The "MEDIA" -is it doing it's job??

[Ocean Breeze]

Seems timely to address this media issue---head on

The Government Accountability Office said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban. This is something TvNewsLIES and our readers knew without needing to hear it from the GAO. Think about this for a minute; the Bush administration, with the full unquestioning cooperation of the US corporate broadcast news industry, created fake news reports and aired them on news programs as if they were real news. Not a single “journalist” spoke out about this (at least none that we know of).

This is something every single journalist in the world should be outraged about and the American people now have 100% proof of the deception that is taking place at the hands of our leaders and our media. How much more proof do people need before they accept the fact that our leaders and our media are liars? Are the American people so oblivious as to not feel the pain of the bricks of lies hitting them in the head on a daily basis?

Journalists are supposed to protect us. Today they lie to us. American journalists do not stand on principles and it is quite obvious that they do not have any. They have no understanding of what journalism is or what the role of the journalist is. They are there to protect democracy. They are there to hold the world accountable to the people and to hold the people accountable to each other. They are there to set the record straight. They, the media, now have to be held accountable for their gross dereliction of duty. In reality today’s news people are simply out to earn a paycheck. Some are out to spread their personal views. They are not journalists in any sense of the word. No matter how many lives you save, if you murder people you are a murderer. No matter how many real bytes of journalism exist in our media, if deception is taking place, they are deceivers.

The US corporate news media is now the equivalent of a bank security officer who takes payoffs to look the other way and shut off the alarm system of a bank so that criminals can pull off the biggest bank robbery of all time. The only difference is that in the case of the American journalist there is blood involved. There is life involved. There is the global environmental survival involved. The media have not only taken the payoff but they are now part of the hold-up team. Every member of the American corporate news media is a criminal, down to the last copy boy in the newsroom.

No longer is there honor in working for the American news media. Journalism in America has become a shameful profession. They are the child molesters of truth. They are the lowest of the low and they are responsible for the ignorance of the American people to the events taking place at the hands of our leaders.

There is no limit to the outrage the world should feel towards the American journalist. To spit in the face of American journalism would be appropriate but insufficient. I can not think of an inappropriate response to the betrayers of truth in our media. Perhaps an American citizens’ version of the Patriot Act would permit tribunals for the members of the corporate media and we can set up our own version of Abu Graib for them. Even if we used the “eye for an eye” standard of justice, this would not begin to pay the media back for the harm that they have done to my country and to the world that we all share. Think about it!

 

[Ocean Breeze]

"media " takes all forms ;-)

American Graffiti: Signs of the Times
President Bush used to enjoy healthy support for his Iraq policy. But now freeway 'bloggers' are speaking out

by Rupert Cornwell


Feel like getting something off your chest against that iniquitous warmonger in the White House? Well, you can write a letter to your newspaper, tune in to liberal talk radio, or click to a reliably leftie website. Alternatively, you can take a drive on the highways of the United States.


(freewayblogger.com)

These are the domain of the freeway bloggers, a breed that have invented a tangible concrete and tarmac version of the internet to make their feelings known about George Bush. The messages, posted from overpasses, bridges and verges, are short, pithy and very, very rude.


How many of these bloggers are out there? No one really knows. Who are they? Mainly, it would seem, young men of a mildly anarchic disposition, with a message to get out, a modest talent for gymnastics and a pronounced taste for the adrenalin rush of their trade.

Are they breaking the law? Perhaps, though it's hard to argue that anti-Bush ranting is any more distracting to drivers than the raunchy fashion ads, local TV station posters and the other beacons of rampant consumerism that adorn every US highway.

These advertisers have to pay for the privilege of course - but what about that hallowed first amendment of the US Constitution, guaranteeing free speech and free expression?

Nor is the technique illegal. Back in that distant 18-month period of unalloyed patriotism between the 11 September attacks and the first adrenalin-fuelled days of the Iraq war, America's highways blossomed flags, diatribes against Osama bin Laden, and myriad calls to back the troops.

Now the politics has changed, and the messages have a darker ring. Next to an old sign bearing the message "Support our troops", a freeway blogger has added his suggestion as to how this might be best achieved: "Impeach the murdering bastards who sent them to die for a pack of les."

Another notes: "No one died when Clinton lied." Another cuts to the quick of the CIA leak scandal lapping at the President's top political adviser: "We support Karl Rove," says the message on the banner, signed "Americans 4 Treason.org"

Whether they are having a effect is debatable. Approval ratings for Mr Bush and his handling of the war are sliding to record lows - but the 1,800-plus US soldiers killed in Iraq, the 10,000 seriously wounded, and a seemingly unquenchable insurgency surely have a lot more to do with it than the musings of these 21st century political graffiti artists.

Unarguably however, freeway blogging is a highly efficient means of expression. "A blog takes me about seven minutes to trace and paint, six seconds to hang," says one practitioner. The materials - cardboard or cloth and paint- cost only a few dollars, and affixing them is also pretty simple.

According to one set of instructions posted on the internet, smaller signs should be placed against fencing and strapped in position with strong bungee cords. For larger signs, coat hangers as well as duct tape are recommended. The hangers should be taped to the top of the sign and then twisted around the fencing, before being fastened with the bungee cords.

And don't worry about the fencing obstructing the view. As long as the letters are six inches high, a sign will be perfectly legible. As for location, anywhere (almost) goes. Not just overpasses and verges, but "anything you can see while driving is a place you can put a sign", the instructions advise would-be bloggers.

"The more difficult it is to reach, the longer it'll stay up. Tens, even hundreds of thousands of people can drive by a sign before one of them takes so much as five minutes to take it down. Apart from actual prisoners, you won't find a more captive audience than people in their cars." Some of the signs disappear in minutes. But others stay up for months.

As a general rule, another blog-artist comments on the website www.freewayblogger.com, the larger the sign, the faster it comes down. "The most effective signs I post are small reminders along the peripheries of the freeway such as 'The war is a lie', or 'Osama Bin Forgotten'."

The spoilsports who take them down are, he presumes, "cops, highway workers and Republicans". But who cares, in the easy-come, easy-go world of the freeway blogs. "So long as you can keep putting them up, it really doesn't matter."

In a way, moreover, the medium is even more effective than the internet from which it draws its name. Political cyberspace is divided into ghettos of the left and the right - but as an aficionado puts it, "When you put something on the freeway, you get everybody."

And on the jammed California freeways where the art form was pioneered, everbody means a lot of people - tens, even hundreds of thousands of commuters on an eight-lane highway, all with no choice but to read these roadside political statements. For Republican drivers, it must be hell. But for the freeway blogger, life doesn't get any better.

(not quite on topic......but interesting ... :wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The "MEDIA" -is it do

Are the media doing their job? That depends how you define "job".

If you define it as the traditional role that the media is supposed to play in a democracy, then no they are not doing their job.

If you define job as not pissing off the boss so you can continue to collect a pay cheque, then they are performing their job admirably.

That's the problem with what has been happening since the age of Reagan. When it became acceptable for journalism to be based on corporate profits, journalism became advertising.

 

[missile]

Judy Miller,doing 85 days in jail for refusing to name her sources,is one example of journalism at it's best.Lou Dobbs of CNN,also seems to be fair and balanced,too.I wish there were many more media people like those two,but they seem to be alone.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The "MEDIA" -is it do

Judy Miller isn't so much a journalist as a Bush propagandist though. While journalists should be able to protect their sources, the whole Plame affair has brought to light another problem...how to determine who is a journalist. Miller isn't.

On the other side of the coin you have bloggers, who generally aren't considered journalists, doing the job that the mainstream press should be doing. While I wouldn't say that all bloggers are journalists, some very clearly are.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

more on J. Miller

Why not Torture Judith Miller?

By Mike Whitney

10/01/05 "ICH" -- -- Let's see if I got this right?

The New York Times star investigative reporter, Judith Miller, spent 12 weeks in the hoosegow only to discover that she actually had permission to testify before the Federal grand jury the whole time? Is this what the Times means when they say that she had to confirm that she "finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver" from her source. (Ass. Chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby)

Oh, so it was all just a big mistake?

The facts, however, indicate that there may have been other factors that led to Miller changing her mind, including the prospect of spending another 60 days in the slammer. Apparently, her role of "martyr for the First amendment" has a shelf-life of about 12 weeks after which she returns to her day-job of dissembling pawn for the ruling party.

Miller's sudden "change-of-heart" hasn't dulled the Times' appetite for singing her praises. According to them she is still the undisputed champion of free speech ("No newspaper reporter has ever spent so much time in custody to defend the right to protect confidential sources.") and the unfortunate victim of an unfair law. In a circuitous and lawyerly defense of Miller, the Times asks why her source (Libby) didn't simply make a public statement that would have excused her from any obligation to withhold information. That's logical enough; and that's the way these things normally go down.

Not according to the editors of the Times:

"We believe the person in the best position to judge when a source is sincerely waiving promises of confidentiality is the reporter who made the guarantee. She has won the right to that confidence with three months' stay in a tough jail."

In other words, Miller has earned the right to go from Rosa Parks (the Times description) to a common stool-pigeon without explanation and while still upholding the highest standards of the Times' editorial staff. Now, that is an impressive transformation!

