A couple of stupid questions but I'm going to ask anyway

[MellowOne]

November 2004 was my first presidental election. I just knew in my heart that Kerry had won. After the disappointment, I found DU through an internet search. Now I know my gut instinct was correct, he did win. And weeks of reading posts, I'm overwhelmed by the evidence of election fraud, the unanswered questions of 9/11, the real reasons for the Iraqi war, Gannon, etc.

1. I believe I read about forty major newspapers endorsed Kerry for president. But at DU I'm hearing large corporations control the media. Why aren't these same papers still behind Kerry when they heard about the election fraud?

2. With so many people witnessing election fraud first hand such as touch screens defaulting to Bush, why haven't we hearing more from them. If it were me, I'd be screaming to a newspaper, TV station, anybody who would listen. Why can't all these people get together and get an investigation underway?

[skids]

1. Those are not stupid questions by any stretch.

In fact they are very perceptive.

Answers:

1) Because as far as the MSM are concerned Kerry is as much a part of the "establishment" as Bush. Both are capable of bestowing favors on the people that supported them. MSM endorsed Kerry out of self-interest because they thought his presidency would benefit them. When we talk about the problems with MSM, it is handy not to think of things in terms of "Democrat versus Republican." The issue is much more deep than that. It's a matter of the establishment versus the governed, and the role of the media as the "fourth estate".

2) I will answer with another question: why didn't some people vote? It's the same reason warmed over. The people that witnessed problems with the election either are not instilled with the will to defend our democracy, or do not think they have the power to make a difference.

[MellowOne]

7. Not only not willing to defend our democracy

they don't want to believe something like election fraud can possibly happen in America. So they won't believe it's true. I'm starting to believe we are a nation of brain dead or brainwashed people who have watched too much television. We are immuned to reality.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. "MSM endorsed Kerry..."

While I agree that "Both are capable of bestowing favors..." and that Kerry was not compelling, the media was quite unfavorable to Kerry.


Side note:

..."it is handy not to think of things in terms of "Democrat versus Republican."

Think of it as Corporate-medium and Corporate-Big Gulptm.

[Clark2008]

11. It also has a lot to do with local editorial boards.

Corporations may own these papers, but these editors and staff answer to the people of the area. They live and work there and if they had endorsed Shrub while, say, for example, half the town was unemployed, four soldiers had died in this illegal war and the town generally votes Democratic, then it would STUPID to cut their nose off to spite their face to endorse Bush.
It happens, though. The Commercial Appeal in Memphis (a Dem area) gets numerous cancellations every time they endorse a Republican, but they still do from time to time.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. "...these editors and staff answer to the people of the area."

I'll agree to disagree.

[kittenpants]

2. I think a lot of it has to do with Kerry's concession on Ohio.

Most people (especially media) assumed it was over then.

[JaneDoughnut]

3. Additionally

I think (and I may be alone here) that television news media in particular is the most blatantly partisan and uninformative. Newspapers tend to be slightly more responsible.

[rumpel]

5. You are not alone. I also feel that print papers still bring all kinds of

views and the reporters do spend time to research, albeit cautiously presented.
It appears, TV in their race to bring the "Breaking News" 24 hours a day, are currently answering only to viewership which equals, advertising dollars. Which is answering to investors. There is barely time to investigate or research, and when they do, they are afraid of being sent to the last row in the WH press room, like Helen. In addition, you have those managers in the news rooms who see the extraordinary powers excercized by the administration over journalists and media via the FCC and Justice department, they wouldn't dare. The success of Fox is bringing in more "likeminded" into the newsroom everywhere, which in itself would be fine as "fair and balanced", if it was not in fact supressing the facts, as it is now being presented.

[Sal Minella]

4. The big-money boys already knew how the "election" was

going to go, and they could let the little editorial-writers endorse Jim Carey or Terry Schaivo or whomever for president, imho -- the endorsements weren't going to make any difference.

[Dr.Phool]

6. I know it was stolen

I spent over a year on a voting machine task force in Florida, and briefed Bob Grahams staff on the problem. He introduced legislation to require a paper trail, but it never got out of committee.

On election day, I worked the polling places, and logged a ton of irregularities, but Kerry's "legal team" was told to stand down. Why? I have no idea.

The only mention of any irregularities in our newspaper (ST. Pete Times)
was a small article pooh-poohing the entire idea.

I think it's already too late. We're way down the road to creeping fascism, and I don't know if we can turn it around.

[MellowOne]

8. That's unreal!

I've read all the stuff about secret societies having so much control that's there's really nothing we can do. Unfortunately, that really may be the case.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Creeping and even outright fascism can be turned around...

Look at Germany. Of course, I hope we don't have to fight World War III to accomplish it.