So much for the “liberal” media.

If there ever was proof needed about where the sympathies of the major news outlets lie, it was in the coverage of the “One Nation” march and rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. over the past weekend.

The right wing loves to accuse the “media” of liberal bias and it certainly seems to have worked well, so far.  Over the past 15 or 20 years—some would say it has been much longer—the press (showing our age) or media has been bent toward the right in its coverage of most issues.

That’s because they don’t want to be seen as favoring the center or left-of-center in any given story.  Historically, there have been newspapers and other means of communication that have been liberal or leaned to the left, but, as ownership of newspapers and magazines has migrated to the giant chains, and television and radio stations have been bought by giant industrial corporations, and ownership of all of these has been placed in fewer hands, the drift to the right has been almost inevitable.

To be sure, there are a few magazines and some other outlets that have a liberal or left viewpoint, but they reach only a few million of our 306 million Americans and, therefore, we are left with the broadcast networks for television coverage and their radio stations for reaching a general audience.

Last weekend’s rally, led by the AFL-CIO and the NAACP, included members from hundreds of other organizations, large and small, for jobs, a reordering of the priorities of the federal government, peace and justice.  It was termed a “left wing” rally by those on the right and the right-wing propaganda machine immediately went into high gear.

Some of the unions came under especially virulent attack, with some equating their members with terrorists (admittedly, these were bloggers, and they were simply “asking the question”).  Union members who take care of their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, in nursing homes, hospitals, and halfway houses, left, right, and center…they are a threat to the country?

Bloggers and others can make such accusations in the form of “questions,” because the right-wing-owned media has prepared the ground for them.  They are powerful enough to encourage these same people to call their own outlets “liberal,” when they know very well that the thrust of their coverage of news (some would just call it “content”) is powerfully geared toward the status quo. 

In our time, the status quo includes the great disparity in wealth, which has contributed to the rapid shrinking of the middle class and a thriving working class, has resulted in the starving of social services and education and health care for the people.  The wars (they have been paid for, in large part, with borrowed money over the past nine years) have further starved the government programs that provide for the health and well being of the people. 

All of this starving of government and its programs has further enriched the already rich, who want to keep it that way.  One of the prime examples is Rupert Murdoch, who owns the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, and lots of other “news” properties, including the infamous right-wing bastion, Fox News.  Maintaining the status quo means more consolidation of wealth and power for Murdoch and many others like him.

The best part of it for him is that, once set in motion, the money keeps rolling in and, even better, his Fox News property is an unvarnished propaganda wing of Corporate America, the Republican Party, and the extreme right, in general.

A slight difference between Fox and other outlets is that it makes no bones about where it stands and hustles its viewers to participate in their own demise.  When one of their hucksters (the star of their show at this time), Glenn Beck, set up his own rally at Lincoln Memorial several weeks ago, the Fox airwaves were full of promotion for what was billed as a “restore-honor-to-America” event.  Beck and most of the crew at Fox shamelessly promoted the rally, as did others who identify themselves as “conservatives,” including the radio talk chatterers.

It’s no wonder that they were able to turn out so many.  The Beck crowd was able to get more of their followers to the national mall because they saturated the airwaves and the Internet with their invitations.

The difference in the character of the two rallies is something else.  While the “restore honor” rally was largely made up of angry Tea Party members and supporters, a rather vanilla pudding bunch, the “One Nation” rally actually looked like a cross-section of America, with virtually every group represented—young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, black, white, red, and brown, religious believers and atheists.

Because of that, the right wing had to disparage it in other ways, for example, by citing the calls for socialism and an end to capitalism by some in the gathering, as if that were the main theme, which was not true.  Rather, what the rally last weekend was calling for was jobs, rights for wage-working Americans, and better schools.  Many were calling for health care for all and an end to war.

The right also questioned the financing of the “one nation” rally, which was largely funded by the individuals and their organizations.  It has been widely reported, by contrast, that the Tea Party events of the last year-and-a-half (and, possibly, Beck’s rally, as well) have been funded in part (or largely) by billionaires and other wealthy personalities, many of whom would like to remain anonymous.

What Beck and his followers are looking for is support for government policies that will further enrich those same billionaires and others in the top 1 percent of Americans or, better still, a withering of government that will allow Corporate America a free hand to do what it will, in the U.S. and around the world.  Beck’s followers, most of whom are working people themselves, are demanding policies that will harm them and their families.  However, as long as “honor” and “patriotism” and “god” and “law and order” are included in the speeches, it seems that virtually anything is acceptable to them.

Despite what amounted to untold millions of dollars of free advertising from Fox and other news outlets, the “restore honor” rally could not turn out much more than the rally of Oct. 2, which had no such free advertising for weeks before the event.

In the wake of the two rallies, there was a vast difference in coverage, as well.  While major news outlets analyzed the Fox/Beck rally and gave it considerable coverage, there was a little coverage of the “one nation” rally in the national news, but the network affiliates seemingly were not interested at all in that rally.

One reason for the disparity could be that the Tea Party has been covered as a part of the political season and, thus, they just added the “restore honor” rally to their endless coverage of what is essentially the horse-race aspect of politics.

The “one nation” rally was more about the substance of what a political race should be about and, therefore, it was not very interesting to news directors—so they didn’t cover it, either before or after.

Consolidation of the ownership of our major means of communication has been a great concern of many Americans for several decades.  The difference in treatment by the mainstream media of the two rallies is just one example, but it presents in rather stark terms how information disseminated by a few sources, owned by a few very rich individuals can sway public opinion.

These powerful individuals can cause people to accept violations of their rights and endanger the welfare of their own families, while making them feel satisfied that they have done the right thing for their country.

That’s a lot of power and that’s a lot of danger.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello, is a labor organizer and former union organizer. His union work started when he became a local president of The Newspaper Guild in the early 1970s. He was a reporter for 14 years for newspapers in New York State. In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food producers and land developers. Click here to contact Mr. Funiciello.