Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
I believe politicians, including those in office, generally like to "get their message out." Giving "access" to journalists, sometimes with "exclusives," is a common way of doing it. Briefings for journalists where the administration operative puts out his view to a select group are not uncommon either.
If you step back, you see that that's all that's going on here.
Host just thinks it should never be done with ex-military, and he puts a sinister spin on it.
|
Brian Williams's, late April, bullshit defense of his two generals makes a laughingstock of your argument, in the face of the five years old reporting on the two generals' outrageous conflicts of interests, and Williams's admission in writing, of the fact that he still has not broadcast about the NY TImes reporting, or about the failure of NBC news to disclose the conflicting interests of the two generals, of the past six years.
You are an attorney, and I have presented a trove of evidence of violations of FCC regulations by the networks and of federal laws by pentagon officials, but you are also a conservative....so....it's host's overreaction, move along folks, noithing to see here.
I wouldn't trust Brian Williams to deliver a reliable local weather report. I don't think you even notice that the consitutional protections we enjoyed on Jan. 19, 2001, are almost all disappeared, now.
The DOD, with the help of a compliant media, have turned their PSY-OPS weapon of war on the country they are sworn to defend, and it's fine with you....it's host's problem, not yours....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
To my eyes I don't see anything overtly sinister here. What I see is sophisticated public relations. What the pentagon is doing is no different than any other product or idea that is being sold to us.
The only question that comes to mind isn't that news media is in collusion rather it is, why isn't the media doing its job? It is one thing to use a spokesperson or a press release as a source but it is essential to let your viewers/readers know the potential biases of your sources. It also holds, that other sources should be sought out in support of your original source.
|
Myself and at least another poster have cited and quoted the laws and regulations that have been broken, the evidence from the pentagon's own website of the Pentagon strategy to control the flow of information exclusively to those in agreement, and the financial and political conflicts of the two generals reporting as military consultants for six years, in the words of the most watched network news anchor who denies that the conflict of interests is even his business to find out about or tell his viewers about, even though the seriousness of the details of the generals' conflicts were published five years ago.
Then....you weigh in from your residence in a foreign country where no criticism of the government by the media or by anyone, publicly, is permitted, to say that you see nothing sinister here, only sophisticated PR.
A rather wide gulf between us, on this issue???
<h3>To both you guys....part of the process of reaction is not to wait until Pentagon PR flack Larry DiRita is televised sitting in Brian Williams's ole anchor chair on your screen as you view the NBC nightly news at 6:30 pm.</h3> If you aren't going to react to proof that the pentagon ran a program designed to "weed out" network military consultants who did not parrot the pentagon script on TV news, and intended to have their own pentagon briefed "water carriers" steer the networks to cover only the stories the pentagon wanted presented, only in the way the pentagon wanted them presented, what exists in your version of "the process" to prevent DiRita and the defense industry via it's pentagon controlled, board member investor generals, from simply dropping all pretenses and putting DiRita in the anchor chair?