Washblog

I don't care if KIRO has a blatant liberal or conservative bias.  They're getting killed in the ratings game.

by Belltowner on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 11:28:31 AM PST

---

The Center for Media and Democracy actually performed an incredible study on this. Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed. The basic gist:

"Over a ten-month period, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) documented television newsrooms' use of 36 video news releases (VNRs)--a small sample of the thousands produced each year. CMD identified 77 television stations, from those in the largest to the smallest markets, that aired these VNRs or related satellite media tours (SMTs) in 98 separate instances, without disclosure to viewers."

In short, yes the "professional" media certainly spins corporate wishes. And those corporations ALWAYS have political agendas.

For instance, one may spin a story on the benefits of cheese showing Kraft product labels. And as we should all know, Kraft is owned by the Altria Group(aka Phillip Morris), that slightly belligerent corporation.

To say that news is not biased is like saying Washblog doesn't have a liberal slant. The denying of simple facts is what makes their lack of transparency scary. KIRO is just as guilty as everyone else.

Maybe we should start a policy idea on Media Transparency in Washington State for the Netroots Agenda...

by JesseNelson on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:59:58 PM PST

---

That is 'reporting' ?

Last night and today I've heard so many newscasts 'reporting' on the current bushco attempt to divert attention from Iraq / Katrina / blah blah blah BY ... using scare 'em.

In the 'reporting', the talking boobs repeat incessantly thug talking points, as if those points were analysis.

IF this isn't political, THEN maybe they haven't heard of doublethink?

(google "doublethink 1984" )

BTW #1. I've been watching this kind of 'reporting' since RayGun in 1980 - it surely predates that time, but it is at least 26 years old.

BTW #2. Lakoff etc have done great work exposing this crap, HOWEVER

Lakoff wasn't one of the campaign consultants / politicians running Dem message in the last 26 years,

message which was NOT capable of beating it.

=> WTF are ANY of those consultants / politicians given the freaking time of day, much less a job?

tens of millions of us work on deadlines measured in seconds or minutes or hours, AND

we deliver, or we are fired.

wonder why lower income people are fed up with / ignore Dems?

Maybe Dems outta learn how to deliver message which = winning campaigns, AND then deliver reliable workign programs ... ???

imagine Progress, instead of just NOT losing to fascists?

rmm.

doublethink

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 06:03:39 PM PST

---

There is nothing but bias. The ideal of "objective" journalism (and reporting) is a historical anomoly. Studying journalism and broadcasting, we revered Murrow, Cronkite, and others. I never would have guessed then that they these people were exceptions rather than the rule.

I talk about about election reform. (As everyone knows.) But I see it was just a portion of governance reform.

The crony capitalists have increasingly dismantled our civic spaces, spoiled our commons, and appropriated our Public Trust for their personal profit.

To restore some sort of democracy, we need to restore the fairness doctrine, roll back the corporate ownership rules (which permitted so much consolidation), legislate that licensees serve the public interest (e.g. news programs not just overhead on the budget), legislate that you can willingly tell falsehoods (e.g. my example are those journalists for daring to state the truth about steroids used on dairy cows), and ending corporate personhood.

Do all that, and we'll have a good start.

Oh yea. And we have to return the study of civics, ethics, and rhetoric (debate class) to the public schools. So future kids have useful expectations for what to expect from their government and society.

by zappini on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:14:06 PM PST

---

I first realized news coverage was strongly biased during he Iran-Contra mess.

In October of 87, bad stuff was gradually leaking out about Reagan's admininstration. In response, the public was treated to THIS SPEECH on TV.

Up til then, Reagan was often referred to as the "Teflon President"--as if it was some charming quality of his that caused the media to merely chuckle over such inane gaffes as falling asleep during cabinet meetings, believing that trees cause pollution, "The Bombing begins in 5 minutes" jest, the list goes on.

Shortened version of the televised speech: "Well...I've studied the reports...it doesn't look good for us, does it? Gee...how could this have happened? I don't get it..I have delegated the hard work of governing to some really swell guys...now THIS...I sure had the best intentions...now I hafta take resonsibility for this..even though I sure knew nothing about it...or if I ever did, I don't remember..."

This is the line that got me:
"Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not..."

I thought: "His "heart and best intentions" are completely opposite to the facts and the evidence??!! He can't get away with feeding us this lame BS! Either he's lying through his teeth, or he's a clueless half-wit who doesn't know what's going on in his own administration!"

At the time I believed him to be a brazen liar. Now we know that most likely the second possibility was true, with him dementing right there in the oval office...

Either way, how was this pathetic speech reviewed in the press? What happened?

Nothing happened, as I recall. The crisis blew over, he was praised for taking responsibilty, and he ended his term with a high popularity rating.

The following year I watched Geraldine Ferraro debate Daddy Bush--who, as we know, is somewhat of a stumblemouth (although a polished orator compared to W). In my opinion Ferraro mopped up the stage with VP Bush. I waited with glee to see the reports, but to my astonishment and disgust, the MSM decided that Bush had WON THE DEBATE.

by dinazina on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 03:11:09 PM PST

---