CYRANO'S JOURNAL®
THE BLOGOSPHERESelections of note | BLOGOSPHERE DIGEST ~ Posted 9. 19.05 | Vol 1. P.1 |
http://www.cjonline.org
|
The stench of selfishness is making us sick.
"I cannot bear to be with the American elite right now. I cannot abide their casual cruelty. If I heard one disparaging remark - and I know these Wall Streeters , it would've happened - about Katrina's victims I would not have been able to hold back..."
Grushka, blog 2 |
CJONLINE.ORG & SPECIFIC AUTHORS. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT NOTICE.
|
1. FROM DAILYKOS <http://www.dailykos.com/>
Open Thread by openthread Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 18:42:37 PDT Chew it up. Spit it out.
CNN + DeLay + MSNBC + Iraq Contracts + Disney + Rednecks = Profit! by Hunter Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 17:47:15 PDT If you're looking for some good reasons to go with the feeling in your gut that the corporate newsmedia has so many interconnected conflicts of interest that you shouldn't trust them to tell you the time, much less the truth, this editorial provides a heck of an overview. Some highlights:
That same day, CNN's parent company, Time Warner, announced the hiring of DeLay's chief of staff as a top Washington lobbyist. This news, and its timing, prompted Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy to tell the L.A. Weekly: "Time Warner aligning itself with the right-wing DeLay machine should send shudders [down] CNN and HBO."
At least that wily old codger Sumner Redstone, head of Viacom, parent company of CBS, has admitted what everyone already knows is true: that, while he personally may be a Democrat, "It happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."
As for Immelt, he publicly wishes his MSNBC could be a clone of FNC. Not surprising, since he let his network and cable news cheerlead the run-up to the Iraqi war without ever bothering to tell viewers GE had billions in contracts pending. More than half of Iraq's power grid is GE technology.
Disney, parent company of ABC, has turned most of its extensive radio network and owned-and-operated stations into a 24/7 orgy of right-wing talk. (Sean Hannity is their poster boy.) Plenty more there to think about, too. Every time I hear talk of a blogger ethics conference, I laugh so hard my stigmata starts acting up. If we want the newsmedia to get back to reporting news -- and I mean actual, politically sensitive news, not breathless on-the-scene reports from whatever stagelit tropical scene White Girl Number 23 has disappeared from this week -- we need to surgically detach the news organizations from the conglomerates that have subsumed them. Permalink :: Discuss (133 comments, 133 new)
2. FROM DAILYKOS <http://www.dailykos.com/> "I Turned Down US Open Tickets Today" Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 14:46:10 PDT {Compare: "SOME PEOPLE PUSH BACK" by Ward Churchill, also on this site}
A Wall Street friend from a top investment bank left a message this morning: he had an extra ticket to the US Open Tennis matches today. Fancy corporate pavillion, great food, champagne.
I never called him back. grushka's diary :: ::
I'm not trying to dramatize myself or this tiny act of resistance, at a moment when Americans are dying and others are trying to help. But I AM trying to make a point. The elite in this country - hell, in every country - is colder than you could ever imagine. More callous, calculating and uncaring than you can believe. I have witnessed one locus of power - Wall Street - up close for years. I know the ethos well. These institutions are not content to profit from disaster (trading on volatility, insider deals, manipulation of markets). The people within them show their mettle (manhood, worth, belonging) by expressions of utter disregard for the vast mass of humanity.
I know some of us hope that the Administration's disastrous neglect may lead the elite to finally step in and force a change. And that may indeed be our only hope right. But I also think it unlikely. Bush has redefined the elite. Shrunk down to a tiny size and given it extravagant gifts. They aren't saying anything.
Everyone else in the upper tier is terrified about slipping... there's nowhere to go but far, far down. To those without substantial wealth, the financial abyss looms. They'll keep their mouths shut. For them, the price of complaint is far too high.
The Bush years have emboldened the tiny American elite. They now pay no lip service to American progress. They have taken on the trappings of feudal lords among serfs. Their popular mouthpieces - the New York Post, O'Reilly and so on - have literally JOKED about the plight of black Americans after Katrina. Sucking up to the elite, reflecting the elite's ethos.
I have always dreaded living in a society like this. Where lies and repression are the only means of maintaining order. Where cruelty is a sign of belonging and participation. Where crushing others is the essence of every social interaction. And yet it is here. This America in 2005. This is the Bush America.
God bless us, indeed. Display:
I have some elite Wall Street friends who I can't stand to be around anymore. I swear to god all they care about are their own tax rates, and nothing else. If it were up to them there would be a poll tax, i.e., a tax system where every individual pays the same amount of taxes -- not the same rate, the same gross amount -- regardless of income. Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN! by pontificator on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 14:59:19 PDT
I was channel surfing (none / 0) yesterday, and I came across the U.S. Open, and was filled with revulsion. I know exactly what you mean. I am tempted to purchase not anything, not one damn thing, from any corporation, or chain store, nothing that is not from a small business or made locally or made by hand locally. I live in NYC so I don't have to buy gas, for which I am grateful, grateful not so much for financial reasons but because I am not forced to further enrich the homicidal maniacs in power. Enough with the cannibal capitalistic mentality advocated by this country and most violently advocated by this administration. I'm sick with rage over the naked injustice that is so obviously and so pathetically revealed in the Gulf states. The curtain is truly drawn aside for all the world to see what we're about. What a sickening and horrifying reality. BushCo., all the decrepit lot of them, need to be thrown out of office now. by drangel on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:14:03 PDT Obviously I'm an NYCer, too (none / 0) And this city ain't as liberal as people think. I think NYC is America times 10. Liberal, conservative, etc. But I cannot excape this sickened feeling even here. By the way, have you SEEN the NY Post's coverage? They all but cackled with glee at the shooting of "Marauders" yesterday. The covers were all "anarchy/rape/looting" for the first 4 days of the crisis. I want out of this nightmare. I don't think I can handle much more of this. George Bush prancing on the aircraft carrier: one of America's worst moments by grushka on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:19:04 PDT Yes, the nightmare (none / 0) keeps getting longer and longer, and haunts me every day. I don't "do" the NY Post, because I cannot stomach it, as I cannot stomach Fox News, or even the sound of Bush's voice. They're all the same to me. I feel the same as you. I cannot believe there isn't an uproar of such volume that Bush's ears bleed. When will this end? I can't believe there will be 3 more long death-filled years of this. by drangel on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:32:23 PDT this is an excellent diary (none / 0) I have now read it several times. The phenomenon you write about is fascinating. Grushka, what is your explanation for it? I once had a talk with a Chicago taxi driver about this very issue. He said that his best tips came from poor people on the south and west sides, his worst tips from rich white people on Oak Street and Michigan Avenue. Why? Because quite simply people believe that they deserve to be where they are and have no sympathy for those down the social ladder. Whereas poor and working class people know what it means to work for a living. Yes this is fascinating. Thank you for posting it. by Skyresh on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:17:22 PDT I am stumped (none / 0) I realized I've been living around this my whole life. My dad's a physician, so my family had a certain kind of status and decent income. I went to an Ivy League college. There I saw what I had never been raised with: a bunch of wealthy white kids with pure fucking entitlement. As I got older, I started to note contempt in the way most weathy whites deal with minorities. Or poor people. I saw how it became "cool" for my Wall Street acquaintances to rip a waiter for slow service. At the most basic level, maybe this is pure primate domnance behavior. Maybe our brand of primate is brutally hierarchical, wired to dominate. All I know is, it renders "democracy" a total joke. It's a terrible way to live with others. And I doubt it brings any peace or satisfaction to the asshole dominants who spread their contempt. George Bush prancing on the aircraft carrier: one of America's worst moments by grushka on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:24:27 PDT whitey (none / 0) I went to the same schools as George Bush, starting with Andover, so I know the phenomenon you mean very well. When I was at Andover, a movement of evangelical Christian republicans--most from very wealthy families--was starting up and I found it so impossible to square my sense of what it means to be a Christian with the values these neo-con evangelicals were displaying--cruelty, drinking, fucking, binging, coking it up--that I turned away from the episcopal church in disgust. It was just the fucking hypocrisy I couldn't stand. But yes, people are apes, 96% of DNA identical to chimps. So maybe the better question is how do some people develop a serious conscience even when their economic incentives are to stick with their own kind? I've enjoyed your diaries and posts over the years, Grushka. And this one is very thought-provoking indeed. Great work and thank you. by Skyresh on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:43:35 PDT Thanks, appreciate it (none / 0) One thought: perhaps those who do not participate in the behavior lack a gene for it. I'm no scientist, so perhaps I'm misusing terms and anaologies, but... genetic predispositions seem to be to blame for problems like alcoholism, gambling addiction, predisposition to violence and so on. Even some traits like religious fervor appear genetic. I'm pretty sure I lack the dominance gene. I've always had a small-d democratic streak. At my rich Jewish kid summer camp, I was friends with the poor kitchen staff. I'm not trying to sound holier-than-thou... it's just a trait I have. Recently, my mom told me she wanted the phrase "That all men are created equal" on her tombstone. She too has always been friends with the hairdressers, the Vietnamese manicurists, the Latin waiters. I know exactly where I got this quality. And it's not upbringing. It's deeply part of me. Along with other, less noble traits as well. Thanks again... it's good to hear from others about this stuff. George Bush prancing on the aircraft carrier: one of America's worst moments by grushka on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:51:54 PDT
Same here! (none / 0) My husband's industry has a big convention coming up soon and he is absolutely dreading it for the same reasons. He can not stand the right wing banter he has to listen to on a regular basis at all of the functions he has to attend in his industry. It seems to be heavily dominated by the right. He's so worried one of these times he will absolutely lose it if he listens to any more selfish crap. by churchlady on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:23:13 PDT alternative thought (none / 0) If you were willing to risk your head, you could alternatively have taken the US Open ticket, brought a collection box for Katrina relief, and asked all the people there to pony up a contribution, the bigger, the better. Of course, that would have required you to exercise enormous self-control at everyone who would brush you off. I saw one local restaurant that was donating some of the proceed to hurricane relief, and a local formerly-indie CD store (now corporatized) was matching donations from customers. At a local bike rice where a colleague lives, there was a collection tin for Katrina help. The local oldies station was also taking donations over the phone for relief. by chingchongchinaman on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:23:23 PDT No way I could've done that (none / 0) Period. That would've humiliated my friend who invited me. It would've been way too raw and caused a massive ripple of concern, revulsion, contempt from the people there. I know these type of people very, very well. That would've been an explosive move and the end of my friendship. And as much as I loathe my friend's politics, I am loyal personally. George Bush prancing on the aircraft carrier: one of America's worst moments. by grushka on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:27:05 PDT
fair enough.... (none / 0) Yeah, I kinda figured that that was the situation with you and your pal. Smart move then to stay away. I assume, of course, that he knows you're on the other side politically and that there is sort of an "agree to disagree" aspect to your friendship. by chingchongchinaman on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 16:04:56 PDT I "recycle" old audio gear/equipment.... (none / 0)....and frequent many forums which discuss audio. I know what you mean by "elite" attitudes. These people think because THEY have it good and make good money, that others less fortunate should "pick themselves up by the bootstraps/blah blah blah". Pretty heartless, IMO. While this does not represent that community as a whole (there are many kind and giving individuals, too), many in that community say "I did this, so why can't you" and go on with their day. LOTS of repubs on those boards. I didn't really want to hear this, so I have avoided those sections of the web where I know those opinions reside. I really don't need to get banned from those sites where I have otherwise been a constructive member of those communities, so I have avoided those "cybertaverns" for the time being. As MaryScott O'Connor said in her diary, "there by the grace of God, there go I". Those evacuees, or other less fortunate person, could be me. Same goes for them. by Audible Nectar on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 15:56:42 PDT I also know what you mean... (none / 0) I spent a few years in private school myself (never forgave my parents for that), and I've met some of the worst-of-the-worst...they might have only been kids, but you knew they learned it at home. Utter disregard for other people - it was like you were one of them, or you were worthless. Their ethos was unabashed - greed is good, social Darwinism is an excellent idea, succeed or drop dead, why should I care about anyone else, if it doesn't affect ME directly, don't bother me with it.
And it seems like it can be contagious, too. A more-or-less-ex friend of mine gained entry into the outer ring of the "business-elite" crowd in the last few years. The friend in question wasn't so much evil, as a follower. He grew up in a family of modest income, and when we became friends, he was "following" a different crowd, and we got along - although I kinda always knew he was the type to follow the 'biggest man around,' if you know what I mean. Then he started working with a richer crowd, and you could see the difference. He stopped talking about much besides various and sundry material possessions (either ones he had, or ones he wanted), income, raises, financial planning, real estate, how he's trying to up his "net worth," and how important that is, you have to "know" what you're "worth" and if it isn't enough, you've failed. It was weird - like he'd joined a cult, or something. The funny thing is, he's a "Christian" - somehow, he can rationalize his new-found hyper-materialism with his religion - don't ask me how.
The scariest thing, I think, is that I seem to remember that there used to be less tolerance for this sort of attitude - people had it, but others disapproved. I feel like I don't even see or hear much disapproval anymore. Ask people what's "wrong" with this country, and they seem to lack the language to describe it. They talk about "morals," but by that they seem to mean stuff having to do with sex, or poor people who collect unemployment because they're "lazy" - never the utter depravity of certain sectors of the economic elite. It may be profitable for you to reflect, in future, that there never were greed and cunning in the world yet that did not do too much, and overreach themselves.
by ChaosMouse on Mon Sep 5th, 2005 at 16:37:34 PDT
3. FROM DAILYKOS <http://www.dailykos.com/>
Roger Ailes and the right-wing reality Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 23:04:49 PDT
Listening to the local AAR affiliate this afternoon (http://www.ktlk.com) Craig Crawford was being interviewed and promoting his new book(http://www.attackthemessenger.com) showing how the media is made out to be the culprit in the demise of our democracy. Part way through the interview, Crawford mentioned how Roger Ailes, now Fox News hack-in-charge had held cue cards for George H.W. Bush's interview with Dan Rather way back in 1988.
proudprogressiveCA's diary :: ::
Crawford went on to say how wingnuts (my words) are trained to blame the media and make them look bad while Republicans retain the 'high ground' during interviews, etc etc. It was a great interview and interesting to hear someone like Craig Crawford expose some truths inside the media establishment and their relationship to the government and the politicians that run it.
4. FROM DAILYKOS <http://www.dailykos.com/> $1 billion stolen from Iraq Does this qualify as "turning the corner", "mission accomplished", or "last throes"? One billion dollars has been plundered from Iraq's defence ministry in one of the largest thefts in history, The Independent can reveal, leaving the country's army to fight a savage insurgency with museum-piece weapons. The money, intended to train and equip an Iraqi army capable of bringing security to a country shattered by the US-led invasion and prolonged rebellion, was instead siphoned abroad in cash and has disappeared [...] Mr Allawi says a further $500m to $600m has allegedly disappeared from the electricity, transport, interior and other ministries. This helps to explain why the supply of electricity in Baghdad has been so poor since the fall of Saddam Hussein 29 months ago despite claims by the US and subsequent Iraqi governments that they are doing everything to improve power generation. The sum missing over an eight-month period in 2004 and 2005 is the equivalent of the $1.8bn that Saddam allegedly received in kick- backs under the UN's oil-for-food programme between 1997 and 2003. The UN was pilloried for not stopping this corruption. The US military is likely to be criticised over the latest scandal because it was far better placed than the UN to monitor corruption. Disaster upon disaster upon disaster. Permalink :: Survey USA: 3 polling days after George W. Bush's prime-time speech to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans, a "can't win" dynamic is unfolding for the President, according to exclusive SurveyUSA data gathered Friday 9/16, Saturday 9/17 and Sunday 9/18. The number of Americans who now approve of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina is down: 40% today compared to 42% before he announced the Gulf Opportunity Zone. The number of Americans who disapprove of the President's response to Katrina is up: 56% today compared to 52% before the speech. Bush went from "Minus 10" on his Response to Katrina before the speech to "Minus 16" today. So why is the number of disatisfieds rising? Because moderates and liberals have already decided Bush is a fuckup and aren't about to change their minds. Meanwhile, conservatives don't like seeing Bush try to make up for his incompetence by "throwing money" at the region. One way to make sense of these numbers is to look at the number of Americans who today say the Federal Government is doing "too much" for Katrina victims. That's up to 16% today, more than triple what the number has been on 7 of the 19 days that SurveyUSA has conducted daily tracking since the storm. The more cash President Bush throws on the fire, as compensation for what some see as an inadequate initial response, the more it antagonizes his core supporters. As SUSA says, Bush is in a "damn if he does, damn if he doesn't" position. And it couldn't have happened to a better man.
