Old news...

Corporations doing patently unethical things to inflate their own bottom line? That's unpossible!

You Dont say! I thought the media was always honest. Im SHOCKED..SHOCKED I TELL YA.

Dreamer254: You Dont say! I thought the media was always honest. Im SHOCKED..SHOCKED I TELL YA.

This.

My lack of surprise, let me show it to you.

My dismay, let me show it to you as well.

Obvious tag taking a mental health day after all that Scott McClellen shiat yesterday?

Why would the execs care either way? Are they trying to avoid "bad press"? Is the administration pressuring them?

Obvious should have beat interesting by a mile.

Phil McKraken
Why would the execs care either way? Are they trying to avoid "bad press"? Is the administration pressuring them?

Most people watch news to reinforce their own assumptions (see: Fox News). So when 90% of the country is in favor of a war, they only want to see "why the war is good" and not "hey, you might be wrong".

The execs knew this and acted accordingly.

Phil McKraken: Why would the execs care either way? Are they trying to avoid "bad press"? Is the administration pressuring them?

People who work in the media are, unfortunately, driven not to find the truth but to ensure viewership.

This has led to problems like yellow journalism in the past, but today it is leading to this sort of deference to what the people want to see. During the Clinton years, the people couldn't get more interested in the President's ween. Back when Pres. Bush was pulling 85%+ approval ratings, being critical of the president would have led to an immediate backlash by both viewers and sponsors.

So, as you can imagine, corporate entities want to do their stockholders the best they can do. Thusly, this kind of shiat happens.

But, but that would mean that corporate news media outlets are more focused on their profits than the public good?

fark ABC. We own the airwaves, not Disney, GE, Viacom, etc. Why the hell we let them make money hand over fist while screwing us in the ass is criminal.

Its nice to see the scurrying of rats off a sinking ship. This election cycle should go very well for the Republicans and Mc Same.

Where's the obvious tag when you need one.

nubzers 2008-05-29 10:51:02 AM Old news...
------------

Technically yes, but people still think despite the HEAPING MASS of information to the contrary think that the media is liberal.

This needs to be pounded into people's heads that the administration, in about 200 different confirmed instances so far manipulated the news.

BilltheThrill: We own the airwaves, not Disney, GE, Viacom, etc.

You crack me up!

Calling Mary Mapes
Calling Mary Mapes

Not liberal.

Not American.

Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist

I don't know if anyone caught this, but she said in the lead up to the Iraq war, which was roughly April 03. According to Wikipedia (so who knows if this is right) she worked for MSNBC before ABC News. So it could've been both. It sort of the blog's jump to say it's just ABC. Still, not very surprising.

No wonder she's an ex-employee. She didn't do what her bosses asked.

She just saw how much money McClellan got from a Soros-owned company for his recent hit-book (yep, that's who sponsored it), and is looking for a new job.

cirby: She just saw how much money McClellan got from a Soros-owned company for his recent hit-book (yep, that's who sponsored it), and is looking for a new job.

Why would a book that's going to make huge amounts of money need to be "sponsored"?

Its not about politics its about profit.

War is good for the news business, plenty of people interested and watching the news, remember the Gulf War coverage made CNN the network it is.

After the war is even better because then you can paly the monday morning quarterback and decide to be critical at that point and still make a bunch of money and have higher ratings.

Its a win win for the newsies.

What stories?

Obdicut: Why would a book that's going to make huge amounts of money need to be "sponsored"?

He's a 23%'er. The only way he can fathom the idea that McCellan would want to distance himself from a farkwit like Bush is if there is a bribe involved.

To be fair, I can recall the climate, on a personal level among people I worked with, even some of my own family members, to be very taboo against saying anything bad about Bush or anything he was doing. I remember having quiet private conversations with certain people about how I thought attacking Iraq was a huge mistake etc., but that wasn't an opinion I aired too publicly.

The "if you're not with us you're against us" propaganda tactic was very effective at rallying people at the time.

BilltheThrill: But, but that would mean that corporate news media outlets are more focused on their profits than the public good?

fark ABC. We own the airwaves, not Disney, GE, Viacom, etc. Why the hell we let them make money hand over fist while screwing us in the ass is criminal.

