Repost: DEMS need to start taking on the media whores, head on

[Dr Fate]

(Note- this thead was locked due to one curse word...I provided the original thread so you can read the great responses)


...they need to start taking on the media more- pointing it out when THEY lie.

I'd love to hear a DEM ask Tim Russert or whoever-

DEM: "You refused to cover this story(pick a lie, any lie) about Bush- perhaps you would like to explain to me and the voters why you kept this important information for them..."

WHORE: "But this is not about me..."

DEM: "No- Tim, this IS about you- It is YOUR JOB to advance the freedom of the press by reporting ALL the news,even if it does make Bush look bad. Look Tim, I should not have to be the one to bring this topic up (Pick a lie, any lie)- that is YOUR job and I think the people deserve to know why you refuse to do it...By the way, you also "forgot" or refused to report this story (Pick a lie, any lie), and this story (pick a lie, any lie) and this story too (Pick any Bush lie). How can we have fair elecrions if peopel like you only report part of the facts? I think this is very important for 2004, and I think your viewers deserve an answer..."

Forget attacking Republicans, we need to attack their propaganda ministires.

If we CUT OUT THEIR TOUNGUES, then half the battle is won.

Seriously, why do DEMS REFUSE to call the media whores out, TO THEIR FACE, on TV? It would be beautiful.

I guess some of them are afraid that if they attack Bush/media, then Bush/media will be "mean to them"- Newsflash DEMS- they cant get any "meaner to you"- so you might as well show some guts...

Original thread: WARNING!!!! contains one VERY offensive word that will likely freak you out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=721494

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Well, they wouldn't get back on any show they did that on

It's the same lever the white house pulls on the press corps. Ask a "bad" question and you won't get asked again. Access is everything to a political reporter.

I'm not advocating the status quo, and I do think we have to call the media to task. I'm just pointing out the biggest hurdle that stands in the way of actually doing it.

Personally, I think the only way to attack the media is to make the snake eat it's tail. It is criticism from other media types that moves the media right or left. I think adding or funding more media people willing to call the Murdoch "establishment" on their propagandae would be most effective.

I also think that it's happening now, but perhaps not fast enough.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Dr Fate]

3. Why do they need to get invited back ???

One good interview would blow the whole thing open and turn it ino a national discussion.

In other words , you fall into the "But if we tell the TRUTH, Bush/media will be mean to us" category...

What, is Bush/media really going to boycott the DEM candidate??? This would look awfully suspicious- then the DEM candidate could say in every appearance-

"Since I asked the media about some important stories that they hid from the voters, they have decided to stop giving me interviews..."

The media would cave, I just KNOW it- they are spinless bullies...

Have you ever stood up to a School yard Bully before?? They ALWAYS back down, they usually even want to be your friend after you beat the crap out of them...

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. I think you need to re-read my post

And take a deep breath. I'm on your side on this issue. I simply proposed a different method to accomplish the same result. And it is happening - liberal radio networks is about to be a reality and truly liberal press is coming up too.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[seriptious]

2. ouch

now that is saying it like it is

[Dr Fate]

5. Right- but if DEMS tell the truth about Bush/media...

then Bush/media will be "mean to us" AGAIN.

MOMMY!!! MOMMY!! I'm scared- Bush/media is being mean to me again, make them stop- I cant stand up for myself so I'll just let them lie about me and the issues- Boo hoo hooo...

[blm]

15. Is this why the media slams Kerry?

And why do so many applaud the media attacks?


Speaker: Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)
Title: Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 09/16/2003
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
PAGE S11501
Sept. 16, 2003

Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
(At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a joint resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, rules designed to loosen restrictions on broadcast media ownership. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that media ownership rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition and localism. Unfortunately, the Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling fails to meet this standard.

The resolution before us today would reverse the FCC's decision to change the national television ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent, a decision that threatens local and independent voices in television. The television industry is undergoing rapid consolidation as a handful of national networks have acquired local stations across the country. I am concerned that when local stations are purchased by a national network, independent voices are lost in the media

marketplace. Locally owned and operated stations are more likely to be responsive to local needs, interests and values than those stations owned and operated by national networks. Indeed many local stations are small businesses that drive innovative competition. A system of concentrated station ownership will trend toward nationalized programming aimed primarily at maximizing revenue with less concern for local interests and less room for competition.

The resolution before us today will also reverse the FCC's decision to significantly loosen restrictions on cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers within single markets. The cross-ownership rule is intended to increase or at least maintain the number of independent editorial voices in a community. This is especially important in smaller communities where citizens have fewer media operations covering local matters. While there is scant evidence that weakening this rule will result in significant economic benefit, leading academics and media experts have argued that doing so will dangerously reduce the venues for independent public discourse.
I am also concerned with the process by which the FCC conducted these proceedings. This media ownership rulemaking is among the most important the FCC has undertaken, and it has garnered unprecedented public interest. Despite this, the Commission moved forward with dramatic rule changes without first taking public comment on a specific proposal. The Commission's outreach was simply insufficient. All parties concerned would have been better served if the Commission published a specific proposal and then allowed for a period of public comment before promulgating any rule changes.

The Commission's first responsibility is to ensure diversity, competition and localism. The Commission has no responsibility to facilitate the business plans of the major networks or any other narrow economic interest. I strongly support the disapproval resolution before us today.·

[Dr Fate]

17. I'm still pulling for Kerry...

...he and Clark both seem to at least have some handle on the spin thrown at them- Clark apparently did pretty good against Russert today...

I have never seen so much media coverage for a staff change- I think Kerry's staff change got more coverage & scrutiny than the constantly revolving door in the Bush admin...

Bush/media suggests: "Hmmm, somthing must be 'wrong' or amiss with Kerry- all these changes..."

But we dont seem to see Bush/media saying this about Bush, even though personell changes in his admin are like a revolving door...


...even still- I would really like to see more DEMS band together and openly challenge and expose the news stories that they refused/forgot to report...

It's not enough to expose the lies, we need to expose those who allow the lies...

[JailBush]

4. Hooray - you can start with Seattle!

Most discussions of media whores (I assume that word is allowed, at least in this context) focuses on CONESRVATIVES with a NATIONAL audience. We need to take a sharper look at the media on a more local level.

Consider the Seattle Times, which endorsed Al Gore. Just joking! The Times endorsed George W. Bush. Can you imagine that, in liberal Seattle? The Seattle Times is owned by Frank Blethen, a certifiable kook who performed community service after he was accused of shooting a neighbor's dog and hired paramilitary guards when his staff was on strike. Blethen is really quite similar to George Bush - he's deranged and has a famously short fuse.

The Seattle Times' main rival is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, part of the evil Hearst empire that gave us the term "yellow journalism." You'll find plenty of yellow in the pages of the P-I.

The Seattle Weekly, The Stranger and Eat The State are Seattle's most prominent "alternative" papers. Joking again! They pretend to fight against the establishment, but they're absolute corrupt.

Geov Parrish has been associated with all three, and he now has a national audience. But this well known left-winger is a pig.

I'd love to see mediawhoresonline.com create a 50states section that focuses on more local media whores - including liberals (or conservative operatives), not just right-wingers.

And here's another idea: Encourage candidates for public office to snub media endorsment interviews. This might not be a good idea for presidential candidates or form candidates in certain communities. But if you live in Seattle, here's how the game is played:

The Seattle Chamber of Commerce decides who will get elected far in advance, then enlists the media to start brainwashing the public. To create the illusion that Seattle still has a free press, they call the candidates in for an interview. Then they endorse whoever has already been coronated by Big Business.

Occasionally, one or two papers - generally the "alternatives" - will endorse a different candidate, but they're usually operatives as well.

So what's the point of dignifying a sleazy endorsement process? Candidates should make corrupt media a campaign issue. They should also urge voters to throw their newspapers in the trash and seek the truth on the Internet. But they also have to give them something worth seeking. Therefore, they need to have quality websites will well thought out issues statements - something that's sorely lacking at present.

It isn't enough to trash the media - we have to REPLACE it.

[Dr Fate]

7. Are some DEMS so insulated that they do not realize this???

Are some DEMS still living in the early 80's whern Cronkite & the OLD Dan Rather were the norm??

OR are they just too cowardly to stand up, not just for US, but for themselves??? You have to wonder...

[buycitgo]

6. great idea......needs to be kept alive, spread to those with influence

reposted from nasty thread:

they should make a POINT of deMANDing to know why certain stories are NEVER covered....like all the LIES condi tells, for just one obvious example. they could just keep on the lie tack forever.

point is, just go at every interviewer, every time with this/

"sir, madam--until you tell me why you have NEVER, EVER mentioned the fact that George Bush's TANG records have been altered (providing documentation--photostat of torn page/untorn page), I won't answer any of your questions."

what if they ALL did that?

all the time?

remember how #41 quashed Dan Rather's interview back in 88?

I've mentioned this before in another thread

why doesn't somebody get to the dems with some sort of similar idea?

Gore got the hint.....too bad he can't do it against anybody but Colmes--notice how he's NEVER on chat shows?

why is that? you'd think that, after a major policy speech, SOMEbody might want to have him on to amplify his remarks.

did he appear anywhere? I didn't see it, nor mention of it anywhere......did I miss something?

