Amazing

I know I must be a bit naive, but I am AMAZED this has not gotten the coverage it should. To be caught red handed in doctoring an interview to cover for a presidential candidate. Unreal.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM
 

I'm with you!

It's sickening how blatant this crap has become...  There was NEVER a Liberal Media Bias to begin with -only the oft repeated lie (what the MSM and politicos would refer to as merely 'mispeaking') by Right-Wing pundits and sympathizers that such a thing ever existed...  And even if it ever did exist, it certainly doesn't now.  The rise of the Neocons owes much to the carefully executed strategy of coming into possession of an enormous amount of media outlets and sources throughout the major portion of the Clinton years in the White House.  Let's not forget Bill's hand in fouling up the Equal Time provisions and Media Consolidation and Monopolizing standards...  He handed them one of the best possible resources in terms of political weaponry!  That might prove to have been one of the most significant blows to the sustaining needs of a purported 'democracy' -a monopolized free press. 

Everything that has happened during these last eight years could well be described as 'Orwellian'.  It is a nightmare and a disgrace to witness these things on a daily basis...

They should simply call this unholy alliance the product of the "Free Press Act" or some other such typical doublespeak shit that has become so very commonplace under this Administration...

I see very little hope for us. 

We need a "Media War"!

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 12:39:54 AM
 

Correct

It has been going on for some time now and we just keep taking it.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM
 

Don't forget the Advertisers

Media makes its money from the huge sums advertisers pay to place their messages in particular programs. The advertisers who buy time during this show should also be contacted. Explain to them the content of the programming is highly suspect  - a polite euphemism for LIES? - and the proximity of those lies to their message colors the veracity of their claims. Challenge them to support ethical journalsim and avoid associating with fascist propaganda... Pressure on the advertisers to withdraw or withhold ad buys from these time segments will send THE me$$age that everyone will listen to. It's ALL about money - hit them in the bank account.

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 9:12:55 AM
 

Excellent Point

If anyone has the list of advertisers for CBS and major networks so we can let them know we will not tolerate this aanymore that would be very helpful.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM
 

The media racket.

Whenever something suggesting a racket is broadcast, you can bet that that will be portrayed as liberal bias.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1409 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM
 

Circus Time!

When a circus comes to town only the most naive, gullible or stupid would think that the barker is telling them the truth about the half-man/half women behind the curtain.

The six major conglomerates that own 95% of everything we see, hear and read, also own the weapon factories that make a profit from our continuing wars, the poisoned foods they sell us and the fouled water we drink. If you want to have an impact - stop watching television, buying their slanted papers and listening to their tainted radio stations. Don't go to the circus! The barker is not your friend.

I gave-up television 6 months ago. Now on the few occasions I do watch it it doesn't take but a few seconds for me to be reminded as to why I made the decision to rid this cancer from my life. Indeed, for the last few months I did watch it I used it as a barometer to see just how corrupt our system was, but even that wore off as being nothing but a waste of time.

We're not going to change the networks. They are way too entrenched with those power-brokers and politicians, indeed they are one and the same. They are not there to report, they are there to protect their interests and the rest be damned.

The joke of course is on us. Airways being a public domain, have been given to the most powerful industries which in turn sell our space and keep all the profits for themselves. It would be laughable, except the only ones laughing are those that now own the airways that are rightfully ours to begin with.

There is an excellent documentary on this subject I highly recommend, Orwell Rolls in His Grave.

by Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 20 diaries, 1784 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM
 

The Tiffany Network?

I guess that by now the smart money says that those Tiffany jewels are really smashed beer bottles.

CBS has tipped their hand in this incident so that even the most credulous observer cannot fail to draw the correct conclusion of right wing media bias. They are, however, genuinely sorry to see a mistake in this instance.

The mistake, as far as they are concerned, is not the deceptive editing of what they broadcast. That was clearly intended. The mistake that they regret is their failure to edit their website to match the broadcast propaganda. That is how they were caught. You may be assured that they are unlikely to make that mistake again.

