You've just used the term "MSM" but do you actually know who you're referring to?

So you've just used the term "MSM" but do you know what it actually means?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

So you just used the term “MSM” — but are you referring to journalists who might uncover hazards in your drinking water or school playgrounds, tell you when politicians are about to spend your tax dollars on something unnecessary, or perhaps uncover another Watergate like the “MSM” did years ago? Highly paid political consultants would probably love for you to use this meaningless term instead of saying specifically which outlets you mean. You’re a bit too smart for that. If you meant to refer to a couple of cable news stations or want to criticize specific articles or columnists, then it would certainly make more sense to be specific rather than parroting a term that paints the media — which could save your life — in a bad light. If you only get your news from one or two TV stations, the solution to that seems obvious. If you use shorthand like “MSM” to stop people from believing in all journalism, you’re helping highly-paid political consultants paint more than 65,000 news workers across the country — including perhaps your own relatives — with the same brush. You’re smarter than that.

Keep in mind that columnists for newspapers are supposed to have opinions, and investigative journalists are different and are supposed to uncover problems that need fixing – so when you don’t like some of the writers for a publication, it may not make sense to discredit the entire publication or profession. In this economy, there are only a few major media sources left with the money and resources to fight government red tape and lawyers to get to the truth, so is it any coincidence that those are the same outlets politicians would like you to think of as the “MSM”? It’s no wonder they want to suck you into a campaign to disbelieve every outlet that has any power at all. But that’s probably not what you meant to say by using their shorthand.

The New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for articles about lax federal meat inspection that had resulted in people getting sick and paralyzed — would you really want to help stop that kind of reporting?

Think about the kind of work you do on a daily basis. It’s probably mainstream work. If officials tried to dupe folks into using an abbreviation to criticize all workers in your profession, would that be good for everyone?

It’s actually helpful for you to constructively point out an error in a TV network or story, as legitimate media (including mainstream) will fire reporters or publicly correct their mistakes. Fox and CNN have issued major corrections in the past year (even though they should never have made the mistakes in the first place, of course). So the next question is...which politicians have apologized and issued corrections? Can you name one? Who has done so? (And if you don’t like either of those TV stations — and certainly you may have good reasons — try other outlets.)

The fact that you can criticize media means you live in America; the journalists who can scrutinize government are exercising the same rights, and it’s doubtful that you want to use shorthand to make it seem like you want those rights squashed. It makes more sense to be specific in your criticism rather than getting played by those who want you to discredit all media. “MSM” may seem convenient for a Tweet, but that’s the problem – look back a few decades and you can see that dictators used memes (propaganda posters with one sentence on them) and brief slogans to manipulate everyone. In fact, memes and short slogans bear quite a strong resemblance to the meaningless propaganda posters of the past, so while they may be a fun diversion, you’re not helping a situation by communicating solely in 140 characters.

Some people say “MSM” when they really mean CNN, MSNBC, or FOX – three networks. It wouldn’t be so hard to say why you have a problem with them specifically, rather than being anti-journalism. Political consultants are hoping you’ll just say “MSM”, and they’re likely earning a high salary in order to get you to do so. If you advocate stereotypes against the media, you’ll wind up missing real media when it’s gone — and then you won’t have reporters to help when you need your own story told, or an injustice corrected. This is not to say you should trust odd websites with hidden ownership that report whatever they want. Read widely, check the facts, and think.

Clearly you care about your country and the people in it, because otherwise you wouldn’t bother posting about the issues. Some say you can’t change another person’s mind on the internet, but most of us realize we can always keep an open mind and learn more. It is certainly possible to reject anti-media propaganda terms while pointing out specific problems with reporting. Even the smartest people have been fooled in the past, but we can learn from history. We have the capacity to express ourselves beyond slogans, abbreviations that don’t reflect what we’re really thinking, namecalling (which is discouraged in schools now, so adults certainly can do better) and shouting over each other. You’re definitely smarter than that. We all are.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot