So the corporate media (ABC,CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX) absolutely despise Obama-why?

[Politics_Guy25]

What are they so afraid of? Is it the fact that he's the first serious African American candidate to have a greater than 50/50 shot of winning the presidency? Do they prefer that the white house remain in the hands of senile old white men forever? Is it because they have a crush on John Mccain and he's been their favourite politician in the whole wide universe since 2000? Is it because they worry that Obama will end the monopoly of the big media corporations?

This comes from this article from ABC News. This article "The note" looks like it was written by a RNC campaign staffer. From the network of the "Path to 9/11", and the character assasination attempt debate in Philladelphia, I guess it's to be expected.

Here's the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1

That piece above doesn't even begin to match the standards of "fair and balanced" journalism in the slightest. It's something that Karl Rove would gladly write. Who knows maybe he did. "The Note" is like this every day. Trash.

Note meanwhile that Mccain's flip flops on his views of evangelicals like Robertson to tax cuts being good when he opposed them fiecely to drilling offshore are hardly mentioned. Mccain has shed his maverick image a long time ago but the media still insists that he is a "maverick" and that Obama is just a shrill politician. Outrageous.

The media's treatment of Senator Obama was incredibly disrepectful post Wisconsin. I've never seeen a presidential candidate treated so unfairly in the media post Wisconsin than Senator Obama was. Of course, President and Senator Clinton were dragged through the mud as well but this has reached new heights.

So, to sum up, what is it exactly that has ABC et al terrified of Senator Obama and why are they desperate to take him down?

[babylonsister]

1. He's a DEMOCRAT who won't kiss up to them. 'Change' scares them. nt

[Frances]

2. They are corporations

and corporations know the Repubs will do anything they ask, no matter what it does to the country as a whole.

[TheDonkey]

3. many people in the news business are right wingers

I go to the industry insider website www.tvnewser.com to read up about the MSM industry and most of the people trolling that site could have easily come from the free republic. I do not know why right wingers are drawn to TV news... maybe because they cannot get real journalist jobs.

[Doctor_J]

29. after 25 years of pruning, ALMOST ALL of news people are wingers

every lib/Dem has been fired or not even hired. Read Michael Parenti for more info

[elleng]

4. Corporate media

don't 'despise,' they have corporate interests.

Talking heads are something else.

[babylonsister]

6. Who do you think the talking heads work for? nt

[elleng]

16. My point is

that media don't hate, but individuals can and do have emotions.

[babylonsister]

17. I always think about Scarborough on Real Time one night. He admitted

the pundits got 'talking points' every morning, based on e-mail, on how to sway their opinions depending on what would be best for the news.
Some talking heads don't even care about opinions, they follow the script and cash the paycheck.

[tomreedtoon]

37. There are reasons why talking heads are right wing robots.

They learned that their influence, their fame and their salaries depend on "access." To get that from Republicans, they have to agree to follow the party line. They aren't interested in "truth" so much as being "on the scene," and in that aspect of political life, the Republicans and megacorporations are the stage directors.

Remember that the idea of the "crusading journalist" is passe. I don't know if the current generation were taught that by journalism professors who wanted to create a generation of media whores, or whether the journalists ignored ethics in favor of loot and fame, but it happened.

[liberal N proud]

5. The GOP has friends in high places within the media and they

are using that tool to smear the Democratic candidate.
It wouldn't matter if it was Obama or Lieberman, If the candidate is running on the Democratic ticket, the media will be used as the propaganda machine that it is to try and destroy them.

We must learn how to nullify this machine they have at their disposal in order to take the GOP down permanently.

[Politics_Guy25]

8. Exactly-this machine does need to be taken down

The question is how. They spew nothing but trash and I believe almost nothing that they "report" now. I wasn't always this way either.

[liberal N proud]

13. I can tell you exactly when I awoke the propaganda

It was September 2004.
I screamed about the lopsided way the reported news for 10 years prior to that but kept denying that it was an orchestrated effort.
I watched CNN every morning prior to 2004, now I refuse to turn it on.

[DJ13]

44. "September 2004"

2004?!

I realized it in the build up to the FIRST Gulf War (Bush I), when every single excuse for "news" was an exercise in cheer leading.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I guess we should start by refraining from beating a dead horse.....

when it comes to attacking our own.

It's one thing to be in disagreement, and even to be disappointed....

but what I've seen against Obama just here in the last week has been
like over the top.

