The “liberal” media’s new Whitewater-gate
Read the whole thing if you have a strong stomach.
Bottom Line: The traditional media is already working with wingnuts to turn the non-scandal in Chicago into a ten year long witch-hunt dedicated to taking down the Obama Presidency.
Local Note: When supposedly even handed journalists like Alan Loudell spend a full half of their broadcast reporting about what reporters are saying you know it is on.
The VRWC is primed, and Ken Starr is tanned and rested…
I think right now Obama is going through his staff one by one like Darth Vader, grabbing them by the throat and demanding to know if they had any contact with the Blago people.
This could save FOX.
*Sigh*
Are we surprised? It’s not like the Republicans actually have an ideology to go on anymore. Right now they have – fake outrage/scandals and saying no to whatever Democrats want to do. Their electoral strategy right now is to make Obama unpopular and to make recession worse so people will vote against the incumbents.
It’ll be a fun ten years.
…and Mike Matthews loves it!
I just love the drama in general. At this point, though, I think we can file this in the “Getting out of hand” department. Three days ago I wasn’t convinced. However, I’m still not buying the “right-wing media” meme. You all don’t understand how the media works. It’s the “build them up to knock them down” technique, which is totally non-partisan. It’s been used for decades in American media and it’s simply making an encore.
When Obama clears this witch hunt up he should tell every staff member if what you have told me about talking with the Gov turns out not to be true you are GONE. Also state it in public
TT,
I don’t think you understand how this works. Doing what you describe puts more blood in the water and prompts Republicans to call for more investigations.
This is pure bullshit – that is the whole point. “Distract, disrupt, derail” is the entire GOP game plan for the next 12 years. They have nothing else, not even patriotism
Did everyone notice that Mike Protack had an op-ed in today’s NJ? The link on DelawareOnline’s web page isn’t working.
Over on Eschaton comments someone just linked to John Dean’s ‘advice letter to Obama’ at TPM. WOW.
Mike, you have no skeptical take on why the media is suddenly ‘simply making an encore’….none?
Wow, are you sure you weren’t Republicans for the last 8 years? We made the same arguments.
This is a scandal involving officials with whom Obama has had contact through the years. He’s a public figure, the biggest there is. Journalists are going to pursue that angle. Of course, whenever someone discussed Barack Obama’s associations during the campaign, we were just a bunch of racists.
You guys need to accept that fact that you run the government now and when your guys mess up, we get to laugh and point. Oh, and maybe call for rounding up and shooting, but I’ll wait for that.
And Media Matters as a news source? That’s a riot.
No, I don’t have any skeptical take, Nancy. The media like “sexy,” “scandal-ridden” stories even when there may not be a scandal. You all just need to face it. As much as Hube screams “left-wing MSM” and I don’t buy it, I don’t buy it from you all either when you cry “right-wing MSM.” The media is the media is the media. They are utterly predictable and in this age of declining newspaper circulation and television news ratings, they’re doing whatever they can to over-hype themselves and keep the ADD-addled Americans paying attention to the stories that are the most sensational.
The point Foser is making is ‘guilt by association’ be damned!
Sharon, has Obama messed up? Yes or no, in your opinion. Or are you waiting for the Hannity train to give you a free guffawing ride to town?
Mike, glad you are joining the lowered ethical ratings bump brigade?
Totally! When will you be calling in? đ
You all donât understand how the media works. Itâs the âbuild them up to knock them downâ technique, which is totally non-partisan.
More brilliance from Mike Matthews informing us that none of us understand how the media work. This insightful piece of informations was brought to us by the publisher of Duminique the Imbecile and Leo the Hater.
Thanks, Mike!
By the way, I’m not defending them. I’m merely trying to offer an explanation. As for me, I’ve never claimed my silly Internet talk radio show is a place for hard news. Shoot me if I ever take myself too seriously.
More stupidity from anonone who proves, yet again, he indeed doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Instead of offering a refutation of my claim, which I think is hard to dispute, he offers an ad hominem about the fine people I’ve chosen to write on my blog.
Diversity is more than just skin color or sexual orientation, my anonymous troll friend!
Hey, at least they aren’t accusing him of covering up his teenage daughter’s Downs Syndrome child.
Mike, how can I or anybody else offer a refutation of whatever “claim” you’re making since you’ve informed us that we “all donât understand how the media works”?
