Corporate controlled news, how extensive is it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm curious: since this is your stated position, what media sources do you listen to that provide you with a viewpoint you probably don't agree with? You've given us sources that have a left-leaning perspective, but what sources do you pay attention to that provide a conservative perspective? Is FOX News the extent of it, or do you keep tabs on other sources too?

There is no news I don't listen to, short of time constraints and access. If you have a particular source in mind I will look at it.

I really listen to lots of interviews with people who have some knowledge of whatever the subject is. The news personalities I do not consider experts with a few exceptions like those that ask knowledgeable questions of the interviewee. I don't waste my time on things like Crossfire, O'Reilly, Hannity and Combs because they are for show and not for getting real information. I get tired of hearing reporter's unqualified analyses of everything. I want to hear from someone with firsthand knowledge. And after hearing Chris Matthews caught when he thought the cameras were off saying, "No one likes a know it all woman" referring to Hillary Clinton, I can't stand to watch Hardball anymore either.

I watch a lot of CSPAN and read a lot of books, sometimes after seeing the author talk on CSPAN. I read both of Bob Woodward's books on Bush as well as Molly Ivins, Bushwacked' about Bush's Texas time. Woodward is a Bush supporter. I read Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies", covering the same time span as Woodward's but going back 25 years as well.

I've read the New Yorker articles and other pieces on current events. I read that piece by the Iraqi expert you linked to in the other thread then looked into the facts in the matter. You know where that went. I'm sure there is more I'm forgetting....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the Astrodome isn't IN New Orleans, it's in Houston, Texas. I think you confused it with the Superdome. Barbara Bush was talking about refugees from New Orleans who were staying at the Astrodome, who weren't trapped at all and did have access to food, water, medical care, etc., and NOT the people who were trapped in the Superdome under pretty dire conditions. It may have been an insensitive remark, but it is hardly the disconnect from reality that your confusion led you to believe.

It was the Astrodome and it was the N.O. refugees but I did have it mixed up with the trapped Superdome event. False memories ...you corrected them for me before they became ingrained.

Insensitive remark but one made without forethought. Clearly revealed what the woman thinks of "those people".

 

[RandFan]

You're right, I meant Superdome.

Insensitive remark but one made without forethought. Clearly revealed what the woman thinks of "those people".

You may be right but I need to see it in context. Do you have a link?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you cite that quote for me?

Really easy to find. Here are two with the correction Zig pointed out as to location.

Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

Snopes: Working Very Well for Them

Claim: Former first lady Barbara Bush said that New Orleans refugees being housed in the Houston Astrodome were "underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

Status: True.

I heard the comment on CNN and it was even worse in person, spoken like a true snob.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You will be hereby presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This, the nation's highest civilian honor, will be presented by past Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients, former Central Intelligence Agency director, George J. Tenet, and Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

We are all very proud of you.

A'hem...If I recall, Brownie was, "doing a heck of a job", but the medals were awarded to Tenet, Franks, and Bremer the essential architects of the Iraqi disaster: Go in under false pretenses; without enough troops; and screw up the first year running the place.

 

[Cylinder]

Insensitive remark but one made without forethought. Clearly revealed what the woman thinks of "those people".

You may consider re-calibrating your mind reading machine. I mean - really - first you claim incorrect information about the setting (Whoops! Sorry.) then you quote out of context. But I'm certain you have a crystal clear insight to what Mrs. Bush was thinking when she made her comments.

Almost everyone I've talked to says, 'We're going to move to Houston.' What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them.

I hate to break this to you (to use your brand of rhetoric) but poor, black people are, in fact, people just like me and you. People in the midst of tragedy are often looking for hope. Hope is a certain commodity that cannot completely be credited to debit cards, rent vouchers or eagled checks. I'm certain we could have avoided this thread if Mrs. Bush would have proclaimed everyone in the Astrodome "screwed" and "beyond all hope."

Skeptic. Ha! You're claiming to read minds. Maybe you should consider the Challenge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I tried to give Democracy Now a chance, I really did. But Amy Goodman is work is very, very slanted by her politics. In many ways, this is a good thing - she questions a lot of things. But her shows don't sound like news to me, they sound like rants. I ended up questioning her ability to track down and publish facts which were contrary to her preconceived antiwar message. I'm no fan of war in general, and have deep reservations about recent activies in that regard, but in the end I am not looking for a reporter to form my opinions, or share their's with me. I want the facts, and let me decide what to think about them. I'm at the point that as soon as I hear her strident, censoring voice I change the channel, because I know I'm about to be lectured to.

When the regular news puts out nothing critical about the Iraq war and very little that is critical of Bush, where besides programs like DN do you get the legitimate criticism?

"Her shows" which you call rants are mostly interviews. The questions she asks are the ones not asked at the White House press conferences if you can call them conferences.

I have no issue that what I see as more enlightening news may seem biased to a Rush Limbaugh fan, (not that you are a Dittohead). But, the point is it's the only real news out there short of all the other places we get our information on the Net like the blogs and other information pieces. I would gladly listen to FOX news (I do anyway) if they had actual news to report. I would love to see more middle of the road programs of real news. I do watch the CBC and the BBC news as well as Jim Leher and NPR.

But the excuse for news that is on the main TV broadcasts are what I am concerned about. That is where 'America' gets the news.


As for not liking Goodman's preference for anti-war guests, think about the following. When Bush took the country into Iraq, claims were made about WMDs. Goodman and only a few anti-war people were questioning the evidence. Ambassador Wilson was trying to tell people the yellow cake Niger incident was a fraud and that his wife was outed to discredit the report by claiming she got him hired and he wasn't qualified. Wilson was more than qualified and Goodman reported that. The fact the guy giving the evidence about Ata meeting with Iraqi intelligence officers was a con and had been paid $100,000 by Bush's 'people' was reported by Goodman.

The regular press wasn't asking or reporting any of this. They were too busy getting their embedded reporters ready to go.

The Iraq invasion started in 03/2003. I went to DN and just picked Nov 02 to see what was being reported. Here is a sample:

On Iraq:
Wednesday, November 27th, 2002
As UN Weapons Inspections Begin, a Former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist Says Iraq's Nation's Atomic Program No Longer Exists: Imad Khadduri Also Explains How the Eisenhower Administration Helped Start Iraq's Atomic Program

Wednesday, November 20th, 2002
Independent Journalist Robert Fisk On the Bush Administration's Insistence That Iraq Is Already Violating the UN Resolution
This was long before the Downing Street Memo, which revealed Bush and Blair were not only going to invade regardless of Sadam's actions, they were going to make demands they believed Sadam would refuse then use it as a reason to go in. Sadam didn't refuse, they invaded anyway.

Thursday, November 14th, 2002
Saddam Hussein Approves the Return of UN Weapons Inspectors: An Interview with Democracy Now! Correspondent Jeremy Scahill in Baghdad and An Iraqi Man Whose House Was Searched By UN Inspectors in 1997

On the recently revealed massive surveillance programs:
Thursday, November 21st, 2002
Homeland Security Act Includes Union-Busting, New Snooping and Surveillance Powers: An Overview of the Largest Reorganization of Government in 50 Years

Thursday, November 21st, 2002
The Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness": Pentagon Unveils Plans to Create the World's Largest Surveillance Database to Track Your Phone Calls, Purchases, Internet Usage, Reading Material, Banking Transactions

Thursday, November 21st, 2002
Reagan's Former National Security Advisor and Iran-Contra Criminal John Poindexter Oversees Pentagon's Massive Surveillance Project
As for calling Poindexter a criminal, he was.

Poindexter was convicted on multiple felony counts on April 7, 1990 for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence pertaining to the Iran-Contra Affair. The convictions were reversed in 1991 on the technical grounds that the prosecution's evidence may have been tainted by exposure to Poindexter's testimony before the joint House-Senate committee investigating the matter, in which Poindexter's testimony was compelled by a grant of 'use immunity'. The prosecution was not able to re-try the case.

What has time revealed? Look how the above stories have been confirmed and are now finally in the mainstream news, 3+ years too late. ~70% of the public, or whatever the latest poll shows, now believes the Iraq war was a mistake. Had the mainstream news been reporting what DN was reporting maybe we would have never let Bush go ahead.


I could have told them it was a mistake before we invaded. I could have even predicted the screw ups after we invaded based on what I knew about the same Bush team's tactics in Central America. There they propped up a few people at the top at the expense of the large number of people elsewhere. Surprise, that's the same thing they are doing in Iraq. They have installed a corrupt bunch. Elected, sure, but who were the choices between? Where did the candidates come from. Look into it and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may consider re-calibrating your mind reading machine. I mean - really - first you claim incorrect information about the setting (Whoops! Sorry.) then you quote out of context. But I'm certain you have a crystal clear insight to what Mrs. Bush was thinking when she made her comments.

Out of context? It doesn't take rocket science to interpret that statement. Believe whatever you want. I do suggest you hear a recording of it, though.

I hate to break this to you (to use your brand of rhetoric) but poor, black people are, in fact, people just like me and you. People in the midst of tragedy are often looking for hope. Hope is a certain commodity that cannot completely be credited to debit cards, rent vouchers or eagled checks. I'm certain we could have avoided this thread if Mrs. Bush would have proclaimed everyone in the Astrodome "screwed" and "beyond all hope."

Skeptic. Ha! You're claiming to read minds. Maybe you should consider the Challenge.

You must not have heard the actual recording from the sound of this comment. There was no mistaking the tone of the comment. Listen to it yourself then get back to me. No mind reading required.


Maybe you should see what everyone else thought about it. I doubt you'll find anyone with your interpretation.

 

[RandFan]

You must not have heard the actual recording from the sound of this comment. There was no mistaking the tone of the comment. Listen to it yourself then get back to me. No mind reading required.

I think she has made at least one other similar quote. It was insensitive. I won't excuse it.

 

[roger]

"Her shows" which you call rants are mostly interviews. The questions she asks are the ones not asked at the White House press conferences if you can call them conferences.

I did not call them rants. I said they "sound" like rants. I was using the word 'sound' literally - I was referring to her tone of voice, cadence, etc. She sounds (literally, again) full of self-righteous anger. I personally can't take it, even if I agree with somebody's opinion.

I have no issue that what I see as more enlightening news may seem biased to a Rush Limbaugh fan, (not that you are a Dittohead).

If you are saying I'm a Rush Limbaugh fan, you are mistaken. In fact, if you think I disagree with many of Amy Goodman's points, you are mistaken. I just can't take how she presents her message, and I have serious doubts about her objectivity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did not call them rants. I said they "sound" like rants. I was using the word 'sound' literally - I was referring to her tone of voice, cadence, etc. She sounds (literally, again) full of self-righteous anger. I personally can't take it, even if I agree with somebody's opinion.

If you are saying I'm a Rush Limbaugh fan, you are mistaken. In fact, if you think I disagree with many of Amy Goodman's points, you are mistaken. I just can't take how she presents her message, and I have serious doubts about her objectivity.

No, I wasn't saying you are a Dittohead. See, I said that specifically. I used Rush as an example of the opposite point of view. I don't know where your sentiments lie.

I can understand not enjoying listening to a particular newscaster or having one grate on your nerves. But you didn't mention any alternate sources of information you might use instead?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think she has made at least one other similar quote. It was insensitive. I won't excuse it.

And it wasn't just insensitive, it was insensitive without apparently being aware it was insensitive.

It's one thing to say something like, "they're all lazy and they're getting free rent here". That would be insensitive.

To say, "they must feel better in this nice Astrodome compared to their miserable lives before" is more how it sounded. It showed complete disdain for "those people" having absolutely no knowledge of their lives. The reason for not having any knowledge of how "those people" live would be because you didn't give one little s%$# about them.

This is how it sounded. Whether true or not is opinion. But it was hard to see another interpretation given the intonation of her statement.

 

[RandFan]

To say, "they must feel better in this nice Astrodome compared to their miserable lives before" is more how it sounded. It showed complete disdain for "those people" having absolutely no knowledge of their lives. The reason for not having any knowledge of how "those people" live would be because you didn't give one little s%$# about them.

I grew up poor and have, in the past, been on public assistance, but I'm sure you would know much better than I just how awful her words and sentiment were. I appreciate the education and I feel really enlightened now. I need to stop relying on my own judgment as is evidenced by my encounter with PB. In any event I sure am sorry that I only said that her words were insensitive.

It's really too bad that she won't suffer the same fate as Marie Antoinette. Oh well, what ya going to do? Perhaps we could all just hate her, it's a thought.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You'd get a kick out of Al Franken's story about his encounter with the senior Mrs Bush.

Found an audio: click on "amazing content" ("listen to the audio" didn't do anything).

There's also an 8 min pod cast of franken's story if you have the capability.

