What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Press and Private Interests???

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
670
Points
48
Location
Wherever
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2006/col20060706.asp
by L. Brent Bozell III
July 6, 2006




Editors of the New York Times, along with their allies in journalism, are defending the publication of anti-terrorism programs by declaring their actions to be in the “public interest,” making them a watchdog against what they view as excessive government power and secrecy. But the tables need to be turned. What about excessive media power and secrecy?


There’s something bizarre about the Times rushing out to protest excessive secrecy in the Bush administration – and then touting the testimony of secret sources as its evidence.


Media theorists have declared that anonymous sources are crucial to holding government accountable. But who is holding the anonymous source accountable? Or the newspaper using the anonymous source?


Major media outlets regularly pledge to protect the identity of their secret sources and even will send their reporters to jail – like Judith Miller at the New York Times – rather than break that secrecy pledge. Don’t believe for a minute that this is all grounded in a sense of honor. They do this, among other reasons, as a business proposition. If a newspaper like the New York Times wants to be competitive in the national media elite, it needs big scoops (almost always based on anonymous sources) to be profitable. Just try being a competitive media outlet with the pledge that you, unlike the rest of the secrecy-guaranteeing press, will only use on-the-record statements in your Washington news coverage. It’s not a promising business model.


This financial angle also holds true with individual reporters as well as media institutions. Don’t forget that when the New York Times busted open the NSA terrorist-surveillance program last December, Times reporter James Risen wasn’t selflessly serving the public interest: he also had a book coming out titled “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.” This was no coincidence. It was a purposely-timed commingling of “public interest” and private profit


But let’s introduce the idea of bias and partisanship into the media secrecy equation, because it underscores a different kind of private interest – reporters and editors privately rooting for one party or the other to win the day. In the 1990s, when national-security reporter Bill Gertz at the Washington Times broke one story after another using anonymous sources making the Clinton-Gore administration look weak on national defense, did the rest of the national media elite run to copy the story? Usually, the answer was no, because they did not believe Gertz and/or his anonymous sources were truthful or nonpartisan. In a word, they didn’t want to further the damage these stories were inflicting on their Democratic friends in the White House.


So what makes The New York Times more trustworthy or believable?


The paper’s sympathy for liberalism is clear in its news columns and its editorial pages, from executive editor Bill Keller’s inane old declarations that Pope John Paul brought communism to the Catholic Church to hippie publisher Arthur Sulzberger’s recent graduation speech proclaiming that liberals shouldn’t still have to be protesting “a misbegotten war in a foreign land.”


When the New York Times is whacking at this administration with anonymous sources, why do the rest of the national media jump to publicize it, no questions asked?


Please don’t try the line that the New York Times is the essence of American journalistic objectivity. It is to laugh. Even Keller doesn’t believe that myth, insisting to CBS anchor Bob Schieffer that “we’re not neutral” in the war on terrorism. And yet others at the Times continue playing the objectivity card.


In a cozy appearance on National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show, Times reporter Eric Lichtblau insisted that "I saw no sign that the people that I talked to were motivated by political concerns...I think it’s a mistake for your listeners to think that leakers, as people like to call them, are motivated by political smear campaigns, are out to hurt the President. I think that’s an oversimplification of why people put themselves in that position."


Rehm could have asked, but unsurprisingly chose not to ask: did Lichtblau ask these anonymous sources if they had personal agendas? Or ask them who they voted for in the last election? Can Lichtblau tell us these anonymous leakers were all pure of heart, all unblemished patriots? And considering the biases of the Times, should anyone believe him?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Brent Bozell is the founder and President of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog organization.

Bozell is also the founder and President of the Parents Television Council, which his biographical note describes as "the only Hollywood-based organization dedicated to restoring responsibility to the entertainment industry." [1] (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbbozell.html)

"In June 1998, Mr. Bozell launched the Conservative Communications Center (C3) to provide the conservative movement with the marketing and public relations tools necessary to deliver its message into the 21st century. C3's online news division, the Cybercast News Service at www.CNSNews.com, has become a major internet news source with a full staff of journalists in its Washington, DC metro bureau, and operates bureaus in London and Jerusalem, with other correspondents around the world," his biographical note states.

"Bozell is a nationally syndicated writer whose work has appeared in a wide range of publications.

"Mr. Bozell is Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee (CVC), an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Buchanan for President campaign, and Finance Director and later President of the former National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC). He currently belongs to the Council for National Policy (CNP) and sits on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU)," his biographical note states.

Media Transparency describes L. Brent Bozell III as "a zealot of impeccable right-wing pedigree. He is the nephew of columnist William F. Buckley and the son of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., who assisted Barry Goldwater with the writing of Conscience of a Conservative. He was the chief fund-raiser behind Pat Buchanan's unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1992.