The Times' hypocrisy is incidental compared to the inequities of a system that protects criminals like Miller while dispatching Muslims to Guantanamo for lesser offenses. By any measure, Miller's withholding of evidence posed a direct threat to national security. Whoever leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press knew that her "outing" would put covert operations and CIA agents working in the field at direct risk. It's clear that Miller knows who that person is and is acting as their accomplice by refusing to reveal his name.

So far, the Bush administration has consistently suspended the civil liberties of anyone who is even remotely considered a risk to national security. Moreover, the president has repeatedly claimed the authority to do "whatever is necessary to guarantee the safety of the American people", even if that involves rescinding the Bill of Rights. This is the rationale that underscores the war on terror.

So, what's difference here?

By Bush's logic, Miller should have been trundled off to a secret location where she could have been beaten and abused until she provided the information required by the grand jury. She should have been intimidated by snarling guard-dogs and fitted for a leash so she could be photographed prostrate on the floor of her cell by fun-loving interrogators from private security firms.

Imagine the public outcry if Miller appeared on the front page of the Times standing stock-still, bound and hooded, while the impish Lynndie England pointed at her genitals; or, if she was draped in sackcloth and propped up on a packing crate with electrical wiring draped from her hands and feet.

Is that what it will take to wake people up to the horrors of the current system?

Miller was a key-player in fabricating the information that plunged the country into the worst disaster in American history. Still, she is entitled to every benefit provided under the law. The inmates of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bush's other gulags deserve that very same consideration.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[sj007]

so uhh all genrilistations r bad?

 

[PoisonPete2]

the journalistic tradition was lost once main stream correspondents were implanted with troops and their stories previewed by military command. The military did not want another Viet Nam with graphic proof of military murders of civilians and other crimes against humanity.

This situation was reinforced by the US directed murders of journalists trying to do their duty as independent voices.

There will always be the spark of freedom, even in a repressive society such as fortress America. Bloggers, graphiti artists, and those brave enough to stand against the blind obediance of the 'sheeple' to give voice to reason; these few give hope that America can come through this dark time.

 

[GL Schmitt]

Excerpts from: Amusing Ourselves to Death

by Neil Postman,
Professor of Culture and Communication at New York University

Page 106

The result of all this is that Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world. I say this in the face of the popular conceit that television, as a window to the world, has made Americans exceedingly well informed. Much depends here, of course, on what is meant by being informed. I will pass over the now tiresome polls that tell us that, at any given moment, 70 percent of our citizens do not know who is the Secretary of State or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Let us consider, instead, the case of Iran during the drama that was called the "Iranian Hostage Crisis." I don't suppose there has been a story in years that received more continuous attention from television. We may assume, then, that Americans know most of what there is to know about this unhappy event. And now, I put these questions to you: Would it be an exaggeration to say that not one American in a hundred knows what language the Iranians speak? Or what the word ``Ayatollah" means or implies? Or knows any details of the tenets of Iranian religious beliefs? Or the main outlines of their political history? Or knows who the Shah was, and where he came from?

Nonetheless, everyone had an opinion about this event, for in America everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it is certainly useful to have a few when a pollster shows up. But these are opinions of a quite different order from eighteenth- or nineteenth-century opinions. It is probably more accurate to call them emotions rather than opinions, which would account for the fact that they change from week to week, as the pollsters tell us. What is happening here is that television is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. I am using this word almost in the precise sense in which it is used by spies in the CIA or KGB. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed. Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?




Online Excerpts from the book: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Broadcast_Media/AmusingOurselves_Postman.html

The above statement was true when it was published in 1985, but today both the conscious and unconscious disinformation has reached unprecedented levels.

Various segments of the media, ethical reporters, principled journalists, meticulous editors, and intrepid publishers still operate amidst the mainstream papers and journals, but the overwhelming tide of electronic media, so much of which has been captured by partisans, the likes of Rupert Murdoch, or omnivorous conglomerates such as Clear Channel Communications, that they have a proportionally smaller effect against the overwhelming static of disinfotainment.

At one time, being well informed only required the sacrifice of some time, otherwise spent in mindless entertainment, to garner the information being freely distributed.

Today, being well informed requires a relentless search through differing sources, weighing the possibility of accuracy against other reliable sources who also endorse a particular report. Even then, one recognizes that he is probably missing important facts.

If it were not for the development of cybernetic communication, even making the attempt would be impossible.

No wonder that the powers-who-wish-to-be in Washington are trying to gain control of the internet.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Karlin]

No, they are not doing their job.

If they were, they would have shown us the reality of using phosphorus bombs on Fallujah by USA forces.

Media would surely show the effects of phosphorus bombing if it hit an American mall or the American senate or media themselves.
Imagine!!

"Imagine: Torture and the Geneva Conventions" -
http://tinyurl.com/dswwg[url] "Pro...sonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875730,00.html

[/url]