Who Funds the Legacy Media?

 

Pushing Narratives: Legacy News Archetypes 

I’ve avoided writing a lot of news stories in the past 2 years. You’ll find plenty on my page, but fewer than before. The reason is simple. I don’t know what’s going on in the world and the events change daily. It’s easier to go around blissfully unaware of the surrounding chaos and focus on work and spiritual matters. I used to think people who didn’t follow the news were either too busy with life or just uninterested. I never considered that many didn’t want the trouble weighing heavily on their minds.

Most of the mainstream sources are pushing a narrative, reinforcing preexisting archetypes. Fear over peace, chemical over natural, death over life and sexual confusion over sexual purity.

I clicked past a news segment on PBS that profiled some transgender. I didn’t stick around to find out the details. the subtext was clear; this person is hero. Ten years ago no one was talking about transgender as a viable lifestyle. Today, this small minority of people are suddenly ubiquitous. Their opinions are highly sought after, demanded even. They appear out of nowhere hoisting signs and protesting this movie or that business. Countless news stories need a trans angle because apparently, it’s a hot topic. By why is it a hot topic? Because someone decided so. Someone influential (or a group of influentials) created this sermon and started preaching it.

As a regular guy I’m not privy to who the media takes its direction from. But once you start seeing the angles and story lines it’s tough to unsee it. Suddenly you can’t imagine why you didn’t see it before. It’s not bias exactly, it’s something closer to telling your employer’s version of events. At times it hovers just above the “technically” true line. Other times it’s true but not relevant. Occasionally it’s false, dangerously so.

The best way to frame it is to imagine what news from a strictly non-media company would sound like. I used to work for Target so I’ll pick on them. Target makes its money selling consumer goods and groceries. What’s important to Target is what gets on the channel. They’ll do stories on amazing TVs and other electronics, maybe a profile or two on the creator of some new tech only available in one brand of phone. Naturally you can find the phone at your nearest store.

There would be similar segments on grocery items. You could put together a piece on coffee from Brazil and sent a crew to interviewer the grower. I’m not talking about just dry commercials in between regular slots. I’m thinking more of a CBS soft feature segment. With enough funding you could tell interesting stories, even with the slant.

If Target was forced to do weather and traffic it would revolve around shopping hours. Is the weather going to keep me from getting to the store? Will it snow or sleet and can I get a bag of snow melt for the walkway?

Is Target giving us news? Absolutely. But it’s only important in so far as it revolves around our shopping. We wouldn’t blame Target for ignoring a story about a dam collapse in Sri Lanka or a parliamentary election in Australia. It’s not their purview. We know where Target’s money for news comes from. They have an interest in selling consumer goods and promoting their own products.

I think something close to this is how our legacy media works. They’ve become a channel of someone or something. Drug companies are one likely candidate. I watched a segment a few years ago that featured Chris Evert explaining how her sister’s death led Chris to get screened early for ovarian cancer. As sad as it was to hear the story, it worked seamlessly into the pro medicine/pro hospital push that CBS is known for. That was not an accident. I used to watch the Sunday morning show and I started noticing a bombardment of drug company ads. Drugs for erectile disfunction, heartburn, allergies, migraines, depression, anxiety, skin rashes and even restless legs. Restless leg syndrome affects a lot of people. Who knew?

I’m not against drugs, nor screenings, but after the heavy focus on hospitals and diseases it started to make sense. Drug companies represent a significant beneficiary of the information we’re being fed. Think about the archetype of the heroic, life saving screening device Chris Evert used. Fear of cancer was the enemy, medicine the savior. The commercials reinforce this too. It’s also interesting that none of the information was untrue, so far as I could tell. But it introduced in me, and certainly others, a fear of disease and a positive impression of screenings.  

But the news isn’t all about drugs, hospitals and death. There is an element of straight reporting and commentary that harks back to the traditional newsroom days. But my impression is subscribers alone won’t keep a media company afloat. The current model is dishonest. It pretends to give it to us straight, but donors affect the information more than we realizes. Our Target news company was a genuine product of specific corporate interest. How much of our legacy media is the same thing? I’d say most.

 Is the heavy focus on transgender surgery an extension of the heroic pharmacy/medicine archetype? Whether it’s that or a way to undermine traditional values, it’s a dangerous lie that’s hurting kids. When you normalize the crazy and the perverse, you’re pushing a lifestyle on the next generation. We need a media revolution in this country, out with the old media guard and their corrupt messaging.