5. FROM DAILYKOS <http://www.dailykos.com/>
Paying for Katrina There is such a fantasyland quality to the discussions around paying for Katrina reconstruction: U.S. lawmakers on Sunday differed over how to pay for rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in a preview of the likely battles ahead as Congress struggles with a price tag that some say could top $200 billion. Democrats on the Sunday talk shows said tax cuts should not be extended and proposals like eliminating the estate tax should be rejected because they only benefit the wealthiest. Republicans said spending cuts were the way to go, including from the highway bill, which has been criticized for being stuffed with "pork" or pet projects. Here's a clue, we could not afford Bush's tax cuts BEFORE Katrina hit, we certainly can't now: Extending the Adminsitrations tax cuts, due to expire in 2011, would reduce revenues on a permament basis by 2.5% of GDP . . . [a] decline[] larger than the shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security for the next 75 years combined. Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, which was hard-hit by the hurricane, said he opposed tax increases, and what was required were incentives for businesses to return and reinvest and create jobs in his state. "And we can't have that completely counteracted by a big, big tax increase by not making the current cuts permanent," Vitter said on ABC's "This Week.". . . House conservatives plan to put forward proposals in a drive called "Operation Offset" aimed at finding ways to pay for the Katrina expenses, Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, said. Those will include proposals to set aside about 6,000 add-on projects in the recent highway bill, he said on ABC. Congress should also take a hard look at delaying implementation of the new prescription drug program, which would put $40 billion back on the books for Katrina, Pence said. These are not serious people. [see our piece on the GOP here] And they have had complete control of the government for 5 years. What is the excuse of the Media for not saying a word about this?
6. FROM SMIRKINGCHIMP <http://www.smirkingchimp.com/>
pre-Excerpted from ARIANNA HUFFINGTON blogs Media Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' By Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post When it comes to managing political crises (as opposed to national ones), the Bush White House has earned a reputation as masters of damage control. And rightly so -- let's see you get reelected after Abu Ghraib, the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo, no WMD, no bin Laden (dead or alive), and "Mission (Most Definitely Not) Accomplished". Well, according to the New York Times, Rove, Bartlett and the damage control boys are at it again, rolling out a plan to hang the post-Katrina debacle around the necks of Louisiana state and local officials... and, in the process, erase the image of a crassly incompetent administration too busy vacationing to worry about the dying in New Orleans. Hence, today's Presidential Visit, Take Two. Can't you just see Rove yelling "Cut!", hopping out of his director's chair, pulling Bush aside, and whispering in his ear: "Okay, Mr. President, this isn't "Armageddon" meets "The Wedding Crashers". So this time 86 the stories about how you used to party in New Orleans, and, for heaven's sake, do not focus on the suffering of Trent Lott. And no more hugging only freshly-showered black people who look like Halle Berry -- this time you gotta get a little closer to the living-in-their-own-feces crowd. Alright.... action!" Look, as much as I despise the way they go about it, I get it: trying to save face by deflecting blame and sliming your enemies may be ugly but it's straight out of the Rove playbook and has proven highly effective. What I don't understand is why the media continue to be star players on the Bush damage control team. [This website has dozens of pieces explaining why, Ariana] Take the way that both the Washington Post and Newsweek [owned by same people] obediently, and ineptly, passed on -- and thus gave credence to -- the Bush party line that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's hesitancy to declare a state of emergency had prevented the feds from responding to the crisis more rapidly. The Post, citing an anonymous "senior Bush official", reported on Sunday that, as of Saturday, Sept. 3, Blanco "still had not declared a state of emergency"... when, in fact, the declaration had been made on Friday, August 26 -- over 2 days BEFORE Katrina made landfall in Louisiana. This claim was so demonstrably false that the paper was forced to issue a correction just hours after the original story appeared. So here are a couple of questions: 1) Had everyone in the WaPo fact checking department gone out of town for the Labor Day weekend? I mean, c'mon, the announcement of a state of emergency isn't exactly the kind of thing government officials tend to keep a secret. 