Since none of know anything in comparison to you knowing it all, what is anyone to say?
Yes, diversity includes hate and stupidity, and I am happy that you’re proud of the “fine people” that you’ve chosen to represent those points of view on your blog.
You really are more warped than I could have ever imagined. I’m glad I freed myself of this type of blindness years ago. Yep, I’m still a hardcore liberal, but at least I can see past my own holier-than-thou bullshit and realize that there are others out ther who don’t agree with me.
Mike Matthews,
Since you have informed all of us that âyou all donât understand how the media works,” thanks for also telling us that you can see past your “own holier-than-thou bullshit.”
Since I still don’t understand how the media works, I still feel less holy than you, though. Probably because I am so “warped.” Coming from someone who knows more than all of us, I appreciate the insight.
Anonone,
I’m willing to concede (something you’ve rarely been able to do) that perhaps my saying “you all don’t understand” was arrogant. However, the bullshit people like you keep spreading leads me to believe, umm, YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND. Crying “left-wing MSM” and “right-wing MSM” is too simple. Considering most of the people who comment on this blog are quite intelligent, I would think you all wouldn’t get caught in bullshit, lazy rationalizations like that.
The media likes sensational stories. They conflate them on a regular basis. That’s what they’re doing with the Blago story — either rightly or wrongly. What about that don’t you understand?
Wow, are you sure you werenât Republicans for the last 8 years? We made the same arguments.
Sheer idiocy.
Just because journalists didn’t do much vetting of Obama during the presidential run doesn’t mean they will be unwilling to do some snooping now that he’s president.
Defenses of Whitewater not withstanding, Illinois is a place known for deep-seated corruption. One of the arguments made about Obama by critics was that it was hard to believe he rose through the ranks of that system without being involved in it.
I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he wasn’t involved with selling his seat. But it was a lie when Obama claimed no contact. Perhaps it was just reflexive, but we now know that Rahm Emanuel had many contacts with Blago after Obama won the election. This isn’t necessarily nefarious, but just like when you lied to your mom, she always wondered what else you were covering up.
It’s sad that you’re already getting defensive because journalists are actually doing their job. Republicans are used to this level of scrutiny, having watched George Bush blamed for every crosswind that blew through the U.S. for the last 8 years. Get used to it.
Jason,
Sorry, but I agree with Sharon. Republicans made the same arguments claiming liberal media bias over the last eight years. However, like the liberals’ rationalizations now, the Republicans’ were just as bull-shit filled. Sharon and the rest of the conservative-ilk were simply pissed because the media quite often had the nerve to call Republicans out on their bullshit. Damn, if only the media had actually done its job in the run-up to the Iraq War, I imagine the heads of a million conservatives would have exploded while simultaneously and robotically screaming “left-wing treasonous MSM!!!”
Mike,
Below is a list of nationally syndicated openly conservative commentators that drive the right wing echo chamber. If you can come up with an equal number of equally-well known nationally syndicated openly liberal commentators, I’ll “concede” that the media does not have a right-wing bias. To wit:
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Glenn Beck
Ann Coulter
Michael Savage
Peggy Noonan
G. Gordon Liddy
Dr. Laura
Laura Ingraham
Oliver North
George Will
Everybody on Fox News
Here, I’ll help you get started:
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
The problem with your list is they’re all COMMENTATORS. When I think of media, I think of news coverage and “unbiased” journalism. You know, “just the facts ma’am” type of things. The coverage of these events by news broadcasters AND NOT the talking heads you’ve mentioned is what I’m judging this on. Perhaps we’re simply using different yard sticks here, as I’m not generally interested in including opinion makers, talking heads, or loudmouths on either side into the equation. I’m talking newsfolk like Brokaw, Williams, Couric, Schieffer, Lehrer, and the hundreds of reporters who cover everything from the White House beat to the city beat in Wilmington.
Talk-radio is what it is: An unabashedly, heavily conservative leaning medium. But, I don’t consider it news.
Mike,
Sorry, but on this topic, you are off your rocker. There is no equivalence. None. You are simply wrong about that. It happens.
Gee, Sharon, you can play, too.
Tell us, who was tearing apart Bush everyday the way that the above tore apart Clinton everyday?
Who was tearing up McInsane everyday the way the above list was and is tearing up Obama everyday?
