Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Our Republican Media

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:10 PM
Original message
Our Republican Media
Does the media assist the Bush administration and the GOP in general? This was the question posed in another thread, one that I tried to answer in detail. It got buried, so I am posting separately.

There is a large amount of data below, so I am going to summarize at the top of this post and let folks scroll down to check my summary against the data. The information below is up to date as of 3/28/06

1. General Electric: this is one of the larger defense contractors in America. Their primary focus is on the production of engines for military aircraft such as the F101, the F103/CF6, the F108, the F110, the F118, the F136, the F404, the F414, the J79, the J85, the LV100, the T58, the T64, the T700/CT7, the TF34 and the TF39. They are the leader in developing technology for aerial drones and unmanned military aircraft. General Electric is also deeply involved in financial services, the lending indistry and commercial services to corporate America.

2. AOL/TimeWarner: Though the "AOL" has been dropped from the corporate title, the computer company is still very much a core part of this media giant. Some quick AOL stats: 26 million members in the U.S. and Europe, as of September 2005; 110 million domestic unique monthly users of the AOL service and its network of Web properties, as of September 2005; 2.5 billion Instant Messages sent across AOL's messaging networks (AIM and ICQ) each day, as of September 2005. The amount and cost of this technological base has required AOL/TimeWarner to do significant outsourcing to India.

3. News Corporation: Little needs to be said here. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, and its flagship Fox News, is an ancillary wing of the Republican Party. Anyone who questions this may contact me for a bridge I have to sell.

SUMMARY: General Electric gets paid for war, and so its media companies cannot be trusted to report accurately on what is happening in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. AOL/TimeWarner needs outsourcing to sustain its bloated technological infrastructure, and so its media companies cannot be trusted to report accurately on the effect of outsourcing on American labor and the cost benefits of outsourcing for corporations. Murdoch just wants to help Republicans, but his vast media holdings affect every other media company.

The Bush administration's main interests are war, privatization and corporate hegemony. They are financially supported by military contractors and large corporations that practice outsourcing while screwing the American worker. General Electric, AOL/TimeWarner and News Corporation have a stranglehold on national and international news distribution. The manner in which they slant the news assists their own interests, and their own interests dovetail seamlessly with the Bush administration. Ergo, the media helps the Repoublicans. Q.E.D.

Now, take a long look at the reach these three companies have. When people don't understand how so many can support Bush and his policies, they need only look below. This is where their "information" is coming from.

=====

General Electric Holdings

NBC Universal (80%-owned by GE, 20% controlled by Vivendi Universal)

NBC Stations:

WNBC - New York
KNBC - Los Angeles
WMAQ - Chicago
WCAU - Philadelphia
KNTV - San Jose/San Francisco
KXAS - Dallas/Fort Worth
WRC - Washington
WTVJ - Miami
KNSD - San Diego
WVIT - Hartford
WNCN - Raleigh
WCMH - Columbus
WVTM - Birmingham
WJAR - Providence

Telemundo Stations:

KVEA/KWHY - Los Angeles
WNJU - New York
WSCV - Miami
KTMD - Houston
WSNS - Chicago
KXTX - Dallas/Fort Worth
KVDA - San Antonio
KSTS - San Jose/San Francisco
KDRX - Phoenix
KNSO - Fresno
KMAS - Denver
WNEU - Boston/Merrimack
KHRR - Tucson
WKAQ - Puerto Rico

NBC Universal Television Studio
NBC Universal Television Distribution

CNBC
MSNBC
Bravo
Mun2TV
Sci-Fi
Trio
USA

Other:

Paxson Communications (30%)

Other General Electric Businesses:

GE Aircraft Engines
GE Commercial Finance
GE Consumer Products
GE Industrial Systems
GE Insurance
GE Medical Systems
GE Plastics
GE Power Systems
GE Specialty Materials
GE Transportation Systems

----------

AOL/TimeWarner Holdings

Time Warner Book Group:

Warner Books
The Mysterious Press
Warner Vision
Warner Business Books
Aspect
Warner Faith
Warner Treasures
TW Kids
Little, Brown and Company
Little, Brown Adult Trade
Little, Brown Books for Young Readers
Back Bay
Bulfinch Press
Time Warner Book Group UK
Time Warner Audio Books
Time Inc.
Southern Progress Corporation
Sunset Books
Oxmoor House
Leisure Arts

Time Warner - Cable:

HBO
CNN
CNN International
CNN en Espanol
CNN Headline News
CNN Airport Network
CNN fn
CNN Radio
CNN Interactive
Court TV (with Liberty Media)
Time Warner Cable
Road Runner
New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC)
Kablevision (53.75% - cable television in Hungary)
In Demand
Metro Sports (Kansas City)

Time Warner Inc. - Film & TV Production/Distribution:

Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. Studios
Warner Bros. Television (production)
The WB Television Network
Warner Bros. Television Animation
Hanna - Barbera Cartoons
Telepictures Production
Witt - Thomas Productions
Castle Rock Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Warner Bros. Domestic Pay - TV
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution
Warner Bros. International Television Distribution
The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia - Pacific, Australia, Germ.)
Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries)

Time Warner Inc. - Magazines:

Time
Time Asia
Time Atlantic
Time Canada
Time Latin America
Time South Pacific
Time Money
Time For Kids
Fortune
All You
Business 2.0
Life
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated International
SI for Kids
Inside Stuff
Money
Your Company
Your Future
People
Who Weekly (Australian edition)
People en Espaol
Teen People
Entertainment Weekly
EW Metro
The Ticket
In Style
Southern Living
Progressive Farmer
Southern Accents
Cooking Light
The Parent Group
Parenting
Baby Talk
Baby on the Way
This Old House
Sunset
Sunset Garden Guide
The Health Publishing Group
Health
Hippocrates
Coastal Living
Weight Watchers
Real Simple
Asiaweek (Asian news weekly)
President (Japanese business monthly)
Dancyu (Japanese cooking)
Wallpaper (U.K.)
Field & Stream
Freeze
Golf Magazine
Outdoor Life
Popular Science
Salt Water Sportsman
Ski
Skiing Magazine
Skiing Trade News
SNAP
Snowboard Life
Ride BMX
Today's Homeowner
TransWorld Skateboarding
TransWorld Snowboarding
Verge
Yachting Magazine
Warp

Magazines listed under Warner Brothers label:

DC Comics
Vertigo
Paradox
Milestone
Mad Magazine

Online Services:

CompuServe Interactive Services
AOL Instant Messenger
AOL.com portal
Digital City
AOL Europe
ICQ
The Knot, Inc. - wedding content (8 % with QVC 36% and Hummer WinbladFunds 18%)
MapQuest.com - pending regulatory approval
Spinner.com
Winamp
DrKoop.com (10%)
Legend (49% - Internet service in China)

Time Warner - Online/Other Publishing:

Road Runner
Warner Publisher Services
Time Distribution Services
American Family Publishers (50%)

Entertainment Networks:

TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television (TNT)
Turner South
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network in Europe
Cartoon Network in Latin America

Other:

Netscape Communications
Netscape Netcenter portal
AOL MovieFone
iAmaze
Amazon.com (partial)
Quack.com
Streetmail (partial)
Switchboard (6%)

-----------

News Corporation Holdings

Fox Television Stations

WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St. Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
KTBC - Austin

DBS & Cable:

FOXTEL
BSkyB
Star
DirecTV
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.

Newspapers, United States:

New York Post

United Kingdom:

News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times

Australia:

Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times

Magazines:

InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide (partial)

Books:

HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Access
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Harper Design International
HarperEntertainment
HarperLargePrint
HarperResource
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperTorch
Perennial
PerfectBound
Quill
Rayo
ReganBooks
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Avon
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTempest
Katherine Tegen Books
Trophy
Zondervan
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia

Other:

News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Nursery World
Scout Media

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. To say nothing of the Saudi stock buys...
I believe a Saudi prince just bought 10% of a media company recently...and from what I understand, that just adds to the Saudi media holdings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroubleMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. And they own Citigroup, which influences so much.

nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. The list is so long I'm glad I didn't see DU on that list yet..LOL
thanks, I read your post in the other thread and bookmark it.
I put it in my journal for reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bookmarked !
Thanks for the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. He Shoots, He Scoresss
Awesome. Thanks Pitt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Too easy.
Nor do I think your post proves that the media is an arm of the republican party. Yes, the electronic media leans right, but it's still not part of a right wing cabal. That's what I was trying to address. The print media is a different story. And historically, I don't think the American media's ever been on target regarding war. As Bradlee said, "Journalism is the first draft of history". History need a slush period of 10 years before we're able to get a grasp on what happened. We may think we know it all now, but we don't. Perspective on historical matters comes with time. That's part of the problem with covering a war. But it's only part of the problem. As I've said, it's complex.

We tend to want everything we read and see and hear to reflect what we believe is true, and to rank it in the order of importance we believe it should be in. Same with politicians. There's a lot of all or nothing thinking. When we insist that the media is lock stock and barrel right wing we're missing a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. "We tend to want everything we read
and hear to reflect what we believe is true".

I am actually astounded that this is your conception of what happened with, for example, the run up to and initial reporting of, the Iraq war.

Other than the solitary exception of Knight Ridder, there was nothing but GOP directed propaganda beaming into the homes and printed on the papers read by those americans who still bother about the news.

I don't think any of us here "want everything we read and see and hear to reflect what we believe is true". We, well we except it seems for you and perhaps a few others, instead would settle for SOME objective journalism, some actual fair and balanced reporting, something other than the daily corporate message brought to you by the dutiful servants of the ruling elites.

Your argument appears to hinge on the slight thesis that the media is not 'lock stock and barrel right wing'. Fine. It is only 96% pure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. beat me! that lock, stock and barrel bit made me actually LOL
I know there's a term in the study of propaganda techniques that deals with this method of 'argument,' but I can't remember it

of course the media aren't completely monolithic, BUT....

media concentration has accelerated to the extent that there isn't much more room for further density of ownership. unfortunately the DLC wing of the Democratic Party is as complicit as the repugs (see Communications Act of 1996)

now, I'm just a shlub, but I do know how to read, and I have read quite a few things by Robert McChesney, Robert Parry, John Nichols, Ed Herman, and that's been more than enough to realize that, while the media are not, of course, totally monolithic in their control of mass communications, but, for most media consumers, unfortunately, they may as well be

this excerpt from material appearing in "The Problem of the Media" starts out:

''If we learn nothing else from the war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation, it is that the U.S. ruling class has learned to make ideological warfare as important to its operations as military and economic warfare. A crucial component of this ideological war has been the campaign against left-wing media bias, with the objective of reducing or eliminating the prospect that mainstream U.S. journalism might be at all critical toward elite interests or the system set up to serve those interests. In 2001 and 2002, no less than three books purporting to demonstrate the medias leftward tilt rested high atop the bestseller list. Such charges have already influenced media content, pushing journalists to be less critical of right-wing politics. The result has been to reinforce the corporate and rightist bias already built into the media system.

The main target of this propaganda campaign is television network news programs, but the campaign has also extended into radio broadcasting, newspapers, and other media. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation, which controls broadcasting outlets and newspapers throughout the world, launched the Fox News Channel in the 1990s as a more conservative rival to CNN and the news programs of ABC, NBC, and CBS. According to the New York Times (April 7, 2003),

In the United States, Mr. Murdochs creation of the Fox News Channel has shifted the entire spectrum of American cable news to the right. Convinced that many people found CNN and the major broadcast networks too liberal, Mr. Murdoch and the former Republican political consultant Roger Ailes chartered Fox to be more conservativeor, from their point of view, more centrist. Last January, Fox became the top-rated cable network and it now draws more than 2 million viewers in prime time....From the start, the network displayed an American flag waving on its screen. Its newscasters speak of American and British troops as we, ours, and liberators. After other networks reported setbacks to American and British forces , the Fox commentator Bill OReilly denounced its competitors as liberal weenies who were exaggerating the difficulties of the fight and underestimating the American publics toleration for casualties.

