Yes [Murdoch] refers to the BBC as "state-sponsored media", because that makes it sound bad (although not quite as bad as "Satan-sponsored media", admittedly). He evoked the goverment's control of the media in Orwell's 1984, and claimed that only commercial news organisations were truly capable of producing "independent news coverage that challenges the consensus".
...
Another great example of independent consensus-challenging news coverage is America's Fox News network, home of bellicose human snail Bill O'Reilly and blubbering blubberball Glenn Beck. Beck - who has the sort of rubbery, chucklesome face that should ideally be either a) cast as the goonish sidekick in a bad frat house sex comedy or b) painted on a toilet bowl so you could shit directly on to it - has become famous for crying live on air, indulging in paranoid conspiracy theorising, and labelling Obama a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture".
So who is this Glenn Beck? He's a total nut-job who it is best to see in action - here he is failing to spell 'Oligarch' (he calls it 'Oligarh') even though it is the centre-piece of this nutty presentation and also saying he is tired of people being sheep then demands people go where he tells them to go. (I know I spell stuff wrong and do typos all the time, but I'm an amateur and don't get paid to do this!!!). Enjoy.
Schnews DIY Guide
3 comments:
State sponsored media is a bad thing.
The problem is News International, Guardian Media Group etc are all state sponsored too, just in different, less direct (but equally pernicious) ways.
Indeed, which does mean we need a re-think as to the whole idea, purpose and structure of media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_media
State sponsored media isn't necessarily bad. At least it won't serve the interests of commercial sponsers. You just gotta filter out the propaganda, like anywhere else. watch it all, make up your own mind.
Post a Comment