The Media I want answers from them!!!!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

I have questions regarding the recent events and the media.

1. What made them FINALLY tell the truth about Iraq, New Orleans and begin to cover the stories such as Cindy Sheehan and Plamegate?

2. Why are they not suddenly realizing and reporting the fraud of 2004? Will they ever talk about this?

3. Why, when they have FINALLY decided to cover the real truth about issues mentioned in Item 1, did they inaccurately portray the number of attendees at the DC march in Sept. and the march today?

4. Could the wing nuts just be wanting to OUT some of the evil empire but not all guilty parties?

5. Why are they coming clean on certain issues but not all?

6. Is there a set up involved?


Edited for spelling :)

[napi21]

1. A lot has to do with Shrub's dismal #'s.

When a President is very popular with the Public, the media is afraid to stick their neck out for fear of the public backlash against them. If you think about that, it sort of make sense.

Shrub's #'s are in the tank now! Scandals are inundating the entire Pub Party! There's a cover for the media in all of that!

Sure, the RW is going to scream LIBERAL MEDIA, but the majority of the public are going to aee the truth for a change.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

2. Agreed but why not tell the WHOLE truth now

why just part of it?

[helderheid]

4. fair and balanced with the lies

couldn't resist

[napi21]

7. Well, I suppose it could be not wanting to look like they weren't

doing their job in the past??? I actually have heard several reporters say they didn't do enough investigating in the past. Their excuse was that after 9/11, everyone was so upset at what happened in THIS country, and everyone was supporting the President, they backed off. I can't recall all the people who were on the panel I was listening to, but I remember Dan Rather, Bob Schieffer, and 3 others. They all said they regretted their lack of action.

BTW, the panel was aired on cspan, but it was about 9 months ago.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

9. They could do a "New Evidence" found spin on it n/t

[valerief]

14. I never understood the "fear of public backlash" reasoning

How does such a scenario play itself out?

And doesn't the media report what the corporations who fund them want them to report? I ask, why are these corporations turning against *co?

[walldude]

18. We saw how that scenario played out

ask Dan Rather. And the corporations no doubt force stories onto the news shows but the reporters do have input in what they report on. Watch Keith Olberman and you will notice him once in awhile let the audience know what stories he was "forced" to air.

[valerief]

19. Yeah, Rather got canned

But what happened to CBS? Or Viacom? They got ragged on for a bit, but they're still in business. Letterman is still making millions a year. 60 minutes is still on the air. I don't see any major fallout from the event.

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Maybe they wanna dump bush but don't wanna damage the

mechanisms used to put him into power so they can use them again with better raw material next time.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

22. Sounds like what they would do....Jackpine n/t

[babylonsister]

3. RE: 2004 fraud, if you'll recall when the DSMinutes hit

(for us) this spring, the MSM deemed it 'old news'. I reckon they think likewise with the fraud.
As for attendees at the marches, I think they're all just stinkin' lazy and accept anyone's word for it instead of investing themselves or their organizations a bit.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

5. Proof of fraud is news because the fraud can be proven now

and with *'s approval ratings so low..........I would think the media could do a wonderful job of covering it........I can visualize the headlines..........

"NEW EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD INDICATES BUSH DID NOT WIN THE ELECTION"

Of course, we would know it was old news, but the general public wouldn't.

[babylonsister]

6. Hey, I'd like to see/hear this 'news' as much as you would!

Maybe we need someone with credibility to get the ball rolling, but would anyone listen? As you noted, they haven't so far...

[NoBushSpokenHere]

8. Hell I would even 'pretend' it were news just to hear the coverage n/t

[helderheid]

25. man... that headline would be a dream come true!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

10. Suggested Headlines

NEW EVIDENCE FOUND IN ELECTION FRAUD - BUSH DID NOT WIN!

38% APPROVAL RATING PRESIDENT WAS NOT ELECTED

JOHN KERRY WON!

GOOD NEWS! BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS - BUSH LOST

BUSH LOST - KERRY WON

THE NATION IS REALLY DEMOCRATIC

THE TRUTH REVEALED ON MESSAGE BOARD



We really promise we won't rat you out for reporting old news......trust us, media........jump on this story - can you imagine your popularity for reporting it now??

[NanceGreggs]

11. Your damned real ...

... Imagine the RATINGS hike for the first TV news outlet that covers that story!!!! (Even people who disagree with it would be tuning in, talking to their friends about it, etc.)
Then you get into the usual ratings war, where every station wants to jump on the bandwagon with their 'new found facts', interviews, and so on.

[kster]

12. K&R.nt

[bonito]

13. There's nothing without hope!

on second thought, where is nothing without hope?

[GuvWurld]

15. This cuts both ways

WE have to be willing to tell the whole truth about things too. We have to say this is fascism not democracy. Use examples that make direct comparisons between today and our grammar school taught American fundamental basics. We can tick them off a list and they are largely gone. Such contrast is compelling, and also works the other way in relation to comparing current reality to hallmark traits of fascism. Sometimes I show first drafts of my writing to certain people. Sometimes I'm advised not to use the word fascism. I have rarely scaled back on such advise and doubt I ever will again.

It is the same way with talking about legitimacy and peaceful revolution. This government has no legitimacy. We have to stop acting like it does and we have to be stating that it doesn't. We will forever be oppressed under increasingly brutal leaders until we achieve revolution. Why not a peaceful one now? Do it and say it. Do not be shy.

Read: Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution.

[nashville_brook]

16. well, i'm gonna take a shot. there's 5 differnt kinds of stories

and i don't see much in the way of coming clean -- just work-a-day reporting. flawed, obsequious and sensational as ever.

1. cindy sheehan -- was a big splash and had spectacle appeal. also gave press something do focus on while bush was "relaxing." people liked her and she polled well. the coverage was reasonable, but it was spectacle-driven.

2. Plamegate -- this is part gossip, part legal proceeding. there's drama and anticipated outcomes. it might be getting coverage now, but that's only b/c of the gossip and anticipated end. it's been under wraps for nearly 3 years. the polling numbers on corruption are going thru the floor on this, but it's not like any news org has been johnny on the spot. again -- spectacle. seeing the frogmarch. we're waiting for the spectacle.

3. New Orleans -- who doesn't love a hurricane (who in the "news" media that is). they were already in place for the aftermath and did a crappy job of reporting on that. NOW, there needs to be wall to wall on the forced labor and environmental damage. all i hear's crickets. there was plenty of coverage for the spectacle, again. crying, hungry babies, reports of looting, helicopters. now that the real shit is hitting the fan, all the cameras are off, i guess, covering the latest spectacle...plamegate.

4. Iraq -- i might be missing something here. there's "bad" news from iraq, some tell-all memoirs, and a bit of attention to returning vets' economic woes. still no honest-to-god examination of the LIE or day-to-day observance of the folly. i think there's been good reporters from the start -- but no real leadership on the part of the organizations. public opinion is falling on this, but it's taken a long time to sift thru the muck to get here.

5. Election Fraud -- where's the spectacle? if Kerry had stayed on message, that would have provided spectacle -- the key ingredient to getting coverage. the worm is turning, but with no drama; no story; no spectacle -- it's not going to be on the evening news. maybe we'll get a contemplative 60 Minutes piece.

if we want major coverage of Election Fraud there has to be something -- convictions, a celebrity spokesperson, a new law -- SOMETHING. there has to be a hook. i agree there's lots of "story" in there but it will be difficult to sell to an editor without the sizzle.

need sizzle for mainstream coverage. i don't doubt that we can come up with sizzle, we just don't have it yet.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

17. An Illegitimate President isn't sizzle enough? hmmmm n/t

[Presstitutes]

20. I disagree with your premise

Granted, the sheer weight of Bush's transgressions is intruding on their fabricated reality, but there's ample evidence that they're still trying to cover for him.

More here: http://www.presstitutes.com/

[rman]

23. That's like asking pro-wrestlers about wrestling.

Don't you know it's just pretend?

The problem is that so many people think it's for real, which is why so many people watch it, which is why it has such an enormous impact on public opinion (and lack thereof).

It's called "manufacturing consent".

As explained in the Chomsky book and documentray with that title:

Manufacturing Consent
A Propaganda Model
by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Pantheon Books, 1988

(excerpted from the book)

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.

In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance.

<more>

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

[helderheid]

24. kick

[GuvWurld]

26. kick (eom)

[Marr]

27. Bush is becoming bad for business. The sort of people that

own these big media outlets would prefer to have a Lieberman now, I expect.