2) Why were the Post reporters so willing to blindly accept the words of an administration official who obviously had a partisan agenda -- and to grant this official anonymity? Weren't they familiar with the Post's policy on using anonymous sources, which states: "Sources often insist that we agree not to name them in the newspaper before they agree to talk with us. We must be reluctant to grant their wish. When we use an unnamed source, we are asking our readers to take an extra step to trust the credibility of the information we are providing. We must be certain in our own minds that the benefit to readers is worth the cost in credibility. ...Nevertheless, granting anonymity to a source should not be done casually or automatically." Here it was clearly done both casually and automatically. The Post's policy continues: "We prefer at least two sources for factual information in Post stories that depends on confidential informants, and those sources should be independent of each other." Oops. They could have saved themselves a lot of grief if the second source they never got for this story had been a staffer for Gov. Blanco... or, if the price of a phone call was too much, the state of Louisiana website where the truth about the state of emergency declaration was a click away [pdf]. Especially since the Post instructs its reporters: "When sources have axes to grind, we should let our readers know what their interest is" and "We do not promise sources that we will refrain from additional reporting or efforts to verify the information they may give us". You mean like checking to see if the line of bull they are feeding you is, y'know, a line of bull? If anything, Newsweek's effort to assist the Bush damage control effort was even more egregious. While claiming that "Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Barbineaux Blanco seemed uncertain and sluggish, hesitant to declare martial law or a state of emergency, which would have opened the door to more Pentagon help" the magazine didn't even bother to cite a "senior Bush official", choosing instead to report Blanco's alleged failings as fact. Wonder where they got that "fact"? You think it might have been from the same "senior Bush official" that snookered the Post? Josh Marshall wonders... The unquestioning regurgitation of administration spin through the use of anonymous sources is the fault line of modern American journalism. You'd think that after all we've seen -- from the horrific reporting on WMD to Judy Miller and Plamegate (to say nothing of all the endless navel-gazing media panel discussions analyzing the issue) -- these guys would finally get a clue and stop making the Journalism 101 mistake of granting anonymity to administration sources using them to smear their opponents. The Washington Post corrected its article. Now it should take the next step and reveal who the source of that provably false chunk of slime was. And Newsweek should do the same. It's time for the media to get back to doing their job and stop being the principal weapon in Team Bush's damage control arsenal. Copyright 2005 © HuffingtonPost.com, LLC Reprinted from The Huffington Post:
Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) By AmericanCyrano on Tuesday, September 06 @ 15:27 EDT
Arianna is awfully lost or being too darn rhetorical and cute for her own good. She knows better than that. First, the media act that way, supine to power, because they are OWNED by and share the same class perspective on events as the individuals and social forces they're supposed to be watchdogging...it's like when we expect the police to police their own...a BIG impossible contradiction, very imperfect at best. Sure, as past masters of smoke and mirrors, the media, from time to time, and in cases where the truth [about the system] is too difficult to dismiss or too dangerous to distort (because of possible loss of their primary asset, their credibility) will go along with the general perception...until they are able to regroup and start slowly but surely letting us have the poison once again. [See the piece by Norman Solomon The news media are knocking Bush — and propping him up' on this very topic below] They can't do otherwise because the oligarchs who really pull the strings from above, and their editorial henchmen (top editors) will not allow the truth to come out and will fire or demote anyone who steps out of line repeatedly...The careerist noose is the first device to be employed against recalcitrants...later on more robust measures will be used until the target will end up an example to others who, already invested in the white picket fence, will want to avoid at all costs landing on the shit ladder. It's obvious that the wailing and pulling of hair over the media's trespasses (among liberals) will go on for as long as the corporate system exists because they are incapable of learning from history. [See our CATALOG OF MEDIA BIASES elsewhere on this site]
