Saturday :: Aug 12, 2006

The GOP 'NOOZ' Hour With Jim Liar


by pessimist

I used to like watching PBS' NewsHour years ago, because it was head and shoulders above the other networks when it came to presenting real news.

But somewhere about the time George W. