"I don't fear Big Brother; I fear Big Smother."-----------------------------------------------
[a scenario] MSM mogul to publishers: Things are looking brighter on the Bush front despite that CBS poll ... We need a new distraction .... If you can't find a controversy, create one ... Bush is over in India and Pakistan doing things that might strengthen his work against terrorism .... Let's revisit Katrina again -- run that news release from the hurricane center and get our editors busy on those video tapes -- see what they can muster ..... whatever you find, leak it to Shep over at Fox .... back off the Bill and Hillary port dispute .... Ask Laura what she thinks, see what the twins are doing or better yet, find a reporter embedded with the President and have him call a few radio talk shows ....
--------------------------
We pay good money to be entertained by twisted minds on the screen and in print. Now we learn similarly twisted and obsessed minds are promoting major news releases.
Recent headlines (see AOL, CBS and AP wires) show the full impact of the * Bush Derangement Syndrome.
AP may not have actually faked the recently "edited" video to support their claim that "Bush knew" about the New Orleans levy breach before it happened, etc., but nonetheless, AP found reason to apologize for editing omissions.
Omissions?
What about the misleading inclusions????
Why would an allegedly reputable news service need to apologize for reporting "news?"
Why would a responsible news agency promote a false survey (such as the recent CBS poll reported by AOL) to indicate Bush's decline in popularity, etc.?
What a crock.
Someone had to decide which pieces of the video to cut and which to paste. Someone had to approve it post-editing. You don't just randomly edit items in or out without purpose any more than you randomly select "news" to feature or headlines that mislead -- or any more than randomly [accidentally?] orchestrate a slanted survey .... Do you?
Seems the person involved with the video editing was none other than a producer for the infamous CBS "discovery" of a [faked] memo about George Bush's military service. You remember that one, don't you? It was conveniently "discovered" right before the elections. Dan Rather lost his job because of that one.
Will an editor lose his/her job at AP over the "edited" video? Ohhhhh, some editor might be buried in the editing lab for a while or sent to the Food Gazette for a few months. The Associated Press, a mainstay in the Fourth Estate (the guardians of government) will probably slide by with its milk-toast apology. News outlets are too dependent upon the AP to jeopardize headlining their bias!
What is it with mainstream media's need to defame George Bush? Why do major networks and agencies risk professional reputations to defame a sitting president?
Thanks to the blogosphere, the answer becomes fairly obvious.
The press as an institution -- the Fourth Estate, the guardian of government -- is no longer "free." It is owned by private enterprises. It's manipulated by agendas.
The press (i.e., main stream media) is controlled by corporate boards and billionaires who "agenda-dize" the slant of news to project their own political, economic, global and social perspectives.
(It's like a privately-owned non-state-controlled press, if you think in terms of the intended Constitutional protection. Except the MSM has somehow distended its purpose not to simply monitor government and inform the public, but to manipulate public opinion against the government -- unless, of course, the non-state-controlled press happens to support the current government .... At which point, the non-state-controlled press freely exercises its version of free speech to either support, criticize, feature, slant, bury or inform the public of what they perceive as newsworthy -- even it means altering facts ....)
But I digress.
Ever wonder why we don't hear or read about more "good" news? (Pick a topic. Any topic.)
Justcheck the who's-who on media conglomerate boards. Cross-reference the owners/members with lists of political donors and "philanthropic" foundations which these board members support or own. Check their contributions to Political Action Committees and "store front" 157 sub-groups (exempt form political contribution regulations) that silently fund political agendas, ad campaigns, news feeds and, yes -- protests, marches and riots on the national and global front.
Go ahead. Check them out. Check the lists of political donors across party lines. You might discern that a few donors frequently "hide" political support/contributions through their wives or children or their own foundation(s). If you are aware of (even among Internet moguls) who supports which political party or candidate or cause, you'll gain some insight into why featured MSM news reports carry certain "slants" among the most "independent" carriers!
It's intentional, by the way. And it didn't just happen during the last two presidential elections.
Why is this relevant?
It's relevant because it has become so blatant, flagrant and alarmingly obsessive. It's unhealthy for everyone, including our institutions.
Our guardians of government (the Fourth Estate turned agenda-operatives) have lost it -- lost it somewhere between responsible journalism and op-ed agenda-based news.
Reporters and editors have "bought in" to promoting agenda-perspectives and have sacrificed all standards of professionalism to destroy one man and discredit a national sentiment that elected him.
Note to the MSM: it wasn't JUST conservatives who voted for GWB, by the way.
They (the MSM -- the bastions of thoughts and controllers of how-America-should-be) cannot accept that the average American has the capacity to think, assess, identify or understand their own needs, interests AND preferences.
MSM has, without question -- lost a prevailing sense of mission and integrity -- has become so fixatedon one man that they go so far as to fabricate scenarios to discredit him. Furthermore, they portend to demean those who dare to express support for any program under his administration.
What's the future of MSM?
I hope bleak.
I don't fear Big Brother; I fear Big Smother. I don't fear an elected government official; I fear a manipulative media that insolates my view of government and the world.
Need a prime-time example?
Meet the new MSM poster boy (a member of the White House Press Corps who finally stepped over the edge) -- NBC's David Gregory who tops his press-conference temper-tantrums by calling a talk radio show in a drunken giggle-fit while traveling with the President. What was he trying to say? Do? The guy needs help beyond a weekend anger-management retreat or an AA sponsor. I wonder if his days in the WH corps might be numbered ....
Of course, you won't read any of this as headlines in the MSM. They're much too focused on editing videos, orchestrating new polls or monitoring potential riots in the streets of where-ever-bush-might-go-next.
* Bush Derangement Syndrome: "The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
-- Gull (
http://journals.aol.com/gullspirit/PerishTheThought)
update: The AP did not "apologize" for the misleading video. The moonbats simply issued a "correction." My error, with apology for giving those slimeballs credit.