[Dr Fate]

8. Since gore exposed Colmes, I dont believe he has been on a show...

...but I could be wrong. Good point if true.

But if ALL DEMS did this, they could not ban ALL DEMS- that would be suspicious...

But I am a dreamer- I know, it's a simple dream, for DEMS to tell the truth about Bush/media- to their face, for all to see.

Ah, but if they did that, Bush/media would be "mean to them" and hurt their widdle feewings...

[Dr Fate]

9. A great article on Bush/media tactics- DEMS need to read it...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085153/

[blm]

16. absolutely first rate read.

.

[AmandaRuth]

10. The whores work in such subtle ways too

if you can stand another Seattle story---

On day I was listening to KIRO, one of those "fair and balanced" news stations that really leans right. They had a new guy on, the professor something or other, not really important, who was discussing an issue of local importance. Of course he had the head of the ruThug party on, and then a dem, and then took calls.

EVerytime someone identified himself as left leaning or a dem, he would start the conversation by asking "You are a man, would you wear a Thong, I'm doing a survey". ReThugs were never asked such a question, but allowed to move on to the subject being discussed, and I might add, allowed to make their point uninterrupted. Talk about minimizing the messenger therefore the message, all while presenting yourself as fair.

I kept waiting for one of "our guys" to say "Why are you asking me that? And why do you not ask Mr. Thug whether he wears a thong? And actually I know why you don't ask, it is your way of ridiculing me and my message". But no, they just took it, along with the diminishing return in importance of what they had to say. It was like they were so happy to have any, I repeat, any voice at all they were willing to let themselves be humiliated. For PETES SAKE, DEMS fight back - starting with the media. THE WAR WILL BE WON OR LOST IN THE MEDIA -- PLEASE MY DAUGHTERS FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.

edit for poor typing skills

[Dr Fate]

12. But if DEMS stand up for your children, Bush/media will be "mean to them"

And you would not want to put them through that, now would you???

[AmandaRuth]

14. ok...

a little over dramtic, but your message that we need to fight straight on with the media is an important one, for the future of this country.

[Dr Fate]

18. Yeah, perhaps I am over dramatic for sure...

I guess I need to work on that...:D

I'm just sick of seeing it over and over and over and over...I hate being represented by pushovers-

"I" would not let somone walk over me in a "debate"(lets face, it, when Bush/media "interviews" a DEM, it's more like a debate), especially when there are unsaid facts that change the whole argument. I dont expect my leaders to falter on this either...

[dsc]

11. I prefer this apporach

We should be as prepared for Russert as Russert is for us. Clark did a great job but just think if he could have pointed to a cardboard cut out with the quote Russert left out printed in black and white. That is the tack we need to take. The charge of double standard is very tough to prove but incompetence is readily apparent.

[Dr Fate]

13. I'll go with that- a "stunt" is fine...

ANYTHING but just sitting there and pretending they are not being attacked.

ANYTHING but remaining silent on the issues Bush/media REFUSES or "forgets" to report...

DEMS dont have to prove a double standard- all they have to do is mention 3 or 4 "bombshell" Bush lies, and then ask, ask, ask again the interviewer-

"but your network REFUSED or "forgot" to report this. The voters who count on you for news deserve to know why..."

When Tim or Cokie or whoever stumbles, the DEM just says-

"Dont worry- you may refuse to report these facts, but even though I'm very busy I'll make time to do your job for you. Someone has to fight for the truth, it's obviously not you..."

[buycitgo]

19. Russert is SUCH an indescribable thug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

watching rerun of MTP.

Russert is completely different with dems than w/likes of Rice, Cheney, Perle.

he's a rabid dog with dems.......following up question, with versions of same questions, won't accept their answers.

with pugs, ONE question, almost never (never say never) a followup.

cannot stand it.

Russert keeps on blaming whatever decisions were made on CIA/intelligence gathered.

Clark finally says we MUST concentrate on the USE the junta made of intel it collected......discussed "predisposition" to go to war.

needs "to come clean with the public" for how it used said intel.

[buycitgo]

20. can you put a kick timer on this thread?

have to hit hay

bookmarking for tomorrrow

this is muy importante!!!

[kaitykaity]

22. Locking.

"Original thread: WARNING!!!! contains one VERY offensive word that will likely freak you out."

"(Note- this thead was locked due to one curse word...I provided the original thread so you can read the great responses)"

If you have questions or comments about DU policy or moderator actions,
please feel free to repost them in the Ask the Administrators forum.

Thanks,



kaitykaity
DU Moderator