Two very huge incidents of blatant censorship. WAPO---CNN

[trumad]

Our media is has become the new Pravda.

At his news conference, Bush called the election results a "thumping" but vowed to maintain his policy of refusing to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq "before the job is done." Bush indicated that he had made the decision to replace Rumsfeld before the elections, but he said he had not held a "final conversation" with the defense chief or talked to Gates at the time he told reporters in response to a question last week that Rumsfeld would be staying on.

Asked about that comment, Bush said he made it because "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said. He appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters, saying, "And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

He added later, "Win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee.


But at some point, the Post fundamentally changed this article (without leaving any indication that it did so). Now, in that same Post article, the passage I quoted about the President's having acknowledged that he "misled reporters" is gone entirely -- just disappeared, deleted with no trace -- and instead one finds only this:


He said that he had begun to contemplate Rumsfeld's exit before the election -- even while he was publicly vowing that he would keep the defense secretary through the end of his term and insisting that polls forecasting Republican defeat were wrong. "I thought we were going to do fine yesterday," Bush insisted. "Shows what I know." But "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee."


At some point, the Post changed what was the accurate reporting -- that Bush expressly acknowledged that he "misled" reporters because he had "indicated that he had made the decision to replace Rumsfeld before the elections" -- by claiming in the new version that he merely "contemplated" Rumsfeld's exit before the election. Worse, the Post deleted entirely the accurate statement that the President "appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters." (If one does a search of the Post for the deleted paragraphs, the article will still come up in the Post's search engine, but the entire passage is nowhere to be found in the article).
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/extremely-odd-behavior-from-washington.html

_________________________________________________________________

CENSORED BY CNN: BILL MAHER SUGGESTS RNC CHAIR MEHLMAN IS GAY....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/08/censored-by-cnn-bill-mah_n_33701.html

[still_one]

1. No surprise here. This election was not just about a new Congress

It was also people telling the MSM that they do NOT trust them anymore, and that they have failed in their job

[originalpckelly]

2. Pravda? We'll see, Bush needs to go out and talk to people again...

and someone needs to raise this with him.

"Mr. President, on Wednesday November 8, 2006, you acknowledged that you had deceived reporters and America by stating that you wanted to keep Fmr. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. In every major account of this news, none mentioned this highly damaging admission, why is that? Did the White House ask for that omission from their reporting?"

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Of COURSE the Mehlman story was censored

Outing a person in public is still "actionable" as a tort -- defamation.

Even if it's not secret.

Even if it's true.

Granted, such an "action" would probably not succeed, but this kind of thing produces bad karma all around. I'm surprised that Mahr said it; he has his weaknesses, mainly wise-assedness, but verbal indiscretions are not his kind of thing.

Of course, he might be boinking Ann Coulter again. Or Larry King might have telepathic mind-control powers. :tinfoilhat:

By redacting the video, CNN covered its ass. You can't blame it. And THAT is why we need things like YouTube and video blogging. CNN and the other news outlets can't take the heat, but bloggers are given much more latitude.

--p!

[Divernan]

8. Truth is a defense to defamation, i.e., libel OR slander.

Google for a definition of defamation and you will find:
A FALSE (emphasis added) statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander.

That's the way they taught it when I got my law degree decades ago, and it is still the law.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. You're exactly right

Which is why such a case would probably fail. Although I didn't formally study law, I'm well aware of this area of the law.

But it would be very poor form if CNN let it (Mahr outing Mehlman) pass without editing it. The big media operations have matters of publicity, trust, ethics, etc., to deal with.

In the "blogosphere", on the other hand, the rules are a lot looser. Bloggers are seldom considered to be professional journalists and are not held to the same standards. They can also be threatened with legal action, the so-called SLAPP suits, but if they manage to get publicity over the threat, it usually hurts the party doing the threatening.

I'd expect CNN (and any media corporation) to censor stuff like this, but for reasons other than being the enforcer of RNC mind control. Which, again, is why the "amateurs" are important.

What "Newsman Matt Drudge" hath wrought, we eeevil DUers may profit therefrom. :)

--p!

[Cooley Hurd]

4. The corporate media stays true to form...

Fortunately, in the natural ebb-and-flow of things, they will ultimately be held accountable by the "new media" of the internet (by sites such as TPM Muckraker). It'll take time, but it will happen.:thumbsup:

[Hubert Flottz]

5. K&R

It's time we started some Reality based accountability, in places besides the god damned grade schools in America!

We MUST keep up the pressure on the tutucrats and the weak kneed rose garden corporocrats and demand that they provide the accountability they promised us, before this past election.

[KharmaTrain]

6. The Corporate Media Was A Big Loser On Tuesday

Call me a nihalist, but I had to tune into some of Faux's election "coverage" and was ready to call the local funeral home and tell them where to pick up the bodies. The Faux agenda took a major hit across the country as almost every one of their "favorites" from Mandog Rectorum to J.D. Bigmouth went down to defeat. This was not just a renounciation of the GOOP, but its mighty Wurlitzer as well.

In honestly, the Mehlmann comment was questionable. While we can suspect or "gaydar", the comment was said with no supporting evidence other than repeating a rumor (no matter how widespread it is) that could be construed as taking an unfair shot. If this had been a Democrat that was "outted"...I suspect the outrage here would blow the servers sky high. Mehlmann, while being a weasel and hypocrite (and closeted), should be exposed not for his sexual preference, but for his double standard. Mahrer went for the shock and cheap laugh. If Mehlmann is to be exposed, it should be with specifics, not rumors.

Lastly, the corporate media still is loathe to call this regime on its lying. I heard pundits, including Democrats, use the "he misled" crap as if to call booosh a liar is somehow deflining the office of president (not as though this asshat hasn't done that all by himself) and that somehow using such "harsh" language is unacceptable. It's stupid as the Rumsfeld lie was one of the worst in American political history...forcing Repugnicans to defend an unpopular war that was a prime cause that they lost the election...and then he turns around and says "just kdding folks". Maybe the corporate media thinks no one noticed. Thank goodness for YouTube and the blogs...the antidote for the mindmeld of corporate media "political correctness".

[Hosnon]

7. Is it censorship (in the Pravda sense) if the outlets do it to themselves?

I'm not sure about the Post incident but I see nothing sinister about what CNN did. I appears to me that CNN does not want to be the source for information like that (and perhaps they can't confirm Maher's assertion).

(Edit: And when I say "do it to themselves", I mean independent of coercion as well. The government doesn't seem to be involved in these two incidents.)

[KittyWampus]

9. Trumad! Great post, K&R. Cause this has to be addressed