[ Reply ]
Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) That's the thing. As long as these tactics are effective, Rove and the other wingnuts will continue to use them. The media is totally complicit in allowing this to happen. It is the old misdirection routine. Get the news media to focus on someone, someplace, or something else until public attention subsides. Create just a LITTLE doubt in everyone's mind, and by the time it comes back, it is no longer considered 'news-worthy'. It happened with 9/11, Valerie Plame, WMD, Terry Schiavo, etc. It is happening now, and once again, Bush and his cabal are getting away with it. The national reporting needs to resist getting suckered into this scenario, but they don't and/or won't because this kind of 'stirring of the pot' brings in boatloads of cash by way of the corporate robber barrons who sponsor the major network news outlets. These are the same people who are being aided and abetted by this administration, in order to loot the federal treasury. [ Reply ]
Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) They are the propoganda arm of the fascist party and they act as such with just enough seeming honesty to keep the vast herds of drooling morons thinking they are still journalists. If they show a few desparate and pathetic negroes on rooftops and overpasses, they then can show some negro "looters" to keep that racism intact. They then can spew the fascist bilge with impugnity. Spectacular! [ Reply ]
Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) [ Reply ] • Small Dick Cheney Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) [ Reply ] • Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) [ Reply ]
Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling the White House blame game' (Score: 1) [ Reply ]
Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling th (Score: 1) i used read your articles & visit you web site on a regular basis. you lost your credibility when you dropped out of the governor's race in california. and indirectly urged supporters to back sleazy gray davis, by "redirecting your effort to defeating arnold" publicity seeking limousine liberals like you should not be taken seriously. [ Reply ] • Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling th Re: Arianna Huffington: 'Memo to the media: Stop enabling th (Score: 1)
7. FROM SMIRKINGCHIMP <http://www.smirkingchimp.com/> Norman Solomon: 'The news media are knocking Bush — and propping him up' By Norman Solomon, Common Dreams This month we've heard a lot of talk about journalists who got tough with President Bush. And it's true that he has been on the receiving end of some fiercely negative media coverage in the wake of the hurricane. But the mainstream U.S. press is ill-suited to challenging the legitimacy of the Bush administration.
The country's largest media institutions operate on a basis of enormous respect for presidential power. Major news organizations defer to that power even while venting criticisms. Overall, mass media outlets restrain the momentum of denunciations lest they appear to create instability for the Republic.
Initially, when the lethal character of Bush's "leadership" became clear in New Orleans, the journalistic focus on federal accountability was quick to bypass the president. For several days, the national political story seemed to mostly revolve around the flak-catching FEMA director, Michael Brown, a cipher who obviously was going to be tossed overboard by the administration.
On Tuesday, the day after Brown resigned, President Bush adjusted the damage-control weaseling. "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," he said at the White House, "and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."
It was a classic hollow statement, meant to sound important and meaningless at the same time. On Wednesday, more than a dozen paragraphs into its story headlined "President Says He's Responsible in Storm Lapses," the New York Times reported: "In saying he took responsibility for any failures of the federal response to the storm, Mr. Bush stopped short of acknowledging that he or anyone else had made mistakes." So, according to the Times headline, Bush said that "he's responsible" for "storm lapses" -- but, according to the article, Bush did not say "that he or anyone else had made mistakes." Got that?
Such tap-dancing evasions are small compared to what's on the horizon. With a prime-time speech Thursday night from Louisiana, followed by a ceremonial service at the National Cathedral in Washington the next morning, Bush will use the stature of the presidency to pose as an icon of can-do patriotism and piety.
