bitterlyclingin
Silver Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 3,122
- 425
- 98
[The MSM wears their Barack Obama inspired erections with pride, openly throwing the election to Barack Obama. Who can ever forget the block Candy Crowley threw on Mitt Romney when there was nothing in front of Mitt except open field and touchdown against Barack Obama during the Second Presidential debate. If this nation should ever come to Civil War again and the Conservatives prevail, Ms Crowley might be best advised to flee to Communist China for her own safety in the aftermath, Canada being far too close.
The Media fielded the 400 member journolist in 2008, which took pride in calling itself the "Unofficial Campaign To Elect Barack Obama" and after the election the Nineteen Billion Dollar Man, George Soros set up a website designed to directly control the flow of the DC news feed and the national discussion.
All of this is taking place in a country where 82 per cent of the high school graduates in the nation's largest city enter society without being able to read and write. Their Governor has set up a telephone tip line, complete with $500 rewards, in the best "Larning to love" the KGB, NKVD, Gestapo, and Stasi style seen in this country yet to allow the state's residents to snitch on their neighbors. They're definitely in the process of getting the Police State they deserve.
The AP, the Boston Globe (Wholly owned subsidiary of the American Pravda, the New York Times) and the LA Times received John Kerry's papers under terms of a secret arrangement which they refuse to release to the public. The LA Times, by its history, is no stranger to this type of stonewalling, that paper is in possession of a highly inflammatory Barack Obama tape made jointly with an Arab terrorist which they also refuse to release. Had the Kerry papers been released to the public, they are said to be so rife with fraud, lies, and half truths that Kerry could never have withstood the heat generated ny their release long enough to become Secretary of State.]
"In one of the most egregious violations of American pretensions to an independent press, John Kerry conspired with the Boston Globe, Associated Press, and the Los Angeles Times organizations to set the ground rules for the long awaited release of his papers after his defeat in 2004.
No one has revealed what the agreement was, but there had been eager anticipation by the public and news media punctuated by lies and promises by Kerry to release them for years before.
When they were finally “released,” the receiving news organizations, none of which had shown any ability or interest in pursuing the numerous discrepancies in Kerry’s claimed war experiences as shown by other records and witnesses, preferring to characterize them as “not proven,” proceeded to put out one to two days’ brief extracts from the papers which contained little of note besides Kerry’s inferior (to George Bush’s) college grades.
When I pressed those news organizations, and others for access, they refused. I reminded them I had run the book publishing company that published The Pentagon Papers in their entirety and at considerable expense, and that today with internet publishing, it would cost practically nothing to put them entirely on line in the interest of answering the public’s many questions about Kerry. And I asked, as with the Pentagon Papers, wasn’t it in the public interest to do so?
They still refused to give access to anyone.
It seems highly likely to me, from what I had already learned about the many fraudulent statements in the material I had been able to see, that had they done so, Kerry would never have become our Secretary of State.
It was the first case I know of showing the press as an outrageously partisan player in American politics, far less interested in its traditional role of informing the public what it wished to know and ought to be aware of than protecting their political allies. And interestingly, circulation and advertising in newspapers and magazines suffered a catastrophic drop about the same time from which it is not recovering.
The strange case of the invisible Hillary Clinton-Sid Blumenthal correspondence might well be in that tradition. Only this time it is worse.
The coverup on Benghazi is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the American Presidency. There can be little doubt that the details of that scandal which may well have affected a Presidential election, were carefully left in doubt by mainstream media journalists, more than 80 percent of whom were in support of the Obama administration.
We don’t know which members of the American press are refusing to publish or even reveal what they know about the copies of the Clinton-Blumenthal e-mails “Guccifer” claims to have supplied them, but if there is one thing we do know now it is that we can no longer trust the mainstream media to report in the tradition of Adolph Ochs’s instruction to his New York Times: “without fear or favor.”
“Guccifer” should be smart enough to give them directly to “Thesmokinggun” or other investigative internet media, if he wants to get these emails to the public.
As Forbes points out in a fine and well-balanced account, left hanging by their own mainstream media, Americans only have access to what is claimed in the “Guccifer” material are Russian sources like Pravda, Moscow Times, and RT. Those are hardly sources without major political spin games of their own.
Some may remember the question hanging in the air at the end of the of Sydney Pollack’s film Three Days of the Condor. A CIA agent challenges whistleblower Robert Redford who has just given classified material on a scandal to the New York Times. “How do you know they’ll print it?” he asked.
It seemed a ridiculous question back in 1975, still a year before America’s bicentennial celebration. Of course they would publish it. As Abe Rosenthal said to me one day about some hot manuscript: “If I get my hands on it, it is going in the paper.”
