Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

erronis

(20,570 posts)
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 06:23 PM Jul 2

Simple question. How complicit are the M$M owners/publishers in the path to fascism?

We've watched a parade of absurdly rich (and supposedly powerful) owners of companies that produce "papers of record" or are constantly filling the airwaves and cable channels with their versions of news/entertainment as they pay homage to the emperor.

What deals have been made beforehand, and what quid pro quos are expected (not to trust the emperor)?

Do they understand and acknowledge and sign off on the fact that this regime will tumble us into the abyss of fascism - a total removal of any individual freedoms? Do they know that they may become part of the "state apparatus" (nationalized)?

Did Bezos (just to pick an example) have a chat with the real powers (putin, miller, xi, ???) about how his business will profit by the policies of the fascists? I mean he already treats his employees like slave labor. Perhaps it's no stretch.

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Simple question. How complicit are the M$M owners/publishers in the path to fascism? (Original Post) erronis Jul 2 OP
Publishers & Management? A Lot ProfessorGAC Jul 2 #1
So for those entities that have "diffuse" ownership, is it the CEO or Board of Directors who determines their position? erronis Jul 2 #2
I Made The Case For Exceptions ProfessorGAC Jul 2 #5
Very. hunter Jul 2 #3
They bend over backwards to not call it what it is Blue Owl Jul 2 #4
But I wonder if they're not also leaning forwards - pushing this agenda. erronis Jul 2 #6
Not as much as the owners of the Right Wing Noise Machine propaganda network. maxsolomon Jul 2 #7
It may not have as much influence, but it sees to have jumped on the bandwagon very quickly. erronis Jul 2 #8
The OP is about the PATH to Facism maxsolomon Jul 2 #9
Nudges come in different directions. The NYT and others were nudging voters away from the Democratic ticket. erronis Jul 2 #10
As a daily print subscriber, I never saw the nudging. maxsolomon Jul 2 #13
It's interesting. I've seen several reports (EmptyWheel for example) detailing how the online front page erronis Jul 2 #14
"Extremely biased" is in the eye of the DU beholder. maxsolomon Jul 3 #18
Very. nt mcar Jul 2 #11
I don't recall Democrats doing much about the media since 1987 AStern Jul 2 #12
The media changed a lot with the advent of cable (non-FCC regulated) and killing the "Fairness Doctrine" erronis Jul 2 #16
Ranges from William Randolph Hearst to Alfred Rosenberg Prairie Gates Jul 2 #15
I wish my former co-workers could see this thread Oeditpus Rex Jul 2 #17
Totally. Kid Berwyn Jul 3 #19
Great set of resources - thanks. erronis Jul 3 #23
An observation from decades ago MagickMuffin Jul 3 #20
Very, but for very simple reasons. haele Jul 3 #21
Overwhelmingly complicit, now and forever more. Unforgivable. (nt) Paladin Jul 3 #22

ProfessorGAC

(73,557 posts)
1. Publishers & Management? A Lot
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 06:28 PM
Jul 2

Ownership (other than Faux) is highly diffuse.
In fact, a sizeable portion of each traded media is in funds controlled by investment/capital firms including those for folks building for retirement.
But the upper management, overpaid & solely focused on a message that protects the cushy jobs, are a serious problem.
There are exceptions of course. That tool that owns the LA paper, Zuckerberg, Murdoch (already mentioned) & others.
But the networks, and cable news outfits are "owned" by tens of thousands of people, many just working folks.

erronis

(20,570 posts)
2. So for those entities that have "diffuse" ownership, is it the CEO or Board of Directors who determines their position?
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 06:40 PM
Jul 2

I really still believe that someone like Bezos has total control of the overall policy of the WaPo, for example.

And I'm not sure how much the general shareholders determine policy other than voting by selling/buying shares.

ProfessorGAC

(73,557 posts)
5. I Made The Case For Exceptions
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 06:55 PM
Jul 2

I will acknowledge I left out Bezos before I added the ellipsis
Your last paragraph makes my point. Ownership is too diffuse for any one person (or small cabal) to influence daily operations. The other 94% of ownership isn't interested in BlackRock exerting undue influence wuth their 6%, only a tiny fraction of which is owned by those people. Ownership that diffuse means nobody gets to exert unhealthy influence
As to how these people get appointed, there is certainly some incestuousness in these big corporations. The focus on today's stock price is a real problem, but that isn't political. Stupid & callous, but not political.

