Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney completely misrepresented how we ended up in Iraq. Later, Mike Huckabee mistakenly claimed that it was Ronald Reagan's birthday.
Guess which remark The Washington Post identified as the "gaffe of the night"?
Folks, this is serious. If early campaign reporting is any guide, the bad media habits that helped install the worst president ever in the White House haven't changed a bit.
You may not remember the presidential debate of Oct. 3, 2000, or how it was covered, but you should. It was one of the worst moments in an election marked by news media failure as serious, in its way, as the later failure to question Bush administration claims about Iraq.
Throughout that debate, George W. Bush made blatantly misleading statements, including some outright lies — for example, when he declared of his tax cut that "the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." That should have told us, right then and there, that he was not a man to be trusted.
But few news reports pointed out the lie. Instead, many news analysts chose to critique the candidates' acting skills. Al Gore was declared the loser because he sighed and rolled his eyes — failing to conceal his justified disgust at Mr. Bush's dishonesty. And that's how Mr. Bush got within chad-and-butterfly range of the presidency.
Now fast forward to last Tuesday. Asked whether we should have invaded Iraq, Mr. Romney said that war could only have been avoided if Saddam "had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction." He dismissed this as an "unreasonable hypothetical."
Except that Saddam did, in fact, allow inspectors in. Remember Hans Blix? When those inspectors failed to find nonexistent W.M.D., Mr. Bush ordered them out so that he could invade. Mr. Romney's remark should have been the central story in news reports about Tuesday's debate. But it wasn't.
There wasn't anything comparable to Mr. Romney's rewritten history in the Democratic debate two days earlier, which was altogether on a higher plane. Still, someone should have called Hillary Clinton on her declaration that on health care, "we're all talking pretty much about the same things." While the other two leading candidates have come out with plans for universal (John Edwards) or near-universal (Barack Obama) health coverage, Mrs. Clinton has so far evaded the issue. But again, this went unmentioned in most reports.
By the way, one reason I want health care specifics from Mrs. Clinton is that she's received large contributions from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Will that deter her from taking those industries on?
Back to the debate coverage: as far as I can tell, no major news organization did any fact-checking of either debate. And post-debate analyses tended to be horse-race stuff mingled with theater criticism: assessments not of what the candidates said, but of how they "came across."
Thus most analysts declared Mrs. Clinton the winner in her debate, because she did the best job of delivering sound bites — including her Bush-talking-point declaration that we're safer now than we were on 9/11, a claim her advisers later tried to explain away as not meaning what it seemed to mean.
Similarly, many analysts gave the G.O.P. debate to Rudy Giuliani not because he made sense — he didn't — but because he sounded tough saying things like, "It's unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror." (Why?)
Look, debates involving 10 people are, inevitably, short on extended discussion. But news organizations should fight the shallowness of the format by providing the facts — not embrace it by reporting on a presidential race as if it were a high-school popularity contest.
For if there's one thing I hope we've learned from the calamity of the last six and a half years, it's that it matters who becomes president — and that listening to what candidates say about substantive issues offers a much better way to judge potential presidents than superficial character judgments. Mr. Bush's tax lies, not his surface amiability, were the true guide to how he would govern.
And I don't know if this country can survive another four years of Bush-quality leadership.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century.
© 2007 The New York Times
71 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Romney said that war could only have been avoided if Saddam "had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction."
By "open up" Romeny obviously did not mean let the inspectors back into the country, we all know they had been allowed back in, but rather he meant provide the inspectors with open and full disclosure and documentation that all previous stockpiles had been destroyed. At the time, I remeber clearly, Hans Blix claimed that he was not yet fully satisfied with the documentation thus provided. Thus, Romney is correct in stating the weapons inspectors did not conclusively find that there were not weapons of mass destruction.
Now, this does not mean that Hans Blix desired war, or anything less than to continue with his mission. This does not mean that Romney is correct in saying that war was the only option. It does mean, however, that when the left contorts and obfuscates in such a fashion as Krugman has done, while the cause may be just, it only serves to further deligitimize and marginalize the left.
We've already got the looney conspiracy people, and the white man haters, do we really need our own swiftboaters too? Just the facts, Jack!
Siouxrose June 9th, 2007 8:39 pm
Eisenhower understood nothing. He was handed a speech written by a Minnesota university professor and and he read it. It was Machiavelli who said the use of mercenaries doomed the society employing them.
Two things: Public financing of elections and fair, uniform, verifiable elections held on a fricking Saturday.
Everything else will go away.
As Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer noted on this week's installment of his wonderful WBAI radio program, Behind the News, "as the unreconstructed Trotskyists over at the Worker's Vanguard put it, 'The President of the United States is the chief executive of the world bourgeoise -- don't ever expect anything good to come from that direction.'"
We definitely need to "take it to the streets," but not for just another meaningless, ineffectual demonstration or -- gawd forbid -- some sort of half-fast, violent, revolutionary uprising. We need to get out and organize a third political party that represents the interests of working Americans, use it to sweep the current corporate ruling class out of our country's political life, and run things ourselves.
Power bows to countervailing power and nothing else. Nothing good can happen in this country until we, the people, assert our own latent power and return the corporations to their rightful place -- as the servants, not masters, of our just and peacable society.
Fd32: I think you're onto something, but then Eisenhower understood the insidious and growing power of that same military-industrial complex. That, plus the matter of mercenary troops, plus the matter of our lopsided (about to go off course?) economy bringing rise to those points raised by Evelyn Smith make us realize we are not going to be living the carnival too much longer, even if the jokesters still act like barkers yelling that everything is just fine and dandy.
RSJ, You are correct, if and when another great depression strikes, we will be totally unprepared. In the last depression there was also another major ingredient which will be missing for this next one. There were MILLIONS of small farmers across the land at that time. Then you could go to hte farmers market at closing time and purchase a bushel of vegetables for ten cents, a ten pound sack of flour was also a dime. There are very few truck farmers now, many of those farming now, manage hundreds of acres and are at the mercy of brokers, who set the prices they recieve. There are also huge farms and cattle ranches owned by oil companies and other major corporations; wonder why? When the next depression arrives, people will be hungry, there will be riots, both racial and others, insurrection, and anarachy with blood in the rivers and streets. It will not be anything at all like the last one, bad as it was then. Then with our unsecured borders, look out! Millions will come across, but few will be able to safely get out.
The Mormons have the right idea on this issue, stock up on food and guns,cause you'll need them.
daveg and revoltnow:
Au contraire. Preaching to the choir seems useless at times, but this forum helps to bring and keep us together.
revoltnow said: We all sit in front of these damned computers typing cynical messages as though expressing our thoughts to those that already agree with us is useful and productive. Perhaps this connectivity has worked against us.
I think you're absolutely right. Jabbering with each other on the web may feel good, but it can be (and is) totally ignored by everyone else.
As educated and intelligent as Mr. Krugman is, and as much as I appreciate his criticism of all that I believe deserving of such, I cannot avoid the unpleasant conclusion that he does not quite go far enough. I say unpleasant because I distrust his motives inasmuch as he is, despite his constant caterwauling, an appendage of the establishment, and as such, he is required, perhaps, to self-censor.
One expects a bit more from a Princeton faculty member than an essay which reveals shallowness and dishonesty at a Republican candidates debate. Who, I ask you, would expect otherwise?
I believe the real truth of our situation is not that we are approaching a political danger zone but that we have been in one for sixty years, and it is worsening much as is our environmental collapse. We do not have small correctible political problems but rather we are inextricably hammerlocked by a Pentagon-centric politics and economy which will simply brook no challenge to it's unbridled domination of the world, a world which, from their vantage point, includes the American public. Look at the conduct, past and present, of our government, and study, if you can bear it, it's plans for the future. The highly secretive defense/intelligence establishment has no more interest in what you want or what you think than they do a five year old child. For example, their plans for world domination through fantastically expensive space based military capabilities (see, Death Star)is the stuff of deranged adolescent fantasy. Yet it is proceeding apace, unbeknownst to those who are subsidizing it. You will recall that our military/intelligence expenditures are secret, notwithstanding the constitutional requirement that they be published.
We are in a very dangerous situation, and the enemy is in Washington, not in Arabia. Arabia is the shield behind which they hide, it is their required bogey man without which they could never begin to justify the staggering theft of our freedom, wealth and democracy. All the fraudulence of the cold war and of communist containment are being revisited in this ridiculous "war on terrorism".
The feebleness of Krugman's plaint should raise red flags. Is he merely the establishment whiner, who's job it is to tell you that you've got a flat tire in order to divert your attention from the fact that your house is burning down? I cannot disabuse myself of that belief.
If you think that I am overstating the madness of the Pentagon planners, treat yourself to a dose of Thomas Barnett, one of Rumsfeld's chief advisors when at the "War Department". As the saying goes, you can't make this stuff up.
So the media is only concerned with how the candidates/actors come across during the debates and not whether they actually make factual statements? Then why have they never been concerned with Bush's inability to come across as anything other than a gibbering, arrogant, inattentive idiot?
"Election coverage is not only deplorably shallow; its nonstop, news-cycle-dominating prominence is obscuring larger reality. It's stealth entertainment news, wearing the guise of legitimate national affairs journalism. There's nothing significantly different in the tone of coverage of the Obama-Clinton rivalry from that of Paris and Nicole. Romney's Mormonism is handled no differently than Tom Cruise's Scientology.
"That would be bad enough in itself, but the worse problem is, while we're torturing ourselves with a harrowing, incessant, two-year pageant of inauthenticity, real shit is still happening all over the world. And we're hearing even less than usual about it, because it's just so much easier for commentators to talk about what has essentially become the Olympics of fund-raising than to address the actual government or what it actually does. By comparing stats and rumors about presidential hopefuls, columnists and talking heads are able to give the impression of covering the government without actually doing anything of the sort."
http://www.alternet.org/story/52625/
"I honestly ask, what can be done now that does not involve hastening the collapse of the economic system of tyrannical bottom-line rule?"
Leo Bixby, in other columns, Paul Krugman has noted the signs of the imminent collapse of the US economy: A declining dollar and increasing inflation; housing market falling; record bankruptcies; a stock market in flux, bouncing up and down daily; the evisceration of the spending power of the US middle class; the rapid rise in poverty; the investing by foreign governments in currencies other than the US dollar; good-paying American jobs going overseas, replaced by low-paying 'Blue Vest' work; the massive debt incurred by Bush in the last six years; and the total inattention to all of these markers by Junior's loyalists.
Unfortunately, economic collapse may be the only thing that will wake America up to reality, and purge the government of neocon Republicans.
Purvis Ames is right:
"It doesn't really matter what the sheeple think. The eight hundred pound gorilla of this disgraceful administration is already sitting in the room and it's called the stock market. Bush's stooge, Bernanke, can babble on and on that there is no inflation but explain to me why the dollar has gone from .88 Euros to almost 1.40. Just do the math and you'll see that the economy is on a collision course with non-Bushian, non-delusional reality."
Hopefully, this generation, faced with a new Great Depression, will react to it as admirably as Americans did in the past, but it will be harder to come out of this time around -- we have no manufacturing base as a foundation for renewal, and Pentagon spending and paying off our debt eats up most of our taxes. It would take a major realignment in our thinking and priorities to emerge from an economic meltdown these days, and I don't see either party ready to respond when the 1929-style emergency hits.
"Protest with your wallet. It is the only protest that MSM and big business understands. All the rest of the posts are truthful but still ineffectual hand-wringing."
BTW, Ronald White, here, from The Smedley Butler Society, is a list of corporations we should and shouldn't support:
"Send a message to Bush: Boycott Altria (Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods), ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Pepsico, CocaCola and McDonald's, and Buy Citgo gasoline. Companies that import Middle Eastern oil: Shell, Chevron/Texaco, Exxon/Mobil, Marathon/Speedway, Amoco. Companies that do not: Citgo (Venezuelan), Sunoco, Conoco, Sinclair, BP/Phillips, Hess, ARCO."
-- From The Smedley Butler Society newsletter, June 8, 2007
http://www.warisaracket.org/newsletter.html
Navarro writes "Virtuous consumerism is fine — if it doesn't really change anything, it doesn't really hurt anything, unless you count the extra driving around to find every perfect little thing — for those who have choices about WHAT to consume."
The poor will be with us always so the revolution must be based around those participating in the economic (the poor will benefit from whatever measures are taken to balance inequities) As someone who lives on less than what is called "subsistance" I still have choices of where and what I buy. I take great satisfaction out of doing without and yet I find, even I have more than I need.
