|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple?
Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press."
I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp? How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News..........
|
On the above theme:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/27/the_fox_news_reich_pins_a_yellow_star_on_the_ny_times.php#more">The Fox News Reich Pins a Yellow Star on the NY Times</a>
December 27, 2005
<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/26/fox_covers_for_the_bush_administration_while_it_nukes_the_constitution.php">Yesterday</a> it was US News & World Report; today (December 27, 2005) the New York Times is caught in Fox News's cross hairs in what seems to be a rampage designed to foment public hatred toward any news outlet that reports what's going on behind the scenes in the Bush administration.
The third segment of Fox's "premiere business news program," Your World w/Neil Cavuto, was titled, "Treason at the New York Times." Substitute host Stuart Varney introduced his guest, John Podhoretz of the New York Post, with: "Should the New York Times be tried for treason? In a scathing editorial today <a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/60379.htm">[The Gray Lady Toys with Treason]</a> the New York Post says the New York Times is badly in need of adult supervision and asks if the newspaper is fighting against the war on terror by exposing top secret programs." As Varney spoke, a graphic filled the screen which read, "Has the NY Times declared itself to be on the front line against the War on Terror?"
(Note: <a href="http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html">The New York Post is owned by Fox News's parent company, News Corp.,</a> and John Podhoretz is on the Fox News payroll as a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46565,00.html">"Fox News Contributor.")</a>
Varney asked Podhoretz about the word treason and wondered, "would you use it?"
Podhoretz said the issue was more a question of whether or not "the New York Times and other journalistic institutions which are revealing state secrets and highly classified information in the War on Terror are lining up, effectively lining up, against fighting the war on terror, effectively."
<b>Varney, someone who claims to be a journalist</b> and who presumably is aware of the responsibilities that accompany his prominent position, said, "Well, it is a deliberate undermining of the war on terror if you expose these secret programs, <b>which are not, by the way, illegal,</b> and therefore undermine our security. I mean, again, it's a strong word, but it does amount almost to treason, doesn't it?" (Varney's emphasis.)
Podhoretz said that if you view the war on terror as "any declared war" then "the exposure of state secrets after the explicit request and recommendation out of the President of the United States' own mouth to the New York Times" that its story "on the National Security Agency's behavior not be published as a threat to national security, the New York Times then decided on its own that it could do so." I've "never in my life" heard of an editor and publisher who spent time with a president "and then chose to do so anyway."
Varney said it wasn't just the New York Times, but US News & World Report, the LA Times, and Newsweek who seem to have a "virulent anti-Bush hatred here, it seems to me."
Podhoretz said "I think that's the answer." He said they feel the methods used to fight the war on terror "may be illigitimate" and they don't want to be seen as "having endorsed these methods because they didn't fight against them." He said he thinks the New York Times feels "duped" by the administration on the question of WMD in Iraq and it doesn't want now to "be seen as a handmaiden to the administration."
Varney asked "What are we going to do about this?" Podhortez replied: "What my paper did today is a vital service." If the New York Times is "going to go and undermine the United States, it is up to other journalistic institutions to call them on it and to make their lives more difficult."
Varney wrapped it up with, "Well said."
Comment: In the December 18 New York Times' Review of Books, Brian Ladd reviewed (registration required) Richard J. Evans' new book, The Third Reich in Power. Ladd wrote in the review, titled "A State of Evil," that Evans explains that, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18ladd.html">"Behind a facade of legality, the Nazis dismantled the established protections of law.</a> Not satisfied merely to crush a lively if troubled democracy, they used their police state and the mass media to dissolve traditional allegiances." Ladd said the result "was a nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds..." Looks like Fox News is taking the lead in directing us down that road in a 21st Century, US version of "A State of Evil."
|
It is plain to see the desparation peeking out from behind the curtain as all the stops are pulled in the latest Rove "Op" intended on deflecting the crisis from where it sits squarely in the lap of the Bush junta, by attacking and labeling the whistle blowers as "traitors", with the "farce", described above, masking itself as "fair and balanced" news commentary.
Will the shameless efforts of wealthy international corporatist Rupert Murdoch's "trophy" propaganda "news" network, along with a blast from
his New York Post's rag of an "editorial" page, be enough to keep the American sheeple grazing obliviously in the meadow?
Please do not post objection to the comparison with Richard J. Evans' new book, "The Third Reich in Power", describing the "nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds...", without also telling us what you think that the
Bush administration and Rupert Murdoch's network and newspaper are actually teaming up to "tell" us, that is legitimate or "balanced".
Last edited by host; 12-28-2005 at 02:38 AM..
|