Think we have problems with the press?

Well, it's even worse than we thought. Mandatory reading for all Americans is:

"Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press"

edited by Kristina Borjesson. Pub 2002 by Prometheus Books
ISBN 1-57392-972-7


I am only on the fourth essay - the one I just finished was about the theft of the 2000 election - this book is frightening and amazing. My sister (DUer "Birthday"), who is too new to start a thread has been urging me for two days to start a thread about this book, and Khep's thread about a reading list finally kicked me in the butt. I feel that this is well worthy of its own thread, because I KNOW that reading this book will help to motivate all of us to try to get the truth out.

from front and back flaps:

Here for the first time in the history of American journalism, almost two-dozen award-winning print and TV journalists have collaborated to produce a book of devastating essays about the dangerous state of American journalism today. Writing in riveting, often gut-wrenching detail about their personal experiences with the "buzzsaw" - concerted corporate and/or government efforst to kill their controversial stories and their careers - the contributors to "Into the Buzzsaw" reveal the awesome depth and breadth of censorship in America today. Their essays portray a press corps that regularly engages in self-censorship and attacks reporters who come under fire for not doing so. They describe a Fourth Estate that has largely relinquished its watchdog role and that has been co-opted by corporate and government powers. The bigger picture is that of a press actively contributing to the demise of democracy in America.

Collectively, these essays paint a picture that is as vivid and shocking as it is utterly credible. Riveting first-person accounts detail what these investigative reporters risked and what they uncovered about the government's investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800; the CIA's involvement in the War on Drugs; the U.S. military's efforts to cover up the massacre of hundreds of civilians during the Korean War, and the conspiracy to court-martial a returning POW from Vietnam; the writing on the wall foreshadowing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; and much, much more.

If you want to know what's really going on in our nation's corridors of power, or if you read or watch the news on a regular basis, this book is indispensable. One thing is certain; after finishing "Into the Buzzsaw," you will never again see or hear the news in the same way.

were truly frightening because of what they exposed.

and a little more about it...http://www.intothebuzzsaw.com/


Besides editor Kristina Borjesson (an Emmy-winning investigative reporter), the contributors include Columbia DuPont Award winning broadcast journalist Karl Idsvoog; Helen Malmgren, producer for Ed Bradley at CBS News; Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Gary Webb; Greg Palast, investigative journalist for print and TV; independent investigative producer and Pulitzer prize nominee,John Kelly; Award-winning television reporter and anchor Jane Akre; New York Daily News investigative reporter J. Robert Port; New York Observer columnist Philip Weiss; former CNN “Tailwind” producer and reporter for the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour April Oliver; veteran print journalist and former Seattle Times reporter David Hendrix; award-winning CBS documentary producer Maurice Murad; Michael Levine, former DEA agent turned journalist and best-selling author; Director Emeritus of Project Censored Carl Jensen; Brant Houston, Executive Director of Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE); and Robert McChesney, media expert who has authored and edited several books; and veteran investigative journalist Gerard Colby.

I'll look for the book this afternoon.

:)

It's time to take a stand against the media.

How? Massive protests, surround their buildings, don't let anyone in or out (peacefully).

I wish I knew HOW to make a difference!

and strikes such as I mentioned above.

Either that or the government's gotta do it (yeah right, like THAT'S ever gonna happen).

This is why we need massive change in this country, not just voting out one corporatist and replacing him with another.

The people are being betrayed and they DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.

#1


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/02/21_news.html
Sears & Roebuck $10 Banjo Media
February 21, 2002
by SoCalDem

The news story all Democrats are dreaming about...

November 2004
Dateline: Washington DC, USA

Well, here we are with the proverbial egg on our faces..

You see, we in the media, were so sure that the unprecedented favorable poll ratings of George W. Bush were an undeniable harbinger of things to come.. We were wrong...

The “stolen” election of 2000 was NOT forgotten.. The majority of Americans whose votes were discounted, have NOT “moved on,” nor have they “gotten over it.”

The two intervening years were merely a stock-pot of simmering rage, boiling and stewing, just waiting for the opportunity to “boil over”sending this message “We are mad as hell, and we have NOT forgotten”...

Message received.

Democrats swept the 2004 election, turning out in record numbers.. There were still the requisite “hot spots”, such as Florida , Missouri and Michigan, but due to the massive outpouring of concerned citizens with video cameras, and the presence of foreign media ,and poll watchers, the incidents of voter disenfranchisement were few ..

Prior to the election, Democrats across the nation were busy manning phones and sending out letters to supporters and media across the globe. They were determined that THIS election would be legitimate.

