CORRECTED, UPDATED -- Cable News Irony Alert: CNN, Fox and The Disappearing General Audience

"And what is the bent with Rupert Murdock... that just sounds like a right-wing conspiracy...

Geoge Soros!

Seriously, I think that press and especially individual journalists are deathly afraid of Rupert Murdock and what he can do to them professionally.

There harldy a word on the "MSM" about Murdock's world wide (far right-wing) media empire.

Murdock has a lot of influence, example: all of his various sockpuppets, Hannity, Beck, etc, and all of Murdock's worldwide media holdings trash global warming.

Rupert Murdock is the new William Randolph Hearst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst

Schultz, Maddow and Olbermann have three hours of original programming per day. So does Joe Scarborough, who is balanced by Mika "Real Americans LOVE Sarah Palin" Brezinski and Mike pseudo-regularguy Barnicle. To say nothing of Pat Buchanan and the bevy of Republicans who are brought on MSNBC all day long to lie with impunity in the name of "balance". Funny how Joey Scar is never mentioned when MSNBC is being described as the liberal alternative to Fox. Chris "Sunny Nobility" Matthews warrants a thread of his own.

I'll grant that MSNBC seems to have made a conscious editorial decision to give unabashed liberals a voice in primetime (and from a purely dollars-and-cents POV, I'll bet CNN is wishing they had had the guts to do it first), but their daytime programming is still dominated by the center-right CW that permeates CNN, Time, the Washington Post and probably ninety per cent of major media outlets.

I find it difficult to discern if the liberals here are being serious or completely delusional. For years liberals through all the media outlets whether ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC,, NPR, PBS or NYT, WaPO, LAT or Boston Globe went unchecked and unanswered. Now there is Fox news providing the same type of reporting as the other have for the past 40 years and they are horrified.

You may not agree with them but their reporting from their point of view is no different than the fare offered up by the other stations.

Liberals dismiss any representation by Beckel or Williams, 2 affirmed liberals because they "work" for Murdoch. Here is a flash Scarborough, Brooks et al are paid by liberal networks, so they can't be true conservatives by that impeccable reasoning.

Fox viewers are always referred to as extreme right wingers while CNN, MSNBC et al are considered what? Moderate? If there is truly an idiotic view it is that one. The basic problem is liberals do not like having their viewpoints examined instead of just assumed as fact. Sorry those days are done. Additionally if the base of Fox viewers is as limited as liberals think, why the fuss and bother? The reality is that the liberal media outlets are now circling the drain while Fox thrives.

This same trend is even confirmed in book sales. Beck, O'Reilly, Malkin, Kristof and Levin is far outstripping Madeleine Albright or Ted Kennedy's book. The trend in book sales leads to one of two conclusions: liberals are out of touch and have nothing of note to say or the argument about liberals being more intellectual is a lie as well and do not read.

Sad and pathetic is the liberal way of life. One channel out of all the media and the whining and screaming from the Administration on down. These same liberals were deafeningly silent when the treatment of Bush from the extreme left media went . Grow up!!

[...] Time Magazine’s Michael Scherer blogs about the fractured cable news audience but keenly notes a new AC 360 ad… White House [...]

[...] taken to fact-checking comedy skits on behalf of His Holiness. In fact, here’s what was airing on the “nonpartisan” cable news channel this morning before and after this miserable [...]

FOX Noise will always beat CNN and MSNBC as long as 1) It's the only network right-wingers can go to hear their biases echoed back to them and reinforced, and 2) the liberal audience is split by MSNBC, Comedy Central, and now apparently CNN. Plus more liberals are watching the other TV offerings, brought to us by what conservatives derisively dismiss as "Hollyweird."

I'd like to combine the political offerings of MSNBC, Comedy Central, Bill Maher, and a few other things. That combo could take on FOX Noise and win. It would be the must-watch destination for liberals. But frankly, there's no incentive for that. Just because FOX is winning in the ratings doesn't mean MSNBC is hurting. They're not, they're doing fine. Not making as much money as FOX, certainly, but still making money.

Better the transparency of a news network that everyone agrees takes a side, than one that feigns pure objectivity. We had 30+ years of CBS, NBC, ABC, and they tried telling me it was raining as they peed down my leg. Fox News keeps their commentators a safe distance from the anchors. And Baird and Wallace are two very good newsmen. To compare them with the likes of Rather, Couric, and What-ever's-his-name Williams is a joke.

"Murdock has a lot of influence, example: all of his various sockpuppets, Hannity, Beck, etc, and all of Murdock's worldwide media holdings trash global warming."

And all those who oppose Murdock laud the global warming folks. Does that mean they are in some sort of cabal and are of one mind? No.

I trash global warming not because of whether or not it exists, but because megalomaniacal people such as Gore and to a lesser extent the small extreme environmentalists constantly ask for our sacrifice while they reap the benefits thereof. When people realize one day that they are being led (by many different causes, left and right) down the path of their own destruction for others' gain, maybe folks will wake up.

BAck to the channels... Create for me the 'perfect' cable news channel... Who owns it, runs it, and hosts it.

I was watching Reliable Sources this morning, too, and was also surprised and disappointed when I heard CNN's promo for AC 360 (I was looking at my computer so I only heard it when it ran). But I just didn't believe it. So I went back on my DVR and played it again. Turns out that the woman saying "I'm a lifelong Democrat" comes at the same time a man says "I'm a lifelong Republican." The on-screen graphics try to bring home the point, sort of melding the words that the man and the woman are saying. The point of the ad is that AC 360 is there for both sides because it's a fair program. Unfortunately, the woman's voice seems more powerful (at least to me and, apparently, you) and that's what we picked up if we're only listening and not watching.

Interesting idea for a promo but it failed.

Its not news. Its media and its design to exploit you. If you comment here and you not employed by NBC, CNN, Fox, CBS, or Disney corporation you are complete fool to think that you are watching friggin news when you watch any of these shows or networks.
.
Think about this folks. For the most part news is news. There is no middle, there is no left or right. Events either happen or they didn't.
.
But, when it comes to the press and politics. Their role is to hold government accountable. Whether it happens to be a liberal or conservative government should not matter. But if you watch the media today, you see that it actually does. And that's not news.

No wonder lies like the birther conspiracy keep spreading. There's no one with an ounce of credibility left to counter them.

"Think about this folks. For the most part news is news. There is no middle, there is no left or right. Events either happen or they didn't.
.
But, when it comes to the press and politics. Their role is to hold government accountable. Whether it happens to be a liberal or conservative government should not matter. But if you watch the media today, you see that it actually does. And that's not news."

Precisely!

That's why having a very good BS detector allows you to watch (or read or listen) to any newscast and decipher what is and what is not news. Good BS detectors (i.e. critical thinking and thinking for ones' self) seem to be sorely lacking in this day and age. Kids are no longer taught HOW to think, rather only WHAT to think.

I just feel compelled to defend NPR. I'm a small-government guy...a true conservative although these days you have to say Libertarian because, well, the Republican Party has hijacked conservatism.

I want government out of my bedroom and out of my business as much as possible. This is only relevant in that I'm not liberal, and don't like big government solutions to problems. So that being said...

I think NPR is very very balanced. I listen to To the Point and On Point for a lot of my news and I think they do a fantastic job presenting the news and then takes from both liberal and conservative writers, think tankers, professors...etc. Interestingly, not a lot of Dem or Rep office holders guest.

And for the record...I don't like Shultz on MSNBC, but at least he announces he's liberal which means you know what you're getting. Scarborough is great that way also. Very responsible in presenting the issue and then highlighting where he's coming from.

Fox isn't conservative...it's Republican. And mean and irresponsible. MSNBC for the most part has gotten unwatchable...and unfortunately, so has CNN, Cooper especially included in that.

Just my take on what i think is a very interesting discussion...and a vital one for America.

Myles

[...] (CNN) talking about the irony of the White House complaints. This is Twilight Zone stuff. Cable News Irony Alert: CNN, Fox and The Disappearing General Audience - Swampland - TIME.com Even some liberals are calling the White House a bunch of cry babies. YouTube - Kirsten Powers [...]

"I think NPR is very very balanced"

Renee Montagne is not balanced ( I know RM is NOT all of NPR...). Remember, it's not just how a reporter portrays opposite sides of a story, it's WHICH stories they choose to feature. With that in mind, NPR is far from balanced. They are however, the closest thing to a truly professional news organization left. I say that with the use of a good BS detector (as noted above).

