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 essentially 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 MSM organisations ownership (which are themselves Zionist dominated). Where such corporate interests do not own outright - and with the notable exception of the BBC (See below) - they provide the dominant income stream through advertising.
The BBC
On the face of it the BBC, as a wholly tax-payer funded organisation (or 'public-service broadcaster' as current Newspeak has it), ought to be less susceptible to the pressures that dictate content in the vast bulk of the MSM as outlined above. But appearances can be deceptive.
There is no doubt that, when it comes to the dog-fight of domestic party political trivia with its simplistic tribal allegiances, and in spite of well attested left-leaning tendencies in such matters, the BBC IS INDEED relatively unbiased, balanced and impartial. Unfortunately, this makes it all the more sensitive to charges that, at a more fundamental level on matters central to the modern Western 'progressive' creeds outlines above, all may not be as it seems. It is therefore apt to simply dismiss charges of institutional bias (intentional or otherwise), out of hand. There are many cases of such lofty dismissal, amply documented, on the Media Lens Web site mentioned above [1].
The plain, unarguable fact is that the BBC has always been the voice of the British Establishment. It's Charter is the work of men wedded to the Mackinder-Rhodes-Milner vision of the British Empire as a missionary force for 'progress' and the spread of civilisation in the world; and it is financed on the whim of the British Government whose hidden, permanent and secret elements dominate. How could it be anything else?
Demeaning evidence of its subservience was provided by the treatment accorded Andrew Gilligan, one of its reporters, over his broadcast claims about the 'sexing up' of the 'Iraq Dossier' used to justify the UK's participation in the invasion of Iraq and which led to the death of UN Weapons Inspector David Kelly. In spite of Gilligans claims being largely vindicated by subsequent revelations, he was forced to resign from the BBC, as was its Chairman Gavyn Davies and its Director General Greg Dyke. [2]
Further evidence of covert control exercised over the BBC throughout the post WWII period to about the mid 1980's was provided by widely reported and substantiated revelations about MI5 vetting of senior (and not-so-senior) BBC appointments and projects. See the WikiSpooks Document "MI5 and the Christmas Tree Files" for full details. [3]
Whilst inquirers will undoubtedly be informed that these were unfortunate aberrations from which lessons have been learned, there is little reason to suppose that, just like the Ronnie Corbett character in that John Cleese-Ronnie Baker-Ronnie Corbett video sketch, the BBC knows its place. [4]
Wikipedia and its use of sources
Wikipedia has joined the serried ranks of the MSM. [5] It 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.
