Columbia University President: Journalism Needs Government Help

From my personal blog Fascist Soup:

The intractable communist Lee C. Bollinger has written an editorial piece for the Wall Street Journal declaring that corporate news networks need to be publicly funded and that our State Department run foreign news propaganda networks need to be allowed to broadcast INSIDE America.

The communist Bollinger whines:

To me a key priority is to strengthen our public broadcasting role in the global arena. In today’s rapidly globalizing and interconnected world, other countries are developing a strong media presence. In addition to the BBC, there is China’s CCTV and Xinhua news, as well as Qatar’s Al Jazeera. The U.S. government’s international broadcasters, like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, were developed during the Cold War as tools of our anticommunist foreign policy. In a sign of how anachronistic our system is in a digital age, these broadcasters are legally forbidden from airing within the U.S.

This system needs to be revised and its resources consolidated and augmented with those of NPR and PBS to create an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters. The goal would be an American broadcasting system with full journalistic independence that can provide the news we need. Let’s demonstrate great journalism’s essential role in a free and dynamic society.

Of course, Bollinger doesn’t mention the reason why VoA is forbidden from broadcasting inside America is because it’s a State disinformation and propaganda service operated by our intelligence community. It was created to broadcast pro-American propaganda into foreign countries in an effort to bolster America’s State image and undermine support for existing regimes.

It is America’s version of the Soviet State owned Pravada news service. Bollinger isn’t a total idiot, he knows full well what the VoA represents and what its purpose is.

Wiki notes:

In 1946, Voice of America was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department of State.

In 1947, VOA started broadcasting in Russian with the intent to counter more harmful instances of Soviet propaganda directed against American leaders and policies.[20]The Soviet Union responded by initiating aggressive, electronic jamming of VOA broadcasts on 24 April 1949.[20]

…

In the early 1980s, VOA began a $1.3 billion rebuilding program to improve broadcast with better technical capabilities. Also in the 1980s, VOA also added a television service, as well as special regional programs to Cuba, Radio Martí and TV Martí. Cuba has consistently attempted to jam such broadcasts and has vociferously protested U.S. broadcasts directed at Cuba.

So two foreign countries have actually taken direct action to JAM the VoA transmissions from coming into their countries. The reason why should be clear. It’s a State Department run propaganda tool.

Salon.com notes:

The battle for hearts and minds goes on in earnest in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and television is the official weapon of choice. Reuters reports that the U.S.’s venerable propaganda outlet, Voice of America, is planning to expand its Persian-language TV offerings in Iran to a four-hour daily broadcast. A U.S.-funded satellite channel, Alhurra , is also slated to begin beaming its programming into the homes of European Muslims this fall.

“What we propose to do is exactly what Radio Free Europe, Voice of America and Radio Liberty did in the Cold War, and that is provide a window on the world,” said Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Allowing the Voice of America to broadcast inside the US is insane. The notion is so utterly ridiculous that I have a hard time comprehending why Wall Street Journal even ran the editorial piece. At least the public is not so stupid; nearly every comment on the story expressed utter outrage at the idea.

Bollinger, who must either live in La La Land or be a total die hard communist, goes on to say that simply allowing VoA to broadcast inside America isn’t enough! Tax payer dollars must be handed to private broadcast networks to publicly fund the news!

He wants ALL the news outlets to operate like the Soviet Pravada and the VoA.

We are living in Orwell’s 1984.

By the way, this guy is responsible for teaching your children.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This guy is out of his flipping mind. Why do we need ANY government supported TV or radio in the US? We have 100's of tv channels. We have 1000's of radio stations. One way to reduce the cost of government is to have them end financial support of NPR and PBS. The government has no business trying to compete with private business. Granted they suck at it. Just look at NPR and PBS's ratings for proof.

reply to post by ZuluChaka


Bollinger wants a US version of the BBC.

A State owned mouthpiece with enough funding to produce popular entertainment that drowns out the private networks.

If Bollinger had his way, ultimately the major networks would be consolidated into a BBC type pro-government mouthpiece funded by tax dollars.

All "official" news would emanate from these sources instead of the AP and Reuters wires.

Apparently the AP and Reuters is just not pro-government enough for Bollinger, even though you almost hear nothing negative about government programs coming out of those sources.

