Why was the media so gung-ho for the war?

[deminks]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-was-media-so-gung-ho-for-war.html

... to borrow a line from Reds: "profits"

(snip)

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I wouldn't go that far.

I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives - and I was not at this network at the time - but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.

(snip)

Yellin later admitted that she was talking about MSNBC.

(end snip)

And so, did the MEdia prop up the pretzeldente in order to boost those ratings in order to boost their own profits? rhetorical question, I know.

[grasswire]

1. follow the dollar, as always

NBC's ties to General Electric sure didn't hurt the rush to war.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I believe it's more sinister than mere ratings

The corporate media, by virtue of their ownership, have common interests with the military-industrial complex (yeah, I'm lookin' right at YOU, General Electric!). It's war profiteering, so it's hardly surprising that the big defense contractors want a big role in catapulting the jingoism.

[HughBeaumont]

3. Who was in NBC's Election Center demanding the station call it for Bewsh in 2000?

None other than Neutron Jack Welch himself!!

He knew a Bewsh presidency meant more wars and more GE BIZNEZZ!

[stevenleser]

5. I can tell you that is not the case, at least at the host and correspondant level.

I cannot tell you what is happening behind closed doors at meetings where the board communicates to network executives the kind of coverage they want to see, but I also doubt that any supposed 'MIC' interests are involved.

The ratings angle? I can buy that, even though it is disgusting.

[sadbear]

4. $$$$$$$$$$

[City Lights]

11. !

[WilliamPitt]

6. CNN's viewership/ratings went up 500% on 9/11

Don't tell me the war wasn't about the same thing. Don't even try.

[RevStPatrick]

7. It's called the Military/Industrial/Media Complex now...

...for a reason.

We are living in The Matrix now, except our bodies produce profits rather than electricity.

[librechik]

8. owned by defense contractors and other interested parties.

[Rex]

9. Because they are owned by the 1%.

And do whatever Wall Street wants done. The media is no different then the corporations that support them in that they all make sure whatever the Owners want, the Owners get.

[OldDem2012]

10. Ask yourself two questions....

1. Who owns the media?

Answer: Major corporations...in most cases, those among the Top 1%.

2. Who stood to gain the most from one or more wars in the Middle East?

Answer: Major corporations...in most cases, those among the Top 1%.

Therefore, the media was actively involved in forming public opinion in favor of war, just as they always have been in the past. Journalists who failed to toe the "corporate line" found themselves 1. under pressure to do so, or 2. found themselves pushed out of reporting on this story, or 3. pushed out the door. Self-preservation is a powerful motivating tool.

[11 Bravo]

12. They were afraid of being Dixie Chicked.