Bring It On!

The American Media-Bought and paid for?

April 7th, 2008 | by Dusty |

There was a time in our history when America’s so-called mainstream media kept us informed on important issues and events. We have to look no farther than the recent past, to give them a few well-deserved kudos. I refer specifically to the Pentagon Papers and Nixon’s Waterloo that came to be known as Watergate. Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers was a global as well as national turning point in the Vietnam War. The investigative work of the Washington Post journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward began the unraveling of Nixon’s White House. Both events transpired in the early 1970’s and ended with President Nixon’s resignation from office on August 9, 1974. Both of these watershed moments in our history could not have happened in this decade, I would bet my last devalued dollar on that.

Sunday morning, as I perused my emails, I focused on Salon’s Glen Greenwald’s piece entitled; The US establishment media in a nutshell. Glen has his panties in a wad about how little our MSM gives us on the Iraq War and how much baloney it does manage to slop we the hogs, with. With a simple NEXUS inquiry based on a 30 day news cycle, Mr. Greenwald provides us with the following big ticket items:

“Yoo and torture” - 102

“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73

“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16

“Obama and bowling” — 1,043

“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

“Obama and patriotism” - 1,607

“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079

Now, I am sure you notice right off that the most written about subjects are the worthless and totally inane Presidential campaign fluff bs. Topics which do not have a tinkers damn thing to do with the programs and ideas that either of the Democratic nominees for that office are espousing.

This set my jaw in a very uncomfortable position so early in the AM. To be more precise, it jacked the hell right out of my jaw, and I hadn’t even had a friggin cup of coffee yet. Although most of the lesser articles are regarding events and issues in the Iraq War, nothing even has those two words in it.

What this tell us is that the MSM has “taken a powder” on reporting any of the events of the Iraq War within the last thirty days. Our media has expended little ink on addressing the events that have been unfolding in Basra or the daily shelling of the American compound in the Green Zone—two things which are important events with regard to how the war is going for BushCo.

If you want to stay abreast of the happenings in Iraq, you have to read either the European media or alternative media here in the United States. That is complete and utter bat guano my dear reader.

Unless of course your just regular folks, as Greenwald notes in his article. Regular folks, according to the MSM just want the fluff, the happy news. I find this unbelievable until I pause and consider how little the majority of American’s have invested in the Iraq Occupation. Our money is invested heavily of course, but it isn’t like we have to shell it out of our own pockets daily. Perhaps if we did that, we would find the majority of Americans highly pissed off—but I am not holding my breath on that either. The American blood being shed is also a very small cross section of our country.

As long as American’s continue to show very little emotion or disgust with regard to the travesty of mythic stature in Iraq, our mainstream media will continue to provide us with nothing substantial. The bottom line is that it’s our fault really, not theirs. We eat the pablum they shovel in our pieholes and ask for nothing more.

Where are the Daniel Ellsberg’s, Carl Bernstein’s and Bob Woodwards? They aren’t out there and even if they were—would they take it all the way to our current Supreme Court in an effort to get the truth out to the world? I doubt it because the Supreme Court is bought and paid for too. Just ask the folks languishing in Guantanamo and awaiting their military tribunals. Ask the ACLU about how those warrant-less wiretapping cases are going and how many of them have been dismissed because of that disgusting phrase: State Secrets Privilege.

For BushCo it is game, set and match. And they skunked us bad. Complacency will kill us, take it to the bank.

Crossposted at Sirens Chronicles

  1. 11 Responses to “The American Media-Bought and paid for?”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 7, 2008 | Reply

    I’m sorry, bought and paid for by whom, exactly? And what news do you want reported that’s not being reported. Every American death is reported by the media. Every significant strife is reported. Every potentially significant political step taken in Iraq is reported.

    And “You write what you’re told” seems couterfactual. Who told the media to report secret CIA wiretapping without warrants? Who told them to report the government obtaining the cooperation of telecom companies for anti-terror programs? Who told them to report military planting faux news reports in media reporting in Iraq? Who told them to report the firing of US attorneys, forcing out Gonzales as AG?

