Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The MEDIA elected Arnold. They did it deliberately. Shame on them.

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:43 PM
Original message
The MEDIA elected Arnold. They did it deliberately. Shame on them.
I believe that by protecting Schwarzenegger, the Bushes, the Karl Roves and Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world.....they have given them the power.

CNN,MSNBC, all of them elected the "governor" of California.

If people are not hyped up and lied to, most will want at least to do the right thing. Look how hard it is for us here to find what is true and what is not.

Congratulations to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, and CBS for allowing another state takeover!

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. I agree with you there
We need a better media strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, no surprise there!
Look what they did for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Next Celebrity To Be Elected By Media
will be Dennis Miller - GOP sees this was a such a piece of cake for star struck CA and whorish media. Free advertising for celebrities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belab13 Donating Member (333 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. who was the idiot clapping on msnbc? hmm could you be a little more
partisan in your coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. that must be why
the game channel is running arnie appearence on the dating game and e is running howard stern`s arnie appearence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
active_in_ca Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Can't disagree with ya on that one
I had an opportunity to visit for 5 minutes alone with Peter Camejo a couple weeks ago, then to listen to him give an inspiring speech. The guy is great, and he was given very little attention by the media.

This is a guy who appears to have a distinctly clear and well-informed understanding of the issues, has well-defined solutions, and conducted himself in the debates in a respectful manner. He can speak to the issues clearly. Arnold doesn't work without his script.

But does he get any attention? No, we don't want someone that would actually solve something, we get to have some A##wipe that has no freaking clue - and will rely upon his *advisors* for answers.

As a business owner, I can hardly freaking wait to watch things fall apart further than they already have. May be time to head north - it was going to be Shasta, maybe now it's more likely to be one more Californian heading for Oregon. Ya'all got room for 2 more up there, plus a dog and a cat?

What a bunch of crap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Rethug Nation.
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. I am so upset right now. I cannot even think.
I can't believe that the media was calling this for Arnold since this morning. I can't believe that 63% of Californians have voted for repubs. It is beyond believable. Fuck those assholes!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Time to boycott the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedoll78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. I sent every one of CNN's programs an email:
The text:

"Can you help me find some information? I have a friend who is considering running for national office next year, and I saw the excellent on-air fellatio your network constantly gave Arnold. How much do your services cost, and is there a money-back guarantee?

Thanks a bunch. Idiots."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. LOL! I like that.
Let's hope they don't trash it when they read it becaue it's the truth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. I congratulated them on electing their 3 gov. official.
GWB, Jeb, and Arnold. And those are just the ones since 2000.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carmerian Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. I've been trying to tell people
...for ages that the right-wing press is our biggest problem. When I say right-wing press, I mean most all of the press, not just Fox and its ilk. The Right wouldn't have gotten away with what it has in the past decade if the press (particularly the broadcast press) had reported on Republican transgressions instead of ignoring them. You know, people can't get outraged about something if they don't even know it exists. Likewise, what good is raising money for campaigns if the newspapers, TV's, and radio stations in your district are acting as 24/7 free advertising for your opposition?

It's time for some creative thinking about how to overthrow the media monopoly. Things are going to stay bad as long as these media barons remain in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I agree, but....
there's a couple of things that really bother me. First of all, Davis is one of the worst governors in history, but why in the world didn't he or Bustemente bring up Arnold's ties with Enron????? It seems Cruz is the one pushing the lawsuit against Enron, but as far as I know he never mentioned it. Bringing up sleezy behavior in CA is kind of stupid since we are probably the most tolerant state in the union, not to mention we have seen all of that type of stuff. But if they had hammered home the facts of the 9 billion dollars that we will not get now, I think people in CA would have cleared up the stars in their eyes and voted no on the recall. We do love our movie stars out here don't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carmerian Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Good points
It seems that right now the only way one of our stories is going to get reported is if Left politicians become the reporters themselves, after a fashion. They should use face time with the press to bring up the very stories that the media whores themselves are trying to bury. The whores can always simply refuse to broadcast what the Left pol is saying, but if all the pols stay on message and the media shuts them all out, I think the public would notice and wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thoth Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yes, why didn't Cruz bring this to our attention....
instead of Greg Palast, who had to dig for the info., which we now get perhaps a few weeks too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. yup. the media is neo-con.

Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a fifth column within the media ranks that injects daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective.

The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party, Gore said. Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh theres a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,0...
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6665

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But theres an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they dont control or-- even worse-- simply dont like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."

As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

CNN had no comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09...

Why Isn't Randi Rhodes Syndicated? The Dilemma of a Liberal Talk Show Host.

RHODES: Oh, I am so glad you asked. I am a ratings and revenue queen. Number 1 or 2 in the ratings usually. So what are the mainstream talking about? Well, they say Liberals don't make money because no one wants to hear them. Okay, let's think.

First, remember that more Americans are registered or identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. So here's the dirty little secret of news talk. There are advertisers making huge buys on really low rated shows that air nationally. If advertisers only go where the listeners are why do they buy cable news, Oliver North, or Rush Limbaugh who has horrible ratings?

They are buying CONTROL of CONTENT. It's leverage, whether it's radio, cable or network. They control millions of dollars of any company's revenue source. So that if something is said or done to disrupt their global business, they take their advertising elsewhere, or threaten to and then shut down the message.

And, think about this . . . how many products are on TV that you can't even buy? Plastics, computer chips, prescription drugs, soybeans. I mean honestly. This is the story that NEVER gets told. People just think, Well, if your good enough, you'll have a big audience and that's what advertisers want. Whose being nave now Kaye? I am always number one or two in the market. Rush is somewhere around 21st. I replaced G. Gordon Liddy!

I hope this gets told over and over because it is how they control our news, our Information Awareness. Get it?

BUZZFLASH: Explain the allegations that Rush Limbaugh has stated, that if Clear Channel syndicated your show, he would take his program to another company. Could there be a Democratic or Progressive Rush Limbaugh type personality on the airwaves?

RHODES: Not at Clear Channel.

First, let me tell you where the story came from. I had two meetings with middle managers who both liked me and what I had done for our 'pod'. (At Clear Channel the territories are split up into 'pods'.) In two separate meetings I was told The Rush story. Additionally, I should never expect to be syndicated by Clear Channel because Rush had said he'd just do what advertisers do. He'd go somewhere else. I was an unknown, he was a known.

I begged for and got (6 months later) a meeting with a senior manager. He told me the Rush story. So that's where it comes from. Now, when Oliver North was on the air, he stated that Rush was syndicated because Rush was a better talent and got better ratings. (This is insulting because of the fatness of the lie) . . . I then told him that Rush had threatened to take his show elsewhere if I were to be syndicated by Clear Channel. He said I've heard that but I can't comment. So everyone does seem to know The Rush Story. (North and Rush are friends).

Control the Content . . . we have business that cannot be disturbed by a questioning public.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/01/03_Rhodes.htm...

Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.

The report allegedly said Donahue presented a difficult face for NBC at a time of war, saying a nightmare scenario would be one in which his show becomes a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/...

While Donahue does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted Hardball With Chris Matthews.

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the America's News Channel, have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahu...

NOW In Depth - Massive Media PBS
Solid Ratings Don't Protect Progressive Radio Voices
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Podvin on the Media 1-31-02
Harper's editor laments rise of corporate news purveyors
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
The Wayward Media

HUSTLER: What has happened to the the news media in this country?

PALAST: I vomit every time I see Tom Brokaw.

HUSTLER: And Dan Rather-

PALAST: I feel sick at heart when I see Rather, because he's actually a journalist. He came on my program, Newsnight and said, I can't report the news. I'm not allowed to ask questions. We're gonna send our children and our husbands into the desert now, and I can't ask a question, because I will be lynched. This is what Rather said in London. He looked defeated and awful, and I was thinking, Why am I feeling sorry for this guy who is worth millions? He should turn to the camera and say, Well, now for the truth. Over to you, Greg, in London. The problem is that he can't report the story of the intelligence agents who are told not to look at the Bin Laden family, not to look at Saudi funding of terror.

HUSTLER: What makes Rather afraid to do his job?

PALAST: It's not just that there are brutal shepherds like Rupert Murdoch out there to beat the dickens out of any reporter that asks the wrong questions; it's all about making news on the cheap. You know, for some of these editors, cheap and easy is a philosophy of life. To do a heavy-duty story on Bush, and his oil and Bush and his gold-mining company is beyond them. A little bit of the Harken stock scandal came out, but that story was already seven years old. To some extent they know that there are certain things you cannot say. Rather says he would be necklaced for telling the truth.

HUSTLER: He said that? What did he mean?

PALAST: In South Africa, under apartheid, if someone didn't like you, they put a burning tire around your neck. That was called necklacing. On my show, Rather said, If I ask any questions, I'll be necklaced. And I'm thinking, Oh, that's a good image. It's sad, but if Dan Rather doesn't have the cajones to ask a question, then you name a reporter who's gonna step out and ask about what's going on. It's not that the corporate guys say, Don't run that story, although that has happened to me many times in North American media, but also the shepherds pick the lambs who won't ask the questions. For example, there was a reporter, some poor producer, who wanted to run a story about how Jack Welch had lied about polluting the Hudson River. The story didn't run. Shockeroo. That was for Dateline NBC, owned by General Electric, of which Jack Welch was the chairman of the board. Or as in the case of Venezuela, I was stunned to come back from Caracas to find a picture on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle of 100,000 people marching against the president of Venezuela. Sounds like he's a terrible guy and people hate him. What they didn't say was that half a million people were marching for him. At least the Soviet Russians knew that the stuff in Pravda was coming out the wrong end of a toilet, whereas, we live under the pretense that The New York Times prints all the news that's fit to print.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1


Robins was talking serious politics on a morning chat show - and clearly hackles went up. By 8:24 Robins was explaining We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet

Lauer could have called it quits there -but he went on When you see pictures of Iraqi's dancing and celebrating -does it change your mind? No Said Robbins - I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom, I hope we have the resolve to get in there and make it work.

