A study conducted by the Parents Television Council sought "to learn which companies are sponsoring the best and worst 8-to-9-p.m. television programming in the 2001-2002 season. Raunchy series survive only because advertisers support them; without the advertising, the raunch would disappear. A point system was used to rank the best and worst advertisers. Companies received one point for each ad appearing on a family-friendly show, and lost a point for each ad placed on a show from our “worst” list."
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/advertisersstudy/main.asp
Advertiser Points
1. Sony -32
2. News Corp. -26
3. Viacom -18
4. Honda -16
Tricon Global Restaurants -16
6. Capcom -14
Volkswagen -14
8. Victoria Secret -13
U.S. Government -13
Greyhound -13
That's right, News Corp, the company that owns Foxnews has the second worst record for supporting vulgarity and violence on television. By the way, Rupert Murdoch, owner of NewsCorp is a very evil man. He owns newspaper and stations in USA, UK and Australia, making him the largest english-language media mogul in the world. He also runs propaganda for China's communist state-run "news" station. Like most right-wingers, money becomes much more important than values.
May 29, 2004
May 19, 2004
Screw Disney
In case anybody wanted an example of the Ownership filter in the media here is an example of how vast it has expanded. You know what, screw the FCC too for allowing this conglomerated fiasco to happen. Of course, when companies were giving Michael Powell that much money and FCC commisioners took 1400 trips paid in full by broadcasters, what do you expect?
Anyways, screw Disney. They won't show Moore's movie, well at least not until after the election. They say it's because they want to keep their "family image". If you beleive that you are retarded. It is Miramax that is putting it in theatres, nobody even understands that Disney owns Miramax so it won't reflect on Disney at all. Furthermore, Miramax is the company that put out KILL BILL VOL 1 and 2! the most violent movies ever, well, surely the first one. Sometimes I think everybody has died and been relocated to Celebration, Florida.
May 6, 2004 – Editorial, New York Times
Disney's Craven Behavior
Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free _expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.
The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.
Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.
On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.
It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06THU4.html?ex=1084420800&en=dd695e1433b69ff3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Anyways, screw Disney. They won't show Moore's movie, well at least not until after the election. They say it's because they want to keep their "family image". If you beleive that you are retarded. It is Miramax that is putting it in theatres, nobody even understands that Disney owns Miramax so it won't reflect on Disney at all. Furthermore, Miramax is the company that put out KILL BILL VOL 1 and 2! the most violent movies ever, well, surely the first one. Sometimes I think everybody has died and been relocated to Celebration, Florida.
May 6, 2004 – Editorial, New York Times
Disney's Craven Behavior
Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free _expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.
The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.
Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.
On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.
It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06THU4.html?ex=1084420800&en=dd695e1433b69ff3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Propaganda Model of the Media
This model for the media was proposed in 1995. It says that the media serves only as a tool for the established order. Stage two did some comprehensive content analysis of mainstream news and the data fit almost perfectly into the model. This kind of theory stuff might cost you $100-$250 at places like http://www.mediaed.org/ which is an awesome organization, but I'll fill you guys in on the Propaganda Model for free.
News organizations get tons of stories, leads and events that hey have to sift through to determine what is newsworthy. There are four filters that news goes through: The Ownership Filter, The Advertising Filter, The Source Filter, and the Flak Filter.
A. Ownership. If one takes an hour or so to study who owns the media they will find a very small group os extremely rich, white guys. Eisner, Turner, Murdoch, John Malone, Conrad Black, Microsoft, Time Warner, Viacom, The News Corporation, Disney, etc. Ted Turner is the only big media owner that is not confirmed to be way conservative. Anyone with money can start a news station, and you can get on TV with the approval of John Malone (conservative). Murdoch controls stations in UK, Australia, China (state propaganda), and America and he specifically sets a right-wing, pro-business agenda on his American newscasts (Fox News). The news is slanted to fit the owner's worldview. And it works, because, after all, rick white guys buy more luxury cars and investment protfolios. Which leads me to my next filter:
B. The Advertisement Filter. Magazines and newspapers get much closer to 50% of their money from ads, but television news gets nearly 100% of their funding from advertisements, about $200 billion a year. The media therefore must solicit things that don't offend advertisers, because if they don't they get pulled faster than Bill Maher. Sometimes the less truth you tell, the better off you are such as with the San-Jose Mercury News when after they ran an article on how to deal with car dealers, the car dealers in the area boycotted the station, pulled all their ads, and the newspaper had to issue formal apologies and rebuke the truth in the article. Or ABC after being sued by Phillip Morris for reporting cigarettes are bad. That's right, not to long ago it was illegal to say on the news that cigarettes were addictive, because the cigarette companies that are killing people, had better lawyers and would sue the parent company of the news company and take them over. For more on this watch the great movie The Insider. Another example of the advertising filter at work is that Chrysler has papers that they advertise in send their editorials to them in advance to check for "accuracy". If there is anything they don't like they pull the ads from the paper in advance.
C. Source Filter. Next we look at who makes the news. 73% of Americans demand objectivity in their news. This is why the only way Fox news can continue to exist is to scream that the rest of the news is slanted to the left even though there is absolutely zip, zero zilch evidence for that and anyone why actually studies it will feel quite stupid quite fast if they think the media is "liberal". So in order to appear non-biased but still put in bias in the media, you get an "expert" to say it for you. All you have to do is choose you favorite biased "expert". Luckily, corporations have pumped billions of dollars into "think tanks" to provide the "experts" for the news media. Out of the top five most cited think tanks four of them were created with corporate money with a conservative agenda (1. Heritage (2000+ times in 1995) 3. American Enterprise Institute, 4. CATO, 5. Georgetown Center for International Policy Studies) and one is centrist, (2. Brookings institute), although a few see it as left of center. The sources for our news comes from an intricate web of government, business, think tanks and the media itself. All reporting with the worldview of an elite.
C. Flak Filters. Flak filters are created by media watchgroups that complain and protest media outlets that they don't like. There are strong liberal and conservative media watch groups. The conservative ones happen to get tons of money from corporations and thus become more effective. For example, the organization "Accuracy in Media" recieved money from eight oil companies. Flak also comes from PR offices of the Pentagon, big defense contractors and big business in general. PR efforts from defence contractors and the Pentagon were even able to get David Evans, a lifetime marine who knew how the Pentagon worked, fired for reporting on defense spending waste.
I'm now going to go read the labor section in my local newspaper. Wait, there is no labor section, I suppose I'll just read the business section and see how the stocks are doing, because people who buy stocks also buy more from advertisers. Damn, I'm hosed.
Faithfully,
--CC
http://www.igc.org/
http://www.mediaed.org/
News organizations get tons of stories, leads and events that hey have to sift through to determine what is newsworthy. There are four filters that news goes through: The Ownership Filter, The Advertising Filter, The Source Filter, and the Flak Filter.
A. Ownership. If one takes an hour or so to study who owns the media they will find a very small group os extremely rich, white guys. Eisner, Turner, Murdoch, John Malone, Conrad Black, Microsoft, Time Warner, Viacom, The News Corporation, Disney, etc. Ted Turner is the only big media owner that is not confirmed to be way conservative. Anyone with money can start a news station, and you can get on TV with the approval of John Malone (conservative). Murdoch controls stations in UK, Australia, China (state propaganda), and America and he specifically sets a right-wing, pro-business agenda on his American newscasts (Fox News). The news is slanted to fit the owner's worldview. And it works, because, after all, rick white guys buy more luxury cars and investment protfolios. Which leads me to my next filter:
B. The Advertisement Filter. Magazines and newspapers get much closer to 50% of their money from ads, but television news gets nearly 100% of their funding from advertisements, about $200 billion a year. The media therefore must solicit things that don't offend advertisers, because if they don't they get pulled faster than Bill Maher. Sometimes the less truth you tell, the better off you are such as with the San-Jose Mercury News when after they ran an article on how to deal with car dealers, the car dealers in the area boycotted the station, pulled all their ads, and the newspaper had to issue formal apologies and rebuke the truth in the article. Or ABC after being sued by Phillip Morris for reporting cigarettes are bad. That's right, not to long ago it was illegal to say on the news that cigarettes were addictive, because the cigarette companies that are killing people, had better lawyers and would sue the parent company of the news company and take them over. For more on this watch the great movie The Insider. Another example of the advertising filter at work is that Chrysler has papers that they advertise in send their editorials to them in advance to check for "accuracy". If there is anything they don't like they pull the ads from the paper in advance.
C. Source Filter. Next we look at who makes the news. 73% of Americans demand objectivity in their news. This is why the only way Fox news can continue to exist is to scream that the rest of the news is slanted to the left even though there is absolutely zip, zero zilch evidence for that and anyone why actually studies it will feel quite stupid quite fast if they think the media is "liberal". So in order to appear non-biased but still put in bias in the media, you get an "expert" to say it for you. All you have to do is choose you favorite biased "expert". Luckily, corporations have pumped billions of dollars into "think tanks" to provide the "experts" for the news media. Out of the top five most cited think tanks four of them were created with corporate money with a conservative agenda (1. Heritage (2000+ times in 1995) 3. American Enterprise Institute, 4. CATO, 5. Georgetown Center for International Policy Studies) and one is centrist, (2. Brookings institute), although a few see it as left of center. The sources for our news comes from an intricate web of government, business, think tanks and the media itself. All reporting with the worldview of an elite.
C. Flak Filters. Flak filters are created by media watchgroups that complain and protest media outlets that they don't like. There are strong liberal and conservative media watch groups. The conservative ones happen to get tons of money from corporations and thus become more effective. For example, the organization "Accuracy in Media" recieved money from eight oil companies. Flak also comes from PR offices of the Pentagon, big defense contractors and big business in general. PR efforts from defence contractors and the Pentagon were even able to get David Evans, a lifetime marine who knew how the Pentagon worked, fired for reporting on defense spending waste.
I'm now going to go read the labor section in my local newspaper. Wait, there is no labor section, I suppose I'll just read the business section and see how the stocks are doing, because people who buy stocks also buy more from advertisers. Damn, I'm hosed.
Faithfully,
--CC
http://www.igc.org/
http://www.mediaed.org/
May 18, 2004
Nick Berg
So I heard rumors about Nick Berg's father saying some bad things about America this week. Now what’s sad about this is that I had to hear this from http://nicedoggie.net a pro-fascist blog. Finally, today I read an article about what Michael Berg said on May 15th.
Nick Berg
The father of slain American Nick Berg is comparing the men who killed his son to the Bush administration.
