The Death of "Mainstream Media" and "MSM"

Larwyn's e-mails that consolidate conservative blogs are back.  Her most recent two e-mails contained about 25 conservative blogs. I did a search on them and found only two uses of the phrases "mainstream media" or "MSM." One blog used the phrase "aka mainstream media" and the other put the phrase "mainstream media" in quotes. Thus, my campaign to obliterate the once-popular phrase "mainstream media" has worked.

When I first began blogging four or five years ago the phrase "mainstream media" was common.  Conservative, libertarian and contrarian bloggers used the stock phrase almost as often as the five vowels.  In 2007 I was still using the phrase myself, but by 2009 I had concluded that the phrase is inaccurate and began a campaign against it.  There is no "mainstream media" in the United States.  The American media is dominated by Progressives who are not representative of the mainstream public.

There may have been a mainstream media between 1900 and 1980 and especially between 1930 and 1975.  In the 19th century there was a partisan media (each party had its own newspapers) but five factors supported a consolidation of viewpoints and the creation of the monolithic, mainstream "Progressive" viewpoint that has dominated the media between 1900 and today but which the public has bypassed.  That is, the media's viewpoint was once but is no longer mainstream.  Increasingly, the Progressive consensus that existed between 1900 and 1980 has given way to a division between those who  favor big government and Wall Street and those who believe in freedom.

The reasons that the 19th century's diverse media became a mainstream media are fivefold. First, the expansion of markets created the necessity for large scale news sources.  This is the business issue of economies of scale.  Although this did not eliminate the possibility of a two-party media (witness talk radio today, for example) it at a minimum created the need for reduced variability within the two parties. Second, the dominance of Wall Street in financing media corporations led to the reduced variability of views away from those inconsistent with the needs of Wall Street. Third, the growth in scale led to mergers, reducing the number of editors. This resulted from the expansion of markets and Wall Street's influence.  Fourth, Adolph Ochs's and the New York Times's creation of "objective" journalism fit the new mass market and Progressivism. This was complemented with the Progressive ideology of journalism that John Dewey set forth in his Public and Its Problems.  Journalists were to serve as cartoonists who made the serious solutions proposed by Progressive experts in government accessible to the public, who are too slow, in the Progressives' views, to grasp the truth that the experts understand. Moreover, applying the Ochs model, journalists could claim that they are "objective" and "scientific" and so there was no need for diversity of views.  Fifth, the policies that the new Progressive journalism advocated, the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank; the New Deal; government regulation; the "third way" of Theodore Roosevelt led to increased consolidation and the bankruptcy of smaller newspapers. For example, the Times probably advocated the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in the 1930s (I haven't checked, but I assume so); by the 1970s the number of newspapers in New York City had dramatically fallen because of strikes and labor costs.  The bankrupt newspapers included Republican ones like the Herald Tribune.  Other New York newspapers that fell in the 1960s because of strikes and labor costs were the Journal American, the Long Island Star Journal and the New York Daily Mirror not to mention the Banner (just kidding, a reference to The Fountainhead).

In sum, the policies of Progressivism and the New Deal led to (a) a reduction in the flow of ideas and (b) a unification of public ideology in favor of a monolithic state buttressed by supposed experts that supported a monolithic ideology.  The spread of mass media over consolidated markets was consistent with the emphasis on scale and size that the Federal Reserve Bank and Wall Street facilitated.  This ideology was inconsistent with the rapid growth in technology, the innovation, of the 19th century.  Hence, it is not surprising that the pace of innovation in the American economy has slowed since the 19th century.

The stagflation of the 1970s, more than the immediate failure of New Deal policies in the 1930s, awoke the public to Progressivism's failure.  I was certainly awakened and many others were too, leading to the election of Ronald Reagan.  His election was unfortunate because Reagan, although adopting the rhetoric of Ayn Rand and freedom, was in fact, as Rand pointed out in a letter to the New York Times, not really a believer in freedom.  Upon election Reagan did not reduce government, although he limited its growth.  Hence, he was very much in the Progressive tradition of William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.  Harding and Coolidge were elected in favor of a return to "normalcy" from the Progressive years of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, but neither repealed any of the elements of the Progressive program.  That Progressivism never died also was evidenced by Hoover's election in 1928.   Hoover had played a key role in implementing Wilson's wartime Progressive interventions by setting up state regulated food cartels.  One example of the dominance of a monolithic media is the fact that many mistakenly still believe today that Hoover favored laissez faire, limited government.  Franklin Roosevelt and Hoover just differed on the application of state power; Hoover believed in public works and the cartelization of business; Roosevelt shared these views but added welfare and social security.  The New Deal further consolidated power and media opinion (and perhaps ownership). State control of public opinion was further re-enforced through the expansion of state universities and the secularization of the elite northeastern Christian universities like Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

The Progressive New Deal approach did not work.  Its program was largely that of the Federalists and the Whigs, and it required a high degree of centralization that is inconsistent with a modern or post-modern economy. It is ironic that in advocating the 1500-year-old Roman model of organization to America's industrial economy the advocates called themselves "Progressive" but so was it.  The system required centralization, fascism, which led to (a) economies of scale, lower costs and increased consumption in the short run and (b) a slowing of diversity of ideas and innovation, which led to reduced progress in the longer run.  By the 1970s the failure of Whig or Keynesian economics (Keynesian economics adapted Whig ideas) was evident as inflation and unemployment accompanied deficit spending. Since then, the economy has NOT recovered despite several stock market and real estate bubbles.  The American economy has NOT been able to produce consistent, healthy growth.  Rather, the Fed has financed retailing, real estate, finance and other bubbles in services and real estate that do not produce the value to the economy as would spontaneously developing firms. Life has gotten worse since 1970, not better.

Hence, Progressivism continues to fail and the media's (as well as universities') views increasingly reveal themselves to be ideological justification for the power structure of Progressivism.  When Progressivism failed in 2008, the media and universities worked together to provide disinformation about the importance of public support for the failing Wall Street stock salesmen.  Billionaire investment bankers needed vast sums of money so that they could invest in the carry trade, and this was critical to America, according to the Democrats and their servants in universities and the media.  But the public has become increasingly aware that the power structure does not serve its interests, and therefore that Progressivism is NOT mainstream. However, a public understanding of why and how the Federal Reserve Bank is the centerpiece of Progressivism and the reason America is faltering has yet to evolve.

Hence, I applaud Larwyn and the conservative bloggers for their reduced use of the phrase "mainstream media" and MSM. There is no such thing, and these phrases empower dying institutions.

More on CNN's Persistent Lying about The Tea Party

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit continues to do an excellent job tracking the ongoing misinformation and lies at CNN (h/t Jim Crum and Bob Robbins). Jim notes of the above crowd:  "Just in case you still trusted the state-run media… CNN on size of Saturday’s rally: 'At least dozens of people.' This is dozens?"

 Jim is right to call CNN "state run media".  Although the Democratic Party probably does not officially review CNN's coverage, CNN is loath to question anything that Barack Obama does, much like the state run media in a communist or Nazi state.

Democratic Party Media A Waste of Time

Rick writes:

"MSM disconnectedness

"Those who seriously follow journalism today, or what passes for it, will not be surprised by what follows but it's something that needs to be discussed and passed on nevertheless.

"Despite reports of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Muslim devoutness, videos of him in traditional martyr's garb the morning of the shooting, eyewitness reports of his screaming "Allahu Akbar" before murdering and injuring his victims, claims by those present at a professional conference detailing his references to unbelievers needing to be beheaded, burned, etc. according to the Koran, despite all these tell-tale items, members of the media are hell-bent on reporting on anything but the truth, and I do mean anything."

My response:


>The Democratic Party media are so full of lies and bullshit that I'm surprised that you watch it. Incidentally, I have made the argument many times that the phrase "MSM" or "mainstream media" is inappropriate, inaccurate and wrong. The "media" is Democratic Party media, they represent the views of the Democratic Party, so they are partisan, not mainstream. For a while I was grappling with an alternative phrase to use but I do not believe any is necessary. The TV stations other than Fox and many of the newspapers and magazines are, simply, the Democratic Party media or propaganda outlets or PR wing. They are not mainstream. Fox is the Republican media.

Once you've accepted that point of view, your time can be rediverted into creating new ideas that will benefit Republicans, libertarians and conservatives. Why allow the Democratic Media to distract you?

Nancy Razik Lets Fox News Have It

I just received the following e-mail from Nancy Razik:

>Fox News - A big old F-U to you. When it looked like B. O. would be coronated, you dropped all pretense of fair and balanced and turned into a clone of MSNBC. When will Olbermann get his own show on your network? He could join Shep Smith and they could fly off the handle together (or whatever sordid little things they like to do).Those throwing Sarah Palin under the bus can kiss my big old white ass. I can't decide if it's insecurity due to a woman with power or if it's just pure jealousy that a woman can look good, raise a family and be a governor but there would not have been 1/3 of the votes for McCain without Palin on the ticket.I don't want to hear another peep about racism or affirmative action. We've got our first affirmative action president. White guilt? Take your white guilt and shove it where the sun don't shine. Don't want to hear no bitching when the New Black Panthers become part of an Obama administration - after all they helped him out in Philly so he owes the brothers. All race cards have expired and are no longer valid in this country.I look forward to watching the koolaid effect wear off over the next 4 years. It's hard to believe in hope and change when you're standing in the unemployment line. Free college education? Handouts? Help with your mortgage? Dream on - you'll be lucky to still have a pot to piss in when the Dems get through with
you. But don't complain or Rahm "ballerina" Emmanuel will send you a dead fish... Gracious Loser - no damn way. Not at the cost of my Country and the Constitution. Taking a cue from the new "first lady"For the first time in my adult life, I'm ashamed of my country.