Of course, their bias does not require such an obvious admission to be detectable. It is easy to see with even casual viewing of their news and opinion programming, and even Katie Couric has openly referred to "pressure" from management affecting editorial policy.

The problem is not confined to broadcast outlets either. I see polling results that are so wildly divergent as to be unlikely even in the event that their entire sample were psychotic. There is clearly a bias in play with at least some polls, but apparently, the desired result is to call into question the reliability of all polls, as has already been done with exit polls during elections.

Observe the techniques. If the object is to misinform, one does not need to create a universal lie. One simply needs to give the favored lie an equal standing with the truth.

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1301 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM
 

Interesting

I have been wondering how in the world McCain is even vaguely close to Obama. His campaign has been one mistake after another and Obama has had one success after another, yet every "poll" is showing a close race? The american people are clearly fed up with the war and are against McCain's position and are adamently concerned about the economy, a topic McCain has admitted he knows nothing about and had to let go of Gramm the Whiner.

Is there anyone who can look into these polls for credibility? Or can Opednews conduct it's own poll to see if the results are comparable? I mean just a stright who will you vote for poll.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 1:50:43 PM
 

RE: media bias

This delicious fantasy about there NOT being a liberal media bias in this country is almost as reality-challenged as the theory of "controlled demoliton". What the two have in common is cherry-picking and out of context thinking.

But let's not confuse far-left liberalism for plain old-fashioned left-leaning partisanship, where it's not so much what the candidate believes exactly, it's whether he's got a D or an R after his name. They know that a candidate who is too liberal won't win in this country, as twice as many people identify themselves as conservative as they do liberal, so they might not embrace certain things some think they should and perhaps that may be what has certain people thinking they have some kind of right-wing bias.

On balance, the media, except of course for talk radio and Foxnews, *pouts when a Republican wins, and cheers when a Democrat wins. To think that this partisan preference doesn't affect how stories are framed, or which are covered or which are ignored or put on the back pages or even mood and tone, is to believe that Foxnews DOESN'T tend to spin things in a way that makes Republicans or conservatives look better.

I remember in 94 when the Republicans rather unexpectedly won the house in a landslide. I was watching CNN election coverage, and the mood on that set made me wonder whether another Kennedy had been assassinated. They were literally heart-broken.

Sure, from time to time you'll find an instance that appears to favor someone on the right, but on balance, the vast majority of the media WANTS the Democrat to win, as demonstrated most clearly by this.

* "CBS then was full of people who liked to argue about who opposed the Vietnam war first, this producer or that reporter. It was a matter of pride who was antiwar first. On the night in 1980 when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in a landslide, and brought with him a Republican Senate, CBS News, a busy hive full of people charged with telling America the news at a dramatic moment, was like a morgue. I was happy, and the blue-collar workers--the cameramen who were bringing up families on Long Island, the secretaries from Queens--were delirious. Finally someone would lower their taxes--payroll taxes on overtime were killing them--and stop the humiliation in Iran. But the white-collar workers, the producers and writers and on-air talent--oh what a sad and depressed lot they were. The forces of evil had won."

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 723 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 5:36:05 PM
 

Thanks for the history lesson.

How many CBS staffers from twenty-eight years ago are still working there? How many from fourteen years ago? Conditions have changed and one of the most egregious changes is in a decidedly right wing bias in the corporate media.

How is it that a liberally biased media allowed Bush 43 to initiate a war of aggression and let it pass without comment except for the cheerleading? How is it that they tolerated the misdirection of imbedded reporters looking at the tactical end of the conflict where they had to keep their head down, while the Whitehouse and Pentagon had the strategic soapbox exclusively to themselves?

How is it that Bush 43's frequent and continued assaults on the Constitution (assisted by a supine congress) are allowed to pass virtually without comment from the corporate media? What about the White House's criminal outing of a CIA operative that was executed with a collaborative corporate media and then minimized in the ensuing investigation, where the New York Times and others were engaged in active resistance to the investigation?

A liberal bias in today's corporate media is a myth propagated by the media who have an interest in preserving the opposite.

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1301 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 6:11:59 PM
 

Thank You

For pointing out the obvious. What was in 1994 is not anymore. Bush got a free pass from the media and continues to for the most part.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 9:50:48 PM
 

Great reporting

If this had happened 9 years ago, there would be several people fired, if not pilloried, from the fallout; and it would be talked about for days. Now, nothing will be done because the level of interest in the media, and the reporting of themselves, is so ridiculously poor.

Only last evening on MSNBC, did they bring up the absurd "liberal bias" again... Talking about it as a given, with no possibility of there being a dissenting opinion from anyone in the discussion... This is how these people do business, and how they bamboozle the American people: By controlling the debate and still giving the impression that there are two opinions.

You may like Rachel, you may like Keith... But don't forget this is their job and they will do what they are told.... And if they REALLY were dissenting in any serious way: They would not be there.   

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 233 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 5:54:30 PM
 

Not Liberal Bias...

It is CORPORATE MEDIA BIAS...   This is a bit more of a nuanced point...  Regardless of anything else, the Media builds up a candidate, pushing fluff pieces to buttress the candidate, but then sadistically rips the fluff out...

John McCain is a NOTHING candidate...  As in there is NOTHING to John McCain...  Obama should be 20 points ahead, if he were better....

The press is NOT discussing the Obama Campaign move of plastering the Western Wall with campaign posters...

The Press is talking about the wonderful speech in Berlin while completely ignoring this statement...

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

We don't reject torture?  we don't stand for the rule of law?  In Abu Ghraib bad things happened to prisoners...  We punished the perpetrators despite the fact that it was embarrassing to our nation.  He suggests that we do not shun discrimination in the US.  I'm sorry, but we have a black man running for president.  Our people have, as a whole, embraced immigrants who travel to this nation in a LEGAL fashion.  It is not discrimination to FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. 

Our Corporate Media has missed the fact that Obama has insulted the very nation he is supposed to be running to be president of.  He has accused this nation of crimes that are regularly committed by those we are fighting against, yet the corporate media has missed this..

Oh there is a bias in this nation, but it is based on what the media considers fodder for the latest news cycle.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 8:56:16 PM
 

Hmm

Not sure what planet you have been on for the past seven years but we no longer stand for the rule of law. If we did, Bush would be impeached and tried for war crimes. We also have made torture policy so I am not sure what you are complaining about. His comments were accurate.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 9:53:09 PM
 

Actually, we do not have a torutre policy....

And, Pray Tell what war crimes Bush and Cheney are guilty of.  Please provide evidence that is not in the form of a blog.

I seem to recall quite a number of investigations, but for some reason, there was no evidence found that indicated any laws were broken.  If you can provide evidence that there was, then I will agree with you that we are not honoring the rule of law. 

 

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments) on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM
 

They're Democrats, not Kossaks

"How many CBS staffers from twenty-eight years ago are still working there? How many from fourteen years ago? Conditions have changed and one of the most egregious changes is in a decidedly right wing bias in the corporate media." -- John Sanchez

You missed where I said that the media's not fringe-leftist, but merely garden variety left-leaning Democrats, for the most part at least.

I guess that's why you perceive them to be right-wing when they don't rail against any and all use of U.S. military force, or have some understanding of the need to intercept the plans of those devoted to committing terrorist acts within the U.S.

You didn't mention the current day part of my post, which examined the almost exclusive devotion to the Democrat candidate by journalists contributing donations. Eliminating Ron Paul, the money directed toward the Republican nominee was virtually zero.

I would submit that the disparity has only gotten more pronounced since the days of Peggy Noonan @ CBS, and Bernie Shaw @ CNN.

You could argue that their overwhelming left tilt doesn't affect their coverage, but you'd be hoeing a pretty hard row.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 723 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 9:40:18 PM
 

Simply Untrue

I am talking about the coverage, including what stories get covered. You would have to be hoeing quite the denial line to not realize that the story selection, host selection, and overall presentation is decidely right slanted.

by Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 9:56:03 PM