>

In the mainstream media you have people who’ve applied to the rules and who know that there are certain things that are not proper to say. They’ve probably been filtered out since their education days. A large part of education is actually based on understanding that there are certain things that are not proper to say and to think. If you do, if you’re too independent, you won’t go very far. That, and to be able to pass some exams after you’ve memorized some “good books” they’ve thrown at you, is education. All according to plan.
Perhaps you’ll learn what wine to drink as well.

The result of this filtering process is an uniformity of ideology in the intellectual culture. The people in the mainstream media are pretty much in agreement, and they believe what they are talking about. That’s very important, because it’s very hard to believe one thing and say another. So these people truly believe what they are saying, and thus they are very obedient to the system. They serve power. Of course, they don’t like to hear that. They want to hear that they question power, which they sometimes do – but only within that chosen framework.

Mass media’s main function seems to be to marginalize as large a part of the population as possible, so they don’t interfere with decision-making. That’s why you get shitty sitcoms, soap operas that never end, endless exploitation articles about Jozef Fritzl, shows about babies with five heads etc etc… Crap that makes you occupied, cut away from thinking for yourself.
Sure, we have media that express different views than those of the business community, but they cannot attract capital, so they won’t live that long. The business community have no problem with that (some Rolex ads and they’re done) and thus they have the real power. Of course, people are interested in “real” issues and would hopefully read Stockholms Fria, Oskorei and Counterpunch, for example, if they knew about it and weren’t distracted by that crap on TV, but there’s no market for that kind of journalism. The market and the money are within the business and entertainment industry, the capitalist industry. Issues that matter to working people are no fun. And again, writing stuff to educate the masses to overthrow the people in power is not good for business, so no money there either. Dissident voices in dissident media are not able to survive in this arena where cash is king.
Still, the dissident voices won’t ever shut up.

For more info on this topic you might want to read Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky.
It’s available in Swedish here and in English here.

Also check these YouTube videos:

>

These are the cold hard facts: The major media units are huge corporations dictating what should be discussed within a certain framework. These institutions naturally work in their own interests, thus dissident opinions have no say here because that would undermine the corporation’s capital interests. The smaller media units will have to adapt to the agenda set by those in power, because they lack resources to act differently.

Knowing this, let’s look at the sources reporters use. Since they work within this framework, the sources they use are not unbiased expert sources, but rather sources that represent already established opinions and that work in their (the corporation’s) own interests. Many times the reporters are not even aware of how this works, due to the illusion of open debate mentioned in Part 1 (only pre-defined opinions within chosen subjects within a chosen framework are allowed).
If you chose to go outside these established opinions you will face major resistance. You will realize that the level of evidence requested all of a sudden is extremely high. If you’re reporting about vested interests, you hardly won’t need any verification at all. If you’re writing about atrocities carried out by the guerilla, all you need is one hearsay witness for confirmation and then you’ll be able to write endless shitty articles about it without anyone questioning you. If you want to write about torture carried out by an American military officer you’ll need videotapes, tons of witnesses and a whole goddamn mountain of evidence to back it up – or else you won’t get through in major media. One quote from a “high U.S. government official” is good as reliable evidence, while ten quotes from a dissident voice are worth nothing. Knowing this, and knowing what it’s like to work where things have to happen fast, it’s easy to understand why most journalists choose the easy way out. They have neither the time nor the pride to fuck with those in the major league. Naturally, the big boys won’t even let you do that because that would be undermining the core of the corporation. Also, a journalist simply cannot afford to lose his job…

Major media consists of a few mega-corporations and when it comes down to it it’s all about increasing profits and market shares. That’s how corporate capitalism works. It’s nothing new, it’s nothing odd. That’s the way it is. And if you’re not in there to play the game, to help your corporation to increase profits and so on, then there’s no place for you in the game. You’re voice will not be heard if you’re raging against the system. Simple as that.
You’ll have to take your work elsewhere, and sometimes not even the alternative media will be good enough. When dealing with certain subjects you’ll be forced to take your work underground, which is exactly quite the opposite of what society should want you to do, had it practised what it preaches: freedom of speech, democracy and justice for all.
Sadly, that’ not how it works and ultimately this false representation of virtues and moral will end in conflict.

>

What ways are there for dissident voices to speak up and be heard? In mainstream media there are none.
Dissident voices equal a menace to society, therefore media only allows discussion within a framework that serves the interests of dominant institutions. This means we have a very limited spectrum of debate where media takes its own chosen subjects and then presents a range within that framework “open for debate”, when in reality these debates only enhances the strenght of their pre-defined assumptions. This makes us think that everything within that chosen framework represents the whole possible spectrum of opinions. We think we can debate just about everything, and it looks like that as well, but it’s nothing but a scam. The subjects are chosen by those in power and only opinions that fit within that specific framework are allowed. It’s simply a debate among people who are admitted into mainstream discussion.

So how does this work? It’s pretty easy to see. Institutions work in their own interests. If they didn’t, they’d be of no use for anyone. They would be totally meaningless in the long run.
Media consists of a few major mega-corporations who set the framework for what should be talked about, and then the smaller media units simply have to adapt to what the major media units focus on. Only major media have the resources, the money and the staff and the “credibility”, so they set the agenda.

Now… Corporations have a product to sell (the audiences) and a market they want to sell it to (the advertisers). So, the major newspapers are selling its readers to other businesses, and since the major media units consists of very privileged readers who in fact are the elite and political class that makes decisions in our society, it’s fairly easy to see what picture of the world they are presenting. To make things work, to make these huge corporations successful, that picture will have to satisfy the needs and interests of the buyers, the sellers and the market.
As already stated: Institutions must always work in their own interests, or else they won’t work at all. Of course there’s no place for dissident perspectives in such a closed system.

(These articles will be very much inspired by the thoughts of Noam Chomsky)