Ignore Gore (Media Commentary from The Daily Holwer)

[Uncle Joe]

Please click on link for full column

http://dailyhowler.com/


"WE THE FATUOUS/SON OF EARTH TONES: “What fools we mortals be,” The Bard wrote—and he was understating the problem. Was George Allen’s maternal grandfather Jewish? Why did Allen know or not know it? And what did Jim Webb write in that 27-year-old column? (Was the column written before or after that photo of Allen in high school?) In these, and similar ways, we pretend to conduct our public discussions. Read on to see the way we “discuss” the greatest known threats to our lives:

IGNORE GORE: Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, is on its last legs, as all films finally are; it’s showing in only 110 theaters, down from a high of 587. (Director: Davis Guggenheim.) On the bright side, it stands as the third-biggest documentary of all time, with an American gross topping $23 million. Almost surely, it will win the Oscar for documentary films next March. And who knows? Maybe Melissa Etheridge will win gold for Best Original Song, too.

But that’s the good news, and here comes the bad: On Monday afternoon, in a speech at NYU, Gore unveiled his formal plan to counter the effects of global warming. And the nation’s big news orgs buried it deep—if they bothered reporting it at all.

The Washington Post gave Gore’s speech 484 words, placing it low on page 2. The New York Times—above-it-all always—gave the story 468 words, and a bottom-of-page 17 placement. And try to believe that this appeared as part of the New York Times treatment:"

<snip>

[Uncle Joe]

1. The silence concerning Gore's major speech deserves a bit of reflection

"First, concerning global warming/climate crisis: Despite the vast consensus of world climate scientists, the press still isn’t ready to cover this topic. Or at least, they aren’t prepared to cover this topic if it means paying attention to Gore.

Second, concerning Campaign 08: Libs and Dems who would like Gore to run should not ignore the meaning of this. The commercial and intellectual success of Gore’s film gave the mainstream press an opportunity to rethink its trashing of the former Dem hopeful. Result? Film critics did so—and, on the whole, political pundits did not. Remember: These people are the emptiest life forms on earth. They “defined” Gore to their dim satisfaction in 1999 and 2000. They have no plans to rethink their scripts. We wish this didn’t have meaning for Campaign 08. But it plainly does.

Do the empty souls of your celebrity press corps plan to revise their scripts about Gore? Remember, these life-forms plainly aren’t human—and they are deeply, irretrievably programmed. Indeed, there they went again, Dear Readers, right there in this morning’s Post! Lord help us! The life-forms known as “Amy Argetsinger” and “Roxanne Roberts” covered Gore’s work on warming:"

[rainy]

4. It doesn't matter if it's Gore or any other Dem. The media will

pick on them and mock them as they have done with every other Dem. Name one that gets high respect from the MSM.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I do not believe the mass corporate media love any Dems,

except maybe Zell Miller. But to this day, I don't know of anybody that's been trashed, ignored and slandered over such a sustained period of time for doing so much good for the people.

[Bandit]

7. I think Bill Clinton may be in the running

:shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

10. I believe the witch hunt against Clinton,

was a back door attempt to keep Al from coming to power. Keep scandals in the air for eight years and the people will yearn for "honor and dignity". The media knew White Water was a mole hill for years while they peddled it as a mountain. They knew that Al Gore was speaking of his legislative accomplishments to Wolf Blitzer when he spoke of his contributions in creating the internet as to what it is today. This made no difference to them, they were setting the stage to install Bush or someone like him.

[Supersedeas]

6. when public interest/information clashes with Advertisers interest

Media priorities, ya know. Marketeering will always trump public interest.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I believe it's more about a loss of power

than money. They mass corporate media had become accustomed to shaping reality for the people. They could fire the people up to go to war, even if it was based on lies. They could tell you an incurious minded, spoiled boy in a man's body could bring honor and dignity back to the White House. They could tell you global warming is a hoax even if every peer reviewed scientific study were to prove otherwise. Having the ability to convince the people that black is white and white is black is a major power, and the only thing threatening this monopoly on information is the internet. This is why their cronies are trying to kill net neutrality, anything they can do to neuter the internet, they will.

[blm]

2. This is the pathetic new world we live in where GOP controls our media.

We've been living in it for over a decade now. It started with impeachment and then shifted to Gore, then to Kerry, and now all Dems.

[Uncle Joe]

3. My own gut feeling blm,

is that Al Gore has always been their main target, primarily because he championed the internet, thereby empowering the people and they have not forgiven him for that. It's my Prometheus analogy. Between their hurt feelings for losing some of their stranglehold on information and the oil people whom feel threatened by "An Inconvenient Truth", it makes for powerful enemies.

[blm]

8. I'd say they planned LONG before that - after Watergate they assured that

no GOP president would ever have to concern himself with a media takedown of his agenda. So they quietlly started buying control of broadcast and print media and accelerated their buys in the 80s and 90s.

The media was barely interested in enormous scandals that should have had both Reagan and Bush impeached, but media chose instead to target their detractors and those who investigated their operations.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I believe you are correct in that the planning went back to Watergate

to control the mass corporate media, but nothing threatened this monopoly on information and power more than the internet. Al Gore was THE major champion and advocate for the internet, and this is precisely why they slandered him over a two year period prior to the selection of 2000.

It's truly ironic, CNN held a poll earlier this year on the most revolutionary creation of the 20th century and the internet won hands down by a vast margin. Now you would expect, our so called fourth estate watchdogs might send a few Kudos or a little praise to the primary political leader responsible for it, instead they trashed and slandered the leader most responsible for empowering the people of the world.

[blm]

12. Kerry has been smeared by GOP machine for so many years and so many

reasons.

Gore and Kerry should sit down and compare notes and figure out a two-pronged attack. Both of them have bested BushInc at some point on their own - I think Gore should share with Kerry the rest of what he knows about BCCI dealings that Clinton hid from public view and the two of them should take it from there to bring down the Bush crime family.