is why the Democratic contender (or President) can't put the fear of God into the White House Press Corpse: "If your network doesn't start reporting the campaign fairly, and if I win anyway, it'll be a cold day in Hades before you or anybody else they send will get access beyond an intern with his desk in the suburbs." The players all know the ways to say this without actually saying the words.

Because the media person might say "If your network doesn't start reporting the campaign fairly, and if you win anyway, it'll be a cold day in Hades"

However much the media has played with both parties in the past, I think that the War on Iraq and the "War on Terror" have brought a new intimacy, depth and passion to their tryst with the Repubs for the past seven years. They know they're in it together, up to their necks, and they have to "how's it hanging" together or they may be well-hung separately, as one of our foundering fathers said.

on the management level: The leaders (CEOs) of the major media corporations are good buddies with the politicians and heads of other major corporations - much like the 'journalists' who work for the corporate media are friends with the press corps in the White House.

The bosses tend to hire people who agree with their orientation and political leanings, and besides the bosses can tell the employees what to say and cover, and fire them if they step out of line (like Phil Donahue).

We have a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations..... and naturally, the media corporations (of which there are only a handful in the USA) want to see that continue.

Those 'bosses' and owners and politicians all get together at the Bilderberg meetings and decide what direction things should be headed and who the next candidates for the Corporate Party should be - they pick for the Democratic branch of the Corporate Party and the Republican branch of the Corporate Party.

For example, I believe they picked Sebelius and Sanford for vice-presidential slots. If this turns out to be correct, then we need to pay a lot more attention to the Bilderberg group.

... almost all of the buildings seen in an afternoon driving around Tskhinvali were still standing.

That makes me feel quite a bit better.

Cheers,

I posted this on the radio program thread today, but might be worth repeating it here (at the risk of being labelled a blog whore of course).

UK journalist David Rose, who co-authored the first Observer story linking Saddam to the 2001 anthrax attacks, admitted in September 2007 that he was "tapped" by the UK government to be a recipient of secret information from MI6 and other top-level insider sources.

Our conversations would not merely be off-the-record, and hence attributable in print to an unnamed MI6 official. In public I would have to pretend they had never happened, and if I wanted to quote or paraphrase anything Bourgeois said, I would have to use a circumlocution so vague as to make it impossible for any reader to realise that I had spoken to someone from the Office at all. Should I breach these conditions, Bourgeois made clear, I could expect instant outer darkness: the refusal of all future access. MI6, in other words, would maintain a priceless advantage, a quality regarded as essential in intelligence operations of many kinds - what spies call "plausible deniability". And if, heaven forfend, the service told me something that turned out to be mistaken, or even tried to plant sheer disinformation for who knows what purpose, there would be no comeback, no accountability. I could put up, or shut up.

At the time, I pushed my misgivings to the back of my mind, accepting Bourgeois's assurance that eventually MI6 would like to have an ordinary public press office like the Home Office or Department of Health. After all, as he pointed out, "the friends" across the Atlantic, the US Central Intelligence Agency, had long had such a bureau - an entire public affairs division - without apparent harm.

Rose was one of two Observer reporters who first linked Iraq to the 2001 anthrax attacks. The other, Ed Vulliamy, wrote another Observer story linking the anthrax attacks to neo-nazi skinheads before he left the USA in disgust in 2003.

More at the link on my sig.

Washington Post reporter Michael Abramowitz certainly enjoys the White House beat, doesn't he? Plenty of good fellowship, fun and frolic. Abramowitz does admit that officials like Joel Kaplan and Jim Jeffrey aren't especially forthright or revealing, but hey, they're just being "discreet." That's right, Mr. Abramowitz, they're being discreet in order to spin dunces like you. (Say, that gives me an idea. Why don't you go to your buddy Kaplan tomorrow and ask him why his boss lied the country into war. Tell us what his answer is.)

Lewis Lapham's article in Harper's--"Elegy for a Rubber Stamp"--is just what MSM types like Tim Russert deserve. Russert was in solid with the D.C. Establishment, a guy who munched hors d'oeuvres and sipped cocktails with the movers and shakers at Georgetown cocktail parties. And he wouldn't do anything to harm his status--like telling the truth about 'em.

The late David Halberstam had it right: The more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are. That's because you've sold out to the Establishment.

After barring Ron Paul from their convention, the Republian fascists will give the main convention speaking slots to the sanctimonious neocon Lieberman, the crooked neocon Giuliani, and the neocon war criminals Cheney and Bush. But not that "lets follow the constitution" nut Ron Paul. I mean, follow the constitution? What's up with that?

At a McCain town meeting a questioner said the State needed a military draft to be able to kill enough foreigners, and McCain said he didn't disagree with anything she said. Let us have perpetual war for perpetual profits. (but profits only for the few)

Glenn, on the other hand, is a prophet for the many. :-)