Nukes for McCain, Mickey Mouse for Obama: A Tale of Two News Media Empires

[McCamy Taylor]

I. MSNBC Looks Out for the Interests of General Electric, ABC Looks Out for the Interests of Disney, Democrats Have to Look Out for Their Own Best Interests



I have written about General Electric/NBC/MSNBC’s love for John McCain. General Electric makes over $10 billion a year selling nuclear energy facilities outside the U.S. and the feds have recently been inundated with new nuke start up requests, some from GE. John McCain just loves nuclear energy as do a bunch of retired military types who work in the defense industry. They claim it is our key to freedom from Middle East wars for oil. With the right president offering tax payers subsidies to build these radioactive pink elephants, it is the key to financial wellbeing for a lot of companies like General Electric, even in times of recession.

Here is an MSNBC video pimping “Nukes are Green”

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=799091fd-4d41-40e7-a6fc-b9341b049b48

Here are just two of several journals I have written about how General Electric is using MSNBC, its 24 hour station to give the financially strapped McCain free advertising. Note that he was declared the inevitable GOP nominee back on the night of the Iowa Caucuses which Huckabee won:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/139
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/224

Now, I noticed something interesting when I wrote my last journal about General Electric. Even though I mentioned that other news networks were not stumping for McCain, someone dismissed the post by saying (in effect) So what? All the press favors McCain This shows that people do not pay attention. The news media in the United States is not a single company—though Roger Aisles tried to make it one when he bought Rudi Giuliani and his FCC. However, Judith Regan revealed his plot, and the other news networks put an end to the President from 9/11, before his campaign even got off the ground---proving that the news media industry in this country is more like Feudal Japan. There are several powerful houses which jockey for position, form alliances, battle for supremacy in various fields of combat, but at the moment none of them reign supreme.

And given John McCain’s history of meddling in telecommunications during his years heading the Senate Commerce Committee (where he met the blonde lobbyist, Vicki Isseman) it would be surprising if he had not done anything to ruffle the feathers of some people in the industry. Unfortunately for McCain, he decided to pick on the Mouse.

Google McCain and A La Carte and you get 50,000 hits. Here is the first one.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6188.html

This article does not even begin to tell you the whole story about the A La Carte Wars. The right wing sees A La Carte as the way to drive sexual content channels, gay channels, women’s channels, minority channels off the air since people will pick and choose their channels and pay only for what they want. (We know that people will pay for porn, so that is safe, but the women’s, minority, educational and kids diversity channels, CSPAN may go out of business which is probably the right wing’s real agenda). All that will remain is blockbuster stuff like MTV, sports, home shopping and of course porn. The left wing objects to A La Carte because it will drive minority and women’s programming off the air.

Disney objects to A La Carte cable, because when it first went on the air as a premium channel, its business was not as good as it was when it joined the regular lineup. And the more children who see the Mouse, the more merchandise Disney sells, the more people visit its parks and the bigger its empire becomes. Google Disney and A La Carte and you get 160,000 hits, they hate it that much.

Now, I have a theory which is just a theory. Back in the spring of 2005, the current FCC Chairman Martin, who is currently a huge A La Carte fan met with the boss of Disney, shook his hand and agreed not to recommend A La Carte to the Republican Congress, even though McCain and Ted Stevens were stumping for it. At the same time, ABC went to work on The Path to 9/11. That film turned out to be the Hindenburg of propaganda. It was so poorly written, so ham handed that it actually helped the Clintons and the Democrats and hurt the Republicans before the 2006 Congressional elections. Before ABC showed the film, they also had a screening for right wingers only, as if to say Look! GOP propaganda here! I think that Disney---which employees lots of talent---knew exactly what it was doing with that movie. And then ABC news broke the story that put the final nail into the GOP coffin, the one about Mark Foley. Why? Because they knew that a Democratic Congress would never even consider A La Carte cable which might save single young adults some money but which would not save families any money and which would drive minority and women’s channels off the air, not cool if you depend upon women and minority for votes.

Now, Martin of the FCC is back on his A La Carte crusade again, as he plans a career in right wing politics. And John McCain, Mr. A La Carte himself, is the Republican nominee. What is a Mouse to do?

Keeping all this in mind, consider the different ways that MSNBC and ABC have handled two news stories that occurred on the same day. Clinton mentions RFK’s assassination and McCain releases his medical report.

II. Clinton Mentions Assassination





At MSNBC the story on Friday was Clinton calls upon her fans to assassinate Obama. Obama camp reacts in outrage. Well, not exactly, but it might as well have been. I did not watch Countdown I seldom do anymore, unless someone else like Maddow is the host. However, I knew what it would be like, and I could guess what the top story was all day on MSNBC, and it was not going to be McCain’s medical news dump on Friday.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/23/1058940.aspx

Hillary Invokes RFK Assassination
This might not help the Hillary-for-veep chatter... The New York Post writes, "Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama. 'My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,' she said, dismissing calls to drop out."
"Clinton made her comments at a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board while campaigning in South Dakota, where she complained that, 'People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa.'"
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to Clinton's remarks. "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli notes that Clinton said something similar the day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. "Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992," she said. "I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."

This kind of story makes it hard to tell if the Obama camp responded to provocation from the NYPost which broke the story or if the Obama camp generated the story. One strong possibility is that reporters anxious to come up with “news” called the Obama camp, said “Did you know that Clinton is saying she is staying in because she thinks Obama may be assassinated like RFK. What do you think of that?” Or, the Obama camp may have decided to contact the news first. Personally, I kind of doubt that the Obama camp keeps its eye on the Argus Leader editorial board—meaning that someone in the press was playing splitter politics, trying to fan flames of discord between the two campaigns, because they did not like the congeniality of the Democratic primary in recent days. A unified Democratic Party is no fun to cover. More importantly from McCain’s point of view, a unified Party is a strong Party.

After KO made a special comment, he took care of the unity part. Innocently, I am sure. All the other guys at GE/MSNBC would have to do is wave the remark at him like a red flag before a bull. Mission accomplished. Another Friday night Democratic internet implosion that looked for all the world like Obama planned and called for it---since everyone knows that Olbermann takes his marching orders from the Senator. MSNBC has taken care to make it look like Olbermann is part of Team Obama, by not insisting that he make even a show of neutrality. KO would be a much more credible advocate for Obama if he attempted to at least look neutral, like Rachel Maddow. MSNBC is careful to have Buchanan or Scarborough issue a few critical words about McCain when the others are praising him, just to disguise their bias. Why haven’t they taught KO the same thing? Why hasn’t the oh so clever Richard Wolffe clued him in?

What is the net result of this story for the majority of Americans, those who are not devoted Obama followers or Clinton followers? They think that the Democrats are crazy. They think that Keith Olbermann is crazy. They start looking around for someone who shows some common sense--like straight talking John McCain. They do not notice that the one who started the craziness is actually the messenger, MSNBC.

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgd1443p+mickey-and-minnie-mouse-in-love-disney-canvas-canvas.jpg

ABC has a totally different message:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4924656

Obama Empathizes With Clinton Over Kennedy Comment
By Thomas Ferraro
May 24, 2008
AGUADILLA, Puerto Rico (Reuters) - Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama empathized with rival Hillary Clinton on Saturday for the firestorm she ignited by referring to the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy.
"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here," Obama said in an interview with Radio Isla Puerto Rico during a campaign visit to the Caribbean Island and U.S. territory.
On Friday, Clinton cited the June 1968 assassination of Kennedy during his Democratic presidential campaign to help explain why she was still in the race for the party's nomination.
"My husband (Bill Clinton) did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," she told a South Dakota newspaper's editorial board.

Now how in character is that? “Obama empathizes”. Does not that sound just like the Obama that the Democrats know and love? Mature beyond his years. Able to reach out to and understand everyone, even his political opponents. Does not this sound like a united strong Democratic Party?

Which of those two article is better for Obama? Which will make undecided voters say “Hmm. That sounds like the kind of guy I want to have for my president”?

ABC’s article is much better for Sen. Obama than all of the red faced denunciation of Hillary Clinton in the world. As Rachel Maddow told Chris Matthews during the MSNBC New Hampshire primary coverage:

MADDOW: Pat, I will tell you that on the influential press on the left Web site, talkingpointsmemo today, do you want to know who they‘re blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they‘re blaming for this late showing for Hillary Clinton? They‘re blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing particularly Chris not only for his own views but also for as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton.

ABC does something that MSNBC almost never does. It praises Senator Obama.

Gasp!

III. How Old is McCain in Dog Years?



Guess what else ABC covers: McCain’s health reports. I am not surprised. The Mouse is not about to die an ugly death at the hands of A La Carte Cable.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4922061&page=1

McCain's Preholiday Document Dump
Releasing Medical Records at This Time a Possible Attempt to Defuse Sensitive Subject of Age
"The fact that they are releasing his medical records on the Friday before a holiday weekend while they're also trying to drum up speculation about who may be his veep shows us that they're trying to bury this news as much as possible," said David Chalian, ABC News political director.
Snip
An Associated Press poll in April found that 26 percent of respondents said they would be "less enthusiastic" about McCain's candidacy because of his age. In a more recent poll, 39 percent of people said they were uncomfortable with the general concept of a president taking office at the age of 72.

And how about this one?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=4919842&page=1

McCain's Ambien Use: a Security Threat?
Sleep Drug Known for Memory-Linked Side Effects; Most Doctors Unconcerned
In a presidential race marked by references to preparedness in the face of the 3 a.m. call, the revelation that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has taken the sleeping pill Ambien during his travels raises concerns that the rare side effects of the medication could impair his judgment.
Snip
Patients who claimed that they engaged in a bizarre variety of activities while asleep after taking the drug — from binge eating to driving their cars while asleep — lodged class action lawsuit in 2006 against Sanofi-Aventis, the maker of the drug.
The unusual side effects of the drug once again made headlines a few months later, when Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy smashed his Ford Mustang into a barrier near Capitol Hill. He later released a statement saying that he had been disoriented by two prescription medications he had taken, one of which was Ambien.
Snip
Fotinakes added that sleeping pills and other sedatives have been proven to be more potent in the elderly. In light of this, he said, "It may not be the best idea for the commander-in-chief to be under the influence when he or she may have to make a snap decision regarding national security in the middle of the night; Hillary's so-called telephone call at 3:00 a.m."

ABC analyzes his health report
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/Story?id=4922123&page=2
Including the fact that the reports given years ago when the melanoma was removed from his face were false

Doctors removed a melanoma in 2002 from his nose, two in 2000 from his upper arm and his left temple, and one in 1993 from his shoulder. The latter was previously reported by McCain's doctors as a non-invasive melanoma confined to the very top layer of skin. But today's review indicated that the lesion extended deeper into the skin than previously disclosed.

This last is significant. Physicians have long speculated that McCain’s 2000 temple melanoma must have been an invasive tumor based upon the type of surgery that doctor’s performed. Why lie to the public about the stage of the tumor? And if lies have been told then were lies also told about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has said he did not need chemotherapy or radiation.

However, if he did get radiation therapy, he could have suffered damage to the left side of the brain that controls speech and memory. Or, because of the need to control bleeding during the long surgical procedure, he could have experienced loss of blood flow to important structures responsible for memory and speech on the left side of the brain. The medical record which ABC analyzes mentions that he has high cholesterol and that his father had a stroke at 70.

So, what is the headline front page story at MSNBC’s website on the weekend of McCain’s health document dump? Pro-McCain oppo. Obligatory picture of traitor Joe Lieberman to remind voters that McCain is bipartisan.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24808130/

Worries in GOP of disarray in McCain camp
He hasn't take advantage of Democrats' turmoil, some Republicans say
WASHINGTON - Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, Republicans say.
In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain’s inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.
"The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington — and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question," said Terry Nelson, who was Mr. McCain’s campaign manager until he was forced out last year. "If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign."

You got that? That nasty dirty trickster is trying to paint the reformer McCain as something he is not---just another politician. He didn't really have all those lobbyists on his staff. Obama just made Americans think that John McCain did, the way that he makes his followers think that he is the chosen one. And now McCain is so busy trying to replace his staff people, he can not take advantage of the divided Democratic Party---a division that MSNBC is working its little radioactive heart out trying to engineer.

Oh, boo hoo!

Regarding the document dump MSNBC has a picture of McCain doing the funky chicken and a big headline that reads

AP: McCain appears cancer-free, healthy
71-year-old three-time cancer survivor in good shape, records indicate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24789774/

FOUNTAIN HILLS, Ariz. - Three-time melanoma survivor John McCain appears cancer-free, has a strong heart and is in otherwise general good health, according to eight years of medical records reviewed by The Associated Press.
The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting remains at risk for developing new skin cancers, and gets a thorough check by a Mayo Clinic dermatologist every few months.
"I do not see any worrisome lesions," Dr. Suzanne Connolly concluded after McCain's most recent exam, on May 12.
Snip
"I think physiologically he is considerably younger than his chronologic age based on his cardiovascular fitness," Eckstein said in an interview Thursday. "I got a call from the cardiologist who said that he had not seen anyone that age exercise for that long in a long time."

But I have saved the best for last. Newsweek has calculated McCain’s age in Giant Turtle years or Dog years or maybe Martian years and has declared that he is really only 63.7 years old . That means that he is only 3.7 years older than Clinton.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138621

General Electric really wants its nuclear reactors. And Disney really does not want A La Carte cable.

Remember, there are no good media giants and there are no bad media giants. You have to know which media giant’s financial best interest coincides with the best interest of the Democratic Party at any one moment. Is that thesis clear enough for the people who complain that I never present a thesis?

Who wins in a battle of propaganda, ABC or MSNBC? General Electric has a 24 hours news organization but Disney has better writers. And which would you rather have? A mouse in every house or a nuke in your backyard?

[AllentownJake]

1. I don't know why your so obsessed with MSNBC

It's watched by maybe 1,000,000 people in a day.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. General Electric also controls NBC, Newsweek and influences WaPo writers

plus a number of internet bloggers. And they use Olbermann to attract Democratic viewers to their special programming to disproportionately influence them.

There are people at DU who will swear that MSNBC supports Obama.

[anigbrowl]

3. Another day, another media conspiracy theory

In McCamy Taylor world, nobody thinks, they just consume; therefore the media controls everything. Shorter version: All your brain are belong to them.

It's like one of those Noam Chomsky reprint books filled up with bits from shorter essays with a new outrage on every page. In the process you commit all the sins you rail against, the most profound one being starting with a thesis and then assembling evidence to corroborate it.

That's probably not what you expected to see. The reason I state it as a sin is because a good thesis also contains its antithesis, which is examined with equal care, following which one concludes with a synthesis. Now this may seem like just invoking Hegel as a cliche, but in a real sense it's the basis of the scientific method. One must put one's ideas to the test.

What you're doing instead is taking your basic thesis and then constructing a narrative around it. The reason I mention Noam Chomsky is because his books are very popular with a sort of activist person who is passionate and interested, but not that well informed. Chomsky will give you all sorts of eye-opening information for you to feel even more passionate about and this is great...but what people forget is that Chomsky's political output doesn't stand on anything like as solid a foundation as his linguistic work.

Take any kind of half-reasonable controversial topic and you can find tons of information about it without much effort - even in pre-internet days, a good library and/or newspaper morgue would supply more material than a single person can reasonably deal with. And of course you can find vast amount of supporting commentary (which isn't evidence, but it sure looks like evidence is you shovel enough on top). And if you build all this information up with a well-written narrative, you've got analysis right?

Well, sadly no. What you have is one side's brief of a court case. It may even be the correct half, but there's something fundamental missing if you don't address both sides of the question. Of course, lawyers are the priests of a civil society so they have a special mystique. That's why conspiracy theorists (and their adherents, who include far too many journalists and bored editors) love legal-sounding language (and it's cousin, medical terminology) so much. The ______ files. The case for _________. Anatomy of a _______. And a whole slew of fallacies from begging the question - coincidence? ...to post hoc, ergo propter hoc most likely because they grew up watching Perry Mason on Saturday mornings, and so on - lists of fallacies are easily referenced. The self-reference here is unintentional and deceptive.

While I think your OPs are great advocacy writing, ultimately this makes them shallow. And I have to say that I find them dreadfully long (my writing, by contrast, is positively Kantian in its brevity and clarity). Seriously, I think you might both appeal to a wider audience and make your points more forcefully by dialling back on the experiental/narrative aspects and either developing a narrow point or presenting a dispassionate overview you see fit, depending on the topic.

A significant difference between historical or political narratives and those of a detective or legal nature is that those latter types deal with a closed situation; while its tendrils may extend beyond the scope of the narrative (significantly, in some cases) the situation itself is narrowly defined and is examined in largely binary terms. Where events are largely open-ended and their scope so broad it is (in my view) far more effective to be catholic with information and miserly with opinion.

To quote Sam Goldwyn, if you want to send a message, use Western Union. Others have observed that if you want to tell a story, don't; show the characters as they are and let the reader decide how to feel about them.

[papau]

4. Agree on Chomsky, but you appear confused on Taylor & Media - IMHO

On Taylor your post states "vast amount of supporting commentary (which isn't evidence, but it sure looks like evidence" - and then you end your post with commentary - "To quote Sam Goldwyn, if you want to send a message, use Western Union. Others have observed that if you want to tell a story, don't; show the characters as they are and let the reader decide how to feel about them."

Those who have been in top management know exactly what Taylor posits - the influence of the CEO/Board hits every level of management in every subsidiary. There is no "conspiracy" in this discussion - it is just the fact that one retains one's job by not going against the tide coming from the corner office - at least not very often or very loudly fighting for a different set of priorities.

And as Taylor points out, the set of priorities can vary among the 6 corporations that run US Media (However in my own industry - insurance - the set of priorities varied little except as to stock versus mutual and con job health (health savings accounts) vs health insurance - and in both those cases the GOP Boards forced victory for control by the rich (removal of mutual form for most companies) and advancement of GOP political positions in health).

[papau]

5. Excellent essay as always - I hope you're correct re comparison to feudal Japan's powerful Houses

"the news media industry in this country is more like Feudal Japan. There are several powerful houses which jockey for position, form alliances, battle for supremacy in various fields of combat, but at the moment none of them reign supreme."

At the political policy level my experience has been in a word of near uniform GOP policy positions at board level across most types of corporations (the exception in recent memory being the METLIFE's Greek CEO's social conscience in the early 90's - who's influence on the Met continues to this day - and Google).

Your point about KO was spot on - I liked him and was sorry to see him self destruct as he went into Hillary Hate/Obama praise mode.

[Jakes Progress]

6. K&R another effort.

Unfortunately the donkey following the carrot rarely looks behind to see who is dangling the carrot or even suspect the destination of the cart.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again--

I want you to know how much I value your essays. Even when I disagree with you in whole or in part (and my curmudgeonly nature makes that a frequent occurrence), you generally make me think, and I profit from having to reason out my points of contention with you.

I'm not at all a popular-media watcher. We have a TV hooked up to a satellite dish or something, but it's in a cabinet with closing doors so I don't have to look at it even when it's off, and I don't even know how to turn it on. My wife and the dog sometimes watch it, I think. My wife says the dog likes Animal Planet. Personally, I don't even like to be in the same room with an activated TV. I get a feeling like I'm being contaminated with some sort of noxious radiation. Most of what I know about what the public is seeing comes from selected YouTube clips and the like, which I find online, particularly through links from places like this. As a result, I have no idea what this American Idol business is about, or why anyone would care. Likewise, I have trouble imagining why anyone would care about major-league sports.

It has always seemed reasonable to assume that the mega-corporations may be a bunch of fellow-travellers whose interests are not always identical. I know that the major networks are owned by a few giant corporations, but I had assumed that the corporate media are rather monolithic in their views and purposes. Your essay today is my first clue that the schisms between various corporate factions might be reflected in the slants of the news stories put forth by their propaganda mouthpieces. Your model of the corporate world certainly makes sense. This may seem to you naive, and probably it is. In any case, regardless of how naive I may be in these realms, you have today given me a more complex and textured framework for thinking about the actions of the media.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. Gore Vidal said that the business news is the only "accurate news". That was years ago.

I looked and he was correct. The consumers of business news will not be satisfied with anything that is not state of the art as 100% scientific factual as you can get because money is like GOD in this country. So, even though I am not interested in business, I always make a point of checking to see what the business end of every political venture is when looking into American politics and everyone who is interested in US politics should do so.

People have been amazed in the past at my ability to predict things. For instance, I do not watch ABC News and have never watched ABC News but I went to their site yesterday when I wanted to write this journal contrasting GE's pro McCain stance with another network's anti-McCain stance knowing that I would find lots of oppo about McCain's Friday afternoon health document dump---

Because I know all about Disney's A La Carte War. That was enough to assure me that they would use ABC to tell the world every secret that McCain did not want revealed about his health. No crystal ball. I just knew Disney's business.

Anyone can do this. I don't have a degree in communications. My bachelor degree is in biology/English, I am a family physician and I have a Masters Public Health. I have never been a journalist and I write and edit only science fiction, no nonfiction. All you have to do is ask "How does this sell dog food?"

As for Noam Chomsky, I cite him because he provides an eloquent summary, but I did not get a lot of ideas from him. I have only read a few essays by him. Roland Barthes is my main inspiration along with William Blake. S/Z had a profound effect on me when I was young.

Here is another prediction. AOL-Time Warner CNN is all about Cable. They make a lot of money from cable. The Bush administration has been trying to steal some of their cable business and give it to The Phone Companies. And Chairman Martin has been trying to regulate cable to further his political ambitions and maybe blackmail CNN the way they did in 2006. And McCain has had his fingers---and his dick---in the cable industry when he chaired the Senate Communications Committee. He is blackmail bait now, and the people who know the real scoop about Vicki are not CNN----which is going to make AOL Time Warner very, very nervous about a John McCain presidency. Now, CNN is known for journalistic excellence so they will not do what NBC or ABC does. They will not wear their bias on their sleeve. They do not have to. I expect that CNN will not make John McCain look like a straight talking Washington reforming maverick this fall and they will not make Barack Obama look like a soft on terror inexperienced Muslim this fall--which in itself may be all that is needed to throw the race to the Democrats.

[SaveAmerica]

8. How are we supposed to believe all of your research, your comments about KO and what he comments

about, who he gets his marching orders from (that one REALLY takes the cake) when you can't be bothered to watch it?

"At MSNBC the story on Friday was Clinton calls upon her fans to assassinate Obama. Obama camp reacts in outrage. Well, not exactly, but it might as well have been. I did not watch Countdown I seldom do anymore, unless someone else like Maddow is the host. However, I knew what it would be like, and I could guess what the top story was all day on MSNBC, and it was not going to be McCain’s medical news dump on Friday."

It's amazing how you can twist that entire ABC mess around "Path to 9/11" as something they did on purpose.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. It took me a while to figure out. Disney knows how to make movies.

If they make bad propaganda it is because they want to make bad propaganda. The one thing Disney knows is how to grab America by the heart strings. Plus, you have to know about the hand shake in 2005 with Martin, the year and half exemption they bought themselves from A La Carte while they produced that movie, the way they announced it to world as "Propaganda" ensuring that more people would be watching the 9/11 documentary than their own movie. And then the way that they broke the Mark Foley scandal that killed the GOP in the fall elections.

Even before all these other two pieces fell into place, I posted somewhere that the advance promo for "The Path to 9/11" was screwy. It was as if forces at ABC were trying to sink the movie, make sure that everyone knew that it was Republican oppo.

ABC helped sink the Republicans in the fall of 2006. They probably do not want credit for it, but they did it. And it was John McCain's fault for pushing A La Carte Cable. You do not mess with the Mouse.

[highplainsdem]

11. K & R. 5th rec... Another good analysis of the media. Thanks!