csberry

Got riled up a bunch this morning when reading news and such. Had to take the time to get some of this off my chest.

Book says Chelsea was product of Bill raping Hillary:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ek.htm
I'm completely blown away by that the author would actually put this sort of thing in print. It's one thing to find police files of her complaining about rape or testimony from she or Bill. It's completely something else to rely on one person's comments on an event from 25 years ago. I guess there is a need for a counter-Kitty Kelly. I hope this book gets less credence than Kitty gets.

I was finishing up last week's Newsweek this morning and my jaw dropped while reading Jonathan Alter's column:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8101512/site/newsweek/
He theorizes that if Watergate happened now, it would be successfully covered up...because conservatives run the media and the GOP has firm control over Congress. While I think Nixon might receive greater support due to the more partisan climate right now, Alter's assertions of uniformed conservative support is quite overboard. I appreciate his making me think, but I think had he continued his hyperbole for a few more paragraphs, I'd be wondering if it was sarcastic.
Maybe this column is just too much of a "what if." Journalism and politics were changed drastically after Watergate. The public's apathy and cynicism with the govt grew exponentially. This change in the public likely contributed to why the Dems couldn't chill Reagan's popularity, the GOP struggled to tar Bill Clinton (with Whitewater, "mysterious deaths", et al), and it allowed for partisanship to increase to its current level because political fighting is just a way of life. Also, a whole generation of journalists were inspired by Woodward/Bernstein and took to this career to take down The Man (which is more times than not perceived as conservatives). If Watergate hadn't happened, we wouldn't have the political/public climate that allows for an easy "If Watergate Happened Now." Unfortunately, I think Alter decided to take the easy path of assuming the worse in all of us.

Why do I give a fuck about the 'Bama girl missing in Aruba?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/12/missing.teen.ap/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5070991,00.html
Yes, it is a sad story. So are hundreds of other stories that appear (or not) in local/regional papers all across the world. Why folks outside of Alabama and Aruba might honestly care, I dunno. Why feed Nancy Grace with more melodramatic fodder to keep her on the air talking about everything but the news? Forget the Separation of Church and State, America needs to work on Separation of News and Soaps!!!
If the missing chick in Aruba looked like

this

instead of this

would it be international news?

Current Mood: nauseated
Current Music: KFOG stream - DMB - "So Much to Say"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

outherelistenin.livejournal.com

But... how is the Bush administration's conduct less serious than Richard Nixon's?

I mean, take the Downing Street memo. There was already strong anecdotal evidence from people formerly part of the administration suggesting that the administration knew its claims about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq posting a clear and present danger to America were bogus. Now we have much more concrete evidence from our closest military ally. Isn't this precisely the kind of criteria the constitutional framers had in mind when they concocted the impeachment clause?

And to put it mildly, the mainstream news media have a strong... you know, let's not use the word "conservative." They have a strong pro-corporate bias, and Bush is the pro-corporate President. This is its own complicated subject and I can't possibly get into all the permutations. The current media situation is the result of a number of potential individual factors, including: the media trying to make up for the shameful Lewinsky scandal coverage by being kinder to the sitting president; CNN and MSNBC attempting to re-create the impressive ratings of Fox News; TV journalists and news "personalities" making so much money they're divorced from how most Americans live; corporate sponsors for media who don't want negative things reported about them and have the power to squash reportage they find unfavorable; a White House press corps that's been tamed by the White House's willingness to deny access to anyone who asks tough questions; an attempt to be "balanced" in news coverage due to a successful decade-long talking point on the right about the "liberal media," the result of which is that if we have one person on TV saying that Hitler was bad, he'll be placed opposite a talking head saying that Hitler was a saint. The sum total is that the news media have given Bush a free pass on nearly everything; when in doubt, I always ask, "How would this story have been reported when Clinton was President?"

Furthermore, let's leave aside the notion of lies-that-get-people-killed as grounds for impeachment. I mean, on the "bribery" portion of the impeachment clause alone, Bush is guilty as hell of, even if we assume the very best about his intentions, the *appearance* of impropriety... over and over and over. Of course, that'll never get prosecuted, because bribery talk would implicate nearly every member of Congress on either side of the isle, but let's face it, the Republicans (particularly the Texas brand) are a little more ballsy about it.

I mean, seriously, Cory... how much fighting of the Man do you see in the mainstream media? Unless, of course, "the Man" refers to nebulous liberal elites. Given that I'm a Boston-living Harvard employee, I hear that apparently, that's me.

From:

csberry.livejournal.com

(Since LJ wouldn't let me post my 7000+ word reply I've cobbled together today, it has been split into two.)

I don't want to debate whether the U.S. should or should not have gone in Iraq. However, I don't believe that WMD evidence was fabricated by Bush, but the administration was willing to believe anything that reinforced their desire to finally finish off Saddam. I said it before we went into the country: If all of this is true, we have to go in; but if it wasn't true, we fucked over our relationships with allies and lost TONS of credibility.

I don't think impeachment is appropriate for the use of questionable intelligence. Bush had just been burned for not connecting the dots pre-9/11 and he didn't want it to happen twice during his presidency. Use of biased intell is hardly treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. While fighting a war with another country may be questionable, it's not against the law. So, Nixon sending his plumbers to break-in into offices and the Watergate building is less glamorous but unambiguously illegal.

I appreciate knowing the bias of those that I gather news from and strive to consciously read both sides of most political stories. Admittedly, getting both sides can be difficult. As you mentioned earlier this year, you go to National Review and suddenly discover about the Oil for Food scandal that isn't to be found in the liberal outlets and no mention of Iraq intell memos in the NR.

I love the beginning of Anchorman when they talk about the anchorman being the pillar of truth and how you could trust everything that they told us. Those days, if they existed, are relegated to the same Neverland where the idyllic and innocent 50's, if they existed, are located.

From:

csberry.livejournal.com

I completely agree with you that media bias is a complex issue. Let's look at your points:

the media trying to make up for the shameful Lewinsky scandal coverage by being kinder to the sitting president

The media only got into the GOP muck-raking when Lewinsky came to the surface (Lewinsky was the cute/young woman Paula Jones wasn't). Bush was given a present for the first 3-6 months after 9-11. The press was nice to him then, but I don't think they've been any kinder to Bush than Clinton. I think Clinton's bashing by talk radio and Bush's bashing by bloggers are pretty equal and the media in the "middle" do occasional work on items already accepted as truth by talk radio/blogoshere.

CNN and MSNBC attempting to re-create the impressive ratings of Fox News;

You don't shoot up the ratings if you aren't addressing the needs of the viewing/listening public. Fox's ratings woke up the complacent CNN which needed a good kick in the butt anyway. I only see minor content changes (usually guest selection) to CNN when it comes to objectivity. MSNBC is dead last and any changes they make are desperation attempts. I don't think corporate said "Get conservative" as much as they said "If you can get 1/4 of Fox's viewers, we'll have increased our viewership a hundred-fold."

TV journalists and news "personalities" making so much money they're divorced from how most Americans live;

Mmmmmmmm...I think the personalities all living in NYC suburbs or LA has a bigger impact on their divorce from reality than their income.

corporate sponsors for media who don't want negative things reported about them and have the power to squash reportage they find unfavorable;

Didn't find that to be true after GE bought NBC in the 80's and don't think that happens now. Personally, I love that everyone does the whole disclosure of corporate ownership. The only example that I have seen of poor corporate ownership of media was in Nashville at WSM/WTN. Gaylord Entertainment (Opryland, et al) would call up the news director to complain about any negative stories that went on air. Friends of mine that have worked at CBS or ABC in New York during the past decade have never told me of any similar stories. This has lead me to believe that corporate news corruption is more likely on the small than large scale.

a White House press corps that's been tamed by the White House's willingness to deny access to anyone who asks tough questions;

Clinton's administration had the same rough treatment of the press. No administration should use WH access as punishment.

we have one person on TV saying that Hitler was bad, he'll be placed opposite a talking head saying that Hitler was a saint.

Other than the screaming matches of Crossfire, I like the dynamic you demonstrate. News should be a telling of the entire truth. My ideal 6pm news covering the Iraq War would talk about the proud parents of a returning soldier, a list of recent deaths and terrorist attacks, in-depth/investigative story (govt contractors - are they serving in the taxpayers' interests?, WMD evidence and lack of it, or analysis of people victimized and crimes solved thanks to the Patriot Act), status of the Iraqi govt and whether they can actually survive the removal of our forces, and 5-10 minutes for entertainment/sports/odd stories of the day.

when in doubt, I always ask, "How would this story have been reported when Clinton was President?"

That is typically one of the questions I ask myself. As I alluded to earlier, I come to the conclusion that the "mainstream" media FOR THE MOST PART puts in the Bush scandal stories that they think are jazzy and the bulk of the deep digging and bashing occurs on blogs.
Many of the stories/articles/coverage of blogs remind me of the stories on Rush and talk radio from the 90's. A single person using a medium to disclose information that isn't typically found in the "mainstream."