If we, who own the airwaves, actually wanted factual and non-sensationalistic coverage, then we'd get it. Disney, GE, Viacom, etc., are simply giving we, who own the airwaves, exactly what we want, as we have demonstrated numerous times. Scaremongering, ideological conformity, and celebrity trash gets our attention -- sedate, factual journalism is routinely ignored by 85% of the population. It's not the fault of those massive megacorps. It's the fault of the American people.

With an independent media like this, who needs censors?

Apik0r0s: Not liberal.

Not American.

Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist

RACIST!!!!!

This is the essence of the whole lie about the "liberal media". It doesn't matter that many reporters are liberals. They are commanded by their corporate masters to spin the right wing line, or stand in the unemployment line.

When do they show these positve stories? All I ever see is blood and guts. I'm pretty sure some kids in Iraq are back in school and getting medical attention, ya know warm and fuzzy shiat like that

lilbjorn: This is the essence of the whole lie about the "liberal media". It doesn't matter that many reporters are liberals. They are commanded by their corporate masters to spin the right wing line, or stand in the unemployment line.

But they DON'T spin right wing lines. God almighty Dan Rather made up a story in 04 to try to stop Bush from being elected.

Hang On Voltaire: lilbjorn: This is the essence of the whole lie about the "liberal media". It doesn't matter that many reporters are liberals. They are commanded by their corporate masters to spin the right wing line, or stand in the unemployment line.

But they DON'T spin right wing lines. God almighty Dan Rather made up a story in 04 to try to stop Bush from being elected.

You gotta be pretty hardcore to be this high, this early.

BilltheThrill: But, but that would mean that corporate news media outlets are more focused on their profits than the public good?

fark ABC. We own the airwaves, not Disney, GE, Viacom, etc. Why the hell we let them make money hand over fist while screwing us in the ass is criminal.

The airwaves own you. Turn off your set.

"...stories critical of Bush..."

Liberal bias?

Nah. It couldn't be. I'm sure the Network Executives were just Evil Men and they didn't see the obvious bias of a "journalist" in her reporting.

It's always the Evil Men. Try to remember that, comrade.

Large corporations pressuring their media divisions to shape the news. That's crazy talk.

I can't think of any reason why a news network (NBC) owned by General Electric would be interested in suppressing dissent and inflating support over a possible war. What could GE possibly have to gain?

"The liberal media monopoly does not exist." - Rush Limbaugh

/Rush is right

Nestea Plunge:
LOL

Weak, dude.

Great response. There is no possible way I can respond to such a genius argument.

Nestea Plunge:

A lame post like yours deserves a lame riposte.

Weak

And yet none of these reporters spoke up when this was actually happening to stop what they considered to be great injustices?

Uh huh.

Brubold: And yet none of these reporters spoke up when this was actually happening to stop what they considered to be great injustices?

Uh huh.

They wanted to keep their jobs?

Apik0r0s: Not liberal.

Not American.

Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist



Here we go again....

Phil McKraken: Why would the execs care either way? Are they trying to avoid "bad press"? Is the administration pressuring them?

Not to pick on you, but statements like this show that the general public tend to not know the hierarchy in the typical newsroom.

People bust out polls showing that a majority of reporters are liberal and, thus, the media must be liberal as well. The reporters, however, aren't the people who are deciding what gets covered.

The people making the coverage decisions (ie what stories get written or don't get written) are made by news editors, managing editors and sometimes publishers.

And guess what? Those people, the ones who decide on the coverage, are mostly conservative or Republican leaning in their voting and the policies they support. Reporters have little choice when their editor tells them what to cover or what not to cover. They just do their job.

So, in a sense, the administration doesn't even have to pressure them because chances are, at least some of the higher-ups, already support them and will decide how to make sure they get positive coverage or avoid really bad coverage.

Hang On Voltaire: lilbjorn: This is the essence of the whole lie about the "liberal media". It doesn't matter that many reporters are liberals. They are commanded by their corporate masters to spin the right wing line, or stand in the unemployment line.

But they DON'T spin right wing lines. God almighty Dan Rather made up a story in 04 to try to stop Bush from being elected.

well "made up" would be a strong word since all of the particulars of the story that can be verified have been proven true. (new window) Bush was in the TANG as a way to avoid vietnam service. Bush got the lowest possible passing score on the pilot's exam and yet was still given a pilot's berth under a newly created policy of giving preference to sons of former fighter pilots (like W's Daddy) Bush was transferred to AANG for an as yet-unsatisfactorily explained reason. He personally Signed documents acknowledging he had NOT perfromed his required duty with the unit, once in 1968 and again five years later in 1973. His commanding officer has noted that Bush did not show up for duty for nearly one year. The Whitehouse later claimed that bush transferred to the Bost Air force Reserve when he went for his harvard MBA. This is a claim that was later proven false and the White house retracted.


There is no evidence bush every actually completed his military commitment, the pentagon admitted , conveniently in 2004 that many of the originals of his records were accidentally destroyed. (new window)


so to be fair Dan rather didn't so much "make up a story" as "mistakenly and uncessarily rely on fake documents that told a true story"

Occam's Chainsaw: Corporations doing patently unethical things to inflate their own bottom line? That's unpossible!

It's A-OK! We have politicians to protect us!

/oh, shiat.

Apik0r0s: Not liberal.

Not American.

Jeffrey Zucker, CEO NBC TV, Zionist
Robert Iger, CEO ABC, Zionist
Leslie Moonves, CEO CBS, grandnephew of David Ben Gurion, Zionist
Peter F. Chernin, President and COO FOX, Zionist

the jooS!!!!!! They ownz everything!

the girl worked at MSNBC, but you know, its tha joooozzzz.

goodbomb
the jooS!!!!!! They ownz everything!

the girl worked at MSNBC, but you know, its tha joooozzzz.

On June 7, 2006, Rick Kaplan resigned as president of MSNBC, after holding the post for two years.[42] Following the announcement, it was announced on June 12, 2006, that Dan Abrams, a nine-year veteran of MSNBC and NBC News, had been named General Manager of the NBC News 24-hour cable news channel, effective immediately. NBC News Senior Vice President Phil Griffin would oversee MSNBC. Griffin would also continue to oversee NBC News' Today, and Abrams would report to Griffin.
From Wikipedia

The more you know...

And btw - Revanchist Zionist != Jew

FTFA: 'But Yellin went much further, revealing that news executives - presumably at ABC News, where she'd worked from July 2003 to August 2007 - actively pushed her not do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration. [UPDATE: Yellin now says it was MSNBC execs, not ABC]'

WHAT 'hard hitting' pieces didnt she do? The press may not have been grindingly hard on the Bush admin but they certainly did NOT cut them any slack.

I Said: Phil McKraken
Why would the execs care either way? Are they trying to avoid "bad press"? Is the administration pressuring them?

Most people watch news to reinforce their own assumptions (see: Fox News). So when 90% of the country is in favor of a war, they only want to see "why the war is good" and not "hey, you might be wrong".

The execs knew this and acted accordingly.

I guess Hang On Voltaire wants to prove your point:

Hang On Voltaire: lilbjorn: This is the essence of the whole lie about the "liberal media". It doesn't matter that many reporters are liberals. They are commanded by their corporate masters to spin the right wing line, or stand in the unemployment line.

But they DON'T spin right wing lines. God almighty Dan Rather made up a story in 04 to try to stop Bush from being elected.

Magorn:
so to be fair Dan rather didn't so much "make up a story" as "mistakenly and unnecessarily rely on fake documents that told a true story"

The memo WAS the story (and the rest of the paperwork that someone had forged). Nothing in it was a new allegation of any sort, and it miraculously "proved" something that was (and still is) based on rumor and conjecture. If someone came up with a "new" document that claimed Obama was a practicing Muslim when he was 18, the story would be "made up" just like the faked memos in Rathergate. And the story would be, again, the DOCUMENT, not the old rumors.

As it was, the Rathergate story showed how pathetically eager even the "mainstream" press was (and is) to say the worst things about anyone from the other side of the political fence.

As has been noted, when you see a story about a politician caught doing something illegal, there are two ways to tell what party they're in. If they're a Republican, it's in the headline, and two or three times in the story. If it's a Democrat, you won't see the word "Democrat" anywhere in the text. Unless it's a Republican pictured with a Democrat, in which case it reads something like "Criminal of Undetermined Party Standing Next to Important Republican."

The fact that some people even consider this as a recent revelation is astounding to me