Renaming the Media

CNN, AP, the New York Times and the like are no longer entitled to be called "mainstream media". There is nothing "mainstream" about them, and their audiences don't warrant the moniker "mainstream". If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" party, why is the New York Times a "mainstream" newspaper?

Circulation of New York Times: 1.1 million daily, 1.6 million Sunday
Votes received by Libertarian Party candidates for House of Reps: Over one million
Votes for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik in 2006: 397,265
Readers of political blogs in 2004 (the number is much higher now): 32 million*

*27% x 120 million Internet users = 32.4 million

If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" political party, why is a newspaper with 100,000, 300,000 or 1.1 million readers "mainstream"?

I have carefully thought about this question. The word "pissant" comes to mind as a good description of the media, but it is somewhat vulgar. The word "puissant" means the opposite of "pissant". Derived from Middle French, "puissant" is related to the words "posse" and "potent" and refers to "power". It is probably more accurate to say that the New York Times has power than that it is mainstream. In fact, I would argue that it represents an extremist social democratic point of view. On the other hand, "pissant" means insignificant or worthless, and derives from the word pismire, which in turn refers to the smell of uric acid on ant hills.

Although the two words are opposite in meaning, they both could apply to the media. Pissant is probably more accurate but because of its vulgarity the word "puissant", which means powerful but reminds one of "pissant" might be the best word.

The mainstream media is hereby dubbed the "puissant media".

Journalist Malone Disowns His Profession

Pajamasmedia has an excellent post by journalist Michael S. Malone (h/t Larwyn) who says that he feels embarrassed to publicly admit to his profession given the thick pro-Obama bias in the PAM.

Malone writes:

"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

"But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

"...But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign..."

Read the whole thing here.

Let's Rename The Media

I was just in a taxi on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. If you haven't been to the Big Apple in a while let me clue you in. Mayor Bloomberg has installed television screens in the taxi cabs. So you are force fed network-type news UNLESS you figure out how to turn the darn thing off, which takes a few minutes. The geniuses of the New York City Council have been so excited about the TV screens in the cabs that they decided it was imperative to waive the two-term limit for the otherwise do-nothing Mayor Bloomberg.

So while riding past Zabar's deli (great prices on cheese) I was forced to listen to a knock-off of network news. The bubble-headed, painfully stupid newscaster announced that Barack Obama is ahead in the polls.

When I got back I turned on the computer to read this message from Newsmax:

AP Poll Says It's Neck and Neck

"Wednesday,WASHINGTON – The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

"The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord...."

The TV type on the Bloomberg Taxi News was saying that Obama is ahead, but AP, probably their own news source, said two days ago that the race is a tie. As I have previously blogged, a one or two percent Obama lead in the polls means that McCain is probably ahead.

Now were the bubbleheaded taxi newscasters lying, confused, or illiterate and so unable to read AP's release?

It has become increasingly obvious that bloggers have missed one cue. There is no mainstream media. The acronym "MSM" is a misnomer. The question that has been plaguing me is what would a better name be?

PAM--Pissant media
FM--Fringe media
DSPM--Dull and stupid people's media
LBM--Liberal borg media
3M-Mental Midgets' Media

Any suggestions out there?

A Call to MSM Supporters

Truthhurts is a regular poster here who recently raised the question of the veracity and believability of CNN. When I think of CNN I think of Lou Dobbs screaming illiterate remarks in favor of protectionism and regulation of banking, unaware that banks' current financial problems stem from regulation and government pressure. As well, Dobbs' unawareness of the elementary theory of comparative advantage suggests to me a simple mind, incapable of grasping common sense ideas. Likewise, Jack Cafferty, another simpleton, who is well past the age of normal onset Alzheimers (as is Dobbs, whom I suspect it afflicts) ranting endlessly about John McCain's age. Cafferty's problem is that he starts to think he is talking about Richard M. Nixon midway through his monologue.

In a response to Truthhurts's comment below I have made a suggestion, and I would like to offer it to all who trust in the mainstream media. Do an experiment. When your favorite news station or news source recommends a buy on a stock or bond, then buy it. Keep track of your returns. How much money you lose will be an index of how unreliable your news source is. If you have half of your money left at the end of five years, you can probably safely conclude that you can believe half of what your news source says, etc. For instance, when the stock indexes fell last week, I was in the fitness room where I stay in the city and I heard news announcers saying to sell stocks. I think that was on CNN. Every time you hear a recommendation like that on your favorite news source, act on it. At the end of five years, see how much money you have. If you have 1/3 left, conclude that the stations are about 1/3 truthful, etc.

The Obama Campaign's Meanness

Real Clear Politics shows a copy of one of the meanest smear ads I have ever seen, recently released by the Obama campaign. The ad features a series of vicious lies from the pro-Obama media. I do not really watch or read any mainstream news source except for the New York Sun at this point. And the Sun is slated to cease publication at the end of this month. The video on Real Clear Politics says more than enough about the Democrats and Barack Obama.