    It’s like you think no one has a memory that recalls events that occurred back beyond yesterday noon…or access to Google…or even actually reads the current news.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply

    I’m sorry, bought and paid for by whom, exactly? And what news do you want reported that’s not being reported. Every American death is reported by the media.* Every significant strife is reported.** Every potentially significant political step taken in Iraq is reported.***

    And “You write what you’re told” seems counterfactual. Who told the media to report secret CIA wiretapping without warrants? Who told them to report the government obtaining the cooperation of telecom companies for anti-terror programs? Who told them to report military planting faux news reports in media reporting in Iraq? Who told them to report the firing of US attorneys, forcing out Gonzales as AG?

    It’s like you think no one has a memory that recalls events that occurred back beyond yesterday noon…or access to Google…or even actually reads the current news.

    * http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-iraq8apr08,1,4068738.story?track=rss

    ** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040602430.html?nav=rss_email/components

    *** http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080407/ts_nm/iraq_dc

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply

    I’m sorry, bought and paid for by whom, exactly? And what news do you want reported that’s not being reported. Every American death is reported by the media.* Every significant strife is reported.** Every potentially significant political step taken in Iraq is reported.***

    And “You write what you’re told” seems counterfactual. Who told the media to report secret CIA wiretapping without warrants? Who told them to report the government obtaining the cooperation of telecom companies for anti-terror programs? Who told them to report military planting faux news reports in media reporting in Iraq? Who told them to report the firing of US attorneys, forcing out Gonzales as AG?

    It’s like you think no one has a memory that recalls events that occurred back beyond yesterday noon…or access to Google…or even actually reads the current news.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 8, 2008 | Reply

    I couldn’t get a comment with links to show up so I just removed the links. Frustrating but I don’t know what else to do.

  6. By Dusty on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Craig, did you read my post or just skim the first paragraph and accompanying graphic?

    Sweet Jaysus..All your questions are answered in my post.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    No, Dusty, I read your entire articles. I read you saying things like:

    What this tell us is that the MSM has “taken a powder” on reporting any of the events of the Iraq War within the last thirty days. Our media has expended little ink on addressing the events that have been unfolding in Basra or the daily shelling of the American compound in the Green Zone—two things which are important events with regard to how the war is going for BushCo.

    If you want to stay abreast of the happenings in Iraq, you have to read either the European media or alternative media here in the United States.”

    In response, I linked to articles in the United States Media (i. e., not foreign or alternative media sources) with current stories (within the last 30 days) about just such things as you had claimed that the American media had “taken a powder” on covering.

    Your point, I guess, has validity in that there are fewer stories about these things than about things that you think are less important but no one who reads the US msm can avoid the stories about which you want them to give greater coverage. I. e., how many stories of these sort do you think one needs to read before they come to a conclusion about Iraq? Nobody could read a thousand articles about any one event and most of them are simply copies of stories from AP, Reuters, AFP, etc. so reading more than one or two stories on the same event is usually redundant.

    Nor do I see the answers to “Who told the media to report secret CIA wiretapping without warrants? Who told them to report the government obtaining the cooperation of telecom companies for anti-terror programs? Who told them to report military planting faux news reports in media reporting in Iraq? Who told them to report the firing of US attorneys, forcing out Gonzales as AG?” answered anywhere in your post so, no, all my questions are not answered in my post.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Oh, by the way, I see that posts now give the authors’ names. Thanks Cranky (or whoever is responsible for such things)! I appreciate it greatly!

  9. By Dusty on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Craig..the Nexus quote shows the entire scope of how the media has reported and what got the most ink for thirty days.

    If you don’t like my opinions on something, move on down the road to the next post. This is about how the media reports and the amount of reporting we are getting on various topics. The whole gist of my post is about that..and yet you link to a couple of posts about god knows what and expect that to change exactly what about the number of times the MSM reported on the following:

    “Yoo and torture” - 102

    “Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73

    “Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16

    “Obama and bowling” — 1,043

    “Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

    “Obama and patriotism” - 1,607

    “Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079

    Obama and patriotism got more ink than the damn war Craig..and your couple of links won’t change that..in fact I am sure they were counted since Nexus is the gold standard for the industry on what gets reported. Obama and bowling..give me an effin break..who gives a shit..yet the MSM reported on it over one thousand separate times!

