Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe year of my birth - 1971 - the New York Times successfully challenged the government's "prior restraint" attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
In his concurring Supreme Court opinion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Thirty-seven years later, as millions of news consumers commemorate Memorial Day by remembering the war dead, it's also a good time to reflect on the casualty of war news coverage, idolatrous worship at the altar of righteous violence aside.
As noted by Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) (http://www.journalism.org/node/10365), the day Congress voted to fund the continued occupation of Iraq without troop withdrawal timetables (May 24, 2007), it marked "a turning point in media coverage of the third-longest war in U.S. history."
From January 2007 - when Bush announced the "surge" - through May 2007, Iraq garnered more media attention than any other single news item, accounting for 20% of all news coverage, as measured by PEJ's News Coverage Index (http://journalism.org/node/10345).
But, since Congress voted to fund the war in May 2007 - through the 5th anniversary of the invasion this spring - Iraq coverage plummeted by about 50%.
"In that period, the media paid more than twice as much attention to the presidential campaign than the war," Jurkowitz notes.
To the extent "the surge" tamped down violence (which is deceptive when you're talking about guerilla warfare because guerrillas lay-low when a superior military force surges), some might wonder why there haven't been more stories about life in Iraq, outside the general vicinity of the Green Zone.
Part of the answer is found in another recent PEJ survey (http://www.journalism.org/node/8621) of the 111 journalists who worked in Iraq in 2007. The survey tells us that "basic security concerns limited the scope of their reporting."
More than half (57%) reported having colleagues in Iraq murdered or kidnapped in the previous year. And 87% said that at least half of Baghdad itself was too dangerous for a Western journalist to operate. "Unable to venture far, journalists identified the lives of Iraqi civilians and that country's economic and political situation as among the most under covered stories of the war."
Those results jibe with a Poynter Institute survey (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1512), released last week, about how news consumers rate Iraq news coverage. Of the 8,683 adults surveyed earlier this month, while 75 percent said they were "well-informed," the majority indicated they were far from happy with the coverage - 80% rated Iraq news coverage as "fair" or "poor."
The survey, funded by the McCormick Foundation, also asked respondents what types of stories they'd like to see more. At the top of the wish-list (68 percent of those surveyed): "information about the Iraqi government" and "stories about the Iraqi people."
Now, connect the survey dots. Like Family Feud host Richard Dawson used to say, survey says (ding!): News consumers want more stories about life in Iraq that reporters in Iraq say is too dangerous to produce.
Again, that's only part of the reason why the public isn't getting the war coverage they want. The back story is that financially-struggling news organizations are shuttering foreign news bureaus faster than homes are being foreclosed.
Or, as Jurkowitz punctuates it, "in an environment in which newsroom cutbacks and decreasing resources may make it more difficult for news outlets to stay atop two ongoing mega-stories, the media, for now, have made their priorities clear."
There's a lesson here for all of us. Reporters in Iraq can't even cover half of Baghdad without risk of being killed or kidnapped (probably because, like ordinary citizens, they don't get to walk around the streets of Sadr City surrounded by an elite military battalion to fend off Madhi Army insurgents). What does that tell you about "the success of the surge?"
And, assuming news industry string-pullers actually want to save their financial necks, there's a lesson for big media owners too - the same lesson Rummy never seemed to get. More boots on the ground. As if the danger of covering Iraq weren't enough, news demand calls for more foreign bureaus; not less, which challenges the wisdom of an industry buzzword - "hyperlocal."
It's been said that the first casualty of war is truth. The last casualty may be war news coverage itself - something Justice Black would undoubtedly see as the dereliction of press duty "to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Sean Gonsalves is a news editor and columnist with the Cape Cod Times. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com
42 Comments so far
Show All(1.) . Is the media is any way shape or form LIBERAL ? NOPE
You missed the point of liberal writers and reporters, not media. Most of the reporters and writers are liberal and reflect that viewpoint.
As far as the government or banking I said nothing about them being liberal. I just meant that I don't see the vast Jewish conspiracy suggested above.
As far as the military and the Pentagon go, I think you would find that Cheney and his thugs are in charge of this, not our military.
I'd assure you that if our generals had their way we would not have gone within 1,000 miles of Iraq. This is strictly a neocon operation from Pearlman, Wolfie. Cheney, Rumsfield, etc.
Sorry I didn't make it clearer.
"Bush, Cheney and their Fascist NeoCons Gang are destroying our U.S. Constitution, and our Freedoms."