Watch the advertising - how much is for food that isn't really food? There is great economy in not buying branded food processed and full of fillers. I not only do not support the mega-corps who pack their products with sugar and chemicals - I eat better and have the satisfaction of meals made from scratch - so much tastier than most pre-mades.
I buy clothing for comfort not fashion (thrift stores are fun and full of great items). I don't buy from Big Boxes. I find locals who have skills that can provide products and services for reasonable rates (though the ethos of "what the market will bear" seeps in with the big box chains) Local production is actually more competitive when you figure durability because there is pride and loyalty connected to the workmanship -and the "profit" stays in the community and prospers others locally - rather than going off to some corporate headquarters elsewhere. Community is the key to prosperity - if we build our local economies everyone benefits.
No one ever talks about how paranoid being "rich" can make someone - but that's what I think makes our leaders so intent on controlling everyone else - they're afraid someone will take their stuff so they are constantly writing laws to "protect" assets.
my point ...
In my opinion the bulk of media advertising is for items that no one really needs. so it gives a person power to be aware of the reality and information it is financing and choose accordingly.
On the media we need to use salami tactics. Continue to attack (and not watch, listen or read) the worst of them. If you attack the entire media you won't be able to fire up the blood in the water mentality of the lazy bastards who just make a living on kicking whoever is down at the moment.
To all on this board, I know you're smart, I know you care deeply. BUT PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TAKE ACTION!!!!
DON'T LET A DAY GO BY THAT YOU DON'T WRITE A MESSAGE SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OF PURELY PROGRESSIVE CHAT ROOMS, OR TALK TO SOMEONE, OR HOLD A SIGN, PROTEST, DONATE, OR SOMEHOW KEEP THE MOVEMENT GOING!
There's no time left to waste anymore. Literally. What the hell are most Americans doing? The Earth's ecosystem is collapsing fast and the tension between rich and poor is mounting to a severe level. We have to change direction immediately.
Please don't just write notes here and preach to the choirs. Go persuade the public to DO SOMETHING!!! I know I will.
peace everyone...
"consumers could simply stop buying what they don't need… AND never buy something simply because they saw it in an ad!"
Hey Mainstay, I agree we should start boycotting. The presidential race is a puppet show produced by corporate and other "special" interests such as AIPAC.
Boycott, or ethical consumerism, is democracy. Everyone may participate. The people tend to want peace, justice, and prosperity for all. And so when the people act in their own self-interest, good things tend to happen, more often than bad things.
The people have to be informed about what to boycott and why. We should also do the other things, writing to reps, protesting in the streets.
And the boycotts tend to be in line with what we should be doing anyhow - local production/consumption to save energy, to make the people more politically independent.
The theatrics in Washington won't matter so much when we're busy building the alter-society. This tends to humble them, and make them more honest. It's just like training your dog or your kid.
Individuals do have some power in a capitalist or even a fascist society - the power of consumers.
We have the means to take it to the streets every time we buy ANYTHING.
For the gift of our pubic airwaves, for the well being of our nation, we deserve REAL Journalism: Information about the issue at hand... every spot/episode/article should contain both pro and con in it's structure. Today's "news" presentations are little more than editorials. It's amazing that someone is paid as a professional reporter to merely express their opinion. Many are devoid of substantial facts or research. Few reporters appear to be all that insightful either - certainly no more insightful than many of today's bloggers.
But - the fact that they are paid, that it takes money to run a newspaper, or a network, or a radio station, is what gives consumers their power. Media outlets like newspapers and television networks are funded by their advertisers. Advertising is their lifeblood.
It is Advertising that persuades people to buy products/services they might not buy otherwise. Often the more overpriced and unnecessary things are, the more advertising is required to market them... so to make a substantial change in the market, consumers could simply stop buying what they don't need... AND never buy something simply because they saw it in an ad!
We could also note the sponsors that are shown when biased news is presented, and write the companies with our objections to their sponsorship of substandard or deceitful journalism. (Believe it or not they do care what their customers think, especially if it means they could lose that person's business).
Sure it all takes a little time and effort, and awareness - but its the first step of a bloodless revolution... and we need for this revolution to be peaceful if it is to have any meaning at all!
Individuals do have some power in a capitalist or even a fascist society - the power of consumers.
We have the means to take it to the streets every time we buy ANYTHING.
For the gift of our pubic airwaves, for the well being of our nation, we deserve REAL Journalism: Information about the issue at hand... every spot/episode/article should contain both pro and con in it's structure. Today's "news" presentations are little more than editorials. It's amazing that someone is paid as a professional reporter to merely express their opinion. Many are devoid of substantial facts or research. Few reporters appear to be all that insightful either - certainly no more insightful than many of today's bloggers.
But - the fact that they are paid, that it takes money to run a newspaper, or a network, or a radio station, is what gives consumers their power. Media outlets like newspapers and television networks are funded by their advertisers. Advertising is their lifeblood.
It is Advertising that persuades people to buy products/services they might not buy otherwise. Often the more overpriced and unnecessary things are, the more advertising is required to market them... so to make a substantial change in the market, consumers could simply stop buying what they don't need... AND never buy something simply because they saw it in an ad!
We could also note the sponsors that are shown when biased news is presented, and write the companies with our objections to their sponsorship of substandard or deceitful journalism. (Believe it or not they do care what their customers think, especially if it means they could lose that person's business).
Sure it all takes a little time and effort, and awareness - but its the first step of a bloodless revolution... and Lord knows we need this revolution to be peaceful!
One more thing I think it is the people's responsibilty to make sure the media is truthful and telling the news with out watch dogs all industry will go astray. All US Citizens really need to take responsibily to make sure that media and goverment are under control we can't continue to blame others. We must think about how we can make sure that if we don't like the way things are going we work to change them.
I see a pattern here. George Bush ordered Hans Blix out of Iraq so that he could invade despite the facts of no WMD.
Recently, the American Bald Eagle was taken off the endangered species list. It seems that this must have been a necessary move for the Bush administration in order to pave the way for a coal fired electric plant which will be built in the middle of an American Bald Eagle habitat in northern Nevada.
I think that as long as US Citizens continue to not use critical thinking skills and logic we will not get out of this situation. I don't really know what will make the people care but it is really needed. In watching the Republican debate in particular I was shocked but the level of misinformation and weird comments. For example that it would distroy the country if we became bi-ligual and that all countries that are bi-lingual fail. Very weird comment as most countries are bi- or tri lingual and don't seem to fail.
And I think that all of the left and right and middle of the USA need to seriously think about thier reteric as well and demand truth.
Anyway how can we get people to care about truth and logic any ideas.
From Susan Madrack, HuffPost
CAMPAIGN REPORTERS: TAKE THE PLEDGE
1) I promise I will actually cover the issues and proposals in the campaign instead of focusing on the horse race. Not simply by calling whichever expert I already have in my Rolodex for a quick quote, but actually examining the issue in some depth, from several angles. If the results are ambiguous, I will say so.
2) Without regard to gender, I will not mention anyone's wardrobe or hair, with the following exceptions: A candidate has taken to wearing a crown and carrying a scepter -- or any hat lined with aluminum foil -- or someone has shaved their head, revealing a large "666."
3) I will not recycle the "what's on the candidate's iPod?" story.
4) Unless I make them believe otherwise, readers don't care how much any candidate spends on any article of clothing or for personal services, so I will stop writing about it as if it's important. It's his or her money, and it's legal. I will also provide context.
5) I will stop playing "gotcha." There's a big difference between a slip of the tongue and someone saying something truly offensive. I will learn the difference, and I'll stop trying to create issues where none exist.
6) I will never, ever use the phrase "some say" about a candidate. Either someone with a name said it on the record, or it's just gossip with an agenda. I will stop being so cooperative with the political backstabbers.
7) I won't ever use unnamed sources without a compelling reason. If someone's life or job is in danger, okay. If someone simply wants to put the knife in without accountability, I promise I won't stand there and hold the sharpener. And if an unnamed source burns me with false information, they will not remain anonymous for long.
8 ) I will check my facts, and then check them again.
9) If I have a mancrush (or a womancrush) on a candidate, I will keep it to myself.
10) I will hold the candidates to a uniform standard. I will not cover any candidate any differently from the others. Nothing whatsoever will be grounded in my feelings -- feelings are only a starting point in the search for facts. If, despite my best efforts, I can't find any facts that validate my feelings, I will keep them to myself until I have facts.
11) I will not socialize with the people I am supposed to be covering, because it impairs my ability to be objective. I will not attend press corps dinners or invitations to dine with the queen, no matter how jealous my friends would be, and no matter how cool I would look to that guy/girl who wouldn't talk to me in high school.
I will remember that I am not a member of the group I am covering, no matter how badly I want to be. I will remember that my role is to inform the public, not simply to disseminate the candidates' messages, no matter how much I like or agree with them. I will remember that my role is not to convince people, but to provide them with the information they need to make informed choices on their own.
* Copyright © 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Giovanna June 8th, 2007 6:19 pm: "When the Times decided to conceal the story until a year after the 2004 election, it went from being a public "watchdog" to a political tool for George Bush. This was definitely information the public had a right to know prior to the re-election in 2004. When media and politics collude, the public loses."
Excellent recount of this sordid affair.
stonecutter June 8th, 2007 6:20 pm: "If you want real news today, you have to search it out like a starving squirrel looking for acorns in 3 feet of snow. It's available…on this site, for example, and on other brilliant websites only a google click away."
Got any favorites you wanna share?
Once asked if the mainstream media was of liberal bias, Cokie Roberts responded, "My primary bias is for dinner". That nails it, for me, and explains how entertainment eclipsed news in the media.
You can always count on Krugman for academic analysis of the first order, underscored with some fine writing. However, the idea that mainstream corporate media are going to cherrypick issues-oriented gaffes by candidates, and put them on page 1 or the lead story on TV news, is baloney of the first order.
Is Krugman so naive as to believe that so-called mainstream media still care about hard news for its own sake, let alone the sake of the American People's quaint 1950-ish "need to know the facts"? Most of the citizenry lost interest in unpleasant facts or "the truth" somewhere back on the trail to "American Idol-5", "Survivor7-Hoboken" or the captivating 100 designer drug commercials run continually on all channels. Twenty first century America is about feeling good or else being numb, preferably with minimal physical exertion of any kind, and certainly very little energy expended on understanding complex issues.
It's much, much easier to get your issues "analysis" from 3 or 4 screaming heads of dubious credentialing, trying to out-smart or out-quip their opponents on some lame cable talk show. The corporate media have long ago decided to focus almost exclusively on the soft crappola of campaigns---appearance, fashion, body language, haircuts, humor or lack thereof, angry outbursts, whatever---rather than historical revisionism, deception, or simple-minded platitudes in place of hard policy proposals. Look where a steady stream of platitudes and lies got George W. Bush? It's the Name of the Game.
The emphasis on dreck is crucial to the systematic devolution of hard news and investigative reporting over the past 20 years, which in turn reflects the grip of a global media cartel, and the parallel dismantling of formerly sacrosanct, loss-leader hard news divisions into for-profit infotainment cash cows. Ed Murrow predicted all this 50 years ago, but he'd still be shocked into silence if he were around to see the 24/7 circus sideshow that today passes for "news", either national or(especially)local.
While Krugman and a handful of other pundits continue to "expose" the glaringly apparent MTV-esque mutations that are the likes of robotic Wolf Blitzer, empty suit Anderson Cooper, pathologically verbose Joe "Waldo" Scarborough, comatose Larry King, the Paula Zahn soap opera, or the Hannity and Colmes "Joe McCarthy Memorial Cartoon Hour", among others--with Charlie Gibson, Bob Schieffer and (sometimes) Brian Williams the occasional exceptions that prove the rule--the descent of network and cable "news" into the anti-C/SPAN realm of insipid bloviation continues unabated.
Moronic 15-second soundbites, powderpuff "analysis", heavy-handed interruption or even intentional whitewashing of the slightest controversial statement(obviously a form of real time editorial control that favors the "front runners"): all this and more characterizes "mainstream" media, which says a whole lot about the mainstream, does it not?
If you want real news today, you have to search it out like a starving squirrel looking for acorns in 3 feet of snow. It's available...on this site, for example, and on other brilliant websites only a google click away. On TV, and increasingly in print, real news is as hard to find as real leadership or real heroism or real sacrifice, notwithstanding the tragic young kids or ordinary Iraqis being blown up every day in this egregious war.
Mitt Romney is a Disney audioanimatron masquerading as a real person running for president. He's the apotheosis of our synthetic media universe, and his convoluted gibberish, which passes unchallenged by either Wolf-man or the fawning media, is perfectly consistent with his rising popularity. Get used to it, and with due respect, Mr. Krugman, what are you smoking?
