THoughts on media and that kinda shit

[HEyHEY]

An earlier thread about Peter Jennings attempted to discredit him today. It naturally became a big rock throw about media. The focus was Jenning's interview with Wes Clark where Jennings said dared to ask Clark what he thought about Michael Moore's comments about Bush being a draft dodger. Anyone could see Jennings was giving Clark a chance to bring out some facts to support the argument, if he had them. But Clark sat quiet.
And as usual many on DU blamed Jennings, when they should have been blaming Clark.
This is a common occurrence on DU, blaming the media for everything that has gone wrong in your life. Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of it. I'm not going to say CNN and Fox have fair news, Fox never does but CNN can go either way.
However ABC, NBC, and CBS I have found to be reasonably solid news outlets. If you take a step back, they are doing a fair job.
ANd to hear so many here piss and moan about bias make me convinced the perpetual "We're victimized" attitude of many U.S. lefties is the reason they haven't been able to get anywhere of late.
Back on track, the reality here is that so many on DU think that if the media isn't directly slanting stories in their favour then they MUST be doing it the other way. That's why I get so pissed when people drag up their shit about how bias the media is. Many times when I read what they are claiming to be bias, I think, "That's a fair story."
Sorry if the media doesn't spell it out for you. You know, not EVERYTHING in this world is someone else's responsibility. So along that train-track, why don't you ask yourself why Clark didn't answer Jennings? Maybe it's the leaders you've chosen who are the problem.
It works better than blaming the media for your problems. When you do that you're just distracting yourself from the real problem.
You get the media you deserve. You also have to be willing to accept reporters are people and mistakes are made. SOmetimes things are unintentionally written in a way that you can think they are shilling when really they just wrote it poorly. Yet every time we get a "MSM BIAS!" Nut screaming and yelling.
Another reason I get ticked at people accusing the media of bias is just looking at how many journalists get killed per year. Here's last year's.

http://www.cpj.org/killed/Ten_Year_Killed/2004_list.html

Trust me, those people didn't die because they wanted to lie to you. If you were in that situation would you be doing it to shill for Bush, especially at the meager pay you would make to put your life on the line?
Jennings for example was in Lebanon and has risked his life numerous times to get the story out. No reporter with that kind of integrity would allow himself to become a pawn for any price. Journalistic integrity is important to many reporters.. especially old timers like Jennings.
As well, another example is Dan Rather. This guy could have gone out on a high note had he not taken the risk in reporting that last big story of his career... Bush's military record. But he took the risk and when he left it was under a cloud of shame. Don't tell me a guy like Rather, who has risked his life hundreds of times, would have done that to lie to you. It just doesn't wash.
In conclusion, stop blaming the god damn media for every thing that has gone wrong, or for not reporting things from YOUR viewpoint. That is not their job.
Before I go I'd like to talk about blogs. As much as many like to pretend they are the saviour of media they miss the one thing real media has - access.
A reporter can call a senator and get a comment... most reporters have contacts that leak them info as well. Bloggers do not. In fact most blogs, if you step back and read them are nothing more than an opinion born from Reading a bunch of MSM articles and have little hard fact to back up their accusations. Yet, many seem to think they are credible.. it's a joke to me. Yes, okay bloggers broke the Gannon story... that's one. Even then not a big one. Other than that, there's been little they've done.

Here's an article on Jennings from the U.K.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4286860&mesg_id=4289552

If you can read this you don't need glasses.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Nominated and thank you...

I was meaning to take a breather from here today...and I should have. :hi:

[wli]

2. that's why the execs need to go on trial, not the reporters

It doesn't exonerate the MSM, it just shows that the reporters are victims, too (probably blackmailed, assassinated, intimidated with death threats, etc.).

[HEyHEY]

4. What do you mean? By who?

Many media outlets are fierce unions and a death threat wouldn't go over well.

[wli]

6. there are suspicions those are the tactics being used...

in order to make sure they stick to pure government-approved propaganda.

[HEyHEY]

7. I promise you that is all they are is suspicions

We're talking about reporters here... a story that juicy would leak with hard evidence in no time. Especially with how strong some of the unions are.

[wli]

9. something has to explain the propagandafest going on

Mafia-style tactics are pretty natural suspicions for that.

It could also be that higher-ups just have any reporters who don't toe the line canned before their stories ever get out.

[HEyHEY]

10. Again, the union comes into play

The propaghanda mostly isn't intentional. It's just bad reporting. CNN has 24 hours of broadcasting to fill with news.. so of course substance of many stories will be lacking and one sided

[wli]

11. it CAN'T be unintentional

There's too much motive and opportunity. And it's WAY too uniform. We're talking about total blanket blackouts on highly relevant stories.

[HEyHEY]

14. Stories you think are relevant

Are sometimes dismissed as not being that big of a deal many times. Sometimes the stories come out too, and then get no public reaction so they just kinda stop.
I assure you however, no one is being threatened physically

[wli]

17. okay, explain the media blackout on PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor"

That one's *REALLY* relevant.

[HEyHEY]

21. I haven't read the book and know little about the author

So my comments on this are kind of off the cuff. But I imagine some of the allegations are highly questionable and hence the media has stepped away from them. As I said I haven't read the book unfortunately.

[wli]

24. PNAC's a thinktank, not a book. It said it needed a "new Pearl Harbor."

And uncoincidentally, PNAC members and/or alumni infest the Cabinet and White House staff. So these guys said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" and got it.

And the MSM won't breathe a word of it.

[HEyHEY]

30. Oh, heh I googled the phrase and a book came up!

Well, what is the proof they said it? IF there is no proof than they can't just report it. Also, many would just consider it a bad remark and let it go.

[wli]

31. it's been on their website since 1997 and is still there

[HEyHEY]

32. Gotta link?

[wli]

37. down the memory hole

I'll look it up and follow up with an update. "Pearl Harbor" is mentioned numerous times on the site. Looks like the document got removed.

[wli]

41. here it is

Rebuilding America's Defenses.

It's on page 51.

[HEyHEY]

44. You'd have to prove that was more than just an observation

That's the thing. You'd have to prove all of this tied in with 911. If you just went on the TV and said, "In a report from 2000 this was quoted"
IT's too weak.
Now, put a reporter on that and you have something. More than anythign this is being lazy. Or who knows, maybe they checked it out and got dead ends.

[wli]

47. motive, means, and opportunity

PNAC is a suspect. No one with a voice has ever followed up.

[HEyHEY]

49. If there was anything to it, they would have

Wasn't that report written in like the early 90s?

[wli]

51. they also have the motive, means, & opportunity to cover it up

And you can't look at the 9/11 investigation without calling it a coverup. It was explicitly not an attempt to discover the culprit.

ON EDIT: Furthermore, it's a fallacy to assume that the lack of coverage implies a lack of substance. Here we go: where is the forensic evidence that Osama bin Laden committed the crime?

[yodermon]

45. Straight from their document.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions.

The media outrage on this has been deafening.

[wli]

8. delete (reply to wrong post)

Mafia-style tactics are a natural suspicion for such.

It could just be that higher-ups can them if they don't toe Bushler's line.

[Fenris]

3. Nominated.

Excellent, Jeremy. And that's a spot-on analysis of blogging. :thumbsup:

[steve2470]

5. love your penguins nt

[kliljedahl]

12. Well written HEyHEY

Something I've thought for a long while. I missed the Jennings/Clark interview. My guess was Clark was given a question he wasn't "programmed" for. Unlike * who just blathers when asked (rarely) something unexpected, Clark figured it was better to say nothing. Faux & MSRNC are definitely biased, Corporate News Networkkk sometimes covers both sides reasonably well. You made some really good points. EOM


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[HEyHEY]

15. MSRNC? What is that by the way

I don't get all the US news stuff up here

[kliljedahl]

29. What I call MSNBC

Keith’s Barbeque Central

[HEyHEY]

33. Ah, okay

[Spazito]

13. I watched that debate and heard both the question, response and

follow-up questions. I think Jennings was raising the issue to highlight the issue for good reasons as you stated in your OP. I disagree, however, on your take on Clark's 'silence. He was far from silent, he refused to distance himself from Moore and spoke about his right to speak.

Jennings pressed Clark more than once and Clark still refused to distance himself from Moore and re-iterated Moore's right to his opinion.

[HEyHEY]

16. But if he thought Moore was on to something

Why didn't he come on the show with proof of Bush's desertion. Was more the point I was trying to make.

[Spazito]

20. The question asked by Jennings was not regarding proof

but rather whether Clark would decry Moore's calling bush a deserter. Clark responded by stating Moore's right to speak. Proof was never in the question and answer session between Jennings and Clark.

[HEyHEY]

22. From what I read on the transcripts

Jennings was pushing for Clark to say something that would back up Moore's statements. I believe jennings was working towards it.

[Spazito]

53. I just read the transcript and I don't see where he wanted Clark

to say something to back up Moore's statements but rather to distance himself from Moore's comments. Here is the pertinent part of the transcript:

JENNINGS: I get General Clark and Senator Edwards this time.

General Clark, a lot of people say they don't you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him.

At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush — he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter."

Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

CLARK: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.

I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot.

But to me it wasn't material. This election is going to be about the future, Peter. And what we have to do is pull this country together. And I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and of people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton.

We've got support from across the breadth of the Democratic Party, because I believe this party is united in wanting to change the leadership in Washington. We're going to run an election campaign that's about the future. We're going to hold the president accountable for what he did in office and failed to do, and we're going to compare who's got the best vision for America.

JENNINGS: Let me ask you something you mentioned, then, because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts.

Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

CLARK: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen — he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

JENNINGS: OK, thank you, sir.

Link to transcript from FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109293,00.html

[HEyHEY]

59. That whole thing is Jennings hoping clark would say

"He is a deserter..here's why"

"I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him," - That's a good example of it there.

I think Peter expected something that clark wasn't prepared to give.

[Spazito]

61. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess

I read it and heard it at the time that Jennings was trying to get Clark to distance himself from what Moore said and to contradict Moore's comment that bush was a deserter. Clark was a stand-up guy and defended Moore's right to say it and commented that Moore wasn't the only one saying it as well.

[Clark2008]

66. But the $64,000 question is this:

What the hell difference does it make whether Michael Moore thinks Bush is a deserter to the millions of Americans watching a debate to determine who they should elect as president?

Stupid question.

Jennings should have used his time to ask Clark about something more pertinant to most Americans, like the economy or health care. That was the big issue I had with the whole line of questioning.

[mmonk]

18. I agree

Clark stood up for Moore. He not once distanced himself from Moore like many other Dems would have.

[Fly by night]

19. Didn't care for ABC's "Conspiracy theorists say '04 election stolen" story

... that Jennings read 2-3 days after the election with no effort to disguise his sarcasm. That story was "in the can" on Election Day as disinformation to quell the massive evidence for election fraud that everyone knew would surface. And I also didn't appreciate Koppel's follow-up on Nightline a month or so later, again in the same dismissive vein, without bothering to interview anyone who knew anything about the evidence for election theft in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, ... (well, you get the picture.)

Jennings may have been a journalist once upon a time, before the American corporate media became the multi-headed megaphone for the neocons. But at the end of his career, he was nothing more than a (non)news reader, like all the rest.

I am thankful that Bob Schieffer is left at CBS -- an old guard journalist who cuts the Rethugs new assholes every Sunday morning. I hope Bob lives forever.

PS: Cigarettes kill and they are more addictive than heroin. If you're reading this with a cigarette in your hand, you're an addicted dumb-ass with no one to blame but yourself when those coffin nails put you six feet under, years before you have to go. Why give another $3.00 to American tobacco companies, the biggest mass murderers in history?

Why indeed?

[wli]

26. that was a really sleazy propaganda piece

[HEyHEY]

27. I like your Post Script

Would make a nice sig.

Anyway, The reason Jennings and Koppel may have been reading their stories with such a dismissive tone is either that was just your perception or they are sick of the whining too.
I say that being someone who believes the election was stolen. If the public cries wolf over and over, then don't expect jaded old newsmen to jump every time.

[Fly by night]

48. Two days after the election?? Hardly enough time to get tired of whining.

Besides, if we had any journalists left who weren't volunteering their time on the blogosphere, the 2004 election theft would be the story of the century. If we had any media outlets left that weren't simply propaganda agents for the Republi-Nazis.

Reminds me of the old saying, "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had eggs."

There are thousands of 2004 election theft "Deep Throats" who have not been whining but have instead been sending hard evidence for the election theft in many, many states to the corporate media, where they have been promptly and consistently ignored.

Besides, the old "crying wolf" story meant something because the first few cries prompted concern and action, even though the threat wasn't real. For the persistent election theft concerns to evoke a "cryng wolf" analogy, the corporate media would have had to respond at least once. And when they opened that door even the first time, they would have found a pack of salivating wolves grinning back at them, enough to make page one news for the next decade.

It's not "crying wolf" when the wolf is in the voting booth with you, or is in charge of counting the votes.

[HEyHEY]

60. I meant the whining that has been going on for years

You're talking about just one story- I'm saying it all ties in together.

"There are thousands of 2004 election theft "Deep Throats" who have not been whining but have instead been sending hard evidence for the election theft in many, many states to the corporate media, where they have been promptly and consistently ignored."

Can that bve proved?

[Fly by night]

65. And I'm saying it's not "crying wolf" if no one bothers to investigate...

... even once.

Investigate Hegel's late 1990s unexpected Senate election (when he was far behind in the polls, but the votes were counted on equipment from the former company he lead.)

Investigate 2000 in Florida -- No wait, the press did investigate that, and they found that Gore won once the votes were actually recounted.

Investigate Georgia 2002 -- when both the Dem candidates for Governor and Senator (Cleland) were far ahead in the polls and yet lost on Diebold machines.

Investigate 2004 -- well, a whole lot of us did (and still are -- where you been?) If you want proof, read Conyers, read Fitrakis, read Alter and Lehto and Griscom and Stewart and Thiesen and Gideon and Curtis and Freeman and Miller and Koehler and Hitchens and Mitteldorf and Windham and Raspberry and, and ... Since I've read a few other replies of yours to other posters, I get the sense that you and the American corporate media may share one thing in common -- you haven't read much (if any) of the above and yet you say we're whining and have no proof.

The Conyers report (102 pages, available on his web-site) and the Fitrakis et al book, "Did George W. Bush Steal the 2004 Election? Essential Documents" (available from www.freepress.org) would be good places for you to start. For shorter reads, read Hitchens' Vanity Fair piece or Miller's Harper's piece. If you're not a reader, stay tuned for our web-posting of the audio from the National Election Reform Conference, held in Nashville in April, which brought together election fraud researchers, voting rights activists and hard evidence from 30 states. It will be hosted on Velvet Revolution shortly.

The wolf is at the door. Has been for the past decade. Really.

And we're not whining. We're fixing to blow his balls off. (Metaphorically speaking, of course).

Not with a whimper, but a big BANG. You betcha.

[livinginphotographs]

23. Well said.

I thought the pissing on PJ's grave that has gone on today is disgusting.

[Kraklen]

25. I disagree on network news...

I think they've been doing an abysmal job. I don't think it's a conspiracy like Fox News is, but it's pretty bad. Not especially biased bad, just poorly done. I think they're doing a disservice.

I agree that a lot of people blame the media too much for everything.

But what are ya going to do? :shrug:

[HEyHEY]

28. Do you not find that Network is at least better than CNN for example

I personally really do.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HEyHEY]

36. May I suggest you try to get CBC and BBC

Both great networks for news.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

35. For me,

the problem is not necessarily that they're biased, but that they're lazy. They rarely investigate anymore and spend an outrageous amount of time on non events like Lacy Peterson, Michael Jackson, etc. I do agree with you that the networks are way better than cable news.

[HEyHEY]

38. I actually meant to put that into my rant

Doh!

yeah, many are lazy especially on CNN... whe you need to fill 24 hours instead of just one a day... you're more prone to re-writing press releases.

[glarius]

40. Sorry HeyHey....I can't agree with most of what you say.

Off the top of my head....one story comes to mind that shows media bias or lack of honesty....When Dan Rather had the problem with his 60 Minute story on Bush's military "career."....NOBODY in the media pointed out the obvious.... that even without the document in question, Rather had the words of witnesses to prove his point that Bush had ducked out of going to Viet Nam....In the taped interview with the lady who was a secretary at the time in question, and said that even though she felt the document was a fake, everything written in it was TRUE....And there were a couple of other men who testified to Bush's delinquency....EVERYONE in the media, on ALL networks, honed in on the document to discredit Rather, and that was that....They completely ignored the witnesses Rather had interviewed...There are other examples, which I can't recall at the moment, but I believe the reason for the media bias is probably because the networks are all owned by corportations, such as General Electric etc....and they are handing down their orders to the underlings....:)

[HEyHEY]

42. But by then them saying it was true has little effect

An example of the sensationalized media these days... oooo the scandal was too much for them not leave alone.
As soon as the memo was proven fake, all the credibility goes with it unfortunately.

[glarius]

43. You don't think even ONE of the media people would have felt

compelled to point out that Rather had witnesses?....That perhaps some overzealous person had written the document, but according to witnesses, it was all true?....NOT ONE PERSON?

[HEyHEY]

46. I think one would have... because someone didn't leads me

To believe the story was bogus.

[glarius]

50. Did you see the 60 minutes piece?....The witnesses were very credible

I thought....Especially, when at the time NOT ONE person came forward who had served with Bush to back up Bush's version....Oh well...the little weasel is still in the White House and there's nothing we can do about it....:)

[HEyHEY]

52. I think something very big is going to come up shorlty

I really do.