Sure, we can expect more outcries of condemnation from the nation's press. Many news outlets have adopted a critical tone unmatched by previous coverage of the Bush administration. But you might read the editorials of virtually every daily newspaper in the United States and not find a single paper calling for the impeachment or resignation of the deadly Bush-Cheney duo, whether for deceptions about Iraq or failures to protect lives from Hurricane Katrina.
By avoiding even the hint that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be ousted from office, major news outlets are circumscribing public discourse and limiting the prospective remedies. Meanwhile, we hear about low-level resignations, official investigations and proposals for blue-ribbon commissions.
What happened to thousands of people in the path of the hurricane was the horrific result of criminal negligence that came from the top of the U.S. government. Is it too outlandish to suggest that the news media begin to discuss what kind of punishment would truly fit the crime? Norman Solomon is the author of the new book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com. Reprinted from Common Dreams:
COMMENTARY How right you are, Mr. S, and how sad it is. The honeymoon has never ended; Katrina was just a lover's spat, and Bush & the MSM have once again bedded down together in connubial bliss. [ Reply ]
Re: Norman Solomon: 'The news media are knocking Bush — and propping him up' (Score: 1) If, contrary to reasonable expectation, Bush's position becomes untenable, look to key establishment liberals to use the "instability of the Republic" argument to bail Bush out. (Kerry, the Clintons, Lieberman, Reid, Feinstein, et al.) [ Reply ]
Re: Norman Solomon: 'The news media are knocking Bush — and propping him up' (Score: 1) But don't worry, they'll be back in Bush's corner real soon.....like tonight. They'll be gushing with praise for their boy. He'll be called "bold", "determined", "chastened". The media slobs will all agree that "Bush hit all the right notes" , that Bush "displayed real leadership and resolve", that he's showing that now he's "firmly in command". Get ready for the media to serve up a real ass kissing, turd-polishing, puke-inducing Bush-love fest. [ Reply ] • Re: Norman Solomon: 'The news media are knocking Bush — and propping him up' (Score: 1) Re: Norman Solomon: 'The news media are knocking Bush — and propping him up' (Score: 1)
Even more damning than all of this was the evidence of imminent terrorist attacks that were delivered to Bush in the summer of 2001. He, of course as we well know, sat on it and did nothing. All the proof was released by the media and the evidence later examined by the 9/11 Commission. The negligence and dereliction of presidential duty was 10,000 times worse in that case than Katrina. Did anybody raise the question of impeachment then? Well I sure as hell did. I wrote letters to Senators and Congressmen of both parties for myself and some of my family who live in different states. I explained what was obviously criminal negligence on Bush's part, asked 'how in the hell can Congress impeach Clinton for what he did and then let what this lazy asshole in there now allowed to happen slide?' that kind of thing. Nobody took up the noble cause as it turned out. And nobody will take up that noble cause as long as the Republicans control the Congress. That's how they were able to get things going against Clinton. Now we can talk impeachment all we want, but you damn well know it will never happen as long as the Republicans rule the roost in Washington. If the American people seriously desire to unload Bush and his pack of thieves the only way its going to happen is for the Democratic party to take back the Congress in November 2006. And I am not real optimistic about that happening.
REPLY to CrowMinuteman Unloading Bush and his pack of thieves" and murderers is obviously desirable, but to march under the banner of ABB once more and to reward the Democratic party in 2006 and 2008 with the prize of national power again, for doing precious little, is obtuse thinking, and eventually counterproductive. The country is in ferment today as a result of the nakedness of class rule evidenced by an arrogant wing of the bourgeoisie represented by its neocon adventurist mafia. But the problem is not so much Bush (or Reagan in his time, for that matter) but the underlying system that continually puts forth such POSs as legitimate national leaders. Anyone serious about social change in America and the world has a dual task in his/her hands: they got to get rid of Bush and his cabal, burying the GOP for a long time if not for good, AND they have to get rid of the Democratic Party as presently constituted.
CARE TO ADD YOUR OWN COMMENTS TO THE ABOVE TOPICS? Just click on the link below: http://cyranosjournal.blogspot.com/2005/09/welcome-to-cyranos-blogosphere.html
Be sure to make clear what topic you are responding to. |
