CBS: Unsinkable!
Posted on 09/11/2004 12:36:42 PM PDT by Quicksilver
Scenario 1 -- The Swiftvets put out an ad that questions whether John Kerry told the truth about his service during the Vietnam war. The charges go unaddressed for days. When they are finally addressed, the main argument is that the Bush campaign is behind the ads. Thus the charges remain largely unanswered.
Scenario 2 -- CBS airs a story that questions whether George W. Bush told the truth about his service during the Vietnam war. In less than 24 hours, the main elements of the story (the things that made it different from past tellings) are pretty much discredited.
Question -- How do we explain the difference betweeen these scenarios?
Answer 1 -- The Swiftvet story is based on reliable evidence; the CBS story isn't.
Answer 2 -- The Democrats rely on an increasingly incompetent MSM; the Republicans don't, and are the beneficiaries of the efforts of conservative bloggers and their readers.
We're the Army of the New Media.
Resistance is futile.
The Old Media is arrogant, incompetent, biased, and plain lazy. The New Media is simply doing the job the mainstream media used to do or should be doing - reporting the facts without regard for a political agenda.
Great link, I made the mistake of leaving the house this morning and missed it.
Nice title too.
BUMP!
Unless Kerry wins. Then there will be efforts to control what is done on sites like FR.
During Clinton efforts were made to silence people who led deomonstrations against public housing projects to be located in middle class areas. Cisneros used RICO and Civil Rights Laws to sue protest organizers for conspiracy to violate civil rights laws. IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN!!!
The MSM should far more appropriately be called the MEDIAWING of the Kerry Campaign. Any other reference is simply disingenuous. ====
I hate to say this, but to tag on to your comment, I believe their agenda has been and is beyond just the party to promote a Democrat, I am convinced that the MSM is the MEDIAWING for the Communist party.
Their actions to undermine this country, our security, demoralize our soldiers, lie and mislead millions of viewers and try to influence or incite more hatred toward the good citizens of this country, doesn't speak to a 'party' that once having won an election, would be able to turn the world tide back on such things as respect for this country and her people. Their agenda is far worse in that they seem to seek the destruction of this country,individual rights, capitalism, morality, education.. To establish a tyrannical elite in the seat of power, that seeks to control of every aspect of our lives, controlling everything we see, read, hear and think. Or serious consequences will follow. That, is communism.
..Then there will be efforts to control what is done on sites like FR.
..
Could this be the motivating factor behind the insane media drive to back Kerry - even to the point of running off 50% of their viewer base, risking all credibility and the reputations of themselves and their corporations?
Hear, hear!!
This is already happening. For example, nearly every article now has to be exerpted.
Someone already wrote a book about it:
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=1547
The media will never address the facts because that was never their intention. From what it looks like to me, both the media and the Dems conspired in a two-prong attack to both discredit Bush and weaken his poll numbers with regards to national security and military matters. While Kerry did his part to try and boost his ratings by parading his service in Vietnam, the media's role was to diminish Bush's favorability ratings in is this area.
The fact is, it is the media who have intentionally taken us back 35 years because they knew John Kerry couldn't compete with Bush on these issues.
While the media couldn't come straight out and support Kerry's so-called heroism in Vietnam (he was doing that on his own) they took the tactic of embracing Moore's sentiment that Bush was AWOL. The media didn't take us back to Vietnam because of Kerry; they took us back because of Bush.
From the moment Peter Jennings asked Wesley Clark if he supported Moore's contention that Bush was AWOL during the Dems primary debate, the game was on. The following week, the Sunday morning news shows embraced the theory as they even booked McAwful, who was only too happy to also come out and call Bush AWOL.
Despite official records that stated Bush recieved an honorable discharge, the "media" searched for incriminating evidence to the contrary...even demanding that Bush and the WH release all records from that time. And unlike the praise that Bush has shown for Kerry's service, the media allowed Kerry to directly disparage Bush's service when he stated on Feb. 8, 2004 (from WSJ):
"The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he (Bush) present and active duty in Alabama at the time he was suppose to be...Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question,"
The hypocrisy here is that as the media reached for straws to somehow link Bush to the Swifites attack on Kerry's service, they've ignored the direct attacks by Kerry on Bush's service. It's also interesting how the media has used Kerry's "official" record as a way to discredit the SBVT...saying that the official record is the absolute truth. Yet, when it came to Bush's "official" records and honorable discharge, that was never good enough for the "media" as Bush was still asked...as Kerry put it, to "prove it."
The irony also here is that as Kerry has obviously not accepted Bush's "official records"...despite Bush signing his 180 and releasing all his documents, the media has yet to even ask Kerry about his official records, even though he has opened the door by demanding the same of Bush. Any competent journalist would demand that Kerry release his records...especially since he demanded the same of Bush. So, as the media tries to tie Bush into the attacks on Kerry, they ignore that Kerry has directly attacked Bush.
This is no longer just bias news coverage...this is outright advocacy, as the media has not only ignored relevant information, they've continually been caught perpetuating falsehoods. From Joe Wilson and the "16 Words" to "Bush lied" to deliberate misreadings of the several commission reports...to now, the 5th incarnation of Bush's National Guard service, the media has been doing the Democrats work for them.
I made exactly these comments earlier today. This is the second time that I have seen my comments on this subject repeated in blogs, first it was NRO Kerry Spot, now this one. I realize that a lot of people could have the same thoughts on this, but.....
There are many who have recognised this for years... Although, even more dismissed it with prejudice as a silly conspiracy theory.
We have to look logically at what is going on.
Why would the media be willing to lose 1/2 of the viewers by promoting Kerry?
Why are they willing to risk more people flying over to Fox, Talk Radio, etc., just so they can slant the news?
Are they getting bribes from super-rich liberals? They could be bribed by either side - BUT IT IS ONLY THE LIBS. How long can bribes sustain all of the media?
Or - is there some over-riding goal they have which would be worth losing their reputation, credibility, and viewers?
What could that goal be?
What about legislation to stop Talk Radio, control the internet and limit Fox? Do they want to be the government media?
Something to think about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.