[Politics_Guy25]

11. Exactly Frenchie-people need to get OVER FISA

Senator Obama will fix flaws within the legislation and fix the other catastrophic messes that exist in this country today ONCE he is elected but he needs to get elected FIRST!

[KoKo]

14. Were you around for Kerry, Gore, Clinton and Carter.....it's always the same...

it just seems worse because we have less and less diversity in media every year and we've finally reached the "total lockdown."

Those of us who've been around have watched it...and knew the anvil would fall. At least we have the internet. Those of us before that...had nothing to fight against Gore, Clinton and Carter lies and disinformation where the Repug always got favorable coverage but they would "investigate every single thing" about the Dem. How much "investigation" has Chimp gotten. That will answer why.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Not only does McSame give the media unprecedented access, he will work to sponsor or push for

policies that suit the Corporate Media and its agenda. It's as simple as that. Our objective is to rely on alternative sources of information and turn off the T.V. because we cannot rely on the M$M to tell the truth. The sad part is that the average American is a low-information voter who tends to believe everything she/he sees on the T.V.

We have much work cut out for us...

[Politics_Guy25]

10. Much much much work indeed-n/t

[KoKo]

12. They hated Al Gore and John Kerry, too. Before that they hated Clinton and Carter...

It's what they do. They hate Democrats. Repugs have been great at giving the Corporations everything they wanted: Tax Breaks, Derugulation and War Profits for those in that business.

Their interest is in keeping those Repugs in there. They will do any and everything to keep them in there.

[jobycom]

15. As we predicted. Once they got him the nomination, they turned on him to get McCain

into the White House. The whole reason they promoted Obama over Clinton was because they figured he'd be easier to beat than Clinton.

Let's all prove them wrong, shall we?

Always remember. Republicans give rich people tax cuts. Rich people own the MSM. Thus, rich people use the MSM to advertise for the Republican Party so they can get their tax cuts. Their parent corporations make a lot more money off tax cuts (and wars, in the case of GE) than off their news media outlets.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. Bullshit. The GOP was salivating to run against Clinton.

They had compiled reams of stuff that Bill's been doing since 2000. Time didn't freeze after the Starr investigation. The Clintons were NOT "fully vetted" as their supporters so often liked to point out. Obama threw a big old monkey wrench in that plan and they're pissed about it, and doing their best to take him down with bullshit like flag pins and pastors.

[jobycom]

36. Bullshit. The GOP was terrified of Clinton, which is why they destroyed her.

Hardly matters. Just move on. If you didn't get it the first time, you won't now.

[mtnsnake]

40. You are exactly right, and don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

You could see it coming a mile away that the media was going to turn on Obama like junkyard dogs AFTER their faux lovefest with him during the primaries.

[mtnsnake]

41. dupe

[Dinger]

52. Predictable As Hell

wasn't it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. YOU are the one who brought up the "weaker candidate" nonsense!

Demonstrating that YOU cannot move on. And couching it in faux encouragement fools no one.

[babylonsister]

55. Yes they were, and still are. Note Buchanan, et al still pushing the

'Clinton as VP' meme. They had years of research to use against her in the GE, thinking she was the anointed; Obama threw them for a loop.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. That is such crap, and I think you know it. As an Edwards supporter,

I had to listen for an entire year while the media told us that Hillary was inevitable. Other candidates got no coverage at all, because the media was so obsessed with the Hillary campaign. She lost because her campaign planned on a Super Tuesday sweep, and when that didn't happen, she never recovered. I'm not sure how the media gets the blame for that.

You do remember the wall to wall Rev. Wright coverage? The "bitter" flap, that was immediately ceased upon by your preferred candidate? The media, with the help of Bill & Hillary, tried to bury Obama, but it seems the American people were having none of it. Get over it.

[jobycom]

39. Oh just move on.

I wasn't attacking Obama, I was stating something any objective person would agree with. Who cares? Move on. Forget I said anything. Believe whatever you want.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Forgotten.......nt

[AndyTiedye]

18. Because Their OWNERS Are All Repiglickins

[cbc5g]

19. Partly because he's leading mcsame badly that's why...they don't like it, it makes ratings bad

For all the MSM besides ABC and FOX..they just outright don't like Obama.

[Fuego in my body]

20. Only Fox, in my view, "absolutely despises" Obama, out of those organizations

MSNBC absolutely loves him, and although the others are not crazy about him, they have been fair and even nice to Obama, generally speaking.

[nc4bo]

23. ..............don't believe it.

go here to read what MSM (including msnbc) isn't tell us:

http://mediamatters.org/index

[democrat2thecore]

38. Well, MSNBC is FAR more fair in coverage than the others -nt

[unkachuck]

21. I'm not sure....

....why the slimy corporate media despises Obama....but in general, I'd say it's a good sign....

[ladjf]

22. Because the media is controlled by the crooks who are currently

ruining the government.

[Fuego in my body]

25. This is why I don't understand why Obama opposes the Fairness Doctrine

It seems like a very good idea to me having all sides of an issue as part of a discussion.

[ladjf]

31. I wasn't aware that he opposed the Fairness Doctrine and have

no idea why.

However, I do know that within two weeks after Howard Dean came out with his opposition to the biased media, he was completely shot down out of the race for President. They took him down by
amplifying the "scream" and muting the hundreds of people to whom he was talking. That was actually fraud committed by the media for the purpose of taking him out of contention.

Perhaps Obama has learned something from that. Does that mean that I think Obama is shady for not opposing the media during the campaign? No, I don't. Politics is a slippery deal. In recent years we've only had one truly ethical President and that was Carter. Today, many, including McCain think that he was a "lousy" President.

We need to help Obama get elected. After that, we may have to encourage him to move quicker in the direction to help America get out of this mess.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Because until Media comglomorations are broken up

there can be no fairness doctrine.

That's only for the Publicly owned airwaves.

Cable is not airwaves.

See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6015088

[Doctor_J]

26. Jack Welch pretty much ordered the NBC big shots to campaign

for McSame. My guess is his annual federal taxes will decrease by more than $1M/year if McSame's deficit plan gets enacted

[democrat2thecore]

42. Jack Welch left GE in 2001 - there would be no 'Countdown' @ MSNBC otherwise

He was replaced by Jeffrey Immelt who, to his credit, has allowed NBC - and MSNBC in particular - greater autonomy. The simple fact that Keith Olbermann has one hour in prime time says a lot. That would not have happened with Jack Welch as CEO at GE. No way.

[onenote]

53. Link? Welch hasn't been in charge of GE since 2001

[Doctor_J]

57. It was posted at DU this week - something about a "pep talk" at

which Welch declared that America would be ruined if Obama is elected and so on. I will try to find it.

[rwheeler31]

27. Corporations do not make decisions. People do.

[Fuego in my body]

28. Many people are influenced by what his/her corporation wants him/her to do

It depends on the ethics of the journalist. It's evident that Welch's kids have wanted to be on the side of those who are sympathetic towards big corporations. That's why Russert got to move to a 7.2 million dollar house in Nantucket, where Welch also lived.

[nc4bo]

30. but see it's like this........

Since the FCC was weakened, the laws allow the big fish like NewsCorp and Sinclair Broadcast Group to gooble up all the little fishes so they can have control over the content of the media. Eventually there will be no media that is not owned and operated by a handful of corporations.

Edited to add that this doesn't only include television stations but also newspapers and magazines.

for example:

Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp
http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html

Sinclair Broadcasting:
http://www.sbgi.net/

Wikipedia:

Newscorp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation
Sinclair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

Politico.com and the tabloid have a very dubious root too, Allbritton Communications (remember Riggs Bank?)

http://www.politico.com/aboutus/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/

I'll tell you something else, wikipedia had a very documented trail that went from Politico>Allbritton>Riggs Bank>Bush Family (including brothers i've never heard of) but it has basically been sanitized by "someone".

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/rigg-a24.shtml (this does a pretty good job in place of wiki)

There are several more and if you keep following the money trail, it will eventually lead you to the sources.

[givemebackmycountry]

32. I just got done reading the entire thread -

No one said the obvious.

You think it's bad NOW?
Just wait for what's coming.
It's gonna be ugly.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. Figured this would happen once they got rid of Hillary.....

n/t

[mtnsnake]

43. After their faux lovefest with Obama during the Primaries, you should have known they'd turn on him

like junkyard dogs the day after the Democratic Primaries ended.

[Carrieyazel]

45. I've got to disagree with you on CBS, CNN and MSNBC

Their coverage on Obama has been mostly positive. He's getting treated about as good as can be expected here.

[Doctor_J]

58. Carrie, you need to go to mediamatters.org every couple days

the coverage has been as one-sided for McSame as it was for * in 2000 and even in 2004. Don't be fooled. It is pure GOP propaganda 24/7.

