On news suppression:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/massmedia#webb
"In the months leading up to the November [2000] balloting, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge 58,000 voters from registries on the grounds they were felons not entitled to vote in Florida. As it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons. The voters were [about 54%] African Americans, and most of the others were white and Hispanic Democrats. Three weeks after the election, this extraordinary news ran on page one of the country’s leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the USA, it was not covered.... A group of well-placed sources told my BBC team that before Sept. 11th the US government had turned away evidence of Saudi billionaires funding bin Laden’s network. We got our hands on documents that backed up the story that FBI and CIA investigations had been slowed by the Clinton administration, then killed by Bush Jr.’s. The story made top of the news—in Britain. In the US, one TV reporter picked up the report. He was called, he says, by network chiefs, and told to go no further. He didn’t."
"There is next to no meaningful coverage ever of the CIA in the mainstream media, let alone analysis. The few exceptions prove the rule..... [CIA Director William] Casey called ABC Chairman Leonard H. Goldenson. The call led to three meetings between ABC officials and Stanley Sporkin, CIA general counsel. On November 21, 1984, despite all the documented evidence presented in the program, Peter Jennings reported that ABC could no longer substantiate the charges, and that “We have no reason to doubt the CIA’s denial.” He presented no evidence supporting the CIA’s position. (pp. 131, 132)
That same day, the CIA filed a formal complaint with the FCC, written by Sporkin and signed by [CIA Director] Casey, charging that ABC had “deliberately distorted” the news. Casey asked that ABC be stripped of its TV and radio licenses. This was the first time in the history of the country that a government agency had formally attacked the press. Yet, there was no uproar. (p. 132)
During this time, Capital Cities Communications was maneuvering to buy ABC. [CIA Director] Casey was one of the founders of Cap Cities. Cap Cities bought ABC for $3.5 billion, which was called a “bargain rate” by the trade media. Besides Casey, two other founders of Cap Cities had extensive ties to the intelligence community. Within months, the entire investigative unit [of ABC] was dispersed...."
"There were 50 major media corporations in 1993, and now there are only about half a dozen."
"The president’s press secretary warns the media and all Americans to watch what they say and watch what they do."
"In the year 2000, a Texas man received 16 years in prison for stealing a Snickers candy bar, while four executives at Hoffman-LaRoche were found guilty of conspiring to suppress and eliminate competition in the vitamin industry in what the Justice Department called perhaps the largest criminal antitrust conspiracy in history. The four executives were fined anywhere from $75,000 to $350,000. They received prison terms ranging from three all the way up to four months."
or see http://www.wanttoknow.info/060507newsjournalistsprevented
"The buzz saw is what can rip through you when you try to investigate or expose anything this country’s large institutions—be they corporate or government—want kept under wraps. The system fights back with official lies, disinformation, and stonewalling."
Full Version: News Suppression
The voter purging was covered by CNN fairly extensively right after the 2000 election, it's not a good sign when a piece starts off with a falsehood.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 10 2006, 10:49 PM)
The voter purging was covered by CNN fairly extensively right after the 2000 election, it's not a good sign when a piece starts off with a falsehood.
Do you have a link, tomhye? My memory isn't that good.
Or perhaps it was because Palast didn't see CNN as mainstream media? (lol)
At any rate, there's this 70-page pdf:
http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymon...buychapter1.pdf
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jun 11 2006, 09:55 AM)
Do you have a link, tomhye? My memory isn't that good.
Or perhaps it was because Palast didn't see CNN as mainstream media? (lol)
At any rate, there's this 70-page pdf:
http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymon...buychapter1.pdf
Or perhaps it was because Palast didn't see CNN as mainstream media? (lol)
At any rate, there's this 70-page pdf:
http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymon...buychapter1.pdf
I don't have a link, I watched the coverage at the time. Why would I read a 70 page pdf (or even download it) when I know at least the first thing it's based on is a falsehood?
This is true.
tomhye you are arguing over whether CNN is mainstream?
From 2001-2005 it was rightwing as Fox. Not mainstream.
You have a way with the words lie or falsehood. Sometimes it is just a little blip, and certainly is not the focus.
Don't remember whether it was fair back in 2000 during the recount, but as soon as the ratings for 9-11 and the hardline Bush came in for Fox, CNN turned way rightwing.
So they no longer counted.
But the story is true.
Believe the NY Times was suppose to have a big expose on this the week of 9-11, and after 9-11 it was scrapped.
But later this has been proven.
when Dan Rather called the election for Al Gore, that was the truth. Everything later was the lie.
tomhye you are arguing over whether CNN is mainstream?
From 2001-2005 it was rightwing as Fox. Not mainstream.
You have a way with the words lie or falsehood. Sometimes it is just a little blip, and certainly is not the focus.
Don't remember whether it was fair back in 2000 during the recount, but as soon as the ratings for 9-11 and the hardline Bush came in for Fox, CNN turned way rightwing.
So they no longer counted.
But the story is true.
Believe the NY Times was suppose to have a big expose on this the week of 9-11, and after 9-11 it was scrapped.
But later this has been proven.
when Dan Rather called the election for Al Gore, that was the truth. Everything later was the lie.
I didn't think that was what we were discussing, to my mind it's very size makes it MSM no matter what the quality. I was saying that the argument being presented starts with a major falsehood, that the MSM didn't cover the problems in 2000 ( denying the right to vote, interfering with the recount, etc.).
If something is based on a lie it's a waste of time to look into it.
If something is based on a lie it's a waste of time to look into it.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 11 2006, 10:13 AM)
This is true.
tomhye you are arguing over whether CNN is mainstream?
From 2001-2005 it was rightwing as Fox. Not mainstream.
Don't remember whether it was fair back in 2000 during the recount, but as soon as the ratings for 9-11 and the hardline Bush came in for Fox, CNN turned way rightwing.
So they no longer counted.
But the story is true.
Believe the NY Times was suppose to have a big expose on this the week of 9-11, and after 9-11 it was scrapped.
But later this has been proven.
tomhye you are arguing over whether CNN is mainstream?
From 2001-2005 it was rightwing as Fox. Not mainstream.
Don't remember whether it was fair back in 2000 during the recount, but as soon as the ratings for 9-11 and the hardline Bush came in for Fox, CNN turned way rightwing.
So they no longer counted.
But the story is true.
Believe the NY Times was suppose to have a big expose on this the week of 9-11, and after 9-11 it was scrapped.
But later this has been proven.
It's a matter of repetition. Just because CNN may have covered the 2000 questions doesn't mean it was covered adequately. the follow up was not there. the concession by Gore who now says things like. "I conceeded because I couldn't think of an intermediate step between a bad Supreme Court decision and violent revolution", just emphasizes the nightmare we are in. The corrupt illegitimate government we now have boldly stolen not only the election but our balls as well. Then dared us to take them back.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 10:26 AM)
It's a matter of repetition. Just because CNN may have covered the 2000 questions doesn't mean it was covered adequately. the follow up was not there. the concession by Gore who now says things like. "I conceeded because I couldn't think of an intermediate step between a bad Supreme Court decision and violent revolution", just emphasizes the nightmare we are in. The corrupt illegitimate government we now have boldly stolen not only the election but our balls as well. Then dared us to take them back.
It was covered nearly 24/7 for weeks, you don't get more saturation than that! Gore is right, by the time of the SCOTUS decision there were no intermediate steps. Then again the Gore camp screwed up by not going for a statewide recount, that would've precluded the games 9and been too large scale for the DeLay interference to be effective).
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 02:18 PM)
I didn't think that was what we were discussing, to my mind it's very size makes it MSM no matter what the quality. I was saying that the argument being presented starts with a major falsehood, that the MSM didn't cover the problems in 2000 ( denying the right to vote, interfering with the recount, etc.).
If something is based on a lie it's a waste of time to look into it.
If something is based on a lie it's a waste of time to look into it.
Well, the quip that CNN wasn't mainstream was mine, in an attempt to introduce a little levity as a means of setting aside possible confrontation.
As for Palast's claim (which may be one of omission) that CNN didn't cover this news, perhaps years ago at the time he was unaware of it. But perhaps not...
At any rate, tomhye wishes to set aside everything that is said on the basis of his claim from personal memory that CNN covered it.
Which is why I asked for the link...
Furthermore, even if CNN covered it, we can then ask just how CNN covered it... who they cited, who they interviewed, and how (quite possibly) they slanted the story.
At any rate, one of the points of the story and the thread is that mainstream media tends not to look into or cover certain kinds of news. We can see this today in MSM's virtual silence about the recent piece in Rolling Stone, in the way they do not cover or slant their coverage of 9/11 (e.g., the recent New York Times piece on the 9/11 conference in Chicago), or countless other stories like the Downing Street memo, etc. Instead, we get repetitive coverage of Ann Coulter and the drumbeat of the Zarqawi death.
So what's your point, tomhye?
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 10:31 AM)
It was covered nearly 24/7 for weeks, you don't get more saturation than that! Gore is right, by the time of the SCOTUS decision there were no intermediate steps. Then again the Gore camp screwed up by not going for a statewide recount, that would've precluded the games 9and been too large scale for the DeLay interference to be effective).
OK. I actually don't remember whether it was covered adequately. Perhaps it was at the time. That makes me then have to agree with Graham that we all should have been in the streets. I know I was stunned and very angry. I was waiting for some leadership. Gore by conceeding demoralized me and perhaps millions who were ready. His mistake in not demanding a recount of the whole state was only the first. He made a decision to not go to the street. I believe I would have done different. For one thing I would have called out some very big and tough men to counter those thugs at the counting rooms who were pounding on the doors.
But if we did things the way I might have. We might have had a Civil War. But the question remains. Was that the time, that a Civil War was needed to save the Republic? What will the historians say?
There was a legal reason for the recount being in those districts based on the percent of the vote.
The US Supreme Court, had they made the legal and correct decision on 12/12/2000 SENT IT BACK TO FLORIDA 7 TO 2 for a FAIR AND JUST
RECOUNT
Which would at that time have been a full state recount
HOWEVER
The arsewipes then ruled 5 to 4 saying there was no time and the clock ended. Unfairly ending it.
Remember the thiefs also had a second set of electors to go had any more delay occurred, and then it would have been a constitutional crisis, which no person who loves the constitution would ever want to happen.
Who knew back then Bush hated the constitution as he does.
Nobody knew how evil the smuckle and his Poppy was
The US Supreme Court, had they made the legal and correct decision on 12/12/2000 SENT IT BACK TO FLORIDA 7 TO 2 for a FAIR AND JUST
RECOUNT
Which would at that time have been a full state recount
HOWEVER
The arsewipes then ruled 5 to 4 saying there was no time and the clock ended. Unfairly ending it.
Remember the thiefs also had a second set of electors to go had any more delay occurred, and then it would have been a constitutional crisis, which no person who loves the constitution would ever want to happen.
Who knew back then Bush hated the constitution as he does.
Nobody knew how evil the smuckle and his Poppy was
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 01:39 PM)
OK. I actually don't remember whether it was covered adequately. Perhaps it was at the time. That makes me then have to agree with Graham that we all should have been in the streets. I know I was stunned and very angry. I was waiting for some leadership. Gore by conceeding demoralized me and perhaps millions who were ready. His mistake in not demanding a recount of the whole state was only the first. He made a decision to not go to the street. I believe I would have done different. For one thing I would have called out some very big and tough men to counter those thugs at the counting rooms who were pounding on the doors.
But if we did things the way I might have. We might have had a Civil War. But the question remains. Was that the time, that a Civil War was needed to save the Republic? What will the historians say?
