Is this what is called, Eating their own? hehe

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Jan 30, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    The Left joins the Right in attacking the MSM :teeth:
    Jan 30, 2006
    by John Leo
    We've known for a long time that the MSM has been biased left, but now, let any of the liberal MSM enen hint at trying to be fair and balanced. They deserve everything that is headed their way as far as I'm concerned.
    Liberals wage many battles, but have you heard which one is the major struggle now? Brace yourselves; it’s the campaign “against the established media and it’s bizarre relationship with the right-wing and the truth.” That’s from the Daily Kos, a popular liberal blog. No, it’s not a satire. Just when conservatives thought they were getting somewhere against the entrenched liberalism of the newsroom culture, it turns out that the newsroom has been reactionary all along; the real lonely insurgents fighting for media balance and truth are liberals. The mind reels.

    Some on the left-Eric Alterman, for one-acknowledge that journalists tend to be reflexively liberal on social issues, but not on economic matters, where the values of the media’s corporate ownership usually prevail. Maybe so, but that is not what is being said now. In its anger and frustration, the left, led by its Deaniac base, is loudly arguing that the news media reliably reflect the values of Washington Republicans. Rem Rieder, editor of the American Journalism Review, summed it up: “The left has the MSM (mainstream media) squarely in its sights.”

    Two skirmishes are under way, one against the Washington Post and its ombudsman, Deborah Howell, the other against Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball. Howell’s offense was writing that the sleazy Jack Abramoff had given money to Democrats as well as Republicans. That was inaccurate. A tide of angry and exceptionally abusive complaints flooded into the Post. Howell then corrected herself, writing that she should have said that Abramoff “directed” a considerable amount of his clients’ money to Democrats, though he never gave any himself. That was correct, but vicious and amazingly obscene email kept pouring in, so the Post shut down its web site. (Not a good idea, in my opinion. It would have been better, though more expensive, to let readers vent, while editing out obscenities.)


    The campaign against Chris Matthews has escalated into talk of a boycott, though the would-be boycotters prefer to call it an “appeal to advertisers.” Matthews is accused of being soft on Republicans in general, and in particular, of comparing Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden. On January 19, Matthews said on Hardball that in his new audio message bin Laden “sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore.” Matthews was citing bin Laden’s mention of “the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to the influential people and war merchants in America.” The next night, Matthews suggested that bin Laden was picking up the lingo of the American anti-war left, and asked, “Why would he start to talk like Moore?” Bloggers turned quickly against Matthews, a Democrat, calling him “a broadcasting neo-con,” “stupid Bush lover,” and “man whore for the G.O.P.”

    Liberal press criticism goes well beyond Howell and Matthews. Cable personalities are under attack, particularly Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Two or three New York Times reporters are catching flak. Two Times staffers made one left blogger’s 2005 list of the 50 most loathsome people in America. Many critics seem less angry with Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh than they are at mainstream journalists. Salon ran a testy article arguing that “the traditional media, the trusted media, the ‘neutral’ media have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush story lines.”

    Many on the left are clearly frustrated and baffled that they haven’t been able to stop Samuel Alito, or to make the Republicans pay a political price for the many corporate and lobbying scandals. (That one is a mystery to me too.) The argument is that the press is accepting pro-Republican story lines, for example that John Murtha wants to “cut and run” from Iraq, while Bush is “steadfast.” Since the public doesn’t accept Democratic talking points on many issues, or so the argument goes, it must be the media’s fault for presenting the stories or narrative lines incorrectly.

    So left and right may be reaching some sort of consensus at last-many on both sides think the news media are screwing up. Some on the left are now arguing that big-time reporters are overpaid and remote from the lives of ordinary Americans-a familiar criticism on the right. The conventional double-standard argument of the right now seems at home on the left too.

    Liberal columnist Joe Conason thinks it’s unfair that photos of Bill Clinton’s coffee meetings were forced into the open, whereas photos of Bush with Abramoff are unreleased so far, while

    the media yawn. Some complain that the press took arguments for Clinton’s impeachment seriously but not arguments for Bush’s impeachment today. Look for more of this. The mainstream media, already unpopular, are now catching it from both sides.
    :laugh:
    John Leo is a columnist and editor for U.S. News & World Report and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
    http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/johnleo/2006/01/30/184230.html
     
  2. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    http://www.democraticunderground.co...sg&forum=132&topic_id=2403762&mesg_id=2403762
    The Next Battle Front : The Fascists Corporate Mainstream Media
    Recently I posted a thread on how the fascists corporate mainstream media (FCMSM) is the enemy of the Democratic Party, and I sense that most of us are in unanimity on that point by now. And I think most have observed a new ratcheting up of distortion and misinformation particularly on the Alito Confirmation process, with regard to Democratic Party positions, most particularly as to the matter of the Filibuster.

    I think the recent Media Activism which has been apparent here on DU is fantastic. It's also evidence that more and more people are beginning to recognize how severely the FCMSM is having on the goals we are all struggling to achieve.

    We all know that Alito should not be confirmed to SCOTUS for many many very important reasons, not the least of which has been highlighted over and over again during the hearings and the debate on the Senate floor. Alito has a record of giving significant deference and protection to Corporations over the civil rights and the Constitutionally protected liberties of ordinary citizens, and he gives deference to Executive "powers" over the powers of Congress as defined in the Articles contained within the Constitution.

    Corporations, are regarded by Alito over and above ordinary citizens, and it's the Corporations who own the Media.

    These Corporations who own the FCMSM are War Profiteers. They profit from phony scandals and manufactured sensationalized events.