According to Media Transparency, Bozell helped orchestrate the smear campaign directed at the opposition to Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court in 1991. During the 2004 elections Bozell launched a 2.8 million dollar campaign to discredit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10775-2004Jun27.html) the "liberal media". His column (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/guests/s_245188.html) on the eve of the Republican National Convention attempted to smear John Kerry by accusing him of "soldier-smearing", for having reported, during his 1971 Congressional testimony, on atrocities being committed in Vietnam.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brent_Bozell

Nah...no agenda here...:duh3:
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Kathianne said:
Jillian, you could have got his bio right at the site Bonnie referred to:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/lbb/bozellbio.asp

No hidden agenda. No claim of 'unbiased' ala NYTimes. He is not purporting to be writing news, but opinion. If the MSM kept the commentary to op-ed pages, I doubt there would be the brouhaha that now surrounds and threatens to collapse their empires.

No hidden agenda? Then why'd he try to skew a presidential election? I get your point, but the whining about the Times (not from you, per se) is a bit boring. If the Times were as biased as you say, why'd they publish all of Judy Miller's unadulterated propaganda pre-Iraq invasion? I particularly love how the Times and the WSJ publish the same thing and the right vilifies one paper and reveres the other.

My point, though, is that the "liberal media" thing has been debunked over and over. Every media outlet has a "voice" and a readership with a particular mindset...it isn't limited to the left.

So, when threads are put up complaining about the Wash Times and Fox, I think I'd find the complaints a bit more credible.

BTW, I'm not real big on the Times except for the Sunday magazine section.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
jillian said:
No hidden agenda? Then why'd he try to skew a presidential election? I get your point, but the whining about the Times (not from you, per se) is a bit boring. If the Times were as biased as you say, why'd they publish all of Judy Miller's unadulterated propaganda pre-Iraq invasion? I particularly love how the Times and the WSJ publish the same thing and the right vilifies one paper and reveres the other.

My point, though, is that the "liberal media" thing has been debunked over and over. Every media outlet has a "voice" and a readership with a particular mindset...it isn't limited to the left.

So, when threads are put up complaining about the Wash Times and Fox, I think I'd find the complaints a bit more credible.

BTW, I'm not real big on the Times except for the Sunday magazine section.


I brought up WSJ regarding the SWIFT article. There is no getting around the bias and agenda of the NY Times, Keller admitted to the agenda. As for the Miller articles, were they so prowar? Just because the Times 'apologized' for such, doesn't mean it happened. Just publishing what Miller wrote in and of itself, doesn't mean the Times was backing the position. As stated, there is an agenda and an apology that says, "Whoops, we never should have said, Blah, now means we must load on what we really think..." can be another way of working that agenda.

Did you catch the Q & A regarding the Path plot? Did you hear a reporter ask why they went public now? Did you catch the line from the FBI about asking the NY Times?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Kathianne said:
I brought up WSJ regarding the SWIFT article. There is no getting around the bias and agenda of the NY Times, Keller admitted to the agenda. As for the Miller articles, were they so prowar? Just because the Times 'apologized' for such, doesn't mean it happened. Just publishing what Miller wrote in and of itself, doesn't mean the Times was backing the position. As stated, there is an agenda and an apology that says, "Whoops, we never should have said, Blah, now means we must load on what we really think..." can be another way of working that agenda.

Did you catch the Q & A regarding the Path plot? Did you hear a reporter ask why they went public now? Did you catch the line from the FBI about asking the NY Times?

Did you read Judy Miller's articles? They may as well have been wrapped in red ribbon and sent to GWB as a gift.

Nope...didn't hear the Q&A. But I can tell you why they went public with year old information.... midterm elections are coming up and the numbers are in the toilet. So...what better way to get people all in a tizzy?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
jillian said:
Did you read Judy Miller's articles? They may as well have been wrapped in red ribbon and sent to GWB as a gift.

Nope...didn't hear the Q&A. But I can tell you why they went public with year old information.... midterm elections are coming up and the numbers are in the toilet. So...what better way to get people all in a tizzy?

Right. Then you also figure Bloomberg went ballastic on Homeland Security and the administration using the money as pork, instead of concentrating where the threats lie? Great strategy! (I happen to agree with Bloomberg btw).

Jillian, you really do need to remove the bias of your own vision, it would be a lot more interesting. You slam all sites you deem 'right,' although you admittedly don't read them. I however usually do, especially if I think that someone has an open enough mind to debate something with. Stormfront? Nah, I wouldn't bother, then again that says something about both the poster and myself. On that front, I do not have an open mind.

