Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Their campaign coverage was all John McCain all the time. I watched how every night images from the McCain campaign trail were vetted first. How images always favored a full picture of McCain, and the back of Obama. I know how these guys work, but nevermind, the question is WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?
YOu cannot expect anything from the FCC, even if you appoint Democrats to head the agency. The reason for this is the requirements to pull a stations license are simply too onerous, (like Impeaching a President)
The solution of course is to bring the IRS into the problem? How? The same way they brought down Al Capone, through tax law violations.
How would this work?
Build an agency which reads the media output in very basic terms, and taxes the media outlet for unbalanced coverage, in terms of payment for campaign advertising.
If NBC gives one party more coverage in an election, simply tax them at the going rate for campaign advertising.
Additionally if a network does give UNFAIR coverage, let's say always letting one candidate lead off with their positions, and letting the other candidate come second (often after an advertisement) then tax them for that as well.
If a television network gives biased coverage, they should pay taxes on the air time.
Just about any media graduate knows what I am talking about. This is not esoteric bull crap.
We just need to bring the media governing agencies into the 21st century.
NBC is owned by a defense contractor.
More war, more profits.
NYT?
Thomas Friedman!
Pot calls Kettle black.
The MSM is corrupt and not to be trusted.
Don't forget that while calling out the NY Times for its news content, Williams also used his blog to gush over the "talents" of Peggy Noonan, asserting that her right-wing hackery on behalf of the Wall Street Journal merited a Pulitzer. This is the same Peggy Noonan who in September would reveal her absolute hypocrisy by extolling Sarah Palin's candidacy on camera and in print while revealing her true beliefs in an unguarded moment picked up by a live mic: to wit that Palin's selection as McCain's running mate was "b.s." and that the pick meant the race was "over." When it comes to journalistic integrity, it's "over" for Williams, Noonan, and their reportorial soulmates, all of whom dabble shamelessly in b.s.
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/
Statement
BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC in response to New York Times article by reporter David Barstow 30 Nov 08.
Barstow article in the New York Times on SUNDAY 30 Nov 2008
not supported by the facts of GENERAL MCCAFFREY'S FOCUS ON IMPROVING NATIONAL SECURITY.Here are the facts:
[...] General McCaffrey is not a lobbyist. His focus in business is on understanding and explaining the national policy environment. When he sees a concept that would support military interests--- he does of course recommend it to national defense leaders.
[...] General McCaffrey was not part of the Pentagon spin machine. He was persona non grata with the Pentagon [...]
[...] The New York Times itself noted his criticism of the war in at least ten major stories over the years. Why now the change in tone from Barstow? [...]
[...] General McCaffrey is an expert on national security. He is not a reporter. He is an American war hero from Vietnam (where he was wounded in combat three times) ---and the first war with Iraq during Desert Storm. Both his son and daughter served as Army officers.
He routinely is invited to testify to Congress on national security issues. He interacts with the intelligence community, foreign governments, academia, the defense industry, and all elements of the US Armed Forces. He is widely respected as a public commentator of great integrity and balanced views.
Mr. Barstow has tried to create a false picture. The real General McCaffrey is explained by his 37 years of public service to include four combat tours---- which he continues now as a businessman, academic lecturer and writer, and media national security expert.
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/
Piss on NBC and Brian Williams. They're so corrupt, so beholden to the Establishment, that they wouldn't recognize honest journalism if it fell on 'em.
... so that even the most craven Obama-bots on the Left will be left wondering who and what they voted for. Hillary the hawk at State, Bush's warlord Robert Gates at Defense, and Gen. Jim Jones – who wants to station U.S. troops in the occupied territories under the rubric of NATO! – as national security adviser to the president. Yes, antiwar voters took a chance on Obama, reasoning that anything would be better than four more years of Bushian belligerence, yet now they discover to their chagrin that the dice are loaded. --- Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13838 or click on sig.
This came from near the middle of a fine article on Justin's predictions of the future. He says that from a personal standpoint he is tired of going after the idiot Republican neo-cons and the change to idiot Democratic neo-cons will be a relief. (my take on what he wrote)
He does predict that we have another administration that will take us to wars all over the place. This time, though, we will kill them for their own good. (humanitarian war)
I think the Jim Jones of Koolaide fame has returned!
HAPPY THANKSGIVING: Leaving the Bush tax cuts alone. Putting Iraq-war supporters in as Vice President and Secretary of State. And now keeping Bush’s Defense Secretary on. I’m beginning to feel like I won this election!
Link at sig.
"... you will see every problem as a nail."
"b" writes:
The foreign policy persons Obama selected for his cabinet are hawks.
Clinton as Sec State, Gates at Defense, a General as national security advisor and an Admiral as director of national intelligence. (Is there any other democracy that puts so many (ex-)military people into political positions?).
Susan S. Rice at the U.N., the worst choice possible after John R. Bolton. She will argue to bomb this or that country whenever something complicate might happen there. Africom will get a lot of stuff to do.
Obama promised to increase the U.S. troop strength by some 90,000. 20,000 active military will be dedicated to homeland security within the U.S. The hammer will get bigger and the urge to use it even stronger.
What country will he bomb first? We already know of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But where else does he want to kill? Somalia? Sudan? Kenia?
As for Change - why not use some nukes?
Hey! I though the Democrats won last election cycle --- and the one before that. What happened?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
