The Preeminent Cause for the Coup of 2000 was the Corporate Media.

[Uncle Joe]

If you don't understand that, you're missing the boat.

No individual, political party or movement remotely came close to having the power and ability of the corporate media to influence the American Peoples' psyche in 2000, and to a lesser degree today, thanks to the Internet, but the Internet was a shadow of its' current self in 2000.

The corporate media would wield this same mass brainwashing power a couple of years later in the run-up to the war with Iraq.

The corporate media painted Gore as a serial liar or exaggerator that couldn't be trusted, using with one slander or libel after the other against him. "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" is just one of a multitude of examples, this phrase repeated incessantly 24/7 with scarcely a single rebuttal. To this day, you can still find deluded people out there believing he said that.

Above everything else the corporate media feared the growing power and influence of the Internet; of which Al Gore was the prime political champion.

This human nature dynamic is nothing new, it's ancient and rooted in mythological teachings, Al Gore was a modern day Prometheus stealing fire from heaven and passing it on to the people, this of course pissed Zeus aka; the corporate media off big time.

The corporate media didn't send a buzzard or eagle to consume an ever healing liver, they just continually used slander and libel to take bites from the public perception Gore's integrity.

The last thing the corporate media wanted was a strong advocate for the Internet and in turn the American Peoples' freedom of speech power to occupy the Oval Office.

That's not all they did either, the corporate media also gave more publicity and promotion of Nader over Buchanan, they knew neither man could win under our current political structure but they also knew Nader would draw more votes from Gore.

To the people that say Al Gore ran an "ineffective campaign" on the one side you had Nader saying there was no basic difference between the parties and Gore/Bush were Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb and on the other you had the corporate media harping how the strongest proponent for 1st Amendment since the Bill of Rights was drafted, stating how he couldn't be trusted.

Just ask yourself this one question, what if the corporate media had been honest brokers and actually gave Gore credit for his strong advocacy, leadership and legislative accomplishments in opening the Internet to the American People instead of covering it up with inane, bitter lies and obfuscation?

I'm convinced Al Gore would've won in a landslide too large for the Republicans to steal, the Supreme Court would never have seen light of day of this.

[leftstreet]

1. Nonsense. NAFTA sank Gore. Labor stayed home. End of story

[Uncle Joe]

4. Gore had the courage of his convictions and openly debated NAFTA for all to see, not mention in

Florida alone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5190895

Florida: Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.

Do you believe those Democrats in Florida voting for Bush thought he would oppose NAFTA?

[leftstreet]

6. How'd that work out for him? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

8. It apparently worked out well for Bush, so in Florida NAFTA didn't damage Gore, Bush wasn't

opposed to NAFTA, but Nader was.

As my OP states the corporate media's relentless slander and libel against Gore did damage him.

[leftstreet]

12. The corporate media didn't sign NAFTA. Clinton did

The corporate media didn't refuse to air Gore's promise to repeal NAFTA



I understand the point you're making about corporate media influence, but in this instance there was really no way to spin the fact that Clinton (and by association Gore) lost working class votes.

[Uncle Joe]

13. I never said or implied the corporate media signed NAFTA, my contention is NAFTA didn't damage

Gore in Florida, at least not to a large degree, Bush got 300,000+ thousand Democratic votes, he was all for NAFTA, Nader only got approximately 24,000+ Democratic votes, that's approximately 1/12th of what Bush the NAFTA supporter got.

My contention from the OP is the corporate media lied, slandered and libeled Al Gore relentlessly on an entire host of other issues particularly his strong advocacy for the Internet and his substantial credibility.

Of course the corporate media also screwed the people over the global warming issue as well, because they knew honestly reporting what 97+% of the world's climate scientists were advocating benefited Gore's position as well, meanwhile they were doing everything possible to give Bush a free pass to the White House.

The corporate media had the Internet in its' sights before 2000 and Al Gore's candidacy was the first casualty.

[fasttense]

27. I'm so sick of seeing these excuses for RepubliCON theft

Al Gore Won. No matter how you count the votes, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election and the unholy and corrupt union of the Supremes and RepubliCONS stole it from him as was the plan.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

To claim anything else is to hide the truth and help justify the theft for the RepubliCONS.

You think he should have had over the top votes so RepubliCONS couldn't have stole it? Really? Why not just challenge the Supremes and the RepubliCONS and fight back and protest? Oh, that's just too difficult.

So we all sat at home and let W and the Supremes steal the election. It was every single voter's, who gives a crap about their vote, fault. We stood around and watched an outright theft and only a very few of us fought back.

We should have poured into the streets, with or without Gore, and remained there until all the votes were counted accurately.

But don't give RepubliCONS cover for their theft by claiming something else happened. They stole it and nothing Gore would have or could have done would have changed the theft. It was planned from the get go. Put the blame where it belongs.

[CrispyQ]

31. "It was planned from the get go."

That's what I believe, too. The BFEE was not going to let the results of eight years of prosperity fall into anyone else's hands. They wanted the loot & they had a plan to get it.

[abelenkpe]

2. We need to break up big media corporations

Same for energy, finance, and pharmaceutical companies. Don't we have anti trust laws?

[Uncle Joe]

5. I agree abelenkpe, fortunately the Internet is taking some of their propaganda power away, but

make no mistake they're still too powerful.

I have no doubt that's why the corporate media is attacking Net Neutrality.

Ultimately I believe the Internet should be a public utility.

[BootinUp]

3. I generally see mainstream media as individual actors all with similar/same motivations

I think its more likely they were mainly chomping at the bit for more Reaganomics, than some more obscure internet conspiracy. But that doesn't mean you don't raise an interesting point. No doubt that the vast vast majority of them wanted to see Gore go down. Worth some thought.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe they were too scripted in their talking points and if they were true believers in

the 1st Amendment, it would've been anathema to them as an institution to trash Gore over this.

How could they not recognize the revolutionary power of the Internet in regards to enabling the public to give their voice?

[Uncle Joe]

9. "Can't see the forest for the trees."

http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/American/can_t_see_the_forest_for_the_trees_149.htm

Meaning: If you can't see the forest for the trees, you can't see the whole situation clearly because you're looking too closely at small details, or because you're too closely involved.

[kelliekat44]

25. Unsung héros of the Gore defeat aside from Nader: the NRA

TN, W.VA These two states Gore should have won but thanks to the NRA he did not. Check it out.

[Uncle Joe]

26. I still contend the corporate media's propaganda was the primary reason that Gore lost.

That institution's relentless slander and libel against Gore's substantial credibility whether it be regarding the Internet, global warming or an entire host of other issues and non-issues, cost him Tennessee and several other states as well.

If you can't be trusted then you're more prone to fall for an Alzheimer's ridden would be Moses rant against Gore that "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands"

[lpbk2713]

10. Harris and the Florida GOP machine tipped the scale in favor of Shit-for-Brains

The Supremes gave it the coup de grace.

[Uncle Joe]

11. None of that would've mattered had the corporate media not waged a relentless war against Gore

for the better part of two years prior to that election/selection, it simply wouldn't have been close.

With all their shenanigans the Florida GOP machine barely put Florida to a preliminary advantage to Bush, the same holds true for the SCROTUS decision of Bush vs Gore.

[Uncle Joe]

14. This thread needs a theme song.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked for the 11:14 PM Crowd.

[HeiressofBickworth]

16. The PEOPLE actually did elect Gore

Here's the stats:

Bush: 50,546,002 popular votes 47.87%
Gore: 50,999,897 popular votes 48.38%
Nader: 2,882,955 popular votes 2.74%

Gore did not lose the popular vote -- people did vote for him to be president.
The Supreme Court, by stopping the counting of votes in Florida, assured that the ELECTORAL votes went for Bush, thereby making him president, despite the opposite result of the popular vote. This is the argument for abolishing the Electoral Vote; it is outdated and results in an inaccurate representation of the will of the people.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I agree with you Gore did win, but it was close enough for the Republicans to steal

and the corporate media is the only reason it was that close. If they had just been honest brokers Al Gore would've won in a landslide.

[HeiressofBickworth]

18. I agree with you but

the final decision was made by the Supreme Court, thereby thwarting the will of the nation's (not just Florida's) voters. The decisions handed down by the Court in the intervening years proves their Republican (and Catholic religion) preferences. Without them, we wouldn't have had a poor Citizens United decision, paving the way for even more election tampering. And, we certainly wouldn't have the current Hobby Lobby debacle.

