Skip to comments.OLD MEDIA WHINES ABOUT BLOGGERS
Posted on 10/09/2004 10:45:48 AM PDT by forest
Last week, Cliff Kincaid, Editor of the Accuracy In Media Report, wrote that at least two in Congress have considered a Rathergate hearing. Actually, the way I heard it was that Rep. Chris Cox requested that House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) schedule a hearing but Barton was not overly enthused with the idea.
Rep. Barton is quoted as saying, "A news organization's responsibility is to facts and truth, but the oversight of network news generally is a matter best sorted out by the viewing public and the news media."
I wholeheartedly agree.
There is a simple reason most of "Old Media" is losing money. The majority of the American public understands that most "journalists" working in the Old Media slant the political news they report to the left. Being shunned by so many American people nowadays, Old Media's profit margin is adversely affected.
CBS is investigating itself, so they say. However, they are not going about it in an acceptable way. Rather intentionally used false information to harm a sitting president during a campaign cycle. The bloggers in the "New Media" caught Rather and nailed him for it. Today, most everyone in both Old and New media agree the documents Rather used were forged. So, what's to investigate? Just call in Madame Guillotine to perform the necessary surgery.
Les Moonves, the co-president of CBS' parent company, Viacom, sort of announced the reason for the (cover-up) investigation at a Goldman Sachs media conference in New York. He said there was no timetable for the completion of the investigation but that, "Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on."
Let's see if we can get that straight: It is okay for the CBS news hacks to broadcast false information about President Bush during an election cycle. It is not okay, however, for CBS to broadcast that the Kerry campaign and Democratic Party gave CBS the forged documents because that information could be seen as favorable to President Bush and expose the Democratic Party activists (including those in the media) for the lying cheats that they are.
Is that how it works, Moonves? Sure looks that way.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) told a meeting of the TV engineering trade group, MSTV, that broadcast network news divisions "need to have safeguards to prevent reporters from infusing their opinions into news reports."
Agreed. But how? Old Media has the same freedom of speech as the rest of us. We can tell them to take a hike and/or stop supporting socialism but we cannot make them shut up. We can refuse to watch or listen to their programming misinformation and stop buying their newspapers, but we cannot constitutionally pass a law to censor their talking or writing.
What we can do, and are doing, is putting them out of business by not watching, listening or reading their leftist-liberal dribble. Because, they cannot pass a law forcing us to buy their product -- or the products of their sponsors.
Move over Old Media, New Media is here and has you stuck between a rock and a hard place. Old Media knows it, too, and the whining, kicking and screaming has already started.
Walter Cronkite's disparaging remarks about the Internet are on record several times. At the Society of Professional Journalists meeting in New York last month, Cronkite said: "I cannot understand how the Internet should have gotten so entirely oblivious to the whole theory of libel and slander. How is it possible for these people to get on the air with any allegation they want to make, any statement they want to make, as if it were true, as if they were journalists, which they are clearly not? They are scandalmongers."
Does that need comment? Nah.
It's sour grapes all around at the newsrooms nowadays because they see their pink slips coming. Liberalism is out -- or will be soon. Which means, liberal "journalists" are also on their way out.
The New Yorker magazine sponsored a panel discussion in New York last Saturday. It turned out to be a whining session for Old Media. NBC News' Tom Brokaw and ABC anchor Peter Jennings both bashed Internet bloggers and supported Dan Rather's style of broadcasting false news. Brokaw compared the bloggers' attacks on Rather's "60 Minutes II" report about President Bush to a "political jihad." (Wonder who wrote that script for him?)
"What I think is highly inappropriate is what's going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad," Brokaw said. "It is certainly an attempt to demonize CBS News, and it goes well beyond any factual information a lot of them has, the kind of demagoguery that is unleashed out there."
Factual information concerning the forged documents used by CBS to help throw the election in favor of Kerry is available for all to read.
And, while we're on the subject of media bias: Some of the paid mannequin news readers commented that President Bush "made faces" during the first debate. Yes, he did -- and for good reason. Most of us out here in flyover country saw that as an understandable reaction to all the ridiculous babble Kerry was spewing. One enterprising blogger put it in proper context for all to see. Enjoy.
Oh . . . and Walter, Dan, Tom and Peter . . . . Good Night.
Agreed. Hit them in the pocket books. It's long overdue.
That graphic is absolutely tops. We need lots of those for the lowly media.
bump this again
re Post 4: Doug nailed it. The people are getting fed up with the trash the media (except Fox) are feeding them and are revolting by not believing them. The mainstream media (except Fox) are going broke, a fact that gives me hope.
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.