But if we did things the way I might have. We might have had a Civil War. But the question remains. Was that the time, that a Civil War was needed to save the Republic? What will the historians say?
This is where I differ from you.
This is Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton's doing. They did not want the recount at all, they helped lead all democrats to not back Gore in the recount and it would not surprise me if they helped Bush in creating the SoreLoserman signs.
This is the evil of Bill Clinton, who should have once in his big nose life thought of the party.
Another reason not to forget 12/12/2000
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 11 2006, 10:42 AM)
This is where I differ from you.
This is Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton's doing. They did not want the recount at all, they helped lead all democrats to not back Gore in the recount and it would not surprise me if they helped Bush in creating the SoreLoserman signs.
This is the evil of Bill Clinton, who should have once in his big nose life thought of the party.
Another reason not to forget 12/12/2000
This is Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton's doing. They did not want the recount at all, they helped lead all democrats to not back Gore in the recount and it would not surprise me if they helped Bush in creating the SoreLoserman signs.
This is the evil of Bill Clinton, who should have once in his big nose life thought of the party.
Another reason not to forget 12/12/2000
I don't buy your "Clinton is evil" meme Graham. I just don't buy that Bill Clinton would destroy the republic just to get his wife elected president one day. Because make no mistake. That's what you're saying.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 10:39 AM)
OK. I actually don't remember whether it was covered adequately. Perhaps it was at the time. That makes me then have to agree with Graham that we all should have been in the streets. I know I was stunned and very angry. I was waiting for some leadership. Gore by conceeding demoralized me and perhaps millions who were ready. His mistake in not demanding a recount of the whole state was only the first. He made a decision to not go to the street. I believe I would have done different. For one thing I would have called out some very big and tough men to counter those thugs at the counting rooms who were pounding on the doors.
But if we did things the way I might have. We might have had a Civil War. But the question remains. Was that the time, that a Civil War was needed to save the Republic? What will the historians say?
But if we did things the way I might have. We might have had a Civil War. But the question remains. Was that the time, that a Civil War was needed to save the Republic? What will the historians say?
That's one of the things i agree with Graham on, we should have been in the streets. gore calling for it would've been absolutely the wrong move, but there was plenty of high profile coverage (as well as some civil rights leaders encouraging it).
Not calling for a statewide recount was the error that set the whole thing up, yet the lessons weren't learned for the 2004 election.
Civil War can never solve our problems. If it ever becomes clear to the vast majority of the people that the government has discarded (as opposed to violated) the constitution it becomes time for revolution, but we're far from that.
Tomhye would wish us to dismiss a web site that has ten tales of media suppression based on a book called Into the Buzzsaw.
Tomhye, is the story about Bill Casey, ABC and Capital Cities wrong?
Did Kallstrom not have a reporter forcibly ejected from this press conference on TWA 800?
Is the consolidation of media power into the hands of ten corporate giants a myth?
Was the quote from Ari Fleishcer warning the media made up?
Is the Attorney General's recent initmidation of the press a fairy tale?
The thread is in the media section; the topic is news suppression. Palast gave us an example, and there are nine others noted at the web site.
Tomhye, is the story about Bill Casey, ABC and Capital Cities wrong?
Did Kallstrom not have a reporter forcibly ejected from this press conference on TWA 800?
Is the consolidation of media power into the hands of ten corporate giants a myth?
Was the quote from Ari Fleishcer warning the media made up?
Is the Attorney General's recent initmidation of the press a fairy tale?
The thread is in the media section; the topic is news suppression. Palast gave us an example, and there are nine others noted at the web site.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 10:46 AM)
That's one of the things i agree with Graham on, we should have been in the streets. gore calling for it would've been absolutely the wrong move, but there was plenty of high profile coverage (as well as some civil rights leaders encouraging it).
Not calling for a statewide recount was the error that set the whole thing up, yet the lessons weren't learned for the 2004 election.
Civil War can never solve our problems. If it ever becomes clear to the vast majority of the people that the government has discarded (as opposed to violated) the constitution it becomes time for revolution, but we're far from that.
Not calling for a statewide recount was the error that set the whole thing up, yet the lessons weren't learned for the 2004 election.
Civil War can never solve our problems. If it ever becomes clear to the vast majority of the people that the government has discarded (as opposed to violated) the constitution it becomes time for revolution, but we're far from that.
I honestly don't know how far we are. Alot of people are very angry. There is growing fear and anger in this country and the Ann Coulter's, Hannity's, Limbaughs, and O'Lielly's are not helping.
You don't get it, it's counterproductive anyhow! When you lead with what millions know to be a false premise and many millions more would assume is one it only gets people to ignore it then and in the future, it discredits any real information.
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jun 11 2006, 10:52 AM)
Tomhye would wish us to dismiss a web site that has ten tales of media suppression based on a book called Into the Buzzsaw.
Tomhye, is the story about Bill Casey, ABC and Capital Cities wrong?
Did Kallstrom not have a reporter forcibly ejected from this press conference on TWA 800?
Is the consolidation of media power into the hands of ten corporate giants a myth?
Was the quote from Ari Fleishcer warning the media made up?
Is the Attorney General's recent initmidation of the press a fairy tale?
The thread is in the media section; the topic is news suppression. Palast gave us an example, and there are nine others noted at the web site.
Tomhye, is the story about Bill Casey, ABC and Capital Cities wrong?
Did Kallstrom not have a reporter forcibly ejected from this press conference on TWA 800?
Is the consolidation of media power into the hands of ten corporate giants a myth?
Was the quote from Ari Fleishcer warning the media made up?
Is the Attorney General's recent initmidation of the press a fairy tale?
The thread is in the media section; the topic is news suppression. Palast gave us an example, and there are nine others noted at the web site.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 10:54 AM)
I honestly don't know how far we are. Alot of people are very angry. There is growing fear and anger in this country and the Ann Coulter's, Hannity's, Limbaughs, and O'Lielly's are not helping.
