Corporate media
MSM is an acronym for "MainSteam Media". In common usage it refers to both print and broadcast sources of news, current affairs commentary and entertainment with the term "Mainstream" applied to distinguish it from so-called "Alternative" media.
Contents
Definition and Demarcation
Both the definitions and demarcation, as between "Mainstream and "Alternative", are necessarily somewhat arbitrary. They apply according to where, on a spectrum between Establishment sycophancy and outright Establishment enmity, the editorial policy (stated or otherwise) of a particular publishing organisation sits. They are UNCONNECTED with where on the traditional Left-Right political spectrum it sits, the entire spectrum having long-since been co-opted and absorbed by the Establishment. Historically the Left has been more problematical for Establishment interests but, in its overtly anti-establishment forms, it too has been more or less successfully neutered following the demise of the old Soviet Union.
Content Policing and the MSM self-image
Most MSM and MSM professionals, undoubtedly regard themselves, at the very least, as Establishment sceptic and, on matters unconnected with 'Deep State' issues, they are mostly both honest and correct to do so. However the boundaries of allowable debate and discourse, though largely unstated, MUST be respected if career progression within the MSM structure is to remain open. The archive section of the 'Media Lens' web site provides numerous trenchant illustrations of how this content policing operates. [1]
Taboo Subjects
There are many taboo subjects and knee-jerk buzz-words which the ambitious journalist/commentator/celebrity knows he/she must navigate with extreme caution. Among the latter are: "Holocaust", "Conspiracy", "Anti-Semitic", "Zionist", "Nazi", "Terrorist"; among the former, dissent about the merits of: Globalisation, Economic Growth (on a finite planet), Free-Trade (so-called), and Western definitions of "Freedom" and "Democracy" - all of which are treated as articles of faith to be questioned only on pain of excommunication and severely stunted career prospects. Similarly risky/taboo behaviour is to question: The real motives of US/UK/NATO military entanglements; the alleged (assumed) benign intent of Western geo-policy, the essential defensive nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the reality and extent of 'the terrorist threat' - and a good few more besides.
MSM Ownership
In broad terms, "mass circulation/audience" and "mainstream" are synonymous. Trans-national corporate interests dominate ownership (which are themselves dominated by overtly Zionist ownership). Where they do not own - and with the notable exception of the BBC - they provide the dominant income stream through advertising.
The BBC
The BBC has often carried information tending to undermine "the official version" but does tend to shy away from anything that has possible intelligence implications, such as terrorism.
In some cases, eg Andrew Gilligan claiming that the British dossier on Iraq had been "sexed-up", peoples employment has been summarily terminated even when there are no obvious secrecy implications to the information and only political embarrassment is involved.
Wikipedia and use of sources
Wikipedia has a policy of "Reliable Sources", known as WP:RS. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia definition of questionable sources is defined in ways very much biased towards the understanding of western readers - on top of this comes the problem of highly uneven enforcement. Policies such as this weigh against even eye-witness evidence unless it's been published by western sources.
Some sources believe that the number of untouchable or "third-rail" stories is increasing rapidly with enhanced recognition and fear of terrorism in the general public, and this results in distortion.