Yes, Gore conceded way too soon for my liking (just like Kerry conceded way too soon for my liking), but the selection of the President wasn't dependent on Gore conceding. The corporate media and the vote theft by Republicans were factors, but in the end, it was the Court that made the presidential selection. Since they stopped the counting of Florida votes, the Supreme Court made a decision WITHOUT knowing the will of the people. The were furthering their own personal agendas. My scorn rests mainly and heavily on the Supreme Court -- the Justices on the Court in 2000 and as they are now.

I fear for the future of the country now that even the Supreme Court is partisan and uber-religious. Five of the 9 are Catholics so it is no surprise their ruling was against the best interests of women. It just makes me want to puke and never stop.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Yes, but the greatest threat to our democratic republic is the monopolized corporate media's

propaganda power, everything else follows from that, who gets elected to the Congress and Presidency, this in turn determines the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.

Noam Chomsky


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/noamchomsk166974.html#jsP2UVA4DeefETu5.99

[HeiressofBickworth]

20. Since the make-up of the SC is for life,

even a changing of Congress and/or the Presidency will do nothing to change the outcome of their decisions. We see increasingly that members of Congress (both houses) vote corporate interests and rarely in the interests of the population as a whole. The President can nominate a replacement when a vacancy comes up, but it is up to Congress to approve -- and as we have seen, Republicans not only will cater to their regular base, but they increasingly cater to the crazies. To make a major change in the Supreme Court, vacancies would have to come up frequently and in short succession. If all of the media was owned by progressive interests, it still wouldn't result in a major overhaul of the Supreme Court. So we are stuck with them for now.

I agree with you that the propaganda emanating from the right is a threat to democracy, but without a Supreme Court on our side, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them. When election results are set aside (Bush v. Gore) and when carte blanche is given to the oligarchs (Citizens United) and when decisions (Burrell v. Hobby Lobby) create a de facto state religion (in this case, Catholic), what can "we the people" do to stop the madness?

I worked in the field of law my entire adult life and always respected the rule of law. I'm now sickened by it.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Two of those "Justices" Roberts and Alito were appointed while Bush the Least was pRresident

the corporate media carried Bush to a place close enough for the Republicans to steal the election and he in turn shaped the Court that would go on to decide Citizens United and Hobby Lobby.

There will be more Justices retiring in the in near future as they're getting up into their elder years.

There is no doubt the Roberts Court will never be the peoples' advocate or sincere defenders of the Bill of Rights.

If the Democratic Party can't come to the realization that corporate media propaganda is the most real and present danger, they won't stand a chance winning enough elections to change the court.

If we have a large enough majority in the Congress and control of the White House, aside from appointments to the high court, laws can be passed to end run the Supreme Court and Justices can be impeached.

However it all starts with awareness as to what our current modern day press is, along with tactics and strategies to counter their mass propaganda.

I don't view this as a chicken and egg scenario, it all begins with the corrosive power of corporate propaganda, the Democrats running for election and the people must be made aware, either through, over or around the corporate media apparatus.

[HeiressofBickworth]

23. I think we both agree that the RW propaganda

certainly works against "we the people". All the things you listed flow from that. I guess my background in law skews my view towards the Supreme Court and what a miserable failure it has been in the end.

How to combat the most powerful propaganda -- access to the airwaves for us lefties is severely curtailed. Here in Seattle, we lost our one and only progressive radio station when they decided that what Seattle really needs is a fourth sports chat station. Neither of our two newspapers are worth spit. I stopped taking or reading the Seattle Times in 2012 when they openly reported that they gave time and advertising space to a Republican candidate -- not the usual editorial in favor of the candidate, but actually donated time and space to the campaign. Haven't touched it since. The remaining paper, the Seattle PI, is dull as dishwater and not informative about national issues. Thank heavens for the internet!! And I can watch Al Jazeera on cable.

Well, Uncle, this has been a very pleasant and informative discussion, but I must sign off and go to bed. Thank you and have a good night.

[Uncle Joe]

24. The pleasure has been mine, HeiressofBickworth.

Take heart, I believe ultimately, we will prevail and I also believe the Internet will be the vehicle for our deliverance, that's why it's of utmost importance that we protect it.

Peace to you and have a good night.

[Uncle Joe]

22. P.S. The Citizens United decision is prima facie evidence that the Republican Supreme Court

views the power of propaganda with the utmost importance, they know which side of their bread is buttered.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Does anyone out there believe, the Kochs and their friends don't believe in the power of propaganda?

They've seen what it can do, know what it can do and they're willing to spend half a billion dollars on it.

On a thread, by babylonsister.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025194293

300 Koch-Led Businessmen Pledge $500 Million to Turn the Senate Over to Republicans

How much of that is going to the corporate media's pockets and will that affect their overall coverage; not including paid for advertising?

[Bluenorthwest]

29. You mistake the hammer for the carpenter. Republicans were the cause, the media was a tool.

And all the rhetoric aside, when anyone offers blame for that theft to anyone other than the Republican thieves I am always unsure of their intentions.

[Uncle Joe]

30. You mistake a tool for a willing tool and you/we do so at our own political and real life peril.

I never said anything about the Republicans not stealing the election/selection of 2000.

I've never said a word on this thread absolving the Republicans for their actions, I'm just telling what Institution was most effective in covering for them, whether it was two years before the election, during the recount or the years of the Bush pResidency.

I'm stating point of fact, they couldn't have done it without a compliant, monopolized six corporation owned American "News" Industry intent on helping the Republicans or as it turned out keeping the race close enough for the Republicans to steal.

They were never honest brokers as an institution and that is the primary dysfunction with the system.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The Preeminent Cause for the Coup of 2000 was the Corporate Media

That's your title. And it gives that lot far too much credit skill wise. They would not know how to cause a well organized dinner for 12. Look, we agree on the basics, the news media (which is not all media, by the way) sucks and back then sucked even a bit more than it does now. Too many outlets in too few hands and not enough diversity of opinion.
But the sort of corruption you think goes on largely does not because it just is not necessary. Our news media is largely so lazy and free of ethical standards that bribes or collusion would be nothing more than risk added. In most ways, what I am describing is a far worse sort of corruption than more simple forms, it is a corruption that carries the 'rotten' connotation of the word, decomposition of a professional body.
The problems are complex and actual, but to deal with them requires more than boilerplate thinking and speculation. It requires understanding the actual sorts of corruption and decay that exist and seeking remedy for those things.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Only six corporations own 95% of everything the American People see on television, hear on the radio

or read in major publications, magazines and newspapers. It doesn't take a lot of collusion or downstream bribery, they just want to keep their jobs and they know what pleases their bosses and what doesn't.

Corporations by their very nature are authoritarian and it all rolls downhill.

The laziness and lack of ethics that you speak of is by design, ratings is for the most part the driving force, but when truth butts heads against authoritarian corporate supremacist dogma, journalistic integrity will lose out, one needs to look no further than Phil Donahue and Chris Matthews to understand that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue

n July 2002, Phil Donahue returned to television after seven years of retirement to host a show called Donahue on MSNBC. On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show, citing his opposition to the imminent invasion of Iraq by the United States military. Donahue was the highest rated show on MSNBC at the time it was canceled, managing to beat Chris Matthews' MSNBC show Hardball in the ratings.[18] But Matthews was a big proponent of the Iraq invasion and he cultivated a good relationship with MSNBC's management before Donahue came to the network. He played a crucial role in procuring the firing of Donahue and "saw himself as MSNBC's biggest star, and he was upset that the network was pumping significant resources into Donahue's show."[19] In the fall of 2002, U.S. News & World Report ran a gossip item that had Matthews saying over lunch in Washington that if Donahue stays on the air, he could bring down the network.

Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."[20] Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned by General Electric and Microsoft, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[21]

Matthews was one of the prime faces in the "War Against Gore" beginning in the spring of 99 spouting lie after lie. He more than most aided Bush to power, and this was on MSNBC, not FOX. Now how is "Matthews going to bring down the network," he was pro-war and G.E. owner stood to profit, he was also pro Bush.

Their are some notable exceptions of good, conscientious journalists, but the corporate media as an institution is designed to further corporate power here and abroad. That's what it's all about.

[samsingh]

34. that's very true - the corporate media was sleazy back then too - not just so obvious

people believed they were honest brokers when in fact they were lying imbeciles loyal to their right-wind corporate masters.

[Uncle Joe]

35. There wasn't a racist tinge as is the case today, but to myself and many other close observers

they were most assuredly obvious in their perfidy.

The major advantage we have today is the Internet is much more substantial than its' shadow of 1998-2000.

The curtain has been pulled back.

Peace to you, samsingh.