Understanding the MSM/DNC

My own understanding of the MSM/DNC took a giant leap forward when I finally committed my thoughts to the computer this past weekend. I received tremendous feedback that has helped me focus even further on the MSM/DNC and what to do about it. I plan to continue expanding the list of categories of MSM/DNC bias. The comments have taken me into new directions that I never would have seen before this past weekend.

(1) For example, Jawa made an excellent point:

Cassandra . . . . has an interesting post on the subject, and does a great job in classifying media bias once it has hapened, but it lacks a theoretical causal underpinning.

Jawa is right. My post focused on what we see and how we identify it. I took step one. Understanding the reasons for it would be step two. My main point has been to establish the MSM/DNC as one political organization. That is a new way of thinking to myself and many others, even though the concept explains everything we have observed in TV and newspapers for many decades. I hope to let the "unified political organization" theory percolate through the blogosphere before we try to explain further. Otherwise, the explanation of motives will obscure the basic identification that we are trying to accomplish. In other words, I am trying not to be too nuanced too soon.

(2) A commenter noted that the term "MSM" is a misnomer because MSM is anything but mainstream. That comment is true also. The television and print media that dominated the news prior to September 8, 2004 was far removed from the mainstream of opinion in this country. We still refer to them as mainstream because they still dominate television and print (and education and Hollywood). There are better names for this oligarchy that we are trying to overthrow, but any truly descriptive name would take forever to catch on. The world is ready is ready for the name "MSM/DNC" because we have been using its component names for so long and the name accurately describes our experience with the media. The name reflects everything we have observed on the evening news for so long.

(3) A New Zealand blogger is trying to find an appropriate adaptation of the "MSM/DNC" for his country. He substitues "Labour/MSM" for MSM/DNC. This raises the question of why the MSM/DNC phenomenon exists worldwide, with leftist politicians engaged in an unholy alliance with media outlets in each country. By asking the question, we veer into Jawa's "step 2" territory. I will leave that question for another day. Click here for some theories.

(4) In response to the controversy over the Pulitzer prize being awarded to terrorists, a commenter at Roger Simon's blog asks a good question:

Question:

How can one simultaneously deride the "MSM"; say that it's out-of-touch, behind-the-times, maybe even downright evil, and complain about who gets what "MSM" award bestowed upon by the selfsame "MSM"?

We shouldn't hope that the Pulitzer committee award the prize to the journalist of our choice. We shouldn't hope that the Pulitzer committee make the award even to a deserving journalist. We must simply recognize that the award is phony, document the phoniness to all who will listen and push the award into irrelevance with Dan Rather and Eason Jordan. Dan Rather never became "fair". He never lost his bias or retracted his story against Bush. We never won him over. We will never obtain fairness from the Pulitzer committee. Instead of trying to make the Prize fair, we must simply learn to use the Pulitzer prize as evidence against the MSM/DNC. It is a subtle (almost nuanced(!!)) difference, but it is a distinction we must recognize and use in every instance of MSM/DNC bias. [Wednesday P.M. update - Michelle Malkin lists the alternatives to MSM/DNC "satirists", especially those who win MSM/DNC prizes. While we point out the MSM/DNC bias, we can honor our own creative satirists. Our own pool of talent has grown large enough that we can make the MSM/DNC hacks irrelevant.]

We are exploring new territory with every analysis we make of the MSM/DNC. We won't always agree with each other. Our analysis will often be redundant or speculative, but we will press on through trial and error as we struggle to identify and define the nature of the MSM/DNC. The day that we replace the MSM/DNC with something resembling true journalism gets closer with every post and comment that we make.