Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 4/10/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (2 comments)

Follow Up: MSNBC Muzzling Maddow, Olbermann on Election Integrity?

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (14 fans)   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

We all recall the LIFE Magazine photos that spurred on meaningful, honest debate during the Vietnam era - the Vietnamese girl scorched by napalm, the dissident getting his head blown off, the flag-draped coffins. But we now have journalism by executive order, deciding if we'll see war atrocities or flag draped coffins.

And what of the free speech rights taken from US troops who shot valuable video or photos of what is actually happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? It wasn't until Iraqi insurgents posted online a clip compilation of US tanks, trucks, and humvees getting blown up that I first understood the nature of the US casualty count in Iraq - for years our troops have been blown up while driving on roads in search of an invisible foe, hidden among the populace and integrated into the Iraqi security forces we armed and trained.

Maddow has long committed to keep us informed of news from Iraq on her radio program, a feature notably less present on her TV show. Today the collective mainstream media whitewash of hard-hitting news is a complicated maze of bought-off silence, intrigue and unholy alliances between the corporate bosses, shareholders, government puppetmasters, well funded "527" campaigns, corporate sponsors, lowly reporters and a lot of under-informed viewers. We end up with what you see every night on the network news - a waste of time that has more and more Americans turning off their TVs and opening their laptops to search for information online.

Though he is a fear-baiting, war-profiteering propagandist, Rupert Murdoch at least has the chutzpah to use his network newscasts to express his political beliefs, of late encouraging right-wingers to stockpile arms and mobilize "bubba militias" to guard against Democrat 'tyranny'. If the other networks had a pair, we might see some semblance of balance, but NBC and the other obedient Stepford networks defer to silence.

As we teach our children in schools, yellow journalism was an embarrassing episode in the late 1890s when dueling newspapers distorted and sensationalized the news to sell papers. But a new bio of William Randolph Hearst demonstrates his paper actually had a fairly low incidence of fabrication or exaggeration, even by today's standards. Rather, the controversial magnate had deeply held convictions about the power of populism.

Ironically, the revisionist history of "yellow journalism" is what is actually slanted, according to new research - Hearst used his platform to stand up to the "isolationist" government who stood by as hundreds of thousands of oppressed Cubans were being slaughtered by Spain.

Today, it's our "whitewashed journalism" that begs for improvement, especially on the key issue of voting integrity, where I can even find common ground with Sean Hannity. While Hannity feels Al Franken stole his Minnesota senate seat and ACORN has been engaging in fraudulent registrations, I feel electronic voting machines used in the 2000 and 2004 elections had proven vulnerabilities. Over a million US voters may have been disenfranchised and I suspect Bush's DOJ was illegally used to gin up vote fraud cases and target Democratic officials and fund raisers in swing states.

Somewhere in there, Sean and I agree -  elections are an issue the mainstream American press needs to cover. But unlike Hannity, I believe the media needs to be a free and open place for informed debate, serving the interests of the people who own the airwaves. Let's report the facts and then have a messy, contentious discussion over what it all means. America can handle the truth...and even if it did happen in 2004, it probably wouldn't be the first time an election was stolen. Only this time it was on our watch.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

(OpEdNews Contributing Editor since October 2006) Inner city schoolteacher from New York, mostly covering media manipulation. I put election/finance reform ahead of all issues but also advocate for fiscal conservatism, ethics in journalism and (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Cable/Satellite TV by Dennis Kaiser on Saturday, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:43:07 AM
Ratings by Mad Jayhawk on Sunday, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:53:48 AM