Fool Me Twice: Anti-Bush Bias From New Orleans to Baghdad

TheVanguard.org ^ | 11/18/2005 | Rod D. Martin

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[IronJack]

There is a silver lining to this kind of fraud. All a news organization can offer its consumers is credibility. If that goes, their product becomes worthless. With Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Food Lion, exploding pickups, and Dan Rather, the mainstream (left-wing) media have ravaged their own credibility. The public knows it, and the whores are starting to feel their rejection. Every single traditional news outlet has experienced declining sales, with some of the more audaciously biased sinking like a stone (San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, CBS News).

Their blind devotion to a dying cause will be the death of them.

[IronJack]

Shepard Smith was an embarrassment to the news profession during his "coverage" of Katrina. The only one worse was Geraldo, but we've come to EXPECT idiocy from that quarter.

Shep should be covering the Garden Club beat in Scarsdale after his overheated performances live from New Orleans.

[BonnieJ]

I will NEVER trust Shep Smith's "news" and analysis since that coverage.

[Candor7]

Thank you for your clear and concise analysis of ist amendment broadcasting. I know that at present we do not have a "right to truth." That is the problem. With the advent of hi tech since the days of pamphleteering, the
MSM conglomerate has manipulated the masses in America
toward specific outcomes in politics. This is a form of mind control which is distinctly contagion to the well informed public necessary to maintain a democratic republic.

The evidence of this situation is all over the broadcast world. The most singular"created news" has happened simply to forward the seizure of power by the minority left in the USA. Note the truth of this in the conduct of Dims in the house on the 18th of Nov. , having one stated position for the broadcast media, AND then voting competely opposite on the floor of the House of Representatives!
There is an assumption of impunity. The American voter is simply a maleable entity!

With 1st ammendment protection of the press there needs to be a concommitant responsibility. Soon there must be a professional board established where reporters need to be liscensed. A blatant creation of news , or propagandizing of ANY public policy not based on facts, should be cause for censorship or "disbarment " from the reporting profession. It is an individual, not a corporate responsibility. Dan Rather resigned. He should have been prosecuted.

Reporters have a fiduciary duty to the public in exchange
for protection under the 1st ammendment, a responsibility that must be discharged, if we are to avoid the evolution of our grand democratic "experiment" towards being a bananna republic.

Will this cast a chill on reporting? At first maybe, BUT
any reporter who says for example, that there are people shooting each other in the streets when this is untrue, causing citizens to panic, injure themselves, or alter voting patterns, need to be prosecuted according to the standards expected of them by the people.The American people cannot be ruled and tyrannized by Urban mythology and jingoism.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

With 1st ammendment protection of the press there needs to be a concommitant responsibility. Soon there must be a professional board established where reporters need to be liscensed. A blatant creation of news , or propagandizing of ANY public policy not based on facts, should be cause for censorship or "disbarment " from the reporting profession. It is an individual, not a corporate responsibility. Dan Rather resigned. He should have been prosecuted.

Well you see, we already have what you think you want. Broadcasters are licensed, and they are supposed to tell the truth objectively. So if your idea were going to work, broadcast journalism would be ideal. But what in fact happens? As in any other regulated industry, the regulatory body ends up in the pocket of the industry it's supposed to regulate . . . and you end up with no competition (the regulation is supposed to make that unnecessary) and also no effective regulation.

In fact, if your idea were going to work, broadcasting should have been even better back in the days of the Fairness Doctrine. That was an FCC rule which said that if you gave one side of an argument you had to give equal time to the other side. Who could argue with that? Ronald Reagan. Reagan pulled the plug on that rule, which had the effect of eliminating honest partisanship in favor of the exclusive broadcasting of arrogance under the banner of self-proclaimed "objectivity."

The key point to understand is that, under the First Amendment, The New York Times and The Washington Post are free of government regulation. They are free to write an editorial and put it on the front page and call it "objective journalism." They are and OUGHT TO BE free to do that, just like I am free to write this post and claim it is the truth. But appealing to the First Amendment is the very opposite to proving that you are objective.