I truly admire Paul Krugman. This man always has his facts in order. I lost interest in so-called "news" long ago. It's all superficial fluff, celebrity gossip, lies, distortions, and propaganda deliberately designed to keep Americans distracted and confused. I actually think we lose and I.Q. point every time we tune in. The politicians, media, and corporate conglomerates love it. What a racket!
The print media is not fairing much better, in my opinion. Though I will always read Paul Krugman's column (online), I stopped my subscription of the New York Times when I found out that it knew of, but chose not to print, James Risen's investigative report on Bush's illegal NSA wiretapping program prior to the 2004 election--under pressure by the White House--allegedly for "national security" purposes. During the ensuing year, a newly re-elected President Bush spent 2005 denying (lying) to the public that wiretappings of American citizens were ever conducted without court orders. The New York Times knew differently, but still failed to release the story.
The truth came out in December 2005 when the New York Times finally released the story to a justifiably, if only momentarily, outraged public. Coincidentally, James Risen's book, The State of War, which was certain to detail his investigative efforts regarding the NSA wiretapping, was set for release in January 2006. At first, Bush originally denied the story's truthfulness, but then, within days, acknowledged the warrant-less spying had occurred, but went on to blame FISA as ineffective "old law," which he felt perfectly entitled to violate due to his "inherent executive powers." He never bothered to explain why he spent a year lying about it and, naturally, nobody asked. Adding incredible audacity to his egregious mendacity, Bush next declared that he intended to have the Dept. of Justice open an investigation into the people at the NSA who leaked Bush's illegal program to Mr. Risen in the first place, thus exposing Bush as a criminal and a liar. Bush was sending a clear message to potential whistle-blowers that disloyalty to a dishonest, unethical president will be rewarded, while conduct loyal to the nation will be punished. This would seem an important part of this wiretapping story, but alas, no coverage.
The Bush Administration spent much of the next year defending the indefensible. Bush's former NSA director (and current CIA director), General Michael Hayden, went so far as to deny that no "probable cause" standard exists in the 4th Amendment. I never heard or read of any "news" organization taking issue with this blatant lie. For goodness sake, does anyone read the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment is only one sentence in length and quite explicitly requires probable cause to obtain a warrant. There's only one logical reason why the NSA wasn't retroactively applying for warrants through FISA and it had nothing whatsoever to do with "old law." Quite simply, when spying randomly on Americans, there is no probable cause. If there's no probable cause, no warrant will be issued, even retroactively. No presidential power, not even George Bush's ambiguous, "inherent" power, is above the 4th Amendment. Yet, not one news organization questioned or probed this treasonous conduct with the public's interests in mind. Like other matters of national importance, this story has long since been forgotten.
I often wonder if James Risen's book, which, among other topics, chronicled the illegal wiretap program, had not been set for release in January, 2006, if the New York Times would have ever published the original story in December, 2005. Was the Times trying to "scoop" its own reporter knowing that the story was going to come out anyway?
When the Times decided to conceal the story until a year after the 2004 election, it went from being a public "watchdog" to a political tool for George Bush. This was definitely information the public had a right to know prior to the re-election in 2004. When media and politics collude, the public loses. Eventually, we lose trust and stop believing in a "free press." Next, we cancel our subscriptions. With the exception of a few outstanding reporters and columnists, such as Mr. Krugman and Frank Rich, my only use for The New York Times, if I still subscribed, would be to line the bottom of my bird's cage--if I had a bird.
Well said paula...but on your plea to Congress, don't hold your breath. As for getting behind your Congresspeople to stop this charade, unfortunately for us, they're part of the problem. With the amount of hot air coming out the front, I'd hate getting behind them.
Bush has certainly made a mess of things and has usurped all three branches of government while stripping our rights as Americans, turning his back on environmental causes and making us hated by the world community. But has the Democratic contolled Congress done one thing, ONE THING, to start the tide turning???? NO.
We're all on our own.
I am about of the opinion that anyone who follows this "Pied Piper" has a double digit IQ. He has literally usurped all the power from all 3 branches of our government and no one seems to care. We need him out of office YESTERDAY!!! Back to the IQ's; does anyone even care anymore?? I wonder exactly what else he will get away with!!! Please, PUBLIC, get behind your Congresspeople to stop this charade as a Presidency, and PLEASE Congress, STAND UP to this travesty!!!!!!
"Mr. Romney's remark should have been the central story in news reports about Tuesday's debate. But it wasn't ... someone should have called Hillary Clinton on her declaration that on health care, "we're all talking pretty much about the same things.""
-----
If we fail to mount a grassroots-person-to-person CONSIRACY to elect John Edwards, this American-Idol style farce is going to continue until the creepy Clinton-Romney duo are the nominees of the nut-right and the soft right.
The Democratic "leadership" (too insulated, medicated, fawned over to see that time, you know: Time, is running short) probably figures it can ride on the result of THAT contest -- and on the gutless simpering of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker -- for about 20 or 30 years, and that a Mormon military state under manly Mitt Romney -- not above touting, on teevee, his wife's allure at 15 -- will fix it all for them, right down to the uppity-women problem, while the empty Democratic suits whine, safe on the sidelines.
The poor and un-rich are DYING in THIS country (and future generations, especially of the urban un-white being ruined beyond reclamation) -- not to mention the double-dips of death (and worse: maiming, radiation) served up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and undisclosed locations, because of this simmering sleaze.
Nobody can get to these people -- the corporate, media, Congressional elites -- except their own kids, their service people at home and out on the town, their air crews, masseurs, bartenders, their doctors and medical attendants. Hopefully some or all of these will do what must be done.
Doctors could bring this crap to a halt in six weeks by refusing to service anybody BUT the poor. Wonder why they don't? :^|
After having GWB in office for six years and more than ready for change, we were flabbergasted by what we saw with the Democrat and Republican debates. These are the people who are running for the presidency? There were only two in the Democratic side we would wish to vote for and none of the Republicans. We were shocked by what we were witnessing. It was and is awful. We honestly would be better off with Imus, his wife, or Jay Leno in the White House.
Siouxrose: Read the last two letters on Thursday 06/06 The one about Cheney blocking a promotion.
This is shaping up to be another clusterf@#*k to the White House, as Jon Stewart so accurately calls it. I'm reading Gore's book at the moment. He's dead right about the American news media -- and he otta know.
fedupwithpolitics makes the point I intended.
I appreciate Krugman's bringing to light the way our media (mis)handles information for the masses when it comes to the presidential selection process. But, unfortunately, he doesn't take it far enough. He's is good at pointing out the lies that got Bush elected and even points out how Hillary Clinton was allowed to mislead in her recent debate remarks. But his final sentence leaves nothing of hope when he simply states, "And I don't know if this country can survive another four years of Bush-quality leadership" which implies the Democrats could do better. When candidates of BOTH corporate parties freely lie when confronted with important topics of debate and to avoid indepth exchanges, what good are debates? Mr. Krugman should have added, "We need a new direction away from the lieing two corporate parties and their controlled media circus."
jedediah zachariah jedediah springfield June 8th, 2007 4:13 pm
didnt mean to ruffle any feathers. I am very angry also. You are aware of whats going on and probably have been for years, as are the other people who visit this site and others like it. The framers knew the danger of an uninformed citizenry - we are witnessing it first hand. It is great you are doing your best to inform the ignorant, as I have been (to little avail - people regard me as a scare monger, disgruntled or a kook). As a nation we 'deserve' this because too many of us are not interested in the truth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR200706...
eugene robinson trying to convince us that there is something substantive to fascination w/Paris Hilton.
how can you "get the gov't you deserve" when there is so obviously a vast conspiracy (MSM, education, etc., etc.) to keep everyone stupid and focus on triviality (p. hilton, eg)? ignorance destroys the possiblity of agency. so how can you speak of "deserving" something?
Others here who point out that we get the government we deserve have it right. Those who are abandoning ship now are only doing so because the war is mis-managed, not that it is immoral and unjust. They also remain completely unconcerned about the trashing of the Constitution. There are enough sheeple out there to keep the vote within stealing distance.
Vern June 8th, 2007 1:25 pm,
sadly I think the Daily show has been co-opted. They've recently made light of Kucinich and Ron Paul's issues - only crediting the MSM designated front-runners worthy of real comment, echoed the corporate line regarding Chavez, had on apologists from the Bush cabinet and let some obvious lies go unchallenged, and have MSM members looking over their shoulder now(how apt). Colbert soldiers on - hopefully he can hold out.
Others here who point out that we get the government we deserve have it right. Those who are abandoning ship now are only doing so because the war is mis-managed, not that it is immoral and unjust. They also remain completely unconcerned about the trashing of the Constitution. There are enough sheeple out there to keep the vote within stealing distance.
Hillary is every bit the liar and warmongerer that Bush is--don't expect anything different if she should win the nomination and election. Now, if Americans still vote for her, they are fools.
Revolt now: I loved the 60's peace marches and attended one before the Iraqi debacle was (like a film with a script) "produced" as live-action drama to in part boost the ego of our "war president." Currently, the talk of secret prisons being built IN the U.S., the length and scope of surveillance, this administration's blurring the lines between enemy combatant/traitor/terrorist and one with a conscience that places them opposed to current policy, the type of judge being put in office, and the 911 homeland security police powers... taken together, not a recipe that particularly invites large citizen action for the penalties ARE greater. One could argue the losses that will result from non-action are greater (and graver), and yet, many of the cherished liberties we presume are already gone. Outside of a fiat of fate, and recognizing the "pre selected candidates" (this does not include Gore, Kucinich or Gravel) serve the SAME masters, CHOICE becomes its own Orwellian notion. In prior dark ages, some enlightened folks remained under the radar to merely endure; then when the tide eventually changed, their wisdom was called upon to lead in whatever new wave began to form.
As far as I am concerned, we can bring back 90 percent tax rates on the ultra wealthy to balance the budget and nationalize health care. And if the ultra wealthy threaten to leave, we let them, and confiscate all their property in this country. Of course before we get to that point, there will be fighting in the streets.
Kivals, I'm curious if you're right or wrong on this point. I have a feeling that they can no longer count on the unwavering, unquestioning support of the military. After this administration has used the US military like a cheap whore, I wonder if US troops would obey orders to fire on US citizens? I hope not. The obvious answer to this is Blackwater, but you can never really count on the loyalty of a mercenary.
But it is my fondest wish to see the richest 1 percent of this country and their political lackeys get what they deserve, preferably at the end of a rope.
ascrowflies,
The Republican, business, and media elites, even some Democratic elites, keep on throwing in hints that we will not be able to afford Social Security and Medicare in a few years. There will be a huge push to severely curtail both programs and it is my guess, and my hope, that the people will push back. It could get very ugly.
I would rather live in a county where everyone is poor rather than one where 99 percent of us are poor and one percent is extremely wealthy. In the latter case the wealthy would bully us, virtually or actually enslave us, and make our lives infinitely more miserable than in the former case.
As far as I am concerned, we can bring back 90 percent tax rates on the ultra wealthy to balance the budget and nationalize health care. And if the ultra wealthy threaten to leave, we let them, and confiscate all their property in this country. Of course before we get to that point, there will be fighting in the streets.
1. Selective fact checking. A recent NY Times article about "Michael Moore's Math" ("'Sicko,' Castro and the '120 Years Club'", May 27, 2007) analyzed the claim in his recent film that Cubans have a longer life-expectancy than US-ers. It concluded that it depends on how it is measured, and that it may be the case that Cubans and US-ers have roughly comparable life expectancies. When it comes to claims made by a "radicals partisan" and a "leftist" (NYT appelation for Moore) one is much more likely to get scrupulous fact checking than for claims made by less important figures like front-runner presidential candidates. Perhaps the need to impeach uncomfortable claims overcomes the institutional laziness that ordinarily works against fact checking.
2. American political discourse is largely a genre within the American entertainment business. What is sold primarily is personality, not issues. Gore's rolling of the eyes, Dukakis' wearing a helmet in a tank, Howard Dean's scream were disqualifiers. Reagan's "well, there you go again" was a home run that, according to media pundits, largely won him the debates. Bush's lies in October 2000 debate (see article)--no problem, not even reported. Bush's possible wearing of an ear piece to get live coaching during the debate against Kerry was swept under the rug. It would have been too disturbing to get to the bottom of that story--it would violate the rules of good theatre to pull away curtains. (By the way, to protect the integrity of presidential debates, should not Congress hold an investigation about the use of secret electronic communication equipment during debates? Bush and his staffers could be requested to answer questions. Perhaps we could find out who was Bush's stand-by brain?)