    They profit from violent crime and catastrophic events as well as illnesses. In order to profit from these stories, the FCMSM requires a dumbed down citizenry in order to produce the hyper consumerism needed for advertising dollars, and the very last thing they want in this culture is a critically thinking electorate and citizenry .

    Obviously, a well informed citizenry will not generate high profit margins with which to line their CEO's pockets and investment portfolios.

    Ok, none of this is news to anyone here. We know what their bottom line agenda is, so what's the point of all of this? I think the point is we're not asking the right question, which goes to the question of what does the FCMSM FEAR the most?

    My opinion is that the FCMSM fear Democrats returning to power.

    I think they fear what will happen will be something akin to what Gore apparently promised in 2000. The moment the Democratic Party regains power, they would likely appoint an FCC with the authority to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. That same FCC under a Democratic Party administration and Congress, would implement rules and regs which would disallow the consolidation that has occurred in the past several years and implement means to restore balanced content with less bias in broadcast and print media.

    My mantra has been that the FCMSM is the enemy of the people and most especially the Democratic Party.

    When the Alito fight is over, I strongly suggest a bit of rest, restoration and nourshment of the soul and spirit for a little while, and then kick into high gear on the media front with our activism, which I think is a critical front on the battle to reclaiming our democracy, our country and to restore our Constitution.

    And if we ever want to see our issues covered at all, our favorite candidates campaigns covered fairly and accurately and with the appropriate level of amplification, we'll need to reclaim it with or without the Democratic Party's assistance at hand, or in mind.

    At the present the FCMSM, including PBS and NPR, are brazenly offending and dismissing at least half of the voting electorate of 2004. From a "profit" point of view, that's actually a very stupid business practice. So on it's face it doesn't seem to make sense.

    So I am compelled to conclude that the FCMSM are more concerned and fearful of a Democratic Party returning to power, than they are of the financial loss of advertising $$$$$$$$ by ignoring half of the voting electorate.

    We have several battle fronts before us. We have abolishing electronic voting machines, I have also argued that we need to abolish the electoral college system, but we are not in unanimity on that yet.

    But as long as we are subjected to a FCMSM that call the Presidential election results and victories, that engages in wantan saber rattling and constant drumbeat for more imperial wars, that refuses to report the truth with accuracy and thoroughness, and continues to portray our heroes as "fringe" or lunatics and the like, we need to deal with this matter head on, with the determination to take these fascists bastards down, imo. Or we will never get these other critical issues covered on the level that it deserves, such as the issues concerning electronic voting machines, and a host of other major, critical issues.

    Others mileage may vary, but i do believe this is the next big battle front, after the Scalito filibuster is over.

    The Media IS the Issue. :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    This is chilling stuff. I'm reminded of the 1968 Democrat National Convention (although, admittedly, I was a kid; politics was always big stuff at my house). One would have thought that job #1, for the New Angry Left, was defeating the Republicans. Not so. The first order of business was whipping their party of choice in to line. Any deviation from strict Leftist orthodoxy was perceived as weakness; any Democrat foolish enough to harbor anything less than pure hatred for America was devoured without mercy or sentiment. These bastards definitely eat their own.
     
  4. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,894
    Thanks Received:
    2,071
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,782
    It never ceases to amaze me how liberals simply do not get it. They attack republicans non-stop (especially the president), they try to exploit "scandals" like Abramoff to gain support. Its like they just can't comprehend that no matter how much they discredit republicans most people will still support/vote for them over democrats because of the values they represent.

    :bang3:
     
  5. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    To THIS particular contingent of whackos, however, I wish Godspeed. As they continue to spew this lunacy - unchallenged by Democrats anywhere - they will only grow bolder; more convinced of the rightness of their mission. Public cries of "Yankee Imperialist Pigdog!" can't be far behind; their veneer of sanity is disappearing in great chunks. All the better for the rest of us; it's like they're wearing a bell, or a sign. Think of the energy we'll save!
     
  6. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    It is always easier to see and then magnify the faults of others; it is not so easy to detect your own faults and then even tougher to do something about them.

    In my own personal opinion, the Dems (or libs if you prefer) are prolific in their criticism of others but offer no practical solutions to any of the issues. They offer no candidates that aren't either crazy, naive, or even downright stupid. All of them are arrogant. I may not like everything the Republicans do or say, but the alternative is far more abhorent!
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    This first point has nothing to do with the substance of the article. I just think the idea of "fascist corporate" anything is rather funny because in a fascist country the government controls what corporations output. This is completely contrary the whole capitalist concept of a corporation.

    As for Democrats eating their own. They do. The hard left cant seem to figure out why people might question them when Osama Bin Laden uses the same rhetoric.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Excellent point, and one that is all too often missed - or, perhaps "glossed over" is the term I'm looking for.

    The left absolutely makes it's living on the half-truth. Just once, I wish a Democrat would say what he really means, in honest, open totality:

    "Corporations are evil. Trust GOVERNMENT instead".

    I won't hold my breath.
     
  9. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    Great way of putting it! It also reminds me of how both Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean lost it before the cameras. What a bunch of crackpots.
     
  10. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    My feelings exactly. I'm not too fond of my congressman right now--he's been in Washington far too long and has become a part of the Washington culture--but I would not even consider voting for a Democrat to replace him.
    So I guess the Democrats are right in a way--America has become a one-party nation--but they have no one to blame but themselves. Those who could be leading lights in the Democrat Party, such as Mark Warner and Evan Bayh, aren't given serious consideration. Why Democrats like Warner, Bayh, Lieberman, Miller, etc., don't band together and take back their party is a big mystery to me.
     

Share This Page