What progressive or liberal-leaning corporation owns a TV network?
Don’t bother anon1. They are proud of their wrongess on this topic.
It is some kind of perverse badge of honor in certain circles to be so stridently wrong about this shit.
“Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann”
Why would people want to listen to nonsense? of course the list is small.
…and if it’s any comfort, I’m sick of most of the people on the top list as well, if not all.
Time to move on folks. The people on these list are less informed than us, because they live in a vacuum.
Blogs are blowing up in popularity because people are turning the channel on these folks and watching entertainment shows instead or channels like the Food Network. They’d rather get news and opinion on the internet, where they can often interact rather than yell at the TV.
Tell us, who was tearing apart Bush everyday the way that the above tore apart Clinton everyday?
Oh, gee, there was the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, most other major newspapers. There was liberal bloggers who blamed George Bush for Hurricane Katrina. There were the various commentators on CNN, MSNBC, and all 3 networks. There were liberal columnists in the major media.
Your blurring of talk radio–where the hosts admit their bias and offer their opinions is a far cry from reporters and editors who are supposed to report news objectively. And then, Jason has the audacity to use Media Matters–Media Matters, for crying out loud!–as a somehow objective source for covering the industry.
The fact is, you live in a leftwing echo chamber that tells you boo hoo nobody every told us that George Bush was the son of Satan! It’s all so much bullshit.
The reason you can’t come up with more liberal commentators is because they SUCK. It’s not because there’s some rightwing conspiracy stopping liberals from getting radio and TV shows. It’s that no one wants to listen to them or finds them interesting or funny. That’s why people listen to conservative radio.
I know the truth hurts, but there it is in black and white. When liberals come up with interesting and entertaining shows, they’ll succeed.
Oh, gee, there was the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, most other major newspapers. There was liberal bloggers who blamed George Bush for Hurricane Katrina. There were the various commentators on CNN, MSNBC, and all 3 networks. There were liberal columnists in the major media.
This is bullshit, too, Sharon, and you know it.
The reason you canât come up with more liberal commentators is because they SUCK.
Jesus Christ, the bullshit expounds exponentially from Sharon!
“For the last 15 years or so — since the early years of the Clinton administration — our public political discourse has been centrally driven by an ever-growing network of scandal-mongers and filth-peddling purveyors of baseless, petty innuendo churned out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, various right-wing operatives and, more recently, the right-wing press led by Fox News. Every issue of significance is either shaped and wildly distorted by that process, or the public is distracted from important issues by contrived and unbelievably vapid, petty scandals. Our political discourse has long been infected by this potent toxin, one which has grown in strength and degraded most of our political and media institutions.”
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/significance-of-edwards-story.html
“Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper… he is the Walter Cronkite of his era.”
From a book by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin and The Washington Post’s former National Politics Editor John Harris
Mike, you are so utterly off-base here, as you would say, “than I could have ever imagined.” Commentary drives the “news” narrative. To not recognize this kinda shows who does not understand “how the media works.”
Sharon,
You really are ill-informed. Every single one of those newspapers you mentioned is full of conservative columnists.
The fact is that you can’t name a similar list that “was tearing apart Bush everyday the way that the above tore apart Clinton everyday” because there isn’t one.
Nothing like facts to destroy the “left-wing media” meme.
The media is like a retarded toddler: they find one topic and talk about it endlessly until something else distracts their attention, then they talk about that endlessly.
“I like firetrucks. I wanna be a fireman. They have a puppy dog at the fire station. Firemen are cool.
A Balloon! I want a balloon. See the balloon? Can I have a red balloon? I want a red and a blue balloon. I don’t want a green balloon. Green balloons are yucky.”
It’s the same thing… there’s a lull in the news cycle, and until some pretty blond girl goes missing again it will be all Blago, all the time.
Clinton years= “Right-wing media!!”
Bush years= “Left-wing media!!”
Gee, I wonder what the Obama years will bring.
A1, I am considering your post #36. Though, Greenwald, as a liberal, is certainly biased, I am willing to look into the resources he cites.
Mike:
Clinton years= âLeft-wing media!!â
Bush years= âLeft-wing media!!â
It didn’t change.
To conservatives, you’re right. They’re gonna cry “left-wing MSM” no matter what the hell happens. But the media did a fucking bang-up awful job on Clinton. Every newspaper from 95-2000, when they would put a picture of Clinton above the fold, chose a less-than-flattering image.
