Extra Extra ! Major Media Outlet for sale to highest bidder! Read all about it!

Dec 17, 2005 at 3:16 PM

It is so obvious who owns newspapers, magazines, TV networks and the rest of organized media that you'd have to be wearing blinders not to see it.

Just look at the ads running alongside any story, expose or article, and you'll find out who "sponsored" the latest slanted ridiculous article.

Even in the little things, liek when you read an article about women's fashion choices, they always stick a recommendation of a product in it. Same paper, same day - big ad for that product.

Opinion pieces (like political stuff) I have no problem with. It's when they give me my news with a big chunk of like-it-or-not opinion stuffed in that I don't appreciate it. Or when they assume everyone else agrees with an assumption that the entire article is based on that is actually quite a far-out concept in the minds of most people in America.

I suppose the news outlets think of all this as some kind of "synergy of purpose" between the marketing department and their reporters, or some other advertiser hype buzz-word.

I think of it as selling out.

I don't read news articles in newspapers anymore that ring true to me. Ever. I haven't read one that didn't seem tilty or factually wacky or slanted in a long time.

And I'm not that far different from my friends and neighbours. I don't know anyone who personally feels the way that these newspaper articles tell me is the gospel truth.

Speaking of gospel truth...

This week I've heard TWO stories that made me feel like religion in general (and philosophy as a whole, I imagine) is under attack. And they pile on top of so many previous stories like this. So I looked at who was sponsoring the articles - who was paying to have it run by placing their ads there next to it.

The first such article was sometimes early this week, I think. It was that Pope likes to buy armani and prada and cartier, and that this is "an image problem" because he wants Catholics to shun excessive Christmas spending. Sounds reasonable to me to want religious people to apply their faith to real life, right? And Christmas really IS too commercial. We all know it.

The article even sent aspursions to his wealth and power. Hello? He's the POPE! Of course he's rich and lives in a palace and wears fancy clothes. This is news? It doesn't matter who the Pope is, if you're gonna say that wealth and power are BAD, you can make him appear fallible. And I'm not conceding that wealth and power ARE inherently bad.

Why in heck would anyone purposefully speak negatively about the Pope for wearing shoes and watches that reflect his position of power??

Well, let's see who advertised next to this article. Who was it? Christmas retailers and drug companies and a VISA card company. Hmmm. The groups who stand to lose the most if people turn to their religion. Psychs and drugs lose out when we get religious (cause religious people are less depressed statistically). Retailers stand to lose out when we refrain from overspending on Christmas. And credit card companies lose out when we don't overspend, cause most of us do it on credit.

Where has respect for religion gone? Obviously to the highest bidder.

Today the LA Times bashes Scientology - why? Because Tom Cruise really loves his religion and believes in it, and has powerful friends in his church, and speaks out about what he believes is true. They said something like that hearing Tom Cruise is like hearing Hubbard from beyond the grave. Huh? And outspoken Christians must be like listening to Jesus Christ from beyond the resurrection? Oooh! Creepy.

Besides, I don't even see how this is bad news. Everyone is free to speak in America, even those of us who aren't bought and paid for. Freedom of religion is protected. Thank God!

Next to that tacky article? You guessed it. Ads for psych drugs. You'd have to be a naif not to know who's behind that one.

This reminds me a lot of when Mel Gibson got outspoken about being a Catholic. Media outlets that used to call him handsome and gregarious started calling him dangerous and old. Mel Gibson was suddenly strange and wrong for being a real catholic, and all kinds of wild bizarre accusations were made about him being brainwashed by his religion or trying to pound it into us.

It disgusted me how no one is ever treated badly for pushing the standard line but anyone pushing religion is bad bad bad. Bad!

Respect for religion for sale to the highest bidder! Belief in humanity for sale to the highest bidder!

It appears that the only organization that remains infallible is the organized press for being totally at the will of the advertiser pulling the strings.

And they wonder why we news consumers are turning to RSS feeds and blogs. We can choose our news and opinion articles this way. If you can choose, why would you want the media's conformist, consumer-creating, out-of-touch-with-realilty wacko view of the world, anyway?

Since the standard thought process of major media appears to be "Let's see. What articles can we write to best align with what our advertisers are selling this week?" then it stands to reason that you can draw a conclusion.

My advice to Catholics, the Pope, Tom Cruise, Scientology, Mel Gibson and anyone else the media trashes? Invest in media advertising. Just buy tons and tons of advertising. Way more than you need. Then they'll love you. Right up until your enemies buy more ad space.

I will never stop being a believer in the BLOG PRESS. The simple fact that the content of the article online decides the advertising that displays next to it (think AdSense) means that the advertiser doesn't influence the outcome of the article.

The internet is YET AGAIN proven to be the bastion of the free press, and the only place where I can be assured to receive real news. It is the only place where I can find a full spectrum of opinions to choose from rather than the kaleidescopic view of life that the old media wants me to have to sell more of the advertisers products.