Letters to the Editor
-
Back in the day
When there were rules about media ownership in various markets, they were specific exclusions concerning cross-ownership of various media. This helped protect against what we're seeing today. Who's going to call out CNN over anything if they happen to partner with Time and other print outlets? Who's going to call out Fox over anything when the newspapers are all owned by the same entity?
While I don't share the anti-corporate reflex that drives many leftists, I can still remember when there were sensible rules designed specifically to prevent the cross-contamination of our discourse that we're currently experiencing.
-
Color me curious
While I don't share the anti-corporate reflex that drives many leftists... -- Paul Dirks
I've been reading -- and appreciating -- your comments for a long time, Paul, yet this is an unusually intriguing one, at least to me. Is there a specific reflex you had in mind. (Yes, I'm a leftist -- of sorts -- but I'm honestly not trying to ambush you here.)
-
Take a step back
Why on earth would any of you give 30 seconds credence to any ex military commentator on the news about what is fundamentally political not a military issue?
Shame on American Idiots for so much as paying attention to this noise.
Most TV news is paid placement advertising. What makes you think war coverage is any different?
-
jaw-dropping debate on the subject last Thurs on PBS NewsHour (link here)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tvgenerals_04-24.html
streaming video included.
all I can say is wish this had lasted another 10 minutes!
(or 60)
-
The Generals and Media Accountability
I saw the program. De Rita was in the usual denial mode. Torie Clark has been absent ( haven't seen her on CNN in a while) and The Colonel was pathetic. He complained he did not get enough face time on TV and he found the media too left! I read elsewhere that the Generals have gone into a Retreat.
The CNN, ABC and the others have been caught with their proverbial pants down; not a pretty picture and it has been effectively kiboshed. I guess we have to leave it to the Comedy Show to ask serious questions.
Recall when CNN was expelled from Baghdad: Eason Jordan flew over and met with Saddam and eventually got CNN re-admitted. The NYT article reports that he went to the Pentagon to seek reassurance that it was okay for CNN to use the generals before the Iraq War began. Remember that Fox's Rupert Murdoch agreed to stop transmitting BBC World to China when it came into conflict with his business interests.
It been so for a decade or more. The profession of journalism is held in contempt not only in the Left blogosphere; they are held in contempt by their employers at GE, Disney and other corporate headquarters.
-
Why Would the Media Comment Badly On Their Own?
I'm actually surprised Howard Kurtz has done as much as he has on the story.
If you stop to consider how deeply embedded the military industrial complex is to the MSM (NBC...General Electric...nuclear weapons technologies) etc., then my natural leap in logic is to assume all the other MSM outlets have the Pentagon's financial tentacles controlling what is and is not aired.
I'm sure the research is hiding in plain sight. I wonder how many of the major corporations that own the MSM are invested in the MIC? I'd even go so far as to say that the CIA/NSA controls the MSM.
Call me cynical, but just stop and think of the way the elections have been covered so far. They even went so far as to exclude Ron Paul from a national debate he had every right to participate in! The MIC CLEARLY did not like hearing what Ron Paul had to say about cutting their noses off...big time. The guy was marginalized from the beginning by the MSM. There has been no "fairness" to the political process from the beginning of this election cycle.
John McCain's a hawk, therefore he gets good coverage. Pentagon cheerleader...good. MIC critic...bad. Duh.
It's all about control and me thinks the Pentagon/CIA has it ALL. They even have every Congressperson jumping to their tune! They're all in cahoots! The Congress is even invested in the MIC! Talk about conflicts of interest!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3QAZmTtl6_UvJ44D8MkqL526Y3wD8VQNSV01
We really should have listened to Eisenhower's warning.
The chicken's are coming home to roost. Reap what you sow, right?
-
@WT
I'm just trying to separate myself from the people I occasionally encounter here and elsewhere, who simply rail against "corporate owned" media without specifying why it might be a problem, let alone offering an idea of what non-corporate owned media might look like. I'm also uncomfortable with the 'fairness doctrine' because it assumes a stable center against which various viewpoints can be measured.
Nothing more.....
-
Apparently...
Even the small amount of noise this story generated had an effect. Possibly, there are still a few people in the Pentagon with a sense of shame.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/pentagon-suspends-militar_n_98985.html
-
GG is on fire
Four articles in 24 hours (!)
Anyway- I can't say I'm surprised by the media blackout. Why would they report something that reveals them to be the propagandist tools that they are? Besides, talking about Miley Cyrus' boobs is way more fascinating. It's what the American people want!
-
Wait,
Did somebody say Miley Cyrus's boobs? I...well...you see the problem stems from a fundamental...um...what were we talking about? Oh yeah, boobs! Well I'm placated!
-
For once, Howie does something right
It's about damn time!
Thanks for posting this, Glenn. Due to many blogs' descriptions of Kurtz' journalistic myriad deficiencies, I had stopped paying him any attention. Along with most of the Post's Op-Ed columnists.
Last: I don't expect everyone to like Barack. As the man said, I am not naive. But, admittedly, Miz Walsh is grating on me with her amply displayed point of view (pro Clinton/anti Obama).
-
Ah....
Thanks, Paul.
-
@Groggg
Damn ... and I was just starting to think straight again after someone said something about "her loins activated" a couple hours ago ...
-
I'm sorry, Paul
I'm also uncomfortable with the 'fairness doctrine' because it assumes a stable center against which various viewpoints can be measured.
— Paul DirksAre you saying there's no such thing as honesty and fairness? This is the "stable center" that is supposed to govern the presentation of information under the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine also provides that if someone considers that if some position or statement has not been presented fairly or honestly that person has to be granted a right to reply and set the record straight.
Like WT, I'm really curious here. Are you saying there is no way to determine whether a presentation is fair and accurate even in the presence of federal guidelines that require fairness and accuracy in broadcasting?