Nick Berg
By Amanda Burge
KDLT-TV May 15 - Michael Berg took a few minutes to speak with reporters today outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
His son was kidnapped in Iraq last month and later beheaded, an incident seen on videotape.
Berg said he didn't want revenge because it wouldn't bring his son back.
He said the killers weren't any better or worse than the people in the White House who called for the invasion of Iraq.
Berg called on Americans to pray for peace.
He said he plans to participate in a peace march in Washington, DC in June.
Gosh, this shows how pathetic mainstream news is these days. Due to right-wing flak filters that would go off on them if they actually pursued this story we get to hear what Hannity has to say about the video all day and not what the actual fucking father of the slain person thinks about it.
So we know Michael Berg is religious and anti-war. In fact, before this whole fiasco Michael Berg's name was posted on Free Republic under an "enemies list". http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts
Hopefully, you know that the government keeps files on every anti-war protestor. I wonder if Nick Berg ever joined his father at a protest? I'm sure you have seen the articles about how Nick Berg was in US custody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=nick+berg& id=3053419&action=fulltext&searchfromtoc.x=11&searchfromtoc.y=22
My question is: WHY WAS NICK BERG WEARING AN ORANGE PRISONER JUMPSUIT WHEN IN THE VIDEO?
He was in Al-Qaida's custody a while before he was killed. But how long was it between when he was in US custody and Al-Qaida custody?
The US had been on this guy's ass before: Reports reveal that the FBI questioned Berg two years ago after finding his e-mail address had been used by an acquaintance of 9/11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui. It happened in 1999 when Berg was a student at the University of Oklahoma. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4979262/
And then there's the whole strange story that US officials told his family he was found with his throat slashed on the side of the road, probably while he was trying to repair communications towers. Like some terrorist just came by and killed him. Well, we know that story wasn't true. It was much more organized than that.
The US Army arrested Nick Berg, transported him, and then released him off in a terrorist infested area where he was unfamiliar with in Iraq. Now, things like this just happen, the chances of low-level soldiers recognizing him is freaking minimal. What I'm saying is that there was sufficient amount of neglect in caring for an American citizen by the US Army in Iraq.
I think the media will further investigate exactly what happened, and I look forward to reading it. For now, the mainstream media can't look too left-wing, that doesn't sell car commercials very well.
Nick Berg
The father of slain American Nick Berg is comparing the men who killed his son to the Bush administration.
Nick Berg
By Amanda Burge
KDLT-TV May 15 - Michael Berg took a few minutes to speak with reporters today outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
His son was kidnapped in Iraq last month and later beheaded, an incident seen on videotape.
Berg said he didn't want revenge because it wouldn't bring his son back.
He said the killers weren't any better or worse than the people in the White House who called for the invasion of Iraq.
Berg called on Americans to pray for peace.
He said he plans to participate in a peace march in Washington, DC in June.
Gosh, this shows how pathetic mainstream news is these days. Due to right-wing flak filters that would go off on them if they actually pursued this story we get to hear what Hannity has to say about the video all day and not what the actual fucking father of the slain person thinks about it.
So we know Michael Berg is religious and anti-war. In fact, before this whole fiasco Michael Berg's name was posted on Free Republic under an "enemies list". http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts
Hopefully, you know that the government keeps files on every anti-war protestor. I wonder if Nick Berg ever joined his father at a protest? I'm sure you have seen the articles about how Nick Berg was in US custody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=nick+berg& id=3053419&action=fulltext&searchfromtoc.x=11&searchfromtoc.y=22
My question is: WHY WAS NICK BERG WEARING AN ORANGE PRISONER JUMPSUIT WHEN IN THE VIDEO?
He was in Al-Qaida's custody a while before he was killed. But how long was it between when he was in US custody and Al-Qaida custody?
The US had been on this guy's ass before: Reports reveal that the FBI questioned Berg two years ago after finding his e-mail address had been used by an acquaintance of 9/11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui. It happened in 1999 when Berg was a student at the University of Oklahoma. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4979262/
And then there's the whole strange story that US officials told his family he was found with his throat slashed on the side of the road, probably while he was trying to repair communications towers. Like some terrorist just came by and killed him. Well, we know that story wasn't true. It was much more organized than that.
The US Army arrested Nick Berg, transported him, and then released him off in a terrorist infested area where he was unfamiliar with in Iraq. Now, things like this just happen, the chances of low-level soldiers recognizing him is freaking minimal. What I'm saying is that there was sufficient amount of neglect in caring for an American citizen by the US Army in Iraq.
I think the media will further investigate exactly what happened, and I look forward to reading it. For now, the mainstream media can't look too left-wing, that doesn't sell car commercials very well.
May 17, 2004
If you don't think they we're planning to take over Iraq before 9-11, you are ill-informed
For the 2001 debate season the topic was Weapons of Mass Destruction and I was reading every single non-classified intelligence brief that came out of American Think Tanks. There was never anything conclusive on Iraq. For every brief taht said he was developing WMDs, there was one saying their wasn't. Teams typically stayed away from Sadam because there was a pretty weak case for taking action against him in order to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. However, there were forces printing briefs warning of Iraq's capabilities. Documents like the blatantly forged Niger Uranium document that the UN laughed at seemed to pop up a lot and then get discredited. Most of the briefs I read were from conservative think tanks. How it works is corporations fund people to do research and pass that on to lawmakers, debaters, and political parties.
There are very powerful forces at work and you should know how they work. The Project for A New American Century (PNAC) is essentially an openly imperialistic organization that pushes policies for an stonger America, an empire is their goal. Their website puts it nicely: PNAC "is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."They put out briefs like Pax America in 1993 that you should research. In this brief they recommended $6 billion more for the military and a "permanent militray base in the middle-east". During the first two years in office, Bush requested from congress, can you guess how much more for the military? Thats rightm six billion dollars. According to the PNAC they would need a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" in order for the plans to go through. The military base in the middle-east had to wait until after 9-11. See, here's how it works. We've been buddy-buddy with Saudi royal family for a long time, and the Saudis are very rich and very Islamic. Islamic factions withint the country essentially run the school system in exchange for the Monarchy to rule the country. This produces a lot of militants because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia and assholes like Osama Bin Laden are able to brainwash young Saudis who have been taught in their Islamic schools how evil the hethens are and how muslim territory should be for muslims only. So, one way to solve this problem is to establish another base of operation in the Middle East, because pulling out of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be good for us and would be appeasing Muslim tensions. So first we need a base in the middle-east before we can shift our power out of Saudi Arabia.
Shifting power out of Saudi Arabia would appease the very rich oil traders that American is fond of. Such as the bin Laden family. Now remember Osama was one of 52 children (thats gotta be a rough child-hood), and his oldest brother and head of the very wealthy family likes to do business with Texas oil companies such as Bush. Those powerful people in American who are in charge of keeping our oil cheap have long had to love Saudi's like the ones in Osama's family. That is why when 9-11 happened, there were 8 planes that flew powerful Saudi's out of the country so that they would be safe.
I remember reading briefs from these conservative think tanks calling Osama bin Laden "the longtime boogeyman of US foreign policy". Research it! Thats what he was dismissed as by many in the intelligence community. Many, whom were more interested in nation building, said that terrorist training camps in Afghanistan did not exist.
Now it's important to know who the PNAC are. Paul Wolfowitz, a VERY aggressive Reagan era policy-maker. He has been a leader in the PNAC and is now the Undersecretary of Defense. Richard Perle, is another leader for the PNAC, he recently resigned as chairman of an Administrative Advisory Board. It goes on and on, and this group known and "neo-conservatives" set the foreign policy for our country. While PNAC is a "non-profit" organization, they use CATO Institue and Heritage Foundation, which is funded by billions in corporate money to research conservative policy for them.
The aim has always been nation-building. From the beginning the neo-conservatives did not give a shit about terrorists and that is why Clinton went after Osama and 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Proof of this is seen onc you understand that the CIA has been the machanism for nation-building and Richard Clarke was the top counter-terrorism guy in the White house. If Bush really wasn't interested in nation building like he said he wasn't when he ran for office, then he would have been getting his iltelligence from Richard Clark, instead George Tenet briefed the President DAILY. After finally setting up Clarke's counter-terrorism force, netiehr of them ever met with Clark to dicuss counterterrorism.
You can see where priorities of the people making the foreign policy for this administration are. These people and thier intricate web of nation-building rather than counter-terrorism one could argue are responsible for 9-11. Now, many could argue these groups are (or at least were) legitimate in ignoring non-state actors (terrorists) and focusing on "rogue nations" as they have labeled them to gain support for military action against them. This is because far worse abuses occur under the hands of military dictators and state action than terrorists.
Let's us just be honest about our foreign policy though, it was the neo-conservatives that have been ignoring terrorism all along and to show this I will quote Robert Oakley, ambassadar of counterterrorism under Reagan who said "Overall I give Clinton very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."
And why would Clinton be going after terrorist which protected Americans and the neo-cons, Rumsefled, Cheney, Powell and Bush be focused on nation-building. Because the neo-conservatives listen to corporate backed "think tanks" and nation-building requires more money for defense which then goes directly to the companies that fund those think tanks, and got to companies such as Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Haliburton, which Cheney was the CEO of.
This is how foreign policy works.
Faithfully,
--Rob
There are very powerful forces at work and you should know how they work. The Project for A New American Century (PNAC) is essentially an openly imperialistic organization that pushes policies for an stonger America, an empire is their goal. Their website puts it nicely: PNAC "is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."They put out briefs like Pax America in 1993 that you should research. In this brief they recommended $6 billion more for the military and a "permanent militray base in the middle-east". During the first two years in office, Bush requested from congress, can you guess how much more for the military? Thats rightm six billion dollars. According to the PNAC they would need a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" in order for the plans to go through. The military base in the middle-east had to wait until after 9-11. See, here's how it works. We've been buddy-buddy with Saudi royal family for a long time, and the Saudis are very rich and very Islamic. Islamic factions withint the country essentially run the school system in exchange for the Monarchy to rule the country. This produces a lot of militants because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia and assholes like Osama Bin Laden are able to brainwash young Saudis who have been taught in their Islamic schools how evil the hethens are and how muslim territory should be for muslims only. So, one way to solve this problem is to establish another base of operation in the Middle East, because pulling out of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be good for us and would be appeasing Muslim tensions. So first we need a base in the middle-east before we can shift our power out of Saudi Arabia.