Pres Elect Obama has a great opportunity to quiet all of these rumors and innuendos.
If he acted true to his campaign words then he can man the high ground, if not he should be held accountable.
The press will not cut him any slack if he has been part of the ongoing Chicago party machine way of doing things.
Here’s the problem with your viewpoint, Mike. We didn’t scream “right-wing media!” We know the media is full of retarded toddlers who suck at the tit of controversy no matter how artificial. The problem is that there are tons of GOP scandals to cover, and the wingnuts know this – so the Drudge/Fox engine has to spin bullshit into drama to distract us. Check out how much damage they did to both Obama and Clinton during the primaries.
Also, the media fucking hated the Clintons. What’s sad is that they only hated W. Bush equally as much as they hated the Clintons, when really, the guy was the worst fucking thing ever to happen to America. That’s not “fair and balanced”, that’s false moral equivalency.
False moral equivalency says “Congressional Report finds that Donald Rumsfeld instituted torture policy” to be less of a scandal than “It took one whole day for Obama to promise to turn over records of all conversations with Blago, who was deeply angry that Obama was incorruptible”.
In regard to “just the facts” news, you might also want to read about the bias of AP, a major wire service:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807220006
Perhaps you didn’t scream right-wing media, but even though I was only a teenager, I certainly heard it from many sources, be it the Internet, public radio, or some in the alternative media.
The press will not cut him any slack if he has been part of the ongoing Chicago party machine way of doing things.
Thank you asswipe for proving the point of the post that this is Whitewater II
This is bullshit, too, Sharon, and you know it.
It’s not bullshit, Mike, and as someone who supposedly works in the field, you should know it.
You really are ill-informed. Every single one of those newspapers you mentioned is full of conservative columnists.
You’re still making the mistake of comparing columnists with journalists. The fact that the last 10 years has seem a boom in conservative opinionists does not in any way refute the claims about liberal bias in news reporting.
You want some liberal columnists? Ok, how about Paul Krugman, Ellen Goodman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Nicholas Kristof, Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, E.J. Dionne, Arianna Huffington, everybody at MSNBC (just for grins), and David Broder. How about the majority of blogs? How about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? How about Bill Maher? The list of liberals who get to peddle their lines of BS are numerous and varied.
And again, liberals don’t make it on talk radio because they aren’t interesting or entertaining. Period. You come up with someone who is both, you’ll have a show that gets national syndication and huge audiences. The companies that own the MSM are less interested in ideology than profitability (it’s the folks down the food chain who ensure that only ugly pictures of John McCain and George Bush were printed).
But hey, you keep telling yourself that there just aren’t any outlets for liberal thought. *snicker*
That is the point exactly, Mike. The only place you’ll hear about the “right-wing media” bias is on “the Internet, public radio, or some in the alternative media.”
The main-stream right-wing national corporate media isn’t going to admit to its own bias. And the best defense to distract from it is to drive a “left-wing liberal bias” meme.
Ow…The stupid of Sharon …it burns.
Not just there, A1. I heard it from commentators on mainstream media outlets. I have said this before and I’ll say it again. Any president who comes out of his term and hasn’t been crucified at least a dozen times means the media hasn’t done its job. The president MUST be criticized. Must be put under a microscope. Believe it or not, Bush was put under the microscope MANY times. Unlike Bush apologists like Sharon, I think it’s a GOOD thing that the media didn’t relent on him in his final four years. Like I said, the media fouled up pre-Iraq War and for that, I can’t ever forgive them.
However, I’m hoping the media does a bang up job on Obama, too. Because there will be mistakes. Many of them. It’s the media’s job to cover them.
Bush was put under the microscope MANY times.
Simply not true.
Sorry, Sharon. Match the list.
I never said that there weren’t good liberal columnists.
You come up with someone who is both, youâll have a show that gets national syndication and huge audiences.
Also, not true. Phil Donahue had the top rated MSNBC show (even higher than “Hardball”), but was canceled because he was a war critic. An internal NBC memo stated that Donahue should be fired because he would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war”.
Sweet.
Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough gets the entire morning show slot.
Gaping head wounds of stupidity, what the hell? If Broder is a liberal, than so is Dave Burris. Under this new dementia, Ann Coulter becomes a moderate.