[Gabi Hayes]

46. for those unfamiliar with just HOW execrable The Note is, here's Eric Boehlert, from his book

Lap Dogs

remember that one of the leading tools in DC "journalism," Mark Halperin, who celebrates Rush Limbaugh as the sine qua non of influential political media figures is the one who started The Note, and his stamp remains, six years after it sprang from the dank, fetid bowels of some rancid ABC basement.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.boehlert.html

In the spring of 2005, a story came along that was so important, so history-altering that it threatened to revive a killer press instinct that had been dormant for the previous four years. Of course, it helped that it was a Clinton-flavored scandal: That May, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former campaign finance director, David Rosen, went on trial for his handling of a 2000 fundraiser staged in Hollywood to benefit Clinton's campaign for the U.S. Senate. Rosen was accused of hiding, or underreporting, $800,000 worth of costs. At the time, CNN political editor John Mercurio suggested that Rosen's funny money trial "reminds people of Whitewater" and the "sleazy side of the Clinton administration that and the president are both trying to forget."

Taking the lead in trumpeting the importance of the Rosen trial was ABC's The Note. An inside-baseball daily tip sheet for a readership it has dubbed the "Gang of 500" (politicians, lobbyists, consultants, and journalists who help shape the Beltway's public agenda), The Note is posted online every weekday morning and is widely viewed as the agenda-setter for the political class. On 14 different days between May 2 and 27, The Note posted cumulatively nearly forty links to Rosen-related articles, calling them "must-read." A typical Note entry came on May 10, highlighting "The opening and closing paragraphs in Dick Morris' New York Post column--perfectly explaining why the David Rosen story is going to be with us for a while."


On the day before the Rosen verdict, The Note listed "Waiting for the Rosen verdict" as the number-one priority among the Gang of 500. The next day, a federal jury acquitted Rosen of any wrongdoing. How did The Note handle this news about the trial it had hyped? By ignoring it. The next edition of The Note included a long round-up of must-reads from the Memorial Day weekend. Rosen's not-guilty verdict was not among them.

The abrupt disappearance of the story shouldn't have surprised close readers of The Note, which ABC's website has posted publicly since January 2002. In theory, what drives The Note is anything that's generating Beltway buzz. "We try to channel what the chattering class is chattering about, and to capture the sensibility, ethos, and rituals of the Gang of 500," Mark Halperin, ABC's political director and founder of The Note, once explained. Too often, though, The Note's definition of buzz has been whatever Beltway Republicans are chattering about. The Note has been nourished on an era of total Republican rule. It shows.

[Quantess]

49. They are slow to catch on to the public's mood.

Their bosses are still encouraging a right wing outlook.

[quantass]

50. RATINGS - Obama bashing is good business, unfortunately. Check out VIDEO ...

Outfoxed (VIDEO documentary): http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=43

Fox, i must agree, is clearly Republican biased. They absolutely loath Obama, or any democrat for that matter (including Hillary if she made it this far; the big fox-switch-a-roo). They really do go out of their way to bash Obama dont they! It must be embarassing for some staff reporters. I think that extra venom Fox has towards him shows how much of a shot he actually has at making it into the White House over McCain.

[Arthurtheking]

54. ABC hates Democrats

Remember Path to 9-11? And let's not forget who broke the Jeremiah Wright story. A guy with last name Ross from ABC News.

[depakid]

51. The corporate media built him up through 2007 and into 2008 -just so that they could tear him down

The Wright material, for example has been out there for a long time. Anyone who bothered to look was aware of the videos. Why sit on them so long?

Their senior news editors reckoned they'd have a field day when the time came, and for a time they tried to. But they blew their wads too early which (despite all the whinging on DU and elsewhere) was about the best thing that could have happpened. No only did it energize the primaries in states that never have a voice- but it made all that crap old news. Pulled the teeth of the tiger, so to speak.

Now what we're seeing is just the generic far right framing, self censorship, equivocation and manipulation of copy that we always see in the corporate media, day in and day out. That's not to say that there aren't plenty more tricks up their sleeves- maybe even a bombshell or two to drop. There probably are- which may be one reason why the Obama campaign has been taking pains lately to distance itself from so many progressive positions.

[Kahuna]

56. They have quite a quandry. They don't trust how Obama will serve

their corporate masters. But McGramps is dithering and is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Thrill]

59. They would be against any Democrat. Haven't you learned?