Shifting power out of Saudi Arabia would appease the very rich oil traders that American is fond of. Such as the bin Laden family. Now remember Osama was one of 52 children (thats gotta be a rough child-hood), and his oldest brother and head of the very wealthy family likes to do business with Texas oil companies such as Bush. Those powerful people in American who are in charge of keeping our oil cheap have long had to love Saudi's like the ones in Osama's family. That is why when 9-11 happened, there were 8 planes that flew powerful Saudi's out of the country so that they would be safe.
I remember reading briefs from these conservative think tanks calling Osama bin Laden "the longtime boogeyman of US foreign policy". Research it! Thats what he was dismissed as by many in the intelligence community. Many, whom were more interested in nation building, said that terrorist training camps in Afghanistan did not exist.
Now it's important to know who the PNAC are. Paul Wolfowitz, a VERY aggressive Reagan era policy-maker. He has been a leader in the PNAC and is now the Undersecretary of Defense. Richard Perle, is another leader for the PNAC, he recently resigned as chairman of an Administrative Advisory Board. It goes on and on, and this group known and "neo-conservatives" set the foreign policy for our country. While PNAC is a "non-profit" organization, they use CATO Institue and Heritage Foundation, which is funded by billions in corporate money to research conservative policy for them.
The aim has always been nation-building. From the beginning the neo-conservatives did not give a shit about terrorists and that is why Clinton went after Osama and 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Proof of this is seen onc you understand that the CIA has been the machanism for nation-building and Richard Clarke was the top counter-terrorism guy in the White house. If Bush really wasn't interested in nation building like he said he wasn't when he ran for office, then he would have been getting his iltelligence from Richard Clark, instead George Tenet briefed the President DAILY. After finally setting up Clarke's counter-terrorism force, netiehr of them ever met with Clark to dicuss counterterrorism.
You can see where priorities of the people making the foreign policy for this administration are. These people and thier intricate web of nation-building rather than counter-terrorism one could argue are responsible for 9-11. Now, many could argue these groups are (or at least were) legitimate in ignoring non-state actors (terrorists) and focusing on "rogue nations" as they have labeled them to gain support for military action against them. This is because far worse abuses occur under the hands of military dictators and state action than terrorists.
Let's us just be honest about our foreign policy though, it was the neo-conservatives that have been ignoring terrorism all along and to show this I will quote Robert Oakley, ambassadar of counterterrorism under Reagan who said "Overall I give Clinton very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."
And why would Clinton be going after terrorist which protected Americans and the neo-cons, Rumsefled, Cheney, Powell and Bush be focused on nation-building. Because the neo-conservatives listen to corporate backed "think tanks" and nation-building requires more money for defense which then goes directly to the companies that fund those think tanks, and got to companies such as Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Haliburton, which Cheney was the CEO of.
This is how foreign policy works.
Faithfully,
--Rob
May 16, 2004
I own conservatives who don't even take their own advice before they insult me.
Here is a string the comes from http://nicedoggie.net a good conservative blog that is known for it's tendency to be imperialistic and anti-muslim. I replied to an article entitled "Oh, the Lovely Spectacle of Paleswinian Murderers Drowning in Their Own Blood..." with the post:
I noticed that Misha talks about the media over 25 times in his recent posts. I was wondering if any conservatives could show me your sources, ya know, some stuff based in academia, to back up these claims your spewing off. I searched EBSCO host intensely and couldn't find studies supporting this claim. A little help please?
Posted by lowercase rob at May 14, 2004 01:20 AM
To which I got several replies that read like this:
"You need a study to show you that certain of the media isn't reporting on important things that are happening? Wow, I usually manage to determine this all by myself by watching, listening and reading from multiple sources. Maybe you should try that sometime, instead of expecting someone to put together a committee to research it.
People like you are the reason we have studies on how fast ketchup pours."
"Yes, you obviously need it. There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search". If you are unable to do it for yourself then far be it for us to humiliate you by doing it for you. As for the "Acadamia" snoozle....Puuhleez. Acadamia is about as useless as tits on a Boar Hog."
"When you're willing to engage in (perform, DO) some due diligence, your efforts will be rewarded with many sources converging on reality, and then you'll understand and agree on how others (mentioned above) can see eye to eye so often..."
"Come now, folks, you KNOW the left only does 2 things; wait for someone to do reseach for them since they're incapable of their own and stop as soon as they discover the one place that supports only their points. They wouldn't know due diligence if it bit them in the ass. "
Here is my reply:
Ok. I won't respond to the baseless personal attacks, I will only politely request that you do not continue them beacuse none of you evne know me and becuase I HAVE studied this issue for myself.
But, I decided to take you advice and do some google searching searches since I had already read up on it a lot (including many, many, many articles from Ann Coulter and William F. Buckley).
Here are the top ten hits for the search "Liberal Media". eight out of ten of them refer to the ""liberal media"" as a "myth".
What Liberal Media? --Eric AltermanContinue... "'What Liberal Media' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic." --The New York Times Book Review. ... What Liberal Media? ...
www.whatliberalmedia.com/ - 23k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Oh, That Liberal MediaOh, That Liberal Media! ... Bizarrely (to me) "liberal media" is being accused of suppressing the link to the full video of Nick Berg's beheading. ...
www.thatliberalmedia.com/ - 101k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Books: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and ...... The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/ detail/-/0465001769?v=glance - 91k - May 14, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim-- Journalists' Views on ...A Report. Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim. Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage. ... IV. Conclusion: Beyond the "Liberal Media" Myth. ...
www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html - 74k - Cached - Similar pages
What Liberal Media?... article | Posted February 6, 2003. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. This article was adapted from Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? ...
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
The Consortium... Editorials. Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth. By Robert Parry January 1, 2003. ... [See "The Myth of the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.]. ...
www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Today's BartCop Rants... Olson is dead, OK? The Myth of the "liberal" media. Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one. I think it's ...
www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
The US has a liberal mediaMyth: The US has a liberal media. Fact: The ... liberal. Argument Conservatives often promote the myth that the US media are liberal. This ...
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
Liberal Slant - Watching the Conservative Corporate Owned Liberal ...... The so-called Liberal Media are owned by large Conservative corporations that dictate control over biased news reporting in major newspapers and on major ...
www.liberalslant.com/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Media Bias - Fight The Bias - Liberal Media BiasMedia Bias - Help fight liberal media bias. ... Media Bias Exposed - Liberal Media Bias. CBS Veteran Exposes Liberal Media Bias. We Will Not Shrink From War. ...
www.fightthebias.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazing how you can tell me to look into it for myself (which is what my original post said that I had just done) and not even do the same thign yourself. So I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search"."
Why don't you do the same, no seriously, go research.
Start by researching the words Eisner, Murdock, Viacom, "flak filter", Media Education Foundation, teaching media literact, research trends in pro-profit media, etc. No really, please do.
Because none of you accually must have done the google search, otherwise it would have led to you doing some more research and reading. My guess is that your ideas are coming more from an organization like say Fox News, than from a google search.
I conclude with the idea that liberal elements of the media will tell you that the media overall is conservative, which you know isn't true. So if you and many people believe the media is liberal, you must be watching a ___________ media? (fill in the blank with conservative or liberal media and then research how and why Fox news and others were started.)
BTW, I'm not saying the media is conservative that would be making the issue way too simple, just simply research trends and see how things work.
Posted by lowercase rob at May 15, 2004 08:21 PM
I love it when people don't do the basic investigative research that they expect others to do.
I noticed that Misha talks about the media over 25 times in his recent posts. I was wondering if any conservatives could show me your sources, ya know, some stuff based in academia, to back up these claims your spewing off. I searched EBSCO host intensely and couldn't find studies supporting this claim. A little help please?
Posted by lowercase rob at May 14, 2004 01:20 AM
To which I got several replies that read like this:
"You need a study to show you that certain of the media isn't reporting on important things that are happening? Wow, I usually manage to determine this all by myself by watching, listening and reading from multiple sources. Maybe you should try that sometime, instead of expecting someone to put together a committee to research it.
People like you are the reason we have studies on how fast ketchup pours."
"Yes, you obviously need it. There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search". If you are unable to do it for yourself then far be it for us to humiliate you by doing it for you. As for the "Acadamia" snoozle....Puuhleez. Acadamia is about as useless as tits on a Boar Hog."
"When you're willing to engage in (perform, DO) some due diligence, your efforts will be rewarded with many sources converging on reality, and then you'll understand and agree on how others (mentioned above) can see eye to eye so often..."
"Come now, folks, you KNOW the left only does 2 things; wait for someone to do reseach for them since they're incapable of their own and stop as soon as they discover the one place that supports only their points. They wouldn't know due diligence if it bit them in the ass. "
Here is my reply:
Ok. I won't respond to the baseless personal attacks, I will only politely request that you do not continue them beacuse none of you evne know me and becuase I HAVE studied this issue for myself.
But, I decided to take you advice and do some google searching searches since I had already read up on it a lot (including many, many, many articles from Ann Coulter and William F. Buckley).
Here are the top ten hits for the search "Liberal Media". eight out of ten of them refer to the ""liberal media"" as a "myth".
What Liberal Media? --Eric AltermanContinue... "'What Liberal Media' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic." --The New York Times Book Review. ... What Liberal Media? ...
www.whatliberalmedia.com/ - 23k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Oh, That Liberal MediaOh, That Liberal Media! ... Bizarrely (to me) "liberal media" is being accused of suppressing the link to the full video of Nick Berg's beheading. ...
www.thatliberalmedia.com/ - 101k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Books: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and ...... The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/ detail/-/0465001769?v=glance - 91k - May 14, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim-- Journalists' Views on ...A Report. Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim. Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage. ... IV. Conclusion: Beyond the "Liberal Media" Myth. ...
www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html - 74k - Cached - Similar pages
What Liberal Media?... article | Posted February 6, 2003. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. This article was adapted from Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? ...
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
The Consortium... Editorials. Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth. By Robert Parry January 1, 2003. ... [See "The Myth of the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.]. ...
www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Today's BartCop Rants... Olson is dead, OK? The Myth of the "liberal" media. Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one. I think it's ...
www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
The US has a liberal mediaMyth: The US has a liberal media. Fact: The ... liberal. Argument Conservatives often promote the myth that the US media are liberal. This ...
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
Liberal Slant - Watching the Conservative Corporate Owned Liberal ...... The so-called Liberal Media are owned by large Conservative corporations that dictate control over biased news reporting in major newspapers and on major ...
www.liberalslant.com/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Media Bias - Fight The Bias - Liberal Media BiasMedia Bias - Help fight liberal media bias. ... Media Bias Exposed - Liberal Media Bias. CBS Veteran Exposes Liberal Media Bias. We Will Not Shrink From War. ...
www.fightthebias.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazing how you can tell me to look into it for myself (which is what my original post said that I had just done) and not even do the same thign yourself. So I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search"."
Why don't you do the same, no seriously, go research.
Start by researching the words Eisner, Murdock, Viacom, "flak filter", Media Education Foundation, teaching media literact, research trends in pro-profit media, etc. No really, please do.
Because none of you accually must have done the google search, otherwise it would have led to you doing some more research and reading. My guess is that your ideas are coming more from an organization like say Fox News, than from a google search.
I conclude with the idea that liberal elements of the media will tell you that the media overall is conservative, which you know isn't true. So if you and many people believe the media is liberal, you must be watching a ___________ media? (fill in the blank with conservative or liberal media and then research how and why Fox news and others were started.)
BTW, I'm not saying the media is conservative that would be making the issue way too simple, just simply research trends and see how things work.
Posted by lowercase rob at May 15, 2004 08:21 PM
I love it when people don't do the basic investigative research that they expect others to do.
Liberal Media?
I've done a decent amount of research of media and media ownership patterns. Besides intense upper level classes in media analysis techniques I've done research myself. Here's some conclusions and leads to do your own research.
So I searched EBSCO host (the top academic database with tons of scholarly-reviewed articles and it's own database of communications and mass media articles) and here are some results for "liberal media"
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, writes regularly for Columbia Journalism Review. He concludes in an article entitled Listen Up, Bias Mongers! The Audience Doesn't Agree: "News organizations that hope to appeal to the broad majority would do well to remember that complaints about bias in the media usually mean self-interest, not a tilt to the left."
So media outlets will say what will promote their station the most, and polls show that "73 percent preferred coverage that portrayed all points of view."
W.P. Eveland Jr. and D.V. Shah conclude that "A large percentage of the public believes that the news media are biased, and the majority of these individuals consider the direction of bias to be against their own viewpoints. Past research has examined how individual factors such as strength of partisanship or extent of political involvement heighten bias perceptions, but little attention has been paid to interpersonal factors such as the ideological similarity or dissimilarity of personal communication networks. Results of a national survey show that perceptions of media bias were unrelated to the overall amount of discussion but were positively related to conversations with ideologically like–minded individuals. Moreover, the impact of conversations with similar others was stronger among Republicans than among Democrats, a finding consistent with recent work on news self–coverage of media bias claims."
So basicly people that believe very strongly in what they beleive seem to think other people have a bias in the other direction. Also, people who aren't exposed to many sources are more likely to think the media is biased (and the trend is especially common in republicans.
Another article from the journal of New Political Science from Norman Solomon concludes that mainstream media, especially the shock-value television kind, increasingly reports with a business slant and doesn't report things that affect real people (health care, poverty, child malnutrition, workplace conditions, and racism).
An article in the Public Opinion Quarterly concludes that "partisans on each side of the issue judged news articles to be biased in a disagreeable direction".
An article from the American Journlaism Review tell us that "Even journalists themselves don't rail too hard at the assertion that most newsrooms are heavily populated by liberal Democrats. But that doesn't mean that their stories are slanted." "Still, most newsrooms are acutely attuned to the dangers of having a perceived bias." It mentions that The Washington Times has a right-wing bias but that is commonly known to journalists. "Our newsrooms are heavily middle-class, largely white and still primarily male (although the gender gap is narrowing)". It concludes that reporters work for complete honesty, but always get flak from democrats and republicans who are searching for an elusive bias.
Michael Parenti in the journal Humanism, argues that "Media bias usually does not occur in random fashion; rather, it moves in the same overall direction again and again, favoring management over labor, corporations over corporate critics, affluent whites over low-income minorities, officialdom over protesters, the two-party monopoly over leftist third parties, privatization and free market "reforms" over public sector development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or populist social change, national security policy over critics of that policy, and conservative commentators and columnists like Rush Limbaugh and George Will over progressive or populist ones like Jim Hightower and Ralph Nader (not to mention more radical ones).The built-in biases of the corporate mainstream media faithfully reflect the dominant ideology, seldom straying into territory that might cause discomfort to those who hold political and economic power, including those who own the media or advertise in it." "The job of corporate media is to make the universe of discourse safe for corporate America, telling us what to think about the world before we have a chance to think about it for ourselves. When we understand that news selectivity is likely to favor those who have power, position, and wealth, we move from a liberal complaint about the press' sloppy performance to a radical analysis of how the media serve the ruling circles all too well with much skill and craft."
This last article is consistent with the idea that media operate to make money and not offend people.
ONE article from the American Journalism Review in 1995 indicts the media as liberal (yes, ONLY ONE in my quest for the liberal media). It is be William McGowen and it says that the Democartic party is co-dependent on the liberal media. The article discussed how the liberal media sets the agenda of the democratic party and how that has alienated the democratic party from middle-class voters. It starts off by quoting Rush Limbaugh and has a large photo of him on the first page. He beleives that "Like the democratic party, major US news organizations have made an institutional commitment to diversity... which has encouraged a narrow, multiculturalism orthodoxy." He contends that the "media and the deomocratic party are increasingly dominated by an insular elite". He concludes that this will lead more people to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Another article explores "the impact of conservative elites' claims of media bias in the 1988, 1992 and 1996 United States presidential elections." It shows how right-wing media outlets scream left wing bias to censor ideas during presidential elections.