Mood of the country has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of concrete steps like abolishing elections or dissolving congress.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 01:46 PM)
I don't buy your "Clinton is evil" meme Graham. I just don't buy that Bill Clinton would destroy the republic just to get his wife elected president one day. Because make no mistake. That's what you're saying.
I am not making a mistake. That is what I am saying.
People make deals with the devil all the time.
How else does a person from a small but the most corrupt state in the nation become President in the first place.
How else do you have an "arrangement" with your "wife" to look the other way while you go out and play
Why would you expect any more or less from the Clinton's with regarding Gore.
Politics is a deal with the devil.
I believe they helped throw not only 2000 but 2004 to open the way for 2006
(for all you know, a certain little plane went down opening the race for Senate up in NY if the clinton's would not help Gore in a tight outcome, prove it didn't?)
Gore getting in would most likely have tied the presidency up til 2016 (and Leiberman would not have turned so bitter and right wing to gain attention, making him a logical 2008 choice.)
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 10:57 AM)
Mood of the country has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of concrete steps like abolishing elections or dissolving congress.
So we are in the Twilight Zone of rigged elections and breaking the law while a complicit congress abdicates it's sworn duty to defend the constitution and hold the executive to his sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution and obey the law.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 11:02 AM)
So we are in the Twilight Zone of rigged elections and breaking the law while a complicit congress abdicates it's sworn duty to defend the constitution and hold the executive to his sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution and obey the law.
Yes, and it's not the first time. Historically we've gone for voting reforms under such conditions and the people have had electoral revolutions.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 02:55 PM)
You don't get it, it's counterproductive anyhow! When you lead with what millions know to be a false premise and many millions more would assume is one it only gets people to ignore it then and in the future, it discredits any real information.
A) It's old material...
It hasn't been discredited ... except only by your statement based on memory.C) I have more faith in the ability of astute readers to discern than you do.
D) I'd hope that you bring the same standards of review to everything the media and the White House and the Democrats say.
I still don't get your "mission" here, tomhye.
Are you trying to discredit Palast, or the web site noted, or me?
Or are you an apologist for the MSM? a PR specialist for CNN?
Effective news coverage doesn't mean that an outlet like CNN had someone mention the story once, or even twice, or a dozen times... It means digging into the issues and the facts and asking key officials to be interviewed or comment on the coverage, the claims, the facts and the findings, and it means doing some follow-up, and it means not letting unanswered questions drop to the cutting room floor for the night janitor to dispose of as he sees fit.
So, again, what's your point?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 02:02 PM)
So we are in the Twilight Zone of rigged elections and breaking the law while a complicit congress abdicates it's sworn duty to defend the constitution and hold the executive to his sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution and obey the law.
Yes, I agree with tomhye here.
It is not going to be easy changing anything because once rigged, its hard to unrig them, and if the other side gets in with people still being paid by the same team, there is no incentive for them to then change things
We are going to need a voter recall opportunity in the future to have a way out
A petition should be enough to make one manditory
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 11:05 AM)
Yes, and it's not the first time. Historically we've gone for voting reforms under such conditions and the people have had electoral revolutions.
Other forces are in the mix as never before and allied. The countervailing forces have been taken out. So while this is not the first time, it may be the last. For us, for the republic, for America as we have known it.
I know that many knowledgable people are saying this.
Yeah, I'm a right wing agent and the voices are God!
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jun 11 2006, 11:08 AM)
A) It's old material...
It hasn't been discredited ... except only by your statement based on memory.
C) I have more faith in the ability of astute readers to discern than you do.
D) I'd hope that you bring the same standards of review to everything the media and the White House and the Democrats say.
I still don't get your "mission" here, tomhye.
Are you trying to discredit Palast, or the web site noted, or me?
Or are you an apologist for the MSM? a PR specialist for CNN?
Effective news coverage doesn't mean that an outlet like CNN had someone mention the story once, or even twice, or a dozen times... It means digging into the issues and the facts and asking key officials to be interviewed or comment on the coverage, the claims, the facts and the findings, and it means doing some follow-up, and it means not letting unanswered questions drop to the cutting room floor for the night janitor to dispose of as he sees fit.
So, again, what's your point?
It hasn't been discredited ... except only by your statement based on memory.C) I have more faith in the ability of astute readers to discern than you do.
D) I'd hope that you bring the same standards of review to everything the media and the White House and the Democrats say.
I still don't get your "mission" here, tomhye.
Are you trying to discredit Palast, or the web site noted, or me?
Or are you an apologist for the MSM? a PR specialist for CNN?
Effective news coverage doesn't mean that an outlet like CNN had someone mention the story once, or even twice, or a dozen times... It means digging into the issues and the facts and asking key officials to be interviewed or comment on the coverage, the claims, the facts and the findings, and it means doing some follow-up, and it means not letting unanswered questions drop to the cutting room floor for the night janitor to dispose of as he sees fit.
So, again, what's your point?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jun 11 2006, 02:10 PM)
Other forces are in the mix as never before and allied. The countervailing forces have been taken out. So while this is not the first time, it may be the last. For us, for the republic, for America as we have known it.
I know that many knowledgable people are saying this.
I know that many knowledgable people are saying this.
The trouble is, the people who came before us were a better stock of people
Our grandparents, great grandparents, etc.
They were brought up different, more resilliant.
They did not grow up thinking life was fun and games and a little work.
They were stronger
America has gotten tired, fat and does not know much about the past at all. Ask them about our founding fathers and they give you a blank stare.
Ask them about other events and it is not comprehending for them to know what you are talking about.
Ask the man on the street about Bill Clinton and he will say oh yeah, he is cool,
he played on the Leno show or I saw him at McDonald's, a regular person (just like Bush claims).
Ask them about John Conyers or Robert Byrd or Huey Long and unless you are from their district you will get a blank look.
Ask them to take to the streets and they will say you are nuts, they would lose their jobs if their boss saw them do it.
Everyone is scared.
Doesnot make it easy to change a darn thing, does it?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 11 2006, 11:21 AM)
The trouble is, the people who came before us were a better stock of people
Our grandparents, great grandparents, etc.
They were brought up different, more resilliant.
They did not grow up thinking life was fun and games and a little work.
They were stronger
America has gotten tired, fat and does not know much about the past at all. Ask them about our founding fathers and they give you a blank stare.
Ask them about other events and it is not comprehending for them to know what you are talking about.
Ask the man on the street about Bill Clinton and he will say oh yeah, he is cool,
he played on the Leno show or I saw him at McDonald's, a regular person (just like Bush claims).
Ask them about John Conyers or Robert Byrd or Huey Long and unless you are from their district you will get a blank look.
Ask them to take to the streets and they will say you are nuts, they would lose their jobs if their boss saw them do it.
Everyone is scared.
Doesnot make it easy to change a darn thing, does it?
Our grandparents, great grandparents, etc.
They were brought up different, more resilliant.
They did not grow up thinking life was fun and games and a little work.
They were stronger
America has gotten tired, fat and does not know much about the past at all. Ask them about our founding fathers and they give you a blank stare.
Ask them about other events and it is not comprehending for them to know what you are talking about.
Ask the man on the street about Bill Clinton and he will say oh yeah, he is cool,
he played on the Leno show or I saw him at McDonald's, a regular person (just like Bush claims).
Ask them about John Conyers or Robert Byrd or Huey Long and unless you are from their district you will get a blank look.
Ask them to take to the streets and they will say you are nuts, they would lose their jobs if their boss saw them do it.
Everyone is scared.
Doesnot make it easy to change a darn thing, does it?
Nope. That is why I fear such major irreversable damage will have to be done before we awaken en mass. So much will be lost of our future and our children's and grandchildren's before the pain experienced by the majority of Americans causes them to bring massive change.
We apparently cannot learn any other way.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 03:13 PM)
Yeah, I'm a right wing agent and the voices are God!
Well, I was just hoping to get you to be more articulate, and perhaps less smarmy. You've come into a thread, changed its direction, suggested that something that was said by Palast (or I) was bunk, but can't back up your own claims except with dismissive seemingly-self-deprecating nonsense, and refuse to engage or answer the questions.
The thread isn't about the election of 2000, or election reform.
The thread is about news suppression.
Is news coverage suppressed in America, or not?
That is the issue, the question, and the problem. One book, with multiple examples, was cited. There are other threads here that move toward the same question (e.g., the history of Operation Mockingbird, the attacks by the Pentagon and its subcontractors on Internet debate, the use of PsyOps campaigns, memetic engineering, the centralized ownership of the MSM, etc.)
Look, I haven't listened to Limbaugh in a long time (did a few times to be able to argue with someone who was a fan of his), but even he knows enough to start with some unquestionably true points no matter how off the wall (and usually destructive) the rest of it will be! If a piece isn't even up to Limbaugh standards most people not only refuse to read on, they reject the concept it's trying to put forth.
Ask anyone who was paying ANY attention to CNN immediately following the 2000 election, they'd all tell you the same thing I did. You claim to have faith in the readers, yet if they live up to what you claim are your expectations they'll know the piece starts with a lie.
Ask anyone who was paying ANY attention to CNN immediately following the 2000 election, they'd all tell you the same thing I did. You claim to have faith in the readers, yet if they live up to what you claim are your expectations they'll know the piece starts with a lie.
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jun 11 2006, 11:27 AM)
Well, I was just hoping to get you to be more articulate, and perhaps less smarmy. You've come into a thread, changed its direction, suggested that something that was said by Palast (or I) was bunk, but can't back up your own claims except with dismissive seemingly-self-deprecating nonsense, and refuse to engage or answer the questions.
The thread isn't about the election of 2000, or election reform.
The thread is about news suppression.
Is news coverage suppressed in America, or not?
That is the issue, the question, and the problem. One book, with multiple examples, was cited. There are other threads here that move toward the same question (e.g., the history of Operation Mockingbird, the attacks by the Pentagon and its subcontractors on Internet debate, the use of PsyOps campaigns, memetic engineering, the centralized ownership of the MSM, etc.)
The thread isn't about the election of 2000, or election reform.
The thread is about news suppression.
Is news coverage suppressed in America, or not?
That is the issue, the question, and the problem. One book, with multiple examples, was cited. There are other threads here that move toward the same question (e.g., the history of Operation Mockingbird, the attacks by the Pentagon and its subcontractors on Internet debate, the use of PsyOps campaigns, memetic engineering, the centralized ownership of the MSM, etc.)
Rush Limbaugh standards?
When mediocrity becomes the norm,
it is not long before mediocrity becomes the ideal.
-- A. N. Wilson
What about the assault on public broadcasting?
Or this thread: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...opic=57202&st=0
Or Mike Whitney's article here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56973
Or "Normalizing the Unthinkable" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56897
Or "Manufacturing Consent" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56896
Or "Spinning Out of Control" here:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56864
Or the planting of fake news by the Bush administration ...
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56541
Or CNN's non-coverage of the Gore speech...
or CNN's attacks on the Gore movie...
or the panel discussion on "Why Media Matters":
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56459
Ask anyone who was around then what CNN said six years ago?
We have people in the US (including the President) who claim to have seen the first plane hit the WTC towers on live television.
When mediocrity becomes the norm,
it is not long before mediocrity becomes the ideal.
-- A. N. Wilson
What about the assault on public broadcasting?
Or this thread: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...opic=57202&st=0
Or Mike Whitney's article here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56973
Or "Normalizing the Unthinkable" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56897
Or "Manufacturing Consent" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56896
Or "Spinning Out of Control" here:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56864
Or the planting of fake news by the Bush administration ...
