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 can’t get a decent objective news analysis from the guys who’ve been at it since television networks were conceived. Political argument in the broadcast media of the “World’s Greatest Democracy” 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 he’s The Creator.

It seems this “mainstream media” concept started with the ones that were the most widely read or listened to. In television that would be NBC, ABC, and CBS, the “Big Three”. 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 today’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. Don’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 “free”, 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 “the most trusted man in America”. 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.

Cronkite’s heir was Dan Rather. CBS’ 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 “supporting documents” 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 – fuggeddaboutit. I won’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 “lacking filters”. Maybe we’re shorter on editing, but we’re longer on truth. That’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 I’m one, but you know where everyone stands on things. The old adage applies: if you wonder if it’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 “contrasted” 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 Three’s news programs, it may get results.

I know, “boycotts won’t work”. 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. It’s like being short of cash and trying to get past Boardwalk with a hotel on it; you pass “Go” 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 “Fairness Doctrine”, 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 won’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 can’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 don’t stations just offer three-hour liberal radio shows? No listeners; it’s a proven bust. A sincere liberal can’t get any audience? Perhaps, but sincere liberals capable of talk radio won’t do it; the plan is to eliminate right-wing talk shows. They just don’t need radio. Sincere liberals are all over the Big Three – and you know how they sound. The only reason right-wing radio is out there is because they can’t get on Big Three TV.

We have a say in this, for now. A boycott has limitations, and won’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 that’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 – socialists.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.