On the other hand, even RWA and a couple others, showed me where my blowing something off, without really reading more than a sentence and a glance, then making a faulty inference, caused me to be way off the other day.
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
jillian said:
No hidden agenda? Then why'd he try to skew a presidential election? I get your point, but the whining about the Times (not from you, per se) is a bit boring. If the Times were as biased as you say, why'd they publish all of Judy Miller's unadulterated propaganda pre-Iraq invasion? I particularly love how the Times and the WSJ publish the same thing and the right vilifies one paper and reveres the other.

My point, though, is that the "liberal media" thing has been debunked over and over. Every media outlet has a "voice" and a readership with a particular mindset...it isn't limited to the left.

So, when threads are put up complaining about the Wash Times and Fox, I think I'd find the complaints a bit more credible.

BTW, I'm not real big on the Times except for the Sunday magazine section.

Jillian.... the New York Times published classified information, what is it about that concept that you don't understand?

You do understand that publishing classified information to parties that are not cleared and do not have a need to know is a federal offense, or don't you? They did teach that to you in law school, didn't they?

At the very least, the government officials who leaked this and those journalists that knowingly published the information should be arrested and brought up on charges.

In addition, the journalists that spilled the beans on the NSA wiretaps (which was also classified) should be brought up on charges. It doesn't matter what you think about Bush, these people broke the law.

If I had done a similar thing at Lockheed, I'd be sitting in a jail cell! Oh yes, I think I understand now, if your name is Sandy Berger or if you're a journalist, that part of the law does not apply!
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10058
What the New York Times Has Wrought
By The Prowler
Published 7/7/2006 11:29:06 AM


The New York Daily News' report this morning about what appears to have been an al Qaeda supported plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel in New York in order to flood the Wall Street financial district is drawing a lot of attention in the blogosphere on the heels of the New York Times' and L.A. Times' leaking of highly confidential intelligence tools that the U.S. was able to use to track terrorist financing. Why?

Because apparently al Qaeda had promised the purported lead plotter based in Lebanon financial support. Other plotters scattered around the world -- some presumably in the U.S. -- would have been in need of the funds to purchase explosives, to finance travel, etc.

We've been talking to a few folks inside DOJ, the FBI and Treasury this morning, and things are a bit unclear. But this is what we're being told.

Our Treasury source wouldn't comment on the case. One DOJ source indicated that this case initially took off from monitoring of chat rooms that had been identified as havens for some of the plotters (that monitoring was undertaken in part by the NSA, and some of the monitoring required FISA court filings, something the New York Times doesn't support, either).

BTW: another DOJ source said that in the past year, counter-terrorism officials have noted a marked downturn in the use of cell phone and landline communications. There are a number of reasons for this, but they readily point to the N.Y. Times story on NSA overseas terror-call monitoring as one reason.

Back to this latest case: The chat room activity allowed investigators to target several individuals, and at that stage, the DOJ source believes there is a good chance monitoring of certain bank account activity would have taken place. Without going into too great a detail, the source explained that U.S. investigators have identified a series of "tells" -- some enabled by SWIFT and other monitoring tools -- that help them determine when the time is ripe or necessary to move on plotters.

"People have to understand that sometimes just being able to track these guys for a few weeks not only helps with the specific case, but we pick up on new techniques the bad guys are using. This is particularly true if they don't think we're monitoring them. This case appears to be a good example of this," said our DOJ source. "The way these guys use ubiquitous technology like chat rooms, instant messaging, wireless communications, it's really startling what you pick up when you can lurk undetected. And most important, we're doing it legally and within the boundaries set by Congress and the courts."

It is not clear whether this case was one of several our sources claim they discussed in general terms with the New York Times, and which Treasury and Justice told the Times would be endangered if it went public with the SWIFT program. It appears the arrest of the plotter in Lebanon took place before the SWIFT story was leaked.

But another DOJ source added something interesting to the mix: "If you go back and look at some of our more successful anti-terrorism cases, they have focused on taking down entire networks. How do we do that? From the inside, peeling off a lead actor, turning him and using him to keep the plot moving forward so we can trace everyone else, the money, the accounts, the weapons dealers, everyone. I'll just note that we weren't able to do that with this case and leave it at that. We could have, but we weren't able to. You'll have to do the math for the Times."
 
OP
B

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
670
Points
48
Location
Wherever
KarlMarx said:
Jillian.... the New York Times published classified information, what is it about that concept that you don't understand?

You do understand that publishing classified information to parties that are not cleared and do not have a need to know is a federal offense, or don't you? They did teach that to you in law school, didn't they?

At the very least, the government officials who leaked this and those journalists that knowingly published the information should be arrested and brought up on charges.

In addition, the journalists that spilled the beans on the NSA wiretaps (which was also classified) should be brought up on charges. It doesn't matter what you think about Bush, these people broke the law.

If I had done a similar thing at Lockheed, I'd be sitting in a jail cell! Oh yes, I think I understand now, if your name is Sandy Berger or if you're a journalist, that part of the law does not apply!

So true, the bigger story here is not really the bias of the Times but the really questionable reason as to why they felt the "public" had a right to know how the administration is tracking terrorist money???
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
jillian said:
I particularly love how the Times and the WSJ publish the same thing and the right vilifies one paper and reveres the other.

Disingenuous (surprise, surprise). The government never asked the WSJ not to print the story, as they did the NYT. Since the Old Gray Slut had already decided that our right to know supercedes our right to exist, what was the point of secrecy? The Administration probably figured they'd at least get a fair story out of the WSJ.

jillian said:
My point, though, is that the "liberal media" thing has been debunked over and over. Every media outlet has a "voice" and a readership with a particular mindset...it isn't limited to the left.

It's become increasingly clear, through circulation numbers and TV ratings, that more and more people prefer their news without so much leftward "spin" on it, now that there's actually an alternative. That doesn't mean that alternate news sources (you know - the GROWING ones) are necessarily spun to the right. Straight news just looks that way to a devotee of the MSM/DNC.

But, even if it were slanted, how in God's name does that "debunk the 'liberal media' thing"? The MSM/DNC thirty-year monopoly on the dissemination of information never happened, then? It was all a bad dream? They do not continue to whore out a once honorable profession to political expediency to this day? Despite all the proof that the public is on to them? That their actions are catapulting them toward that most unspeakable of jounalistic deaths: irrelevance? And that they are yet unable to stop themselves?

Who told you that the "liberal media thing" has been debunked, jillian - Eason Jordan or Bill Keller? Mary Mapes or Dan Rather? Notice that three of those four now reside on the scrap heap, and they're clearing off a spot for Bill even as we speak.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
102,145
Reaction score
12,715
Points
2,210
Location
Michigan
Brent Bozell is the founder and President of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog organization.

Bozell is also the founder and President of the Parents Television Council, which his biographical note describes as "the only Hollywood-based organization dedicated to restoring responsibility to the entertainment industry." [1] (Conservative Talk Radio Shows, Stations Steaming Online, Podcasts, Political: Townhall.com)

"In June 1998, Mr. Bozell launched the Conservative Communications Center (C3) to provide the conservative movement with the marketing and public relations tools necessary to deliver its message into the 21st century. C3's online news division, the Cybercast News Service at CNSNews.com, has become a major internet news source with a full staff of journalists in its Washington, DC metro bureau, and operates bureaus in London and Jerusalem, with other correspondents around the world," his biographical note states.

"Bozell is a nationally syndicated writer whose work has appeared in a wide range of publications.

"Mr. Bozell is Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee (CVC), an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Buchanan for President campaign, and Finance Director and later President of the former National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC). He currently belongs to the Council for National Policy (CNP) and sits on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU)," his biographical note states.

Media Transparency describes L. Brent Bozell III as "a zealot of impeccable right-wing pedigree. He is the nephew of columnist William F. Buckley and the son of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., who assisted Barry Goldwater with the writing of Conscience of a Conservative. He was the chief fund-raiser behind Pat Buchanan's unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1992.

According to Media Transparency, Bozell helped orchestrate the smear campaign directed at the opposition to Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court in 1991. During the 2004 elections Bozell launched a 2.8 million dollar campaign to discredit (Hear No Lichtblau, See No Lichtblau (washingtonpost.com)) the "liberal media". His column (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/guests/s_245188.html) on the eve of the Republican National Convention attempted to smear John Kerry by accusing him of "soldier-smearing", for having reported, during his 1971 Congressional testimony, on atrocities being committed in Vietnam.

Brent Bozell - SourceWatch

Nah...no agenda here...:duh3:

Hi Jillian. I tried to find a good thread to post this on, and this title is the best I could find.

You know how the right wingers call it the "liberal" media?

I try to explain to them that the RIGHT, with Bill Clinton's help, deregulated the media in the 90's so that a few companies could buy up all the radio/tv/newpapers. Guys like Rupert Murdoc.

And so these right wing corporate fat cats are now in charge of what gets said on the air.

And I said that the Sunday shows like Meet the Press would always have on 2 or 3 Republicans on and only 1 Democrat.

People like Allie and Willow deny this.

Anyways, I found this today and wanted to share:

during the Bush administration, the Pentagon ran a program that set up retired military officers to appear as analysts on TV and radio, essentially as secret PR reps for the Bush administration‘s war effort.
The right-wing reaction to Barstow‘s reporting and to the news that he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for it last month was vociferous, particularly among those close to former Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld, under whose leadership the PR program was created.

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - Rachel Maddow show - TODAYshow.com
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$200.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top