The current attack on media content is presented as an attempt to counter the alleged bias of media elites. In reality, however, it is designed to shrink still furtherto the point of oblivionthe space for critical analysis in journalism. In order to understand the form and content of the conservative onslaught on the media it is necessary to have some comprehension of the role played by professional journalism beginning in the early twentieth century.''

more
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0603editr.htm


how much more obvious does it have to get?

comprehensive list of who owns what
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. Propaganda techniques..
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda#T...


snip...


Techniques of Propaganda Generation

Saddam Hussein pictured as a decisive war leader in an Iraqi propaganda pictureA number of techniques are used to create messages which are persuasive, but false. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies since propagandists use arguments which, although sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted, and that work is important, but it's clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these propaganda messages is a necessary prerequisite to studying the methods by which those messages are spread. That's why it is essential to have some knowledge of the following techniques for generating propaganda:

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seeks to build support by instilling fear in the general population - for example Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.

Bandwagon: Bandwagon-and-inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take a course of action "everyone else is taking." "Join the crowd." This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their interest to join. "Inevitable victory" invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or partially, on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is the best course of action.

Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to get the audience to disapprove an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it, the members of the group might decide to change their position.

Glittering generalities: Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."

Rationalization: Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.

Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application

Transfer: This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.

Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

Common man: The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothes in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person.

Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own.

Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.

Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really responsible, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which blame is being assigned.

Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc., are virtue words.

Slogans: A slogan is a brief striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. If ideas can be sloganized, they should be, as good slogans are self-perpetuating memes.

See also doublespeak, information warfare, meme, psyops


much more

snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. thanks for that blast from college days past...rhet 101, IIRC
so, where does the vignette about knowing a media bigwig fall: appeal to authority, or testimonial?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. not 'lock stock and barrel right wing'. He enjoys totalities
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 02:10 PM by IChing
and exclusionary logic.

"I've known quite a few media bigwigs. They don't fit so easily into your conception of corporatists. I knew the CEO of one of the major media outlets quite well. He was a liberal democrat and not wholly owned by his board."

therefore the statement it is not true unless it is 100%.
However statistical correlations of the proablities of such a thing being true are ignored
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. I didn't say that
and I tried to put the reporting on the run up to war in Iraq into some sort of historical context. Yes, it was lousy, but no it wasn't because largely because it was directed by the GOP. Do you actually believe that most newsprint journalists take orders from their GOP masters? And what about the reporting from Iraq? There's been a lot of fine reporting. John Burns and Packer come immediately to mind. The NYT can be dreadful as well as very good, but it's not a mouthpiece for the GOP.

Yes, I want better journalism, particularly from the networks and cable, not because I watch them, but because most people do get their news from that source. I also want to say that in the runup to the war I had no problem coming to the conclusion that it was all bullshit and that there were absolutely no WMD. I got the information I used to come to this conclusion from the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Well of course " it was directed by the GOP".
For now I am referring here to the run up to the war, where except as I mentioned for Knight Ridder, a propaganda campaign directed from the white house and regurgitated compliantly by the entire media, presented a uniform and false narrative of an imminent threat.

"Do you actually believe that most newsprint journalists take orders from their GOP masters?" Huh? No of course not, but that is irrelevent. What ends up on page one is not the decision of 'most newsprint journalists' it is an editorial decision. You are here reformating and regurgitating the rightwing meme: "but journalists are overwhelmingly liberal therefore the media is liberal".

Thus Judy Miller ran consistently with her SPOON FED REPORTS FROM CHENEY'S OFFICE top of the fold page one on the paper of record, the very paper about which you offhandedly declare: "The NYT can be dreadful as well as very good, but it's not a mouthpiece for the GOP." Well in fact in the runup to the war the Neocon Times was exactly that: a non critical pipeline direct from the ministry of disinformation. NYT reporters who wrote critical reports on the claims of the Bush Mob, were tombstoned BY THE EDITORS.

