Corporate Media Whores and the Democrats’ Dilemma

[Time for change]

Very few people get it. Even John Dean, who exposed the corruption in the Nixon administration in 1973 with his Watergate testimony and who now is exposing the moral bankruptcy of today’s Republican Party with his new book, “Conservatives Without Conscience”, appears not to understand the corruption of today’s corporate news media.

In a chapter entitled “Troubling Politics and Policies of Our Authoritarian Government”, following 15 pages that describe how Congressional Republicans have subverted our legislative process, Dean turns to the question of why Democrats haven’t complained about this. The answer he is given by Democrats is that they are concerned that the American public won’t care about this issue and that they (the Democrats) will sound like whining losers if they complain. Dean challenges this assessment by Democrats, quoting Robert Kuttner as follows:

Yet in 1910, when Speaker Joe Cannon played similar games, it was a very big deal indeed, and when the press investigated, public outrage toppled him.

Well, that was nearly a century ago, and perhaps in those days we had a national news media who felt that it was their job to investigate national scandals that involve the way our government operates (in contrast to national scandals that involve a politician’s private sex life.) That reference to 1910 makes it appear that Dean is oblivious to the state of today’s corporate news media.

The plain truth of the matter is that Democrats are probably correct that the American public doesn’t care much about this issue, and they will be made to sound like whining losers if they complain about it. But that isn’t because Americans don’t care about how their government is run. Rather, it’s a reflection on the way that today’s corporate news media likes to portray Democrats whenever they ‘get out of line’ by challenging the current status quo.

Few people take me seriously when I say this, but I maintain that with adequate and neutral press coverage during the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, both Al Gore and John Kerry would have won with record landslides – despite the election fraud that occurred in those years. And I believe that’s an understatement.

In 2000, Bush would have been asked to explain how his tax cut proposals could benefit anyone other than the top one or two percent of wage earners in the United States. Attempts by Bush to parrot the talking points he was given by his handlers would have been met by tough questions, which would have made him look like the blabbering idiot that he is. Then, if the press had treated his utter failure to offer a comprehensive explanation for the economic plan at the center of his candidacy with half the seriousness with which they had treated Bill Clinton’s sex scandal, Bush’s candidacy would have sunk like a lead balloon.

In 2004, Bush would have been asked to explain why his administration manipulated intelligence to provide an excuse for war in Iraq, why he lied to the American people about the reasons for that war, and about the hundreds of unanswered questions regarding his lack of preparation for the attacks of 9-11, as well as the failure of his administration to respond to those attacks on the day that they occurred. No amount of preparation could have prepared him to provide intelligible and satisfying answers to those questions. And again, if the national news media had treated these issues as they deserved to be treated, rather than repeated over and over again how “Churchillian” or “Lincolnesque” Bush sounds whenever he opens his mouth on these subjects, it’s difficult for me to see how he could have obtained double digit numbers on Election Day.

And these examples are just for starters. With a competent and neutral press there would have been many other revelations about George W. Bush that would have made it very difficult for him to achieve double digit numbers on Election Day, let alone win an election.

There are several excellent books available now on how today’s national news media has failed to do its job, tilted way right, and become a defender of the status quo, rather than a watch dog of government excesses. I have read several of these books because I believe that this is perhaps the biggest problem that threatens our democracy today (along with election fraud and money in politics, all which are closely related). Three of the best of these books that I have ever read – on any subject – are “Into the Buzzsaw – Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press” edited by Kristina Borjesson, “What Liberal Media? – The Truth About Bias and the News” by Eric Alterman, and “Lapdogs – How the Press Rolled Over for Bush” by Eric Boehlert.

Between them, those three books provide about a hundred detailed examples to make their points. In this post I will summarize just two of them, parallel and contrasting examples that make it crystal clear how the national news media loaded the dice to facilitate Bush’s “victory” in 2004: How it treated the issue of George Bush’s National Guard duty and the parallel issue of how it treated challenges to John Kerry’s war record.


National news media treatment of George Bush’s National Guard Duty

A brief time line of relevant events concerning Bush’s Air National Guard duty
The two most important controversies surrounding Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG) concern how he got admitted to the ANG and whether or not he fulfilled his commitment. I will deal primarily with the latter. Here is a brief timeline of the relevant events, none of which is disputed, which I put together mostly from the events documented in Eric Boehlert’s “Lapdogs” and a Wikipedia article:

1968: Bush was awarded a slot in the Texas ANG, thus relieving him of the likelihood of being sent to fight in Viet Nam. Despite the fact that these slots were highly competitive and Bush had no “background qualifications” (he wrote “none” on his application form) and even had a police record, Bush was commissioned as a second lieutenant.

May 24, 1972: Bush requests transfer to 9921 Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, AL, under command of Lt. Col. Reese Bricken. Bricken accepted the transfer, but with reservations, noting that Bush would not be able to fulfill his flying requirements because “We were only a postal unit. We had no airplanes. We had no pilots.”

July 21, 1972: Air Reserve Personnel Center In Denver rejected Bush’s request for transfer to Bricken’s command on the grounds that he would not be able to perform his flying requirements there.

July, 1972: Bush fails to take his annual physical exam, which is required of pilots.

September 5, 1972: Bush requests transfer to 187th Tactical Recon Group at Dannelly AFB, to perform “equivalent duties”, under command of Lt. Col. William Turnipseed. Request is approved on September 15th, and Bush is ordered to report for duty in October 1972.

September 29, 1972: Bush is formally grounded for failing to take his physical exam. He was ordered to acknowledge that in writing, which he never did.

May 2, 1973: Bush receives annual performance review (covering May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973) from his superiors at the Texas ANG at Ellis AFB, Houston, stating simply that Bush had not been observed at his assigned base in Texas.

June 29, 1973: Air Reserve Personnel Center (Denver) instructed (See 3rd to last bullet point) Bush’s commanders to get additional information from Alabama, where he had supposedly trained, in order to better evaluate Bush’s duty.

Did Bush show up at Dannelly AFB to fulfill his commitment, or was he AWOL?
The main controversy concerns whether or not Bush fulfilled his commitment to the ANG at Dannelly AFB in Alabama, where he was eventually assigned.

Evidence against his having done that is that there are no records recording such service, none of the 600 guardsmen who served at Dannelly during the time period in question ever came forward to corroborate his story, and his commander there, Lt. Col. Turnipseed, as well as the personnel officer there, told the Boston Globe that Bush never showed up (though Turnipseed retracted that statement years later). Also, how could Bush perform “equivalent duties” if he was grounded from flying status?

Evidence provided by the Bush camp to confirm that he did indeed fulfill his commitment at Dannelly included the fact that decades later his ex-girl friend confirmed that he talked about his activities at Dannelly, and the fact that Bush was honorably discharged from the ANG.

The controversy over Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes segment involving the Killian memos
The Killian memos controversy that brought down Dan Rather involved documents that Rather used in his 60 Minutes segment in September 2004, purported to have been signed by Bush’s (by then deceased) commanding officer at Ellis AFB in Houston, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Killian allegedly wrote in these memos that he had ordered Bush to take his physical exam, that he had grounded Bush for failure to perform adequately and for failure to take his physical exam, that Bush had requested to be excused from further ANG duties while in Alabama, and that Killian had been pressured to go easy on Bush.

Rather and 60 Minutes were discredited when it was shown that the Killian memos were not proven to be authentic. Whether or not they actually were authentic was never resolved. Killian’s secretary claimed that the content of the memos was correct.

What is essential to understand about this is that, potentially damning as those memos were, they were not in any way needed to answer the central question of whether or not Bush had fulfilled his ANG commitment in Alabama. That Bush was grounded for failure to take his physical exam is a documented fact. And whether or not Bush requested Killian that he be excused from further duties, and whether or not Killian was pressured to go easy on Bush are not directly pertinent to the central question of whether or not Bush showed up at Dannelly AFB to fulfill his ANG commitment.

Press coverage
Following the initial report in the Boston Globe of Bush’s apparent failure to fulfill his ANG duties, the national news media showed very little interest in the subject. The was a total of only two articles in U.S. newspapers, magazines or television in 2000 that dealt with both Bush’s absenteeism and the allegations by Ben Barnes that strings had been pulled to get Bush into the ANG. In contrast, during the same time period, there were 4,800 references to the phony story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet.

In 2004, when the story was even more relevant, due to Bush’s commitment to a war in Iraq based on the twisting of intelligence data, there was still very little interest in getting to the bottom of Bush’s ANG absenteeism. Yet when it was shown that the Killian memos could not be proven to be authentic, the national news media treated that like it was a national scandal and pretended as if that failure to prove the authenticity of the Killian memos exonerated Bush’s ANG service record. For example, in 2000 the New York Times published only two references to the Globe investigation into Bush’s absenteeism. But in 2004, following the Killian memos “scandal”, the Times published more than 40 articles on that subject.


The swift boating of John Kerry

The vigorous national news media coverage of the phony challenges to John Kerry’s service record in Vietnam, right before the 2004 election, provides a striking contrast to the virtual absence of any interest in the legitimate story of Bush’s ANG service.

Whereas the main doubts raised about Bush’s ANG service came from official ANG records, and whereas John Kerry’s heroic Vietnam war record, including three Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, were all part of his official record AND were corroborated by ALL of the crewmates who were witnesses to the actions that earned Kerry his medals, the challenges to Kerry’s war record were all based on the accusations of men who refused to sign affidavits testifying to their accusations and whose accusations were internally inconsistent and contradicted all available evidence.

Let’s consider the legitimacy of the challenges to Kerry’s Vietnam War record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SWVT) by looking at some examples:

On the credibility of the accusations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Alfred French accused Kerry of receiving his Purple Heart for “self-inflicted wounds in the absence of hostile fire”, but later had to admit that he had no first hand knowledge of that, as his accusations were based on what he had heard from “friends”.

George Elliott, Kerry’s commanding officer, had given Kerry nothing but glowing performance reports, but after hooking up with SBVT in 2004, he offered scathing criticisms of Kerry’s performance, then changed his mind, saying that he had made a “terrible mistake”, and then changed his story again.

Regarding the Purple Heart that Kerry received for his December 2, 1968 actions, Dr. Louis Letson claimed that he had treated Kerry’s wounds the next day, and that they were “insignificant”. But Letson’s name was not listed in the records as the “person administering treatment”.

William Schachte claims that he was with Kerry on December 2, 1968, and that there was no enemy fire that night. But two crew members who were with Kerry that night say that they were under enemy fire and that Schachte was not there.

Larry Thurlowe, who commanded the swift boat alongside Kerry’s boat on March 13, 1969, the day that Kerry won his third Purple Heart and his Bronze Star for rescuing James Rassmann at grave risk to his own life, claims that there was no enemy fire that day. But Thurlow himself won a Bronze Star on that day, based on the fact that there was enemy fire.

John O’Neill, the leader of SBVT, says that there were no bullet holes in any of the boats involved in the fighting of March 13, despite an official report that notes three bullet holes in one of the boats. And in response the question of how he knew that Kerry wrote the allegedly false after-action report that won him the Bronze Star, O’Neill said that Kerry’s initials were on the report. Then, when it was pointed out that the initials on the report were KJW, O’Neill claimed that Kerry went by those initials.

Press coverage
Despite the fact that all official documents substantiated Kerry’s heroism, the fact that all of the crew members who served with Kerry and the man whose life he saved corroborated those official accounts, and despite all of the inconsistencies in the undocumented stories of the SBVT, the national news media treated the accusations of the “Swifties” very seriously in the months before the 2004 election.

CNN mentioned the stories in almost 300 news segments. The New York Times printed more than 100 articles on the subject. And the Washington Post ran 12 front page stories on the accusations of the Swifties during a 12 day period in August 2004.

An example of the hypocrisy with which the national news media lent legitimacy to the story is provided by an episode of Meet the Press, where Tim Russert innocently asked a guest, “If the substance of many of the charges from “Unfit for Command” (the book that O’Neill used to assassinate Kerry’s war record) aren’t holding up… why is it resonating so much?” Duh, Tim. It’s resonating because media whores like you keep talking about it as if it was a legitimate story, without discussing the numerous holes in it.


Motivations

Thus, in 2004 the national news media treated obviously phony stories that trashed the war record of a legitimate war hero as if they were legitimate news stories, while at the same time virtually ignoring legitimate accounts of George Bush’s failure to fulfill his Air National Guard requirements. The result was to make the non-war record of the shirker appear to be equal to or even better than the war record of the war hero.

Eric Boehlert does a great job of exposing this and numerous other outrages perpetrated by our national news media in recent years in “Lapdogs”. Yet, I found his diagnosis of the motivations for this abject failure by our national corporate news media to be very perplexing. Throughout his book Boehlert attributes this failure to timidity, continuously repeating his opinion that the corporate media is constantly bullied by Republican operatives and their fans, and that that explains why they do everything in their power to protect George Bush and to skewer Democrats. The last sentence of his book sums up this viewpoint: “Afraid of the facts and the consequences of reporting them, the MSM still had not found their bearings during the Bush years.”

But the MSM is owned by a small number of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world. Why should anyone think that they’re “timid”? Isn’t it more logical to postulate that their so-called “failures” in reporting the news are not a failures at all, but rather represents a concentrated and consistent purposeful attempt to slant the news in a way that will maintain the status quo and facilitate their interests?

The individual reporters who work for these giant news conglomerates know where their bread is buttered. They know what’s going on when Phil Donohue is fired for talking against the Iraq War. Or when Bill Moyers is repeatedly attacked for his “liberal bias?? because he tells the truth about the Bush administration. Or when Dan Rather, along with those involved in the Killian memo “scandal” at CBS are fired for daring to make a mistake while criticizing George Bush – a mistake that pales in comparison with the mistakes that our national news media repeatedly makes on behalf of George Bush.


Solutions

If and when the Democrats take control of Congress and/or the Presidency, they need to make a major priority out of re-establishing laws and policies that will reverse the control of our national news media by a small number of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world. The measures to enforce the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan vetoed in 1987 need to be enacted into law, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs to be repealed.

But what can they do prior to that? I’m certainly not politically savvy enough to answer that question, but it seems to me that Democrats for a long time have been very reluctant to rock the boat too much, for fear that the corporate media will turn against them – as noted in the first four paragraphs of this post. They are right to fear this. It is not only a possibility that the corporate media will turn against them if they complain about the status quo, rather it is a near certainty. Look what happened to Cynthia McKinney for daring to question too aggressively Bush’s handling of the 9-11 attacks.

But Democrats should recognize that the corporate news media is already against them. And perhaps, rather than sitting back and taking it, they should attack the corporate media itself. I don’t mean that they should go around spouting rhetoric against the corporate media in their campaign speeches. But whenever media whores like Chris Matthews or Nora O’Donnell or Tim Russert spout off their lies and distortions under the guise of objective journalism, the Democrats ought to be well prepared and waiting for them, with a cache of arguments that will show up those whores for who they are.

Faced with a national news media like the one we have now, which is determined to either move Democrats to the right or to bury them, Democrats have basically two choices. They can either obey the wishes of the corporate media, or that can fight back. I believe that Americans are more than fed up with what has been going on in our country, and most of them will respond positively to a Democratic Party that fights back against corporate news media whores whenever it is appropriate to do so. If that happens we just may see a real landslide this November.

[senseandsensibility]

1. Whew.

This is some post. I would like to agree with you that with adequate and neutral press coverage, both Kerry and Gore would have won. The biased coverage was incredible and intense, and until the Dems start calling them on it, it will continue. They would be smeared endlessly for doing so, but if they did it en masse, I think it would work. But that would take unification, and courage.

[Time for change]

17. Yes, I hadn't thought of that -- doing it as a united effort

It would be difficult to arrange, but it may be well worth the effort.

But if they can't do that, I think that individual efforts are still warranted. Look at John Murtha. Of course, that wasn't a direct attack on the press, but I'm pretty sure they felt it anyhow.

[zonkra]

84. I've got the ask the inconvenient question:

Did the rabid right-wing wackjobs ever worry that they'd look like whiners if they complained about media bias, even when it wasn't widespread and blatant like it is now? I don't think they ever cared about anything except making sure their intentionally stupid point of view got conveyed to the public. Democrats should take a hint from that and start screaming bloody murder. No democrat should go on camera without first premising any comment with a complaint about the right-wing lapdog media and the White House steno pool.

[Time for change]

85. I think that's a very good point

No, the right wing whack jobs don't seem to worry about looking like whiners. I can think of at least two reasons for that. First, they're so mean and aggressive when they do these things that whiner may not seem like the best choice of word -- right wing whack job or asshole may be more appropriate. Secondly, they can count on the media whores to provide cover so that they aren't made out to look like that.

I agree with you that Dems should take the hint and be very firm in their complaints about this. But I don't think that they should take it to the extreme of complaining about it all the time -- only when appropriate, which is most of the time, but not all the time.

[GAPeace]

2. The worst part of it all is that the things you mentioned do not matter:

Both the Swift Boat attacks and the National Guard stuff on Bush don't make much difference in the realities of things. Why doesn't the media focus on things that matter -- not whether Clinton got a blowjob or if Cheney shot someone on a hunting trip -- but actual realities of how our nation and the world is impacted by what these people do?


This is a much larger crisis than you have outlined, but your work was very good nonetheless.

[senseandsensibility]

3. because the "press" doesn't care which issues are

important. They are bought and sold subsidiaries of the right wing.

[GAPeace]

4. Senseless sensationalists

Whatever's good for profit.

[senseandsensibility]

5. I disagree.

There have been plenty of republican scandals, even very salacious ones, that would have been good for increasing ratings. Remember Gannon? Maybe not, if you weren't reading DU at the time. That would have drawn viewers. Republican scandals abound, and are routinely ignored. No, it's blatant pro- conservative coverage. The owners of the corporate "news" companies want Republicans in power because the republican agenda benefits them.

[glitch]

6. Completely agree. The corporate media is just a propaganda arm - they

don't have to make a profit themselves, they just have to game the system so their corporate owners do.

[Vinnie From Indy]

65. Once again Sense, you are dead on right!

It seems that there are even Democrats that buy into the fallacy of media companies being solely operated by the whims of ratings. They are most definitely NOT operating on that principle. Your example of Jeff Gannon is a perfect example of how the mainstream media owners DO NOT run EVERY story through an "mass appeal" matrix. That story had EVERYTHING that the modern media loves in a story. Sex and power sells except when it is BushCo that is involved.

I hope all DU'ers and Dem party lurkers understand that until a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the corrupt media in America is implemented, it will not change. For example, why state Dem chairmen are not focusing on pressurng LOCAL advertisers of the Rush Limbaugh Show to stop advertising is beyond me. These merchants would fold like a cheap suit if they were forced to justify supporting a show that DAILY insults a large fraction of their customer base. The only thing that keeps Rush on the air is the fact that LOCAL Democrats do not organize a coordinated boycott of all LOCAL advertisers of his show.

[Time for change]

33. Think of it like this

The Downing Street memo - which strongly suggested that Bush planned to go to war in Iraq for reasons entirely different than what he proclaimed to the American people - should have been a sensational story.

Bush's use of electronic wiring to get him through the debates against John Kerry should have been a sensational story.

All the many many findings of election fraud and suspicion of election fraud, including the fact that the 2004 exit polls clearly showed John Kerry to have won the 2004 election, should have been a sensational story.

The finding of a dead young women in Joe Scarborough's office should have been a sensational story.

The twisting of intelligence data and lying to the American people to get us into war against Iraq should have been a sensational story.

Bush's 750 signing statement should have been a sensational story.

The frequent use of torture of our prisoners of war should be a sensational story.

And many many more.

And yet, our corporate media plays down or ignores all those things.

[Time for change]

18. I agree - This is a MUCH larger crisis than is indicated by the two

examples that I gave. As I said, just the books that I referenced in the OP contain over a hundred other examples.

It does indeed represent a grave threat to our democracy.

[itzamirakul]

28. Is the media part of the "Shadow Government?"

Could it be because they are enablers of that Shadow Government? The msm shapes public opinion and they shape it to give events a pro-israel bias.

www.londonreviewofbooks.com/v28/n06/mear01_.html

<snip>

The Lobby’s perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is ‘dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising Israel’. He lists 61 ‘columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and without qualification’. Conversely, he found just five pundits who consistently criticise Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.

‘Shamir, Sharon, Bibi – whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me,’ Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers like the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs editorials that strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.

<snip>

News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel’s actions on the ground. To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets 6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May 2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic to Israel. Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1 million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on NPR has come from Israel’s friends in Congress, who have asked for an internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.

<snip>

The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.

The Lobby’s influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.

[Time for change]

55. I hadn't thought of that

I don't know about the pro-Israeli tilt of the corporate media suggests a shadow government.

But I do think that the pro-Bush tilt is so ridiculously absurd - it's almost like Alice in Wonderland - that it just might be. I'm not sure what else can explain the extent to which they've gone to protect his ass at every turn.

[bleever]

7. A brilliant overview of national media and its impact these last years.

And I agree that it isn't so much that the reporters are scared, just as it wasn't the CIA analysts who were influenced by Cheney's visits.

It's about the controllers making sure that the people who have platforms are the people who agree with them.

Dissent is "pre-handled" by making sure that it isn't heard. Not by violent suppresion, but by controlling the process and the microphone.


Thank you for the thought and effort that went into this post.

[Time for change]

34. Thank you bleever

I should have added though, that although the corporate owners of our national news media are not timid, probably a lot of the individual reporters that work for them are afraid of the consequences to their jobs if they don't exhibit the kind of right wing bias that their corporate masters ... I mean employers... expect of them.

Luckily though, there are some individual reporters, such as Keith Oberman and Hellen Thomas, who have so far been able to exert independence.

[senseandsensibility]

8. Yes, I would like to add my thanks

for the effort it took to compile this post. Nominated.

[BelgianMadCow]

15. Me too. No wonder there are more rec's than posts

OP is worthy of being on A1 in every newspaper.

And it is the media who are keeping the public uninformed and feeling helpless.
It is also them who convey the Terra intended to make people cower & maintain the post 911 hypnosis.

[Time for change]

38. Thank you MadCow -- Yes, the whole terror thing is a big part of it

They have faithfully played along with Bush's spin on terrorism every step of the way.

I don't understand the exact reason why, but they certainly do support his agenda.

[snot]

9. Thank you -- I'm amazed

that more people don't seem to understand this problem.

Even before encountering Chomsky's ideas on the subject, I began to wonder about the so-called liberal media when they attacked Jimmy Carter for everything from failing to resolve the Iran hostage crisis -- a crisis he had little or no control over -- to being a prude after he admitted to lusting after women other than Rosalyn. In my view, both Carter did a lot of good, but in the media he could do no right.

It's been consistent since then -- Dem pols are criticized and belittled; Repubs are lionized; history is revised as necessary. The exceptional journalists covering Dems more sympathetically have become more and more rare, even while the Dems themselves have become more and more Repub-like.

[Time for change]

57. Yes, I agree that Carter was treated very unfairly

He had his faults as President - he had room for improvement with regard to developing a better working relationship with Congress. But he also took the blame for a lot of things that weren't his fault.

He was especially villified for his insistence that our country should be more concerned about human rights with respect to our foreign policy. A lot of people didn't want to hear that, but I very much admire him for that stand, and it's really a shame that subsequent Republican Presidents didn't take any of that too heart.

[snot]

10. PS --

Have you written your reps & media in support of HR 550?

HR 550 would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and rollback the loosening of restrictions on ownership consolidation.

Pls push this topic with everyone you can.

[Time for change]

29. Thank you for the reminder

I've searched on the DU for information on this, and I can't find it.

Do you have a link that you can share with us? Thanks.

[Codeblue]

45. Yes

but wouldn't Bush just pass it with a signing statement anyway, thus making totally useless and ineffective?

[NewJeffCT]

11. Thanks

Great post, well done.

[The Wizard]

12. The Press

that was the Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column working to undermine democracy. Sixty years ago they would have been labeled nazi collaborators. Today, more so than when it was released, the movie "Network" captures the essence of corporate media. And if it comes down to we the people yelling out our windows in sheer frustration it wouldn't be surprising.
What the right wing has successfully done is organize its minions to send letters to corporate media headquarters and complain until the media gave them what they wanted to hear and see. Boycotting the media and their corporate sponsors along with letters to both explaining our dissatisfaction with how they've enabled a corrupt and immoral cartel to turn the United States of America into a fascist dictatorship might be a good start. It will take years to turn things around. The Repubes have been doing this for a while and it works. We have some catching up, but there are more of us than there are of them.
Maybe instead of sending money to candidates we should use those resources for postage. Maybe we should contact the media giants and demand they show "Network" in prime time. Waiting for political leaders to do anything is like pissing into the wind.

[Time for change]

35. Yes, there are more of us than there are them

Much more.

I have to say that I don't believe that the problem stems mostly from the Repukes organizing their minions and sending letters. The problem as I see it is that the corporate media ARE the Repukes.

Adding on to their wealth and power (though I can't see why they feel the need to do that - I mean, how much wealth and power does one need) depends upon keeping the masses uninformed. They would be doing this regardless of letters that they received from other Repukes.

I wish I had seen Network.

[B Calm]

13. Great post!

[MetaTrope]

14. Even when the REPUBLICANS are outraged at Bush, silence rules the media

Was there any reporting at all when Judicial Watch and Novak both pointed out that Bush's choice for Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao, was not only associated with the same John Huang whose campaign contributions got Al Gore raked over the coals...but she also OWNED a Lippo Group subsidiary in partnership with an intelligence-gathering unit of China's People's Liberation Army? How obvious do these people need to be?

[PurpleChez]

16. Excellent post! But while I don't question that the MSM has had corp/thug

sympathies for some time, I do feel that their treatment of the chimp has been exceptional. Their idolization of * in 2000 was worlds away from 1992, when they did very little to stop Poppy's slide from Gulf War Caesar into irrelevancy. Perhaps more dramatic (IMO) -- born in 1966, the first presidency that I remember well from candidacy onward is that of Ronnie Reagan. I remember back then, even as a kid, wondering how someone who misspoke so often and so dramatically could earn the nickname "the great communicator," and that did a lit to convince me, at that tender age, that the notion of the liberal media was a myth. BUT...even though people absolutely adored Reagan they still seemed capable of acknowledging that the man could make mistakes. His stance on apartheid was openly vilifies, and repudiated by Congress; SDI was widely ridiculed, etc. Be ye congressman or citizen, you could openly disagree with the man and not necessarily risk being labeled a traitor. I'm no scholar, but it seems to me that there is little precedent to the present day alliance of politicians, reporters, media figures, infotainment personalities, and every-day men and women whose purpose in life seems to be to promote the idea that 1) the chimp has never, EVER made a mistake, 2) disagreement with said chimp must be crushed and criminalized, 3) said chimp must be shielded from all dissent, etc., etc. No matter how much folks loved Reagan, they seemed to understand the reality that others would disagree with him. The idea that * is to be credited with papal infallibility goes beyond that, in my opinion. But I just don't know...I look forward to reading what anybody else thinks.

[Time for change]

42. I think you're right

The only basis for calling Reagan "The great communicator" that makes any sense is that people liked his smile (not me, but a lot of people apparently did). They called it the "teflon presidency" because scandal didn't seem to stick to him, without noting that the reason it didn't stick is because the media didn't pursue it all that much.

But you're right, I think, that this has been taken to a new, and ridiculous level with Bush. On the one hand it sometimes seems to me like a miracle that more than 30% of the American population approves of the job he's doing. But then when I think of how the corporate media has done everything they can to prop him up, I look at the bright side, more than half of Americans are able to see through all this bullshit, no matter how bad it gets.

[PurpleChez]

59. Yeah. O' course, in Reagan's day, there were no internets,

there WAS right wing talk radio, but I don't remember it being the national phenomenon that it is now, and there wasn't nearly the degree of 24-hour news we have today, so maybe it's not valid to compare, but even after 5-1/2 years I am amazed: newspapers, TV news, and individual journalists may have always leaned one way or the other; some may have supported Reagan while others didn't; still, I don't think there is a precedent for what we have today, where there is a large chunk of the "media" (Fox news, talk radio, many others) that doesn't just look at stories with a particular slant but rather seems dedicated to promoting and propagandizing for the president.

[Time for change]

64. Yes, and I'm afraid that even a lot or most of the supposedly neutral news

sources are also dedicated to propping Bush up.

The NYT knew about the fact that Bush was wired for the debates, but they said nothing.

all the major news sources knew that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were a sham, but they said little or nothing about that.

Look at the swift boating of John Kerry, which they abetted.

It's a lot worse than meets the eye, I'm afraid.

[PurpleChez]

86. Yes. And since the acquiescence/support seems so unprecedented, I wonder

were they paid off, threatened, or -- like still-substantial portion of the population -- do they all somehow see something in * that us DU types have totally missed?

[Time for change]

87. I think that they simply are ultra-conservative big business

They know that Bush will do whatever he can to maintain their tax breaks and all their advantages. If someone like Kerry became President, on the other hand, he would be likely to start acting like Teddy Roosevelt and start busting up their monopolies, raising their taxes, etc.

So, I don't think that they need to be paid off any more than that. What they see in Bush is a compliant stooge who will do their bidding, and that's good enough for them.

[oc2002]

19. Thats a fine analysis. Job well done. Message to Democrats

The Corporate media is the enemy.

Any democrat that runs for office should be aware of this, or they are going to fail if they think that they are going to get fair coverage. Especialy if they as you noted want to repeal the 96 Telecom act and install the Fairness doctrine.

The DNC and our democrat politicians need to attack the media, again and again, they are the enemy. As you said in the topic, they are corporate whores who only care about profit margins. They are no longer the fourth estate, they are the more like the 'cat house'.

If Kerry had not been such a wimp, he should of come out attacking not just the swift boat as 'liars' but the media support they recieved as 'unconscionable allies' and pasted the two together to support assertion that the media stands against his run for office.

Kerry should of painted a picture for the public of 'the press' and 'swiftboaters' together as one beast feeding the other. Instead, he was indecisive, and falsely believed the press is a unbiased medium would do its job ... how inocent, gullible ... how tragic.

[Time for change]

46. I agree with your message to Democrats - I would love to see that

But I think you're being too hard on John Kerry. Sometimes the Dems try hard to fight back, but they just can't get enough microphones to be heard. I don't know exactly what Kerry would have had to have done to counteract the swifties attack. But here is something from the Research Forum on his many attempts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[Dems Will Win]

20. The End of The Free Press Came in 1987

To help in his quest to move America and the world backwards, in 1987 Reagan finally pushed through the end of the Fairness Doctrine in media publishing and broadcasting, doing so by Executive Order! It was the repeal of this policy that removed any sort of balance to the way news—and especially opinion—were offered to the public by the corporate owners of the mass media.

One Congressman warned that with the end of the Fairness Doctrine:

“Candidates would lose the right to reply, parties out of power would not be able to respond, radio stations could allow supporters of one candidate to dominate the news, and local and state ballot issues could no longer be covered.”

Another Congressman said:

“I am concerned that . . . broadcasters could use the public airwaves as their bully pulpit. They could every day pound away at their point of view, with absolute, total disregard to the other point of view.”

Twice the Congress passed the Fairness Doctrine into law and twice Reagan vetoed it.

The predictions about the demise of the Fairness Doctrine have unfortunately come to pass. Abandoning its responsibility to investigate stories that might harm the regressive Republican/Corporatist cause, the country has never been the same as the mass media, now regularly holds back newsworthy items and has been taken over by the conservatives. Even the New York Times and the Washington Post have succumbed, while Fox News and the Washington Times regularly omit key news and put outrageous slants on nearly all stories with gross impunity. It can all be traced back to the Reagan era.

[redqueen]

21. Failure to CORRECT that crime can be traced back to the Clinton era.

We cannot afford to allow ourselves to forget that corporatist Democrats are nearly as bad as republicans. When they regain power, we the electorate must pressure our Democratic leaders non stop until they finally make good on Clinton's campaign promise.

[jaysunb]

37. Posts 20 & 21

really put into perspective where we are and how we got here.
The information offered in post 20 alone would not have been as widely disseminated were it not for the internet, which hopefully will go a long way toward replacing the way people get their information.
Although I think the current MSM will always be around in one form or other, cyberspace has shrunk the world considerably and the corporate media owners know it. They will inflict as much damage as possible on their way out.

[Time for change]

47. I don't understand what you mean - Republicans have had control of the

House since 94. How could the Democrats be blamed for failure to pass a law that would enforce the Fairness Doctrine when they didn't have the votes even if they all voted for it?

[redqueen]

83. No, the Democrats had control of congress for 2 years

while Clinton was president, after he was first elected.

[Tekla West]

22. TOP DRAWER

very good job, thank you, should be required reading

[Time for change]

50. Thank you Tekla West - Welcome to DU

:toast:

[LibDemAlways]

23. I read your thoughtful post just after

turning off c-span in disgust as the Wash. Journal provided yet more airtime for a neocon from the American Enterprise Institute to spew lies and propganda. Flipped over to c-span 2 and was treated to the unholy sight of Karl Rove. Whenever I hear a c-span caller say "Thank God for c-span" it's a good thing I don't have a big rock in my hand. And they masquerade as an impartial entity.

A huge part of the media problem is that Dems don't publically acknowledge the obvious rw bias. Instead of calling the likes of Tweety or Russert on their bullshit, they sit there doing their best to fend off a constant barrage of rw attacks. The first Dem to cut off one of those bastards with "Fess up. It's pretty obvious you're on the Bush Crime Family payroll," would have the immediate gratitude of millions. However, the anthrax attacks aimed at Dems and the corporate media after 9/11 were very effective in stiffling potential criticism - as potent a warning as could possibly have been delivered and one that was taken seriously.

We have a corporate media that have successfully propped up a guy who couldn't cut it as a catcher for Benny Hinn in the real world. They convinced millions of Americans that a doofus who can't complete a coherent sentence deserved their vote as POTUS. And despite lies, massive screw ups, and low approval ratings, he continues to be treated with kid gloves. It's a DU cliche that the chimp could have his way with a 10-year-old boy at midfield during halftime at the Superbowl - and the whores would reflexively cheer him on.

Given what we're up against, I have less faith than you that things will change anytime soon.

Over the weekend I was in Monterey, CA. The local papers were all abuzz about a conference this week given by Rupert Murdoch at Pebble Beach for 250 FOX execs - all very hush hush. Guess who are among the featured speakers? None other than Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. How's that for cozying up to the enemy?

[Time for change]

48. It's pretty scary to think that the Anthrax attacks were meant to silence

opposition.

We are up against one hell of a ruthless adversary. But I'm trying to look at this positively. Our country has come through some very bad times before, to make things a lot better, like the reforms that took us out of the Guilded Age and FDR's New Deal, the abolishment of slavery, and the Civil Rights laws of Johnson's Presidency.

I'd like to know more about that conference with the Clinton's and Gore. Gore in particular doesn't seem like he's about ready to cozy up to the Repukes. Just because they're at the same conference doesn't mean that they're cozying up to them, I don't think - but I've been wrong many times before.

[LibDemAlways]

62. Please see my responses below.

I accidentally responded to my post instead of yours!

[LibDemAlways]

60. Here's a link to an article in the Monterey paper.

The corporate whore national press isn't touching this one. Strange.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/15152205.htm

[LibDemAlways]

61. Just noticed something interesting in the article....

Bill Clinton waived his fee because of "personal ties" to NewsCorp. What the hell is that all about?

[Time for change]

74. Yeah, I wish I knew what this was all about

It doesn't sound good, but I don't like to jump to conclusions until I know more about things.

I don't know why Murdoch would sponsor an event for Hillary either, but I'll hold off judgment on it until I understand it better.

[The Deacon]

24. I Date This From 1994

Dan Glickman, Democrat from the 4th District in Kansas, sponsored a Bill to continue the expiring regulation of the Cable Industry in the same way as it had been regulated from its inception. Cablevision (the franchisee in Wichita & its suburbs, where 95% of the population of the 4th District lives) decided to fight Rep. Glickman in the most direct way possible, both running anti-Glickman ads of their own & by providing free ads to Todd Tiahart, an extreme right-wing anti-choice Republican. Cablevision was fined by the FCC, of course, but not until after Todd Tiahart had been elected. He then, of course, joined with the Gingrich Gang in de-regulating the Cable Industry.
I know only about the case of Dan Glickman, having experienced it first hand. I wonder how many other victims of Gringrich's "Contract On America" suffered similarly at the hands of the Cable Industry.
-side note: Russ Feingold turned my wife (a totally apolitical person before) into a confirmed Democrat with his fight with Clear Channel Communications & their plan to take over all radio in the United States when we lived in Wisconsin. So maybe an anti-corporate media campaign wouldn't be such a loser for the Democrats.

[Time for change]

49. Feingold is great

He had a lot more support among the public for his censure resolution of Bush than he had among his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

And I've seen him in interviews on TV respond to bullshit questions by speaking truth to power.

And when he originally ran for the Senate the first time he promised not to take any money from corporate interests, and he stuck to that, barely winning his seat, by less than 1% I believe.

I think he'd make a very good candidate in 2008.

[SutaUvaca]

25. Where do you get your news?

That's a question any friend visiting from overseas always asks. I agree that our MSM is perhaps the biggest threat to real freedom, and perhaps overwhelmingly powerful in controlling thought for most Americans. Repeal of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, along with other pointed legislation to overcome info control of the the "News" owners, is both going to be extremely difficult to accomplish (if we ever get a chance) and also supremely necessary if this country is ever going to move back toward real freedom ever again.

And then there remains the consistent problem that, no matter what party is elected, the media can wield it's power against them. Would it not take a aignificant percentage of elected representatives who are simply independent? Whose integrity is unreachabale by such entrenched power?

[Time for change]

54. "Extremely difficult" and "supremely necessary"

That's absolutely true.

But it's been done before, and when there was less precedent. Look at the measures taken in the late 19th century and early 20th century to put controls on the monopolistic powers of corporations, much of which was lead by Teddy Roosevelt. That was following the Gilded Age, the last time that wealth and power was in as few hands as it is today. But it was probably even worse then.

I may be in the minority of DUers on this issue, but I believe that I good majority of our elected Democratic representatives in Congress have basic integrity. I think that they're overly cautious right now, but I think that most of them will do the right thing if they have a good chance to reverse the terrible things that are going on now.

[tbyg52]

26. Wow.

K,R,& bookmarked.

[senseandsensibility]

27. morning kick

:kick:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Since the corporate media are hopeless, the Dems need to use

guerilla tactics.

For one thing, elected officials have almost automatic access to their local media. They can also holod town meetings across their districts. In addition, the local party chapters need to conduct grassroots PR and outreach work, not just GOTV efforts, but "missionary" efforts.

But before they can conduct effective missionary efforts, they need an appealing message. "We're not Bush" won't work in 2008, when the Republicanite candidate won't be GWB, either.

Instead, the Dems need to come up with a simple, easily understood set of three messages that will demonstrably improve ordinary people's lives and hammer at it in all appearances, public and private. Labor unions and others should hammer the same three points. The Dems should have an identifiable presence at all community events, again hammering their three points.

Whining about the big bad corporate media is a recipe for hopelessness. Creativity is what the times demand.

[tomreedtoon]

40. Not "guerilla" tactics. Psycho slasher tactics!

The fact is that, no matter what "three simple slogans" progressives come up with, the media will mock them, and the Republicans will find ways to turn them around.

The Democratic Party has nothing, not even those three slogans. But that's not bad. They just have to realize the other part of the equasion that Bob Dylan sang decades ago: "When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose."

There's no point in being polite to these bastards. When they refuse to take Democrats seriously, they need to be attacked, hard and fast and with no quarter given.

Every time the media pulls these tricks on a Democrat during an interview, the Democrat should immediately launch into a tirade against the journalist doing the interview. The Democrat should question the motivation, the "fairness" and the parentage of the interviewer. Then immediately afterwards, the Democrat should put out press releases and in all future speeches brand the interviewer and the network she works for (yes, "she") as a tool of the Republican rich.

(I say "she" because one of the disarming tactics used by the Whore Press is to get women to interview men. Gentlemen don't attack ladies, so the ladies can get anything they want. To hell with that! If we truly believe in equality, women reporters have to be just as responsible - and just as targeted - as the men.)

And no Democrat should stand for a "boxers or briefs" question that tries to trivialize the issues under discussion. If asked "boxers or briefs?" the Democrat should say, "What's your choice? Democracy or facism? Seriously, answer the question. We're all anxious to know."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Excellent points

I can't disagree with anything you say.

Candidates should not put up with dumb questions by biased or even clueless interviewers.

I'm not a fan of Gerald Ford, but when Betty Ford was asked, "What would you do if your daughter had an affair?" she should have said, "Well, I wouldn't talk to the press about it."

[Time for change]

44. That's great - I would love to see that

Every once in a while a Democrat gets tough with the press, but nowhere near often enough IMO.

Something like the way that Barney Franks responded in his recent House speech with his attack on the hypocritical plan of the Repukes to attach a minimum wage ammendment to their inheritance tax cuts.

[The Wizard]

51. Did you see

Howard Dean smack down Wolfie Blitzer and Kathy Couric?

[Time for change]

53. I think I saw the Wolf Blitzer thing on video

What happened with Katy?

[PinkyisBlue]

31. Wow! Great post!

From the book "Red, White & Liberal" by Alan Colmes (page 123):

"Paul Begala, who served as an adviser in the Clinton White House, offered up
some hard facts with regard to media coverage of Clinton and Bush 43's
respective military records....on February 6, 2001, Begala said, "I worked for
Bill Clinton in 1992 and...in anticipation of this very question, I looked this
up on Nexis. There were 13,641 stories about Bill Clinton 'dodging the draft'
...and there were 49 stories about Bush and the National Guard."

That's 278 stories about Clinton's draft dodging for every one story about Bush's National Guard service. Our politicians should spout hard facts like the above whenever they can.

And from page 106 of "Red, White & Liberal":

"Just before the 2000 election, the industry's trade Publication, 'Editor and
Publisher' magazine, found a strong pro-Bush bias in its survey of two hundred
editors and publishers. In its November 6, 2000, issue, E & P reported "the
survey revealed that the nation's newspapers have endorsed Bush over Gore by a
better than 2-1 margin.""

[Time for change]

56. Thank you - that 278 to 1 ratio is amazing

And what Clinton was suspected of doing wasn't even illegal. There's a big difference between dodging the draft and going AWOL, which apparently is what Bush did.

[blm]

32. GOP spent the 80s and 90s buying control of most broadcast media and

the voting machines - THAT was their great plan to gain and maintain power.

The Democrats, including the 'politically brilliant' Bill Clinton and his sidekicks Carville and Begala, have refused to recognize the media in all of this - instead they lavish blame on the Democrats - as if Bill getting impeached didn't happen because the media HELPED. The media's been in alliance with the GOPs since 1995.

[Time for change]

58. Yes, the media had everything to do with Clinton's impeachment

That whole thing - Whitewater, the sex scandal, all of it - didn't deserve 1% of the media attention that it got. But the media attention emboldened the Republicans to go through with it. What they didn't count on was that most Americans were too smart to think that that was important.

I hope to God that the Democrats have a better plan for dealing with the voting machines in 06 than they had in 00, 02, or 04.

[redacted]

36. Unlike CBS, BBC NEWS NEVER ISSUED A RETRACTION of their report of the same

facts that got Dan Rather fired.

This is an important point that Greg Palast mentioned in the last few minutes of his most recent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, and it's available for viewing online.

[Time for change]

67. I didn't know that - That's very interesting

I never understood the techinical issues that supposedly made Rather's documentation un-authenticated. Are you saying that there was enough proof of its authenticity that it should never have been retracted?

[NVMojo]

39. It was only a few short decades ago that most journalists knew

that if they covered government, they walked into those halls on our behalf ...as the eyes and the ears of the public. Of course, that was before corporate ownership munched as many regional and local and small town newspapers into their bloated ownwership and had stockholders to answer to instead of the public.

I would think that someone like John Dean would understand these changes that have occurred over the past 10 to 15 years ...

[Time for change]

70. I would have thought so

But it doesn't appear to be a subject that he's given much thought to.

Nevertheless, I still feel that his book is very good for what it does address.

[Nestor Mahkno]

41. By George, I think he's got it!

First, thank you for having the good sense to refer to the media as corporate and not mainstream. This is a mistake that many on the left continue to make. Calling it the corporate media is an accurate description and provides an explanation for why it routinely slams Democrats and promotes Republicans. We should use the term corporate media whenever referring to the media. As the corporate media, it has vested economic interests that are not the same as, and often in conflict with, the public interest and right to know. The corporate media just loves that deregulation snake oil that Republicans peddle. This explains their political coverage and cheapening the debate, reducing campaigns to PR constructed character contests devoid of real issues that effect the public.

I've been extremely disappointed with media critics such as Boehlert who don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that the media is the way it is because it is corporate. Instead, they are content with the notion that there is some kind of culture which causes this phenomena. Yes, maybe it is in part a matter of beltway culture, but it is corporate interests which create this culture. As long as the left fails to get this simple fact and keeps talking about the "mainstream" media, they will continue to get blindsided.

[Time for change]

72. I think that's a very accurate diagnosis

And most DUers don't use the term MSM any more, as you suggest.

Nevertheless, although I was perplexed to see what Boehlert considers to be the root of the problem, I give him a great deal of credit, and I still feel that his book is very worth while. He put together a great deal of research to come up with a detailed indictment of the way our national news media does it job. It would be hard for any reasonable person to read his book without coming away convinced that our national news media is way to the right of the American public, AND that they have been very lacking in honesty in the way that they slant the news. His book really does provide a great wealth of information.

So if he misunderstands the reason for the problem I don't hold that against him too much. Or alternatively, he may understand, but perhaps he felt that his book would be plenty controversial enough as it was, so he took precautions to make it less controversial.

[Generator]

52. Wow did you write all that?

One of the best posts I've seen on DU. I, however, do not not think a landslide will happen. The propaganda is too deep and too wide. The Democrats will not be given a change to refute what a talking head says-it will be edited. The "Dean Scream" is one of the most famous clips of all of TV land-not just politics in the last five years. Is there an equivalent one of Bush that was run over and over and over and over and over and over and..you get the point. How about the one of Kerry voting before the war before he voted against it? Yes he said that. Bush has also said incredible idiocies and gone against almost everything he claimed to have believed when he ran in 2000. But the media will not take on power because it is their OWNER. The powers that be will not let the truth be shown. I came to realize this late in the game-ironically one night during the summer of 2004 when I had a stomach bug and was vomiting. But between upchucks ( a fair metaphor for our "news") I was treated to John Stossel's tirade about trial lawyers. Just after Kerry had picked Edwards. Do you think it's just coincidence that 20/20-a show that once had real stories much like 60 minutes picked Stossel has it's lead anchor to give America the "real story"?

No it's orchestrated propaganda. At that moment it clicked. A national show was actively campaigning against John Edwards on prime time and I GOT it. The powers that be make zillions on war. They make millions by selling our jobs our rights away. And they aren't giving it up without a fight. And until the Democrats stop the dog and pony show and walk out of the capitol and ask US to get in the streets nothing will change.

[Time for change]

73. Thank you very much - You're exactly right about the propaganda

The examples you brought up about Kerry and Dean were clips that, taken in proper context, should not have caused anyone to judge Kerry or Dean in an especially negative way. But replayed over and over again ad infinitum, they took their toll. Bush has said or done literally thousands of things that are worse than those clips on Kerry and Dean, but rather than play them over and over again, they aren't even news as far as our corporate media is concerned.

The Dean scream buried Dean's candidacy for good.

Those clips about Kerry's voting for and against the war made the difference in making the election close enough that it could be stolen.

And the 4800 references to Gore allegedly saying that he invented the internet also made the 2000 election close enough that it could be stolen.

[blue cat]

63. Send to John Dean n/t

[Mynameissalvatore]

66. The public is also to blame

If the general public would think just a little bit they would see through all the bs anyway.
It doesn't take much effort to see that even if the swift boaters were right and maybe Kerry's injuries were exagerated(which i don't believe but I am using it here as an example) people should at least have thought "Well, Kerry at least really was in Vietnam and Bush was able bodied enough to go and fight but didn't"
I mean it isn't a huge bit of logic thats needed to see what's going on here even if you're not the brightest bulb. People want to believe these things. I'm still trying to figure out why that is. I wish I had answers.
My family are mostly Freepers and when I try to throw things like this at them they throw back talking points and when I really nail them they throw Clinton into the mix within seconds of being stumped.
It isn't just the Freepers that are willing to swallow this stuff whole. It's average Americans who probably voted Democrat in the past but would consider a Republican if he seemed to be a good guy that are willing to be fooled too.

[ladym55]

68. But the general public DOESN'T think

That's how this all works. Anyone thinking logically wouldn't fall for all the spin no matter what. However, people raised on sound bites with short attention spans who are also scared spitless daily by the good friends in the MSM are unable to think at all, much less logically. That's why when you bring up a logical argument, the response is BILL CLINTON IS A BAD MAN. Huh? Don't worry. My elderly mother is a Faux News and O'Lielly fan, so I know how it goes when I present a logical argument.

[Time for change]

76. That's right, a lot of them are, but

there isn't much we can do about them without changing the way that people receive their news in this country.

[ladym55]

69. And local media are just as bad

When Kennedy's article about voter fraud in Ohio broke, we sure didn't know about it HERE IN OHIO. When the local paper, the Beacon Journal, finally had to break down and acknowledge that Kennedy's article existed, they published an editorial that said to "stop whining" and "get over it." Now a REAL newspaper would have done some investigating. Nahh, not the Beacon. That would be WORK. :eyes:

One of the main Beacon editorial writers spoke to a group community leaders after the 2004 election. He was asked why the Beacon spent so much time on things like Swiftboat Veterans instead of analyzing the issues that affected the citizens of Ohio. His response? Kerry's economic policy alone filled a HUGE binder. It would have been HARD to read. It would have taken a LONG time.

I'm finding more and more people getting their news from Comedy Central--Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. This is scary in many ways, but those two use satire to encourage their viewers to think a little about what is going on and how we are being manipulated.

Colbert is now so threatening to MSM that Matt Lauer and Campbell (I'm an airhead) Brown took time out their important show to bash Colbert. And Colbert, being Colbert, bashed right back.

The Dems haven't put up a candidate that MSM hasn't trashed totally at every opportunity. Al Gore was "wooden." (but drooling chimpy was great!) John Kerry was too elitist, too formal, too many big words. Anyone who actually heard Kerry speak knew that none of that was true. He fought back hard, but got no coverage, so now everyone blames him and calls him a loser. Both Gore and Kerry were and are class acts. And if MSM had covered the mysterious box on chimpy's back during the first debate in 2004 the way they covered "the scream," it would have been SO much more difficult to steal the election.

The Dems need to keep breaking the face of every MSM "star." None of them can handle being challenged.

[Time for change]

77. Yes, the local media are bad too, and too many of them are tied to the

same corporate interests.

You're exactly right. Stewart and Colbert are great.

And adequate coverage of the box on chimpy's back would have destroyed his candadacy way beyond the point where the election could have been stolen.

[Justice Is Comin]

71. Now, if we can get that on the FRONT PAGE of the Washington Post.

Great job.

[underpants]

75. Outstanding post

Of all the comments I could make I will make this one.

I am increasingly worried that we are getting fooled like our friends on the right are by politicians who would rather fan a flame (to create interest and most importantly, sadly, money) and that is why they don't stand up to the press. They still try to lambast Hillary for her "Vast right wing conspiracy" comment on the Today Show but she was right-no one even argues about that they just accuse her of being outrageous when she was simply telling the truth. She did eventually retract part of that saying stating that it isn't a conspiracy because it is right out in the open for everyone to see.

Bookmarking and recommending.

[Time for change]

78. Thank you very much - Well, Hillary bashing by the corporate media

doesn't seem to work very well any more, even among the vast middle, let alone ourselves. It didn't stop her from getting elected to the Senate, nor from being considered a strong contender for the Presidency.

To me, the failure of Dems to attack the press when they're attacked is a mystery to me. And yet, I think we need to realize that they find themselves in a very precarious situation. They don't have the same microphones that our corporate media has, nor can they compete with them in terms of money. But I'm hoping that before to long they will recognize that if they are to help take our country back they are going to have to recognize that our national news media is an enemy not only to them but, more importantly, to the American people.

[underpants]

79. ".. as you should know"

That little phrase stuck into every media appearance would go a long way.

I am probably being naive here too-if you even hint at blaming the media (if you are a liberal) the "Are you BLAMING THE MEDIA!?!?!?" shot right back at you and the Dems tend to cower back scared to death that the media might not have them on at all....come to think of it they DON'T have them on very much anymore so what the hell come out guns a blazing. I say.

[Time for change]

81. I like that -- "as you should know"

Yeah, I'd love to see them start blazing their guns. Or maybe to start off with they can just make it a practice to offer gentle but firm reprimands whenever they're interviewed by someone who says something stupid. Just to make sure that they don't get put on the defensive.

[Armstead]

80. Amen Great Summary

[noobie2]

82. I came up with a slogan

No More Born-Again Ex-Cokehead Frat Boys for President!