by ItsNeverOver, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:21 PM EDT
by shef, Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:57:16 PM EDT
The New York Times's Saturday revelation (here) that The Pentagon was directing the messages of network and cable news's military analysts was a bombshell. It was evidence that our government, and, in particular, our military was deliberately and deviously propagandizing the nightly news.
As Glenn Greenwald pointed out here, no one in the news media cares. He writes:
And now we have what is by all metrics a huge new story regarding more fundamental media failures (at best), and they collectively invoke the Kremlin-like methods of Dick Cheney--they refuse to comment, refuse to reveal even the most basic facts about what they did, and do everything possible to hide behind the wall of secrecy they maintain. They don't even feel the slightest bit obligated to say whether they have any procedures to prevent manipulation of this sort in the future. And those classic information-suppressing tactics are all being invoked by news organizations--which claim to be devoted to disclosing, not concealing, scandals, corruption and facts about how our political institutions function. [Emphasis his]
I would call this chilling and shameless silence Orwellian, but why bother? Once there's a reality show on network TV that appropriates a concept for its name, that concept has lost it's power. Once we've already called Orwellian the indefinite and extra-judicial holding of U.S. citizens, the un-checked kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" of U.S. citizens, the use of above-the-law mercenaries (euphemism: contracters) to torture others in our name, that word has lost it's power.
So, I ask the question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchmen?)
Writer Alan Moore asked that very question in his novel Watchmen. It was through the question, not answering it, that he created such a groundbreaking piece of fiction. Similarly, I will not answer my question (the answer, if you're wondering, is "we do"). Instead, I will try to explore the question.
by ItsNeverOver, Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EDT
by Hunky, Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:03:42 PM EDT
This begins a series of examinations into the kind of person Barack Obama considers to be a friend. Someone that helped to launch Barack Obama's political career. And someone whose past Barack Obama doesn't think is important anymore. Watch these videos and draw your own conclusions.
by internetstar, Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:08:08 AM EDT
If Clinton had made the "Bitterness" statements, Candy Crowly would be interviewing hunters, and ministers from Pennsylvania to Indiana. Over and over, we would hear their outrage.
Yesterday, I watched distortive TV propaganda under the guise of a show
called "Ballot Bowl"
The first reporter (didn't catch his name) quickly glossed over the scandalous Obama comment by not giving the full quote. All CNN viewers heard was "Obama said some people in PA are bitter".
Candy Crowly quickly corrected this and hastily went over the full quote.
Even this was a little muffled. An elderly person, or someone a little slow would
have difficulty catching it.
When CNN WANTS you to hear something, they speak real . . . slowly . . .
and . . . clearly. Like they are talking to a 5-year-old.
Then CNN played the INAUDIBLE, source tape. It could easily have been
cleaned up in the editing bay. But obviously, CNN did not want their viewers
to hear it. The text was shown on the screen over the audio, but it
was dense. Once again, oldsters, and people with reading or visual problems would not follow.
What was clear as a bell was an audio enhanced tape of Obama's response.
The high tones were over-enhanced so that no one would have trouble
hearing Obama's defense.
Obama spoke seriously, and clearly. He talked on and on. And on.
He looked so presidential. Who would believe he'd just called PA voters a
bunch of backwater slugs?
Finally, CNN aired HRC commenting. Once again, if a viewer did not quite understand the previous audio clip, he would not get what she was commenting on. Especially when the male news reporter began blurring the subject by harping on Bill's Bosnia gaffe.
This Clinton gaffe had nothing to do with the present problem. Nor does it
carry the serious implications of Obama's comments. Clinton did not make degrading comments about the values of working American voters.
In a moment of honesty, Obama clearly told Americans that he does not understand us.
He has lived in South Side Chicago most of his adult life, and
views us from that narrow perspective.
He needs time to expand his horizons, and his range of friends.
How can he
lead a country when he feels such disconnect with its people?
To its credit, CNN did air a little of a Bill Clinton speech that allowed him to
refute Obama's moronic claim that people were no more prosperous under Clinton than under GW Bush.
It's sad that CNN viewers pay through the nose to get news.
This station takes their money, and uses it to manipulate people to vote
against their own interests.
There has to be a legal way of forcing news to clean up its act.
This country will not hold up for another 8 years under yet another president
that General Electric and AOL Time Warner picks for us.