During the first two scandal-rocked years of the Bush administration, it has become painfully apparent that the election of 2000 was fraudulent, and that the media has been played like a Sears & Roebuck $10 banjo.

Those two years have been marred by recession, huge budget deficits,corporate fraud, insider trading,campaign fraud,international scorn by former allies, and yes, war throughout the world.

One of the first things that the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and Senate have promised is an full court press to see that the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. The 2003 legislative calendar looks very promising for the Democrats, and for mainstream America..

Items that are of primary importance are as follows:

1. A comprehensive medical insurance plan for every American

2. Legislation barring pharmaceutical companies from price-gouging Americans.

3. Further modifications of the campaign finance reform that will make lobbying illegal, and punishable by prison term

4. An immediate review of the Social Security Administration, and the placement of all “excess” payments to it and Medicare into an untouchable reserve for the retirement of the taxpayers, who are paying it.

5. The re-regulating of the airline, energy, communications, banking, and insurance industries.

6. Immediate public hearings into the 2000 election.

7. Impeachment hearings and investigations of the Supreme Court.

As Bush and Cheney prepare for yet another round of testimony before Congress, there was no comment from the White House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/01/30_news.html

When News Isn't
January 30, 2002
by SoCalDem

Those of us of a "certain age" remember the days of Huntley & Brinkley, and Walter Cronkite. In those days, our news was delivered to us in a straightforward manner, with little, if any, commentary. As Walter used to say at the end of every newscast, "That's the way it was on ...(fill in any date)."

Most cities of any size, had at least two newspapers, a morning and an afternoon paper. People read the morning paper with breakfast, the afternoon paper after work, and settled down for the evening news on television. Back in those days, some broadcasts were only 15 minutes long. The amazing thing was that in that short amount of a time the newsmen actually conveyed a sense of what was going on around the world.

When did the news stop being the news? Why does a slice of our demographic pie actually think what we get today is NEWS?

The format of a news broadcast has a lot to do with it. A look back at those archived, grainy old black and white images tells the story. A man, a desk, a microphone, a clock, and a serious demeanor... That's about what it took in those days to convince most people that they had better pay attention, because what they were about to see was important, and worthy of their attention.

The format has changed little over the decades. There are women now, but most of them are window dressing. The men of broadcasting age, but the women are replaced as their on-camera persona becomes less Barbie-like. Advertisers have burned the image of a desk, a man, a microphone, and a clock, into the collective psyche of America. That image conjures up NEWS.

It's no wonder that over time, the forces out there who would try to control the American Mind would adopt the very same format to get their message across. It comes to us wrapped up like a news broadcast, but like the Bizarro World of Superman, it isn't what it pretends to be. People out there in viewerland see the desk, and the trappings of a newscast, and they think that is what they are getting..

As the Fairness Doctrine faded away into the sunset, we were besieged by endless "faux" news programs. Corporate moguls hungrily devoured smaller broadcast venues as they built their vast communication holdings. Most of these moguls have very different worldviews than the average citizen does. It became easier and easier to insinuate their own political and ideological leanings into every aspect of their burgeoning empires.

In past times, when a news anchor wanted to change jobs, he would mail tapes of representative reportage to various media outlets across the country and wait to see if he got any offers. If they were a bigger outlet or offered a higher salary, there was little impediment to the newsman's acceptance of that offer.

This was the way it was then, but now with all the consolidation, that movement is dictated by the men at the top. When they control media all over the country, the individual broadcasters are not free to look around. They are more like indentured servants to their master. If they get on the wrong side of the message they are supposed to convey, their trip up the ladder is over. That they are well paid cannot be of much consolation, because their mobility and their very jobs are always in jeopardy, if they say the wrong thing.

The "Screaming Head" shows of today are an offshoot of the media consolidation too. When cable hurled itself into the "News Game," they gave birth to a beast that needed constant feeding. The OJ phenomenon showed that masses of people would velcro themselves to a couch and watch one single story over and over for months on end. Advertisers had to be wearing drool bibs when they realized that. But all "good" things must end, and eventually, we had no more OJ to kick around.

Enter... Politics.

Granted, the niche market for politics may be a narrow one, but political junkies are loyal, and they are interactive. The fact that most of the owners of the media are corporations who feast at the teat of the government, is not incidental. The message gets very important when it comes to the rules and regulations that the ones at the top need to go their way.

They know which party will acquiesce, and they know the drill. In order to get favorable legislation, the media must constantly sell the message that will urge the public to the polls and keep the "right" people in office.

If a non-compliant congress acts in the best interest of the public, the corporations will take a hit in the bank account. This must be avoided at all costs. It's a kabuki dance of dangerous proportions. Access is divvied up like the spoils of war between fewer and fewer rich men, and the spillover is that they control cable, satellite, mainstream broadcast and even the old fallback, newspapers.

The old maxim "If you can't beat them, join them" no longer applies. The modern version is, "If you can't beat them... EAT them."

More and more news outlets are being controlled by fewer and fewer ideologues. Strangely enough, there are still many people who see the desk, the man and the clock and their mind says... NEWS...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1095228

The "New" Assassins!

Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 04:50 PM by SoCalDem


Poor Jack Kennedy, Poor Martin Luther King, Poor James Meredith, Poor Malcolm X, Poor Bobby Kennedy...and so many others who were "under the radar", and we never even knew ..

People who dare to speak out are always in fear for their lives, and those named paid the ultimate price for their "free speech".

Had they lived now, in a more "evolved" time, they might have never had to die for their audacity. People who made waves back then were just "dealt with" in the crudest, but most effective way of the day......elimination.. Everyday people were stunned, shocked, saddened, outraged, and then they moved on. Daily life has a way of taking over, and except for a poignant "anniversary" acknowledgment, or the recurring "conspiracy talk", these people just passed into history as tragic figures.

Those assassinations did serve a purpose though. The message sent was loud and clear. Say the Wrong thing, and you are DONE.

In the "modern" world, although there are still assassination attempts here and there, the "serious" ones are not as common . A more efficient way of handling "rogue elements" is the new and improved way...Assassination by Media is the more accepted way now. If one looks back to the period following the Bobby Kennedy assassination, you can see it taking root. Bobby's slaying might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, in that people were ready to say..ENOUGH!!. People took to the streets and things got too "messy" for the old ways to ever work again.

Flash forward to the Watergate era. At first the story dribbled out and people did not pay a lot of attention, but the Washington Post knew they had a story and they kept at it like a junkyard dog. They challenged BIG GOVERNMENT, and they never quit. When the story finally got the attention of the general public, and Nixon was taken down, the press was bolder than ever before.

This was the era of the "white paper".... 60 Minutes was the very embodiment of "make them accountable".. They went after sleazy business practices and governmental screw-ups, and they hit hard.The show they do today is more "individual driven", and is pure tabloid journalism when compared to the way they started. The targets of their "investigation" are often beleaguered people who are already overextended financially by lawsuits or other problems, so they are probably less likely to sue, or they are the pathetic , sympathy-inducing people who have been "done wrong".

Behind the scenes though, there was a group of people who were seething with anger over what had just happened, and they were determined to get things "under control again". This was the beginning of media consolidation. Towns that had once had 2 or 3 competing newspapers, now had only one, television was still the "big three", Republican Think Tanks were sprouting up like toadstools after rain.

Jimmy Carter's tenure was the "test case" for what would come later. This gentle man was attacked in the press for every little thing. The Nixon hangover may have been partly to blame, since people were genuinely more interested in what went on "behind the curtain", but the things that Carter was berated about were just plain silly..Who remembers the "lusting in his heart" episode...or the "attack of the killer bunny".. or the "he wears sweaters in the oval office".."turn down your thermostats"...or "Amy is so ugly".. Those were the memes of the day.. The press chose to amplify these things to make this man appear to be a lightweight. The real problems he encounters as president were things not of his making, and It think he did try to solve them, but with only one term, and the difficulties of the first "oil crisis", and the "hostage thing", he was doomed..

Nightline was born out of the frustration of the hostage crisis. That show started as a one hour news program with a daily update on the hostages.

A rootin-tootin Dubya would have just saddled up (other people's kids) and attacked Iran, and if the hostages were killed, it would have been "collateral damage", but Carter thought he could negotiate them home. This was our first real experience with the "new middle east". They were radical.. They were mad.. They were Bad.The old ways would never work again. Oddly enough, we now know that some of the very same people we associate with the Reagan/Bush , Bush # 1, and Bush # 2 regimes were involved , behind-the scenes , in the Iran Hostage issue.. At the time, I do not recall hearing their names mentioned when Nightline went on night after night, enumerating the "days since....".

The press attacked Carter relentlessly, and I do not recall much rallying on his behalf from anyone, and the hostage crisis did him in. It was not accidental that the hostages were released at the exact moment of Reagan's swearing in. Bush 1 had CIA connections, and the Bush loyalists (the same ones we have now) choreographed the incident masterfully, and the press ate it up. People love a winner, and Reagan came in as a winner. It was also no accident that doing away with the fairness doctrine was high on the list of "things to do".