That is, if I appeal to the First Amendment I am appealing to my right to be wrong - at the top of my voice. What the Times and the Post - and the rest of the liberal rags - do is basically a shell game. They claim to be "the press" - as if only the genre of nonfiction known as "journalism" fit that description (and as if book publishers do not). Having done so, they then want you to believe that they have special rights under the First Amendment because you need someone like them to tell you what is going on when the government is lying to you. They thereby beg the question of whether they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Viola! "Proof" that the newspaper is objective.

It is proof of no such thing. But the broadcast journalist, who's legally obligated to be objective, latches onto that fallacy as if it were pure Socratic logic. The broadcast journalist goes along and gets along with the print journalist, and together they constitute an amazing propaganda establishment dedicated to preventing you from clearly seeing that their "emperor" has no clothes on.

In fact the use of their propaganda power to promote that fallacy is proof that they are not objective. It is far less problematic for a government licensee to broadcast Rush Limbaugh or Air America than it is for that licensee to broadcast the putatively "objective" but factually tendentious "CBS News."

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[rdb3]

I don't even want to think about the Hurricane Katrina coverage OR the reactions. Both were the definition of ugly.

As a vet, I'll keep my opinion of the MSM and the Dems over the war to myself, for it would be unbecoming of a gentleman.

[Candor7]

I favor individual versus group responsibility in reporting truth, just the same way attorneys are individually responsible and bound by a professional canons of ethics.

I do not see this as a loss of freedom but a delineation of responsibility.

I know we have what a process already. It doesn't work simply because there is little individual , ethical responsibility, nor the political will.

Reporters should also be required to graduate from a program of education just like other professionals before being liscenced by a state organisation.

[Landru]

Excellent piece Mr.Martin, every single word the Gospel's truth.

One thing I'd like to see you address that I didn't see, though?
How the Liberal-Socialist quisling mediots attempt to damage the presidency at the cost of the American citizen's psyche from every angle.

Simply peruse the financial section of any of the rags to see 'em at "work".
"Unemployment Rate Up" (~in extra-bold print) in an isolated area of the nation, and, in spite of our economy humming along, nicely.
The Xmas season for US retailers "Looks Bad", never-mind it's another 5-6 weeks until Xmas.
Headline's declaring "how" the Republicans block the good ol' 'Rats attempt to impose a "windfall tax" on the oil producers as oil prices continue to fall via free market forces. (~guess it took the media wing of the DNC too long to get their 'Rats moving in synch this time as the event had come & gone, eh?)

There're far too many examples to list here, but they're to be found each & every day, relentlessly.

It's clear anyone who could write a piece as well as you [have] has also noticed that of which I speak.
The *tone* of everything one reads and/or hears in/from the nations MSM has a distinct "downbeat", almost depressed slant, *everything*.
They mean to make people mighty angry, even if said people know not what it is behind their anger & angst, huh.

This is what I'd call a "conspiracy", if ever there were.
A conspiracy designed to penultimately attack everything & skillfully linking [it] to this POTUS (no matter how absurd) with the ultimate goal to drag this nation down into the same sewer these Liberal-Socialist quisling mediots thrive & survive.
Pretty damned despicable.

Liberal-Socialists know no bounds, yield to no rules of fair-play, haven't a clue when it comes to basic honesty and especially when it comes to taking this POTUS out.

It'd be interesting if you plied your writing skills describing the other areas they're screwing with.
Because honestly isn't it the sum of the parts taking the toll?

Only by exposing the fraud -- in its entirety -- can the sheer breadth of the ruse be appreciated, and only then?

...can it be dealt with accordingly. ;^)

[Landru]

"In fact, if your idea were going to work, broadcasting should have been even better back in the days of the Fairness Doctrine. That was an FCC rule which said that if you gave one side of an argument you had to give equal time to the other side. Who could argue with that? Ronald Reagan. Reagan pulled the plug on that rule, which had the effect of eliminating honest partisanship in favor of the exclusive broadcasting of arrogance under the banner of..."

How quickly we forget.
That fact isn't going to play well around here, I'm afraid.

"In fact the use of their propaganda power to promote that fallacy is proof that they are not objective. It is far less problematic for a government licensee to broadcast Rush Limbaugh or Air America than it is for that licensee to broadcast the putatively 'objective' but factually tendentious 'CBS News.'"

HA!!
But they won't be able to argue with that.

...will they. {g}

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I favor individual versus group responsibility in reporting truth, just the same way attorneys are individually responsible and bound by a professional canons of ethics.

The First Amendment favors individual responsibility to identify the truth even if someone is lying to you. Even, indeed, if most people are lying to you. Which is what we get when CBS lies about the so-called "Texas Air National Guard Memos" - and all the rest of "objective" journalism played dumb instead of savaging 60 Minutes for running with the fraudulent "memos."

People who assume that anyone is objective because they say they are objective are suckers.

[SpinyNorman]

For me, the final nail in the MSM coffin was hammered in after the years long hysteria about President Bush's TANG service as compared to the near silence about Kerry's questionable Vietnam "service" and subsequent traitorous antics thereafter (up to the present), and the shameful abuse of the hundreds of real Swiftboat commanders/crew by Kerry, the MSM and the other socialists. I don't even need to mention the corrupt actions of Rather/Mapes.

The only thing less blatant would be a brick upside one's head.

[Candor7]

Quote yours:
1) The First Amendment favors individual responsibility to identify the truth even if someone is lying to you. Even, indeed, if most people are lying to you. Which is what we get when CBS lies about the so-called "Texas Air National Guard Memos" - and all the rest of "objective" journalism played dumb instead of savaging 60 Minutes for running with the fraudulent "memos."

Exactly my point: That is why reporters need to be educationally qualified by a State Board Program, just like other professionals are. And they need to have a canon of ethics, and they need to be licensed, with a review board for professional misconduct.This simply codifies 1st amendment responsibility as a quit pro quo for 1st amendment protection.


Quote yours 2) People who assume that anyone is objective because they say they are objective are suckers.

This is a self evident truth, yet other professionals who are licensed in our society, such as attorneys, police officers, real estate agents,and many others,are required professionally to
base what facts THEY use on corroborated truth. If a reasonably professional effort is made at corroboration, responsibility to find the truth is fulfilled.

That is why we freepers need to lobby for this type of statutory regime, because a democratic republic cannot continue to exist when the public masses are misinformed because of spin, propaganda and disinformation, on issues which influence voting patterns toward a socially engineered society, that we are currently experiencing from a misapplied left wing culture and judiciary. MAKE THE REPORTERS STAUTORILY AND PROFESSIONALLY RESPONSIBLE AS QUALIFIED LISCENCED INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SURE THAT 1st AMENDMENT RESPONSIBILILITY IS DISCHARGED OR THEY LOSE THEIR LISCENCE OR ARE SUSPENDABLE. USE THE LAW THE WAY DIMS ARE MISUSING IT RIGHT NOW IN THE EARLE AND DELAY CASES.

[ForGod'sSake]

Exactly my point: That is why reporters need to be educationally qualified by a State Board Program, just like other professionals are.

Feh! For starters, to use reporters in the same sentence as professionals is patently absurd. It would be like demanding licenses for carnival barkers, who serve essentially the same function. I've dealt with "professional" types most of my working life and I'll tell you, I can count on one hand the number of lawyers I'd buy a cup of coffer for. Furthermore, they are paid to massage the truth to their clients' advantage instead of find and impart the truth. Sound familiar?

Realtors? I spent 20+ years working around the real estate business with similar observations. Now, it may just be peculiar to these two "professions", but I don't know of a single time one of these professionals was censured or anything else. I believe cIc is right, the regulators end up in the pockets of the regulated.

That is why we freepers need to lobby for this type of statutory regime...

While your desire to clean up the MSM is admirable, I think I'll pass on this lobbying effort. The one question, if answered, that might shed some light on the problem of socialist leaning MSM, where is the conservative media. Where are our cheerleaders?

I really short-sheeted my post because company just arrived, so this will have to do for now...

FGS

[Landru]

"While your ["Candor7] desire to clean up the MSM is admirable, I think I'll pass on this lobbying effort."

I'll *pass* on the idea too, FGS.

Beyond the anachronistic little ditty, "We hold these truths to be self evident..." (& all it implies gone haywire with our quisling media) the last thing any sane person should knowingly do is grant [even] more power to bureaucrats.
Doing so only begs to evoke the old adage, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" by creating yet another Frankenstein monster we'll never be able to get rid of, never-mind control.

"The one question, if answered, that might shed some light on the problem of socialist leaning MSM, where is the conservative media. Where are our cheerleaders?"

