I understand that we have to classify the 'news' that we see and hear through our every-day media channels on the television and radio. The usual
term awarded is 'MSM'. As Springer says; "("Main Stream Media" in case you're new around here)".
Here's another take on the popular acronym by British media watchdogs, Medialense
"We also sometimes use the term ‘mainstream’ media, but it’s a bit misleading. The dominant news media are structurally fanatical,
money-grubbing, undemocratic hierarchies. They do not represent mainstream interests, if by that we mean the concerns and priorities of the general
For example, it cannot be considered ‘mainstream’ human thinking to downplay or reject credible evidence of imminent climate catastrophe. Consider
that Reuters reported this week, 'Global warming close to becoming irreversible - scientists':
‘The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global
warming, scientists warned on Monday.
‘Scientific estimates differ but the world's temperature looks set to rise by six degrees Celsius by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are allowed
to rise uncontrollably.'
Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University's climate change institute, comments:
‘This is the critical decade. If we don't get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines.’
The story received no significant media attention and vanished from sight - as one would expect, given that researchers have observed a 'collapse of
any significant coverage of climate change in the media’. Serious discussion of the corporate obstacles to action to avert climate chaos is even
less likely to appear now than when we started in 2001; as is analysis of the disastrous impact of global capitalism on our cringing planet.
Likewise, it is not ‘mainstream’ human behaviour to promote one non-existent threat after another as part of a Permanent War to control fossil
fuel resources that, if consumed, will exacerbate a genuine threat made invisible by ‘selective inattention’."
It's not my intention to start any debate on 'global warming' as this inevitabilty has been termed, but to draw your attention to what should be
termed 'mainstream', and how and why it should be any other way. The above is merely a quote to demonstrate.
Is the product of the commercial media companies termed 'mainstream' because that is what is decreed to be broadcast to us - the majority of the
world's population - by the learned, impartial and well-trained management of the mass media organisations?
Is it termed 'mainstream' because the outlets which broadcast it deem it stimulating and 'sensational' enough to grab our interest?
Is it termed 'mainstream' because it's the specious, inane, vacuous drivel that you and I pay for with our taxes and purchases (advertising
dollars), and are too complacent to question, or is it called 'mainstream' because it's the type of information that we all should know (and have
right to know) in order to make balanced decisions about which directions our leaders are taking us?
Maybe it's time for some new terminology. Actually - know what? Maybe it's time our elected leaders told us the truth. Oh, fnarbles.!!! Now
I've done it. :-)