Posted on 12/03/2013 3:31:05 PM PST by ransomnote
I recall posting on a New York Times article that the Times had colluded to get Obama elected and they and Obama needed to admit to "In Kind Contributions" (i.e., Obama's unpaid election press). I wasn't alone - many people reacted with outrage at the extremes of distortion the Times and others had employed (i.e., photographing his head with a halo etc.), as well as the unrestrained bias they paraded with contemptuous, hostile coverage of opponents. The failure to vet him was only the tip of the iceberg.
Now - when people who voted for him are realizing what Obama is, I am wondering to what extent the MSM will try to save it's image (now that he offended them by using his own photographers and shutting them out). Their behavior was traitorous and now they are rushing to be the ones to question him about Obamacare - will it be enough to "save" their despicable reputations? I recall reading that CNN lost about half its audience within the past year (Faster Please!) along with another network but that might just be more evidence of the Dinosaur DeathWatch. But if the MSM wants to prop up Hillary and get her elected this time, will they find it harder this time? I would be interested in your opinion(s).
It's not enough to say Obama lied. He had help. He had 24/7 news staff members covering up for his lack of any qualification whatsoever. As the wheels come off this repulsive portion of our history - I am looking for ways to bring as much public attention as possible to the fact that the MSM that wants to get Hillary elected is the same one who brought us The Won.
Any ideas for the “party” name of the MSM? Something repeatable, please?
We have the Democrat Party, The Republican Party, The Tea Party and well let’s face it, the MSM has anointed itself party status and is a key participant in getting its candidate elected so they need a party name.
No.
“Remember”? They’ve never believed it.
Are you kidding? The “public” didn’t notice, didn’t care, and does not care.
But now that they are feeling a little petulant because Obama hasn’t kept the goods flowing as fast as he promised (or the oceans ceasing to rise) might they be open to little reminders?
The Estate of False Wittiness holds no place in my heart.
I doubt it, because they they’d have to admit their mistake. Most of them are unlikely to ever do that. No, the only way that they will not vote for the next democrat candidate is if they are allowed to believe that they could never have expected that they were manipulated by the MSM when they voted for BO.
Their pathetic efforts have begun. Here’s a piece from Politico just today:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/dropped-coverage-media-obamacare-100546.html
If you read the comments you’ll see that we (I commented there, you’ll see my same screen name) gave the author “what for” as my grandmother used to say.
They’ll slurp hillary for sure, but they’ll never slurp anyone like they slurped Obama, he of the dusky hue and the well-creased pants.
The next R that gets in there they will savage, of course.
But will anyone buy it?
You are absolutely right. The looming national tragedy of Obamacare will further diminish Obama and hopefully expose him for what he is, a Marxist (even worse, as most Marxists want to at least maintain their nation’s power on the international stage, and he wants to weaken America). But if the full opportunity is to be seized by those of us who want the United States’ people to live in liberty, the media must be exposed and held accountable for their enabling, empowering and cheerleading for Obama. There are other people like Obama — he’s just the one who reached the presidency. It’s the old mainstream media which remains the danger beyond him, for they are the ones enabling his kind.
F the Media.
You’re a racist...
“Any ideas for the “party” name of the MSM? Something repeatable, please?”
I have been calling them “Mediacrats” for a long time. Think it made it into the FR Lexicon.
‘course not.
I SINCERELY DOUBT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I SINCERELY DOUBT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The journ-0-lists certainly are disappointed in the current slump in Caliph Baraq’s polls. However this gives them a nice chance to throw a few gratuitous shots his way in the name of “impartiality”.
I’m forecasting the 2016 thrust as “Baraq had great ideas but was a poor manager. Hillary has the experience to take them to the next level.”
The greatest threat to the Country.
You’re a racist...
_________________________________
*sigh* Yes. I remember a “friend” of 25 years gently hinting that I was a racist because I “wouldn’t even give him a chance.” That still galls me. A chance? You mean like Little League? Let’s give the little knock-Kneed kid a chance too - because it’s a game and everyone should be allowed to try!
I’ve been on the “bias in the media” case since the Carter era. I really learned about it via the Accuracy In Media (AIM) Report, but I soon let my subscription lapse because example after example, with no general theory to explain it, quickly became a twice-told tale.But after considerable analysis and far more time (after all, in general it is true that “this problem, when solved, will be simple”) than it now seems should have been necessary, I have a general explanatory theory. First, although we all see tendentiousness in movies and TV drama, I restrict my attention to nonfiction and, because books aren’t generally monochromatic, to topical nonfiction - that is, to journalism.
Secondly, I observe that in the Founding Era journalism was not assumed to be objective; you picked your newspaper (if you had a choice) for the editorial slant of the printer, because the paper would basically be about the printer’s opinion and everyone knew it. No less so that you or I might select the Rush Limbaugh program because we agree with his political slant. So we look for the mechanism which homogenized journalism so that each journalist asserts that all other journalists are objective.
Over the century from the end of the Founding era to the beginning of the heyday of leftist politics, there were changes - high speed printing presses, daily rather than weekly printing, and probably others. But there is one revolutionary technological leap which transformed journalism very quickly - the telegraph. Suddenly journalism traveled at the speed of light - albeit expensively. To control the expense, first the New York Associated Press was formed, and then it transmuted into the Associated Press as we know it today. The AP aggressively monopolized the use of the telegraph for the transmission of news. In point of fact, though, it would not really matter if the market had been much more competitive - because the effect of wire services, however many they might have been, was to create continuous virtual meetings among journalists across the country. And, as Adam Smith noted,
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsAnd the virtual meeting which was and is the Associated Press is continual and unending over a century and a half and more. A meeting, furthermore, not about “merriment or diversion” but precisely about business. It is impossible that such a meeting could fail to produce “a conspiracy against the public,” and that is precisely what happened. But to what end would we expect journalists to conspire against the public? Adam Smith illuminates that, as well:The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.In broad daylight journalism conspires to become our leaders and directors, notwithstanding that journalists actually lack any real qualifications other than as propagandists. Journalists are not in the pocket of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is the political party which most assiduously goes along to get along with journalism.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.