IMHO the collusion is done in plain sight, in full view of the public. You need only ask yourself how anyone maintains a reputation for objectivity. You cannot factually make the case that CBS News if objective; my article points out that during the last election CBS News functioned as operatives for the Democratic Party and the Kerry for President campaign. The tendentiousness is in plain sight - but no other so-called "objective journalist" would say anything about that for all the tea in China. Not on a broadcast, and not in print.But they didn't get together in a room and map out that strategy; it's just understood that the way to "get along" - have an unchallenged (in the MSM) reputation for objectivity - is to "go along" with everyone else in the MSM. And woe betide the journalist who does not respect and enforce that rule. Not just CBS but the entire MSM would declare that the offender was "not objective, not a journalist." Poof! Just like that you are out of the journalism business.
So to actually be an objective reporter means giving up your MSM reputation for being an objective reporter. And only someone with principle, conviction, and courage will do that. And any such person is instantly labeled a "right wing extremist" by the MSM. That is why I said in the article that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist. He doesn't claim to be a journalist because he doesn't claim to be objective - at least, not outside the context of a mock-heroic parody of the MSM.
Certainly it is true that avoiding the claim of objectivity is not sufficient to actually make you objective. It is not sufficient, but it is necessary. From my point of view Rush appears to be objective most of the time. But then, I understand that there are people whose POV is so radically different from mine that they think that Al Franken is objective.
But of course Al Franken presumably doesn't think that the Burkett "documents" were fraudulent, either. And in fact Al Franken would presumably tell you that the MSM are either unbiased, or too conservative. And I would argue that ratings of Air America are small because the MSM are so far to the left that the niche market for an even more radical Air America is de minimus.
You're absolutely correct.
But why so surprised by that, my friend?
The quislings in our MSM have been using the same mo for seems like forever.
Let me ask you a different question.
Why aren't [we] believing what [we] see when [we] see it?
Why aren't [we] interpreting the behavior for what it is?
Why would anyone expect any other outcome (more to their liking) when we also know -- damned well -- it can, and probably will only get worse?
Hasn't it been said a definition for mental illness could be doing the same thing every time & expecting a different outcome?
If so isn't that -- in essence -- what [we're] doing if we wait for the quislings to obey some "code of honor" which in reality doesn't exist?
I think so, my friend.
"You need only ask yourself how anyone maintains a reputation for objectivity."
I must first ask myself *what* reputation might you be talking about?
The quislings we see every single day, be they the talking heads reading the "news" right down to their wo/man in the streets, were chosen by someone who knew exactly what they wanted for the employee who'd fill the role to be filled.
Do you really believe any one -- or combination of -- character traits of say integrity, honesty, passion, righteousness, shame, ethics, or fairness were to be found in any candidate interviewing for MSM quisling positions?
If you do, you're stark raving nuts.
Quite the contrary.
If one displayed any *single* one of those characteristics as their "goal", and that characteristics wasn't clearly demonstrated to be skewered to the Liberal-Socilaist left, that candidate was politely thanked for interviewing & told, "We'll be in touch.".
We've been SEEING the result of [that] process for yeaaaaarsss.
"You cannot factually make the case that CBS News if ["is"?] objective..."
Who here would *want* to?
That's the question I'm left asking myself.
"...my article points out that during the last election CBS News functioned as operatives for the Democratic Party and the Kerry for President campaign."
Yea, annnnddd?
We're left to only *guess* what kind of Faustian Deal was made that'd make an entire industry actually *want* to see the nation & its duly elected leader damaged, hurt and even destroyed.
But they have, and do, with aplomb.
"The tendentiousness is in plain sight..."
Yes and WASPs call it unmitigated gall, the Hebrews chutzpah but whatever it is they have it, in spades, use it *liberally* and couldn't care less what you, I or tens of millions of others may *think* of them.
We've SEEN that, many times, too.
"...but no other so-called "objective journalist" would say anything about that for all the tea in China. Not on a broadcast, and not in print."
Because there are none!
Not anymore.
The entire paradigm has *changed*, with it all the rules of engagement & if people like you & I want to survive, we'd damned well better accept that fact and the sooner the better.
"But they didn't get together in a room and map out that strategy; it's just understood that the way to "get along" - have an unchallenged (in the MSM) reputation for objectivity - is to "go along" with everyone else in the MSM."
Here's where we [strongly] disagree.
I maintain "they" most certainly DID "get together in a room and map out that strategy..."
Doing so is a critical component in their all *getting* along, so well. ;^)
We've witnessed the *product* of their kibitzing, many times, continue to this very day, and I don't see it ending any time, soon.
If they [ever] falter it'll surely be their demise & the *end* of 'em *all*, so the stakes for them are indeed quite high.
Safety in numbers, y'know.
"And woe betide the journalist who does not respect and enforce that rule. Not just CBS but the entire MSM would declare that the offender was "not objective, not a journalist." Poof! Just like that you are out of the journalism business."
Righteo!
Bernard Goldberg, the fella from Investor's Business Daily & the guy who wrote the book on the *real* Hillary are all finished, fini, forevermore.
Good thing we *pay* their wages buying their book(s), huh.
"So to actually be an objective reporter means giving up your MSM reputation for being an objective reporter."
A non sequitor.
"And only someone with principle, conviction, and courage will do that."
Or a nut, a masochist any other of a type of psychological defective.
The price of righteousness is *indeed* high in circa 2005 America.
"And any such person is instantly labeled a "right wing extremist" by the MSM."
Well of course!
Who else?
C/wouldn't be *them*, would it?
"That is why I said in the article that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist."
He *is* functioning *as* a journalist & damned entertaining as he plies his skills.
But even Rush realizes IF he ever admitted he was functioning solely *as* a "journalist" he'd be finished, his credibility instantly & hopelessly ruined.
Who'd he skewer as he was *entertaining* us (& selling soap & wood flooring)?
"He doesn't claim to be a journalist because he doesn't claim to be objective - at least, not outside the context of a mock-heroic parody of the MSM."
Yet he's the *only* truly "objective" media personality I know of.
He tries so damned hard sometimes to be "objective" when we all know the rules have changed so drastically that it actually pisses me off.
That he tries to appease the center at the expense of the "truth" for someone like myself is nothing less than *infuriating*.
"Certainly it is true that avoiding the claim of objectivity is not sufficient to actually make you objective. It is not sufficient, but it is necessary. From my point of view Rush appears to be objective most of the time. But then, I understand that there are people whose POV is so radically different from mine that they think that Al Franken is objective."
Yup, and so it goes: the "truth is what they say the "truth" is, which then translates into what one *thinks* the "truth" is.
Stinks but nonetheless, *true*.
"But of course Al Franken presumably doesn't think that the Burkett "documents" were fraudulent, either."
Who cares what that nut thinks.
Let's study what he's *doing*.
The Franken-nut is "playing the room", selling soap to all the nuts of the same tree.
No revelation here, is there?
"And in fact Al Franken would presumably tell you that the MSM are either unbiased, or too conservative."
Yea he would, and insodoing taking a calculated risk he wasn't alientating the touchy-feely demo, pacifying the Lefts center element, or putting to sleep the radical constituency.
Just *like* Rush does, every day.
"And I would argue that ratings of Air America are small because the MSM are so far to the left that the niche market for an even more radical Air America is de minimus."
Maybe so, but corporate America doesn't give a damn, either.
They just want to *reach* as many people as possible to sell their stinking soap.
Nuts have to bath too, sooner or later.
...& it's all that simple.
FGS