I was thinking the exact thing re: Broder. I wouldn’t even call him a moderate.
I disagree, Jason. The media covered at least one out of every three scandals associated with the Bush administrations. Of course, they always made sure to let the administration’s reponses to them go unanswered, up until the last year when everyone was safely sure that he was officially a lame duck. Once a man has a 67% disapproval rating, the media starts to feel they maybe have a little bit of cover to be more openly disapproving.
Jason,
Bush was most certainly placed under the microscope many times (notice use of word “many” and not “most”). Need I offer a list? The problem is the spineless Democrats who took Congress in 2006 didn’t do a fucking thing about it. He and Cheney should have been impeached a year ago.
Anonone,
This is like talking about the bible to an evangelical. Mike and Sharon have made some kind of blind leap of faith that the media is even handed and Bush was subjected to media scrutiny despite the abundant facts to the contrary. They base their arguments on a feeling that what they think is reality.
The facts are that the media did not invetsigate the scandel of having oil company executives write our enegry policy behind closed doors.
The media did not investigate the fact that Bush knew that Al Quidda was planning to attack the United States and did nothing.
The media did not investigate the fact that Bush used doctored intellegence to launch his war in Iraq.
The media investigate the fact that the Bush justice department used for political purposes.
On and on… It was wall to wall cheer leading from the media for 7 and a half years and we all know that because we saw it with our own eyes.
Meanwhile, Obama is from Chicago…so where there is smoke there must be fire.
The facts are that the media did not invetsigate the scandel of having oil company executives write our enegry policy behind closed doors.
This was covered extensively in the summer of 2001. I remember it specifically because, through the media, I learned about it and did some follow up.
The media did not investigate the fact that Bush knew that Al Quidda was planning to attack the United States and did nothing.
Again, the media reported extensively on this fact when the 9/11 Commission held its hearings. How is the media supposed to know about something that’s classifed, eyes-only information before it leaks by an admin official? When it was released, the media HAMMERED Bush on this for weeks. And, rightly so.
The media did not investigate the fact that Bush used doctored intellegence to launch his war in Iraq.
No arguments there.
The media investigate the fact that the Bush justice department used for political purposes.
Huh? Perhaps they didn’t investigate BEFORE the news broke, but when it broke I remember this being on the front page of every newspaper and every broadcast for two weeks.
You’re deluded Jason. And I’m sorry, but I don’t know if they make a pill for that.
You’re right, Jason. But to quote the Associated Press’ D.C. bureau chief Ron Fournier in an election year e-mail to Karl Rove:
“Keep up the fight.”
Unlike Bush apologists like Sharon, I think itâs a GOOD thing that the media didnât relent on him in his final four years
I haven’t said that scrutiny is a bad thing. But when you had idiots saying that global warming (thus, hurricanes and tsunamis) were George Bush’s fault, the you have to question what qualifies as news.
Jason, were you living on a different planet for the last 8 years? Every single story you bring up was discussed ad nauseam in both news and opinion sections of the MSM. You simply could not escape either the scrutiny or the criticism. The fact that you disagreed with administration policy, or that your Democrats were unable to prevent it doesn’t change the fact that these things were reported. We’ve had endless, endless investigations of every aspect of this administration, from 9/11 to the war in Iraq to U.S. attorneys, to Dick Cheney’s energy summit. It’s a bloody shame that you can’t get over the fact that the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and most of the known world believed the intelligence on Iraq. It’s too bad you can’t accept that George Bush is not freakin responsible for 9/11. And thank GOD YOU’RE GUY GETS TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR EVERY FREAKIN’ THING THAT HAPPENS IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS.
ahem
Sorry, Sharon. Match the list.
I never said that there werenât good liberal columnists.
I matched your list, dude, and could add plenty more. Every person named on your list is not a news person. They are all commentators or columnists. So, I gave you columnists, entertainers, and tv show hosts. And those were just off the top of my head.
It was wall to wall cheer leading from the media for 7 and a half years and we all know that because we saw it with our own eyes.
This is the most delusional thing I’ve seen written here since you wanted to round up Republicans and shoot them.
Funny.
The insane man is now calling me insane. The bottom line is that there are actual facts. I am comforted by that in spite of your efforts to induce madness with your strident stupidity on this topic.
Let’s see… when Bush won in 2004 the MSM picked up on his “I have political capital to spend.”