There is more integrity in big-time wrestling than there is our government. Also missing is accountability. The brave guys who jump into the ring now try to back up their words. Accountability can be immediate. In D.C. the cowards can say anything because there is no accountability for their words. Even old Henry the Horrible can still climb into the ring and make a few bucks. What a country!
Hoa binh
Well, granted we all understand that our "free press" is but a myth . . .
However, while the MSM weren't given the public the information they need, STILL the public voted for Gore in 2000 and, presumably, for Kerry in 2004--!!!!
So -- we also have a problem with corruption of our elections.
Meanwhile, it's also being reported that the Democratic win in the last election was much larger and that there should be larger Senate and USHR Democratic majorities.
As for who "won" this mess we are calling debates . . .
I don't think we have anyone really fit to be called a "candidate."
Who is actually watching this nonsense?
Where is the League of Women Voters? Banned.
And, they aren't supporting results from black box voting either.
When defense contractors own MSM, what else could we expect? (And better yet, why is a defense contractor allowed to own major MSM in the first place???)
Just in: Gingrich forecasts GOP losses in 2008. This of course is his warm-up to toss his hat in the ring.
This could be the man that gives us another four years of Bush-quality leadership (or worse).
Dunnyveg:You may have explained why Bush got into office when the people said (At least he's not like Clinton). You see most of the people who voted for Bush are unread and ignorant. they didn't listen to his lies about most of his tax cuts going to the folk's who need it when all along he meant to give it to the rich.I have read and heard that many people voted for the moron because he would be someone they would like to have a beer with, how stupid. We need a smart man or woman as president(not Hillary)someone who reads and listens to other people not this uneducated jerk who thinks he knows it all when in fact he is a fool. We need Al Gore or Russ Feingold men who know what's going on in the world and know the other countries leaders by name not by some silly nick name like this monkey uses. Bush even call other heads of state by their first names and everything is a joke to this failure.It will take this country years and years to overcome what this bozo and the criminal vice president have done to destroy the constitution and every law they don't like. They both should be impeached and put behind bars.I write letters to the editor and call Congressman on a regular basis. That's what everyone should be doing until they have to start listening to we the people.
Dunnyveg June 8th, 2007 1:57 pm
Uh, huh? Did you forget to take your meds today?
Kudos to Paul Krugman for being balanced, and criticizing Hillary as well as the Republicans.
I live in a heavily Republican area. And, as a complete independent, when I would bring up some of the things about Bush in 2000 that Krugman mentions, the invariable answer was: "At least he's not like Clinton." It would likewise be a shame if the Left votes for anybody calling themselves a Democrat strictly on the grounds that they're not a Bush.
I hope we learn from our mistakes.
I genuinely can't think of any alternative, other than taking it to the streets, and with this government in power, it would get really ugly, really fast.
Thoughts?
Taking it to the streets is perhaps the final alternative. These are truly desperate times which call for desperate measures. But who is going to do the taking? We all sit in front of these damned computers typing cynical messages as though expressing our thoughts to those that already agree with us is useful and productive. Perhaps this connectivity has worked against us. I remember the 60's, you had to call a demonstration to express your opinion. Sometimes things got violent. I guess if we could get some people together and wage a serious demonstration where things got out of hand, THEN the media would be forced by their own voracious appetite for the salacious to cover the issues that triggered this outburst.
"The majority of the population might be against it now, but not because the war is immoral, but because Americans don't like to lose."
Indeed.
This Iraqi caper is unadulterated imperialism, in keeping with Iraq (1953), Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Guatamala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, ad infinitum.
But this latest "imperialism for oil" policy is predicated on a house-of-cards economy swimming in red ink and wall-paper dollars, an economy dependent on the Blanche Dubois defense, a defense predicated on the kindness of strangers--namely, China, Japan and others. Everybody knows the Chinese have our best economic interests at heart, right?
This sturm und drang over immigration, Iraq, even health care, is going to fade very rapidly when it begins to dawn on our leadership that we can't afford ourselves anymore. When inflation starts biting into the financial industry's profit margins, guess who's going to be thrown under the bus? It won't be the military-industrial-congressional complex.
Within the next twenty to thirty years, the US will be lucky to be a third-rate banana republic--assuming we don't blow everybody up in a fit of juvenile patriotic hubris.
It doesn't really matter what the sheeple think. The eight hundred pound gorilla of this disgraceful administration is already sitting in the room and it's called the stock market. Bush's stooge, Bernanke, can babble on and on that there is no inflation but explain to me why the dollar has gone from .88 Euros to almost 1.40. Just do the math and you'll see that the economy is on a collision course with non-Bushian, non-delusional reality.
So true, so true Mr. Krugman.
Couple this with what Cindy Sheehan wrote in her letter "Good Riddance, Attention Whore"
which, by the way, was either ignored, put at a distance much farther than a ten foot pole (Al Gore of all people), or mocked -
what do we have ..............?????
Or, rather, who/what have we become?
I write letters; I make phone calls. I demonstrate. I am condescended to. I am ignored. I write on places like this now!
Thank you, Mr. Krugman for continuing ....
I will also.
MSM may be a lost cause, but the comedy shows Colbert Report and Jon Stewart are effective and very popular. Sometimes I am aware of political messages on other dramatic television programming and sit coms too. Entertainment can be a very effective educational vehicle--Archie Bunker being the classic example.
We don't want to be educated we want to be entertained. In a few years no debates, just cage matches. Then only "real men" like arnold and jesse ventura have any chance
So what the hell are we to do now? As a longtime media activist and current environmental organization representative, I have reached a point at which I have zero faith in the mainstream media, and the sheep who pervade our airwaves at their behest. However, I am loathe to think that the rather docile American public is going to step up to the plate the way they did in the 1930s and the 1960s. I honestly ask, what can be done now that does not involve hastening the collapse of the economic system of tyrannical bottom-line rule? I genuinely can't think of any alternative, other than taking it to the streets, and with this government in power, it would get really ugly, really fast.
Thoughts?
Amos, in other words, each nation has the government it deserves. That an uneducated, dishonest and unsuccessful politician like Bush could come to power let alone for two terms tells us more about who Americans really are than who Bush really is.
Iraq is not Bush's war or the Democrats' war, like Kucinich declared. It's America's war. Americans allowed it and Americans are still conducting it.
The majority of the population might be against it now, but not because the war is immoral, but because Americans don't like to lose. If Bush had killed 1 million Iraqis in 4 months instead of 4 years, had deposed Saddam faster, had installed the military bases and gotten out expediently, his approval ratings would be 80% today.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/200416.php
Well, David Corn of the Nation claimed that Hillary won the debate and Ruth Conniff of the "Progressive" and John Nichols of the "Nation" chose to highlight Hillary's exchange with Blitzer rather than hold her accountable for her Bush lines on the war on terror, her pathetic healthcare proposals, her hawklike posturing or her soundbite deceptions. That does not bode well if they are the best of the lot.
Coyotita:
"they should boycott those networks who are not up to the same high standard of serving the people." Do you still believe that CBS, ABC, NBC and even PBS are run differently than Fox News? They all the same Agitprop as Voice of America, Radio Liberty and Radio Marti. Independent news departments are long dead and are now cost centers of Viacom, Disney, GE and the like.
Bandaid cannot cure cancer, even such a sincere bandaid as Paul Krugman, whom I admire a lot.
Great analysis, Mr. Krugman. Brings to mind that the candidates who wish to truly represent the people should be held to a higher standard than those who want to be president. And, that they should boycott those networks who are not up to the same high standard of serving the people.
The American public or at least half – well, almost half – are disgusting in their pious assertions of morality and patriotism amongst other things. They got us into this mess by enabling this fool in the first place let alone a second time. To have suffered through the humiliation of having a buffoon like George W. Bush represent us to the world for eight dreadful years should be punishment enough. Unfortunately there is the misbegotten war, the horrible domestic situation and the blatant corruption that will all be a part of our days for quite a while to come. That this man could come to power in any nation let alone ours is almost comical were it not for the death and despair he has wrought. So it's not comical and I say to all of the loyal Bush supporters then and currently, you're not so bright, so wise and solely patriotic now are you? Idiots.
Does anyone really think that the corporate media has no agenda? We need unscripted debates without the post debate spin.
Drex. No sir, you are not quite right on that one. No one will ever, ever, ever, compare to GWB, NOBODY. Of course Nute might be a close second, then there are others runing who are just as bad. At least Gingrich can read.
Wm Shirer pointed out in his History of the third republic(France) that in 1935 most of the French press had been bought off by Hitler. The French begged to differ,but I am sure that disinformation contributed to the defeatism of French side andf rise of Hitler.
Georege Orwell predicted our gov and corporations would take on the news which would be "newspeak" in his book "1984" (published in 1948) . He was wrong only by a few years. You now have it all, gov by decree , a rubber-stamp congress , newspeak and perpetual war.
It may be too late to save democracy in USA. Every other country has multiple paries you only have Right and extreme right,the millionaires andthe Billionaires.
Mainstay writes:
"to make a substantial change in the ["news"]market, consumers could simply stop buying what they don't need… AND never buy something simply because they saw it in an ad!
We could also note the sponsors that are shown when biased news is presented, and write the companies with our objections to their sponsorship of substandard or deceitful journalism. (Believe it or not they do care what their customers think, especially if it means they could lose that person's business).
Sure it all takes a little time and effort, and awareness - but its the first step of a bloodless revolution … and Lord knows we need this revolution to be peaceful!"
-----
Virtuous consumerism is fine -- if it doesn't really change anything, it doesn't really hurt anything, unless you count the extra driving around to find every perfect little thing -- for those who have choices about WHAT to consume.
Those who are NOT well-incomed, however, need this revolution to be SOON: what is going on right this minute with the poor -- thousands upon thousands of impoverished elders, veterans, urban single mothers, homeless people in general -- is, has been for some time, far from "peaceful". (Well-off liberals, try this: dress down, mess up your hair a little, go to a social services office (or downscale laundromat, or soup kitchen), and talk to people about what income they live on, where they shop for food, what kind of bread they buy and how much it costs (they'll know within 25 cents), what -- if anything -- they do for "health care". You may go home with a greater sense of urgency.)
Evelyn Smith writes:
"No one will ever, ever, ever, compare to GWB, NOBODY."
-----
Hahaha: Mitt Romney is George Bush, only taller, Mormon, and with his own money. (John Edwards, I do believe, is the only person running for president who can deliver us from a Romney-run white-supremacist "religious" state kind. of. like. Israel, but possibly not comfy for Jews, women, blacks, Indians, and like that.)
Mainstay said best,"Individuals do have some power in a capitalist or even a fascist society - the power of consumers."
Protest with your wallet. It is the only protest that MSM and big business understands. All the rest of the posts are truthful but still ineffectual hand-wringing.
If only people would truly in their best interests and for the right people. Revolution really isn't that hard, and it doesn't have to involve bloodshed. Too many citizens are distracted, medicated, duped, disillusioned or just tired waiting for the promised land or at least to hit the lottery. The simplicity makes this all the more tragic.
Maybe each one of us posting should run. :)
Queen of the hive I absolutely agree with you. Allow me to extend your thought by suggesting that MEDIA COMPANIES SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE MEDIA BUSINESS!!! That means: no military industrial subsidiaries (as in NBC/GE), no pharma, no fast food, no energy, no other unrelated divisions of any sort. Just media and only media! Was there not a time, in the not-too-distant past, when we had anti-trust laws and when there were very strict (i.e. anti-monopolistic) guidelines for MEDIA OWNERSHIP!!! Remember the time when enforcement was rather simple: revocation of licenses to operate????
Censorship in America operates in subtle and stealthy ways; no need to close down newspapers. In the AGE OF INFORMATION, DISINFORMATION is the weapon of choice for greedy powermongers.
In the best of possible worlds, if a media company's only job is to deliver news, it will be competing with rival (media) companies to print the TRUTH on the front page. The truth will be its currency.
Unfortunately, there's also another monster-in-the-closet to deal with:
the influential ADVERTISING REVENUES.
Stonecutter: thank you so much for your incisive thoughts-- matched by an eloquence to deliver them! You articulate the profound malaise we are in today. This country started out with founders who revered debates replete with nuances, who respected deep intellect, and who elevated informed conversation; one cannot help but think of their sadness were they to behold what has become of this citizenry and its descent into vulgarity. The educational system, with its stress on testing and grading, is partly to blame; only a socratic form, only an emphasis on critical thinking can begin to create the citizen that will actively and questioningly protect this democracy from the riff-raff politicians and the power-thirsty mega corporations.
Write and call the media and its sponsoers with your concerns. It's all well and good to complain here but those are the folks who can make a difference.
The noecons are right, there is a deliberate news bias, from their point of view.
Bush makes me miss Nixon!