Commenters:
.
Has it occurred to anyone that the press corps that isn't Fox News (the marketed goal of which is to "balance" "liberal" news outlets) is completely, thoroughly biased, but not toward liberalism or conservatism?
.
Can anyone argue that the US press, where it is biased, isn't supremely biased toward itself, its institutions, its conventional wisdom, its view of the world?
.
Isn't that the real meaning of "objectivity" and its discontents: that the press reflects itself?

Obviously FoxNews has found a profitable niche in its reporting style: Obama's people whining about that isn't going to change it. If they think they can then they don't understand - or approve of - the First Amendment which is certainly more dangerous to America than FoxNews.

As Yogi said "deju vu all over again". Miss Dunn sounds rather Nixonian. I didn't realize that these new age people went in for enemies lists.

I think this whole thing is pointless, unless the media stops the ridiculous charade of "equivalence". I've been around long enough to know what a propaganda organ is and FOX is it.
.
It is a complete failure on the part of all the media for not calling FOX what it is, and this includes everyone at TIME.
.
I've seen absolutely nothing about how far, relative to other outlets, FOX strays from the facts, nor the smearing of the boundaries between "new anchor" and "entertainer".
.
I liken FOXs' listenership numbers the same way I do a shrinking pond in the drought-stricken Serengeti plain:
.
The animals, normally rarely seen, throng in numbers at the only watering hole left, becoming steadily more feral as the resources shrink.

" .. Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here. .. "

Hold on.
Is it "not exactly .. middle ground" because a self-avowed 'liberal' has praise for him? Shouldn't an (ideological/cultural) 'middle ground' feature 'liberals' too?
Well, maybe you forgot to tell us there is NO "conservative" who has praise for him.

Conservative talk shows were at their best just before we invaded Iraq. Their art of whipping up the passions of a loud functionally-illiterate populace baying for blood would mesmerize Goebbels.

I read somewhere (to be researched) that over time, readers and viewers tend to move towards and patronize the media/talk-shows that 'talks their talk' - that is, the media they identify with (politically/philosophically) to begin with.

Assuming that there is a sizable number of 'liberals' who watch the news/talk-show programs fairly regularly, it may then be said that 'liberals' are not at the moment fired up strongly about any particular issue that is currently captivating the other side. Hence their low participation and the attendant risk that would skew our democratic institutions and discourse.

[Conversely, the ratings/poll-monitoring politicians may as well be wary - for the loudest criers at the town halls may not be the majority in the electorate..]

I can best be described as a moderate politically and avidly watch FOX News everyday. The network is very explicit about each broadcast segment and the political affiliation of each person on the broadcast. There is no cloaking.

Why do I like FOX? Well, I got tired of CNN and MSNBC saying they were giving me the "news". That's utter bull****. Gloria Borger on CNN is about as partisan a hack as one could imagine, not to mention, Chris Matthews, "I got a tingle down my leg" on MSNBC. Even Wolf Blitzer falls all over his tongue in subservience to the Demo Party. George Stepanopolous is a paid hack for the Democrats.

I certainly don't agree with everything I hear on Fox News by any means. Nor am I a Republican. Frankly I believe that both parties have sold out America, with great help from the news services. I am not a tea bagger, either.

But our country has been sold out and no one is covering that like Fox and the press corp of other countries. I suspect that may be the reason why Fox is getting the viewers from a lot of different political affiliations.

For some cutting edge news and analysis of the US, the British press can certainly be counted on. Our own press is afraid to expose what is going on in American politics today, mostly since their corporate "sponsors" may actually take them off the air.

Our politicians, not matter which party affiliation, want to drive a stake between good and bad, black and white, gay and straight, GOP right-winger and liberal leftie. They have succeeded in doing this. Bush did this, Obama does this. There is no difference. Does this serve our country. NO!
We are bankrupt, hanging on a tread and a Chinese prayer and all the pols can do, with the help of the news organizations, is divide us.

Frankly, there is not much practical difference between Bush and Obama. Their records and stances are strangely similiar, in spite of Obama's protestations against Bush.

CNN's so-called "audience" is limited to those sleeping in front of televisions at airport gates.

MSDNC's so-called "audience" is limited to a handful of whack job 9/11 Truther conspiracy theorists and Keith Olberwomann freakshow freaks who think that George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Halliburton, Diebold, Blackwater and Fox News carried out the 9/11 attacks.

BTW, is the unwatched Keith "15th Place" Olberwomann still telling his thoroughly discredited and debunked lie that he graduated from an "Ivy League" school rather than his state ag school with a "degree" in something called "communications"? Is the 15th Place Olberwomann still telling his thoroughly discredited and debunked lie that his freakshow (or what he likes to call, comically, a "newscast") is the top rated program in "all of cable news"?

First, I would like to thank all who have taken the time to express their thoughts and concerns I have read. I am older, so my views are more conservative than many of you who probably are younger than I. That, by-the-way, isn't particularly a curse. It is more a fact of life. Which of us have the sagacity at 22 that we do at 52? I think most of you would agree with me that the sententious mind of youth simply don't have the hooks to hang their experiences on to form knowledge. Life is thrown against the wall and slides to the floor but as time goes by, there are failures, successes, pain, laughter, death of a loved one… and the hooks somehow seem to appear in our life and understanding seems to catch and build a step to the next higher level of cognitive ability. This introduction brings me to my point.
The state of the decline of today's media is not their lack of a flexible business model to transition from delivery via airwaves and print to PC's, I believe it is based on the start of a fracture in our nation that can be viewed in the start of the North against the South feud that left more people dead than all the other wars combined – and remember: brother was fighting against brother. I can attest to that now seeping into my own family.
We as a nation are like a family that is becoming dysfunctional and both government and the press have abdicated their responsibility in protecting the extremely delicate fabric that our entire nation rest. Instead of looking at the 80% we all might overlap and agree; areas where the confluence of our ideas and beliefs could come together and we could build and make each other stronger, both politicians and the media have acted as wedges. Media long ago gave up reporting the news and started shaping the news. Why? Because news is made, written and presented by humans, each with their own mores, morals, beliefs, hates, psychotic bents – it's called humankind. No matter how we try to walk the strait and narrow way – yes I meant “hard” and narrow, how much easier it is to take the path to fame, glory, wealth, praise…. Who wants to work in a copy room and never be seen? People want to have an impact who are drawn to media. Many have agendas and it isn't necessarily to deliver truth – it is to form opinions, shape behavior; it's power.
When we look at Fox News, CNN et, el. we are looking superficially at what is happening in America. We are being divided into gang's. I don't know anything about gangs in the inner city where to survive you have to possibly join one, but I do see that through politicians and the media we are becoming the “Red” state and the “Blue” states. We are starting to mark out territories and one day in the future my concern is that “Party” will be far more important the local civics, or state civics. I am truly fearful of the power that is being drawn toward Washington, D.C., not for me but regarding the next, and following generations. As the Federal Governent becomes more powerful there will be those that resist and there will be those that abstain and there will be those that will die for the cause of the governennt because the government will be the mother, father, provider – the political class is the fastest growing class in the nation and with union bosses gaining in power through these unions, they must be also factored as big-time players in the future.
As we become more fractured, more dysfunctional, less educated and ignorant, as the world spends much more time in the classroom for longer periods with substantial consequences if you don't succeed, our nation will be learning to speak in a dumb-down language so we can continute to communicate with each other. I lay much of this at the very feet of the media in America. They were given an extremely important charage by our Founding Fathers, through freedom of the press and speech – to keep the government honest and to brokers of truth. They have sold out as whores and I find them more and more like gutter trash. They have let you down, me down, my children down. God help us if they don't get their bearing back because they, with the politicians striving for power over a more and more fractured nation, will be one of the catalyst that throws a lit candle into a nation of dynamite that is just on the edge of exploding.
Doesn't anyone understand that our nation is not growing together but is growing apart and that the greatest enemy in the future may not be Chavez with nuclear weapons, but you and I with hatred and anger in our hearts toward each other because we have been manipulated by the wordsmiths, who are failing us, and politicians, who would do almost anything to stay in power – even long after they are washed up. Hmmm, who would fit that description?
In closing, for those who actually have stayed with me to the end, the press is showing the symptoms of a very ill patient that is deranged in the belief of its problems. It isn't because the internet is the new medium for transmitting ideas and knowledge that they have fallen from such lofty heights, as have our politicians, it is because they have forsaken the words of truth and facts for the words that mold and shape and we have become aware; become distrustful, and have started turning more and more to those to whom we believe. We are becoming divided and if we continue we will not last another hundred years as a nation. There will be too much blood in the streets for words lead to consequences and actions and there are people in this nation who have been silent for a very long time but have reached the point in their mind of preparing for future war.
I blame the press, for forsaking truth and becoming dividers by drawing from the ranks to their own; I blame the politicians that once in power would sell their soul to stay there.
I'm just a simple man on a simple path. I hope we find away to stay on the same one, for our nation and for our children's sake.

If you make it to the end of this log, you'll read why the conservatives are the winners in the polarization of the news media.

It is the age-old phenomena of the “Haves and the Have-Nots”. The reason why Robert Murdoch's conservative faux news products, such as Fox and WSJ, have such high ratings is because the conservative audience is largely wealthy enough to have the leisure time to spend on having their fears pandered to. Remember, conservatives are motivated by (PERHAPS DEFINED BY) their desire to conserve what they already have, namely wealth & power. At all costs, they must keep what they have by conserving the status quo, because the status quo is treating them much better than it is treating the Have-Nots. The Have-Nots do not have the luxury time to read or the luxury funds to pay for those best sellers written by Glen Beck, O'Reilly, etc. The Have-Nots do not have the time to watch hour after hour of news stories, biased or not. The Have-Nots are too busy scraping by in a distorted economic system.

The pundit who taught us the slogan, "Conservatives wish to conserve their money", also said, "Liberals wish to spend the conservatives' money". The second observation is only a half-truth. The wealth & power possessed by conservatives, or anyone else, is only marginally "earned" by them. The majority of the wealth & power that the wealthy possess in our society is due to an imperfection in capitalism. The imperfection is that large amounts of wealth create a disproportionate amount of power. Power generates wealth. The cycle feeds itself. The wealth-power combination empowers its owner to amplify the wealth & power with less and less effort as the wealth & power gets greater and greater. The imperfection is proportional: Those possessing a lesser amount of wealth & power (middle and upper-middle class) have also benefitted from possessing small amounts of wealth & power, but they also equitably earned some of their wealth & power by putting forth a greater degree of work effort compared to the amount of wealth & power they garnered from the imperfection.

Allow me a one paragraph digression: The majority of power & wealth possessed by the elite is more severely inequitable in other economic systems such as dictatorial, communistic, socialistic, theocratic, monarchic, fascist, etc. IMO, tweaked capitalism is the best system invented, since society first organized, for giving a less unfair share of wealth & power to all of society. All other systems are more disproportionate in wealth-sharing. For example, the leaders of a socialistic regime profess to intend to relinquish their wealth & power; BUT ONLY WHEN the impossible happens, that is, when everybody shares equally. There is no way that those who have enjoyed the comfort of corrupt elite living are ever going to give it up. Unaccountable to anyone, the leaders administer a corrupt government that hoards wealth for the elite. This non-accountability problem occurs in all of the non-capitalistic economies.

Capitalism works because benign (and un-benign) greed is rewarded. To some extent, the harder you work the more you get paid. Even more importantly, risking of capital is rewarded. The larger the amount of capital that is gathered for an enterprise, the more successful and efficient that enterprise will likely be. Those who accumulate resources (capital) have the power to produce more than those who can't or don't accumulate capital. Even single un-wealthy individuals can often participate in the investment opportunities of capitalism. Deferring the spending of some of what we earn becomes capital. If multiple capital holders (bondholders and shareholders and bank depositors) permit their capital to be aggregated to support an enterprise, even the small time capitalist investor is rewarded with dividends, gains and interest. Some capitalists (or ancestors thereof) end up obtaining a disproportionate amount of capital due to the “imperfection” described above. The opportunities that wealth & power gave them in the first place, not because of sweat and intelligence that they have used to "earn" their right to possess more than the Have-Nots.

A short paragraph about less deserving Have-Nots: Yes, many Have-Nots are lazy, unmotivated freeloaders; but I believe that birth into a strongly biased-towards-the-elite economic system is a significant factor enabling the “un-earners” to remain entrapped in their victim mind-set.

The wealth & power that wealthy capitalists have, has typically been acquired by the "gushing up" effects of capitalistic economics. Too little wealth & power goes in the reverse direction under the "the trickle down economics" system that conservatives offer to appease the obvious inequities in our society.