    Off topic but I will respond..The NYT held the story of the wiretapping until AFTER the election. I won’t be giving them any kudo’s on that crap.

    Your last paragraph with all your wonderful little questions is offtopic. I am talking about how little ink the Iraq War gets in the MSM and how much ink stupid things get.

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    Only one thing. You included a picture that says, “You Write What You’re Told!” I’m sorry but my questions go directly to this which you included in your post. You cannot credibly argue that it is off topic. You made it a part of your topic when you included a graphic that contended that the news sources do what they’re told. It cannot, therefore, be off topic to ask who told them to report stuff that they did report, stuff that argues against the graphic’s stated thesis that the news sources report what they’re told. And, before the election or after, the white House still argued that it not be reported and it was reported. Therefore, they did not report what they were told; they reported what they were told not to report.

    You’re welcome to your opinion but don’t expect me to pass it by when I disagree with you. This is what blogs are for. You write, others react. If all you want is a chorus of “You’re the Tops”, get a recording of the Cole Porter classic and play it as often as you like but blogging ain’t for you. BIO! ain’t an echo chamber; its a forum for the expression of opinion and dissent therefrom. I’m here to assure that it remains that way.

    That’s all I have and intend to say. Last word to you or whomever.

  11. By Dusty on Apr 9, 2008 | Reply

    The graphic expresses my opinion, as does this post. I provided information which you seem to want to ignore and yet you bring up something as trivial as the graphic on which to utilize your soapbox and continue to make your stand.

    A stand which has nothing to do with the main contention that is still this: the mainstream media would rather expend more ink on worthless topics than address issues which indirectly and many times directly effects Americans. As Greenwald puts it:

    Think about it this way: if you were a high government official and watched as — all in a couple of weeks time — it is revealed, right out in the open, that you suspended the Fourth Amendment, authorized torture, proclaimed yourself empowered to break the law, and sent the nation’s top law enforcement officer to lie blatantly about how and why the 9/11 attacks happened so that you could acquire still more unchecked spying power and get rid of lawsuits that would expose what you did, and the political press in this country basically ignored all of that and blathered on about Obama’s bowling score and how he eats chocolate, wouldn’t you also conclude that you could do anything you want, without limits, and know there will be no consequences? What would be the incentive to stop doing all of that?–And I agree. Evidently you do not.

  12. By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 10, 2008 | Reply

    Dusty,

    Think about it this way: If I published a post on Obama’s polling numbers and included a graphic of Obama wearing a suicide vest but, instead of bombs, the detonator was wired to quotes from Rev. Wright. Now imagine that I tried to place comment on the graphics off limits by saying that discussion of it was off topic because the point of the post was Obama’s polling numbers.

    How would that fly? Not to well, I imagine. Therefore, I repeat: anything you put in your post is fair game for challenging by commenters and cannot be called off topic. If it was off topic you shouldn’t have included it in your post. Having done so, it is on topic.

    And I haven’t challenged either the right to publish what they did or the wisdom of having done so. I challenged the contention of your graphic that the media publishes what they’re told to publish. The distinction apparently escapes you. It doesn’t escape me. So it has nothing to do with whether I agree with Greenwald or not. That was never my point. My point was your graphic’s contention is disprovable. I disproved it. That’s all.

    But if you will read back to my comment that begins: “No, Dusty, I read your entire articles”, you will see that I did not ignore the main point of your post. In fact, I explicitly said that it “has validity in that there are fewer stories about these things than about things that you think are less important” so I obviously and provably do NOT want to ignore it. I did not ignore it. I accepted its truth. I conceded your point. What more do you want from me in that regard? Why is it people here at BIO!, namely you and Jersey both within the last few days, continually want to fight with me over things about which I agree with you? Can’t you confine your fights to points of disagreement? Sheesh!

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel