[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Fantastic. Thanks.

[New Perspective]

HAHA, what a great list and we all have seen this in action. Thank you for posting.

[facedown]

bttt

[Iron Munro]

[JoeProBono]

[Liberty Valance]

*ping*

[Hoodat]

Oops, I thought this was the top 50 just in the past week.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

bfl

[Jack Hammer]

Only fifty??? How about five thousand - for a start!

[GOPJ]

That’s an amazing list.

ping

[GOPJ]

3). The Vietnam War: "The American media played a major role in spreading the idea that the U.S. was not only losing the war, but was also routinely committing the most barbaric atrocities against the Vietnamese population. Writes Paul Johnson: "Once the TV presentation of the war became daily and intense, it worked on the whole against American interests. It generated the idea that America was fighting a 'hopeless' war. Not only did the media underplay or ignore any U.S. successes, it tended to turn Vietcong and North Vietnamese reverses into victories."

1035rep - you might enjoy this one too...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

But in the late 1950s and early 1960s that all changed. Suddenly the folks in the news media began to present themselves as unbiased pursuers of "the truth." Gone was the out-in-front bias and instead the media cloaked itself in a new air of detachment, a new just-the-facts mien.

News Over the Wires:

The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897
by Menahem Blondheim

. explains that the Associated Press, founded initially as the New York Associated Press in 1848, was an aggressively monopolistic organization which entered into exclusive contracts with the telegraph companies to prevent competitors from transmitting journalism over the telegraph lines. It was natural for people to challenge the centralization of propaganda power which the AP represented. The AP responded to this charge by pointing out that its member newspapers famously didn’t agree on much of anything - and claimed that, therefore, the AP was objective. A fine theory, but in practice fatally flawed. Adam Smith famously warned in 1776 that

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. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10

And what is the Associated Press newswire, but a continuous 24/7/365 virtual meeting of all the major newspapers in the country?

Besides, the only way to even attempt to be objective is to be open about your own motives and interests as they could possibly influence your point of view. In claiming to be objective, the AP rejects the possibility of the existence of such motives and interests - thereby precluding the possibility of making any serious attempt at objectivity. It is arrogant to assume that a virtue is inherent in your own nature, and any serious attempt at objectivity must start from a position of humility.

At any rate, the point is that the AP started claiming objectivity in the Nineteenth Century. Journalism claiming objectivity didn’t start in the 1950s, it literally has been going on since the memory of living man runneth not to the contrary. It didn’t start with the journalists’ smear of Senator joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s.

At the start of the Twentieth Century the term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals.

But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary). The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us.

And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation - we know that just as surely as we know that every American marketer loves to boldly proclaim that whatever product he is flogging is NEW.

But my point in recounting that is to point out the propaganda power the socialists exerted to invert the meaning of a common political word. It surely could not have been done without the unified support of journalism.

[GOPJ]

Nice read about MSM bias over the years...