Gowdy exposes media's complicity in Benghazi cover-up

Brief press conference from last year when Trey Gowdy indicted the media for their failure in covering the Benghazi attack. Worth a watch.

BTW, out of curiosity ... how many of us are motivated to post our complaints about the media here on FR or complain in conversations with others about the feckless media, yet never write letters* or emails or make phone calls to the media to call them out for abrogation of journalistic duty? Can we help stir up some sense of responsibility to inform the public if we constantly nudge them?

*Personally, I think a letter is more effective. It's too easy to hit the delete button on an email. There used to be some sort of formula in media organizations which calculated that one letter equaled "X" amount of viewers/readers. I forget the number, but it was sizable.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Martin Luther King Jr.

I think we should definitely heed your advice to write letters to the media. That said, for the most of us here, we are just so busy working, it's hard to seize the moment and write snail mail. That and we know the media are so in literally in bed with leftist politicians its akin to bailing water with a teacup.

But the point is taken that even a small concerted effort in both letters AND emails will make the point to them (the media) that THIS TIME for THE 2014 MID-TERM ELECTIONS we are UNITED to defeat them! At least it will demoralize them and perhaps set them off their game.

Suggest we Freepers each invest in America by buying a roll of stamps and flood the MSM with letters that SHAME and EXPOSE them. Calling on someone to provide mailing instructions and differing examples of letters. When we're called home to Heaven, let's have a ready answer to "What did you do to stem the tide?"

Maybe Gowdy or someone with oversight of the federal election laws can look into whether the operating budget of the major news organizations can be considered a contribution to the Democrat party. With coordination like we currently have, all the news is a PR release for the Democrats.

It’s simple . . . from the founding era up to the Civil War era, newspapers were about the opinions of their printers, as much or more than about the news. What changed in the Civil War era? The advent of the telegraph and the Associated Press. And any other wire service you can name, the AP is just the biggest and most monopolistic of the bunch. The legitimate mission of the wire service is to economically share news over expensive telegraph bandwidth. But the wire service concomitantly functions as a continuous virtual meeting of the newspapers which belong to it - and therein lies the rub:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
In plain sight, the wire services - basically, the AP - functions as “a conspiracy against the public” by journalists. A conspiracy to do what to the public? Simple - a conspiracy to promote journalism and journalists above the public. But what is the journalist? The wire service journalist tells you what went wrong when people other than journalists (and their acolytes) were in charge. IOW, journalists are critics rather than doers. Theodore Roosevelt famously asserted that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
Back in 1910, before the meaning of the word was inverted (in the 1920s, according to Safire’s New Political Dictionary), when Roosevelt said that, he was expressing liberalism. The “liberalism” we are used to is the precise opposite of that; according to “liberalism,” the critic is the one who counts, because nothing actually matters except PR. The perfect inversion of “the credit belongs to the man in the arena” is, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
The long and the short of the matter is that freedom of the press is subverted by wire services. Because “the press” is homogenized into a single entity, and the newspapers are about wire service copy rather than about the divergent opinions of the printers. But of course, in reality you don’t become a printer unless you are simpatico with wire service journalism. So we have the irony that “our free press” is not a defender of the First Amendment.
Back when Senator Bill Bradley was promoting “Campaign Finance Reform” on the grounds that “the poor man’s soap box” couldn’t compete with “the rich man’s wallet,” the Internet was in its infancy. But in reality, it is wire service journalism which is “the rich man’s wallet” - and it has been since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary. And it is the Internet which is now “the poor man’s soap box.” And even the ads by truly rich people like the Koch brothers can’t compete on level ground with wire service journalism backed up by FCC broadcasting licenses.
It is a joke to take campaign finance regulation seriously as constitutionally legitimate. It is inimical to freedom of speech and press.

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.