Your ability to determine that there were no WMD proves nothing. Half the country still thinks that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9-11 and many believe that WMD were in fact found in Iraq. Why is that? Could it be at least in part because the media is doing little more than regurgitating Republican talking points and performing stenography on WH propaganda?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #39
53. wow, so off base!
"Do you actually believe that most newsprint journalists take orders from their GOP masters?"

no, no, no, silly cali. the gop takes its orders from its corporate masters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Another flight of fancy!
You write,
"And historically, I don't think the American media's ever been on target regarding war. As Bradlee said, "Journalism is the first draft of history". History need a slush period of 10 years before we're able to get a grasp on what happened. We may think we know it all now, but we don't. Perspective on historical matters comes with time."

George Bush couldn't have said it better himself. In fact, calling for "history" to be their judge is almost an anthem of the BushCo CABAL!

I can't and will not oblige. Why should I wait ten years to confirm what I already know to be true. The war was started based on lies and is being run by morons in the service of corporations that are stealing trillions of dollars from Americans and Iraqis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
47. NO ONE has ever said it's 100% RW - but it is about 90% RW and has been
set up to be so over the last twenty years.

I think you don't know what the heck has been going on in the print media, either. KnightRidder was targeted by Bush allies for takeover last year when they proved to be the ONLY DC bureau willing to investigate the cooked intel books before the Iraq War and the Downing Street Memos - you certainly did NOT see NYT or WaPost even REPEAT those reports, let alone investigate them.

Instead, the NYT and WaPost did everything they could to catapult the propaganda then while ignoring reports coming from CIA analystsdropping dimes on BushInc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Many people forget, GE has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 01:36 PM by Atman
To MAKE MONEY for them. Technically, legally, if GE were to allow its news division to report unfavorably about the war in such a way that it would lose contracts and share value, it could in fact be sued by its shareholders for breaching its charter, which is, again, TO MAKE MONEY FOR ITS SHAREHOLDERS. GE is not in the business to "bring good things to life." It is in the business to MAKE MONEY. It can hardly be expected to make money by saying bad things about itself.

This is a pretty basic fact that seems to be lost on many if not most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Being profitable isn't the same
as being correct.

Corporate charters are one of the things that need to be addressed in this country. Making money isn't the most important thing this country needs to do. Making profit the end all and be all is a mistake that can be corrected with legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Oh, I agree with you 100%! But it is an angle oft missed by the naysayers
who claim that the media isn't really slanted to the right. Maybe it isn't out of political necessity, but it sure as hell is out of financial necessity!

And you're very right about the part about legislation being needed to change this fact. It won't change any other way. We need to reintroduce a fairness doctrine, and instead of allowing more and more concentration of media ownership, we should being requiring some break-ups of the conglomerates that are already there thanks to Reagan and BushCo. Of course, since they will be in control of the media while such legislation is being advanced, they'll just get their talking head whores out there to scream "ANTI-FREE SPEECH!" and point to liberals as wanting to eviscerate the First Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. It is strange the way right wingers get freedom and capitalism
mixed up in their minds.

Corporate charters aren't protecting freedom. They are establishing rules for business.

Rules are made to be changed as conditions warrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrownPrinceBandar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. Folks have been hoodwinked........
both willingly and unwillingly. I believe its gotten to the point where folks get uncomfortable when issues are not resolved in a thirty second soundbite or a 30 minute episode. An objective truth takes some effort on the part of people who want it, and I am starting to feel that alot of folks just don't have the patience, attention span or the strength of character to seek/hear the objective truth. To wit, the networks have used this to slicken up their newscasts and slip their messages in to the point where many will adopt and parrot network ideologies.

I agree a fairness doctrine is needed, but corporate types will fight it to the end. We need to take the profit out of truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicofaraby Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. There is no profit in truth
That's why there is so little of it in the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrownPrinceBandar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. That's why, I fear.....
there will never be such a thing as a "Fairness Doctrine" ever again. While people are sated with the "slick" version of the news, there will be no calls for reform. Folks need outrage to want to change, it's just not there... yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R + link to more media conglomerate info
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 02:09 PM by omega minimo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Thanks Will-- after responding in the other thread, I found the other OP (& the reply here) hard to believe-- unless it's a reflection of a perspective limited to the media bubble we are in now, with no real awareness of other times and other ways............................................... back when "reality based community" wasn't a "thing"-- it just WAS.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. great thread....thanks for the link.
here's an excellent post from your thread..thanks to Gregorian:

''As far as I'm concerned, there is no more important subject. The media is what shapes the public opinion. Gore should have wiped the mat with that pathetic little cheerleader. But I remember gaping at how his successes were suppressed, and Bush's supposed advantages were amplified. Gore is nothing short of brilliant. Listen to him, and you know it. Bush not only cannot tell the truth, he doesn't know the truth. Not to mention he's pure evil. But you'd never know it, reading anything but the New York Times, or some such quality paper.

The media is more than just a megaphone for hire. It's what the innocent people rely on for their truth. It's the fourth estate. That is more than just "the media".

We can impeach Bush, and we still have the people. And uninformed, we are in no better shape than we would be with him in office, since it's the corporations which run the media. And their agenda is profit. Not equality, fairness, health, happiness, infrastructure, culture...

Without an unbiased media, we have nothing. And until we have a media that tells the truth, we will continue going down the road we have been on. And we have been on that road a lot longer than just the Bush administration.

2006 will be no different. The electronic voting machines are still with us. It's a no-story. War will continue, even if it's illegal. Even if it poses a grave threat to the future of Americans, if it goes on much further, unabated.

26 million Americans get their meals from a soup kitchen, yet runaway brides stream across tv screens with split pictures and dizzying banners running in the borders. All corriagraphed and timed to create just the illusion the producers design. It's not news, it's entertainment. At best.

Now what? How? Who can help us? GE? Westinghouse? Halliburton? We the people own those airwaves. WE own them. They are ours, are they not? But weren't they sold for billions of dollars? How do we get back what is already ours? Because we must. If we are to survive as a democracy.''

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. This thread gets a bookmark for sure.
:thumbsup: A K&R, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. And the Sunday morning show's advertisers
When you start paying attention to who the advertisers are for the Sunday morning shows you quickly realize that we are not their target audience. When was the last time you called Monsanto and asked for a catalog. There is nothing that we can buy from them.

British Petroleum has a beautiful advertisement showing how they are improving the environment, yet never mention British Petroleum. Oh yes they have the big BP on the screen with the words, beyond Petroleum.

Big Pharma has all their latest wonder drugs out there, yet you cannot just call up the company and put in your order.

Large investment companies advertise, but you need at least 10,000 dollars to play ball with them.

It is very interesting to see who pays for these propaganda programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. It would have been a shorter piece listing liberal owned....
maybe the free city Weeklies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. No they are being bought out by
New Times Media which just got the Village Voice


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/13/145...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
22. There's #10 for you, Will. Very important reality check here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. A Couple More To Ponder
Very good work on compiling this list and tying things together. The vested interests of these companies can and should be easily understood by many as to the conflicts these corporations have in being a "steward of the public interest" through their networks and news divisions and their ultimate goals of wealth and power. The corporate bottom line ALWAYS supercedes all other interests and, when possible, common cause is made among many of these corporations and with this regime to perpetuate their influence and enhance their power.

A couple other companies come to mind...that peeling away their nameplates, an agenda becomes clear. Some are obvious...such as Salem Media and Sinclair Communications that have grown from obscurity to power thanks to GOOP deregulation and favortism. Tribune Company...who owns the stations in major markets across the country is closely affiliated with Time/Warner and the WB network...and soon will be tied to Viacom through the CW venture. All three companies want further "deregulation" to "strengthen their position" and need a Repugnican FCC (or lack thereof) and the ability to get their calls answered.

