Posted on 11/18/2018 10:04:45 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Rather, they’re proudly dependent on an unaccountable globalism
If you want to know where media bias resides, simply look at who the media isn’t questioning.
The most recent row between CNN’s Jim Acosta and President Donald Trump reinforced this observation. On the heels of the Trump Administration’s decision to revoke the press pass for Jim Acosta (which a D.C. judge has since ordered the White House to reinstate), the “mainstream” media backed Acosta in decrying the purported assault on America’s hallowed First Amendment.
Piggybacking on the mainstream media’s argument, the New York Times’ “True Conservative™,” Bret Stephens, shared his fear that the United States will resemble autocratic Turkey in five years on a recent episode of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.
Really, Bret?
Not to be outdone, Anderson Cooper and all of his “hard news” reporting friends galvanized to “defend” the media’s purported independence.
But the mainstream media is far from independent.
Set aside their political allegiance (which is overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party). It goes beyond partisan politics. Six multinational corporations control 90 percent of the media in the United States (and, specifically, 15 billionaires own America’s news companies). Yes, most people who enroll in J-School (that’s “Journalism School,” for you rubes in flyover country) are Liberals. And, virtually all major journalism schools in the country are transmission belts of unadulterated Leftism.
Still, there’s something more to the bias.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
They are out to help big corporations.
Paging Captain Obvious!
Just a bit ago I was treated to Chris Wallace and Howie Kurtz assure me they were not the enemies of the American People. The lack of introspection is stunning.
The free press has morphed into the George Soros Propaganda Network
They are all Democrats and the Dems also control the Deep State. So the government and the media are both under the common control of the Democratic Party.
And that applies to the politicians of both parties. - TOM
They like to call themselves (or do they?) globalists but deep down they’re just “Lennon-istas”.
So what was your first clue?
But nobody believes a word of it.
Its part of the reason I have always felt Warren Buffets “country cousin” image is just a big fraud.
Buffet bought, and still owns a host of media outlets like Media General, Liberty Media and Lee Enterprises which contradict his own stated investment style. All are in declining businesses, have no “economic moat” and losing employees and market-share steadily. Our local failing leftist, fish-wrap monopoly newspaper is one of his assets. So why does he own them? For political protection and cooperation.
When Buffet did sell off one of his declining media assets, the Washington Post, who did he sell it to? Jeff Bezos - another billionaire in need of a media outlet to push his interests.
Sheep, being led by sheep!
TW is part of a small oligarchy of cable broadcasters, however, there is no real competition. Congress has given the cable broadcasters regional monopolies. Whichever territory TW operates, they operate as a monopoly.
In these and other ways, CNN is subsidized. When they crow about their 1st Amendment rights, keep in mind that they have and do exercise their monopolistic rights to prevent competitors from enjoying the fruits of their own 1st Amendment rights by an act of Congress giving TW/CNN regional monopolies that squash any other broadcast they deem unworthy. There is something to the argument that some make about Fox News being "controlled opposition" - whether as part of Fox News' philosophy, or by the fact that TW allows them (charges them too) a channel but refuses many others such as OAN for example. There are many other independent news media that would love a cable channel but either cannot afford the fees or are denied one by the competitive forces which TW exercises.
Despite all these advantages, CNN still sucks wind in the ratings - another argument showing that subsidies are generally bad for consumers. Consumers don't watch CNN nearly as much as their competitors, yet TW continues to give preferential treatment to its own news outlet.
Yes I realize this is tangential to the larger question but not irrelevant.
The most recent and egregious example in my mind is the Kavanaugh hearings. This story captivated the country (because the media chose to give it that much prominence, almost in lockstep) and was presented in some ways as a mystery - what happened to Dr. Ford 37 years ago. Many in the media insisted on or reported on the demand for a "complete investigation", and they spun the story hard against Kavanaugh despite the lack of corroborating evidence.
However, there was corroborating evidence, and that evidence was in the Senate record for weeks. There were 2 men who claimed in great detail that they were involved in an interaction with Dr. Ford at about the same time, in a house that fit her description, at a small gathering, even describing her clothing - and that their "make out session" was interrupted by one man 'dog-piling' on the two people on the bed. With all the media intention, the investigative reporters, the analysts and the talking heads - not one of these mainstream media outlets reported (or if they didn't give it any weight) on this! It's shockingly poor journalism to have ignored this fact. They were willing to smear Kavanaugh for political purposes that suited their partisanship in ignoring the distinct possibility that Dr. Ford simply misidentified the man she encountered. If it was a small story some details could be left out but this was a huge story with major national implications and an allegation that severely damaged a man's reputation.
They wanted us to "believe the accuser" despite the lack of corroboration - and kept repeating this demand for a complete investigation to find corroboration - but the corroborating evidence was there all along. It corroborated her story almost to a T, except however as to the person she accused. It was worse the dereliction, and too big of a story to have been overlooked. They deliberately, intentionally refused to report on this corroboration because it did not suit their agenda. Had they reported this, I think that the country would have overwhelmingly realized that Dr. Ford was simply mistaken as to whom it was she encountered that night. Along with the several other problems with her story, this evidence would have given much more reasonable doubt than just he-said she-said benefit of the doubt.
This example, in my mind, exemplifies how the media is completely partisan and willing to use their power - much of it as I wrote above derived from unfair business practices and self-interest - to push an agenda rather than to report on the news and seek the truth.
Aside from your valid point, Ford was testifying to a “recovered” memory. Usually, as in this case, “recovered” during psychoanalysis, “recovered” memories are factually unreliable but fell WRT their targets. They are devastating to their targets because the memory - not the lack of scare quotes - is absolutely indistinguishable to the rememberer from a true normal memory. Consequently the rememberer is a very convincing witness. The “witness” is not lying - just not relating actual events, and absolutely ignorant of that reality.“Recovered” memory is however an artifact of the process which produces it and not dispositive of any actual past event. The acceptance of testimony of a "recovered memory” - because that testimony will be so sincere and presumptively convincing - is tantamount to accepting in court the process which elicited/constructed that memory. And that process, if actually conducted in court, would have the defendant’s counsel screaming “Foul!” because that process itself is a violation of due process and the presumption of innocence.
The defendant gets abusively prosecuted first in the mind of the subject of psychoanalysis, and only afterward in court with due process apparently firmly in place. Tho, as you noted, in the minority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in the Borg known as the Associated Press and its membership, “due process” was not much in evidence.
. . . wrote for the Wall Street Journal not so long ago. In one opinion he stated that conservatives think that the Constitution is so perfect and its government so stable that (my words not his) it doesn’t even need to be conserved.“A republic, if you can keep it?” Not so much, in Brett Stephens’ mind . . .
Agreed 100%. I know critique of media is one of your areas of interest, so further to both points had the media explored the testimony of those other two men - both of which were given under oath - it would have served the interests of both the accused and the accuser and the American people.
As you noted, people sympathized with the accuser because she seemed “credible”, a credibility buttressed by the certainty in which she asserted this memory. But the media let the he-said/she-said argument play out in part because that’s a better dramatic story, in part because in this “#metoo ‘believe her’” atmosphere they did not want to be in the position of contradicting her, and of course in part they simply refused to give proper examination to the story as that would be contrary to their political objective.
But the net result was they further damaged the reputations of two people with reckless disregard. Both the accused and the accuser could have been portrayed as more sympathetic characters. But that would not suit the larger interests at play. They needed for myriad reasons to amplify the sense of acrimony and force people to choose a side, which caused them both to be disparaged unnecessarily by one faction or another. The media could have gone another way - the correct way - which would have been as they insisted to “get to the truth”. And for X-Files fans, The Truth is Out There. They simply did not want to try to find it. They didn’t even pretend to try to find it.
Just so.
Sheep, being led by wolves disguised as sheep!
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.