Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My response to CBS re: Bill Moyers's "Buying the War"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 09:34 AM
Original message
My response to CBS re: Bill Moyers's "Buying the War"
One of the telltale signs of the waxy yellow buildup that's encrusted the MSM these past two-plus decades was when Ted Koppel belittled a worthy man by intoning "you just don't get it."

They got mirrors where you come from, O wise and noble MSM?

Koppel's phrase comes to mind when one reads CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller's flabbergasted response to a recent program that says what should be obvious to any member or student of today's media.

To hear Bill Moyers tell it last evening on his PBS program “Buying The War," the White House press corps was a willing participant in its own deception about the President’s case for war in Iraq.

He portrays us as easily-manipulated stooges on bended-knee to the President and his top aides.

Now, I’m the first to concede there are plenty of good reasons to criticize the White House Press. We’re an irascible and unlikable bunch. I’m one of us and I don’t like us very much. But the point made by Bill Moyers at the start of his program last night is just off base.


He was flabbergasted again by the ferocity of readers' response to his post, which is obliviousness to the third power.

At least he asked for further responses, including the questions he should have asked when it mattered, and they're coming by the bushel.

My response to him follows:


I was shocked by your response to Bill Moyers's "Buying the War," both in earnest and in the Claude Rains sense.

The toothlessness, nay obsequiousness, of the media in the run-up to the Iraq War affected me profoundly.

Years ago, I was a journalist. My heroes were those who reported unflinchingly on civil rights, Vietnam, and Watergate. To me, they were inspiring and sustaining examples of truth getting the best of power, the finest of American traditions.

That the MSM had grown Right-leaning and vapidly commercial since Reagan took office was obvious to anyone not drunk on Beltway-party cocktails. Still, few of us recognized how truly debased the Fourth Estate had become.

Simply put:
  • The media's most important job is to help us understand how to participate in our democracy
  • Because you didn't do your job, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of young Americans are dead. We're on track to waste $2 trillion (per a Harvard study) destabilizing the Middle East and making our country a pariah.
As Lynyrd Skynyrd once asked "Can't you smell that smell?" And as Laura Petrie once said, "If you don't care enough to know, I'm not going to tell you." Pick up a copy of Eric Boehlert's "Lapdogs." He'll tell you.

Like many Americans (remember those massive protests the MSM barely covered?), I could smell the Iraq War as a phony a mile away. I kept waiting for the media to drop a dime on the naked emperor and naked Secretary of State. It didn't happen.

On 2/5/03, the latter nude dude spoke at the UN, and the media got the story as wrong as a story has ever been gotten. See http://dayofshame.blogspot.com, which commemorates that unholy holiday.

With the war pending, I kept sending these questions to a Republican friend:

1. In your opinion, what good evidence did Bush or Powell provide that Saddam has WMD?

2. How can one justify a pre-emptive war absent strong evidence of either a clear and present threat or a violation of UN sanctions?

3. If evidence doesn't matter, why did we urge the UN to resume the inspection regimes?

4. What justified our trumping the UN's inspection efforts (which, again, were resumed at our urging), at a substantial cost to us in international good will?

5. Why are we optimistic that regime change will be effective, given the tragic history of blowback and no U.S. good deed going unpunished in the Middle East?

He never answered them, as he finessed the debate with imagery of mushroom-cloud gunsmoke. Outside of Charles Hanley, the Knight Ridder guys, and very few others, no one in the media asked such questions. Certainly no one in the White House Press Corps did.

In the years since, as far as I know, Helen Thomas is the only person who has asked the biggest elephant-in-the-room question in American history. If you'll pardon my French, or in the parlance of the day, my "Freedom": http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/11/wtfawii.html


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. You might need to dumb it down a little
Remember your audience. You used too many big words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Have A Dream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Great response. K & R! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, indeed. Helen Thomas was one of the few, and she was portrayed as a daffy old lady.
She smelled the stink from the very beginning as did many of us out in the hinterlands who aren't journalists, and don't have the opportunity to challenge those voices of power directly. Great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Yes she was
She was rewarded by being relegated to the back of the room. Not one of the other members of the Press Corpse defended her or protested on her behalf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. The media was evidently unconcerned about "softball" questions
Bill Moyers showed the 'pretend press conference' before the invasion, with the scripted reporters and a woman asked him something about his faith guiding him. Pretty softball, if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. K & R !!!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
7. K & R. Give Mark some slack. He can't help it. He was hired to do a job
and he is doing it. Remember he was hired and works for CBS. They don't want free thinkers. He is shocked because some of us actually want the truth. The propaganda is so much sweeter. More KoolAid Mark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Here's an amazing speech from someone who wanted to...
... do the real job of journalism.

Remember Ashley Banfield? Here's why "remember" is said before her name: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/truths-consequences-by-digby-since.html

Sure, she's articulate, brave, and photogenic. But if you're not a loyal Bushie or properly afraid of them, you pretty much can't work in today's MSM.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Yep... She Had It Right... Way Back In 2003...
And lost her job because of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. "You just don't get it"
“One of the telltale signs of the waxy yellow buildup that's encrusted the MSM these past two-plus decades was when Ted Koppel belittled a worthy man by intoning "you just don't get it."”

The “worthy man” you refer to was the 1988 accidental nominee, Mike Dukakis. You fail to address the MSM’s unprecedented attack of the presumptive nominee, Gary Hart. Unable to counter Hart’s ideas, they resorted to character assassination. Unable to find any woman willing to go on the record to support the charge that Hart was a “womanizer, they decided to “out” women suspected of involvement with him. Unlike the parade of women making allegations against Bill Clinton, no woman ever accused Gary Hart of anything similar.

The hypocrisy of the story is that it was common knowledge in D. C. that then Vice-President Bush had been carrying on an affair with his secretary for over a decade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald#Vice_presidency
(I think when the Secret Service interfered with the Fire Department to sneak Bush out of his mistress’s burning building in order to protect his secret that it deserved to be published.)

Really the whole Bush dynasty began 20 years ago with the MSM campaign against Gary Hart. Bush the elder was masterminding the Iran-Contra affair as VP and it was the real scandal of the day. Some parts of that scandal have never been fully investigated. The Iran-Contra network had roots in Miami, but the Miami Herald, to the best of my knowledge, never found anything about it. Instead they sent 3 reporters to stake out the man most likely to bring Bush the elder to justice. Even Richard Nixon said they were out of line. How tragic that more people in our own party remained silent, and that is where you need to start to understand the last 20 years.


http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Interesting point
The Gary Hart episode was indeed one of the first signs of gotcha journalism that's practiced almost exclusively against Dems. It's been quite a continuum since then, eh?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. Rec'd! Hot damn! I hope you let us know if he responds. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. It is imperative that we support and promote an alternative media.
Publications like "The Nation", and sights like YouTube and DU (of course).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. "The press is only free if you own one"-Ben Franklin n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Gotta love that Ben. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-28-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
15. Knoller apparently didn't read "Now They Tell Us" by Michael Massing (2004) for a clue.
Massing's 2004 article in the New York Review of Books dealt primarily with the print media, but television too. The news organizations chose what stories got covered, chose what info got prominent attention and then was promulgated in the multimedia echo chamber. If the media had really checked into the info available prior to the war, they would have known that the info (i.e., propaganda) put out by the Bush Administration wasn't based on substantive facts or evidence. They would have derided Powell's 2003 UN speech rather than praised it.

Oh, but perhaps they did know that what we were being told by the Administration and what they carried on their front pages and airwaves wasn't the real deal: when the Downing Street Memo was later released and then asked why they didn't cover it to any significant degree, many corporate media types announced that the info that the facts were being "fixed to fit the policy" was "old news." It was known in the media that the case for war was built on questionable "evidence." But they didn't bother to prominently proclaim that repeatedly in their echo chamber at a time when it was crucial to know that the Administration was fabricating the basis for launching an unprovoked war of agression? Did this critical news (and the public's need to know) get crowded out by live car chases, celebrity scandals? Or by the prominent adoption and repetition of the Administration's propaganda? Is that not acquiescence? The corporate media went along to get along with the PTB?

Massing's article, for example, contrasted the pre-war coverage of the then Knight-Ridder newspapers vs the NYT's and others. The info was out there in 2002 and early 2003. If the media did such a good job then and even afterwards, why are some people still just learning that the whole basis for war was just a crock? That it wasn't a failure of intelligence but deliberate fabrication by an Administration intent on going to war, regardless of authority, the UN, inspections and evidence? And why aren't you saying that NOW, Mr. Knoller? Why isn't that on the news every night, top of the hour? It's "old news" but still relevant. What about accountability, Mr. Knoller? There's plenty of smoking guns and factual evidence, but do you need a stained blue dress before it's "newsworthy?"

Massing's article was written in early 2004 and as events have shown the article was optimistic in its characterization of the media's after invasion "feistiness" in coverage of the war and the Administration. Later in 2004, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and CBS that we know of held back major stories that would be highly unfavorable to the Bush Administration prior to the election. How do you explain that, Mr. Knoller?

Link to Massing's 2004 article: http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/articles/nowtheytellus.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mloutre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
18. Nicely said. And oh so apt, too.
Dang, I miss Knight-Ridder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-29-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Is McClatchy not doing well continuing the legacy? n/t

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC