Reply With Quote
you sound like w.
Chilling conversation taken from another forum about the NeoCons planned attack against internet freedom, bloggers, and online activism...
le: "Hannity trashes Freerepublic , freepers going wild.".
Many hilarious remarks follow. However, I posted replies on the Hannity thread to raise the issue that, like some other recent moves by corporate media figures, this could well be a step in a planned campaign with the ultimate goal of setting up legislation to suppress freedom of the internet. Because the ensuing discussion is quite different from the one on the freepers’ responses to Hannity’s actions, with far more serious potential, I was asked by two posters to start another thread for this discussion.
This is that thread. I will begin it by pasting the relevant posts from the earlier thread.
Whatever Hannity’s real reasons for acting as he has toward FreeRepublic, this is an extremely serious subject and needs brainstorming, watchdogging, and action.
--------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
73. Funny, but this has a more sinister side: part of anti-internet campaign
The Howie Kurtz and Wolfie Blitzer travesties on the "Gannon" scandal, as well as the Jan 19 special by Ted Koppel on how "internet bloggers" talking about the election being stolen are total whackos all share a common theme: "The internet is not a reliable source of news, you cannot trust it, and people who use it regularly are dangerous and will invade your privacy."
From this carefully framed position it will be a short step to new laws to suppress freedom of information access and expression on the internet.
The administration has obvious reasons for wanting to stifle dissent and activism and prevent evidence of their corruption being found and exposed. The corporate media are threatened as well by the growing reliance on the internet for news. So, it's natural that these two (really one in many senses) forces join to take steps to suppress their common enemy: freedom on the internet.
Hannity doesn't give a damn about the conservative blogs, he wants the WHOLE INTERNET to be stifled. What can Free Republic do for Hannity that his handlers in the blivet** administration can't do better? Besides, we're supposed to be impressed by his 'high standards" in badmouthing the whole internet scene. It's the latest in-thing for corporate media shills to do.
I think this anti-internet pattern is part of a planned campaign, and I think we need to watchdog it and make our own plans to counter it.
-------------------------------------------
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Whoa....good point.
That might be something that should concern the posters on all the RW posting sites as well.
We should see who else starts picking up on this riff in the corporate media.
------------------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. Yes, but not only in the corporate media. Also speeches by politiciansEdited on Wed Feb-16-05 05:28 PM by Nothing Without Hope
We should be watching for telling phrases in line with this framing language appearing in speeches by neocon congressmen and other prominent Rethug supporters:
"liberal bloggers"
"internet bloggers"
"internet liberals"
"left-wing bloggers"
...and so on
in conjunction with negative language like
"invasion of privacy"
"unreliability" and similar words
"distortions and lies" and similar words
"dangerous"
"out of control"
"over the line"
...and so on.
And if we ever see the words "internet conspiracy" or "blogger plots" or anything like that, we are in BIG TROUBLE. Suppressive laws are almost certainly being discussed secretly now and can very quickly be passed by the Rethug-dominated Congress. They don't need the RW blogs and discussion boards, but they can be hurt by the growing progressive activism on the internet. They won't blink an eye at trashing all of it.
I feel strongly that we should be actively watchdogging this and countering the disinformation campaign about the internet NOW. It's part of the aggressive "get the truth out in spite of the corporate media" campaign that we should be pushing hard.
---------------------------------------
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #81
97. I waded through a lot of the posts at FR to see if anyone brought
this point up (from their perspective). As you can suspect, they are quite focused on the immediate issue and not really thinking this through.
I totally agree....the RW blogs are expendable. By the time these clueless understand that it's about freedom of speech/information sharing and pitting the criminals against the liberals AND conservatives, it will be too late.
I'd love it if someone would post this perspective over there......
-----------------------------------------
BronxBoy (28 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #73
108. Excellent Point n/t
----------------------------------------------
CAcyclist (940 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #73
141. The Electronic Freedom Foundation could use support
http://www.eff.org
They have been out front fighting against proposed internet taxes and other infringements and they'll be the first to get wind of anything serious.
