Contributors

Monday, July 10, 2006

The FINAL Word

Ok. That's it. I have had it. I have just received the final straw, via yet another dumb ass email from a NCD, that has broken this camel's back. I can't take it anymore and I am putting this subject to rest once and for all. So here it is:

The media is not liberal.

Once again, for the red states, THE MEDIA IS NOT LIBERAL!!!

Between the emails that I receive everyday and posts on this blog, there are some people that need some serious education in regards to their completely ignorant view of the media and so, after devoting a line or quip here and there, it's time I showed these folks what they probably don't know or refuse to see.

How am I going to do this? First, let's define media. Well, most people watch television and listen to the radio. This country has decided, in the last five and a half years, that reading is for fags so I am leaving the New York Times etc. out of this conversation except to say that I laugh my fucking ass off when a NCD spouts off about the evil, liberal New York Times...Especially after Judith Miller went to jail for Dick Cheney, they sat on the NSA wiretaps story for a year, they constantly run "warm, fuzzy stories" about President Bush (like the one last week about his 60th birthday), and they negotiated, along with the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, with Bush Co for weeks on how to "release" the information about the government gaining access to private citizens financial transactions. God, what a bunch of commies!

Really, though, most Americans watch TV so let's take a look at the major news outlets. Fox News is owned by News Corp which is owned by Rupert Murdoch (left). He is a very conservative man who gives millions of dollars to conservative causes. So, I think we can all agree that he is not liberal.

Next we have CNN which is owned by Time Warner, which owns scores of film, music, and publishing companies. Hmm, giant corporate conglomerate....will they support the Democrats, who will not give them any tax breaks and actually take money away from them or the Republicans who will give them tax breaks and look the other way in any.....Questionable business decisions? My guess is the latter....so CNN is not a liberal, commie, anti-American pile of hogwash.

NBC/MSNBC is majority owned by General Electric. Here is a picture (left) of their CEO, Jeffrery Immelt. According to files from the Federal Election Commission Mr Immelt has made several large donations to the Republican Party over the years. He has made none to the Democratic Party.

They have a home in Connecticut that is worth several million dollars and host Republican fundraisers there on a regular basis. The CEO before Immelt was Jack Welch, best pal and golf buddy of George H.W. Bush.



ABC is owned by Disney Company. The CEO there is Robert Iger. Here is a picture of him (left). I think that the rule that applied for Time Warner applies here. Disney makes billions of dollars worldwide. Why would they seek to put out information, through ABC News, that would ultimately be harmful to their bottom line?

To me, Disney is the ultimate form of capitalism. They sell you the same movie over and over again...VHS, DVD, DVD-HD.....Because they know that your kids have you by the balls. Are you really going to deny them the latest Pixar DVD?

So, this corporate giant has a vested interest in keeping things status quo.

And now we come to the NCDs favorite whipping boy....CBS. Ah, Dan Rather. The butt of every joke in the conservative locker room. Funny, though, I despise Dan Rather too, not for his supposed liberalness, but because 40 years on the man is still suffering from the delusion, based solely on the conviction of his own vanity, that Oswald was the lone assassin against Kennedy.

It might interest all of you to know that CBS is owned by Viacom, another giant corporate conglomerate, which was run, until recently by this man (left)....Sumner Redstone. Viacom is now run by Tom Freston but Mr. Redstone is still the Chairman of the Board. His estimated net worth is 7.7 billion dollars. He contributed large quantities of cash to the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004 and is a staunch conservative, attending several Republican events and fundraisers. He has never donated any money to Democratic election campaigns or causes.

So, let's take a look at these men and the companies they run. You tell me, does this group of ridiculously rich, white men look like the liberal kooks that the right makes them out to be? Do you honestly think that these men would do anything to harm their bottom line? Do they look like they are going to be out giving out welfare checks to a mom with 7 kids on crack? Or do they look like President Bush might run into them by on Hole #4?

I think that the NCDs have developed a very clever strategy of putting out large quantities of propaganda and disinformation that would make George Orwell proud It is designed to make people believe that everything on the news is a lie. Then, the people will turn to the government for all of the "correct" information and the zombie idiot making machine rolls merrily along.

And as far as radio is concerned, don't even talk to me about anything even remotely liberal on the radio. Air America's reach, while getting stronger, is nothing compared to the plaque that is infecting most rural areas of our country. The fact is that if you live in a remote area, the only radio, other than the shit kicker FM station, is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham. Those stations are all owned by Clear Channel Communications, another corporate conglomerate, which is just to the right of Adolph Hitler, politically speaking.

Much of this information I have discussed here is detailed in the wonderful film, Orwell Rolls In His Grave. The film details that much of the media is just a subsidiary of Corporate America. Their agenda is not liberal but to make money. Complicated stories of corporate involvement in the run-up to the Iraq War, scandals involving rich white buddies of the ones picture above, serious abuses of power, and stark tragedies never make the news because stories of abducted white women and black men robbing convenient stores are considered popular.

I used to laugh at the absurdity of the Jerry Springer show and now, the same general themes and attitude are on every single newscast and cable news station on a nightly basis. The film also examines, among other things, the shocking revelations that two children of the Supreme Court justices, who voted that George Bush won the election in 2000, later got jobs in the Bush administration.

A review from Amazon. com states that "the film states, in very plain detail, that the U.S. media is an ANTI-democratic force, a weapon of "doublespeak,", a subsidiary of corporate America which shapes and determines the legality, constitutionality, and 'facts' of democratically newsworthy events and issues from official, inside sources, instead of(and quite OPPOSED TO, in fact) true journalism, or even any vague sense of it."

So, the next time same moron comes at you with their "liberal" media garbage, ask them if they know who owns the media. Point out the details I have listed above and urge them to watch the movie, Orwell Rolls In His Grave.

Or you can just chuckle and walk away knowing what is really going on with those lying, liberal bastards on the news!

4 comments:

blk said...

The media gets nailed for being liberal because reporters, generally, are interested in reporting the truth. When they report unpleasant truths about conservatives, conservatives react by calling them names. Currently they brand anyone telling the truth about them "liberals" and "traitors" regardless of any political realities.

Fifty years ago reporters who reported the truth about administration gaffes were labeled communist sympathizers.

Conservatives constantly rail about how incompetent and untrustworthy big government is. Yet conservatives have constructed the biggest, costliest, most incompetent government we have had in the history of our nation, and now they want to remove all citizen oversight by shutting down papers that actually investigate and report the truth?

The New York Times's Swift story was not really news, because the Bush administration had already told everyone they were tracking terrorist financing in exactly this way. The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same story at the exact same time, and no one called for the execution of their editors (their editorial page backs everything the Bush administration does).

What was newsworthy about the Swift story is not that the Bush administration was tracking terrorists -- no, they are tracking ALL Swift transactions. Yours, mine, New York Times reporters, big oil executives, Democratic politicians. You name it.

The same with the phone record story -- they're not just tracking terrorists, they're tracking everyone. That's the real story here. And I think that we have seen time and again, that these people can't be trusted to keep such information protected. Remember the scandal with the lost laptop and the military social security information?

The more information the government has, the more likely it is for them to screw up and lose it, give it away to criminals, or abuse it the way Dick Nixon did with the IRS and FBI. That's what this is really about.

At this point there are still some news outlets staffed by reporters who believe that the truth is important, and it is the job of the media to report the truth. Others, like Fox News, are simply entertainment outlets. Like all of Fox's programming, it panders to a certain demographic -- they're just telling viewers what they want to hear. Just think of Fox News as political pornography.

Mark Ward said...

Spoken like a true conservative....

Thanks BLK, for stepping up and so eloquently putting forward a good point.

I find myself amazed and bewildered everyday by things deemed "OK" by conservatives these days when just a few years back, the same things were heresy.

Political Porno.....dude, that is a total classic...I hope you don't mind if I use that it public....

Anonymous said...

The only thing you educated me on was who the owners are of the big media conglomerates.

Of course you’ll leave the NYT and newspapers in general out of this – their subscriptions are down big time and they know it. Of course you leave Dan Rather out of this…running with a false story, most likely because they wanted it to be true. I could post the emails from Mary Mapes (former 60 Minutes producer) titled "SOMETHINGS BREWING…COULD BRING THEM DOWN THIS TIME" with regards to the false Texas National Guard documents they ran with. Yeah, no bias there. Check out the percentage of white house correspondents that voted dem compared to the percentage that vote GOP...there’s quite a gap.

Speaking of misinformation and propaganda...Air Americas reach is getting stronger? That’s a whopper. Their ratings are in the toilet, they got busted funneling money through an inner city non-profit (which they returned) not long ago and they are getting by via a handful of very large contributions from some very wealthy donors themselves (Soros, etc). But let’s not worry about researching that shall we? Their bias is for an end that is for the greater good of this nation right?

Bruce, your first paragraph confuses me. After many entries on this blog by Bush critics saying he "didn’t do/hasn’t done enough to find and hunt down the real enemies, Al Queda", now we hear that they are doing too much? You say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical at this point in time. Hell the IRS has had that kind of power and has been doing the things you mentioned for decades now. Why aren’t you guys outraged at the IRS?

Seems to me that the real challenge is not how to kill the terrorists or at least capture them. It’s how to find them in the first place. How to identify them from among the masses of people they dress like, sound like, and even act like…right up until the moment they board a plane or walk into a crowded area to blow themselves up.

We have only one defense: Intelligence. Superpower power has its limits these days. What are we gonna do? Hit them where they live? Bomb Hamburg? Bomb London? Bomb New York? Not an option. Nukes, stealth fighters, carpet bombers? They’re largely irrelevant. This is not about killing an advancing brigade. It’s about killing cells. A handful of operatives here and there, nestled among millions of innocents. The only way to prevent terrorist attacks from cells is to gather intelligence. It is to collect the information that reveals who the jihadists are, who is backing them with money and resources, and where they are likely to strike.

How do you get such intelligence? Your options are few. You could capture them and put them in prison and try to get info out of them. Naw, not when you have a small but loud group of people who run with any accusation the prisoners make about the conditions of their captivity. Violent Islamist extremists should just be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value and, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them that would satisfy the critics. It’s time we gave our "torture" critics what they're asking for - no more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission, with our help.

Let’s see, what’s left...well, you could use your technological wizardry to penetrate their communications. You use your mastery of the global web that is modern finance to find the money and follow it You know the terrorists are clever, resourceful, and adaptive. You know they study you, just as you are studying them. After all, when you find their vulnerabilities, there is still due process as well as whiny critics. When they find yours, there is murder.

Can you find out how they next intend to kill you, can you stop them, and can you prevent them from knowing how you know so you can stop them again? Perhaps.

So the message I’ve gathered so far is "If you try to intercept enemy communications (as victorious militaries have done in every war ever fought) we in the press will tell the world, including the enemy, exactly what you’re up to. If you track the enemy’s finances, we will blow you out of the water. We’ll disclose just what you’re doing and just how you’re doing it".

You were all outraged at the NSA deal because you say it was illegal. Is there some illegality going on in the government’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program? No, no laws have been broken. Is there some abuse of power? No, there seem to have been extraordinary steps taken to inform relevant officials and win international cooperation. The program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Everything that you all said was wrong about the NSA program.

Keep moving the goal posts.

Mark Ward said...

Subscriptions are down big time for the New York Times? Where are you getting this information?

Dan Rather....what a joke. You know the story about Bush is true. Once again, excuses...excuses....sounds to me like a liberal defending a criminal again....

Air America's ratings are not in the toilet. Take it from someone who is familiar with broadcasting. The show is less syndicated because radio/TV syndicates carry only the right wing shows and not the left wing shows. There's your liberal media for you.....