 

[RandFan]

You'd get a kick out of Al Franken's story about his encounter with the senior Mrs Bush.

Found an audio: click on "amazing content" ("listen to the audio" didn't do anything).

There's also an 8 min pod cast of franken's story if you have the capability.

We'll thank you so much. I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy listening to Al Franken. Maybe in his next encounter he can punch her in the face.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fake news permeating Australian newspapers as well.

Next time you see an "exclusive" tag on a story about state politics, stop and have a closer look. The chances are that the story, far from being a feat of journalistic endeavour, is what we call in the trade "a drop". You'll be able to tell it's a drop because it's likely to quote one side of politics only.

But one doesn't just drop the story off, one uses specific marketing tactics so your fake news becomes a hot comodity.

Sometimes the story uses the quotes from the next day's press release, ....

...It has caused enormous frustration among television and radio reporters, who usually enjoy a time advantage over print in covering the days events. It is also immensely frustrating for rival newspapers.

the drop has become standard operating procedure. The NSW Opposition, seeing the uncritical run newspapers give the Government on exclusives, is emulating the technique.

Then you start negotiating

When a Herald colleague obtained substantial elements of the preschool package, which the Premier had hoped to use as his sweetener for budget day, there were furious attempts by his staff to negotiate conditions in return for confirming the detail. This included a requirement that the newspaper not publish comment from the Opposition and guarantee that the story would be the front page "splash" - the major story.

(emphasis mine)

Apparently there is some resistance on the part of the paper's editors but then there is the ever growing temptation.

Exclusives that set the agenda are important in boosting circulation. But simply running the Government's announcement before it is made, without any serious critique, comes perilously close to being advertising for political parties. It may be of mutual benefit to newspapers and politicians, but it's certainly not in the public's interest.

 

[fishbob]

The most common line I hear from Amy Goodman in her interviews is something like: "Tell us what happened . . . ".

I kind of like this style of questioning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still in the middle of the book, Attack Poodles... The author has reiterated what many of us already know, the current TV news interview format (or formula really) doesn't allow any real substantive discussion of the issues. The same is true in politics when Dems and Reps have a go at each other, no real discussion of issue occurs. As a whole I think people are really influenced by the constant public barrage of this type of exchange. How many average Joes even know what a debate really is?

Some of the threads here on the forum get decent debate marks in my book but there are many people who address discussions more on a win or lose, rather than an exchange of ideas and points of view. They get mad and almost never seem to hear anyone else's point of view. Then you look at the role modeling day after day in politics and Crossfire type programs.

I was so amazed when Jon Stewart had his infamous exchange with Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. Stewart made such a good point about no real exchange of ideas or information.

Here's Wiki's blurb on it.

During Jon Stewart's famous appearance on CNN's Crossfire, pundit and co-host Tucker Carlson complained to Stewart that he let John Kerry go without asking any substantial questions. Stewart replied that Carlson had no right to criticize him for not doing what isn't his job: that is, giving hard hitting interviews. That, Stewart said, was the job of real reporters. Stewart rebutted that it was in fact Crossfire, and not the Daily Show, that was doing a disservice to the public through spin and fake controversy. He also made the comment: "You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."[7]

 

[RandFan]

I was so amazed when Jon Stewart had his infamous exchange with Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. Stewart made such a good point about no real exchange of ideas or information.

I like Stewart and regularly watch the show. He is very good. However I found his exchange a bit disingenuous. He takes his interviews rather serious when interviewing folks he disagrees with, asking rather pointed questions. He's got a great bit, he can ask tough questions of Bill Bennett and gush and guffaw with John Kerry and then simply say that it is fake news.

I didn't include the Daily Show in my earlier list because it ISN'T news. But maybe you have a point. The Daily Show has an excuse.

No digs at Barbara Bush? You seemed pretty heated with her. We're here for you, let it all out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only once in a while does Stewart have stupid interviews and it's usually with some actor or comedian buddy type guest. Just the other night he expressed some contrary views with John Dean's perception of motives for something controversial. Stewart was asking something like, "don't you think that could just be the result of ..." to Dean's more sinister reason.

I don't think it was disingenuous at all. Stewart was just expressing the frustration I am expressing here with this thread. Reporters are all fluttering around but no one is really doing any reporting. Stewart points it out time and time again with examples from the news Stewart makes fun of. Crossfire was a fake debate show, pretending to be a real debate show. The Daily Show is satire.