The press should be screaming to high heavens about the upcoming Iran war and its consequences and how the admin is lying again about diplomacy

Conventional wisdom is that what people get out of a speech is based 70% on how you look, 20% on how you sound, and only 10% on what you say.

The clear intent of the corporate media is to reduce that last 10% to some significantly smaller number.

That's why attending press briefings and writing down the administration's talking points (all by yourself!) is now treated as professional journalism.

That's why Juan Williams is now billed on NPR as a senior "analyst".

The "inside the Beltway" spin -- focusing on the horserace and not on the policies -- has the predictable effect of diminishing reader interest and voter turnout. The first election that was covered that way, it might have been happenstance. The second time, it might (just might!) have been coincidence. Ever since, it's obviously been intentional (what Ian Fleming referred to as "enemy action"). And yes, inside the Beltway, every year is an election year.

That's why it matters less and less whether the press is independent from the government. Both the press and the government are owned by the same folks. They may operate more or less independently, but they march to the beat of the same corporate drummers.

Inoffensive, superficial coverage maximizes profit and minimizes risk for media corporations. That's why we're getting so many useless stories about Brangelina, Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, Natalie Holloway, Jon-Benet Ramsey (sp?), OJ, OJ, OJ, OJ, OJ, OJ, OJ, OJ, OJ....

I have this same pet peeve with the media. I want to scream at the screen sometimes for them to speak the truth!
It would appear they all want to be Simon on "American Idol" instead of journalists that are SUPPOSED to be broadcasting TRUTH. The closest thing we have in the main stream is Keith Olbermann and I can only guess they'll shut him up soon if he doesn't watch himself.

Back in the sixties I believe it was, a group of jounalist from the Soviet Union came over for a tour of the United States.
At the end of their tour, one of the jounalists asked,how do you do it?Some of us have been watching television and want to know how you keep the message so in lockstep.Every network we watch, pounds out the same message.
We have to send people to gulags to get that kind of obedience to the message.

Is it possible that many persons now working in the media are so poorly educated about public affairs and untutored in critical thinking (the way our educational system has made most people) that commenting on how people look is all they are capable of doing? You take an average person off the street, maybe below average intelligence, with good looks and a good speaking voice and put them on TV and voila, a journalist.

I agree with what has been said by Krugman and those who have posted above. I would add the following, which has royally irritated me:

It is so abundantly clear that Bush has been hiding behind the considerable reputation of Petraeus -- a reputation that the Bush Administration has contributed to building up -- and have shamelessly lionized him. They are trying to attribute to Petraeus the tactical innovation of a Douglas MacArthur, the aggressiveness of George Patton, and the soldier/statesman presence of Dwight Eisenhower. They create an impression of a man who has such overwhelming credibility that he must be believed, no matter how much the Commander in Chief has failed. In fact, the Bush Admin wants Petraeus to be so believable because their boss has failed, miscalculated consistently, and has no credibility left. Politically, they have no other choice.

But it comes back to what Krugman said about the substance of Petraeus' message: is there really a militarily viable strategy here or do we allow ourselves to get distracted by Bush's political imperatives? My sense is that the political commentators shy away from analyzing military strategy because they don't have the background for it. They are political animals first, and only study military matters when a war is about to start or after it has already started. They may also not want to come off like chickenhawks, which is understandable up to a point, but it leaves them in the position that Krugman describes. They can only give style points for Congressional testimony and other posturing, but they cannot or will not comment on which direction the war is going...and by extension, which direction the country is going.

The blind are leading the blind...but the ultimate destination of this quagmire is not hard to guess.

Oh, they could provide military experts to counter point the talking heads that Bush sends on his behalf. They could have asked General Petraus' Commander what he thought about him, but they didn't. Admiral Fallon, Petraus' immediate commander called him "an asskissing little chickenshit", you didn't see that get any play on the five o' clock news though...

Let's stop hearing about the(supposed) reaction; let's hear what is and is
not bullshit.

Let's be clear about the premise. There is no journalism among the talking heads.

The cable channels are in the entertainment business. The talking heads are carefully selected to provoke arguments or to engage in supercilious "analysis" of the mundane. There are a few exceptions, but most of the pundits haven't done shoe leather journalism in years -- if at all.

But you can sure depend on them to know every eyebrow twitch in the O. J. courtroom or the minute details of Britney's lastest escapade.

Even the laudable Keith Olbermann broadcast cited above must pander with drivel to justify its time slot. At least there is 20 minutes of some sort of serious content at the beginning of the program, but the rest is often downright silly.

Bring on the clowns!

Paul, I love you man. You have been a light in the darkness since before the invasion and occupation took place. Thanks again!
So, let's sing:
I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed and deranged
I have existed for years
but very little has changed
I'm the tool of the government
and industry too
for I am destined to rule
and regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
but you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
with the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get!
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozing out
from your TV set.

You will obey me while I lead you
and eat the garbage that I feed you
until the day when we don't need you
don't go for help
no one will head you.
Your mind is totally controlled
it has been stuffed into my mold
and you will do as you are told
until the rights to you are sold
That's right folks "don't touch that dial!
Well, I am the slime from your video
oozing along on your living room floor
I am the slime from your video
can't stop the slime
people look at me go........ (I am the slime) by Frank Zappa

Kristina40,

THANK YOU for posting that and no, I did not see that comment from Adm. Fallon about Gen. Petraeus; and for the life of me I have no idea how they could have stiffled THAT little acerbic bit of commentary from the admiral. Talk about a salty old dog. I realized that there is a lot that can be suppressed by the media, the Bush Admin, etc. but that is a classic line. After you mentioned it, I websearched it and indeed, it seems like a dozen blogspots have it but the mainstream media completely ignored it. What a commentary on our government/media machinery!

Meanwhile, I wonder if Fallon is trying to wash his hands of the whole damned thing before it completely falls apart. Its not exactly Zinn's "Revolt of the Guards" but not bad for a flag rank officer.

Warzoned, it seems Fallon really, really can't stand Petreus and vice versa. They had a falling out over Iraq policy (Fallon believes we are in the wrong arena to fight terrorism and protect americans), he's angry at Petreus for sucking up to Bush and being his yes man. It is outrageous that MoveOn was attacked for their ad against Petreus and the man's own SUPERIOR officer's commentary has been suppressed...

What we need in this country is a free press.

Kristina40,
Agreed on the hypocritical treatment of MoveOn. Meanwhile, the media silence over the Fallon vs. Petraeus dispute is awfully strange. Normally, the media just loves those kind of intra-fraternity slap fights. They normally would be all over it like flies on crap. They live for that kind of soap opera. Why the silence now?

I didn't see the comment by Fallon either, but I did see General Wesley Clark on The Daily Show. Check it out here: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

Clark was a colonel when Petraeus was a captain under him. Interesting comments by Jon Stewart about Petraeus, too.

So MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad is big news, but a respected military man's "asskissing little chickenship" comment has no air play. It's not a surprise, but it's still unconscionable.

The attack on MoveOn is an attempt to keep the "support our troops" rhetoric alive. There's no support for our troops. You don't support people by throwing them into a cesspool. As long as the war doesn't affect Americans personally they'll keep putting the stupid yellow ribbons on their cars and lying about how much they love our soldiers.
The truth is that America is pitying it's soldiers not supporting them. Call it what it really is.
The only people supporting our troops are the ones marching in the streets, demanding an end to the war, writing our congressmen, or getting arrested protesting. The rest are just actors and actresses with pretty yellow ribbons who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Warzoned et al., I'm sure they've been told by their keepers to keep that one under wraps. Can you picture Fox airing that little tidbit? LMAO

Paul, the same could be said about all the political candidates running for President. Mitt Romney has been described a "presidential" due to his "gray hair going on" and his photogenic family. Rudy, (can't be bothered with spelling his last name), is described has "America'S Mayor. He never was a mayor in my state. He made a few appearances ans speaches after 911, but he personally did nothing to protect us. I didn't expect to, either. He's just taking advantage of Americans who get so gushy about the days following 911. Just my opinion.

by "PRESS" is he refering to the corporate monopoly that also financially and ideologically backs the current President's party?

I have simply given up on the country's news coverage. There is no reason to bother with it. There are a few folks worth reading, such as Paul Krugman. My best news source is The Guardian Online. As for TV or radio, forgetaboutit!

The pundits and the MSM also somehow failed to mention that Petraeus' commanding officer, Adm William Fallon, considers him "an ass-kissing little chickenshit". How'd they miss that?

By "press", he's referring to the people who write his paychecks. I guess everyone knows Mr. Krugman is a NY Times columnist.\

Which is why he doesn't take this logic to the next logical step. Why is poltical coverage this way, and the same, in all the US corporate media (including the NYT)?

Its this way because its what the owners of these companies want. Anyone who's worked a job is that the bottom line is the owner gets what they want. If they don't like the current results, they'll hire new people, fire old people, replace managers, task managers to make changes, etc, etc etc. The key point to realize is that this never happens to the writers and editors who produce the poor political coverage in the same paper where this appeared.

This was striking after the start of the Iraq War. Everyone will admit that the coverage of the lead up to that war was bad, misleading and often downright wrong. The NYT wrote a article at one point where they investigated themselves and came to this conclusion. But the part to realize was, no one got fired. No editors got replaced. No new standards were put in place to make sure they weren't just repeating government lies. Judy Miller still worked there until she ran into other problems later.

Ie, the bottom line was that the coverage of the lead up to the Iraq war was what the owners of the NYT wanted. The same for CNN, Faux, and everyone else. The same for this political coverage. Its been the same for the last few elections. And no one gets fired, no changes are made. Thus, its what the owners want.

They want it this way because they want politics to be about personalities. They want politics to be about who likes the hair of which candidate, or who would be the best candidate to sit and drink a beer with. What they don't want is for politics to be about issues. Because, if politics was about issues, the first issue on the minds of most voters would be "why am I struggling so hard to get by while the owners of these companies are rich beyond belief?" Or, "why is my boy going to Iraq to be shot at while the sons of the owners of these companies are vacationing in Europe?"

Those sorts of discussions are the last thing the owners of these media companies want. Thus, they want politics to be about superficial things. Is America ready for a woman President? Or, lets get all the women to vote for Hillary because she's a woman? When they do that, they can have candidates that represent the interests of a very small minority actually win elections.

So, there's a large amount of misdirection in this piece. I like his general thought, but Mr. Krugman won't go anywhere telling you why this is this way and why it will stay that way. In fact, the reason this piece appears in the NYT is to mislead people into thinking the paper has better standards than what its day-to-day reporting actually shows.

"and for the life of me I have no idea how they could have stiffled THAT little acerbic bit of commentary from the admiral."

They didn't, if you read press from outside the US. The stories I saw that reported this were in the Independent in the UK. The US press of course isn't what you would call a 'news organization' at all. All the corporate US press are propaganda organs. So for them it was easy to stiffle because they don't care about news, they just care about promoting the image their corporate owners want.

The key lesson is that the US press is not worth paying any attention to. Use the internet (while you still can) to read the overseas press. And I've got all the corporate US news channels blocked by the parental blocking features on my TV.

"The press should be screaming to high heavens about the upcoming Iran war and its consequences and how the admin is lying again about diplomacy"

You're neglecting the fact that the press is now essentially a pr arm of corporations. Why would they scream to the high heavens about something that's going to increase profits?

Astute observation by Krugman, as usual. Too bad he wasn't able to influence his colleague, Friedman, about this immoral war when it began. Instead we were treated to a litany of positives from the so-called visionary.

Sadly, Admiral Fallon has backed off his criticism of Betrayus and says the surge should be given a chance to work. Too bad if another thousand troops die and Iraq continues to be destroyed by this strategy. Let it "play out" like it's nothing but a game.
And why are we supposed to respect these misleaders?

Thanks bongofury for Zappa's classic! I thought it was hilarious at the time. Now I just think it's chilling.

The American Press is pro-War while pretending to be other than that.

Most correspondents are under educated journalism school graduates who "don't know their ass from a hole in the ground." They understand what they need to do to keep a job they just don't know how to do that job.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon

The first step for journalists is to stop being so damned pretentious and go back to being called reporters. Then the job is to report, and by definition one can get facts and reports them.

Until the press stops being so smug and pretentious, news reports will remain just show business.

"It's all just show biz"

I gave up TV three years ago out of sheer frustration with the reporting and commentary/ballooning cost of cable/wall-to-wall basketball/commercials. The first couple of months were difficult, like giving up any addiction. Now, what a different world. Sometimes I wonder what people are yammering about. I'm also an Internet junkie now. Much more interesting. News from around the world. Perspectives unavailable on TV. Opposing points of view. My point of view represented in full. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Thank God. I mean, thank goodness. With time to think and read, I've also become an atheist.

When Fallon was assigned his present position, it was widely felt he was put there to transition from a large ground presence to just bombing. Bombing does such a "good" job killing people and destroying infrastructure that ground troops are unnecessary. Plus, you can bomb Iraq today and switch to Iran tomorrow.

The NYT has been worse than lousy on this whole issue. Friedman and the other war boosters belong in the Iraqi justice system.

I'm surprised that no one's yet given a shout out to Bob Somerby, of "The Daily Howler", http://www.dailyhowler.com/ who's been harping and carping on this issue for years.

A voice crying in the wilderness, alas!

Somerby also picks at the issue of whether, and to what extent, corporate media employees are constrained or co-opted into moderating their analysis and opinion. Even a well-regarded columnist like Professor Krugman can't magically transcend the admonition against biting the hand that feeds one.

I'd certainly be interested in his comments on the question-- are you out there, Prof? But in all fairness, he's hardly in a position to pointedly observe that, say, his peeve coefficient would approach zero if the NYT would eliminate the abomination known as Maureen Dowd. ;)

Compared to the Cirque de Powell, the Petreaus Theater of the Absurd was mild, and the fawning and lying were expected. After CP sold his soul in front of the entire world, the MSM swore "the majority" of Americans were pro-illegal invasion, remember?

The truth, though, was a bit different - Zogby reported only 54% support a week before the illegal invasion, with 34% of that only "somewhat supportive."

The fun part about living in the early 21st Century is that facts are sooooo last decade.

When I was a little girl, men in uniforms impressed me, especially when they had all those colorful little trinkets attached to their jackets.

Well, today it's a different story; I'm no longer a little girl who salivates over these sexy-looking men in uniform.

"Oh, people just can't resist a man in uniform." But it turns out that they can; it's the punditocracy that can't."

It's also adult children who can't!

About 3 years ago, my husband and I threw out our satellite dish and disconnected broadcast tv for good. We jonesed for about 2 weeks. Any programs we missed we can pick up on dvd. After about a year, I noticed a big change in my creativity. My artwork really took off. My imagination was free from all that garbage. We get the news on Common Dreams, Truthdig, Huffington, and so on. All of you who are grousing about the broadcast news, take a tip from us. Throw out your cable box or your satellite dish. And you will free up your mind to pursue better things and have a less stressful life! And, you save money to boot!! Oh, and I never listen to NPR anymore (except for Terry Gross and the Tappit Brothers). They totally sold out like all the PBS stations.

What I hate about political coverage is that they intentionally suppress candidates like Dennis Kucinich by either not mentioning him, pulling polls off websites when he is leading them, cropping him out of photos, and when they absolutely have to mention his name, saying he's 'unelectable' or 'fringe'.
And all the media outlets are doing it. Time to start shouting for true democracy NOW!

what was the old news service we were taught
as kids was just propaganda
russian you know
tass maybe

i discarded tv in '74
small children 'n all
(they did adjust)
games 'n
play
is the
substitute
ken
ps
'n both children
have tv's
'n i still don't
thanks for the zappa
whoever it was

Krugman is right, of course - that US political "journalism" is "all about the theatrics" and not about facts or representative descriptions of content.

This emotionalization of political reporting, as different from being factual, opens up for calling anything anything. Any event can be spun into carrying any meaning chosen - with the choice of meaning made by the herders of the public mood, i.e. the dominant powers. That means the power itself (to choose meaning and act upon notions of meaning) is no longer part of public exchange.

What to do? Go elsewhere for meaningful exchanges, act elsewhere. Read foreign news coverage rather than bad US journalism - and support the good US coverage there is (it does exist, be careful not to over-generalize).

Fight and scream back. The "manufacture of consent" isn't as streamlined and strong as it would have us believe.

(This comment might've be called "What I hate about generalizations".)

there is a little button on your tv remote that says: off

use it.

now, carry on with your life.

thank you little brother for the daily howler website. it on my favorites.

but i never can forgive the ny times for charging for its editorials and opinions. you know, that "selective reader" thing you have to subscribe to. i found i could think without them...

FBI Tapes Stevens Calls As Part of Sting

Friday September 21, 2007 4:16 AM

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI, working with an Alaska oil contractor, secretly taped telephone calls with Sen. Ted Stevens as part of a public corruption sting, according to people close to the investigation.
The secret recordings suggest the Justice Department was eyeing Stevens long before June, when the Republican senator first publicly acknowledged he was under scrutiny. At that time, it appeared Stevens was a new focus in a case that had already ensnared several state lawmakers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6938009,00.html

In his speech concerning the Move On ad, Bush made a big deal about disrespecting Petrayus and by association, also the military. Perhaps he forgot the scorn that was heaped on Gen Shinsecki? for stating that we needed at least 400,000 troops if we invaded Iraq. He and Cheny got rid of that military man in a hurry and shut him up. Now we know he was right so why don`t the stupid Dumbocrats bring that out? No, they are too busy figuring out how their vote might get their cushy job saved. At least the Repugs know how to get something done, even if it is all wrong.

"Now we know he was right so why don`t the stupid Dumbocrats bring that out? No, they are too busy figuring out how their vote might get their cushy job saved."

Their political consultants are the ones who instruct them how to vote, and the political consultant groups all draw on the exact same set of advertising concepts based on the methods of consumer research & manipulation. The thought that POLITICAL struggles are different from advertising campaigns, or that they, the senators, have become nothing more than titled consumers of false advertising, would never enter their minds. They CANNOT THINK POLITICALLY AT ALL.

Flush our entire media apparatus down the TOILET---where it came from

I was in radio news years ago and, while I met a few good journalists, I also ran across the vapid, egocentric anchorman (or woman) -- the type who primps his hair before he does a radio broadcast!

These people were just marking time in radio, collecting a paycheck and waiting to get a chance on TV and, no, they didn't 'know much about history' nor anything else. I found out they'd read anything placed in front of them -- which led to some amusing practical jokes -- and didn't care much about the content. They were mostly graduates of communications courses, and had no practical experience gathering or reporting news. If they were attractive, they eventually made their way onto TV screens, where a war in Iraq was pretty much the same as reporting that the local team won the playoff game, as long as they looked good on camera. They were vain, lazy, untalented, and stupid, and therefore perfect shills for the Corporate News Empires we see today.

OTOH, some of the TV hosts know very well what's going on -- Wolf Blitzer appeared on a low-watt local radio station in DC before the Iraq invasion and stated flatly that there were no WMD in Iraq -- but they would never inform the public of what they know and how it really is; that kind of talk is confined to the newsroom or over drinks at the nearest bar.

I heard Robert Redford tell a story about being on the White House Press Corps bus back in the early 1970s, preparing for his role in "The Candidate." Even before Watergate, every reporter on the bus knew about Nixon's dirty campaign tricks, slick money deals and other sleaziness, but would never report on it to the folks at home. If they did, they wouldn't have a job very long. In my view, things have just gotten worse since then. Thank God for the Internet, until the powers-that-be crack down on that as well.

Actually; Krugman's pay check comes from Princeton U. His NYT column is just PT work!
If he isn't as frank as YOU might like him to be, it may be because he's fond of life, and doesn't want to join the ranks of suicided reporters?
My TV is dark! But you know I find that I get LESS creative work done, because my fingers are occupied with scrolling, typing, and mousing the internet! I feel compelled to enter the discussion.
It can also lead to some very DARK places...............like my fellow voters who blog at the BAngor Daily News. It's chilling!~ It's no wonder Collins & Snowe are still here. They give out candy so the locals won't notice they are enabling Godzilla!

Speaking of Truth and Candidates:
Hillary, everyone says she has Experience, Really? What as First Lady? That's like the wives of Generals, running a war! Think that's a good idea? I use to work at an Officers Club, and their wives actuall identify themselves as Mrs. Gen. So&So, but can they shoot straight?
How about Hillary's 'close' ties to Right-Wing Fundamentalist Prayer Groups in DC? Do we really want another Religous Zealot in the White House?
Why isn't anyone talking about Barak Obama's Vote for the Bankrupcey Bill? Does that sound real Progressive, to you? Caring about the 'working' man ?

Mitt Romney talks about 'cutting taxes in Mass.', I was there, ask him how much property taxes went up, or State Fee's went up!

GROUSEFEATHER, right you are. One product that is advertised on every channel is, "HEAD ON, ___ APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD".

I cannot believe it, yet it must be selling like hot cakes, or we would not see the idiotic ads running 24/7 for the past year on every channel. Is this a prime example of how foolish Americans are?

There is a way for frustrated voters like myself to stop the rediculous reporting of non-events and blatant political distortians perpetrated by the mainstream media: systematically boycot the products advertised on the news programs. Begin with one cable news channel at a time, and don't buy one product advertised on that program. The news programs depend on advertising dollars, and advertising dollars are generated by consumers. If we do selective consuming we can eventually control the media. In fact, by selective consuming we can eventually control the flow of politics.

Our press, our media is worthless. The policy of being sapient is injudicious, where the opposite conditions confers felicity.