Some of the tweaking that we have done to slightly reduce the "gushing up" bias of pure capitalism is to have a progressive income tax system, to have an estate tax on large estates, and to have social programs benefitting the poor. Most conservatives delusionally think they are being "benevolent" or "good" (and sometimes "holy") for supporting a system that seems to "redistribute the wealth" of the fortunate wealthy to the less fortunate. I propose that we more accurately term the phenomena as an attempt to, (and only partially) "un-redistribute the wealth" of those who do not "earn" as much as they delude themselves into thinking they do. The unchallenged myth that the wealthy "earn" what they have by taking risks with their wealth is only true to a minuscule degree. Most of what the wealthy risk are the fruits of an inequitable system and of the work effort of others, not the fruits of heir own work effort (fair salary and wages) and not the fruits of risking of savings derived from deferring the spending of their own fair salary or wages.

Conservatives are also deluded in believing that they and their descendants are inherently morally entitled to the opportunities for education and further wealth-building they enjoy. Who says they are entitled? They say.

I often hear wealthier persons bemoan the growing sense of entitlement exhibited by the poor and less wealthy, while they, the wealthier, are blind to the true nature of their own wealth, which, IMO, is largely un-entitled from a fairness or equitable viewpoint.

The idealistic cure for the problem is to educate all of the wealthy of a rarely grasped truth: The greater the reward given to the masses on the lower levels of the economic pyramid (for their work effort), the more willing this mass of people will be to put forth work effort. The increased work effort will increase the wealth created in the overall economy. The combination of the increased spending power of the masses and the increased production of goods and services will generate a hugely greater amount of wealth to flow up the pyramid to those with power over the purse strings. The net gain is more real wealth for the wealthy AND for the less wealthy. Regretfully, short-sided fear and ignorance motivates many wealth-power owners to be stingy with what they permit the lower echelons to have. The adage about not choking to death the goose that lays the golden eggs comes to mind. At this point in time, fear is still stronger than wisdom and most golden-egg-geese are partially choked; some are strangled to death.

The reason that liberal media is as successful as it is, is because of the few wealthy people and the numerous less wealthy people who recognize the injustices of conservative practices and beliefs. Of those wealthy members of the liberal camp, note how many of them are entertainers or newly rich. It is easier for them to see the inequities of the conservative system, because they are not deluded into thinking that they (or their ancestors) earned (and therefore deserve to keep) their massive amounts of wealth.

A hallmark of out capitalistic society is that someone starting at the bottom of the pyramid can earn his or her way up to the top, or at least much higher up the pyramid. Although very encouraging and heart warming, note how statistically rare this occurs. It takes a lot of fortunate circumstances and intelligence, and it takes an almost beyond-human amount of effort to climb up a lot of levels of the pyramid. We celebrate these exceptional successes; but they truly are out of reach of most wanna-be's. I highlight the rarity of these successes to help mitigate the myth that all who live in a capitalistic society have equal opportunity. If this were true, fifty percent of those on top of the pyramid would have come from humble beginnings.

Sadly, I end with a tie-in to the subject of news extremism. Robert Murdoch has discovered how much money he can make by pandering to the fears and greed of the wealthy. So very sadly, he has also assisted the wealthy conservatives into duping the less wealthy middle class Americans into believing that their (the middle-class's) small hoard (or status quo) is at risk if they don't fight against the "un-redistribution of wealth". Most of these duped middle-classers would be immediately better off under liberal political platforms; but they believe the lies of the fear mongers. IMO, it is true the extreme liberal press also engages in lies and occasional fear mongering, but with insignificant repercussions. The liberal audience is much under-powered than the conservative audience. For example, examine the personal wealth of the Justices of the Supreme Court. Look at the unbroken string of pro-business (anti-liberal) decisions that have been made since the wealthy conservatives gained the majority of positions on the court. The excesses of the economic system sometime disenfranchise enough voters that the liberals gain temporary control of our federal government. Let us hope that some of the pull-back from "un-redistribution of wealth” can be restored this time.

The "general audience" is disappearing because it has become aware that US corporate news media are controlled and censor vital information.

Example:

Who among the US corporate news media noticed this story about "swine" flu vaccine producer Baxter International back in February?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/going-viral/