Fitzgerald is showing MSM's complicity with Bushco crimes.

[chieftain]

Clearly the main story to come out of Plamegate will be the criminal and treasonous behavior on the part of the Republicans who were going to restore honor and decency to the White House. But a story of almost equal importance is beginning to take shape as well. Just as the torture scandals are not limited to a few bad apples in the military, the bogus marketing campaign supporting the invasion of Iraq was promoted by not just by Judy Miller but all the major news organizations. They preferred to curry favor with an illegitimate, felonious regime rather than fulfill their journalistic responsibilities. Russert, Mitchell, all the shills at FOX, the NYT and the WAPO all did their part to deceive the American people into favoring a stupidly conceived and stupidly executed adventure.
The news that will emerge from these indictments will give the lie to the charge that the media is liberal. It has been bought and paid for. And the traitors in the WH have more than got their moneys' worth. Truly these media darlings have dishonored their calling.

[Seansky]

1. well, MSM is paying a pretty high price for their complicity and doubt

they'll have hard time making it again...Internet, what a relief...we are so lucky to have it..

[Roland99]

6. And it was born of the Defense Dept...now trying to control news.

[chieftain]

10. I agree with you on the internet. It has become the best source

for news. One of the things that has troubled me from the start of the Iraq adventure is that the best coverage has come from the British papers. The survival of our democracy is dependent upon an informed electorate. The MSM has earned an F- since they joined the coup attempt against Clinton. It is vital that journalists reexamine their ethics and practices in light of their gigantic failures regarding Iraq, the 2000 election and Plamegate. If not, the zombies that parrot Limbaugh and Fox will continue to send fascists to Washington.

[sendero]

15. Some say that..

... Democracy is dead. I say it's ill, but without the internet its prognosis would be terminal.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. It is really sad

:( It's sad we can't trust our own news. The republicans either think it's too liberal and we know they're shrills for propoganada. *sigh* So I'm so thankful for the internet from the programers to Al Gore. :)

[Skittles]

2. I hope so chieftain

but to me, the media-complicity started way earlier than the war - simply put, there is no way an incompetent SOB like bush could have been installed into the White House if the media had done their jobs and reported the truth about him AND the stolen election.

[Cha]

3. Exactly! I learned of the media's

complicity, the hard way, in 2000!

[chieftain]

4. You are right about that.

I remember my jaw dropping as I read the convoluted attempts to validate the 2000 election theft. The change has been stealthy but it has been inexorable. As the profit motive was imposed on the news divisions, the adherence to journalistic principles has atrophied to the point that for just one example, NBC feels no compelling reason to make Russert explain his role in this mess.

[Angry Girl]

5. Here! Here! And their coverup of Bush's Bulge!

The Emperor's New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

(I firmly believe that had they run this story, millions of Apple Pie Americans would have freaked and the GOP couldn't have pulled off the election fraud so readily, if at all... although with computerized systems it's just too easy....)

And here we are, too late for tens of thousands of dead Americans and Iraqis and Afghanis and their families, and billions of dollars poorer. The murder of America.... Let's hope the f*ckers go to jail for life.
:mad:

[0007]

16. I also believe if the NY Times had ran with the story, many things

wouldn't have taken place.

I just hope MSM doesn't water down the Jack Abramoff involvements & investigation.

[ShockediSay]

7. Time to start challenging station licenses

before too long. Let them show they've "served the public interest."

[Talismom]

8. What a great idea! How do you do that? n/t

[ShockediSay]

9. Organize. Have somebody find out when a station (radio or tv)

license is up for renewal, turn out your masses to testify how and why this station has not "served the public interest."

Just about always, station license renewals are pro forma, BUT maybe w/ a lawyer who knows a little bit about FCC law, your local group can make headlines, if not headaches, for the likes of Clear Channel, Rupert Murdoch, Sinclair holdings and the like.

A basic of FCC law is that the airwaves belong to the public- not to the licensees, and therefore must serve the public interest. Here is a great place for true grass-root political action.

[spindrifter]

17. The stations usually broadcast

when they are up for relicensing and give notice to the public that they can make comments. I have no idea how the comments are really regarded. It might be worth looking into how many stations have been denied relicensing and what the reasons for that were. Then we would know the "winning" types of complaints from the FCC perspective.

[ShockediSay]

21. "It might be worth looking into how many stations have been denied ...."

"It might be worth looking into how many stations have been denied relicensing and what the reasons for that were. Then we would know the "winning" types of complaints from the FCC perspective."

I do not know of even one license denial. It's like MSM have a vested interest in what is supposed to belong to the public. Here again, some lawyer knowledgeable in FCC matters is essential.

Massive grass-roots support can never hurt. Maybe we could co-ordinate w/ move-on? They did a piece a while back about Sinclair's right wing bias, particularly when Sinclair refused to broadcast Nightline's program with the the names of our Iraq war fatalities, honoring our war dead.

No doubt about it, this kind of movement would hit MSM where it hurts, not to mention moving them in the direction of the public interest, as opposed to their own bottom line agendae.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Great point. But please don't call the the "MSM!"

Do YOU consider those whores "mainstream?" Please call them what they are - the Corporate Media.

NGU.

[chieftain]

14. I take your point. That is a much more accurate description.

[schmuls]

12. MSM

Being new here, I have to ask: what is MSM?

[dubyaD40web]

13. MSM=Main Stream Media

Welcome to DU!

[chieftain]

18. Welcome to DU. Is this not a great time for your hobby?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

20. I well remember during the election, Russert guiding the candidate's

discussions on MTP. All the dems were put under the greatest scrutiny, and given the barest minimum of time to speak. The pubs could meander on and on, and rarely received anything but softballs. I started to question myself, being a democrat, as to whether this was really true, or if I just chose to see it that way, until one morning my husband, who is pretty much apolitical, said, "What's wrong with Tim Russert? I thought he was supposed to be neutral. He just lets the republicans run right over the top of him."

Now I hear them all saying, "We dropped the ball on covering the motives for going to war. We should have been asking the hard questions." But I don't hear them accepting any responsibility for the lives that have been lost. "We dropped the ball" is a shitty apology to thousands of parents who have have lost their sons and daughters.

And that includes you, Mr. Bureau Chief Russert.