is the news fundamentally conservative?

that's the entire raison d'être of tabloid journalism, isn't it? "if it bleeds, it leads".

while i understand your logic and agree, here in the states it's the far-right/tea baggers who are always complaining about "the liberal media bias", what sarah palin et al refer to as the "lame-stream media", as opposed to fox news/brietbart/newsmax, etc. maybe they are more lunatic fringe than conservative, though.

man catches fish is good news

unless you're the fish

Yes. Without question. The propaganda model is the only overarching analysis of media that is consistently proven correct.

News as entertainment etc. is another argument. Media was very different 50/60 years ago.

when all of news media is owned by 5 super rich people, all of it serves their interests, and those of their class.

It's not just 'current affairs' news either is its. Much of the lifestyle/entertainment side of media is equally insidious. Ralph Miliband is good on the news side of things

Separately, was watching Stuart Hall on youtube during the week. The show itself was about racism on TV. The issues and fact the so much of what's talked about still persists is bad enough but even though they encountered resistance making the show then, it is nearly inconceivable that something like this would be broadcast now. What space there is is occupied by that, I suppose, comedian / Screen Wipe world which tends more towards 'aren't the tea party are terrible lol' - than they kind of deconstruction Hall offers.

Not in a back in my day sort of thing but it is dispiriting to consider what is heralded as great serious TV now when you see some of the, particularly British, TV that was funded and broadcast across almost all stations once upon a time.

i did the same thing and saw my sanity return, it's clear the news has a bias and is a bit too cosy with the hand that feeds it (finance and politics/sources). at the same time some exposure is necessary to understand public issues as seen through the lens of the powerful and not so powerful (family, friends, etc.), you can't be completely out of the loop.

i disagree that the daily barrage/unrest of the news is the source of discontent, most people have very real troubles (poor wages, long commute, etc.) in reality that are reflected poorly in the news, and it's clear to these same people that financial power and connections make your voice heard, which compounds the disconnect and feeling of injustice. the reality is that talent and hard work does not transalate to fulfillment and happiness because there are a number of invisible factors (connections, family name, colour of skin, accent, place of study) which will sort the pyramid in an unfair (to the person making the effort, creation, etc.) way. fringe ideas and events often do not make it into this consensus, and it's good to remember that environmental issues were once considered fringe. so i think there is a very real basis for this discontent.

it's true that at a basic level the building blocks of happiness (family, friendship, love, etc.) are there for all, but it's also true that other factors can and do impede achievement of these things and they are often external, whether through media or directly in the theatre of life.

one problem here in the states is that cable TV is 97% shit, so the only daily programs worth anything are news and political commentary programs, which then gets you sucked into the news of the day regarding which politician/party is up or down, etc. it's all about "who won the day", which is the worst form of politics and the worse way to run a country.

on one hand, it's interesting but when you step back for a second you realize most of the conflict of the day is just, as we say here, inside baseball (details and drama of interest to those in the weeds but largely irrelevant to anyone outside washington). when i think back about the big cable news stories of 6-8-12 months ago, most of them are now forgotten, never had an impact on any policies, elections or government decisions.

the world of politics has been called "hollywood for ugly people", and most of the cable news shows are the equivalent of TMZ/Gawker-type gossip sites for them. sadly, i remain somewhat addicted.

That is why I get all of my information from twitter.

Let's distinguish between instrumental and substantive definitions of conservatism. It's easy to see that the media is instrumentally conservative (they in some sense propagandise and support the status quo), but they are certainly not substantively conservative (the status quo is not substantively conservative but rather is substantively liberal).

It's easy to see that the media is instrumentally conservative (they in some sense propagandise and support the status quo), but they are certainly not substantively conservative (the status quo is not substantively conservative but rather is substantively liberal).

Click to expand...

But then it's where you place the emphasis. Socialists would lean toward the former (or insist upon it).

Do you consider yourself to be a conservative, Vimothy?

Probably. Although, as your socialists might argue, not necessarily a very conservative one!

Are you a radical conservative? You are clearly no longer libertarian.

Conservatism in the current context is somewhat radical, I meant to suggest. "Radical conservatism" might have connotations that I'm not sure I want to sign up for, but I'm definitely no libertarian ...

craner said:

Are you a radical conservative?

Click to expand...

Pardon me if I'm being dense here, but isn't this a tautology? (Edit: durr, oxymoron, of course.) Or do you mean "radical" in the sense that Thatcher's neoliberalism was "radical" in '79 with respect to the postwar consensus?

But then the word "radical" itself is a bit of a chameleon. I mean, people talk about "radical Islamists", who aren't "radical" in the traditional sense, but ultra-reactionary. Unless you just take "radical" to mean "extreme" without any connotations of being progressive/left-wing or reactionary/right-wing, but in that case you might as well just say "extreme" as it has less historical baggage.

Contradiction, I think you mean.

And yes and no. As we were discussing, "conservative" is equivocal, so you can be "conservative" without being "conservative" (and vice versa).

The only logical conclusion to a Conservative government is to switch off, if one hasn't already. I'm old enough to have bene through Thatcher, and I switched off then, and EVEN then, it was too depressing, and too all pervasive, to escape from, even though we tried - with no TV, no papers, and often no electricity.

"really i wonder how much socialism is normal, ordinary people locked in a bitter psychological struggle with what they're being fed by the news. of course there is an underlying reality to the socialist agenda - and i'm not equipped to substantiate an argument either way - but surely"

I think people are perpetually struggling with forces of power. How this is in affect ranges from BG to Benefit Street.

Media is now a symptom - like heroin - not a cause. You'd need to look into Maxwell, the IPC and deeper interests to see how journalism has changed. See also the eradication of unions and the problems the NUJ have had.

so wtf is with the bbc constantly promoting ukip?