When Obama wins (by a WAY bigger margin) the meme the MSM spews is “America is a center right country.”
Seems one message always gets through… again and again and again.
When Obama wins (by a WAY bigger margin)
2% is a WAY bigger margin?
Bush won the popular vote with 50.73% to Kerry’s 48.27%.
52.4 percent of the vote for Obama and 46.3 percent for McCain.
That adds up to 7%, not 2%.
Why don’t you address the points I made, Jason? I did provide actual “facts.” Unless you were living under a rock when those stories were exposed, then you’d realize the media covered them quite extensively — and for good reason, of course.
Sharon, though, is merely an apologist. She takes any criticism, any coverage of the “bad things” Bush did as being the “left-wing MSM.”
Sharon, in your list their were 6 people who have TV or radio shows and I had already given you two of them. And Tweety is not a nationally syndicated openly liberal commentator, but I’ll let you have him cause it is near the holidays, but he was a huge Bush Cheerleader in his first term, and he hated the Clintons.
Now, come up with 5 more nationally-broadcast syndicated openly liberal commentators. And show that they have the viewership or audience of the ones I mentioned. Or 10 or 12 because I can easily add to my list.
Sharon just brings up what conservatives think. They believe all journalists are liberals, so therefore having a whole TV channel and the AM dial to themselves just balances things out. What Jason is pointing out is that the traditional media is not liberal at all, they’re basically establishment-kissers. And I don’t know what planet some people were living on if they think that Bush got a lot of scrutiny. The media only started looking at him because he became unpopular across the country. They are followers and not leaders. Tradmed still talks about Drudge ruling their world and thought nothing of putting a Rove buddy & McCain guy (Fournier) in charge of the AP’s political division.
Just look to the run up to the Iraq war. All we got were war boosters and war critics were completely sidelined. In fact, the people who were wrong about Iraq (Friedman, for example) are still out there as respected pundits.
Nice summary, U.I.
Let’s get one thing straight. We have no free press, no real media. All are either pundits, or opinionaters. Even Rachel and Keith Olberman.
If you look at whose breaking the “news stories” before corporate media, whether radio, tv or newspapers”, many of the truths are coming from bloggers first.
Who would believe that NY Times or the Washington Post are liberal. It was the NYT who held up the Pentagon Papers for 18 months while our soldiers were being slaughtered in Vietnam. It was Judith Miller, NYT who lied about all during the lead up to Iraq, until she was caught…a telephone line from Karl Rove to the Times.
It was the Wash. Post who held the AbuGhareb stories until DemocracyNow and international papers broke those stories and they MSM couldnt hide it anymore.
What we have is a corporatacy run by both Dem and Republicans with a willing corporate media owned by some of the most vile weapons of mass destruction corporations, making gazillions on war and selling the war through their media pundits.
If you watch CNN International, that news is totally different from CNN USA. Internationally they know more about what is going on in th US than we do.
Example: the Telegragh in London broke the story yesterday that Rahm Emanuel and Blago had a conversation.
I am not going to automatically believe none of Obamas people had ANY conversations with Blago because that dog wont hunt. If Rahm had those conversations, Obama must fire him in a heart beat. No more lying Presidents, no more willing to go along media. We need the cold hard facts so we can make good decisions about anyone who sits in the White House.
I believe the dumbed down, bought off with corporate money democrats, are as guilty as the Bush regime. They just signed checks, no questions asked. We have a corporatacy in america, run by selected candidates who we believe we are voting for. I trust none of them. Not one. It is up to the american people to ferret out the truth by reading and distributing international news to go with national corporate news and then decide where the truth is….its always somewhere in the middle.
Why aren’t you out Christmas shopping??? Where are your priorities?
It’s not illegal to have a conversation with Blagojevich, and I would have been really surprised if there had been no discussion at all. Let’s not be silly here. The question will be if Emmanuel discussed any trades for appointing a candidate and I think we know that all Obama’s team would offer is “appreciation.”
Unless you were living under a rock when those stories were exposed, then youâd realize the media covered them quite extensively …
Extensively?