The republicans were riding high, awash with money, and the public gaze was averted. Inflation was rampant,unemployment was high,there had been wage & price freezes and gas shortages... All in all, people were willing to "be taken care of", and they trusted the grandfatherly guy they had seen in the movies. It was not long before the doctrine was gone, and without that, it was easy for very rich ideologues to start buying up media , and they did it with a vengeance.

Looking back, it's not hard to see how effective it was. The things that have been attributed to Reagan/Bush 1 would have never been tolerated by a Democratic administration.The Clinton years showed us that , in spades.

The switchover was seamless too. Local radio stations had mostly been music, with local hosts who did silly home town pranks, held local contests for their listeners, and had news on the hour. Somewhere during this time frame, "talk/opinion" formats started really emerging, and more and more stations gave up their music formats altogether.

What better way is there to ensure that a particular opinion saturates the public, than to have local radio stations all under the same corporate ownership?. If station ABCD in Omaha is owned by the same parent company as most of the others in the area, the "movement" between stations will not happen. In the past, a radio host could get into a jam with his bosses, and the next week, he was on a competing station in a nearby town, taking a lot of his listeners with him, but when the same people own all the stations, and a host goes against the wishes of his bosses, there is NOWHERE for him to go. The atmosphere of "go-along-to-get-along" stifles any real discussion of opposing ideas.

When the major source of information of a population only airs ONE viewpoint, it's easy to demonize the opposition. The "media people" had , and still have, easy access to their own "facts" that are regularly churned out by the think tanks, they have access to all the "professional speakers/pundits" that they could ever use (also cheerfully provided by the think tanks). These same people are often editorial columnists for the papers , who just happen to be owned by the same people who own/operate the radio & TV stations.. .

There was a time when, once an election was over, people just licked their wounds, accepted that they had lost and then vowed to try again. The "new assassins" in the media cannot ever allow the "quiet time" between elections, because the fires must always be stoked. The potential adversaries must be ridiculed,belittled,scorned, accused and abused, well in advance of the next election so that the "right" people win. The unusual aspect of this , is that since the Fairness Doctrine went by the wayside, it's usually the Democratic candidates who are put through the grinder, while republican candidates with more "baggage" are treated with kid gloves. Any misgivings about a republican candidate can be explained away as a "youthful indiscretion", or a "cute colloquialism" ,or a "miscalculation", or "getting inaccurate advice", and so many more.

A candidate who has all the qualities necessary for office, is attacked mercilessly from the moment they announce they are running for office. The 24/7 media of today is expert at the art of "linguistic assassination", and they have the time to do the job well.

Election 2000 is a prime example of assassination by media. Al Gore was a vice president. He did not wield the power that our current vice president does. He had impeccable credentials, was eloquent, had a squeaky clean family life, and lived modestly considering his position. He was actually considered dull. He never presented himself as a "life-of-the-party" guy.He was the studious guy, who read bills before he voted. He was the guy who did research. He was the guy who actually went to Viet Nam , even though he was not a Green Beret with a bayonet between his teeth, singlehandedly wiping out a division of Viet Cong.The fact is ..He went.

They hammered at him about his wardrobe. Every little gaffe, was portrayed as a LIE. His opponent was secretive, smart-assed, sullen, and unknowledgeable, yet HE was portrayed as "a bit rough", "a nice guy that you would like to have a beer with", " a friendly "people-person", and too many others to list. By implication, HE was the guy with the white hat, the Good Guy, and poor old Gore was the liar with the bad fashion sense, who was dull. The daily indictment and litany of his "sins" was impossible to ignore, and every interview started and finished with him trying to refute the smears aimed at him, and him alone.

The assassins have taken aim this election season, and again they have taken aim and have wounded, if not killed, a few of the possible candidates. The media has moved from a position of watching what happens, and then reporting on it, to MAKING it happen, and then tweaking it to make an ever-better "story"..

The little known governor from a small state ..hmm that sounds familiar... is such a good story. Howard Dean was this cycle's John McCain. The press loved him.....until they had built him up to almost rock-star status, and then the only thing for them to do to get more ratings, was to "kill" him. And so they did.. They report with childlike wonder at why "he's not doing better in the polls", and then they laugh and giggle and "cue up the tape".. Then they put on their scrunched up worried face and wonder if the campaign is broke.. They are "so concerned".. They cluck-cluck to each other about how disappointing it is to see him not doing well, and yet they have already reloaded for the next victim.

Now on to the next willing contestant, John "Botox" Kerry.




By the time the election actually occurs, the candidate has been hopelessly smeared, and politically assassinated.. It not only can remove a candidate from the prospect of elected office, but it effectively silences them as well.

Assassination by media is so much more effective, since the whole "martyr thing" is eliminated and it's not nearly as "untidy" as the old way..