The biggest losers are the few independent voices who stand zero chance of survival in the fetid corporate media waters that dominate radio, TV and cable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
26. Media Channel presents the Octopus
great site to follow just how bad things are getting

http://www.mediachannel.org /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Great visual for the logically challeged
I love the inference to a giant washing machine soap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
50. What happened to General Electric and NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc?
They didn't make it into the top six?
They're also a major player in the defense mass-murder industry, so maybe that's where they're putting their $$$?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
27. Jeepers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
29. Excellent post William!
Kicked and recommended!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
30. ClearChannel???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Woulda made the thread too long
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
31. from symbolman, I think....take back the media: who owns the medi?
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 03:06 PM by Gabi Hayes


omega minimo's very instructive longitudinal shrinking ownership chart comes from this site:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html

MC Miller's take, from the above link


For all their economic clout and cultural sway, the ten great multinationals profiled in our latest chart--AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media--rule the cosmos only at the moment. The media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed is always growing here and shriveling there, with certain of its members bulking up while others slowly fall apart or get digested whole. But while the players tend to come and go--always with a few exceptions--the overall Leviathan itself keeps getting bigger, louder, brighter, forever taking up more time and space, in every street, in countless homes, in every other head.

The rise of the cartel has been a long time coming (and it still has some way to go). It represents the grand convergence of the previously disparate US culture industries--many of them vertically monopolized already--into one global superindustry providing most of our imaginary "content." The movie business had been largely dominated by the major studios in Hollywood; TV, like radio before it, by the triune axis of the networks headquartered in New York; magazines, primarily by Henry Luce (with many independent others on the scene); and music, from the 1960s, mostly by the major record labels. Now all those separate fields are one, the whole terrain divided up among the giants--which, in league with Barnes & Noble, Borders and the big distributors, also control the book business. (Even with its leading houses, book publishing was once a cottage industry at both the editorial and retail levels.) For all the democratic promise of the Internet, moreover, much of cyberspace has now been occupied, its erstwhile wildernesses swiftly paved and lighted over by the same colossi. The only industry not yet absorbed into this new world order is the newsprint sector of the Fourth Estate--a business that was heavily shadowed to begin with by the likes of Hearst and other, regional grandees, flush with the ill-gotten gains of oil, mining and utilities--and such absorption is, as we shall see, about to happen.

Thus what we have today is not a problem wholly new in kind but rather the disastrous upshot of an evolutionary process whereby that old problem has become considerably larger--and that great quantitative change, with just a few huge players now co-directing all the nation's media, has brought about enormous qualitative changes. For one thing, the cartel's rise has made extremely rare the sort of marvelous exception that has always popped up, unexpectedly, to startle and revivify the culture--the genuine independents among record labels, radio stations, movie theaters, newspapers, book publishers and so on. Those that don't fail nowadays are so remarkable that they inspire not emulation but amazement. Otherwise, the monoculture, endlessly and noisily triumphant, offers, by and large, a lot of nothing, whether packaged as "the news" or "entertainment."


Of all the cartel's dangerous consequences for American society and culture, the worst is its corrosive influence on journalism. Under AOL Time Warner, GE, Viacom et al., the news is, with a few exceptions, yet another version of the entertainment that the cartel also vends nonstop. This is also nothing new--consider the newsreels of yesteryear--but the gigantic scale and thoroughness of the corporate concentration has made a world of difference, and so has made this world a very different place.



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/miller
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. Damn. Thank you Will.
So obvious, yet done so well.

One little thing I might add- Directv does have channel 375 (LinkTV). And they are on of the lone voices of truth that one can find.


You're great, Will. In a solid kind of way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. Yes, LinkTV is one small candle of truth
in the vast monoculture of darkness. I wonder how it's managed to survive this long...did "they" just overlook it or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jigarotta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
35. Good one, Will. thanks.
war is profitable, peace ain't, and the corporate news reflects this every day of our lives. Can't fathom why anyone here would disagree with this with all the multitudes of examples, especially since Remember November 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
36. Who killed Howard Dean?
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 03:27 PM by Gabi Hayes
''On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises." This pronouncement went far beyond the governor's previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.

It was an extraordinarily noble and dangerous thing to do: When he advocated a truly free press, Dr. Dean was provoking the corrupt media conglomerates that control what most Americans see and hear and read, and thereby control what most Americans think. The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with the greatest of ease.