It was at this point that something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television.

The music swelled under Robbins... Mid-sentence answering a question that had been asked just 10 seconds earlier... We have a terrible track record said Robbins, clearly not able to hear that music was coming up to literally 'play him off the stage'.

The camera cut to a wide shot. Lauer was leaning in and very much in conversation. Either Lauer was ignoring what must have been the deluge of invectives in his earpiece, or he just determined that he wasn't finished with this line of questioning.

But the music ended. The bumper music ended and the studio was in the two shot as Robbins said...It's for some reason not in our best interest to keep it going and pursue it to the next level. Lauer nodded, and the camera faded to black as Robbins - mid sentence - had his microphone turned down.

A conversation about free speech. An anchor asking reasonable questions. A guest responding in equally reasonable tones. No attempt to close out the discussion - to say Well thank you Tim. This was not a filibuster. Robbins was not hogging the spotlight.

Someone in the control room simply decided that it was time to pull the plug. And without grace or ceremony, or even the face saving of letting Lauer say We're out of time as morning shows do on so many occasions.

A conversation about free speech and free expression was cut off mid sentence as the network went to black.

Television history was made, as million of Americans got to watch in real time just how powerful and inescapable censorship can be. Robbins wasn't revealing troop locations, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember the war has been won - by all accounts. He was discussing freedom, free speech, and why his appearance has been canceled at the Baseball Hall of Fame. NBC should invite him back and let him finish his thought - or admit at least who was on the phone to master control demanding that they pull the plug.
http://www.rense.com/general37/dark.htm

Tampa cable won't air ad criticizing Bush tax cut

TAMPA - (AP) -- A TV commercial critical of President Bush's tax plan won't air in Tampa after the city's major cable provider expressed concerns about the script.

The commercial was produced for MoveOn.org, an online political activist group, and was slated to air about 10 times a day this week on cable systems in 23 cities, said Lanicia Shaw, executive assistant for Zimmerman and Markman, a Santa Monica, Calif., advertising agency handling the commercial.

The ad is a reenactment of an event in Eugene, Ore., a month ago in which 50 parents lined up outside a clinic to sell their blood plasma to help pay a teacher's salary.

''George Bush's tax cuts for the rich have meant less money for education,'' the commercial contends.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5862591...

3. How important is truth in mass media reporting compared to ratings?
The media doesn't care about outing the real stories - nor about ratings. The truth GETS ratings - but it doesn't win friends in high places. We got more information about the war in Vietnam through MASH and Star Trek allegories than on CBS news.
The corporate owners of the networks will make a killing on their stealing the digital spectrum, given away for nothing by the Telecommunications Act. (For details, see my website www.GregPalast.com ) They are willing to give up ratings points by serving up snooze-news with Tom Brokaw rather than gain audience share but lose their tickets to White House dinners.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=145&row=1

Wall Street Journal:
War Produces Rift in Media Between U.S., Other Nations
British television reporter Geoff Meade asked the officer what he would say to Iraqis and other Muslims who might welcome such images. Some U.S. reporters looked stunned at the aggressiveness of the question. A hush fell on the room. The general eyed him coldly and parried the query. Afterward, says Mr. Meade, a veteran correspondent with Sky News, a service of British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, Somebody joked to me that I'd find myself at the back of the room along with the French and the Germans.

We believe people need to see the truth, and there's no need to make the truth cosmetic because it's not pretty, says Nawal Assad, a producer at al-Jazeera's London office.

callers on Italian talk shows criticized as censorship the U.S. government's request to U.S. networks to refrain from showing the images. In Germany, the press has engaged in lengthy dissections of U.S. news organizations, often concluding that the U.S. media has gone through Gleichschaltung, an ominous word used to describe how the Nazis took over key public institutions, including the media (rough translation: bringing into line).
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB104854123024458400-e...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. It will happen again and again
...until we collectively do something about it. If we can do via the internet what the anti-tobacco activists did to Phillip Morris and the rest, then we can beat this.

We have been beaten back to the point where are most crucial political issues are media lockout and rigged elections.
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 Oct 02nd 2014, 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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