Whoaaaa hold it there, partner. {~said with my *best* Texan drawl...}
That's a great question; but, haven't we've discussed [that] very point once before (ad nauseum) from a different perspective? {@ CCRM...}

I once asked you (& bert & "Copernicus" etc) how it is the Liberal-Socialist quislings could possibly get away with their socialist crappola, IF in fact, the networks are owned & operated by capitalists.
Remember?
Said something stunk, didn't "square" with reality in corporate America & what we're "seeing"? ;^)

The Liberal-Socialist quislings could only be doing what they are/have with the *blessing(s)* of those very high up the corporate ladder, possibly at the very top.
Hence the analogy using the character, "Mr. Jensen" from Network?
Kind of captures the paradox beautifully if true, don't you think?

"I really short-sheeted my post because company just arrived..."

Yea I know, my knees slammed into my chin. {g}

"...so this will have to do for now..."

Fair enough.

...but *do* consider what I've said. ;^)

[ForGod'sSake]

That's a great question; but, haven't we've discussed [that] very point once before (ad nauseum) from a different perspective?

Yeah well, sortof. Yeah ;^)

BUT, it's a question that continues to bounce around the hollow spaces between my ears(room to roam?) since it's not been answered, at least to my satisfaction. I have produced rants on this several times without arriving at any conclusion, except that, there is no easy or apparent answer. Now, that should trouble a lot of people, particularly conservatives. The MSM is a bunch of firebreathing, leftist goebbelists.......and we don't know why? And, from what I'm able to gather, we can't find out why.

I'll grant you that at least the mega corporations, including the MSM owners, are part and parcel of the "issue", but are they in fact just using the best tool available to them to keep their name/product in front of the masses? The right masses? You know, the ones easily separated from their money? Who just concidentally are excellent candidates for Dim vote mining due to their lack of critical thinking skills?

Kind of captures the paradox beautifully if true, don't you think?

Likely some truth in that excellent film, but it might only be a partial truth? Since some pretty good minds around here(not to mention MRC, AIM, etc) haven't been able to arrive at anything approaching an answer leaves me deeply saddened(heh). Fact is, I don't recall the question even being asked by any of that illustrious group. I even politely chided one of our own who's writing "A History of the Media", basically stating if he couldn't arrive at an answer to this question, his history would be woefully incomplete.

Well, I've flogged this horse so many times, he's starting to enjoy it, so...

FGS

[HungarianGypsy]

Last year a man from my church went to Iraq. The first thing his wife was told was to avoid any media, because it was just going to worry and upset her, since so much of it is a lie.
Today he was a guest in the children's Sunday School class and answered questions. Two of my children asked questions. My daughter asked if he slept outside: He said he hated the mosquitos. My son asked if he saw Saddam (he was embarassed to tell me this). He was told, no, but he did say he looked over some weapon designs and inspected a weapon that didn't work. Because these weapons didn't exist according to the media.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

MAKE THE REPORTERS STAUTORILY AND PROFESSIONALLY RESPONSIBLE AS QUALIFIED LISCENCED INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SURE THAT 1st AMENDMENT RESPONSIBILILITY IS DISCHARGED

The First Amendment says I have freedom of religion. Does that mean I have to go to synagogue on Saturday and chuch on Sunday? No, it means that I can follow my own conscience.

The First Amendment says I have freedom to assemble and to petition the government. Does that mean that I have to go to Washington and carry a sign around? No, it means that I can go if I want, or not - just as I please.

The First Amendment says I have freedom of speech. Does that mean I have no right to shut up? No, I can talk or not, whether it suits any governmenal authority or not.

Likewise the First Amendment says that I have freedom of the press. Does that mean that I have to report everything that you think important? No, it means that I can print if I wanna, or not, if I wanna. And the same thing holds true for the owner of The New York Times. You can't improve on the First Amendment, and if you try you will make things worse.

[Candor7]

Whether you agree or not, Reporters should be licensed professionals just like other professionals. That has very little to do with the 1st ammendment, or we would not have any professional licensing in this country at all.

However the process would make individuals professionally accountable for unethical conduct, such as that of Dan Rather in fabricating "news."

A lobbying effort for such professional licensing of reporters is long overdue and a reporter's malpractise should not be protected as 1st ammendment speech, no more than a surgeon leaving a scalpel inside a patient should be regarded as professional conduct.