch Sunday Night Football on the sorry tele-screed. Television news has fallen far, but The Big Three still attract the largest audience.
These are the people who complain about the internet blogs as â€œlacking filtersâ€. Maybe weâ€™re shorter on editing, but weâ€™re longer on truth. Thatâ€™s their real complaint; the MSM are not as effective at their propaganda as they want to be. Alternative media, like talk radio and the internet, provide greater variety of perspective. There may be some horrid people blogging away freely on the internet, and perhaps Iâ€™m one, but you know where everyone stands on things. The old adage applies: if you wonder if itâ€™s true, check on it.
THAT is the problem with the MSM. When they all say the same thing, it is taken for truth. THAT is why a diversity of opinion is needed in the MSM, especially when just talking about TV news, because they have the largest number of viewers. To the MSM hosts and commentators, an obvious liberal is â€œcontrastedâ€ with a liberal from another news source who may slightly disagree with the means, but not the ends. The Big Three no longer presents opposing points of view.
This gets to the point: how to force the Big Three into presenting opposing viewpoints, and more objective analysis? More generally, how to reform a MSM that has become a liberal Democrat advocacy group?
The boycott is the only answer I can think of. We will continue to buy newspapers, magazines, and listen to news on the Big Three. However, if we mount an organized and noisy effort to withhold business from those national advertisers who sponsor the Big Threeâ€™s news programs, it may get results.
I know, â€œboycotts wonâ€™t workâ€. Anyone have a better idea? I would genuinely love to hear a plan that will work to get us out of this spiral into socialism, this cycle of personal attacks against all who oppose conservative ideas that constantly issue forth from the bland, smug suits in MSM. Right now, we counter-attack one battle at a time, effective only until the next outrage, the next hour or next day. Itâ€™s like being short of cash and trying to get past Boardwalk with a hotel on it; you pass â€œGoâ€ and start again.
The Federal Communications Commission issues operating licenses; a station refuses to abide by the rules and no more broadcasting by that station. The â€œFairness Doctrineâ€, wherein alternative viewpoints must be balanced in time on airwaves, is a Sword of Damocles hanging over talk radio. In can be re-instated by Congress, or maybe just the President. It will most assuredly not apply to the Big Three. Oh, there will be lawsuits aplenty. However, I found out one lesson working in government that wonâ€™t change: government has money and time. They can outlast any attempt to curb their power if they are determined to do so.
Right-wing talk radio is a thorn in the side of liberals. They canâ€™t advance socialism as long as alternative opinion is available. Control communications, and you control the country. Look at what happened in NAZI Germany.
Why donâ€™t stations just offer three-hour liberal radio shows? No listeners; itâ€™s a proven bust. A sincere liberal canâ€™t get any audience? Perhaps, but sincere liberals capable of talk radio wonâ€™t do it; the plan is to eliminate right-wing talk shows. They just donâ€™t need radio. Sincere liberals are all over the Big Three â€“ and you know how they sound. The only reason right-wing radio is out there is because they canâ€™t get on Big Three TV.
We have a say in this, for now. A boycott has limitations, and wonâ€™t work if the Big Three become nationalized. That could happen anyway; an Obama regime increases the chances.
This election is arguably our most important in history, if for nothing other than freedom of speech. The Obama campaign is regimented to stress the myth that Democrats will improve the nation economically. Knowing the economy is a salient issue to people, the MSM obsequiously spreads stories of economic gloom and doom. Many people buy into that hogwash because thatâ€™s what they see on the news.
Better to be poorer but freer than the alternative one party system wherein preferential treatment is only accorded those who toe the Party line and the dream of achieving something greater for yourself and your family is limited to under $250,000, and going down. Think Soviet Union. Think Big Three, One Party â€“ socialists.