This is a convoluted question, but I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you have off the dome. 1) I understand that the corporate news media are fully captured by capitalist interests and the national security state. Major news outlets are not going to call for de-militarizing the globe, overthrowing the system, and redistributing the wealth. 2) Meanwhile, political scientist and inveterate pessimist Jodi Dean argues that politics happens on two registers: The first is merely a circulation of discourse and communication that creates the illusion of participatory democracy. (In her mind, we would all be stuck on this level, posting and browsing twitter, etc.). The second is the actual policy that the US government follows, which doesn't give a damn about what people in the first register say. One of her examples is the largest antiwar protest ever amassed (in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq War), which had zero impact on Bush's actions. Given all this: Would you say that the news media don't have the capacity to destroy powerful people's careers and change anything for the better? One, because they're in thrall to capital and the power elite, and two, because they're outside the register of official politics anyway? And if this is the case, do powerful individuals simply know all this, never fearing consequences from bad press? (I guess that would be class consciousness at work).
while the capitalist class probably does not fear corporate media broadly, capital formations within the class come after each others territory constantly in contest for profit extraction and the media is often a vehicle of that contest. so, i would say the news media as it exists has the capacity to destroy powerful people's lives, but not change anything for the better.
if a large news organization were to "go rogue" and widely platform insurrectionary politics, decolonization, mass actions, etc, the capitalist class would collude to destroy it or at the very least, marginalize it to a relative non-existence.
They only fear when other capitalists use it as a tool against each other. For example, neoliberal rags like Foreign Policy or The Economist would write vague criticisms of policies as a warning to people in power from other people in power. Or they’ll write opeds under pseudonyms and whatnot
The smart ones don't, but they're rarer than they used to be due in part to the internet being able to break literally anyone's brain no matter how insulated they are in real life.
I think that since Vietnam the US' deep state has pioneered one of the most sophisticated media control apparatus' in the world, and it only grows better with each passing news story. The entire profession of journalism has gone from actually researching things to lazily repeating the ad copy you get handed, and the best you can currently get from any news outlet is good analysis from the independent journalists - but even they are still just reading the ad copy and speculating between the lines, which is extremely limited compared to what nailed Nixon or Iran-Contra or Abu Ghraib.
But this is nothing compared to just how the narrative gets controlled even when something happens that was unplanned - Edward Snowden stirred up a storm of controversy when he became a whistle blower, but rather than focusing the discussion on what the NSA was and still is doing to everybody we focused the discussion on Snowden himself. Same thing eventually happened with Assange, Manning, etc - the control apparatus knows that it can't literally control every single person, so its adapted flexible tactics that can nullify the effect those people have with ease.
But all that said, the dumb ones definitely do. IMO Elon Musk's obsession with Twitter is primarily driven by the fact that it became the top choice of media people, and he both greatly fears them and wants them to care about him.
It's insane and tragic that the only actual english-language journalism now is done by youtubers.
Honestly, I think wealthy people fear almost everything on some level. Wealth is like the ultimate security blanket and taking that away means taking away the only thing that can keep them safe and insulated.
I think they are afraid of media that is not bought by them or people who share their interests.
I know some prefer the CNN version or the Fox News version, and some pay for both. I think that by consolidating power over media outlets is fueled by a fear that those platforms can cause them material harm. I think that's why the culture war bullshit is such a thing.
It's a distraction in part, but if they lose it and the m&ms get they/them pronouns or the little mermaid is black then it takes a sense of ownership away from those who own those franchises.
I think wealthy people are afraid of news media or information circulating that they don't like. See the reaction to the billionaire submarine. Or the censorship around the location of private jets.
