Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Cronkite: Quest for Media Profits Hurts

By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer

February 09,2007 | NEW YORK -- Pressures by media companies to generate ever-greater profits are threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon, former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warned Thursday.

In a keynote address at Columbia University, Cronkite said today's journalists face greater challenges than those from his generation. No longer could journalists count on their employers to provide the necessary resources, he said, "to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often did not want exposed."

Instead, he said, "they face rounds and rounds of job cuts and cost cuts that require them to do ever more with ever less."

"In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever," he told journalism students and professionals at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. "It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom."

February 07, 2007
Veteran Iowa editor wants outsiders, not people in the news industry, to examine why the press is reluctant to challenge authority at times when the country most needs a vigorous, questioning fourth estate.

By Gilbert Cranberg
[email protected]

As the war in Iraq nears its fourth anniversary, and with no end in sight, Americans are owed explanations. The Senate Intelligence Committee has promised a report on whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence to justify the war against Iraq. An explanation is due also for how the U.S. press helped pave the way for war. An independent and thorough inquiry of pre-war press coverage would be a public service. Not least of the beneficiaries would be the press itself, which could be helped to understand its behavior and avoid a replay.

Better a study by outsiders than by insiders. Besides, journalism groups show no appetite for self-examination. Nor would a study by the press about the press have credibility. Now and then a news organization has published a mea culpa about its Iraq coverage, but isolated admissions of error are no substitute for comprehensive study.

Quote:

Cronkite: Quest for Media Profits Hurts

By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer

February 09,2007 | NEW YORK -- Pressures by media companies to generate ever-greater profits are threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon, former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warned Thursday.

In a keynote address at Columbia University, Cronkite said today's journalists face greater challenges than those from his generation. No longer could journalists count on their employers to provide the necessary resources, he said, "to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often did not want exposed."

Instead, he said, "they face rounds and rounds of job cuts and cost cuts that require them to do ever more with ever less."

"In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever," he told journalism students and professionals at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. "It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom."

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N68JH80.html

yuppers

First of all, Ican, you can't even keep your years and numbers straight...

You say that 'So what the hell, let's say there were 40 million people who voted Democrat in the last election.' The only problem with this is that the 300 million you are comparing it to was the money raised in 2004. So you're f*cking it up right off of the bat. The actual number of Dem voters was 59,028,109.

If you can't get your numbers right, don't bother posting.

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, I do recognize your argument tactic. I call it the maybe tactic. I first encountered its use in 1939 and throughout the early 1940s. It was used then [in denial by many of the future victims of the Nazis] to rationalize the behavior of the Nazis.

...
Cycloptichorn

I bet that the 527 contributions by both the Soros gang and the unions were an even greater percentage of the total contributions to the Democratic Party in 2006 than in 2004. I'll check it out.

Just so long as you realize that poor math doesn't make a good argument.

From here -

http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/irs_ef_527.exe?DoFn=&sYR=2006

The top 527 of 2006 cycle?

That would be the Republican Governors Association. By almost 2 to 1 they beat the nearest competitor.

1 . Republican Governors Association $42,428,671
2 . DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION $28,640,415

It's Mellon-Scaife buying the election through his cronies. Right?

Cycloptichorn

I bet that the 527 contributions by both the Soros gang and the unions were an even greater percentage of the total contributions to the Democratic Party in 2006 than in 2004. I'll check it out.

I posted my evidence. I obtained it from pages xii and xiii of "The Shadow Party" by Horowitz and Poe." They did not identify the source from which they obtained that quote.

Sure. You said -

Quote:

I bet that the 527 contributions by both the Soros gang and the unions were an even greater percentage of the total contributions to the Democratic Party in 2006 than in 2004. I'll check it out.

Total raised by Dem party - $599,383,485

Total raised by 'Soros gang plus unions* = $25,577,641'

So, they raised just over 4% of the total.

Now, you forgot to post the part where you admitted that you were incorrect.

Cycloptichorn

Please give me a link to where Ican verify the total raised by the Dems in 2006 was $599,383,485.

Political Parties

Candidates aren't the only ones raising record amounts of cash -- the political parties collect hundreds of millions of dollars each election cycle. The parties may only raise "hard money," which is given by individuals and political action committees and is subject to federal contribution limits. Until November 2002, the parties also could raise unlimited "soft money" from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals.

Where does all that money come from? For the answers, view our money profiles for both major parties and for each of their main fundraising committees.


2005 - 2006 Totals

Democratic Party $599,383,485
Republican Party $707,470,812

Well, ican still has his unsourced quote to go by:

ican711nm wrote:

I posted my evidence. I obtained it from pages xii and xiii of "The Shadow Party" by Horowitz and Poe." They did not identify the source from which they obtained that quote.

That's so much more than mere numbers...

Later, sure enough, I found on page 247 that source is actually provided:

Sam Hananel, in the Associated Press December 10, 2004.

Sorry about that!

MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It'
By Sam Hananel
The Associated Press

Thrusday 09 December 2004

Washington - Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.

"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."

Under McAuliffe's leadership, the message said, the party coddled the same corporate donors that fund Republicans to bring in money at the expense of vision and integrity.

"In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

Pariser urged MoveOn supporters to help support a DNC chair with a bold vision to represent Democrats outside Washington. Democrats will vote at their February meeting in Washington on a successor to McAuliffe.

DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera declined to engage in a tit-for-tat with MoveOn, but praised McAuliffe's efforts.

"Call me crazy, but I think the fact that for the first time in party history we outraised the Republicans, and did so primarily through grass-roots fund raising is something to be proud of," Cabrera said.

Among those vying for the party chairmanship is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, an early darling of MoveOn's cybernetwork of activists when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Right-Wing Noise Machine

by Tom Tomorrow
February 7th, 2007 1:32 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0706,tomorrow,75758,9.html

...
So, did Horowitz and Poe establish the context for the quote, and explain that the "we" in the statement stood for "grass-roots contributors like [MoveOn]"? Or did they omit that fact in order to score a point?

Quote:

The Right-Wing Noise Machine

by Tom Tomorrow
February 7th, 2007 1:32 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0706,tomorrow,75758,9.html