Dan Rather admitted last year that corpmedia NEEDED to protect Bush for the favorable rulings

[blm]

they expected from a Bush second term.

McClellan's book is only more validation of the corporate media's willing complicity to protect Bush's image before the 2004 election.

The constant protection of Bush and the constant teardown of Kerry was deliberate.

Don't let the media whores pretend they weren't complicit - we are NOT ALL DUMB. Some of us KNOW how to put the puzzle pieces together.


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Writer]

1. It's not really a matter of corporate ownership as it is of access.

This particular White House has been very keen on threatening the press with limited access for not following the line.

[blm]

2. For the media owners and profiteers it was definitely both.

Global fascists - the lot of them.

[Writer]

5. Really?

Then why did Clear Channel radio sign so many of their radio stations onto Air America?

[blm]

10. Control. And Air America was NEVER going to be a big threat to Bush by Nov 2004.

You think Clear Channel didn't know that?

[Writer]

15. But Clear Channel never asked Air America to change it's content.

So how did they control Air America?

[blm]

20. Control what markets it would be in for instance, just as they kicked Stern off the air in certain

crucial markets in 2004 when he was fiercely attacking Bush.

And the fact remains that there was no way Air America could ever become even a 1% factor to the 2004 election, and anyone with half a peabrain about media matters knows it. Why you choose to use it as a some cover for your analysis of 2004 is just absurd to me.

[rucky]

3. So they willingly gave up their rights as a free press.

the one thing that protects them and they gave it away.

[Writer]

6. I think it's inevitable that in our current socio-political environment that a free press cannot

survive.

[blm]

30. And if you don't fight back and in your case, even excuse it, then what does that say about US?

I will keep shining a light on the truth, no matter what. And that includes calling OUT the media for their complicity.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. But this corporate ownership was instrumental in getting bu$h elected and selling this war to the

American people. It's all a matter of corporate ownership. Maybe we agree or maybe we don't? :shrug: How can we have one without the other?

[Writer]

8. Yeah but that assumes that every newspaper, television network, radio station...

and internet site worked as one group with only one political ideal. How realistic is that, really? If an owners' political philosophy affects how his or her media firm operates, why should it matter if that media firm is corporate or not? Why is it always "corporate media" that's of issue here, when it's simply that a media firm is at the behest of its owner, regardless of his or her political philosophy? And given that, does every company and individual support the Bush administration?

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Well not being as intelligent as you are, let me just say this, I do believe that

most of the MSM did/does support the bush administration and they have demonstrated as much these past 7 years. And I emphasize the corporate media, ie newspapers, television networks , radio station, ie Clear Channel. I think that is apparent.

[Writer]

17. I think we need to start changing how we look at all of this.

I think we (liberals) are hurting ourselves by entrapping our logic in these 1980's-era Chomskian dictums. We are ignoring the 300 million-pound elephant in the room - the American public.

[blm]

23. The public is targeted for deception by those who know they rely on info from newsmedia

to be at least somewhat accurate.

[blm]

11. A great deal of them DO work in consort. I know newsrooms as well as anyone here.

I also know the back stories about the internal workings of the major newsgroups.


You would have to be one helluva a COINCIDENCE theorist to believe that MOST of the news organizations don't come to a narrative from the same direction or for the same reasons.

[Writer]

16. Which have worked in consort?

[librechik]

18. It's not a conspiracy. It's a movement.

There aren't any ringleaders just the Cool Kids. They just all know what to do because they want to stay in the clique. They watch what others do and chime in.

If you want a good written rundown, try Eric Altermans' "What Liberal Media" or Eric Boehlert's "Lapdogs"

[blm]

22. Lapdogs lays out the complicity of 2004 election definitively. There is just no plausible argument

to make that the coverage became that coincidental in what it focused on and what it ignored.

[blm]

21. Get real - they have similar bottom lines and similar goals. They don't have to call each other and

agree to jump on the same train. You think they all just HAPPENED to not show up to Kerry's speech to the Firefighters Convention where he attacked the swifts and challenged Bush to debate their services publicly instead of hiding behind the swifts?

Or, maybe an apologist like you just accepts the position that it just wasn't a newsworthy event to cover in August during a presidential election?

[Uncle Joe]

31. You can't always see or know the cause of a disease, sometimes you just have the symptoms to go by.

I recall virtually all of them promoted the lie that "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" as if he were in laboratory and came up with the idea. The was a particularly harmful slander/libel as integrity was a major issue in 2000 after the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal and impeachment.

This was a such a bogus preposterous lie, it couldn't possibly be believed and yet it was promoted day and night beginning in March 99 until even past the selection of 2000 from the breakfast morning shows to prime time dinner news, to the late night snack comedians, it was on radio, it was in publications such as the Washington Post, The New York Times, it was pretty much everywhere.

In very isolated incidences did I see anyone reporting to the contrary, the vast majority of the corporate media were reading from the same script and this was only a harbinger of much more to follow. I knew the truth and yet the most powerful nation on the planet with it's vaunted "fourth estate watchdogs for democracy" were incapable of telling it.

[blm]

32. They grabbed onto lies about Gore and Kerry and ran with them COMPLETELY DISREGARDING the truth

because their corporate masters DIDN'T WANT them to speak to the truth.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I agree, I view the institutional wide standardized lies as symptoms of a greater

journalistic disease, and I believe they were told by their masters either explicitly or implicitly to carry out these lies or belittlements.

But the disease isn't the lies, those are just the symptoms of a greater dysfunctional rot within the so called "free press".

