Skip to comments.Are Big Media Covering Up Fast and Furious?
Posted on 02/01/2012 1:35:22 AM PST by neverdem
Where was the public outcry for justice when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry bled to death at the hands of a drug cartel in cahoots with the U.S. government? It happened in the Peck Canyon corridor northwest of Nogales, Arizona -- nowhere. The general public didn't hear about it...
Last November, Dennis Wagner of The Arizona Republic wrote a chronological exposé of the Fast and Furious scandal. But he put a fancy spin on his article which illustrates perfectly how a Big Lie can emerge from a kernel of truth told with bad intent.
*The once-obscure case in Phoenix blew into a national controversy, putting a giant bull's-eye on President Barack Obama and the Justice Department.
Here's a reporter toeing the Party line. The message to non-elite readers from hoity-toity Wagner: what I'm saying is tantamount to nihilism, but you won't get it; you'll only think to yourself, yes, drug cartels are armed to the teeth -- a few more weapons wouldn't make a difference. Of course, now the reader is free to commit all kinds of atrocities because, heck, in our violent culture, someone will die anyway.
*Firearms were allowed into Mexico during two earlier operations, including a 2006-07 Tucson case known as Operation Wide Receiver. Those investigations were carried out quietly during the George W. Bush administration, without public controversy.
Translation: Bush and Gonzalez started it (falsification), so it is OK for Obama's ATF to murder Mexican civilians and U.S. Border Patrol agents.
Wagner quotes the "experts" in the end. Harry L. Wilson, director of Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, expounds on conspiracy theories and the idea that anyone who believes the government was "intentionally putting guns into Mexico as a ploy to regulate firearms in America ... is just beyond paranoia."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I just want you to know that we are working on it, Brady recalled the president telling them. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.Paranoia....great destroyer, the idiots think we were born yesterday. Fell off a turnip truck too!
Unfortuately, given what just happend in the Floiduh primary, a majority of Americans did just fall off the turnip truck.
And the next fall will be far worse.
Wake up ping.
They are covering it way more than they did Scooter Libby....oh wait
Does a bear...........?
Gee, the media and the dimocrats were all over the Valerie Plume thing....
Tune in to Lou Dobbs on FBN. He’s been covering it every night. Tomorrow’s a big day. Could be the end of the line for holder.
This story hurts Obama, so she'll never hear of it.
It won’t be the end of Holder if only Fox and talk radio ever mention it.
Tomorrow’s an important hearing. Issa has new email evidence. I don’t see how the media doesn’t cover this. Issa is threatening to hold him in contempt.
If a tree falls down in the forest when nobody is around, does it make a sound?
It’s not a story if the Pravda Press boycotts it.
When do the virgin lips of Brian Williams get deflowered by the words “Fast & Furious?”
There was another cabinet member charged with contempt by a federal judge in New Orleans, I think it was Ken Salazar for not lifting the moratorium on drilling in the gulf.
Did you hear about? Was anyone shocked, I say shocked to hear that a cabinet member had been charged with contempt of court for disobeying a federal court order to lift the moratorium?
The advent of wire services transformed journalism. I say "services, plural, but the Associated Press is the big one. And the AP has always sought a monopoly position - to the extent that SCOTUS held, back in 1945, that the AP was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
But even if you ignore that salient fact and assume that there is in fact competition between multiple wire services, the fact remains that any wire service would tend to homogenize journalism. For the simple reason that any wire service is expensive, and any newspaper which belongs to a wire service must maximize the public respect for wire service reports.
Any wire service provides a newspaper with plentiful "copy" - reports of events which would not, in the pre-telegraph world, have been known to the public at great distances from the event for weeks or months. It is not the telegraph company which does that, tho. The reports have the mystique of the telegraph, and it takes a leap of imagination to absorb just how magical it seemed when, in the mid-Eighteenth Century, the telegraph made instantaneous communication possible over distances which then required weeks or even months for human transportation to reach.
But it is the wire service - reporters, who send the stories over the wire- who actually produce the reports. And the reporters are still just people. The member newspapers of the Associated Press, and the AP itself, generate the reports and those reports are the common source for all stories each newspaper publishes about distant events. How would it be possible for that system to fail to homogenize the member newspapers? That would not be possible. There still exist various editorial page positions of the various newspapers - the Wall Street Journal is a salient example, and its editorial page sells newspapers. But in general the editorial page is essentially a ghetto if it differs from the political coloration of the common reportage of the (nominally various) inputs to the AP. The meat and potatoes
The natural question is, "What is the inherent political coloration of the generic reporter? What is the difference between a reporter and other professionals?" The answer to that question, IMHO, is that journalists are biased in favor of journalism. Journalism is talk, not action, and journalism is uniquely flighty in its subjects. It doesn't restrict itself to any particular subject, but dedicates itself to whatever promotes journalism itself. And since criticism of those upon whom the public depends makes journalism seem important, the bias of journalism is against the public image of important institutions. But since this bias creates a propaganda wind, politicians sail down that wind if that does not violate their principles. Politicians who do this are rewarded by journalism with positive labels such as "progressive," "liberal," or "moderate." OTOH politicians who defend the institutions upon which we depend are tarred with negative labels such as "right wing," "extreme," or "conservative."Oh - and by the way, they award the positive label "objective" exclusively to themselves and not to the "liberal"/"moderate"/"progressive" person who is not a working as a journalist - notwithstanding the fact that there is no difference between the attitude of a "liberal" and that of an "objective" journalist. The claim of objectivity is a claim to represent the public interest - which is a great way to promote oneself and one's profession. And no journalist will contradict you if you assert that journalism is objective. But considering that any attempt at actual objectivity must start with an open declaration of any interests which one has in favor of any party to a dispute, declaring oneself/one's own profession to be "objective" precludes any real attempt at objectivity by the journalist.
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin/tt>