Tucker Carlson Unintentionally Reveals The Role of The American Press
The most interesting part of the controversy over Obama advisor Samantha Power’s referring to Hillary Clinton as a “monster” — one might say the only interesting part — is that immediately after Power said it, she tried to proclaim that it was “off the record.” Here was Power’s exact quote:
She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything.
But the reporter who was interviewing her, Britain’s Gerri Peev of The Scotsman, printed the comment anyway — as she should have, because Peev had never agreed that any parts of the interview would be “off the record,” and nobody has the right to demand unilaterally, and after the fact, that journalists keep their embarrassing remarks a secret. It’s extremely likely, though, that had Power been speaking to a typical reporter from the American establishment media, her request to keep her comments a secret would have been honored. In one of the ultimate paradoxes, for American journalists — whose role in theory is to expose the secrets of the powerful — secrecy is actually their central religious tenet, especially when it comes to dealing with the most powerful. Protecting, rather than exposing, the secrets of the powerful is the fuel of American journalism. That’s how they maintain their access to and good relations with those in power.
Illustrating that point as vividly as anything I can recall, MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson had Peev on his show last night and angrily criticized her publication of Power’s remarks. Carlson upbraided Peev for her lack of deference to someone as important as Power, and Peev retorted by pointing out exactly what that attitude reflects about Carlson and the American press generally (via LEXIS; h/t Mike Stark):
CARLSON: What — she wanted it off the record. Typically, the arrangement is if someone you’re interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn’t you do that?
PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that’s decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.
CARLSON: Right.
PEEV: Someone who’s ostensibly going to be an advisor to the man who could be the most powerful politician in the world, if she makes a comment and decides it’s a bit too controversial and wants to withdraw it immediately after, unfortunately if the interview is on the record, it has to go ahead.
CARLSON: Right. Well, it’s a little.
PEEV: I didn’t set out in any way, shape.
CARLSON: Right. But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it’s a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the “Scotsman,” but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful. People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece.
Don’t you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?
PEEV: If this is the first time that candid remarks have been published about what one campaign team thinks of the other candidate, then I would argue that your journalists aren’t doing a very good job of getting to the truth. Now I did not go out of my way in any way, shape or form to hurt Miss Power. I believe she’s an intelligent and perfectly affable woman. In fact, she’s — she is incredibly intelligent so she — who knows she may have known what she was doing.
She regretted it. She probably acted with integrity. It’s not for me to decide one way or the other whether she did the right thing. But I did not go out and try to end her career.
Credit to Tucker Carlson for being so (unintentionally) candid about the lowly, subservient role of the American press with regard to “the relationship between the press and the powerful.” A journalist should never do anything that “hurts” the powerful, otherwise the powerful won’t give access to the press any longer. Presumably, the press should only do things that please the powerful so that the powerful keep talking to the press, so that the press in turn can keep pleasing the powerful, in an endless, symbiotic, mutually beneficial cycle. Rarely does someone who plays the role of a “journalist” on TV so candidly describe their real function. For anyone who wants to dismiss Carlson as some buffoon who is unrepresentative of journalists generally, I would refer them to the testimony at the Lewis Libby trial of the mighty, revered Tim Russert, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News:
When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it’s my own policy — our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission.
As The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin put it: “That’s not reporting, that’s enabling. That’s how you treat your friends when you’re having an innocent chat, not the people you’re supposed to be holding accountable.” Unlike Carlson, Tim Russert is the Big Guy of the American press corps. He’s the one they all look up to and admire, the one they invariably point to as proof that tough, adversarial journalism is alive and well in the U.S. Yet that’s the same Tim Russert who admitted under oath that — even with no “off the record” agreement — all of his conversations with government officials are presumptively confidential, and he never reports anything unless they give him explicit permission in advance to do so.
It’s the same exact subservient mindset Carlson expressed last night, just more formally and under oath. That’s how the vast majority of them think and behave. As Peev asked in astonishment when Carlson insisted Power’s comments should not have been published because doing “hurtful” things like that that makes the powerful dislike reporters: “Are you really that acquiescent in the United States?” See the Iraq War. Or the Bush administration. Or Tim Russert’s operating rules.
I just had a very similar issue arise last week, and not for the first time. In response to media criticism I wrote, a well-known journalist emailed me out of the blue, unsolicited, with very petulant, whiny objections to what I had written. At the top of his email, he wrote “OFF THE RECORD,” and he did the same with a subsequent exchange. I had never communicated with him before and never agreed to any such arrangement. But that’s a common practice among journalists and many political figures; they think that they can unilaterally slap an “off the record” label on whatever they say and expect that it will be honored.
I ended up not publishing that exchange solely because the probative value was minimal and the primary effect from doing so would just have been to make him look foolish for being so petulant and thin-skinned. Publishing it would have been more vindictive and petty than instructive, so I didn’t. But his unilateral “OFF THE RECORD” designation played no role in my decision.
I considered publishing it, and I am certain that had I done so, he would have accused me of acting improperly by publishing something he unilaterally decreed to be “OFF THE RECORD.” Just as Russert and Carlson said, rampant secrecy is the coin of their realm, the fuel that greases their access. Nothing should ever be disclosed unless everyone agrees to disclosure and it doesn’t “hurt” the person whose comments are being reported.
The number one rule of the standard establishment journalist is to avoid offending the powerful because the more offense they give, the fewer favors the powerful will do for the journalists. Conversely, and by logical necessity, the more journalists please the powerful, the more favors the powerful will do for them. As Carlson put it: “People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did.” I can’t think of any single dynamic that better explains what has happened the last eight years than that one.
* * * * *
As for Carlson’s snide, self-loving claim that “journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here,” just watch this relentlessly probing, adversarial interview by the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman of John Bolton regarding the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, and ask yourself: how many American TV reporters would ever dare to conduct an interview of a high Bush official like this, especially when it’s with a Serious Foreign Policy Expert regarding our being a Nation At War?
Glenn Greenwald writes a regular blog column for Salon.com. His most recent book is A Tragic Legacy.
© 2008 Salon.com
Carlson is a shining example of why 60% of Americans now don’t trust the press - and not just the ‘left wing’ press, but nearly all facets of the mainstream press in this country. Peev was professionally and ethically correct in her handling of this situation - and I find it interesting that Ms. Power has not complained about Peev’s reporting, only a right-wing sycophant like Carlson who has no journalistic (or moral, or ethical) basis could make such an obtuse connection.
Lots of teachers I know are beginning to use examples of such tirades as learning tools in their classrooms; the good news, most students readily see through the garbage that these talking heads spew forth. There is hope - people are waking up.
That explains why the Americans don’t learn the truth about what their government is doing.
There is no such thing as “OFF THE RECORD” unless both parties agree beforhand that their conversation is between them. Converstions between friends or a lawyer can and should be off the record. Reporters are not in that catagory.
I’d bet if someone on Hillary’s campaign staff had done that Tucker Carlson would not have bitched about it. That is how he is, horribly biased with his one sided opinions and he’s no reporter, he’s another mouthy, puffed up, Rush Limbaugh and often distorts the truth.
Thank You Mr. Greenwald!!!
This is why you don’t let the ultra rich own the press. As things are now, they do, especially what we call the “main stream media”. They are far from main stream. They don’t report, they don’t hold anyone accountable, they don’t tell us what we need to know as voters. And their job is supposed to be precisely that.
Carlson has shown, though not intentionally, I’m sure, that the press in this country has NO standards, let alone higher ones than those in the UK. They will kiss the asses of those they are supposed to be keeping honest, and there is NO way to do that when those same asses are the ones who pay your salary. This is nothing more than collusion at it’s most cynical.
I do blame Clinton for this. He signed the legislation to make sure that the rich could buy and sell us and our right to information on those in power right down the toilet. And they have done so with an alarming capacity for thievery.
When I was in college in teh 70’s we had actual news. I’ve been watching as the idiot level has been steadily increased to the point where the press thinks that Brittany Spears is news, and that no one cares about Iraq, the wiretapping of Americans both before and after 9-11, or anything else that we NEED to know when making a decision at the ballot box. No wonder this country has lost everything. The ultra rich declared war on their own country for their own monetary gain, and both parties went right along with it, as well as a supreme court who thinks that money and speech are the same thing.
WJM : “This is why you don’t let the ultra rich own the press.”
Yeah? How do you stop it or, in our case, take it back? Ain’t happenin’!
Tucker Carlson is a snotty little rich boy who rode on his father’s coattails. He is a Walter-Cronkite-wannabe. He is not a journalist in any sense, but a spoiled, ego-centric brat.
surrneder
In Britain and in Canada they have a more free press…perhaps because they have state run organizations like the BBC and the CBC.
The BBC was attacked by the Blair government and an attempt was made to weaken it…but it is funded by the government and has a board of directors that kept it strong. The BBC has world wide news and an impressive news coverage. The BBC news is carried on our own weakened PBS and sometimes can be seen during times when there is high tv viewership.
Part of the weakness of America is the inability of many Americans to realize other nations sometimes have better solutions to issues and problems than America.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Scotsman editor: ‘We are certain it was right to publish’
SOME commentators last night criticised The Scotsman for running quotes that Ms Power tried to retract.
She made no attempt to claim that the newspaper had breached “off the record” protocols, but political bloggers in the US took issue.
But the newspaper insisted it had acted correctly.
An off-the-record quote can be used to inform a journalist, to give useful background. Before the interview began in London, Ms Power was asked whether it could be taped. She agreed.
However, she tried to withdraw the comment on Hillary Clinton after she said it, claiming it was “off the record”.
Mike Gilson, The Scotsman’s editor, said: “We have no opinion on whether Ms Power was right to quit and perhaps politics should be able to retain people with talent who are prepared to learn by their mistakes, but we are certain it was right to publish.
“I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on-the-record quotes after they have been made. The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary, and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp.”
The full article contains 259 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Last Updated: 07 March 2008 10:10 PM
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Scotsman-editor-39We-are-certain.3857605.jp
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we get our liberal segment of the press (if there is one) to follow McCain around for the next eight months and print–with bleeps if necessary, every cuss word he utters either “on” or “off” the record.
When all the real evangelicals in America hear it again and again and every day, Hillary or Barack either one will be elected. My grandparents voted for Nixon in 1968 when such things were not printed much. Had they known (they certainly did not) that Nixon was one of the most habitually foul-mouthed men to ever enter the White House, I assure you they would have turned immediately to Hubert Humphrey, liberal or not.
As for the “monster” thing being bad for Obama, I doubt it.
All the conservatives and half the liberals already have such a suspicion about Mrs. Clinton. Yes, Obama had to accept a “resignation” to keep appearances of a “high road” right now, but the “M-word” spoken in honesty can only help him, not hurt him.
Clearly, this indicates our problem. No stories unless the government employee involved gives permission?!! Small wonder we in America are in such a mess.
How do we take it back? How did the gov’t break up Standard oil back in the previous century? It’s called leadership. It’s called morality. It’s called putting the needs of the country ahead of the few, the rich, the ultra greedy.
We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who stood up for what was right instead of what was politically expedient. Is there anyone out there who has that kind of integrity, that kind of moral fibre, that kind of belief in what this country should be? I don’t know. But it has happened before. Look to the end of the gilded age, when we were in trouble much like now, though now we are set up for a much larger fall.
How do we take it back? I don’t know, at this point, but it has to happen or the country is over.
With a few rare exceptions, tele-media news personages are a threat to our security and democracy . . . creating agendas, manipulating citizens, candidates running for office . . . and controlling so-called debates.
Political parties should hold the debates . . . if it’s just two competing candidates, they simply debate . . . no time limit for answers . . . In other words THEY DEBATE amongst themselves . . . no intrusive, self-important nut cases, closet queens, etc.
If the network news manipulators don’t wish to carry such intimate debates we must regard them as unpatriotic . . .
It’s been happening for a lot longer than eight years. Jack London wrote a hundred years ago, “You have forgotten the editors. They draw their salaries for the policy they maintain. Their policy is to print nothing that is a vital menace to the established. The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.”
Media whores like Carlson and Russert will always be around and whore houses like Fox News will always exist in a society that accepts image over reality.
Hoa binh
Yes the problem is image over reality.
The politicans say what people want to hear. If the people don’t pay attention, not much will change. People have to hold politicians and news people accountable ..and most Americans seem unable to do that..except for a minority..like here at Common Dreams.
(sigh)
Thank you Glenn Greenwald for this important piece. I am an american, a journalist for over 20 years and once a student at a prestigious (name brand) journalism school. So with some insight, I have a few comments.
WJM above mentions that in the 70s we had real news. Well yes, it was much better than today. I was in school in the early 80s and I can tell you that I was punished by one ‘journalism professor’ for asking too difficult questions of the leadership of the school’s public safety force, and not smiling and swallowing the crap they gave as answers to my questions. My grade was actually lowered because I pushed for the truth and upset someone who apparently was higher on the totem pole than the J. dept. So basically I felt then that I was being taught how to be a wet noodle, how to cower in the face of ‘power’. What crap.
Further, I do wonder about these so-called ‘journalists’ in our media. Did they actually study journalism? At a weak-kneed school like mine? Or were they perhaps biz majors who found their ways into broadcast jobs? I won’t spend my time googling the records of a twit like carlson, but I wonder where these people come from. It’s one thing to have dim people who studied journalism at a J. school (good or bad) and went on to become MSM twits. It’s another to have people call themselves journalists when they never even attended a bad J. school.
Also, it is sad in our country that people fawn over the rich and ‘powerful’ like they do. And you would think someone in a ‘powerful’ media position would still lick at the boots of someone just because they’re a few rungs up the ladder. And what do these idiots think it will get them? I can’t see how it would ever get them to a real scoop, a real huge nugget of reportage. They must think that if they’re subservient enough to the gov’t then they’ll eventually be granted a huge story and be catapulted to the highest levels of tv news. Or maybe they just hope to keep receiving invites to fancy white house parties.
Finally, while I don’t think the Brits have all THAT much wiggle room to lecture the US on Iraq, I am impressed to watch Paxman’s performance - you could see that he wanted to cut off Bolton and scream (or maybe it was just tv theatrics - I love how he holds his head in frustrated disbelief) but he didn’t cut Bolton off (too badly) and he let Bolton finish his thoughts, then responded thoughtfully and calmly. Would we get to see such respect on US tv? NO!!! Would Twit Carlson or Hannity or any of the other s&!theads handle themselves this way? NO!!! They’d be interrupting, yelling, sensationalizing, lying, and all the rest. Even the US ‘good guys’ like maybe a Bill Maher would interrupt, cut off, yell and basically shut down the voice of ‘the enemy’ - not as much as the others, but he still does it.
So just some observations, and another thank you to Glenn Greenwald.
Colleen you are exactly right. Until there is some accountability nothing will change. What’s happening is that people accept the status quo and begin to function accordingly, to either survive or thrive. The tipping point is long past and the empire is in decline. And the vast majority of Americans don’t even know it.
Hoa binh
It seems to be a cultural difference that caused the misunderstanding. In Britain, EVERYONE knows that the only way to stop confidential information from being published is to keep it out of the hands of journalists, and even to believe a journalist who asks a confidential question saying “this is strictly off the record, of course” is considered the height of naiveté, the political equivalent of buying beachfront property in Arizona.
Spin me some truth
Spin me some truth
I can’t look at the mirror no more.
Spin me something fair
Spin me something balanced
I can’t look at the mirror no more.
Sign me some spin
Dumb ee up our win
Spin up some fear
Clown code me safe
Clown code my home
(Does it take spine to win?)
Spin me some serum
And I’ll perform as long
As the rattler on the hood of America
takes us all for a spin
lets lock all that awe
in the memory hole of shock
Spin me some truth
I can’t look at the mirror no more.
My question is…So what?
In Power’s opinion, Hillary is a monster…so what? This is news? This is a firing offence?
Personally, I dont like Hillary, but would not go as far a “monster”..”scumbag”, maybe…but maybe I just dont know her well enough
Example of Tucker Carlson being interviews after saying that Canadians were “like America’s retarded cousin” - it is hillarious!:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=773
RE: - It’s extremely likely, though, that had Power been speaking to a typical reporter from the American establishment media, her request to keep her comments a secret would have been honored.
This may have been true during the Kennedy era when affairs were routinely covered up, but not now. There was a period when reporters were willing to report stories - but their stories were later killed by their editors. What happens now is that the reporter would usually be willing to report it unless doing so would hurt them professionally. Reporters who report unflattering details may not be granted further interviews or may be fired by their bosses.
When Reporters really wanted to get the story out, but the organization they worked for was unwilling to print such stories, they tended to leak the stories to their counterparts in Canada and the UK.
RE: - PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that’s decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.
She has a point - and I gather that “acquiescent” is a polite way of saying either “brown-nosing” or “rimming.”
It is a different situation in the UK because they have Prime Minister’s Questions (like Question Period in Canada). There is the Prime Minister with his Cabinet and the Leaders of the Opposition parties with their Shadow Cabinet. If the PM or his Ministers are not interested in talking to reporters, the Opposition is more than willing to do so. Secondly, while a PM may be able to avoid Reporter questions, they cannot avoid similar questions from the Opposition Leaders and their respective Shadow Cabinets.
RE: - the relationship between the press and the powerful
Note the use of the phrase “the powerful” - I doubt if Peev would use that term to describe politicians and their entourage. That said, Powers does not strike me as very media savy - nothing you say to a Reporter on duty is off record. If they want further information from you, they may try to keep your name secret, but that is as far as it goes.
RE: - The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary, and that spilled over in the interview.
Seems like the Editor figures the anger justified - or that Clinton had engaged in “tactics” which resulted in Power’s moment of indiscretion.
RE: - Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp.
Seems like the editor is hinting strongly that the person who allowed Powers to take the interview showed “inexperience.” I take that to mean that the editor figures that no one in charge of a political campaign should have allowed Powers to agree to an interview. The editor may have a point.
RE: - As for the “monster” thing being bad for Obama, I doubt it.
Agree with you - though it would have been very tempting, on Obama’s part, to have let the comment stand after Clinton jumped on the NAFTA-gate bandwagon. I don’t know enough about Obama to know whether he is taking the high road (for the good of the party) because he genuine believes in doing so or because he figures it makes him look good.
What strikes one wrong about the “Monster” comment is that it can be construed as a personal attack - which is considered hitting below the belt - rather than an attack on one’s opponent’s policies.
RE: - We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who stood up for what was right instead of what was politically expedient.
It is easier to see the best in past leaders because they become idealized through history. Even though what I know about this particular President seems to be good, I am not sure if I can say the same for the press. In fact, the American Press, as Tucker Carlson describes it, seems to have returned to an earlier time in American history.
Even in Europe this was the case. By his own admission, Prince Charles was not the first Royal to have a Mistress - but the press tended to be more discrete about covering these things back then.
The mainstrream press and American churches have failed America in a terrible way.
American capitalism rules supreme.
Tucker Carlson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson
“He is one of the sons of Richard Warner Carlson, a former banker, Los Angeles local news anchor, U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles, director of the U.S. Information Agency, and president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. His mother is the former Patricia Caroline Swanson. He has one sibling, Buckley Swanson Peck Carlson. Carlson’s maternal grandmother, Roberta Fulbright Swanson, was a sister of U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright.[1].
Carlson attended St. George’s School, a boarding school in Middletown, Rhode Island. After graduation, he majored in history at the private liberal arts Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he left before receiving a degree in 1992″
skip
“Carlson began his journalism career as a member of the editorial staff of Policy Review, a national conservative journal now published by the Hoover Institution. He later worked as a reporter at the regionally influential Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Carlson is currently host of the MSNBC program Tucker at 6 p.m. ET. Carlson joined MSNBC in February 2005 from CNN, where he was the youngest anchor in the history of that network. At CNN, he hosted a number of shows and specials, including the network’s political debate program, Crossfire. During the same period, Carlson also hosted a weekly public affairs program on PBS, Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered. As a magazine and newspaper journalist, Carlson has reported from around the world, most recently from Iraq and Lebanon. He has been a columnist for New York and Reader’s Digest. He currently writes for Esquire, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and The New York Times Magazine.”
Loose lips sink ships, in this case the Obama campaign, so best Power leave before she does any damage. However, I have no affiliation with the Obama campaign, so I can call Hillary Clinton a monster. Monster! Monster! Monster!
I have a feeling that journalism is far from alone operating in an “Off the record” world.
Carlson just had her on so he could repeat her statements “clinton is a monster, clinton is a monster, clinton will stoop to anything, clinton will stoop to anything…” OVER AND OVER AND OVER
To reaffirm the Clinton Camps assertions of Victimhood… and point the finger at Obama… [subtext: big mean black man attacking miss prissy, paragon of southern white womanhood] shameless… vile ploy.
All while Clinton goes on her Merry Way lying and slandering with every breath… creating whole new depths of Orwellian double speak as she goes.
Carlson is no journalist and this article is an intellectual exercise at best. A false ethical construct, juxtaposing ideas to prove a sophomoric thesis… trying to paint a Picasso on cardboard.
Reading the wiki article about Carlson. Carlson had a similar dispute with the Bush campaign. Carlson said that Bush had mocked a soon to be executed woman in Texas and swore like a sailor and he was called a liar by Karen Hughes.
(For me, when I saw the video of Bush mocking a woman who would be killed that told me a great deal about Bush’s character or lack of)
from wiki:
1999 Bush interview
“In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, Carlson interviewed Bush, then Governor of Texas, for Talk magazine. Carlson reported that Bush mocked soon-to-be-executed Texas death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker and “cursed like a sailor.” Bush’s communications director Karen Hughes publicly disputed this claim.
Asked by Salon about the response to his article on Bush, Carlson characterized it as “very, very hostile. The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that (on the campaign bus, Bush communications director) Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she’d heard — that I watched her hear — she in fact had never heard, and she’d never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I’ve obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. They get carried away, consultants do, in the heat of the campaign, they’re really invested in this. A lot of times they really like the candidate. That’s all conventional. But on some level, you think, there’s a hint of recognition that there is reality — even if they don’t recognize reality exists — there is an objective truth. With Karen you didn’t get that sense at all. A lot of people like her. A lot of people I know like her. I’m not one of them.”[8]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson
“People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece.”
Pissant and sycophant come to mind.
cranky_chatter is correct. Tucker is a spokesperson for immutable corporate/m.i.c.interests. He’s got more sacred cows in his herd than the largest ranch in Montana.
The corporatist media in the US are entirely absorbed into the ‘Vichy’ government.
Both parties and the MSM are part and parcel of this ‘Vichy’ facade behind which the corporatist Empire hides.
This is much more sophisticated than the single party ‘Vichy’ regime that the Nazi Empire hid behind —- with limited success (other than being recognized as the valid government of France by the US)!
If you have both parties and the media acting fully at the behest of the corporatist Empire —- my god man, Goebbels would turn over in his grave with envey.
“With that kind of a facade — you could really run a thousand year Reich.”
glenn greenwald thank you for the article…
especially the quote…
“The number one rule of the standard establishment journalist is to avoid offending the powerful because the more offense they give, the fewer favors the powerful will do for the journalists. Conversely, and by logical necessity, the more journalists please the powerful, the more favors the powerful will do for them”
thank god for Democracy Now…..
obama missed an opportunity, there was no need to dismiss powers. he should have said ms powers is entitled to her opinion, let’s get back to those tax returns, where are they? it’s pathetic that a person who actually has wisdom (prof, pulitzer prize) is disqualified for being candid (in context even!!! - monster b/c of campaign tactics). if anything it illustrates our puritanical heritage. i think the tabloid press in britian and the public in the UK is more honest about their feelings(listen to PM questions on c-span). isn’t this why talented US journalists like g palast set up shop in britian. the scotsman did the right thing, the response of americans (politicians/american MSM/the public’s ‘how dare she’) is telling. as if millions of americans aren’t repeating the same words (hillary is a monster) in the privacy of their parlors.
let’s just put what powers said in context?
define the terms. what is a monster? what is the behavior of a monster ? (total disregard for social mores - hence they’re scarry).
the clinton’s are exhibiting reckless (not subhuman actually very human) behavior in their campaign tactics (the context in which powers used the term monster) and the clintons are demonstrating reckless disregard for the constitution by manipulating language to subvert the intent of the constitution (specifically trying to recapture the white house as a team, clinton is subverting the intent of the 22nd amendment; also clintons recklessly defines terms, remember,i did not have sex with that woman). i would describe clintons behavior as reckless and scary thus i think the word monster applies. (human monsters, … check out the OED, there are many legitimate ways to define monsters).
obama missed the boat, he should have let powers stay in the campaign and let her explain exactly what she (powers) meant by her words (the redaction was not called for). her comments were not ’secret’ per se, rather they represented they views of millions in america.
may we continue to embrace the value of the first amendment…..
also, i would encourage people to listen to 2 interviews, first amy goodman’s interview with samantha powers.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/25/barack_obamas_senior_foreign_policy_adviser
then listen to amy’s own commentary about her interview w/ bill clinton. (the same moment hillary magically turned planning state dinners into experience to become a NY state senator.)
www.democracynow.org/2004/6/22/bill_clinton_loses_his_cool_in
take the pepsi challenge (it takes 20 minutes) and then tell me who you perceive is a monster. hillary is bill at this point. even MSM admits that…
…see you on the streets of denver………………
…….peace………………………………
Comm’on folks, get real. Peev’s making hay, doesn’t give a shit about who she’s interviewing. Powers has got to be really naive in trusting the discretion of any journalist. They’re in the business of indiscretion. And Hillary? She’s a street fighter. She’s tough. She’s smart and calculating - she’s only loosing at this point because she is also smug and arrogant. She has an ego as big as a house. She wants the presidency badly, and no one and nothing is going to get in her way in her effort to get it. HRC doesn’t give a damn about any political party. Loyalty - what was loyalty to Cesare Borgia? She’s not just a monster, she’s a demonic monster. Say it a few times, it’s fun. Heh, she’s a demonic monster.
Even if she had lost all four of those states, this sideshow would still be going on. How the Democrats anointed the woman is beyond me, but they’re paying for it with many sleepless nights, and may pay for it with the election as well. Four more painful years of that ghoulish, leprosy infected Republican Party bumbling and crashing down the road to despond.
There are no winners, just all us poor saps here in the good ol’ USofA. We’re up to our ears in an abyss beneath an abyss of shit in the eighth circle of Hell.
It has always been the case in journalism that a politician can shut you and your paper out. Every reporter has to deal with this relationship consisting of having to be nice to someone who wants you to just go away. If you piss the politician off too much then they shut you down. This makes your job as a reporter more difficult. The reporter, however, should not rely solely on the politician for the story. Most of these politicians are master game players. Half the time after interviews they are patting the little journalist on the head and once on the fanny as they usher them out of the doors of their governmental offices where the real shit continues to go down untalked about.
The only way to continue covering your “beat,” that is, have access to those in the know, is to make sure that what is and is not off the record is very clear. No duplicity. A place where the interviewee knows they could be digging their own grave. This is not some new idea being put out there by British journalists. Every American journalist knows this as well except perhaps Tucker Carlson and Tim Russert.
What in God’s name is Gerri Peev doing on a show with a pipsqueak like Tucker Carlson? Send him back to “Dancing With the Stars” where he belongs. He’s not a journalist; he’s an heirhead.
It is a crying shame that only 60% of the population supposedly do not trust the media. It should be at least 95%. Of course carlson is a buffon, and so is Russert. Who would actually WATCH any of these characters? That these clowns are on the air is enough of a demonstration of how terrible the U.S. press is; do not need comments from a clown like Carlson to indicate that. The woman who called Hillary is a monster is right, but she is rather stupid to do so if she did not want the remarks published. If this is the kind of fools Obama srrounds himself with, his much touted “change” will be even less than some people believe it will be. I have never believed that he will, or can do, do much but will have to support him because John McCain is probably the most dangerous man on the planet, is only marginally smarter than Bush, and will certainly be a McBush. If it is Hillary, my support will probably be to vote again for Pogo. At least he knew who the enemy was.
Carlson is a sneering representative of the top 1% who I will be happy to see do an honest day’s work(I hope it is during my lifetime).
RE: - Carlson just had her on so he could repeat her statements “clinton is a monster, clinton is a monster, clinton will stoop to anything, clinton will stoop to anything…” OVER AND OVER AND OVER
Probably.
Whether Tucker has ever been a journalist is besides the point, he was not employed as one in his last few shows.
RE: - and “cursed like a sailor.”
Was there ever footage of that? The only footage I’ve ever seen of Bush swearing was when he called that reporter “an asshole.” CBC not only showed it without bleeps but closed captioned so that the hard of hearing would not miss what he said.
I remember once when the then Health Minister was under the knife for Prostrate cancer that the CBC kept having experts on to tell us the side effects of that particular operation - which included impotence (note that this was after the release of the Linda McQuaig book “The Cult of Impotence.”
They don’t do this when American politicians go under the knife.
RE: - obama missed an opportunity, there was no need to dismiss powers. he should have said ms powers is entitled to her opinion, let’s get back to those tax returns, where are they?
Obama appears to be putting his party’s interests over his own by firing Powers. Though, seriously, Powers would have been fired even if she said it about McCain, if Obama was a man of integrity.
Secondly, Clinton appears to the public as even more of a (the M word) IF (and only if) Obama takes the high road. Contrast is important. Larry Flint looks even more debaucherous when compared to Mother Teresa than he does when compared to Hugh Hefner (sp?).
RE: - i think the tabloid press in britian and the public in the UK is more honest about their feelings(listen to PM questions on c-span). / the response of americans (politicians/american MSM/the public’s ‘how dare she’) is telling. as if millions of americans aren’t repeating the same words (hillary is a monster) in the privacy of their parlors.
That is not the way it is looked at there - they see it as Ms Powers humiliating herself by going overboard on the rhetoric. Ms Powers would have been better off describing what Clinton has been up to (in her opinion) and letting Clinton’s actions speak for themselves. Then again, if Ms Powers did this, she would probably be sued - if she could not back up these allegations - because they may damage Clinton’s reputation.
Isn’t Harper presently suing the Liberals for slander - oh yes, he is. They don’t seem to worried about it, though. In fact, being SLAPPED has made them even more cheeky.
Oh, I pulled a Powers - by comparing Clinton to Harper!
RE: - Peev’s making hay, doesn’t give a shit about who she’s interviewing. Powers has got to be really naive in trusting the discretion of any journalist.
Well yeah! Peev’s job is to report something that no one else has. This story is going to be going on for months and months so it gets harder to come up with a new angle or a new story. Seems that Peevs is covering the race - who else has Peev’s interviewed? Powers should have done a bit of research on Peev before showing up for that interview - and, possibly, even before agreeing to it.
Even when Jack Layton went on Lou Dobbs, Layton made sure that he knew something about what Dobb’s views were on various topics before hand. Layton found the one topic that Dobbs and the NDP agreed on and worded his responses carefully so that they were in keeping with both NDP policy and with Dobb’s own views. You could also tell that Lou Dobb’s knew next to nothing about Jack Layton - that when Jack spoke about toys and toothpaste from China that Jack was intentionally limiting his views to products from China and not extending these views to persons of Chinese descent. On the other hand, Jack knew, ahead of time, that as long as he said nothing that Dobbs disagreed with, Dobbs would let him keep talking.
We all know what Dobbs is, but when there is an SPP conference in New Orleans in April, having the opportunity to talk about NAFTA with someone else who opposes it is a good thing.
ive always envisioned him as a future talking head of big brother…..and im not talking about the tv show
The incestuous relationship between the rich and powerful and the press is well recognized though rarely acknowledged so blatantly. You pee in my pocket and I’ll pee in yours, is the main rule in the game.
So much for truth! But then how many humans can handle the truth, about themselves, about life?
Breaking News: Hillary/Barack wedding! see
www.dangerouscreation.com
Carlson and Russert are journalists? Since f**king when?
The ultimate problem is, of course, the fat-and-happiness side effect of Chronic Greedism.
Pay a “journalist” or “reporter” millions, he’ll lick any set of balls he’s ordered to.
Ya wannna return to Journalism and Reporting? Pay ‘em workin man’s wages with the opp for performance bonuses.
Performance meaning deepest truth digging, not an expose on what “a fantastic time” the Loonitary Decider has had during his illegal occupation of our White House.
This illustrates why so many Americans now get their information from the British.
Carlson, Russert et al are mere hosts to the powerful. Holding powerful people to account for their actions is definitely “off the table,” as Pelosi would say.
The BBC, Channel 4, The Guardian, The Independent all still practice journalism, rather than meek stenography. Keep it up, chaps - we need you more than ever.
I highly recommend watching BBC or Channel 4 news reports from occupied Palestine. Compare and contrast those to the AIPAC-filtered propaganda inflicted upon us by U.S. corporate media.
WJM
You said:
When I was in college in teh 70’s we had actual news. I’ve been watching as the idiot level has been steadily increased to the point where the press thinks that Brittany Spears is news, and that no one cares about Iraq, the wiretapping of Americans both before and after 9-11, or anything else that we NEED to know when making a decision at the ballot box.
I read yesterday that the government now wants to keep the new NIE on Iraq secret, apparently to avoid influencing the outcome of the elections in November! A few years ago, when goppers were running Congress, they actually announced they would delay the second part of the 911 Commission report dealing with how intelligence was used prior to September 11; because, it might affect the outcome of national elections (can’t remember if it was ‘02 or ‘04). Isn’t this exactly why we have regularly scheduled elections? Wouldn’t that have been a great time for the “liberal media” to repeatedly ask why the public shouldn’t be allowed to give their blessing to the professional way events were handled previous to and during the catastrophe? The Press let them get away with that. Maybe this flap with The Scotsman will shed a little (much needed) light on the role of the Press in a free society.
the powers quote from the scotsman..
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Obama-aide-quits-over-Scotsman.3857569.jp
“In Ohio, they are obsessed, and Hillary is going to town on it because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win,” Ms Power said, before the former first lady’s team victory in the state was announced.”She is a monster too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything.”
interesting, a guarded puritianical MSM in america doesn’t even allow the citizen to hear the entire comment in context. most of the american public didn’t even hear the original quote below…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton
“Power, who is in the UK promoting a book, told The Scotsman: “”We fucked up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything.”
did you cover your ears vaudree…
and then most americans’s weren’t able to put the comments (justified) in context.
(same source)
“Power also told The Scotsman there was an air of desperation about the Clinton campaign. “You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh’. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”
———————
vaudree March 8th, 2008 4:28 pm
1. “Obama appears to be putting his party’s interests over his own by firing Powers. Though, seriously, Powers would have been fired even if she said it about McCain, if Obama was a man of integrity.”
how prudish, he should have let powers call a spade a spade and let it stand. there was once a time in america (i’m not so sure about canadian newspapers..) when independent journals and newspapers were not afraid to stand up and state the obvious (in this case clintons’ campaign is a smear campaign). if you disagreed w/ the view, don’t read the journal or put the comments into context.
2. “…..Ms Powers humiliating herself by going overboard on the rhetoric”
hey vaudree thanks for framing what is acceptable discourse and limiting people’s expression (use of the word monster). how exactly would you characterize the clintons’ behavior?
3. “Ms Powers would have been better off describing what Clinton has been up to (in her opinion) and letting Clinton’s actions speak for themselves. Then again, if Ms Powers did this, she would probably be sued - if she could not back up these allegations - because they may damage Clinton’s reputation”
great idea, i would love to hear ms powers spend a week explaining in detail how the clintons are monsters to a british judge. i suggest she bring voluminous legal dictionaries with her and dossiers from the 1990’s onward to prove her points. exactly how much should the clintons claim in damages for being called monsters? and should american taxpayers sue the clintons for sullying US reputation when bill was president. hear! hear!
im convinced she would win her case, drawing even more attention to the clintons’ successful/failed (pending on perspective) political carriers.
——————————–
an english opinion of US political race from simon jenkins in this mornings london times..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3511885.ece
{”here it is simply incontrovertible that the election of Barack Obama would transform, indeed electrify, America’s image worldwide. Monochrome would become colour. A drone of antagonism would turn into a cry of pleasure. With the genes of an Irish-American and a Kenyan, and the nurture of Hawaii, Indonesia and Chicago, Obama has personal roots in four continents.”}
{”In choosing a president for a world half of which America seeks to evangelise, voters could hardly find a candidate better cast. He embodies a yearning expectation of a new contract and a new beginning.
Obama’s published prospectus must raise expectations, especially abroad, that no president could possibly meet, but it gives his candidature a substance that I had not expected from his platform performances. They offer not the remotest justification for Clinton implying that he is a security risk.
All this may cut no ice among the famously pragmatic American electorate. In election year, voters have domestic concerns and they see the outside world through the far end of the telescope. But they should bear in mind that they are electing not one president but two. When they go to the polls, they carry with them the eager proxies of half the world.”}
…see you on the streets of denver………..
…peace……………………..
Petition Clinton to disclose her tax returns. In the comment section suggest asking that she please also disclose her records as First Lady and her and her husband’s $500 million charity which also employed some of their key campaign staffers and received tens of millions in donations from their top campaign donors.
http://www.petitiononline.com/hcinctax/petition.html
Frank 1569 sez: “Carlson and Russert are journalists? Since f**king when?”
Since George W is a “president.”
The story is that Hillary Clinton is an unethical person. If you want to colloquialize that into “monster” I don’t have a problem with it except that it probably gives Clinton too much credit. She is basically weak, a person with no integrity or virtue. The monsters are actually the people around her she is failing to control or limit to ethical behavior.
I cannot think of another example of one Democrat attacking another in the manner Clinton has treated Obama. I suppose racism is partly to blame.
She should become a pariah and object of scorn for anyone who has any loyalty to the Democratic Party, and considered a scheming immoral beast to anyone who has any sense.
Ah, whos standards are lower?
It is really a hoot to see a puffed-up little dweeb like Tucker Carlson lecturing on journalistic ethics!
These people like Carlson, Russert, et al, who actually imagine themselves to be “journalists” are nothing more than parrots for the ruling class. There isn’t one of them fit to carry a microphone for Ed Murrow.
I F Stone had a great understanding of real reporting when he said “…always believe the government is lying until you have proof positive that they are telling the truth.”
Claud Cockburn’s “Never believe anything until it has been Officially Denied” is another good starting point.
The way Hillary has been praising McCain lately, I’ve begin to wonder if she isn’t trying to be his running mate in Nov.
One should not use the name “Tucker Carlson” and the word “journalist” in the same article. He’s a little twit that someone needs to bitch-slap.
The way to defeat the monopoly media is to create more interesting channels and sites on the internet.
RE: - did you cover your ears vaudree…
Covering my ears doesn’t stop me from snickering. That is one of the few words CBC Newsworld beeps - except during a documentary - nothing gets beeped during a documentary. I doubt it was the “F” word that got Powers fired since too many politicians use it. Pierre Elliott Trudeau said worse. Richard Cheney said worse. Brian Mulroney has said much much worse. And “fired” from what - she was an unpaid volunteer! I keep forgetting that.
In Politics, “Monster” trumps “fucked up” - so does “Ergh” and “unattractive.”
I can’t believe that she was that stupid, though!
CTV, which aired The Osbornes completely unbleeped, excluded any reference to the F-word - but the CBC mentions it in passing:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/07/power-obama.html
Kathleen Petty interview where she pressured David Wilkins into admitting that NAFTA-gate amounted to “interference” on Canada’s part. Wilkins is an old friend of Bush’s and doesn’t seem very upset about this at all - which is strange behaviour on his part (beginning):
http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/audio.html
RE: - how prudish, he should have let powers call a spade a spade and let it stand.
They are of the from the party - and whoever wins, the other is expected to fall in line and pretend to be happy about it. Whoever wins faces McCain - and it makes winning more difficult with a party divided.
I said “appear” to be putting the interest of the party first - the most effective attacks on Obama’s part are attacks that draw blood but don’t actually appear to be attacks at all. Obama is very good at those. Hillary Clinton has many scams of her own bag of tricks (ie treating any criticism of herself as a witchhunt/Kenneth Starr) but engaging in character assassination while appearing above the fray is not one of them.
RE: - hey vaudree thanks for framing what is acceptable discourse and limiting people’s expression (use of the word monster). how exactly would you characterize the clintons’ behavior?
I think that Hillary Clinton has been less than honest in her tactics - she has a tendency to put out automatic calls the day before a vote which accuses her opponents of really bad things - which is very dirty. By the time Edwards (and, probably, Obama) find out about them, it is too late to get the real information out. Clinton had nothing to do with NAFTA-gate - but her instinct was to capitalize on it before (or instead of) finding out the truth.
What we are talking about is the use of colourful rhetoric - and the tradition in Parliamentary politics where such language is a sign that one has temporarily lost one’s ability to argue rationally - example (which gets replayed every time the topic comes up):
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
Mr. Stinson: I hear the word “racist” from that side. Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch? Come on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hopkins): Order.
Mr. Stinson: I will not have some s.o.b. sit here and call me a racist.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order please. Hon. members know that sometimes tempers flare in debate but I think if the hon. member would continue to engage in verbal sparring rather than the other sort we would all be better off. I think that is true throughout the House.
I invite the hon. member if he wishes to resume his remarks to do so. If he feels it is not a good time for that obviously he can allow another member to speak. If he has a problem that he wishes to raise he can do it through the Chair. I invite him to address his remarks through the Chair, indeed all hon. members to address their remarks through the Chair rather than directly.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=35&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
RE: -
RE: -
Most talented U.S. journalism school grads go into public relations because it pays much better. This leaves all the ass-kissing little chicken shits to be news reporters.
People like Carlson may not qualify as journalists/reporters — think of them as outsourced communications or PR directors. It’s little different with the plethora of “thinktanks”. If some corporation, billionaire, etc. wants to make a statement to sway public opinion or slip it into the media (American Public Media adores Kato, Brookings, etc.), a “thinktank” is one way to do it, to make it sourceless, nameless, little shits of platitudes.
Carlson is a one-man “thinktank.”
Tucker Carlson is Karl Roves B#tt-boy and he knows it. All that “confidential conversation” is him being told what to say, how to say it, and how many times. If that little twit ever had an original thought it died for lack of another neuron to jump to after it was created. That pretty much goes for the entire staff of the major networks all around.
Empty suits, puppets all around. Anyone who thinks they are free in the US is seriously deluded.
richsmith2___You wonder—How did the Democrats manage to anoint Hillary?? It was not the Dems as much as it was the Neocon media who had to keep insisting HRC and Obama were the two front-runners and would not give any coverage to any of the others. The Dems would have accepted John Edwards but he could not get any traction as well as several others.
Regardless of how rotten our whole system of choosing our leaders is, it is all we have and it is of litttle value to see who can come up with the worst insults to someone. I was hoping Edwards would make it, but since he did not there is no value in throwing a tantrum and losing sight of the real problem, which is how to get rid of the criminals that wrecked the country.
As some of you have apparently not noticed, the Repubs are closing ranks and getting behind their candidate, even though he was not a particular favorite. We have two candidates and need to get one or the other elected, but no, we would rather just throw s**t at ours and talk about our high principles.
Don’t it make you wonder how serious a news channel is msnbc that would give a dumbass like carlson a full hour interview show. Gives you an idea what they think of us
vaudree
“RE: - and “cursed like a sailor.”
Was there ever footage of that? The only footage I’ve ever seen of Bush swearing was when he called that reporter “an asshole.”
this is the only video I’ve seen indicating what Bush is like with cursing…
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/youtube/bushfingerflip.htm
and I was unable to find the video I saw on tv of Bush mocking the pleas of Karla Faye Tucker not to be put to death by the state of Texas.
Buckycat– ” It’s another to have people call themselves journalists when they never even attended a bad J. school.”
I dont know about that. Some of the best reporting of local issues pertinent to that particular locality ive seen is the the Street rag in my city. Its written by a homeless guy who actually speaks truth to power unabashedly !! It may not qualify for ‘high journalistic standards’ whatever the fuck that means) but its readable, lucid, snarky and gets the friggin point across. Trust me .. these guys didnt go to no ‘J’ school !!
Doomed to repeat:
“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes”
–John Swinton, The remarks were apparently made by Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, probably one night in 1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying the above.
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance
in the major media.”
— William Colby, former CIA Director
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from
behind the scenes.”
–Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court Justice, 1952
And the CIA is one of their main tools–the tools and vassals of rich men even further behind the scenes. They are some of the jumping jacks, their strings are pulled and they dance like the journalists, and the rest of us who think we are enjoy liberty. We have been occupied for a long time but the guns and torture have been kept largely out of sight. Most people will keep quiet if they believe their job is threatened.
Walleye:
I remember the witholding of the 9-11 commission as well, and I thought that it was the biggest screwing of the public I’d ever seen. That was EXACTLY what the press SHOULD have been reporting on. How are the citizens of this country supposed to know who or what to vote for if the information is witheld? How is it that the truth is too political?
The thing is that if those in charge weren’t doing the right thing, or acted in a manner that did not pass the reality test, then they SHOULD be voted out. That is what we are supposed to do.
The real thing here is that those in charge of the media have ruined it as a means of spreading anything but misinformation. And that was exactly what they have been wanting to do, and why they pushed for the “media consolidation” that Clinton passed. They have hated the press for doing their jobs, and set out to destroy them just like they hated the middle class and set out to destroy it. Unfortunately, they have done their jobs well.
The very fact that people actually believe there IS a “liberal media” in this country is proof of the brainwashing they have done. I know people who do believe that the media here is liberal. They wouldn’t know liberal if it bit them in the butt. But the lie has been spread, and this country is in serious, serious trouble. Without a free press, there is no freedom. And for the MSM to be in the hands of six corporations is just plain wrong.
RE: - this is the only video I’ve seen indicating what Bush is like with cursing…
Colleen, Bush may call that the victory salute but we here in Canada call it the Trudeau finger. Haven’t thought much about Bush since he was rude to Joyce Milgaard when she went down to Texas to speak on behalf of a condemned Canadian. Joyce Milgaard’s son spent 22 years in jail for a murder he did not commit so she should have been treated with a bit of respect.
The exact phrase, as quoted by the CBC is Bush not realizing that the mike was on and saying: “There’s Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times.”
Heard that your Congress is not too happy about the Airbus deal. If CD does manage to have an article with “Airbus” in the title, you will probably find out whose Canadian that hangs around here. Let’s just say that “schmiergelder” is a word that proved very useful when talking about past Airbus deals because of it’s multiple meanings: “slush fund”, “bribe money”, “bribes”, “bungs”, and “kickbacks”
RE: - Petition Clinton to disclose her tax returns.
Seems like Clinton and Mulroney have something in common. Joe Co says it best (only quoted a small portion):
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): We saw the same thing here. Excellent work, as I saw it, by the ethics committee, as far as it could go. But we saw with Mr. Mulroney his refusal to give documentation to back up what was a fairly incredible story. However, the one that really got me was when he claimed that his income tax returns were sacred.
My relationship with my wife is sacred. My relationship with my children is sacred. I want to be very clear to this House that my relationship with my accountant and the Revenue Canada office is not sacred, and neither should Mr. Mulroney’s be.
Mulroney was Prime Minister when Ronald Reagan and Papa Bush were Presidents (Friday, February 29, 2008). Will sign.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
RE: - Marriage of Obama and Clinton
If Sheila Copps could have John Crosbie write a forward to her book then anything is possible. Crosbie was very rude to Copps a few times when they were in the House together and he was forced to apologise to her more than once.
Daniel David March 8th, 2008 1:03 pm
“I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we get our liberal segment of the press (if there is one) to follow McCain around for the next eight months and print–with bleeps if necessary, every cuss word he utters either “on” or “off” the record.
When all the real evangelicals in America hear it again and again and every day, Hillary or Barack either one will be elected.”
And just why should they only follow McCain around? Why not Clinton and Obama too?
Your overt bias is showing again DD
Lobo Gris
Lobo, the FCC would never allow that. And you do know the reason why not.
vaudree March 9th, 2008 3:37 am
monster does not trump fucked up in the USA, trust me on that one….
the US people need to deal w/ ms powers brutish critique of the ohio primary. ms powers should have been given the opportunity to defend herself. just listen to her interview w/ amy goodman over at d now.
also, thank you for conceding the point that the euro/global consensus sees obama as a preferable candidate.
to remind posters it isn’t just brits who are excited about the prospects of an obama campaign, the europeans also look forward to an obama presidency..
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0306gs.html
“Let us understand why, from the European perspective, Obama is good. First, he belongs to a minority. Europeans love minorities—when they live in the U.S. We tend not to like our own minorities, whom we willingly discriminate against on the basis of skin color or religion. Black Americans, however, are popular in Western Europe, since they play good music and revolt against the white establishment. For European leftists, whites in the U.S. are inclined to be Christian, racist, and imperialist. Whites started the war in Iraq. A white U.S. soldier is an imperialist; a black soldier is a victim, fighting in the army only because he is poor.
Not only is Obama black; he is also a pacifist, or nearly so, certainly when compared with the other presidential candidates. A pacifist U.S. leader becomes more than likable; he becomes “one of us.” Opposed to the war in Iraq and uninterested in confronting Iran, Obama is almost an honorary European, more civilized than the white, imperialist, trigger-happy Republicans.”
samantha powers comments were trivial…..see you in denver…..
…peace……………………………….
The 2003 documentary “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” (available as a Google video) explains the American media completely.
Sen. Obama is forging a new path. He is courageously and necessarily (that fierece urgency of now) trying to implement a more ethical and cooperative way to run for a Presidency or any American office with truth and a concentration on the issues and to point out political differences without the negative way of destroying an opponent for one’s political gain. There is no experience for that, as it is a new path and trend.
He is also trying to implement a new way to Govern through a self-sustaining People’s Colliation, taking the power out of special interest groups, corporations, and those with great wealth and returning the power back to the People where it belongs in a true democracy. There is no experience for this — it is a new way. Some things call for a different energy than experience in breaking down old barriers that do not work for the good of all. It is a hard and difficult task to break down these old special-interest barriers. He is fighting against a very determined force for that not to happen — that is why Hillary Clinton often aligns and compares herself with McCain, the Past, the Old and the Status Quo — Barack represents the Future, the New (newer values) and and Progressive.
In essence, America is only as good and strong (a strength forged from goodwill, integrity, a freedom from fear and want) as her politicians and leaders!
Tucker ‘TV Dinner’ Swanson McNear Carlson is not even a misbegotten American journalist’s idea of a journalist — it’s laughable. He’s as much of a slab of tasteless media turkey as any of his relatives have ever slapped on an aluminum tray and called a meal, and yet he’s arrogant enough, in that smart-ass college frat boy style he embodies, to criticize a reporter for not sufficiently bending at the knee to the high and mighty — that’s horrendous and gives an entirely new meaning to the term ‘court reporter.’
I was just reading at Media Matters of the US Big Media love affair with the current Republican candidate for president — they all seem to be fighting to see how far to the bottom of the tank they can sink for their straight-talking war hero, as this wincing exchange between NBC’s Chris Matthews and Brian Williams when Junior endorsed McCain last week elucidates:
WILLIAMS: “You know what I thought was unsaid — they took their position, Chris, we’re seeing the replay — they end up in this spot and the sun is coming is just from the side and there in the shadow is John McCain’s buckled, concave shoulder. It’s a part of his body the suit doesn’t fill out because of his war injuries. Again you wouldn’t spot it unless you knew to look for it. He doesn’t give the same full chested profile as the president standing next to him. Talk about a warrior…”
MATTHEWS: “You know, when he was a prisoner all those years, as you know, in isolation from his fellows, I do believe, uhm, and Machiavelli had this right — it’s not sentimental, it’s factual — the more you give to something, the more you become committed to it. That’s true of marriage and children and everything we’ve committed to in our lives. He committed to his country over there. He made an investment in America, alone in that cell, when he was being tortured and afraid of being put to death at any moment — and turning down a chance to come home.
“Those are non-political facts which I think do work for him. When it gets close this November, which I do believe, and you likely agree, will be a very close contest between him and whoever wins the Democratic fight. And I think people will look at that fact, that here’s a man who has invested deeply, and physically and personally in his country.”
WILLIAMS: “Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more. Of course the son of a Navy Admiral, a product of Annapolis who couldn’t wait to become a Navy aviator…”
( http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070011?f=h_top )
“Talk about a warrior…” and “here’s a man who has invested deeply, and physically and personally in his country.” Were they covering a Veterans’ Day Parade or a press conference? Why bother with an election in November; why not just coronate King John the War Hero right now?
Oh, right, those pesky polls that show the serfs still have their reservations about Lord Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran, with Barack Obama beating him by 12 points — why don’t these disagreeable Little People just shut up and listen to their betters in the Royal Establishment Press Corps, emptying the imperial chamberpot on their heads and calling it manna from heaven?
WJM (March 8th, 2008 12:21 pm), just to amend your comment slightly — it was not only Clinton’s onerous Telecommunications Act that brought us to this state, but also the end of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s. Williams and Tweety Bird might have been more circumspect in their comments if they had to consider they might be violating the law and incurring a fine.
Colleen (March 8th, 2008 12:47 pm), I watch the BBC News on a local public access channel, as well as the excellent Democracy Now — both shows include important stories that our US National Media either barely covers or buries completely. The difference is incredible and leaves no wonder why many Americans, whose understanding of current events comes solely from the styrofoam filler called ‘news’ dispensed by the three major US networks, appear so ignorant to the rest of the world, and that ignorance is killing us, both literally and economically. BTW, Colleen, thanks for the posting on Bush and Karla Faye Tucker (March 8th, 2008 2:47 pm) — even after that interview and exchange with Hughes, Carlson supported Bush in 2000, which shows you something about his character.
Buckycat (March 8th, 2008 1:37 pm), your words ring true: I was also once a small part of ‘American journalism’ in my misspent youth three decades ago. Even with my two-bit degree from a no-name school, I had better journalistic ethics imparted to me than the Pampered Pet Puppies I see on my TV screen every day purporting to inform the audience of the truth of the day’s events in Washington or on Wall Street. I learned back then that the way to get ahead in broadcasting was to dress well, get a good haircut, empty your head, and buy a pair of sturdy kneepads. It disgusted me so much I found another trade, and the situation has only gotten worse since then. It has often occurred to me that that the problem the Big Media had with Clinton and Lewinsky wasn’t with the morality of the situation — our media can hardly be said to be moral in any honest sense of the term — but rather livid jealously at her unprecedented access to the president. It’s also no doubt the reason the Press Corps were so angry at kindred spirit Jeff Gannon — why weren’t they being asked to visit the White House after hours — not attractive enough?
Frank1569 (March 8th, 2008 5:46 pm), giant floating-head Russert and Chris Matthews were paid off to become conservatives by GE chairman Jack Welch years ago. Welch has joked about making them heel for a big paycheck — these two give prostitution a bad name.
One final note on the US media — I am reminded of an anecdote I read wherein Robert Redford, when he was doing research for the film “The Candidate,” rode the bus with the reporters covering Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign in 1972. The reporters knew all about Nixon’s dirty tricks, slush funds, and his ‘Plumbers,’ but told Redford they could never get such information in their papers — their editors and publishers would block it — and that Nixon would never be held accountable. To use a modern phrase, if CREEP ever got caught, they’d simply throw some low-level flunkies ‘under the bus’ to protect Nixon and his top staff. I’m glad to say they were wrong, but I have no doubt that, today, Nixon would have gotten away with it free and clear.
What we have in the American media is a million distractions devised to give the illusion of diversity of opinions in order to hide the reality of a uniformity of thought.
And the public has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Professor Chomsky and professor Edward Herman have been writing about this for years, and have been largely ignored by the false press they reveal.
In the book “Manufracturing Consent” they point out many instances and go into detail about how stories are filtered and lay out what they named the “propaganda model”.
This is an excerpt from the book:
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda”.
If you have never read the book I recommend it. Here is a link to the book online:
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html
Yet ANOTHER reason why capitalism and its craven legions of fake reporters fuck up everything they touch—See the Reagan-era book “On Bended Knee,” which documents the shift after Nixon in White House approaches to the press. “Give them something to talk about or they’ll do their own investigating”—and now the contemporary media have become so dependent on receiving their stock in trade from the powerful, and have so little conception of their own “profession,” so little aggressive and creative backbone, that they’d rather betray the truth than jeopardize their access to the White House Press Room. EVEN IF WHAT THEY RECEIVE IS CLEARLY LIES—for one example in 10,000, WMD in Iraq. And the consequences? The ruins and bodies all around us….Sucker Carlson! How the fuck did he ever get out of college?
Carlson is a little yes-sir repug twirp. One of these days I would love to see any press conference, whether it’s with Perino or any other of the liars, and the entire group of “reporters” stands up and says - “This is bullshit, we’re outa here.” And they all leave. All except the fox news reporters, of course.
RE: - monster does not trump fucked up in the USA, trust me on that one….
Ok, Powers f - er - messed up - but she didn’t call Clinton an “f—ing monster” - which, is a less polite use of the f-word. The use of the f-word may be considered vulger, but in Europe and Canada, they are more concerned with inappropriate words used in anger or which are racist or sexist in nature than in what can be construed as polite-but-vulger unguarded speech. Can you imaging a candidate running on behalf of Stephen Harper or Gordon Brown using the word “Islamofascist” in the context that it has been used in the Repug race without having to resign their candidacy!
RE: - The few European pundits who have closely examined Obama’s platform know that he advocates what sounds like protectionism.
The US engages in protectionism now even under NAFTA. They SLAP us silly making phony claims and then another and then another and in the mean time they are collecting illegal duties at the border and Canadian businesses go under. Free Trade puts all the cards in the hands of big business and the American electoral system puts it all in the hands of lobbyists. It was so sweet the deal Harper made with the Americans involving Softwood Lumber on us being on the eve of the Americans exhausting their last slap and us winning. Free Trade is very protectionist in nature.
Fair Trade is not just about putting rules into trade agreements which protect the environment and workers rights, but both sides playing by the same rules - making it totally different from NAFTA.
And, Iowablackbird, it is not just Europeans who want Obama - he seems to be the favourite in the Middle East and Africa as well. It should be noted that Aljazeera recruits journalists from the BBC. What Aljazeera has to say about the “monster” comment - and they seem to feel that Powers gave two separate embarrassing interview - the latter which Clinton used to her advantage:
Obama adviser quits over remarks
Samantha Power is a Harvard University professor who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for her book, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. …
Clinton said Power’s comment on Iraq was reminiscent of Obama’s senior economic adviser telling Canadian officials privately that Obama’s criticism of the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico was “political positioning”.
The description appeared in a Canadian government memo.
Clinton said the two instances suggest Obama “keeps telling people one thing, while his campaign tells people abroad something else. I’m not sure what the American people should believe”.
But Clinton’s campaign too has faced some awkward moments over reports in Canada said an official in her campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about Nafta were for political show.
The Canadian government and Clinton’s campaign has denied the reports.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6EF2F078-F6DF-4E80-8EEB-84DE62E7A927.htm
RE: - The reporters knew all about Nixon’s dirty tricks, slush funds, and his ‘Plumbers,’ but told Redford they could never get such information in their papers — their editors and publishers would block it — and that Nixon would never be held accountable.
How much of that is still going on? The thing about traveling with Nixon reporting on his every move during a campaign is that if there is a leak to the foreign press there is a limited amount of people who it could come from. Those reporters who travel with the candidate tend not to report exclusives - all of them being there and getting policy announcements at the same time. The last journalist traveling with a politician to get an exclusive was Michele Landsberg - and that is only because Stephen Lewis (Naomi Klein’s father-in-law) proposed to her.
I am holding onto Pat Martin’s comments of corruption for a later thread - had to leave you with something positive.
I suspect Power knew the ground rules in Great Britain for interviews by media. And if the norm is that on/off the record is established prior to interview, then there was no foul committed in reporting her comments. I certainly appreciate the truthfulness of her remarks, even if they aren’t politically correct by American press standards. This article further cements my belief that the American news is not accurate, nor is it exhaustive in its coverage. It seems that nuance and spin characterizes more than just political spokespersons. The news is also clearly designed, by the choice of words, the music intros, the video background, etc., to elicit a response from its viewers. I perceive the effort to influence how the audience “interprets” the narrative.
Our media has been controlled for decades. Look into Operation Mockingbird. In the 70’s, former CIA Director Colby in congressional investigations was quoted as saying the CIA controlled anyone in the media worth controlling. Of course, today the media is so concentrated, the level of control is of an order of magnitude greater. I find most important stories on sensitive subjects get broken in the UK, Downing Street Memos, Sibel Edmonds, etc.
The British play a dominant role in our elites membership, so thye know whats up. In fact, British troops are being trained in Kansas on controlling American citizens in an emergency, and agreement has been reached with a British Commonwealth Member- Canada, to send troops in the event of an emergency in the US (welcome to the commonwealth, no wonder the queen knighted Sir Bubbles Greenspan for his role in bringing down our economy)
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/mar/07/brits_overrun_town_training_exercise/
The Nixon coup was staged by the power elite. The press was given the green light to go after them, and so they did, otherwise we would never have heard about Watergate except as a minor break in. Woodward was a former Naval Intelligence Officer and briefed Alexander Haig daily when he was Nixons Deputy Assistant in National Security Affairs, so it is no surprise he was “Deep Throats” contact (thats why he was trusted enough by Bush to get access to write 3 books on his administration, access no other writer has been given). So while we may look at Watergate as an era when we had a free press, in fact, they were just bringing down a President who displeased his elite masters, in a different and less violent way than JFK was brought down.
Vaudree, you’re right — NAFTA and the other ‘free trade’ aggreements are a ruse to increase the profits of multi-national corporations at the expense of national sovereignty and the freedom and choice of the individual worker — they are essentially Marxism for the wealthy.
As to “How much of that is still going on?” I’d say it’s only gotten worse — much worse. The last real muckraker, as far as I know, was Jack Anderson and he’s been dead for years. Anderson was a protege of Drew Pearson, and there isn’t anyone of Pearson’s stature in the US media today, either. And neither one of them could hold a candle to the great journalistic iconoclasts I.F. Stone and George Seldes. Matt Drudge and his miserable compadres are merely gossip columnists who tend to lean right, and they never challenge the powers-that-be the way Anderson and Pearson did.
Rick, thanks for that quote and the link to “Manufacturing Consent.” It should be mandatory reading in US high schools today.
Everything is off the record in Americo!
Tuck is an wimpy media prostitute.
They are all bought and paid for.
Lock stock and Barrel of Monkeys.
Free Press my ass.
It is at it’s lowest moment.
How low will they go?
Only the Devil knows.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/report-msnbc-to-cancel-t_n_90648.html
Report: MSNBC to cancel Tucker Carlson. I guess he shouldn’t have admitted what we all knew. They report what they are told to report. No independent thinking, or reporting allowed.
I don’t think Ms Powers should have retracted one word. If she, in her heart feels that Hillary is a Monster, then so be it. This is the Freedom that SOLDIERS DIE IN IRAQ FOR.
Her observations of Mrs. Clinton’s behavior lead her to express her Constitutional right to express her Opinion. If Hillary is offended, or anyone else for that matter, Get over it.
These hired guns for the Corporate Media are like little sissies running to tell, “I got Ya”.
Look at the blatant Lies that Cheney and Bush and the Media told the American People and the Congress to get us in this mess in IRAQ in the first place.
Now look at what she is attempting to do. Suggesting that Obama and She run on a joint ticket. In my Opinion Mr. Obama will be a Fraud if he aligned himself with Hillary Clinton.
It is perfectly clear to me that Hillary Clinton is for the STATUS QUO ESTABLISHMENT. You will see no Fresh New Ideas if she wins the Democratic nomination. She would have halted the will of the People to rid ourselves of this OLD TIRED LYING DECEPTIVE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL BIASED MEDIA FEAR SLANGING BUSH/CHENEY/McCAIN/CORPORATE OWNED ISREAL AT ANY COST SUPPORTING WAR MONGERING NEOCON IDEA that”s currupting Nations Worldwide.
Funny you say that ~BUCKOO~. You see, if you would actually take the time to carefully check Hillary’s senate votes and Obama’s senate votes, __ since the time he has been a US senator,__ you would discover that on twelve of the MOST IMPORTANT votes they cast, those concerning Bush appointmets to important positions and issues concerning the Mid-East region, including Iran and Iraq, Hillary has voted progressively EIGHT times and Obama FOUR times. McCain only once.
So based upon their actual votes, Obama trails Hillary two to one, when it comes to who’s the hawk. That’s not MY opinion, that’s how THEY both voted and that’s their set in bronze record. ___ Check it out.
It is not that the wealthy and elite will not talk to the US journalist that bothers them. It is being excluded from the power circle. When does a powerful political hack say anything that is not scripted and therefore useless?
Good reporting could exist of interviewing middle and small fry political people and fact checking that can expose the liars like Bu$h the inferior and Shotgun Dick.
Carlson is a dufus. He is almost as bad as Kristol. Both of them are stooges and mouthpieces for the right wing loonies.
vaudree March 9th, 2008 3:03 am
“Lobo, the FCC would never allow that. And you do know the reason why not”
My point wasn’t to actually advocate that but to point out the lopsided bias of DD
Lobo Gris
I think that Samantha Powers is a monster. I bought her book about genocide, and it was basically a bunch of lies meant to justify US aggression in other countries, especially Yugoslavia. The US bombed Yugoslavia with depleted uranium weapons, it targeted bridges, schools, hospitals and the media.
I saw Samantha Powers on Democracy Now with Jeremy Scahill, and she continues to push her lies, years after they have been disproved. She blew off Jer