Jon Voight: Obama Has Taken Over Media 'In No Less A Way' Than Chavez Has In Venezuela

Jon Voight: Obama Has Taken Over Media 'In No Less A Way' Than Chavez Has In Venezuela By Noel Sheppard Created 08/29/2012 - 2:39pm

"The media has been overtaken by the Obama administration in no less a way than Hugo Chavez took over media in Venezuela.”

Such was said Wednesday by actor Jon Voight during a Spreecast with Steve Malzberg (video follows with transcribed highlights, relevant section nine minutes in):

After Malzberg noted some of the media censorship of minorities speaking at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Voight said, “I’ve been talking about this in the press, and I said, I made a statement a couple of days ago, I said the mainstream media, the media has been overtaken by the Obama administration in no less a way than Hugo Chavez took over media in Venezuela.”

Voight continued, “I never dreamed I’d see the day when the main media would refuse to cover the Republican convention, and would edit the Republican convention just as you suggested.”

“Anybody in my business knows that editing is everything," Voight added. "You can make anything look good or bad or whatever. You can create all sorts of, you know, emotional impressions with editing.”

“So this is propaganda pure and simple,” said Voight. “There is no Democratic Party anymore. It’s a propaganda party, I’ve been saying that. And that’s what we’re dealing with. So it is a fight against lies and distortion.”

I think it’s more the case that the media owns Barry or any liberal candidate. It is their tune liberal politicians dance to. The MSM should have to declare as a party.

Exactly right. The only thing I would modify is that the term “media” is a case of poor targeting. Without in any way suggesting that movies and fictional TV are not socialist-minded, the correct target IMOH is not “the media” in general but wire service journalism in particular. Complaining about “the media” places you in the weak position of wanting to censor fiction. But wire service journalism not only is a genre of literature putatively about truth, it is actually dominated by a single, easily identified entity - the Associated Press. And that entity is vulnerable to very specific, very pointed, criticism. Take down the image of the AP, and you take down essentially all of mainstream journalism with it. Take down mainstream journalism and, IMHO, you have transformed the ideological playing field on which the fictional “media” play.
Brave talk. How to “take down” wire service journalism? I have a suggestion - a civil suit. Brought by either an obviously harmed individual(s) such as George Zimmerman (who obviously would not be on trial for his life and liberty if not for the publicity attacking the police for not charging him with murder) or the Duke Lacrosse Team or any number of other identifiable targets of herd journalism. Or else a class action suit on behalf of politically conservative people generally. The defendant would be the AP and its membership as individuals. The tort committed by wire service journalism is that it besmirches the reputation of innocent individuals and of the general conservative population collectively, creating an environment in which they do not get a fair trial if accused, and if they are attacked their attacker is not brought to trial at all. The mechanism by which this is perpetrated is that via the AP all the membership communicates in precisely the way that Adam Smith would have told you was inimical to the public interest:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
The AP newswire is a continuous ongoing “meeting” by which the membership of the AP conspires against the public. The injustice occurs when responsibility for libel is obfuscated, and its perpetrators protected. Anyone who comes under attack from “the media” can’t finger anyone in particular because all journalists join in by running with the slant - and, if you ignore the role of the AP, “everyone is responsible - and no one is responsible.” If you look the AP in the face, the AP is responsible, and its members in particular are responsible.

What we have is media candidates...the ones they decide to promote.

The natural question is, “Why do journalists favor Democrats?” My answer is that journalists are critics rather than doers. They want the authority to define themselves as being important and influential, but the take no responsibility for any possible consequence of their recommendations. They flatter anyone who promotes the idea that criticism is superior to action - and deride anyone who opposes that fatuous conceit. Application of the terms “liberal” or “progressive” or “moderate” to people who are opposed to liberty and to progress “of, by, and for the american people” is flattery. Application of the term “conservative” to people who favor rather than oppose progress (e.g., horizontal drilling and fracking) is derision.

Well said.

“What we have is media candidates...the ones they decide to promote.

The natural question is, “Why do journalists favor Democrats?””

Journalists don’t ‘favor’ democrats. They use the democrats to promote their agenda and candidates. It’s the media in charge, not the Democrats. It’s kinda like the Chicken and the Egg..... The only people more concerned with placating the media than Republicans are Democrats...like I said, MSM, or ‘wire service journalism’ should have to register as a party. At least it would be up front so everyone knew who owns the candidate.

Nothing changes until this media is changed. I don’t know what that will take. Hard to change the outfit in charge.

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.