Mike,
That is such bullshit I have a hard time replying. It is very much like replying to an evangelical Christian who is convinced that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
You don’t make any sense. When you say that the coverage of the use of the justice department was a tough two weeks for Bush it just sounds like gibberish to me. In the real world it was not a very tough two weeks because the press dutifully reported what the White House wanted them to report which was:
“Republicans were very hard on Janet Reno. Democrats were brutal to John Ashcroft and now Judge Gonzales. Whatâs happening is Congress is really politicizing the Justice Department, unfairly so and dangerously so, because there are so many important law important functions that go on there. Itâs regrettable, both parties have done it.” Ari Fliescher Aug 27th 2007
Reminder: It was Alberto Gonzales, not Congress, who fired attorneys for political reasons. But guys like you swallow the “they both do it” bullshit like it is motherfucking mother’s milk.
That scandal alone should have led to impeachment and that was just one of a scores of scandals that were blown off by the press.
And yet…weeks from now, when we are still hearing about Blago and Obama’s “curious” and “troubling” non-connection to the story you will say that the press is just doing its job.
Like this “news item” today from Associated Press’ Liz “Sprinkle Doughnuts for McCain” Sidoti:
“At the same time, Obama may be drawn into an unfolding political scandal over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to trade the president-elect’s former Senate seat for personal gain. The ongoing federal investigation could ensnare some of his top advisers and taint the self-styled reformer who has tried to steer clear of notorious Chicago politics.
The president-elect says he’s “absolutely confident” his aides did not try to cut deals with Blagojevich, but at the very least, the scandal is a distraction for a leader facing the magnitude of problems on Obama’s plate.”
Note that there is no evidence of any of this; in fact, the evidence to date shows no illegal or unethical involvement at all. But this is how the Associated Press led by Ron Fournier (who was offered a job in the McCain campaign) carries the water for the right wing.
This is your “just the facts unbiased” reporting, Mike.
Liz wrote: Letâs get one thing straight. We have no free press, no real media. All are either pundits, or opinionaters. Even Rachel and Keith Olberman.”
Liz,
Everyone? Do you classify Cris Barrish, Beth Miller, Maureen Milford and Jeff Montgomery of TNJ as pundits or “opinionaters”? (Nice way to invent a word, btw.)
The reporters you identify can only get published what the Stooge Journal allows…they have editors. The News Journal like most media keep stories out of the papers that are embarassing to their friends and cronies. Often important facts are left out. When the story broke about the most corrupt states in the nation and everyone thought Illinois had to be at the top..cuz thats what the opinionaters wanted us to believe and the whole list comes out in USA Today, and Delaware is listed as 7th…is that a story you think would get an oz of ink in the Stooge Journal. Gee some of us might actually start asking, “who told Minner to appoint Kaufman”? When Chris Matthews talked about the list….he never identifed Delaware, just skipped that lil ol fact. Thats the kind of reporting that bugs me. Give us a flavor for the story but not all the facts.
With respect, liz, you’re changing the terms of the debate to fit your argument du jour, backing away when someone points out the problems with your claim.
Generally speaking, professional journalists don’t have cronies. They have very few friends outside the newsroom – it’s just too messy if your friendships conflict with your job.
If you want to hold up your current (fallback) argument, please name ONE case where a NJ editor has kept a story out of the newspaper because it embarassed a friend or crony. Just one. Please? You can’t. I doubt you can even name five editors who work there currently.
(P.S.: Editorial page editors and columnists don’t count, because they have NOTHING to do with the newsroom. You can try to conflate Ron Williams with David Ledford all you want, but it doesn’t fly in the real world.)
Gee some of us might actually start asking, âwho told Minner to appoint Kaufmanâ?
That’s pretty obvious to everyone except you, I guess. I’m fairly certain even your crony-loving reporters at the News Journal asked that question.
As for the corruption story in USA Today, the NJ likely ignored it because it’s complete bullshit, like the other analyses of corruption. Depending on what criteria you use, you could put pretty much any state at No. 1, or No. 7. All the corruption cases included in those statistics have been reported on ad nauseam – there is nothing secret or new there. (The story even acknowledged: “The analysis does not include corruption cases handled by state law enforcement and it considers only convictions. Corruption may run more rampant in some states but go undetected.”)
Let us not forget how the Pentagon placed retired generals are every TV outlet..to give their “opinions”, which came straight from the Pentagon. Grange, and McCafferty come to mind. How can you not believe a “general”? The public were sold the war by Rummy out of the Pentagon through mouthpieces like Ari Fleisher.