--------------------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #141
161. Thanks for this important link! This looks to be a key resource
They must have had to take second choice for domain name, because they're the "Electronic Frontier Foundation," though the word "freedom" is very prominent on their web site:
EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people — lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries — working to protect your digital rights.
Our Mission: If America's founding fathers had anticipated the digital frontier, there would be a clause in the Cons ution protecting your rights online, as well.
Instead, a modern group of freedom fighters was necessary to extend the original vision into the digital world.
That's where the Electronic Frontier Foundation comes in.
Just as Patriots fought for liberty and freedom, we fight measures that threaten basic human rights. Only the dominion we defend is the vast wealth of digital information, innovation, and technology that resides online.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a group of passionate people — lawyers,technologists, volunteers, and visionaries — working in the trenches, battling to protect your rights and the rights of web surfers everywhere. The dedicated people of EFF challenge legislation that threatens to put a price on what is invaluable; to control what must remain boundless.
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Because being able to share ideas and information is the reason the Web was created in the first place!
----------------------------------------------------
CAcyclist (942 posts) Thu Feb-17-05 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #161
177. Also Annalee Newitz
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19514
I can't open two windows at the same time on this computer, so forgive me if I misspelt any names. Annalee is a tech columnist who frequently writes about political threats to the internet and other threats like this column about the FCC. She's a must-read.
----------------------------------------------------
Spiffarino (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #73
151. Have you started a thread on this topic?
You should. You're scarin' the crap out of me.
-----------------------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #151
158. No, but you're the 2nd person who's asked. So I will.
Tonight or tomorrow AM I'll start a different thread and copy over the relevant posts from this (largely unrelated) thread. I'll put it in the Media Forum and post a link here in this thread so that anyone interested can go there to continue the discussion after I've set up the link. Until then, go ahead and keep posting on this subject here -- I'll transfer the posts to the new thread when I set it up.
Yes, I'm very, very scared about this too. But I figure it's better to be scared and prepared than miss anticipating such a deadly countermove against progressive activism by the neocon cartel.
I feel it's not a matter of IF they will try to suppress internet freedom, it's a question of WHEN and HOW. We need to brainstorm and watchdog and be prepared when they make their move.
One of the ways to prepare is to GET THE TRUTH OUT ABOUT INTERNET-BASED NEWS AND ACTIVISM so that it's harder for them to sell their lies about it. We need to come up with more ways to do this. I'm going to work toward starting a DU Group dealing with optimizing getting the truth out to people who don't already get their news from the internet. Maybe internet freedom protection could be discussed there as well; there are many related issues in the two subject areas.
--------------------------------------------------------
tishaLA (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
79. Hannity loves Ann Coulter
and he calls FReepers childish and fringe? He loves Falwell and Dobson and he calls FReepers childish and fringe?
Doesn't he know his audience?
--------------------------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. The RW internet posters are NOT his audience, and he is distancing himselfEdited on Wed Feb-16-05 06:07 PM by Nothing Without Hope
As I said in a couple of earlier replies on this thread, I think this shows distancing of Hannity from internet-based information and activism IN GENERAL. He doesn't need the freepers, he just needs the support of the corporate media and the blivet** administration. And I believe these two (really one) forces have already begun a campaign designed to culminate in repressive legislation against internet freedom. They'll ditch the freepers without a qualm if it means they can also wipe out progressive internet use.
Progressive internet information access and political activism has become more than a mere nuisance to the powers in corporate media and government and they mean to suppress them. THIS IS SERIOUS.
Edited to clarify what I am trying to say:
The RW internet posters represent a very small part of Hannity's market. He can lose them without a problem. His REAL audience are the Bush voters, and he has to please the blivet** administration and the corporate media. Distancing himself from "internet bloggers" is a calculated step, I believe, and the ejection of the Free Republic posters is a small sacrifice toward the goal of outlawing ALL freedom of the internet.
-----------------------------------------------------------
sparky_in_ma (940 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. Very good point!
I hadn't looked at it that way. (it is fun to watch this week, first Gannon, now Hannity. I've got to hit the I believe thread today.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #87
100. Suggest starting a separate thread on this subject.
I'm afraid that the top story (Hannity vs. FR) will drown out the more important aspect that you raise. I think the internet is a big threat to the interests of the few who are dominating our lives through control of government and the corporate media.
We need to really watch this story unfold in this context. I'll be interested if Rush starts to tack away from his internet dittoheads as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #100
154. OK, I'll start a new thread later tonight or tomorrow and link to it here
I'll copy the relevant posts (on the idea that internet freedom is being threatened) from this thread and put them into the newer thread somehow. I think the Media Forum might be a reasonable place for it. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on this.
------------------------------------------------------------
BronxBoy (28 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #87
110. I have a question...Edited on Wed Feb-16-05 07:15 PM by BronxBoy
Do you think that the Internet can truly be suppressed? I've often heard people say that the Internet is too large and expansive to be stifled but your comments do make one wonder. I have always felt that the Internet was a relatively new tool in the hands of people and that as they became more sophisticated and discerning in it's use and of the quality of the information to be had on it, it would truly become a true tool of free expression. How do you think it can be stifled and what should we look for in terms of potential legislation?
edited to spelling
-----------------------------------------------------------
sparky_in_ma (940 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. One really easy way would be a tax.
A very large tax on internet providers, or discussion forums, which would get passed on to the user by making most all sites pay sites. Or tax individuals by usage amounts, monitored through ISP's. That's not tin foil, such concepts have really been discussed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing Without Hope (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #110
123. Yes, I think the internet can be suppressed. They control the governmentEdited on Wed Feb-16-05 08:22 PM by Nothing Without Hope
Exactly how this suppression might take place is something that I think should be a subject of brainstorming, questions to media experts, and intense watchdogging of corporate media and Rethug-sympathizing government figures -- members of Congress, judges, White House employees, DOJ and DOD spokespeople, Homeland Security, and so on.
A tax would be an easy starting point and I do expect to see a law with some form of internet tax as part of another bill soon.
But what I am REALLY expecting as the excuse to shut down internet freedom is some form of scare tactic, that "TERRORISTS" can use the internet to get info that can be used to attack the country. The Rethug framing themes now are
(1) the internet is not reliable as a source of information for regular people (subtext: you don't need the internet, folks) and
(2) "internet bloggers" can invade your privacy and persecute you (subtext: if wacko libruls can do it, what about TERRURISTS??)
I am expecting the most poisonous attack to come from the direction of HOMELAND SECURITY. They are already trying to pass legal code that set aside freedoms and other laws any time it's "necessary" to "protect homeland security." They might even set up a faux "terrorist attack" a la 9/11 and demonstrate prominently that it could not have been accomplished without the internet. That's what I expect.
They are trying to drum up fear and revulsion for internet use, and there is no way this is a coincidence with the growing power of internet-based activism to be able to resist them and expose their corruption.
-----------------------------------------------------------
teachermarie (12 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #87
125. Sadly, I think you're right. Something else is going on here.
Feb. 14 Drudge had as one of his top headlines.
Search engine is cash engine for Democrats
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Employees of U.S.-based search
engine Google gave $207,650 to federal candidates for the
2004 elections -- virtually all of it to Democrats.
A USA Today analysis published Monday indicated 98 percent of
the money went to Democrats, the most-lopsided giving of any
of the top tech company donors.
Microsoft was the biggest tech donor, with its political
action committee contributing $3.1 million last year, 60
percent to Democrats.
Overall, 53 percent of high-tech industry contributions went
to Democrats, said the liberal Center for Responsive
Politics, a group that tracks campaign spending and
contributions.
<snip>
Not a very long article but someone seems upset that the
internet is not under any thought control. Sounds like a
tin-foil hat theory but Rove would sleep better at night if
every information outlet was owned by those "on
message".
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiberalCompassionate (18 posts) Wed Feb-16-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #87
145. I agree
this is the start of suppressing freedom of the internet. A fabricated threat will materialize (see today's news on CIA Goss' terrer warnin) that, surprise, will result in patriot act III - internet reform.
We need to brainstorm ideas on preemptive action; either to stall this "reform" and/or alternate communication outlets.
Better yet, getting elections credible may just be the necessary first step. Then the Democratic Party can gain a foothold and restore checks and balances. Till then, we, the "internet fringe" are the last remnants of American democracy.
you sound like w.
Boy, that's some really scary stuff those guys made up.
We'll see soon enough whether these accusations are unfounded. For now, Yonivore must be sitting at home deciding whether to side with Sean Hannity and lump all bloggers as 'liberal' conspiracy theorists, or with his fellow conservative blogger friends who must feel betrayed by the Neocons.
So can I still download free music off the internet?
I don't see why not as long as your good with it, but I would hold off on the Dixie Chicks and Bruce Springsteen for now. Wouldn't want to get on that no-fly list so close to vacation time!
I need to fire another one up in order to believe this .
Hey, whatever gets you through the day there Willie, but Yonivore has never been one to hold his opinons to himself for very long.
Is Yonivore truely dead?
Thankfully I don't spend the day posting such crap on the internet.
B]No Protection for Bloggers
By Adam L. Penenberg | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »
02:00 AM Feb. 17, 2005 PT[/B]
Read more here:WiredOver the past eight months, bloggers have covered two political conventions; claimed credit for forcing the resignations of two prominent journalists (soon-to-be former CBS news anchor Dan Rather, ex-CNN news chief Eason Jordan); outed a conservative faker with a taste for gay porn credentialed to cover the White House; and risen from relative obscurity to media darling. They've done this while attracting impressive levels of web traffic (and advertising dollars) and conjuring up a cottage industry and community devoted largely to, well, themselves.
Now, with two reporters from established news organizations facing jail time for defying an order to divulge confidential sources to a federal grand jury, bloggers are clamoring for the same legal protection that journalists are accorded under the First Amendment.
But they won't get it. Besides, even if they did, it wouldn't be of much use.
Depending on whom you ask, bloggers are either "citizen journalists" who are democratizing media, or bloviating loudmouths posting ill-formed opinions on personal websites between trips to the fridge. They are victimizers when they assault the news organizations they love to hate, and victims when they are treated as "real media" by litigious companies out for blood. "Salivating morons," members of a "lynch mob" (Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily), the "sons of Joseph McCarthy" bent on destroying careers (Bertrand Pecquerie in a Feb. 12 post on the Editors Weblog), or simply "citizens who want to know the truth" (BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis, guest on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz).
I like the seond paragraph best.
or bloviating loudmouths posting ill-formed opinions on personal websites between trips to the fridge. They are victimizers when they assault the news organizations they love to hate, and victims when they are treated as "real media" by litigious companies out for blood. "Salivating morons," members of a "lynch mob" (Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily), the "sons of Joseph McCarthy" bent on destroying careers (Bertrand Pecquerie in a Feb. 12 post on the Editors Weblog
It takes a brit reporter to 'get it'....
The ObserverThe mole, the US media and a White House coup
The reporter who wasn't is part of a wider press scandal, writes Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 20, 2005
The Observer
For two years Jeff Gannon cut an unobtrusive figure at White House press conferences. The shaven-headed, craggily handsome man worked for an obscure news agency called Talon News, known for its conservative sympathies. He was often the subject of jokes by colleagues on weightier news organisations.
No one is laughing now, because Gannon was far from being a harmless distraction. He was writing under a false name and working for a Republican front organisation. Suddenly, his 'softball' questions to White House officials looked less like eccentricities and more like plotting by an administration which has frequently displayed a dark mastery of the arts of press control.
When it emerged that Gannon was also linked to gay pros ution websites and might be a gay pros ute himself, the scandal as to how he was allowed daily access to the White House grew even murkier. The American media is now being forced to confront the possibility that Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, was simply a Republican plant, used by officials, including President George W Bush, to ask easy questions in difficult press conferences. 'The idea of having a mole in the White House press corp is amazing, but that's what it looks like,' said Jack Lule, a journalism professor at Lehigh University.
But the Gannon affair, which has shocked much of America's political establishment, is just the latest scandal in the media establishment. Newspapers including the New York Times and USA Today have been hit by plagiarism and forgery scandals. Other papers and television stations have been consumed with a soul-searching inquest into how they were misled about non-existent Iraqi weapons programmes. Added to that is growing evidence of a White House campaign to bypass or control the media in its everyday presentation of government policy , which included paying one journalist hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote its policies.
Last week a federal watchdog warned the Bush administration that any video news releases must state that the government is the source. Twice in two years, government departments have been accused of distributing fake news packages, using actors as journalists.
On the internet, the mainstream media is derided and scorned. One question is dominating US newsrooms and television studios: ignored, scandalised and now corrupted, just what is America's mainstream media for anymore?
The extent of the Bush White House's command and control of the press corps is often revealed in the seemingly innocuous White House pool reports. These are dispatches dutifully filed by a correspondent assigned to travel with Bush and contain little but lists of endless meetings, meals eaten and clothes worn. But no detail is too small to be ignored by Bush's ever-watchful press handlers. One report, on 13 August 2004, contained a remark from Bush that it was a 'good question' as to who to support if Iraq's soccer team played the United States in the Olympics. Officials scurried to 'correct' it. 'To clear up any possible misconception ... the president would of course support the American soccer team in any hypothetical game with Iraq,' a new report said. 'The initial report should have done more to reflect the exchange was mainly in jest.'
Such micromanagement has been a hallmark of the Bush White House and its all-powerful policy guru, Karl Rove. Added to that has been what appears to be a concerted effort to subvert the mainstream media.
Administration officials were recently revealed to have paid three senior journalists to promote or design policies. More than $240,000 of taxpayers' cash was paid to black pundit Armstrong Williams to push the agenda of Bush's education department. Critics were blunt in their assessment of what Armstrong's contract with the government meant. 'It is propaganda,' said Melanie Sloan of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.
At the same time, Bush has held fewer Washington press conferences than any of his modern predecessors, while courting local media, such as small city newspapers, which are perceived as easier to steamroll. During last year's election campaign Bush avoided interviews with leading newspapers, such as the Washington Post , but frequently invited reporters from smaller swing state publications to speak with him on Air Force One. Vice-president Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him.
The media has not helped its own case. First, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was found to have plagiarised numerous stories. The incident cost Blair his job, forced the editor to resign and was the subject of fevered Manhattan dinner party chatter for months. Then USA Today 's top foreign reporter, Jack Kelley, was discovered to have fabricated stories from around the world and invented interviews and witnesses from Cuba to Jerusalem.
Right-wing media ratcheted up the long-standing conservative complaint that the media is dominated by liberal publications. Though many journalism experts deny that is the case, the image has settled in the American consciousness, forcing newspapers, magazines and television stations to go out of their way to prove they are not liberal. 'We have a conservative media and also a mainstream media, which is also now fairly conservative because it has been forced to deny being liberal,' said Lule.
The Gannon case is a prime illustration. If, during the Clinton administration, a fake reporter from a Democrat front organisation, using a false name, had been exposed as attending White House press conferences it would have been a national scandal. If he had then been shown to be a gay pros ute, the scandal could have threatened a Democrat presidency. With 'Gannon' and Bush there has been no such outcry. The mainstream media has approached the story warily, while right-wing organisations such as Fox News have largely ignored it.
That has created a vacuum in the US media. It is a space being filled by 'bloggers' from both left and right who write personal journals, or weblogs, on the internet. It is here that the real media battles are now being fought. The internet has become a sort of Fifth Estate as the Fourth Estate of the mainstream media has slid toward irrelevance. The groundwork was done mainly by the right. Internet gossip hound Matt Drudge, whose Drudge Report is a key source for every American political journalist, struck the first blow with his breaking of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Since then a plethora of right wing blogs have sprung up. Unlike Britain, where political blogs are barely part of the debate, internet sites in America are seen as a vital political tool. Conservative bloggers have taken two big scalps recently. Last year bloggers questioned the veracity of a CBS news report on Bush's National Guard service. They dumped enough doubt on the story to cause four CBS reporters to lose their jobs, tarnish the reputation of legendary anchor Dan Rather and insure that the substance of the CBS story - whether Bush fulfilled his service - never emerged as an election issue.
Last week, CNN's chief news executive, Eason Jordan, resigned after an internet campaign prompted by his claim that American soldiers targeted journalists in Iraq. Though Jordan said that his remarks had been misinterpreted, the bloggers' revenge was so vehement he ended his 23-year CNN career. One anti-Jordan website, Easongate.com, crowed openly when he quit: 'To every reader, commentator, e-mailer and blogger that committed to this cause, thank you.'
The left has also had victories. It was not the mainstream media that exposed Gannon, but left-wing website Media Matters for America which enlisted other liberal bloggers to help. All the significant breaks in the story emerged online, forcing Gannon to resign, reveal his real name and go into hiding.
Some commentators see the emergence of blogging as a media force as a liberating phenomenon. Unlike the mainstream media, blogging is cheap, easy and open to anyone regardless of qualification or background or money. 'Blogging gives a voice to those who were previously silent,' said Ananda Mitra, a communications professor at Wake Forest University.
Others see it as part of the trend towards partisan journalism. Spearheaded by the nakedly right-wing Fox News, journalism in America has come to resemble a political shouting match rather than any form of debate of the issues. But with soaring viewership, Fox has emerged as one of the most powerful forces in the media landscape. Other networks, such as CNN and MSNBC, have sought to copy Fox's personality-led and opinion-based news.
The media is in the midst of a transformation which the Bush administration is keen to foster. They have discovered that a partisan and atomised media can be controlled, manipulated and used to an unprecedented degree.
It is a lesson that liberals are also learning. In answer to the talk radio of Rush Limbaugh - one of America's most popular and conservative commentators - liberal groups have set up Air America. Defying the critics, it has established itself as a left-wing radio network every bit as ruthless in skewering its opponents' points of view as its right-wing equivalents. In answer to right-wing television, former presidential candidate Al Gore is rumoured to be seeking backers to finance a liberal television network. Now both sides are equally ready and willing to use any means necessary to tear the other apart. The old-fashioned mainstream media is disappearing. 'Once that pattern is put in place, it is going to be hard to break,' said Lule.
Last edited by Nbadan; 02-20-2005 at 06:19 AM.
Hey, here's an interesting Idea to try and bring integrity back into the corporate controlled news. Fire the editors whos news organizations hired people to promote Bush policy!!
Indy MediaWhen CBS goofed up, people were fired and quit in disgrace. But when dozens, maybe hundreds of news outfits run Bush administration-made propaganda posing as legitimate news reports, nobody has to resign. What gives here?
Okay, so we know now that the Bush administration has been using all kinds of devious means to push propaganda on the American public--fake news generated by the Pentagon for overseas, and ultimately, courtesy of blowback, U.S. consumption, fake news reports by fake reporters peddled to local TV stations, bought reporters and syndicated columnists paid to shill for the administration's policies, and even fake reporters salted into the White House press corps to ask puffball questions if the president or press secretary start getting too much heat.
It wouldn't be so bad if the American media weren't so sanctimonious about itself. Look at how the talking heads of journalism and the big names in news management and academia came down on CBS for its failure to fully check out those internal memos from Bush's AWOL National Guard days. We still don't know for certain that those do ents were faked--they may well have been real--and moreover, there's good reason to believe that they were at worst just recreations of what actually had been written about the president's sorry-ass record of service in the Guard. And yet "60 Minutes," under withering criticism by the rest of the media for its failure to do due diligence, ended up firing or asking for the resignation of several senior staffers.
The real culprit in this massive propaganda scam, though, has to be the public, which seems to take little interest in actively evaluating the news it is being spoon-fed. Unlike the Soviet public, which had, and the Chinese public which has a completely cynical view of the media in those two nations, and which long ago learned how to weed out the occasional truth from between the lines of lies and misrepresentations, the American public is almost completely passive and gullible, accepting the garbage that passes for news each day as the gospel truth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
