"Reportage on U.S. foreign policy is even worse. The bias of American empire is the media lens through which international events are perceived and interpreted. Whether it’s coverage of the fighting in the Ukraine, the war on ISIS, the numerous civil wars fueled by American interventionism which are raging throughout the Middle East, the coverage of democratic movements in South America, or negotiations of trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Pact – egregious examples of media spin and disinformation occur daily in the corporate press as well as NPR and public media."READ FULL ARTICLE AT VEER MAGAZINE.
One remark about the paradoxes of today's so-called 'media monopoly' and its opposition, the self-proclaimed 'independent press': Despite the fact that there are hundreds of 'New media' outlets, independent journalists, and websites such as Democracy Now! and FAIR, the existence of such oppositional forces only seems to r e i n f o r c e the power of the mainstream media.
Why, because the more people cry "corruption" and "misinformation" on, say, a piece of gratuitous warmongering against China or Russia in The New York Times of The National Interest, the more 'free advertisement' and 'controversy' that piece will generate, thereby becoming ever more truer, and relevant and significant. Top tier journalists know very well that they m u s t create "new realities." They are writers after all. Only after having penned a sensational report about, say, some "famous teen dissident who's ready to take on the Chinese government" will that dissident become truly notable. Hence the notion of targeting journalism or press soldiery. They are effectively scoring against their ideological enemies.
What I am saying is this: The existence of so-called 'New media' is somehow c o m p l i m e n t a r y to the success of the Media Monopoly. The hierarchy is maintained, if not cemented permanently, precisely by the existence of lesser news outlets, conspiracy websites, and tens of thousands of news pundits on the fringes of the internet. If you want to have proof of this, just look at the past 50 years of civil rights movement and libertarian make-belief that changed nothing in reality. If anything, the 'New Media' were partly complicit in creating monopolies. After all, that's how the Big guys in the media business, just like all businesses really, are protecting themselves from the nasty insects all around them: by growing in size and crushing them.
But back to the US media bias and ideological agenda against foreign nations.I know a couple of journalists who hope every day that some social justice warriors or free the media wackos criticize their work, because that way they will attract more attention, which amounts to getting more expose and cross-referencing, which translates into journalistic fame and promotion, public speaking engagements, book contracts, perks and sinecures. In a way, the ultimate step toward their profession's path to final 'self-actualization' is for the journalist to become the story himself.
This strategy works best when writing about foreign people, because if, say, 10 million Chinese feel offended by an anti-China campaign, that is fantastic for the journalists and their editorial rooms. People of color and foreign people in general are expected to protest by the millions. The New York Times employs 6 'China correspondents', one for every 200 million Chinese. They try every day with China bashing reports to provoke a response, hopefully a physical one, that would cause even more US media retaliation against the Chinese people.
For the US media monopoly and empire bias: the more they offend foreign nations, their governments, and their people, the better. We see this with the Western press on Islam, the Middle East, Iran, China, Russia and the Ukraine, India, whatever suits the agenda of the day. They only way to stop this media madness is to ignore it. Yet, that is precisely what the 'Free Press' is NOT allowing to happen, I claim; on the contrary, they are driving traffic to the mainstream by pointing fingers. They are saying THIS and THAT is NOT TRUE! And people are looking. If history has taught us anything about "reality", it is that attention triumphs over the truth -all the time. When Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago declared himself the King of Jews and the Son of the Jewish God, that wasn't the truth. But people got so upset about his dishonesty, and the lies he and his fellows were making up, that it become a mass movement resulting the most powerful religion of all today.
Every writer knows this: The more fantastic and sensational the story, the more likely it is to disrupt the lives of the people. I have yet to meet a single journalist who isn't fully aware that he creating "disturbances" that will -hopefully- have serious consequences. In fact, some newspapers seek to actually influence foreign leaders and countries, or at least the perception about them. And for that they need thousand of lesser media outlets and freelance writers who spread the word and syndicate the message. It's a perfect symbiosis. All the people who criticize FOX News watch FOX News every day. And then they pretend to not like it.
The only way to battle the mass media bias against foreign nations, naturally, is by ignoring the mass media. But as I just explained, not even the critics are doing that. They can cry all the want; in the end might is always right.