This time, they didn't even have to invent a scandal in order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word "unelectable" at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered Democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat to the status quo. John Kerry is a member in good standing of the feeble Daschle/Biden/Feinstein wing of the Democratic Party, a group of politicians whose disagreements with the mercantile elite tend to be merely rhetorical. Any doubts about Kerry's level of commitment to his stated progressive beliefs were conclusively answered in 1994 when he proclaimed himself "delighted" with the Republican takeover of Congress.

The media oligarchy knows that a general election race between Kerry and George W. Bush will insure a continuation of its monopoly, regardless of who wins. The news cartel had always been hostile to Dean; independent surveys revealed that he had received the most negative coverage of any candidate except Dennis Kucinich (the only other contender who strongly favors mandatory media divestment). But after his statement on Hardball, reporting about Dean abruptly came to an end and was replaced by supposition. The existing conjecture in political circles about his ability to win was transformed into a thunderous media mantra that drowned out all other issues.''

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2096

it IS the media, stupid!

control of media is the control of ideas, the accepted currency of expression. instead of hearing about the FACT that the permafrost in Siberia is melting, we hear from Scott Peterson's step father, or whomever, or who got voted off the American Idol Island.

when/if the dems take action against the corporate media as the ENEMY of democracy and ENABLER of corporate fascism, THAT's when we might have a chance. don't hold your breath, cause those who hold the purse strings of that party aren't much different than those who hold them for the pugs.

until then








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. That's horsepoo - Kerry sent up a Senate resolution against FCC changes
that allowed the big guys greater ownership and control in June 2003 and within weeks he LOST most of his press coverage and Dean was given a press plane, fer chrissakes. A PRESS PLANE. In JUNE.

By fall, the corporate media was reporting Kerry's campaign as dead in the water which helped dry up his campaign funding. They DELIBERATELY UNDER-reported Kerry's strength on the ground in Iowa for months, while they were OVER-reporting Dean's numbers.

WHY the hell doesn't anyone question THAT FUCKING MEDIA TACTIC?

They just USED and HYPED that scream to cover for their own asses - by saying Dean imploded himself, they were able to avoid answering the REAL question - why were they calling Kerry's campaign dead for months and even to the point where some were telling him to get out of the race, while reporting irrationally exuberant numbers for Dean for months?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
37. Thanks Will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
38. Yeah, But- But- But- Iran is just SECONDS away from a bomb! And 12 million
Illegal Mexican flag wavers are crowded outside your window demanding a date with your daughter!

Nah, we aint bein' jerked around by the media. :sarcasm:

Film at 11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Mr. Redstone declared:
"I look at the election from what's good for Viacom."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
42. DAMN that liberal media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiteinthewind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
43. Excellent compilation, William! Thanks for the post! Kicked AND bookmarked
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
45. The term "anti-trust law" has such a quaint, old-fashioned,
nineteeth-century ring to it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but aren't these laws still on the books? Isn't this kind of mega-consolidation illegal? At least it WAS illegal in the recent past. How did this happen and what can we do (if anything) to turn it around?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
46. This is the greatest threat to our democracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
51. Good STUFF!!!!
Is this yours? If so...GOOD....and many thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
52. Sometimes you have to whack 'em upside the head with
what should be fucking obvious.

Nice Whack!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
54. Thanks, Will!
I'm saving a copy of your post for my future reference. I could have used it the other day when another DUer had asked a question about certain corporate ties to the media. I didn't know about corporate ties myself until this country entered the Twilight Zone in 2000.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
55. This is a subject of academic study:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
56. Corporofascism rules...
Wow. Great article!

"The Bush administration's main interests are war, privatization and corporate hegemony."

And the results show a complete lack of interest in what happens to real people, cities, states,
and countries.

They have no "affect." That's a sign of schizophrenia, real mental illness.

But instead of being locked up in padded cells or straitjackets, they are ruling the country,
making millions and billions, and ruining the country and the world.

This really is bizarroworld, lookingglassland....

Sue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC