SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. (Photo: Screenshot)
Learning the Downsides of Candidates Is a Big Upside of Modern Media
The possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics
Mar 29, 2019
You've probably noticed that we live in a society where some people have a great deal of power, and most people have very little. And that this works out well for the few and not so well for the many.
This plays out in the political realm with the few using their power to support candidates who would maintain that power. In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. As a result, those outlets told us very little about which candidates were beholden to whose interests. When they did talk about candidates' funding, such reports were inconspicuously placed and seldom amplified via commentary--thereby ensuring that few people outside the donor class were aware of who was doing the donating.
A funny thing happened in the 21st century: The development of digital technologies made it much cheaper to create and distribute information, via email, blogs, podcasts and social media. Though these technologies were largely developed by for-profit corporations for their own profit-seeking ends, they also enabled horizontal communication on a scale never before possible.
And this ability allows us to have conversations about politics that we've always needed and never have had until now. Part of the point of these conversations is that we can talk about the candidates we want to talk about, rather than the candidates corporate media have decided we should talk about. And another benefit of these conversations is that we can talk about the hitherto hidden transactions that would determine which candidates were "viable" and "electable."
These discussions of candidates' financial and policy histories can look like negativity--because it's seldom good news when a line can be drawn between where politicians gets their resources and how they do their jobs. But the possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
You've probably noticed that we live in a society where some people have a great deal of power, and most people have very little. And that this works out well for the few and not so well for the many.
This plays out in the political realm with the few using their power to support candidates who would maintain that power. In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. As a result, those outlets told us very little about which candidates were beholden to whose interests. When they did talk about candidates' funding, such reports were inconspicuously placed and seldom amplified via commentary--thereby ensuring that few people outside the donor class were aware of who was doing the donating.
A funny thing happened in the 21st century: The development of digital technologies made it much cheaper to create and distribute information, via email, blogs, podcasts and social media. Though these technologies were largely developed by for-profit corporations for their own profit-seeking ends, they also enabled horizontal communication on a scale never before possible.
And this ability allows us to have conversations about politics that we've always needed and never have had until now. Part of the point of these conversations is that we can talk about the candidates we want to talk about, rather than the candidates corporate media have decided we should talk about. And another benefit of these conversations is that we can talk about the hitherto hidden transactions that would determine which candidates were "viable" and "electable."
These discussions of candidates' financial and policy histories can look like negativity--because it's seldom good news when a line can be drawn between where politicians gets their resources and how they do their jobs. But the possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
You've probably noticed that we live in a society where some people have a great deal of power, and most people have very little. And that this works out well for the few and not so well for the many.
This plays out in the political realm with the few using their power to support candidates who would maintain that power. In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. As a result, those outlets told us very little about which candidates were beholden to whose interests. When they did talk about candidates' funding, such reports were inconspicuously placed and seldom amplified via commentary--thereby ensuring that few people outside the donor class were aware of who was doing the donating.
A funny thing happened in the 21st century: The development of digital technologies made it much cheaper to create and distribute information, via email, blogs, podcasts and social media. Though these technologies were largely developed by for-profit corporations for their own profit-seeking ends, they also enabled horizontal communication on a scale never before possible.
And this ability allows us to have conversations about politics that we've always needed and never have had until now. Part of the point of these conversations is that we can talk about the candidates we want to talk about, rather than the candidates corporate media have decided we should talk about. And another benefit of these conversations is that we can talk about the hitherto hidden transactions that would determine which candidates were "viable" and "electable."
These discussions of candidates' financial and policy histories can look like negativity--because it's seldom good news when a line can be drawn between where politicians gets their resources and how they do their jobs. But the possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.