I believe the system of one way top down journalism has run it's course because of too much concentration and the dumbing down of and erosion of journalistic integrity from pressure being applied by those at the top.

I was responding to Writer's question of "Which have worked in consort?"

You don't need to know every detail of the conspiracy to see the results, just as you don't need to know every detail of a disease to recognize the symptoms.

[Echo In Light]

35. Very realistic, provided one understands how the press works from top-down

Forget about the overt, dreaded conspiratorial aspects of the scenario...the kind of thing that most Americans have been conditioned to disavow {go figure!}...it doesn't necessarily happen within such shadowy trappings; it's just {big} business as usual.
=======================

The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.

Summary

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-media.html

[sandnsea]

13. Hillary sure got her face all over the teevee

during joke-gate. They threaten the press with access too, all the time. They've got their own set of journalists who carry their water. It's the only way she's still in the race. An honest press would have pointed out the futility of the delegate race, the lies of the "popular" vote, and the illegitimacy of MI & FL. She'd have been out on her ear weeks ago. Instead we've got this confusion, brought to us by the same people who gained so much power from Clinton's telecommunications act.

[blm]

25. Clintons always got their face on TV to defend Bush and smear Kerry whenever they benefitted.

.

[wildbilln864]

7. got to k&r this one too. nt

[redqueen]

12. K&R

*sigh*

[malaise]

14. You know the real media tell all will come

when one of the hacks snaps on air and exposes the producers and CEOs. Of course we know most of the so called journalists are just whores for the good life and are as self-serving as Scotty, but it will be more vindication for those who knew and know about their complicity from 2000 to now.

[blm]

19. Look how even the old guard targeted Rather for going off the crafted image constructed for Bush

and for themselves afterwards.

[Virginia Dare]

26. The vast right wing conspiracy had it out for Rather for a long time..

don't think Poppy Bush ever forgot his public humiliation at the hands of Rather.

[blm]

27. And then his so-called 'colleagues' joined in the knifing when every damn one of them knew the truth

about Bush being AWOL by then and the fact that their corporate masters were forcing the continuing protection of Bush throughout that election cycle.

[ray of light]

24. k-r

[ray of light]

28. Scotty's book is further proof of this

[Octafish]

29. Prescott Bush helped CBS Founder William Paley get financing to buy the company.

Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS). Bush was introduced to William Paley, founder of CBS, by Averell Harriman, who in 1929 had represented CBS in a merger with Paramount Studios. In 1932, he took an active role in arranging the financing for Paley to purchase the company. Bush joined the board of directors and kept the position for several years.

SOURCE: http://neohumanism.org/p/pr/prescott_bush.html

Neat. Goes a long way towards explaining the dearth of BFEE coverage and the protection offered certain idiots, gangsters and warmongers.

[blm]

33. And the coziness of the closed government lawmakers who work together AGAINST open government

and its few Dem advocates over the last 4 decades.

[Octafish]

34. John Judge reports on CBS and the JFK Assassination

Seems there's a reason so few Democrats -- in particular, Liberal Democrats -- are getting their voices heard, let alone policies implemented.

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:32:39 -0400

To: R.R.

Subject: Re: CBS's Don Hewitt's interview today on MSNBC

Well R., it's interesting, but he's (Don Hewitt) had many years to do something about all this on 60 Minutes and not a peep. This information is apparently also in his new memoirs book. No cost in saying it as he retires -- it's a weak whistle-blowing then.

Jim Hougan told us a story about Hewitt at the Lost River conference last year. When Jim first came to work at 60 minutes, Hewitt, who was the gatekeeper deciding what stories would or would not run on 60 minutes, took Jim to lunch. Hewitt said he had heard Jim was a "conspiracy theorist" and Jim countered by saying that he worked on Watergate, which was a conspiracy, not a theory.

Hewitt said that one was known about, though, and asked for an example of a conspiracy that had been kept quiet for a long time. Jim pointed to the JFK assassination. Hewitt said "I know more about the JFK assassination than anyone here at CBS". Jim, astonished, asked why that was, and Hewitt revealed that CBS had gotten the Zapruder film and appointed staff, including himself, to study the assassination in depth. Jim, still astounded, asked what their conclusion had been, since he never saw it reported anywhere. Hewitt said they had concluded Oswald could not have killed Kennedy acting alone, there had to be another gunman involved. Jim asked why they didn't say that on CBS. Hewitt replied, "Oh, I know what you are thinking -- conspiracy! But we never found any evidence of a connection between Oswald and the other gunman." Thus, the paradigm is insured.

Also, beware such a "revelation" from the top. It may just be honest musings finally safe to vent, but it could also be a preface for Gus Russo's and Max Holland's thesis that the Kennedy boys had it coming, since they worked so hard to kill Diem and Castro, and stirred up a response from Cuba via Oswald. Ruby and McWillie had Cuban ties (delivering CIA financed weapons to Castro), and the whole Mexico City operation was to link Oswald to Castro.

I have information collected over the years that the original plan was to blame Castro and invade Cuba that day! Navy seals teams were on the ground ready to hit Castro, and troops were loaded onto transport planes for the invasion November 22. Then all was called off. My best guess is that because Oswald survived the police attack at the theatre, they had a talking head instead of a "Dead Red" Castro lover, and had to back off for fear he would blow the story. Ruby was sent to make sure he shut his mouth. He was already saying too much.

JJ

SOURCE: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Hewitt.html

And that's why I sound like a broken record. Thanks for listening, blm!

[blm]

36. Buying control of most the newsmedia in the 80s and 90s was a crucial task for the BFEE & its allies

implementing the global fascist agenda.