This scum qwill soon be gone and hopefully Congress will be looking into what happened.
"They are evil criminal thugs…….what are we going to do about this disasterous situation we are now facing ????????????"
We are going to have to fix the disaster these traitors left. Won't be easy.
The real news is that Iraq is too dangerous to cover for reporters. Perhaps that fact should be reported daily to counter the "surge is working" party line.
There are similarities between US and Burma (Myanmar): It is run by military thugs, who ignore internal emergencies (Katrina) and block outside news from circulating in-country.
.
Every totalarian government has shut down the Free Press.
America is the 200 years of ideals, civil rights,and the freedoms of information, thought, and expression.
When our Freedoms are muzzled and restrains by a lying fascist regime, it is the beginning of the end of America.
Bush, Cheney and their Fascist NeoCons Gang are destroying our U.S. Constitution, and our Freedoms.
They are evil criminal thugs.......what are we going to do about this disasterous situation we are now facing ????????????
.
Various blowhards obviating ignorantly about alleged Jewish domination of the media (which, btw, is a modern take on the spurious "Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion") are missing a much more salient and true point. The domination of mass media outlets by a small group of corporations who are in business to make money has largely destroyed the concept of objective journalism and instead have "given" the American public a redux of the Hearst (btw, Hearst was a noxious anti-semite) newspapers in electronic form. It should also be stated that each of the men pointed as jewish news heads all report to higher ups such as Sumner Redstone and Rupert Murdoch, among others. Redstone and Murdoch are not jewish in the least, but christians.
It should also be said that when discussions go off topic and into a mirror image of right wing loony tune anti-semitic ranting, our enemies chuckle as they once again managed to go with the tired old jewish scapegoat ploy that has distracted from the subject at hand.
Marek - I noticed you omitted the head of CNN. Was that because his ethnicity did not go along with your thesis?
As the Phoenix lander digs the sands of Mars 71 Million Klicks away, here on Earth the rules are made by adherents to ancient mystical cults invented around the campfire by men who thought the world was flat.
Dual citizenship is a terrible idea and excluded if you take the oath of citizenship.
Jews control the media, banking, influnce the government.....sounds famaliar. Couldn't you say the same about liberal writers and reporters?
Completely off the mark, but since this is memorial day, I'd like to ask you all to say a prayer for Casey representing the soldiers lost and wounded in this worthless occupation, all the brothers we left behind in Viet Nam, My father representing the WW2 and Korean vets and all those others that served and gave their lives over our countries history. This is not ploitical, has nothing to do with right or wrong, its just personal recognition of the lost.
Those of you that don't believe in God, please just give them some good thoughts, positive feelings.
I thank all of you in advance and with deep appreciation.
I have to speak up in defense of my favorite news shows: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a Jew, and the Colbert Report that he helped to create and produce. Even those shows' bad days are superior in terms of journalistic integrity to the most popular MSM news. PBS public affairs programs often bring truths to light for those who care. The problem lies in the tastes and demands of the mass audiences. For a nation that prides itself as the superpower--as a people we don't have much to brag about when it comes to integrity.
It is undeniably true that Jewish people are disporportionately powerful in the media. Whether that is the same as controlling the media is a separate matter.
Then again, some of the best journalists at Al Jazeera are also Jewish - Avi Lewis and Dave Marash for instance.
I notice Jewish people tend to get very defensive about when people talk of their disproportionate influence in certain sections of the media and other facets of contemporary American life. I think it is to their credit that they are so well educated and powerful but that does not mean they have the right to violate the rights of other people simply because the have the power to do so.
@canuckchuck: There is no doubt whatever that alliance strategies (any alliance) include mutual support in the public portrayal of their members as heroes and victims while also exposing (or just inventing) every conceivable dastardly deed of their opponents. Nor is there any doubt that individuals who are seen as likely to assist in that effort are given every possible assistance in achieving positions where they can do so.
That's definitely a major obstacle for those interested in gaining public support for a more balanced understanding, but we certainly shouldn't be surprised by any of that. There's nothing really new or unique in current alliances.
The truth is if the media covers it people DO get interested in it. This is why our best hope is to create the media we want ourselves and to support it. Nobody on CD should be watching or consuming mainstream media. We should instead be CREATING alternative medias and educating others.
http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
Please read link above to get some idea of where this leads.
Pertaining to the debate how does Siouxrose feel about this for influence of a dual citizenship Israeli Zionist stranglehold on the levers of power in USA? Clinton pardoned some serious players on that last Sunday too! Check that one out for CIA financial fleecing shenanigans. Merek could have gone further for influence in the media through Hollywood too.
All out of just over 2% of the population of the USA being Jewish? What % then of Israeli/Americans?
William,
If the Hindus seized control of the major media, the USA would probably be occupying Pakistan right now instead of Iraq.
Siouxrose: Yes, the 5 Jewish people I cited were extremely powerful -- powerful enough to turn all the major TV news channels into one nonstop neocon brainwash.
You don't want to be automatically lumped in with these hucksters? Fine, let's hear you denounce them for their major lies. Go ahead, prove to me that you aren't a neocon too.
I notice that you avoided my other major point: that if any one group ever takes over the media, democracy in America will die.
MEREK: Let's try it this way, if the 5 media owners you cite are all Jewish, that is 5 people, influential yes, but they do not constitute THE JEWS or this female Jewess's point of view. Get it?
Hollow point, the CBC will not be shut down although it depends on government funding. It has a strong lobby group among those citizens those make their voice heard to their MPs and cabinet ministers.
Passionate eye is running "Birth of Israel" tonight reflecting on the past 60 years of the State of Israel and next week looks at the RFK assassination (40th anniversary).
The digital archives on its website (cbc.ca) have some interesting material, some of it going back over 50 years on radio. It would be nice if they had full streaming video for their documentaries.
Siouxrose wrote: ARVY, WILLIAM STREET, ITS A NAZI WORLD ORDER
Siouxrose, I'll answer you as I answered Letto: Do you deny that the Jews control the U.S. media? I named names in posting #8, so you would have a very difficult case if you do attempt to deny this. Here, I'll save you some time:
Roger Ailes is president of Fox News,
Les Moonves is president of CBS,
Neil Shapiro is president of NBC News,
David Westin is president of ABC News.
That's all the major TV news channels in the U.S., and all these men are Jewish. Please don't insult our intelligence by attempting to deny it; the rewriting of history is a Nazi trait.
Allow me to emphasize once more that a media cartel such as the above is extremely dangerous to American democracy. All cartels were formed for the purpose of pushing some common agenda; otherwise, why bother to create the cartel, right? A media cartel is dangerous because its dominance of the country's information channels can seriously affect the decisions of the voters. If the lies are not countered by the truth, democracy will die.
Mr. Gonsalves states, "assuming news industry string-pullers actually want to save their financial necks, there's a lesson for big media owners too." Doesn't this sound just like all those paper pusher accountant types employed by the medical insurance companies to deny payments to those their operations are designed to hypothetically serve? In both cases the health of the institution (press/big pharma and its insurance networks) is placed first (profits at the core of this analysis) and the public left to rot. The first analogy (press) involve the mental and perhaps moral health of the nation. Truth being its life blood. What happens when Truth is not able to circulate through the "people's body"? In the 2nd instance, it's the flesh/body of the individual compromised by disease who may or may not be given a pass for established treatment options. Mammon and Mars rule!
ARVY, WILLIAM STREET, ITS A NAZI WORLD ORDER: Marvelous posts with superb reasoning skills in evidence.
Everyone's at the shopping mall. They don't want to be bothered with the Iraq war. They haven't had enough reason to.
They are however starting to become a little annoyed with the price of gasoline and groceries going up. Being slugged in the gut with a major economic downturn (we ain't seen nothin' yet) will be the only way to get the public's attention.
Dear Merek—
After watching CD for years, I finally join the discussion on your thread.
If anyone here mentioned the British Balfour Declaration on the Jewish Question now around a century ago, I missed it. Around the time of that Declaration Hitler had been fighting in WWI (as had my German Jewish maternal grandfather). Germany was humiliated not merely by the loss of WWI but in addition by the reparations that especially France imposed. The Jewish expression, "Never Again" which came after World War II had essentially been adopted by Hitler after WWI. Israel has in essence adopted Hitler's tactics and strategy. Both are motivated by an earlier defeat.
Saddam Hussein had made it clear that he was willing to work with the US and the UN prior to 2003, but Dubya had his "intentions" to prove that he controlled the Military. What has NEVER been stated in the MainStream Media is that the Execution of Saddam Hussein, by a hanging, was illegal in International Law. The implications of this hanging will take decades to make real history.
Bush is in fact a Fascist. Saddam Hussein should have been put on the stand to tell what he knew. Instead, Rumsfeld was retired. Let's put him on the stand and ask what he knew. Under Oath.
Regards to all at CD
-30-
Dear Merek---
After watching CD for years, I finally join the discussion on your thread.
If anyone here mentioned the British Balfour Declaration on the Jewish Question now around a century ago, I missed it. Around the time of that Declaration Hitler had been fighting in WWI (as had my German Jewish maternal grandfather). Germany was humiliated not merely by the loss of WWI but in addition by the reparations that especially France imposed. The Jewish expression, "Never Again" which came after World War II had essentially been adopted by Hitler after WWI. Israel has in essence adopted Hitler's tactics and strategy. Both are motivated by an earlier defeat.
Saddam Hussein had made it clear that he was willing to work with the US and the UN prior to 2003, but Dubya had his "intentions" to prove that he controlled the Military. What has NEVER been stated in the MainStream Media is that the Execution of Saddam Hussein, by a hanging, was illegal in International Law. The implications of this hanging will take decades to make real history.
Bush is in fact a Fascist. Saddam Hussein should have been put on the stand to tell what he knew. Instead, Rumsfeld was retired. Let's put him on the stand and ask what he knew. Under Oath.
Regards to all at CD
-30-
The phenomenal distortions and consequent public ignorance about the effects of the Iraq war benefit its most vocal proponent, John McCain, who boasts of his wisdom, foresight and knowledge of foreign affairs while constantly displaying appalling lack of even the most basic understanding of the issues. If the American people truly understood the human, economic, reputational and social costs, McCain would be soundly defeated.
william street wrote: If your point is that any cartelization of the media spells doom for democracy then why are you ranting about Jews at all?
The U.S. media cartel is dominated by Jews; I proved that in message #8 in this thread. It's their cartel; that's why they carry so much of the blame for suckering us into invading Iraq.
Moot, every damn shred of any post. We know it. If nothing changes nothing changes. It is apparent to me, I am sure it's crystal clear for everyone, minus 2 or so, on CD that we have done and done now we are done did.
Name any media outlet from every country, every topic on one subject will vary according to the perspective of those that report it. I appreciate the Press from the EU, Middle East, may countries. Still means shit, 'cos they cannot change our situation and our media are liars and complicity is a daily Olympic Event for them.
I am just so tired. Nothing helps these asses stand up and open their big ass mouths and say what the F$$K they mean.
There is NOT a WAR, there is no such thing as a TROOP SURGE, We are entering our 6th year of an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION, we have ESCALATED THE AMOUNT OF TROOPS THERE! Please just say what the hell it really is. F$$K IT, those filthy cochon of the Executive Branch will walk away and sleep like pigs with their bellies full of our childrens entrails, I want to live to see them hung by the throat and not die fast. then we may have a serious discussion about what constitutes TORTURE.
VOTE CINDY SHEEHAN!!! TAKE PELOSIS SEAT!!!
Merek -
If your point is "that any cartelization of the media spells doom for democracy", then why are you ranting about Jews at all?
If "religion is irrelevant to my case", then why do you keep bringing religion up, and naming those Jewish names?
George W. Bush ostensibly is a Methodist (the same faith that I was raised in), with an evangelical, born again, life-altering road to Damascus moment that he credits largely to a walk on a beach with Billy Graham. Granted too, there is an insidious partisan affinity between Likudnik extremists and Christian GOP extremists like Reverends Hagee and Parsley, who discern biblical prophesy and God's will mysteriously at work and made manifest through American militarism in the Middle East.
But that certainly doesn't mean that the Methodist Church, Billy Graham, Christians in general, or Jews in general should be held morally accountable for the Bush junta's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, any more than the US media cartels' enabling of that war crime should be blamed on religion rather than.....that those corporate media entities are cartels. Period.
Bill from Saginaw
Goose2 wrote: You named them. How coule we doubt a statement like that. Its the JEWS everyone!
Yes, I named the Jews who run all the major TV news networks in the U.S. (See message #8 in this thread.) Is it so surprising then that these networks have had such a neocon slant for so long?
This time, yes, the Jews have been a huge factor in suckering the U.S. into war. It's true.
Maybe you can help me here. If you can lead me to a poll which shows the majority of the Jewish people were against the invasion of Iraq before it happened, I will stop accusing Jews in general and start focusing exclusively on the neocons.
NateW:
I have been spending more time in Canada in the last year and one station that freaks me out is the Canadian CBC. Many shows they produce are banned in the US since they tell the truth. Passinate Eye is one show, then the comedies make The Daily show look like CNN with a laugh track. I hear the Harper Gov wants to shut it down since it tells the truth. Again another casualty unless he doesn't win. No Diebold up there so it is up to the voters.
>>The extreme dishonesty of the media is the fault of their Jewish bosses (and I named names in my previous message, so you know my accusation is true).<<
Oh! You NAMED them... OK... of course its true then. You named them. How coule we doubt a statement like that. Its the JEWS everyone!
Letto wrote: The Jews did that. The Jews done that. There is nothing new in scapegoating Jews for any misfortune or wrong doing.
Do you deny that the Jews control the media? I named names in posting #8, so you would have a very difficult case if you do attempt to deny this.
"The Jews have a stranglehold on all the major TV networks in the U.S. So don't expect to see much truth where Israel is concerned. The destruction of Iraq is obviously hugely beneficial to Israel, so don't expect to see much truth on that topic either."
The war in Iraq is beneficial to Israel? You are completely ill-informed.
This is a three world order.
__ First World, the elite of ALL countries with the old world Euro elite holding the highest places.
__ Second World, their selected servants including the spin doctors who write our false histories, manage their hit squads (the militaries) and orchestrate the general rape of everyone else.
__ Third World, the rapees.
The Jewish question is about as germane to the discussion as the Mexican one. Yeah, there are lots of Chicano soldiers, so?
Did they orchestrate this mess? Hell no!
Who did?
Everyone responsible for planning wars… US and Euro military personnel, secret service personnel, corporate officers including the banking elite and members of the academia.
Are some of these Jewish? Yes. Some are Chinese too… but that is not what is essential. What is essential is that they are participants in a one world order control paradigm that is managed around the principles of violence and deception (to justify and maintain power and hide the real reasons for the violence).
Jews who refuse to support this program or become worrisome (such as my mother) are simply murdered…
Many Jews (like people from other groups) have become complicit and hypocritical but ultimate power is not theirs… not even in Israel, not even in the banking world where money is valued and devalued at the whim of the super-elite.
william street wrote: If ews have a stranglehold on all the major TV networks but it is acknowledged corporate WASP stranglehold would not be any better why do you think the religious beliefs or preferences of media owners and news editors is responsible for inadequate, innacurate, or biased reporting about war?
You misunderstand; religion is irrelevant to my case.
There are many ways to be awful. Jewish control of the media has suckered America into invading Iraq, and could well sucker us again, this time into war with Iran. WASP control would be just as bad, but on different topics.
My point is that any cartelization of the media spells doom for a democracy: voters need accurate information, and they will not get it from any media cartel determined to push its own agenda.
Also, I don think anybody - Jew or gentile - suckered Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the GOP neo-cons into invading Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.
An honest media would have exposed the Bush & Cheney cabal long before they could have done any damage. That the exposure did not happen is proof that the media were complicit in the suckering. The extreme dishonesty of the media is the fault of their Jewish bosses (and I named names in my previous message, so you know my accusation is true). Bad information leads to bad decisions by the voters. Democracy in America will continue to shrivel as long as the Jewish media cartel continues to exist.
william street May 25th, 2008 8:00 pm -- "Also, I don't think anybody - Jew or gentile - suckered Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the GOP neo-cons into invading Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11."
Well said, Bill.
Believing that the USA was led unwillingly into its activities in the Middle East by "The Jews" or that its self-justifying propaganda is governed by them is just accepting a convenient scapegoat in place of much more complex geopolitical realities. It's about as realistic as the notion that the USA's entry into WW2 was motivated by altruistic concerns about the wellbeing of Europe and/or the British Empire.
Both USA Incorporated and Zionist Israel invariably pursue their own agendas as do other nations and communal groupings of all kinds, regardless of religious overtones. If, at any given time, coincident interests and mutual advantages provide allied powers willing to participate in a combined strategy, they will, of course, be welcome so long at they remain useful. But, in such circumstances, the question of which partner leads or follows various dance steps is scarcely relevant to any profound understanding.
Merek -"The Jews have a stranglehold on all the major TV networks in the U.S. So don't expect to see much truth where Israel is concerned. The destruction of Iraq is obviously hugely beneficial to Israel, so don't expect to see much truth on that topic either."
The Jews did that. The Jews done that.
There is nothing new in scapegoating Jews for any misfortune or wrong doing.
Now that you've established that these Evil Jews are to be blamed for everything that is wrong on this planet - What is the next logical step Merek?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7C8avvdzR4
Merek -
If "Jews have a stranglehold on all the major TV networks", but it is acknowledged "a corporate WASP stranglehold would not be any better", why do you think the religious beliefs or preferences of media owners and news editors is responsible for inadequate, innacurate, or biased reporting about war?
If Hindus or agnostics seized majority control of the media conglomerates' Boards of Directors, and replaced all of the CEO's, news bureau department heads, and anchors with folks of their own religious persuasion, why should we expect such a development would improve reporting about the ongoing civil war and US military occupation activities in Iraq?
I really question whether religion is the predominant moving force in this phenomenon, even when the warfare is taking place in the Middle East, where contentious, seemingly intractable conflicts over Palestine and Zionism have been on the front burner for over fifty years. More likely it is misplaced patriotism and fear of economic reprisal backlash from the federal government that primarily causes the US media to pull their investigative punches and spin feed us White House/Pentagon propaganda.
Also, I don't think anybody - Jew or gentile - suckered Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the GOP neo-cons into invading Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.
The Bush regime suckered themselves (and the American people) by believing they saw an opportunity for a big power grab. They reached out for the brass ring, and grabbed a tar baby tight with both bloody hands.
Bill from Saginaw
We have a media cartel, and it is killing democracy in the U.S.
The Jews have a stranglehold on all the major TV networks in the U.S. So don't expect to see much truth where Israel is concerned. The destruction of Iraq is obviously hugely beneficial to Israel, so don't expect to see much truth on that topic either.
I don't know how the Jews managed their takeover of the U.S. media. That they have done so is indisputable: all the major TV networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox -- either have a Jewish president or a news division with a Jewish exec. Roger Ailes is president of Fox News; Les Moonves is president of CBS; Neil Shapiro is president of NBC News; David Westin is president of ABC News. These men are all Jewish. Since most people get their news from TV, the Jews have been very successful at suckering the U.S. into invading Iraq.
An honest press, or at least a press in which viewpoints are diverse enough for some truth to emerge from the bickering, is vital to a democracy. I cannot emphasize enough the danger to the U.S. from the current Jewish stranglehold of the media.
A corporate WASP stranglehold would not be any better. Any media cartel will eventually be corrupt, and democracy will wither: a democracy cannot survive unless the voters have accurate information.
We desperately need some laws to keep the media from being cartelized. But the media largely controls who gets elected; remember the swift-boating of John Kerry? So how can we put some honest lawmakers into office? It's a catch-22, and I despair.
I like the comments here. Especially,
"I'm really not sure how we should react to this. If "the first casualty of war is truth", should we be unhappy about a reduction in the propagation of lies?"
Because...
(excerpt from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html)
"Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.
Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the "Skull and Crossbones" Society.
Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, "The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people."
Two words: Corporate Employee. Boss says "Jump" you say "Yessir Boss, How High?" Murder somebody by denying medical care and get a Promotion and a Bonus? Yubetcha. Make Black faces the face of Poverty, Crime, and Drugs WHEN THEY KNOW THAT 80% in every category is White? Blame unarmed Black victims for being shot 42 times by WHITE officers? Why not. Corporate employees do what they are told. Don't they? You know they do....
Sean does good work, he knows, told him a long time ago.
Peace.
Might this be an indication that enough of "we the people" have stopped supporting the corporate media, and like all top-heavy things, they're breaking off at ground level, losing the roots - ie, reporters and other lower level workers?
It should be stated that the concept of "objective journalism" is a relatively recent one contrasted to the various forms of news media: town criers, newspapers, television, internet, etc. Perhaps we were in a brief "golden age" of journalism where the profession's stated ideals actually mattered, the current state being a more "normal" state of affairs where the maxim, "Consider the source," is the golden rule and that objective news gathering is the exception rather than the rule.
I'm really not sure how we should react to this. If "the first casualty of war is truth", should we be unhappy about a reduction in the propagation of lies?
I find myself wondering also about the true scope of the PEJ's comment on "a turning point in media coverage of the third-longest war in U.S. history." I do understand that the world ends at the U.S. borders, but I haven't personally noticed any such "turning point" in media coverage in the dark outer reaches of the universe that I patrol.
This is not a news flash folks. The world knows that Iraq is so under reported it is a crime in itself.
To dangerous operate outside the green zone.
Well if the US invasion was a success ( that it is not) then after 5+ years it would be safe. Iraq is nothing but a giant prison.
Hay why not phone your elected official who voted to fund the war even more that you are not happy? Get a few thousand to do the same.
Spot on Sean, although without the moral outrage that ought to accompany a description of such a dereliction in democracy by the so-called free press.