Have the Cheney Protests in Australia Been Reported by the US MSM?

[Blackhatjack]

If you read just a smattering of news sources overseas, you start to understand just how stilted the coverage is of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the war in Iraq.

Protests are going on in Australia against a US Vice President visit, and we hear almost nothing here. Cheney is about as popular as bird flu throughout the rest of the world, and he is carried in our MSM as being strong in his stance on Iran. (You would wonder how strong a Vice President could be with a 12% approval rating).

The British are pulling troops out of Iraq and CHeney is saying it is because of the success of their mission. THe rest of the world does not believe it, the Brit papers report they do not believe it, and we get fairy-tale reporting here in the US.

The evidence of not only a compromised MSM in the US, but a MSM complicit in carrying out the misguided plans of this Administration, is out in the open for everyone to see.

So who will see? And how can we change the status quo?

I am afraid it is going to take more than turning out this Administration to restore our country. It is going to take a wholesale restructuring and re-regulating of the mass media and their owners.

[Benhurst]

1. You are right. It will take a wholesale restructuring and re-regulating

of the mass media and their owners.


"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."


Thomas Jefferson, on the necessity of a free press (1787)

[rodeodance]

2. not on evening news (nbc, cbs) nor on News Hr (pbs)--that I am aware of.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. "a MSM complicit in carrying out the misguided plans of this Administration"

Yes they have become a corporate propaganda arm of these thugs.

As much as by what they refuse to report and instead focus on
infotainment.

America is starving for REAL NEWS that's one of the reasons John Stewart is so popular.
He gives people real News.

Have you see this (VIDEO) RIOTS WELCOME CHENEY TO SIDNEY: EXCELLENT RAW FOOTAGE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x278181

REC!!

[rodeodance]

4. i have not heard any UK stuff on the networks either.

[frogcycle]

5. More even than that

the once-free press has been fully commandeered by the PNAC crowd.

Regulation and restructuring won't touch it. It is like a massive cancer.

Bottom line is that there is precious little "news" leaking out without going through the spin machine.

What is needed, unfortunately, is a fully independent entity chartered with "telling it like it is."

But that entity would have enormous costs, and they need to be funded from somewhere. The choices seem to be big business or the government. Since both are now controlled by the same gang, the public is just flat out of luck. Maybe, just maybe, the internet will make possible the dissemination of news "of the people, by the people, and for the people". There is movement in that direction. Being unregulated, though, there is nothing to assure accuracy - just competing yammering voices.

If that could evolve into a real trustworthy "free press" and the public were to understand that ALL of television and print media is suspect, to say the least, well, maybe. But with huge parts of the public believing fox noise is "fair and balanced" we have a long, long way to go.

I think we need to use the power of the purse. Does anyone really pay attention to what advertisers support what? There have been occasional campaigns to boycott advertisers, typically brought by the religious fundies, that have had some effect. Might it be possible for the netroots to mount such a campaign? Would there be anything left to buy?

[malaise]

6. I haven' seen them

Only on BBC and on French and German TV stations

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Yes, either on NBC or MSNBC but it was very very brief. 3 seconds worth. nt

[TomClash]

8. What? Why should they cover that?

It would interrupt the all-important, all-consuming Anna Nicole coverage.

[jwirr]

9. What is the matter with you people? Don't you know the Anna Nicole

and Britney are more important? :sarcasm:

On the other hand, what has BBC said about it? KO? John Stewart? Colbert?

They seem to be our only real contact with reality.

[leftofthedial]

10. what protests?

[meldroc]

11. Yep, the media's been bought off by the corporate oligarchs.

It's not in their best interests to bite the hand that feeds them, to expose the corporate and government gravy train that's making their owners rich.

So we're not going to see stories that make the administration and the corporations look bad. We're not going to see much of those Australian protests. Instead, more fluffy crap. More split screens of Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears.

I can think of three changes to make to improve things.

1. Reinstate media ownership limits. It used to be that one company couldn't own more than certain percentages of media markets. Those rules went away in the 90's with the Telecommunications Act. Bring them back, so there are dozens or hundreds of media owners instead of a handful of oligarchs. Break up the media empires.

2. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Make the news media show more than one side of the news story. Keep the GOP from dominating the media and pushing the Democrats out.

3. Instate ethics rules that the Administration and Congress have to follow when dealing with the media. I'm not good at coming up with rules that can't be gamed, but some rules should be put in place that forbid the President, the Veep, Congressmen or any high government officials who speak with the media from playing political games with media access. No more revoking access privileges to reporters who write stories that displease them. No more "Archangels of Death" calling journalist's bosses, threatening revokation of access if a story isn't spun or suppressed. Access should be doled out to journalists with an impartial system, based possibly on reporter seniority.