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56541
Or CNN's non-coverage of the Gore speech...
or CNN's attacks on the Gore movie...
or the panel discussion on "Why Media Matters":
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56459
Ask anyone who was around then what CNN said six years ago?
We have people in the US (including the President) who claim to have seen the first plane hit the WTC towers on live television.
If Rush is mediocre then standards have dropped radically, I wasn't advocating him as the standard, I was saying even he does better.
I refuse to get drawn into a discussion where for every point you can't refute a bunch of unrelated material gets thrown in.
Yes, it's a VERY different thing, irregularities were being covered 24/7 and it isn't a matter of "remembering" an emotional visual, it's a matter of remembering what dominated the news for over a month.
I refuse to get drawn into a discussion where for every point you can't refute a bunch of unrelated material gets thrown in.
Yes, it's a VERY different thing, irregularities were being covered 24/7 and it isn't a matter of "remembering" an emotional visual, it's a matter of remembering what dominated the news for over a month.
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jun 11 2006, 01:05 PM)
Rush Limbaugh standards?
When mediocrity becomes the norm,
it is not long before mediocrity becomes the ideal.
-- A. N. Wilson
What about the assault on public broadcasting?
Or this thread: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...opic=57202&st=0
Or Mike Whitney's article here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56973
Or "Normalizing the Unthinkable" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56897
Or "Manufacturing Consent" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56896
Or "Spinning Out of Control" here:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56864
Or the planting of fake news by the Bush administration ...
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56541
Or CNN's non-coverage of the Gore speech...
or CNN's attacks on the Gore movie...
or the panel discussion on "Why Media Matters":
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56459
Ask anyone who was around then what CNN said six years ago?
We have people in the US (including the President) who claim to have seen the first plane hit the WTC towers on live television.
When mediocrity becomes the norm,
it is not long before mediocrity becomes the ideal.
-- A. N. Wilson
What about the assault on public broadcasting?
Or this thread: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...opic=57202&st=0
Or Mike Whitney's article here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56973
Or "Normalizing the Unthinkable" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56897
Or "Manufacturing Consent" here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56896
Or "Spinning Out of Control" here:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56864
Or the planting of fake news by the Bush administration ...
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56541
Or CNN's non-coverage of the Gore speech...
or CNN's attacks on the Gore movie...
or the panel discussion on "Why Media Matters":
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=56459
Ask anyone who was around then what CNN said six years ago?
We have people in the US (including the President) who claim to have seen the first plane hit the WTC towers on live television.
No, the recount was covered.
NOT the voting irregularities.
It was all covered through the Rove slant that Gore was trying to steal the election and not the other way around
The news WAS suppressed.
As said, the NY Times was going to have a big expose on it (and that might be what the UK person in the article above was talking of)
It was killed from being released after 9-11 happened. It would have shown how Gore won
The only things the MSM covered were the he said/she said type and the 1000000 times they showed the guy with the big eye and James shifty Baker saying Slippery Slope/Slippery Slope (when the republicans were first to sue in court)
NOT the voting irregularities.
It was all covered through the Rove slant that Gore was trying to steal the election and not the other way around
The news WAS suppressed.
As said, the NY Times was going to have a big expose on it (and that might be what the UK person in the article above was talking of)
It was killed from being released after 9-11 happened. It would have shown how Gore won
The only things the MSM covered were the he said/she said type and the 1000000 times they showed the guy with the big eye and James shifty Baker saying Slippery Slope/Slippery Slope (when the republicans were first to sue in court)
Wrong, the irregularities were covered too (at least on CNN), they didn't have good numbers (they kept bouncing around) and some people were demanding a revote (impossible). In fact before the recount this and the confusing butterfly ballots dominated the news.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Jun 11 2006, 02:30 PM)
No, the recount was covered.
NOT the voting irregularities.
It was all covered through the Rove slant that Gore was trying to steal the election and not the other way around
The news WAS suppressed.
As said, the NY Times was going to have a big expose on it (and that might be what the UK person in the article above was talking of)
It was killed from being released after 9-11 happened. It would have shown how Gore won
The only things the MSM covered were the he said/she said type and the 1000000 times they showed the guy with the big eye and James shifty Baker saying Slippery Slope/Slippery Slope (when the republicans were first to sue in court)
NOT the voting irregularities.
It was all covered through the Rove slant that Gore was trying to steal the election and not the other way around
The news WAS suppressed.
As said, the NY Times was going to have a big expose on it (and that might be what the UK person in the article above was talking of)
It was killed from being released after 9-11 happened. It would have shown how Gore won
The only things the MSM covered were the he said/she said type and the 1000000 times they showed the guy with the big eye and James shifty Baker saying Slippery Slope/Slippery Slope (when the republicans were first to sue in court)
Tomhye, you’re a funny man.
First you come into a thread to challenge one statement which arguably is subjective in nature, and totally ignore the rest.
Then you bait us to counter your comment that CNN "covered" it without backing it up yourself except by saying that everyone knows that and ignoring the question about tenor of coverage, not volume of coverage, thus helping to turn the discussion into one of vote fraud in 2000 when the thread and the topic is about the media and news suppression.
Then you say you refuse to get drawn in when it was you who interjected yourself and your rejection of the discussion, yet you apparently don’t want to look at the breadth and depth of commentary provided, or otherwise answer the questions asked.
It appears that you are attempting to draw others into a discussion you want to go one in a totally different direction.
As for your offering up as a standard the media entertainment star who claimed that the Abu Ghraib torture was no worse than a fraternity hazing, no worse than what goes on at Skull and Bones....
here are some assessments of his journalistic standards:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003
And here’s his response when a caller called to ask his opinion about the Skull and Bones controversy: http://www.prisonplanet.com/030904inaflap.html .
Or we could discuss:
· the links between Rush’s network carrier Clear Channel (a name derived from the technicalities of broadcasting, not their journalistic standards) and George Bush, or
· their sponsorship of pro-Bush, pro-war rallies and to focus ire against France and the Dixie Chicks, or their massive influence and control of the music and concert industry which serves toprevent music stars from speaking out against Bush, or
· the CAIR-LA complaints to the FCC, or
· Michael Savage’s numerous remarks (he’s the author of Liberalism is a Mental Disorder), or
· Limbaugh’s defense of Bush’s stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission calling the Jersey Girls political toadies, or
· the suggestion by one of their disc jockeys that Gov. Dean should be shot.
According to one writer, “Clear Channel literally fogs the airwaves with ultra right slogans…”
So what’s your game here, tomhye?
We’re talking about news suppression.
What are you suppressing?
First you come into a thread to challenge one statement which arguably is subjective in nature, and totally ignore the rest.
Then you bait us to counter your comment that CNN "covered" it without backing it up yourself except by saying that everyone knows that and ignoring the question about tenor of coverage, not volume of coverage, thus helping to turn the discussion into one of vote fraud in 2000 when the thread and the topic is about the media and news suppression.
Then you say you refuse to get drawn in when it was you who interjected yourself and your rejection of the discussion, yet you apparently don’t want to look at the breadth and depth of commentary provided, or otherwise answer the questions asked.
It appears that you are attempting to draw others into a discussion you want to go one in a totally different direction.
As for your offering up as a standard the media entertainment star who claimed that the Abu Ghraib torture was no worse than a fraternity hazing, no worse than what goes on at Skull and Bones....
here are some assessments of his journalistic standards:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003
And here’s his response when a caller called to ask his opinion about the Skull and Bones controversy: http://www.prisonplanet.com/030904inaflap.html .
Or we could discuss:
· the links between Rush’s network carrier Clear Channel (a name derived from the technicalities of broadcasting, not their journalistic standards) and George Bush, or
· their sponsorship of pro-Bush, pro-war rallies and to focus ire against France and the Dixie Chicks, or their massive influence and control of the music and concert industry which serves toprevent music stars from speaking out against Bush, or
· the CAIR-LA complaints to the FCC, or
· Michael Savage’s numerous remarks (he’s the author of Liberalism is a Mental Disorder), or
· Limbaugh’s defense of Bush’s stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission calling the Jersey Girls political toadies, or
· the suggestion by one of their disc jockeys that Gov. Dean should be shot.
According to one writer, “Clear Channel literally fogs the airwaves with ultra right slogans…”
So what’s your game here, tomhye?
We’re talking about news suppression.
What are you suppressing?
magmak,
If you believe you've accurately portrayed what I said communication between us is impossible, you read something completely different than what I write.
If you believe you've accurately portrayed what I said communication between us is impossible, you read something completely different than what I write.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jun 11 2006, 11:34 PM)
magmak,
If you believe you've accurately portrayed what I said communication between us is impossible, you read something completely different than what I write.
If you believe you've accurately portrayed what I said communication between us is impossible, you read something completely different than what I write.
Well, that may be so, but that is your choice... I've asked you to clarify, to be more articulate, to support your claim, to stay on topic, and to respond to questions.
As a student in communications, one of the most important lessons I learned was that the responsibility for communications being understood lies with the sender, not the receiver.
-- --
Stephen Lendman, reachable at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net and who blogs at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com, in a review of Palast's latest book Armed Madhouse, calls Palast "one of the most important and exhaustively thorough investigative journalists anywhere, which is especially important at a time when that kind of effort is needed more than ever."
It seems to me a pickyune point is being made
The article is stating that the CIA barely gets mentioned in the MSM
not the voting suppression
The CIA dirty tricks or CIA are barely every mentioned (especially back then)
Now, it is possible that "SOURCES SAY" were the CIA, but since when does the MSM ever put down the CIA? NEVER in public
And cable in 2000 being part of the MSM? I don't think cable was big enough to qualify
MSM in 2000 was ABC/NBC/CBS/the NYT/WashingtonPost, USA today and other newspaper, and Time/Newsweek
Back in 2000 cable was still 2nd tier, really until after 9-11. It was not looked upon as hard news or where people got their news.
At least not by critics
The article is stating that the CIA barely gets mentioned in the MSM
not the voting suppression
The CIA dirty tricks or CIA are barely every mentioned (especially back then)
Now, it is possible that "SOURCES SAY" were the CIA, but since when does the MSM ever put down the CIA? NEVER in public
And cable in 2000 being part of the MSM? I don't think cable was big enough to qualify
MSM in 2000 was ABC/NBC/CBS/the NYT/WashingtonPost, USA today and other newspaper, and Time/Newsweek
Back in 2000 cable was still 2nd tier, really until after 9-11. It was not looked upon as hard news or where people got their news.
At least not by critics
".... ABC’s chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross — who this week learned he was the target of federal surveillance operations — described the effect that unchecked spying is having on journalists:
ROSS: [I]t makes me feel, in a way — and this is, I think, the disturbing part — as if we are drug dealers or terrorists trying to traffic in information, and should we be using bags full of quarters like old Mafia capos to avoid having our phone calls traced? I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong; I don’t think any other reporter is, either. We’re trying to cover these stories, which are difficult, but which are very important.
Ross also revealed that the surveillance has had a chilling effect on his sources, who now risk being exposed:
I’m working on a big story now with people who are confidential sources inside the Federal Air Marshal Service. They were all alarmed that they might be exposed as talking with me in violation of rules. So it’s of great concern.
-- --
KURTZ: How did you find out that the administration is tracking your phone calls and those of other journalists?
ROSS: Well, a confidential source and a leak, and a very good tip that was surprising to us. Someone told — a senior federal official told my colleague, Rich Esposito, that “We know who you are calling; you should get some new cell phones and quick.” That’s what we know, Howard. We don’t know how it is they know who we’re calling. We’ve been trying to figure that out. But this source is so good that we take it very seriously.
KURTZ: Just on a personal level, how did you — what was your reaction to learn that law enforcement officials, according to this source, are analyzing the numbers that you dial — presumably in an effort to track down your other confidential sources?
ROSS: You know, I guess as an abstract, we always thought that was likely or possible, but once I actually heard this specific information — and this person knew a couple of specific calls — it was truly alarming and made you think, well, my gosh — what are we going to do about this? It means a lot more in-person visits. I’m working on a big story now with people who are confidential sources inside the Federal Air Marshal Service. They were all alarmed that they might be exposed as talking with me in violation of rules. So it’s of great concern.
KURTZ: What other news organizations are being — having their phone calls tracked, according to your informant?
ROSS: We were told reporters at “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post,” and it seemed consistent with the information we know, that the CIA has made several criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, the FBI, based on stories that the “Post” and the “Times” have run about CIA secret prisons and the Jim Risen story at “The New York Times” about NSA wiretapping. In both cases, those agencies have confirmed that criminal investigations have begun. And when we checked with the FBI, they put out a statement that essentially said, We take logical investigative steps, starting with the phone records of the government agencies. And then you sort of read through and parse out what they say, it seems that if they go after reporters, they say they do it in a legal fashion.
KURTZ: Not exactly a hard denial. Were you given any names of journalists who might be on the receiving end of this?
ROSS: Other than Esposito and Ross, no. But I’m assuming your colleague, Dana Priest, and Rison and others at the “Times,” who have done a lot of important work that involved information that the CIA, I assume, presumes to be classified and they see that as a violation of the law. And that starts the process by which they essentially can use provisions of the Patriot Act if they chose, or just a grand jury, to pursue it. And it makes me feel, in a way — and this is, I think, the disturbing part — as if we are drug dealers or terrorists trying to traffic in information, and should we be using bags full of quarters like old Mafia capos to avoid having our phone calls traced? I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong; I don’t think any other reporter is, either. We’re trying to cover these stories, which are difficult, but which are very important.
-- --
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/21/ross-surveillance/
ROSS: [I]t makes me feel, in a way — and this is, I think, the disturbing part — as if we are drug dealers or terrorists trying to traffic in information, and should we be using bags full of quarters like old Mafia capos to avoid having our phone calls traced? I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong; I don’t think any other reporter is, either. We’re trying to cover these stories, which are difficult, but which are very important.
Ross also revealed that the surveillance has had a chilling effect on his sources, who now risk being exposed:
I’m working on a big story now with people who are confidential sources inside the Federal Air Marshal Service. They were all alarmed that they might be exposed as talking with me in violation of rules. So it’s of great concern.
-- --
KURTZ: How did you find out that the administration is tracking your phone calls and those of other journalists?
ROSS: Well, a confidential source and a leak, and a very good tip that was surprising to us. Someone told — a senior federal official told my colleague, Rich Esposito, that “We know who you are calling; you should get some new cell phones and quick.” That’s what we know, Howard. We don’t know how it is they know who we’re calling. We’ve been trying to figure that out. But this source is so good that we take it very seriously.
KURTZ: Just on a personal level, how did you — what was your reaction to learn that law enforcement officials, according to this source, are analyzing the numbers that you dial — presumably in an effort to track down your other confidential sources?
ROSS: You know, I guess as an abstract, we always thought that was likely or possible, but once I actually heard this specific information — and this person knew a couple of specific calls — it was truly alarming and made you think, well, my gosh — what are we going to do about this? It means a lot more in-person visits. I’m working on a big story now with people who are confidential sources inside the Federal Air Marshal Service. They were all alarmed that they might be exposed as talking with me in violation of rules. So it’s of great concern.
KURTZ: What other news organizations are being — having their phone calls tracked, according to your informant?
ROSS: We were told reporters at “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post,” and it seemed consistent with the information we know, that the CIA has made several criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, the FBI, based on stories that the “Post” and the “Times” have run about CIA secret prisons and the Jim Risen story at “The New York Times” about NSA wiretapping. In both cases, those agencies have confirmed that criminal investigations have begun. And when we checked with the FBI, they put out a statement that essentially said, We take logical investigative steps, starting with the phone records of the government agencies. And then you sort of read through and parse out what they say, it seems that if they go after reporters, they say they do it in a legal fashion.
KURTZ: Not exactly a hard denial. Were you given any names of journalists who might be on the receiving end of this?
ROSS: Other than Esposito and Ross, no. But I’m assuming your colleague, Dana Priest, and Rison and others at the “Times,” who have done a lot of important work that involved information that the CIA, I assume, presumes to be classified and they see that as a violation of the law. And that starts the process by which they essentially can use provisions of the Patriot Act if they chose, or just a grand jury, to pursue it. And it makes me feel, in a way — and this is, I think, the disturbing part — as if we are drug dealers or terrorists trying to traffic in information, and should we be using bags full of quarters like old Mafia capos to avoid having our phone calls traced? I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong; I don’t think any other reporter is, either. We’re trying to cover these stories, which are difficult, but which are very important.
-- --
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/21/ross-surveillance/
My general impression of the news coverage after the election in 2000 was that any suggestion that votes were denied, or graft and corruption had taken place were essentially poo-poohed.
Innuendoes, slanted comment, etc. tended to brand Mr. Gore as a sore loser and implied that the election officials in Fl. were 'just a little bit dumb' and needed the SCOTUS to tell them their job.
I knew the election was stolen as soon as Bush and Baker stepped in, and I know it today. Al Gore should have been the President for the past five & 1/2 years, not that nincompoop parading around as if he knows how to tie his own shoes.
Innuendoes, slanted comment, etc. tended to brand Mr. Gore as a sore loser and implied that the election officials in Fl. were 'just a little bit dumb' and needed the SCOTUS to tell them their job.
I knew the election was stolen as soon as Bush and Baker stepped in, and I know it today. Al Gore should have been the President for the past five & 1/2 years, not that nincompoop parading around as if he knows how to tie his own shoes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.