Home | About | Donate

4 Reasons the Corporate Media Refuses to Talk About Things That Matter


Yes, our Governmnet has a lot to answer for, but I am not pretending that just because the Progressive Conservatives were Corporatists , the Liberals are somewhow different. In fact it should be pretty clear to anyone that they are not. Just like your Republicans and Democrats, they look after the 1 percent first.

But then I did not vote for them.

I would point out that even with the Liberals and Conservatives having run this Country since Confederation we did get universal health care some 60 years ago. This came about because people started voting for the NDP , a Socialist party in a time where people were making the same arguments you make , that being “wasting a vote on the NDP would ensure the Conservatives Elected”

Now tell me which strategy has a proven track record?

If you want progressive Politics start voting for progressives something the Nancy Pelosis and the “we want more war crowd” at the DNC and at MSNBC are not.

You DO know that it was President Clinton that revamped the US Telecommunications Act in 1996 which led to independent media all but disappearing and being swallowed up by a handful of Corporations?


Paul Wellstone was one of your best and the genuine article. Odd how it always those types killed in Plane crashes while the same never happens to the Kissingers of the world. It both odd and awfully convenient for some.


Hartmann writes:

While Hartmann mentions several good and important solutions here, and I whole heartedly support what he calls for, he also misses one big opportunity that we now have to make the elections more fair that we did not have available to us 20 years ago, a possible change that would make us far, far less beholden to and controlled by big money interests. Specifically it is time to to set up an election information server that is fairly accessible to everyone. This server will make accessible to all the needed information of who is running in each election at every level, from dog catcher to president. It will give all of the candidates relatively fair and equal opportunity to present their ideas, concerns and programs directly to the all the voters who want the information. The media will not be deciding what is presented based on the profitability of what is presented. Note that with a server like this, it is most important that it be required by law for a copy of all advertising, speeches, debates, and rebuttals and discussions of, by, and involving all the candidates be placed so that it can be found and accessed by all easily, quickly, and without any impedance whatsoever.

Let me state this differently. Every citizen has a right to see and compare all the advertising, debate and discussion by all the candidates. And all candidates have the obligation to make that information available on this central server. If Hillary Clinton gives a speech to the bankers she must post the speech on this site. If Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have a debate all citizens must have simple, at will and unimpeded access to watching the debate afterwards, and to the discussions of the debate by news organizations, magazines, and web-sources (i.e. there must be no pay wall preventing access to any discussion and opinion concerning the election).

This can be done, the technology is available and not particularly complex. Every day we are constantly walking through WiFi signals. There is almost no other choice for us but to do so. On these WiFi signals the providers and purchasers have the ability to throttle and select what signals get through and to who. Mostly they use passwords and accounts to wall off the internet from those who do not pay for access. It is not rocket science for them to allow access to public services sites on the WiFi signals that we are constantly walking through. It can be done, and it can be done without exceptional expense. A homeless person with an old smartphone with WiFi reception should have access to this public information whenever he/she is in a WiFi signal, as should we all.

With a central server properly organized, with information on all the candidates and accessible to all voters where ever the internet is available, we will have a situation where all voters can research and compare the candidates. All the candidates will be able to present their views and platforms without being limited by the cost of printing and distributing pamphlets or by be required to have enough money to buy time from the networks at whatever rate the market will bear. My preference is that election advertising on commercial media be banned altogether as being unnecessary and unfair. This will take most of the money and its influence out of the elections. The responsible citizen would have the opportunity and responsibility to become sufficiently informed about the candidates that are seeking his/her support.

And there are further ways that we could remove the power of money to control our elections. I will not be anywhere close to exhaustive on this, but for example we could vote, then have a lottery afterwards where the candidates chances of winning the lottery and taking the seat were proportional to the percentage of votes that he/she received in the election. Sure, sometimes a candidate would sit who had very little support and was not the choice of say 95% of the voters. However this candidate would represent people who are never represented under the current system, a 5% of voters whose views and concerns might not be represented again for many years. Mostly this will result in representatives that are somewhat statistically representative of the views and interests of all the people who they represent. We would not have the situation that we have at present where two parties almost completely controlled by the elites can exclude all debate and ideas that they do not want discussed in elections and elected bodies. We could have discussion in and after elections where the views and interests of most of the people can be heard, debated, where a consensus of more than that of the elites could grow. I expect that we would see far more representatives that understand the meaning of the words such as integrity, prudence, fairness, equality, and many more words that we need to again remember.


us loons and dirty old men need some love too.


William Arkin, an award winning journalist at MSNBC, recently left the network stating that it has become a propaganda arm of the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI. Of course, Maddow, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, and others at the network will continue to push the Democratic corporate agenda in order to keep their positions.
Ed Schultz stated shortly before his death that he was ordered not to cover Bernie Sanders’ announcement of a presidential bid. Also, Jesse Ventura, under contract with MSNBC for three years, never even had one program aired when they learned he opposed the war in Iraq, with the network buying him out. Schultz, Ventura, Chris Hedges, Rick Sanchez, and some others who have gone from the corporate networks to RT America have stated that there is freedom of speech at RT, something lacking at the mainstream corporate networks.
MSNBC simply is a tool of the Democratic Party establishment, just as Fox is for the GOP.


RE: Hollywood
That goes all the way back. I mean you have to start with “Birth of a Nation” I suppose. As to pro-military films you’d have to list the John Wayne starring “Green Berets” which was so obvious that it was a war propaganda film that the DOD was worried and requested that the film credits NOT thank them for all of their support. Yeah, but you are right they barely try to hide it anymore.


Another useless post.


Yes, the news that is guaranteed to get an emotional response such as who is Beyonce dating?


The equivalent of the working class of the 17 century were under no illusions that they lived in a democracy.


The Fairness Doctrine, incidentally, that could’ve been restored multiple times since its revocation. Both Clinton and Obama could’ve done it. Care to explain, Mr Partisan Hack? (crickets).


Correct. From some recent poll:

  • 42% of Americans identify as independent
  • 29% say they are Democrats
  • 26% say they are Republicans


Yeah, Maddow’s flat out loathsome. But she’s the quintessential corporate identitarian. Full political and social equality for anyone with enough loot to participate in the market. yay!

Few things are worse than a devoted neoliberal pretending to care a whit about justice.


It’s pretty useless to argue with red team versus blue team rah rah types.

Their loyalty to party overrides their commitment to policy. Here’s an example of how malleable they are:


Thom Hartmann is being disingenuous when he doesn’t include Media consolidation. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia about the Telecommunications Act of 1996:

…the 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to allow fewer, but larger corporations, to operate more media enterprises within a sector (such as Clear Channel’s dominance in radio), and to expand across media sectors (through relaxation of cross-ownership rules), thus enabling massive and historic consolidation of media in the United States. These changes amounted to a near-total rollback of New Deal market regulation.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton.
It’s absolutely necessary for Dem Party shills like Hartmann to ignore how the Dem Party has served corporate interests instead of the interests of the people.


Quite true. But it is depressing how many intelligent people still buy into the corporate press’s lies, in a world that becomes black and white, red and blue, R and D.


3rd, 4th, 5th Party votes don’t matter in a head-on-head matchup. The person with the most votes should be the declared winner. But, as we see, the minority white party aided and abetted by racist elements within the Corporatocracy and the U.S. Courts, have perpetuated an ongoing soft coup at every level of local, state and the federal election process.
So it goes…


The main reason the corporate media refuses to talk about things that matter: They would not matter!


I suppose you are right, since even “fake news”, including concentrated “false flag” news, is, ultimately, so aimed.


Interesting that Hartmann decided to have this article published here, on Common Dreams.


Yes…as stated above in the comments, this works both ways. Here’s an example of CNN declining news that doesn’t fit with the picture they are trying to paint:
CNN Cancels On San Diego TV Station After They Report Border Wall Works – Jan 11, 2019 - ZeroHedge

" We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work, " it concludes. “We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the United States, and the numbers prove it.”