CNN the War Room, MSNBC the Situation Room, Fox…war, war war! The american people were sold all those lies through a willing corporate media. Rush the Drug Addict, Hannity the Insanity, Savage, Oreilly, Blitzer etc…were all willing liars. Bush invited the right wing talking heads to DC and provided them with talking points to sell the war and the
WMD.
Just prior to the war Phil Donohue had the best rated show on cable. Because he spoke out vehmently against the war, he was fired. Aaron Brown on CNN, likewise. He refused to “deliver the lies written for him” and and was summarily gone. Paula Zahn, CNN did a program on Palestine and was gone the next day. Havent heard of Brown or Zahn since. You read the words on the script before you, no going off script or you are gone. Those who dare speak out found themseles blacklisted many of them were fired from Fox.
Shock and Awe put out like an orchestrated hit piece. Demonization of anyone muslim was the mantra of the day….it still is.
Let us not forget… that liz can’t back up her BS.
Rule of thumb for corporate conroled media, fill time with anything BUT economic news, even if it`s a steaming load of bullshit.
At the risk of upsetting Mr. Pandora’s birthday for Mrs. P., the WNJ definately is derelict in acurately reporting the shit that goes on weekly in County Hall.
Is it the lazy and corrupt Basicoonsy? Is it her editors?
Is it the money from the realty industry that place hundreds of pages of advertisements a month into print there?
More media matters:
Slate concocts new standards for “scandal” coverage
Chris Beam unfurled a beloved Beltway CW as way to prop up the breathless Blago story in terms of it being an “Obama scandal.” (And yes, in the last paragraph of his piece, Beam noted “The Blagojevich complaint leaves him pretty much untainted.” Of course, if that had been in Beam’s first paragraph the whole piece would have been pointless. Nifty trick, eh?)
Nancy,
An example? Please? Just one, to back up your and liz’s complete BS? What have they gotten wrong? How is Basiouny “corrupt”? (Note: Failing to report a story in a way that mirrors your political beliefs doesn’t count.)
Disclosure: I don’t work for TNJ, but I have friends who do. I just can’t stand the constant unfounded slamming of hardworking people.
If anyone here thinks they could do any better, send in your resume. There’s an opening for an investigative reporter after Lee Williams quit.
I don’t know who you think you are. I found you quite impolite and Liz quite correct.
Now, let’s have some juvenile, “that’s what you are, but what am I?”
Hmmmph.
Dear flutecake,
Please go back and read the exchanges above. I asked liz for a SINGLE example of how the News Journal’s editors had failed to report a story to protect their friends and cronies, as she claimed. She replied with four paragraphs about Iraq and the national media. That may be true, but Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn don’t work for TNJ!
So yeah, I stick by my assertion that she’s full of BS, unless and until she can back up her claim. She won’t be able to, and neither will her comrade-in-arms, Nancy. They’re blinded by their ideological stances and simply do not know of what they speak.
P.S. Using the word “impolite” to describe someone on this blog is a high compliment.
Ah, ha, thanks for the ‘clarification’.
As I’ve mentioned before, I used to work at the downstate newspaper, not the WNJ and I know how news rooms work. Your question is malarkey.
She was perhaps too ‘polite’ in her non-response, which I believe no repsonse may be well deserved. As no one here works inside the news department of the WNJ, to ask such a thing could be conjecture no matter the type of answer.
Really.
liz wrote: “The News Journal like most media keep stories out of the papers that are embarassing to their friends and cronies. Often important facts are left out.”
If someone makes a claim like that, they’d better have the information to back it up. Otherwise, they’re full of shit and a liar, to boot.
So it’s not my question that’s malarkey – I’m simply asking liz to either put up or shut up. As a former journalist, I’m sure you understand the importance of not taking someone’s claim at face value.
Really.
Clarification: My duties at the downstate newspaper were not in the journalism department. I had another direct working relationship with editors in my early years from production area & later years as IT. I don’t claim special insider knowledge, just practical, intimate experience.
All newspapers choose not to print things for many reasons. You’ve chosen a thing to pick at that is just weasel-like. You are not at the WNJ newsroom, yourself, your argument is specious.
Liz makes great points, btw.
Dear flutecake,
I have no argument. Only a question. How is that “weasel-like”?
liz made the claim. She now apparently cannot back it up. I rest my case.