Sorry, but they are already state-owned, by proxy, so to speak, or they might as well be. So in essence all he's saying is lets admit it and formalize the sham. Pretty dangerous stuff here...both the reality and what he's proposing.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

The vast majority of which can be traced back to two or three companies. Companies who are already in bed with the government.

[edit on 7/14/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Sorry, but they are already state-owned, by proxy, so to speak, or they might as well be. So in essence all he's saying is lets admit it and formalize the sham. Pretty dangerous stuff here...both the reality and what he's proposing.

That's right.

The White House controls media access, and the wires DIRECTLY report government press releases as "news" - unchecked and without criticism.

If a news service starts getting a little too anti-government, the government cuts off direct access to the press releases and press conferences.

The government also spends BILLIONS each year in commercial advertising propaganda.

If a news service gets too anti-government, they cut off the advertising funding.

This is ownership by proxy, as you mention.

We saw Fox get cut out of the White House press conferences, but Fox has too much political clout to be bossed around like the little guys. Imagine if you were a smaller independent news source. The government would walk all over you.

The government also controls the broadcast licenses, and they can pull them just like Chavez did if they don't like what's getting put out. Granted this is an extreme measure, but its something always in the back of the minds of the network producers.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


So if all stations are owned by a handful of people already in the hands of government then why the desire for the US version of the BBC.

reply to post by ZuluChaka


Because they can't compete on the basis of their programming content.

Bollinger knows this, which is why he is agitating for tax dollars to prop them up.

reply to post by ZuluChaka


Ask him, not me. Maybe he's not aware of the depth and scope of the situation. Often those in the ivory towers entrenched in a small universe are not. Or maybe he is operating under old assumptions, Or maybe he's a government tool himself and they sent him forth to get some feedback or test the waters. I don't know. We can only speculate and dig as to the reasons.

Think about this for a moment.

To illustrate the point:

If roughly half of America is republican and half is democrat, if you were a republican, which news source would you prefer to watch?

Fox News.

Period.

There is no other republican friendly network news outlet.

If you are a democrat, you have a dozen options to chose from.

So the dozen other mainstream outlets are competing for only half of the viewing market. (its not really this black and white, but the example is valid)

This goes to show how broken the American media market is. In a normal situation, you would see other networks take a cue from Fox's ratings and content, there by creating more republican friendly sources of news to chose from, which would balance out the markets.

But because all the other sources are controlled directly by communists, they refuse to do what the market is telling them to do.

Thus, they will ultimately go out of business.

Thus, you have communists like Bollinger demanding tax payer dollars to prop up all the pro-government mouthpieces.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

July 12, 2010 Cable News Ratings:

FNC – 1,220,000 viewers
CNN – 390,000 viewers
MSNBC – 407,000 viewers
CNBC – 183,000 viewers
HLN – 307,000 viewers

Fox taking over half of the market.

This doesn't just apply to cable news, this trend applies to all the pro-government mouthpieces, such as the NYT and WaPo.

News Corp (Fox News) rakes in more online viewers per day than Amazon.


Any rational producer would see this and immediately add more anti-government programming to their line up.

But they don't, even though there is huge money to be made by doing so.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

So does anyone care to comment on why the other networks are not changing their programming content to match Fox News, even though they could potentially make millions by doing so?

There are other forces at work here besides the market.

Evil forces.

The pathetic part of this is that before the government can use our tax-dollars to 'help' journalism... there has to be actual 'journalism' in the country! The press began to die at the beginning of the 20th century... it was a slow painful death - thank you Edward Bernays.

Right now all we have is infotainment, massaged media, and snippets and soundbites, all engineered to evoke the desired effect on the citizens. All we have now is media whores, Madison avenue mind games, and pandering pedagogy. They have left us with "glamor celebrities" and "talking heads" who despite being told what to say and how to say it, seem to be accepted as 'important' to us - as if no others could parrot or read a teleprompter. The word "pathetic" seems fitting somehow.

Quick! Turn on the TV, the radio, or give me a magazine... I need to know what to think!

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


I think you make an interesting point.

I agree that for the most part, serious investigative journalism by the mainstream press is nonexistent.

However, I think there has been a sea change from the old guard media to much smaller investigative blogs and independent journalism.

What we are starting to see is the independent press forcing issues into the mainstream where it can get broader coverage.

Fox has been the most prominent to capitalize on this.

The mainstream press still plays an incredibly important role in shaping public opinion and policy, but they are ultimately held accountable to market forces just like everything else. - unless government steps in to save them that is.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]