Now, it is a valid question. News media are no longer media. They are active partisan players in American politics. And it appears they decide what the “news” is according to what fits their scenario, rather than what’s fit to print."
Tom Lipscomb: ?How do you know they?ll print it?? | Power Line
The Media fielded the 400 member journolist in 2008, which took pride in calling itself the "Unofficial Campaign To Elect Barack Obama" and after the election the Nineteen Billion Dollar Man, George Soros set up a website designed to directly control the flow of the DC news feed and the national discussion.
All of this is taking place in a country where 82 per cent of the high school graduates in the nation's largest city enter society without being able to read and write. Their Governor has set up a telephone tip line, complete with $500 rewards, in the best "Larning to love" the KGB, NKVD, Gestapo, and Stasi style seen in this country yet to allow the state's residents to snitch on their neighbors. They're definitely in the process of getting the Police State they deserve.
The AP, the Boston Globe (Wholly owned subsidiary of the American Pravda, the New York Times) and the LA Times received John Kerry's papers under terms of a secret arrangement which they refuse to release to the public. The LA Times, by its history, is no stranger to this type of stonewalling, that paper is in possession of a highly inflammatory Barack Obama tape made jointly with an Arab terrorist which they also refuse to release. Had the Kerry papers been released to the public, they are said to be so rife with fraud, lies, and half truths that Kerry could never have withstood the heat generated ny their release long enough to become Secretary of State.]
"In one of the most egregious violations of American pretensions to an independent press, John Kerry conspired with the Boston Globe, Associated Press, and the Los Angeles Times organizations to set the ground rules for the long awaited release of his papers after his defeat in 2004.
No one has revealed what the agreement was, but there had been eager anticipation by the public and news media punctuated by lies and promises by Kerry to release them for years before.
When they were finally “released,” the receiving news organizations, none of which had shown any ability or interest in pursuing the numerous discrepancies in Kerry’s claimed war experiences as shown by other records and witnesses, preferring to characterize them as “not proven,” proceeded to put out one to two days’ brief extracts from the papers which contained little of note besides Kerry’s inferior (to George Bush’s) college grades.
When I pressed those news organizations, and others for access, they refused. I reminded them I had run the book publishing company that published The Pentagon Papers in their entirety and at considerable expense, and that today with internet publishing, it would cost practically nothing to put them entirely on line in the interest of answering the public’s many questions about Kerry. And I asked, as with the Pentagon Papers, wasn’t it in the public interest to do so?
They still refused to give access to anyone.
It seems highly likely to me, from what I had already learned about the many fraudulent statements in the material I had been able to see, that had they done so, Kerry would never have become our Secretary of State.
It was the first case I know of showing the press as an outrageously partisan player in American politics, far less interested in its traditional role of informing the public what it wished to know and ought to be aware of than protecting their political allies. And interestingly, circulation and advertising in newspapers and magazines suffered a catastrophic drop about the same time from which it is not recovering.
The strange case of the invisible Hillary Clinton-Sid Blumenthal correspondence might well be in that tradition. Only this time it is worse.
The coverup on Benghazi is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the American Presidency. There can be little doubt that the details of that scandal which may well have affected a Presidential election, were carefully left in doubt by mainstream media journalists, more than 80 percent of whom were in support of the Obama administration.
We don’t know which members of the American press are refusing to publish or even reveal what they know about the copies of the Clinton-Blumenthal e-mails “Guccifer” claims to have supplied them, but if there is one thing we do know now it is that we can no longer trust the mainstream media to report in the tradition of Adolph Ochs’s instruction to his New York Times: “without fear or favor.”
“Guccifer” should be smart enough to give them directly to “Thesmokinggun” or other investigative internet media, if he wants to get these emails to the public.
As Forbes points out in a fine and well-balanced account, left hanging by their own mainstream media, Americans only have access to what is claimed in the “Guccifer” material are Russian sources like Pravda, Moscow Times, and RT. Those are hardly sources without major political spin games of their own.
Some may remember the question hanging in the air at the end of the of Sydney Pollack’s film Three Days of the Condor. A CIA agent challenges whistleblower Robert Redford who has just given classified material on a scandal to the New York Times. “How do you know they’ll print it?” he asked.
It seemed a ridiculous question back in 1975, still a year before America’s bicentennial celebration. Of course they would publish it. As Abe Rosenthal said to me one day about some hot manuscript: “If I get my hands on it, it is going in the paper.”
Now, it is a valid question. News media are no longer media. They are active partisan players in American politics. And it appears they decide what the “news” is according to what fits their scenario, rather than what’s fit to print."
Tom Lipscomb: ?How do you know they?ll print it?? | Power Line
Last edited:
