Every time I bring up the topic of investigating the media's right-wing bias, I have to defend myself. Every damn time! It's a death-defying life I lead, I'll take my chances.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't want censorship. I want answers.
In my own defense, I'm not alone in this view. For several years now, many other blogs have demanded that the media's promotion of the Iraq invasion be investigated. And I'd agree.
Aren't our lawmakers supposed to represent us? Then again, isn't the media supposed to be looking out for us too?
Following my previous entry, a commenter here accused me of doing the same thing Joe McCarthy did. They never really explained how. But what the media does is truly McCarthyist - especially the story that prompted yesterday's entry.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Defending myself once again!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
McCarthy called public figures and private citizens before a committee, grilling them on their so-called "un-American" associations and beliefs. What you essentially want, it seems, is to call reporters before Congress question them the same way. You are not opposed to censorship, only censorship of the things you like.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what specific incident you referred to in your last post calling for this "investigation." But if you are complaining about something Fox News reported, you could just as easily find something to label "biased reporting" on MSNBC, only it would be in the Left's favor.
You will refuse to see it, Tim, but the majority of the media outside talk radio and perhaps Fox News is at least slightly skewed toward the Left. How else do you explain all this fawning over Barack Obama?
I have a few guesses at the specific incident he refers to, but who cares about that...
ReplyDeleteMcCarthy wasn't about finding facts, he was about destroying careers...I think what this post calls for is different. The media is so clearly in the tank for the right wing that we CAN'T keep going without answers.
MSNBC has been in the tank for the Right Wing also. All the networks are.
We have a right to expect better than the media hyping a bogus story.
This discussion is over if it's going to become an argument over whether the news media is "in the tank" for the Left or the Right. Truth is, both sides think the media is in the other side's pocket. The growth of independent online and "new" media makes it a moot argument. Especially when the MOST biased person (Bandit) I have ever encountered is leading the argument here.
ReplyDeleteAnd quit posting anonymously.
Cheney was indicted for two weeks about a month ago. There was no media coverage by the conglomerates. This should have been big news but it was buried. Media IS controlled by the wealthy and especially by those in charge in our government.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to agree with scheffbd about the anonymous thing, whether I agree with someone or not, posting anonymous is a bad deal. Of course, unless there is some technical issue preventing one from posting as a fake name.
I have been trying to get the mainstream media to cover the torture in these teen programs for well over a year and still I get nothing. This is supression, plain and simple. Whoever is controlling the media needs to be put in check. I am all for an investigation into practices of media bias and supression of important information. I am convinced that this is what is occurring.
In fact, the futile indictment was reported by all the major cable networks, the wire services and was probably picked up most newspapers that still run national news. As it was a pointless indictment that had no chance of going anywhere (seriously, do you think some small-time prosecutor is going to put the VP behind bars?), I think it got more coverage than it warranted.
ReplyDeleteBandit led protests against the place in Milford and he kept them secret so no one would know about them except those that drove by. Had he actually alerted his fans and the press, it would've at least got the local paper's attention and maybe one of the TV stations would've sent a camera crew. But not if you keep it a secret.
IIRC the ONLY place I read about the Cheney indictiment was here.
ReplyDeleteAnd the place in Milford was shut down (as this blog likes to point out), so obviously the protests were a success.
If the Pail is where you get all your news, I can see why you think the way you do.
ReplyDeleteI read the NYT, WSJ, Chicago Sun Times, the Daily Illini, the News Gazette...I don't remember even one mention of the Cheney indictment.
ReplyDeleteA New York Times reporter covered it. Wall Street Journal's search engine isn't real good, but I was able to find at least two "Law blog" articles on it. I'd bet it was in all the big Illinois papers. Smaller papers, maybe not. A lot of them -- like mine -- have cut newsprint so much they have little or no room for national news.
ReplyDeleteI don't have cable, it isn't available where I live. So I have no idea if the indictment was on there. I did watch carefully for any news of "the indictment of the VP" on all regular TV stations, which should be big news because, well, he's the VP. There was no coverage on the regular TV news. And an indictment means that people thought there was enough evidence to convict, so when the judge threw out the case, I was disappointed to see the injustice. Why would the media bury this story regardless if there was merit? It should have been a big story, but it was suppressed.
ReplyDeleteLocal stations don't tend to run much national news. But it was all over the national news. All you have to do is search for "Cheney indictment" on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, an indictment means a grand jury decided there is a strong enough of a case to take it to trial -- not to convict. The judge dropped the case because it was purely a publicity stunt by a D.A. soon to leave office. The D.A. put together the case by working on it from home, keeping it secret from his own staff.
Yes, you are correct scheffbd. I mistakenly wrote "to convict" but I should have written "to take to trial".
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I still believe that it should have received far more media attention than it did. And if a grand jury indicts the VP and that Gonzales character along with a couple Federal judges, it should be all over the news, not just on the internet. Even if it is bunk, which I doubt.
When do you think a grand jury will indict most of the (soon to be) former executive branch for conspiracy or allowing torture at Guantanamo Bay? I doubt it will happen because the same people that protect the Clintons are protecting the Bushs and so on and so forth. The powerful get out of trouble, just ask Scooter Libby.
Again, it was in newspapers and on cable news. If you are unhappy with the 11 o'clock news and that's all you're getting, look elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThere will probably be someone who tries indicting Bush, but no one with jurisdiction. A federal case won't happen unless Obama says so. He won't say so because he says he wants to bring the country together, not divide it further along political lines.
In many places in this great nation, there is no elsewhere to look.
ReplyDeleteBush will hopefully be indicted and convicted for war crimes. And Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Yu, and Gonzales and Mukasey and ..........well you get the picture.
ReplyDeleteWatch "Torture Democracy" on youtube. You won't see it anywhere else until after the inauguration because it is being suppressed until January 20th. hmmm, I wonder who would want to suppress something about our current administration?