[glarius]

54. I hope you're right.

:)

[HEyHEY]

56. Few bastards in history have ever gotten away with this kinda

crap forever... I'm sure someone will bring out a haymaker sometime or another.

[julialnyc]

55. I was actually watching an old Larry King they were playing last night

with Jennings. He was very complimentary about Wes (the show was taped right when Clark entered the race).

I also watched news today about the wars in Bosnia/Kosovo being a very important time in Jennings life.

I'm sure Jennings thought highly of Clark.



Peter Jennings himself did not come up with the question. It was a messy question asking someone who is debating why They should be President of the United States about what someone else said (maybe asking him where he stood on an issue would have been more appropriate), but it was one moment in a man's life.

If I asked one silly question in my life, or said one thing that pissed off those close in my life (not to mention strangers), everyone I know would be stomping on my grave when I died.

I remember watching Jennings all through 9/11. He was eloquent and emotional. I thought it would have been impossible to match the class he had through something so traumatic.

He was a man who was alive yesterday and now has a family mourning the loss of their loved one.

I'm a huge Clarkie!! But this mans life was much more important than one moment that he pissed me off.

I cannot to bad mouth someone who has just left this world.

No offense top anyone, but I just had to say that

[HEyHEY]

57. ..

"I remember watching Jennings all through 9/11. He was eloquent and emotional. I thought it would have been impossible to match the class he had through something so traumatic."

I too remember that.. I remember the tears he just barely let escape

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. The "call your kids" part that they keep showing has had me in tears

several times today. That and this morning on GMA when they showed Jennings reporting on the kidnapping of his friend and fellow correspondent Charles Glass. He was showing a videotape the kidnappers made Charles make and he couldn't go on for a moment. :(


He will be missed by many.

[jane_pippin]

58. Have you read The Problem of the Media?

It's by Robert McChesney. Everyone should. It's so insightful so far, (I'm only on chapter two now. I keep getting distracted thinking about what he's saying and how it relates to a lot of what we talk about here on DU).

So far it's a real education about media ownership, the pros and cons of professional journalism, government policy, viewers/readers, and how they all interact to give us what we get.

I really like it and literally can't shut up about it. Wish I'd found him sooner.

[nashville_brook]

63. i think you are correct about the wes clark thing and beyond

that particular exchange. good interviewers provide the opportunity for difficult subjects to be aired. tough questions are often the best questions someone can get b/c they open up the discussion.

on the victimized...MSM thing -- that's a rhetorical stance. the RW has been doing it so long w/o basis it's nauseating. we have to counter that argument. but i'm down with you on the media not being all bad or all good. it's what we have. we deserve better, and that's what Jennings fought for. he was a gem. i loved his solidity.

on blogs -- there's been some breaking news on blogs. Rawstory is a good example. i think the problem talking about blogs is that there are a million blogs and they are all different. we are just teething now as bloggers. cranky and cholic. we'll grow up and evolve. the good thing is, everyone who wants it, can have a voice. that's a very cool thing. reporting news isn't the only reason to blog. opinion is quite valid. sharing experiences is valid. pictures of dogs and birds and gardens is important. it's who we are.

i hear, in your post, a call to responsibility. people risk their lives to reveal the truth. amen.

[hunter]

64. It's much messier than that...

Is someone like ABC's Paul Harvey a jornalist? Larry King? How about those crap magazines in your Sunday paper, Parade and USA Weekend? Is that journalism?

I don't watch television news, I hardly know who Peter Jennings was. The last time I watched television news was on the morning of 9/11. I do listen to radio. My first pick on radio is the BBC, my second pick is the local big city ABC affiliate.

My local newspaper does very well with the limited resources they have. Our local weekly is pretty good. I've worked for local papers, and I think this makes me appreciate them more than the average newspaper customer.

I don't like the nearest big city paper well enough to subscribe. I literally don't think it's worth cutting down trees for me to subscribe. But if I lived in that big city I would subscribe.

Comparing bloggers to journalists is comparing apples to oranges. The credibility of a blogger rests on a different sort of foundation than the credibility of a journalist. Presumably a news organiztion stands behind a journalist, and is a part of that journalist's credibility. That's why Helen Thomas quit UPI when the Unification church bought it. Her credibility was quite a bit higher than the Reverend Moon's news organization. That's why newspapers fire reporters for plagerism and other violations of "journalistic integrity."

Most bloggers stand or fall upon their own credibility. You can continue to write even when nobody believes you. But that's the case with the Weekly World News also....

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com