Blue Owl

(56,647 posts)
4. They bend over backwards to not call it what it is
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 06:47 PM
Jul 2

They’ve ‘normalized’ cruelty and fascism

maxsolomon

(36,896 posts)
7. Not as much as the owners of the Right Wing Noise Machine propaganda network.
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:10 PM
Jul 2

The MSM has largely been pushed to the side and no longer influences public opinion the way DU thinks it does.

erronis

(20,570 posts)
8. It may not have as much influence, but it sees to have jumped on the bandwagon very quickly.
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:17 PM
Jul 2

A nudge here and there from the major newspapers (e.g. NYT, WaPo, LATimes) can have some influence on their (well-heeled?) readers.

And we expect the RW noise machine to be funded/supported by anti-democratic influences.

I don't know enough about ownership but outlets such as CNN, NBC, etc. are also subject to "deals" made between "friends".

maxsolomon

(36,896 posts)
9. The OP is about the PATH to Facism
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:29 PM
Jul 2

which we've been on for some time. The RWNM was created to pave that path.

The NYT preaches to the choir. They're not "nudging" anyone to abandon Trump. Trumpers don't read it because it doesn't fuel or confirm their resentments. Or they don't read, period.

erronis

(20,570 posts)
10. Nudges come in different directions. The NYT and others were nudging voters away from the Democratic ticket.
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:37 PM
Jul 2

maxsolomon

(36,896 posts)
13. As a daily print subscriber, I never saw the nudging.
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:49 PM
Jul 2

They joined the chorus pushing Biden out of the race, sure. I don't lay Harris' defeat at their doorstep, however.

erronis

(20,570 posts)
14. It's interesting. I've seen several reports (EmptyWheel for example) detailing how the online front page
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:57 PM
Jul 2

was extremely biased against Biden - and that the online content changed over the day. But, of course, the print edition came out with whatever version the publisher wanted.

maxsolomon

(36,896 posts)
18. "Extremely biased" is in the eye of the DU beholder.
Thu Jul 3, 2025, 12:10 PM
Jul 3

And DU has knives out for the Times like no other paper.

AStern

(449 posts)
12. I don't recall Democrats doing much about the media since 1987
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 07:38 PM
Jul 2

other than occasionally calling out Limbaugh and Fox.

Having said that, I don't like that there are networks that cater to "sides".

We used to get our news from the same places and we all had our own opinions.

I'm not impressed with where we are.

erronis

(20,570 posts)
16. The media changed a lot with the advent of cable (non-FCC regulated) and killing the "Fairness Doctrine"
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 08:15 PM
Jul 2

I don't remember enough from the 50s/60s about whether the three on-air broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) were considered more in one camp or the other. It seemed that there were programs that aired that were more left or right.

Oeditpus Rex

(42,052 posts)
17. I wish my former co-workers could see this thread
Wed Jul 2, 2025, 08:41 PM
Jul 2

just for the laughs.

"Complicit." "Deals." "Part of the state apparatus."

Have any of you ever even been in a newsroom?

Kid Berwyn

(21,227 posts)
19. Totally.
Thu Jul 3, 2025, 12:29 PM
Jul 3

They enabled America's slide by not questioning it when NAZIs took power November 22, 1963. Mainstream media still pushes the lone nut lie 24/7/366. Details:

George H. W. Bush was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. We know this because AFTER THE ASSASSINATION he phoned the FBI to report a name he heard threaten JFK:





TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #



Of course, we didn’t know any of that until decades later when another FBI memo mentioned Mr. GEORGE Bush of the CIA” popped up when Poppy was running for preznit.





Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



NAZIfication took place gradually. Bertram Gross called the intermedium, where the rich got richer and the poor continued their traditional role getting poorer, "Friendly Fascism."



Friendly Fascism
The New Face of Power in America


by Bertram Gross
South End Press, 1980, paper

Introduction
pxi

Friendly fascism portrays two conflicting trends in the United States and other countries of the so-called "free world."

The first is a slow and powerful drift toward greater concentration of power and wealth in a repressive Big Business-Big Government partnership. This drift leads down the road toward a new and subtly manipulative form of corporatist serfdom. The phrase "friendly fascism" helps distinguish this possible future from the patently vicious corporatism of classic fascism in the past of Germany, Italy and Japan. It also contrasts with the friendly present of the dependent fascisms propped up by the U.S. government in El Salvador, Haiti, Argentina, Chile, South Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere.

The other is a slower and less powerful tendency for individuals and groups to seek greater participation in decisions affecting themselves and others. This trend goes beyond mere reaction to authoritarianism. It transcends the activities of progressive groups or movements and their use of formal democratic machinery. It is nourished by establishment promises-too often rendered false-of more human rights, civil rights and civil liberties. It is embodied in larger values of community, sharing, cooperation, service to others and basic morality as contrasted with crass materialism and dog-eat-dog competition. It affects power relations in the household, workplace, community, school, church, synagogue, and even the labyrinths of private and public bureaucracies. It could lead toward a truer democracy-and for this reason is bitterly fought...

These contradictory trends are woven fine into the fabric of highly industrialized capitalism. The unfolding logic of friendly fascist corporatism is rooted in "capitalist society's transnational growth and the groping responses to mounting crises in a dwindling capitalist world". Mind management and sophisticated repression become more attractive to would-be oligarchs when too many people try to convert democratic promises into reality. On the other hand, the alternative logic of true democracy is rooted in "humankind's long history of resistance to unjustified privilege" and in spontaneous or organized "reaction (other than fright or apathy) to concentrated power...and inequality, injustice or coercion".

A few years ago too many people closed their eyes to the indicators of the first tendency.

But events soon began to change perceptions.

The Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis crept out of the woodwork. An immoral minority of demagogues took to the airwaves. "Let me tell you something about the character of God," orated Jim Robison at a televised meeting personally endorsed by candidate Ronald Reagan. "If necessary, God would raise up a tyrant, a man who may not have the best ethics, to protect the freedom interests of the ethical and the godly." To protect Western oil companies, candidate Jimmy Carter proclaimed presidential willingness to send American troops into the Persian Gulf. Rosalyn Carter went further by telling an lowa campaign audience: "Jimmy is not afraid to declare war." Carter then proved himself unafraid to expand unemployment, presumably as an inflation cure, thereby reneging on his party's past full employment declarations.

Continues...

https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Friendly_Fascism_BGross.html



Thus, the USA got prepped for MAGA and their NAZI overlords. And the DUers who saw it coming got labeled, "Conspiracy Theorists." Nevertheless, we keep fighting.

MagickMuffin

(17,805 posts)
20. An observation from decades ago
Thu Jul 3, 2025, 01:08 PM
Jul 3


Back whenever the corporatists had their G summits and there were protesters, which sometimes had provocateurs destroying corporate property which made the corporatists mad, so, CNN announced that they would no longer cover the protests because they didn’t want to encourage “bad” behavior and cause it to spread.

Fast forward a few decades later and they showed magas standing on Capitol steps around the country armed with weapons of war. The media didn’t take issue with encouraging more armed insurrectionist, threatening our democracy.

The corporatists own the narrative and it bends toward “In God We Trust” written on all our currency that is why we are where we are. The corporatists decide what gruel to feed us.

That’s why I don’t tune in to their propaganda.





haele

(14,393 posts)
21. Very, but for very simple reasons.
Thu Jul 3, 2025, 01:18 PM
Jul 3

$$$$$$
And more $$$$$$ for their investors.
Media "Publishers" and "Owners" live in Wealthy Fiction Bubble Land, not in a real world with consequences.

The Media "Business" is a money used to make more money machine, not part of the craft of Journalism or Audible/Visual Art.

The Media customer is/are powerful people and organizations with money, and the rest of us, poorer and therefore powerless, are the products.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Simple question. How comp...