So we have four that say it is baised toward the right, and three that since people want objectivity journalists seek it out and that people watching (democrats and republicans) are biased not the media, and only one that can claim a liberal bias to the media.
Furthermore I searched google (described in the next post) for "Liberal Media". Out of the top 10 hits 8 concluded that the "Liberal media" was a horrible myth and two concluded the media is liberal.
So, here's a little tiny bit of research, more to come, make the decision for yourself and I'd apreciate comments.
So I searched EBSCO host (the top academic database with tons of scholarly-reviewed articles and it's own database of communications and mass media articles) and here are some results for "liberal media"
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, writes regularly for Columbia Journalism Review. He concludes in an article entitled Listen Up, Bias Mongers! The Audience Doesn't Agree: "News organizations that hope to appeal to the broad majority would do well to remember that complaints about bias in the media usually mean self-interest, not a tilt to the left."
So media outlets will say what will promote their station the most, and polls show that "73 percent preferred coverage that portrayed all points of view."
W.P. Eveland Jr. and D.V. Shah conclude that "A large percentage of the public believes that the news media are biased, and the majority of these individuals consider the direction of bias to be against their own viewpoints. Past research has examined how individual factors such as strength of partisanship or extent of political involvement heighten bias perceptions, but little attention has been paid to interpersonal factors such as the ideological similarity or dissimilarity of personal communication networks. Results of a national survey show that perceptions of media bias were unrelated to the overall amount of discussion but were positively related to conversations with ideologically like–minded individuals. Moreover, the impact of conversations with similar others was stronger among Republicans than among Democrats, a finding consistent with recent work on news self–coverage of media bias claims."
So basicly people that believe very strongly in what they beleive seem to think other people have a bias in the other direction. Also, people who aren't exposed to many sources are more likely to think the media is biased (and the trend is especially common in republicans.
Another article from the journal of New Political Science from Norman Solomon concludes that mainstream media, especially the shock-value television kind, increasingly reports with a business slant and doesn't report things that affect real people (health care, poverty, child malnutrition, workplace conditions, and racism).
An article in the Public Opinion Quarterly concludes that "partisans on each side of the issue judged news articles to be biased in a disagreeable direction".
An article from the American Journlaism Review tell us that "Even journalists themselves don't rail too hard at the assertion that most newsrooms are heavily populated by liberal Democrats. But that doesn't mean that their stories are slanted." "Still, most newsrooms are acutely attuned to the dangers of having a perceived bias." It mentions that The Washington Times has a right-wing bias but that is commonly known to journalists. "Our newsrooms are heavily middle-class, largely white and still primarily male (although the gender gap is narrowing)". It concludes that reporters work for complete honesty, but always get flak from democrats and republicans who are searching for an elusive bias.
Michael Parenti in the journal Humanism, argues that "Media bias usually does not occur in random fashion; rather, it moves in the same overall direction again and again, favoring management over labor, corporations over corporate critics, affluent whites over low-income minorities, officialdom over protesters, the two-party monopoly over leftist third parties, privatization and free market "reforms" over public sector development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or populist social change, national security policy over critics of that policy, and conservative commentators and columnists like Rush Limbaugh and George Will over progressive or populist ones like Jim Hightower and Ralph Nader (not to mention more radical ones).The built-in biases of the corporate mainstream media faithfully reflect the dominant ideology, seldom straying into territory that might cause discomfort to those who hold political and economic power, including those who own the media or advertise in it." "The job of corporate media is to make the universe of discourse safe for corporate America, telling us what to think about the world before we have a chance to think about it for ourselves. When we understand that news selectivity is likely to favor those who have power, position, and wealth, we move from a liberal complaint about the press' sloppy performance to a radical analysis of how the media serve the ruling circles all too well with much skill and craft."
This last article is consistent with the idea that media operate to make money and not offend people.
ONE article from the American Journalism Review in 1995 indicts the media as liberal (yes, ONLY ONE in my quest for the liberal media). It is be William McGowen and it says that the Democartic party is co-dependent on the liberal media. The article discussed how the liberal media sets the agenda of the democratic party and how that has alienated the democratic party from middle-class voters. It starts off by quoting Rush Limbaugh and has a large photo of him on the first page. He beleives that "Like the democratic party, major US news organizations have made an institutional commitment to diversity... which has encouraged a narrow, multiculturalism orthodoxy." He contends that the "media and the deomocratic party are increasingly dominated by an insular elite". He concludes that this will lead more people to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Another article explores "the impact of conservative elites' claims of media bias in the 1988, 1992 and 1996 United States presidential elections." It shows how right-wing media outlets scream left wing bias to censor ideas during presidential elections.
So we have four that say it is baised toward the right, and three that since people want objectivity journalists seek it out and that people watching (democrats and republicans) are biased not the media, and only one that can claim a liberal bias to the media.
Furthermore I searched google (described in the next post) for "Liberal Media". Out of the top 10 hits 8 concluded that the "Liberal media" was a horrible myth and two concluded the media is liberal.
So, here's a little tiny bit of research, more to come, make the decision for yourself and I'd apreciate comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
