How much damage can the press do and to whom?

Re: How much damage can the press do and to whom?
[

There is an old discussion on polls and polling buried here in the politics forum someplace. It had lots of good info on how to read polls and validate the info they release.



Yeah. But when they are stirring up non-issues about Bush they're heros. Perspective is a wonderful thing.



This general feeling has been expressed many times in recent years. When people complain about the press making the news instead of reporting it or inserting editorial content into news stories it's reallty the same issue methinks. Of course all complaints are poo-poo'd unless they coincide with one's political views. Then of course, they are perfectly legit.

That's true about our tendency not to be offended when the press echoes our views. The sad thing is to see the monolithic obeisance to policy.

It's not a matter of the press not representing me. Its a matter of the the press representing a party line and being willing to chuck any kind of standards to do it.

CBS was once the best of the networks. The other two when there were three major networks tended to supress facts that CBS was willing to let loose.

I don't think Rather would have been censured in 1968 even with a majority being hawkish.

When the media takes a populist stand it doesn't matter if they are representing a majority or not or whether they create the news or report it. It comes down to matters of intent and responsibility. I have no doubt that the press takes responsibility for its bias. But I doubt I question their choices and wonder how ephemeral their popularity will be once they have congratulated themselves for brainwashing the public to diminish themselves and to diminish our collective hope and future.

The one consolation is the alternative press, and the new medium we are using here.

Honor dies where interest lies. And I disagree that Bush's draft dodging is irrelevant. It is to Mr. Kerry and I say bless him for his tolerant nature. But the press should be unbiased, and one man served and the other bucked and shirked.

And I know who is who if the press doesn't; or if the press is trying too hard. In the case of Peterson they would provide three advocates for the defense.

in the case of Dan Rather, the reasonable doubt is also on the side of the defense. But where was the defense of Kerry? Where was that key question: Can a war hero be allowed to become a critic of a war - in the past or in the future? And not have his credibiltiy attacked by the warrior caste which apparently lately includes the press?

That was my point. And that the public they are swaying as reflected in the sudden change in the polls are those who normally don't give a damn and the press should know better than to pander to them unless they are looking join the great cry for turning our kids into soldiers when they have no other skills or education and the economy is becoming otherwise disorganized locally.

Additionally I would remind those among the smug and complacent that the anti war movement then was something of a war against war. I see no logical outcome to any of this. A fascist hold by both the government and the press on public opinion will lead to a revolt (it already has).

And you won't jail everyone or pack off all the youth and get them killed. Eventually whether you are the president or a neo con pundit, you will have to recognize a great resistance.

Censorship and selective reporting will work for a while; but like any form of repression, the dam will burst eventually.

Four more years of Bush? If its from an honest count I guess those who vote for him including the press will get what they deserve if not what they need.

correction:

'But I doubt and I question their choices and wonder how ephemeral their popularity will be once they have congratulated themselves for brainwashing the public to diminish themselves and to diminish our collective hope and future.'

Re: How much damage can the press do and to whom?


A fundamental truth.

But...............

When was the last time a reporter protected a source that lied to him/her? If a source gives phoney information to a journalist, that journalist has no duty in protecting the source; moreover, that journalist has a responsibility to the truth in exposing the source as a sham.

Unless, of course, the journalist knew the information was false and ran with it anyway. Then the journalist will do everything in his power to suppress the truth, as the truth will ruin him.

The initial CBS expert has backed away from his findings, and all the other media are proving (with their experts) that the documents are phoney.

I'm waiting for the media to connect the Dan Rather/CBS report with the DNC release of "Operation Fortunate Son." A rather interesting timing of coincidence, no?

Every journalist wants to be the next Woodward and Bernstein; think maybe they are being aggressive because they smell something fishy?

Interesting that you put both of these statements in the same post. At BU they teach (in their Journalism Masters program) that prior to networks like CNN and C-SPAN the 3 main news networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) had a "gentlemans agreement" not to question the reports and reporters of the other networks. CNN, C-SPAN, et all were the "alternative networks" that forced the 3 main players to begin to question each other in order to compete for market share and remain alive.



In YOUR opinion. Obviously your fellow Kerry supports (and his campaign staff) disagree with you since they are quick to post every negative article they can find on Bush and they don't seem to be much concerned with whether or not the articles are unbiased or not.



In other words, you've made up your mind what the facts are already and only want to see reports that confirm what you already believe.



"Reasonable doubt" is a standard applied in a courtroom when deciding whether or not the state has the justification to infringe on someone's rights. To my knowledge there has been no action taken against Rather by any government entity so your reasonable doubt analogy is meaningless. There are plenty of questions about the authenticity of these documents released about Bush yet you don't seem to be applying the same "reasonable doubt" standard to him. Why not?



Can a guy that served in the National Guard and got an Honorable discharge not have his credibility attacked? You don't seem to have to much problem with that side of teh equation.



But your real point is that your preferred candidate is slipping in the polls and you see the everyone as being responsible for it except your candidate. Somehow I doubt you'd be saying the same if Kerry suddenly had a 30 point lead in the polls.

My real point is that the press is not only biased, but like much of the public it is equally stupid and mean spirited.

Yes, and it (the press) is free to be what it wants. Currently it want to act as yes persons to GW Bush, a bad president.

That and a lowering of standards on gun control have guaranteed us that we are living in a much more dangerous place.

The MSM wants to act as a yes person to Bush? I disagree, as probably even most libs do. The main stream media has a consistent liberal lean, but I guess that is for a different thread.

My theory is the other networks and journalists all want to break the next Watergate story, and are smelling something pretty fishy on the timing of the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" campaign and the documents CBS/Dan Rather obtained.

But I have another question for you, padmasambava: Is this really Jerry Brown? I used to live near Oakland, and you sound just like our ex-Gov.!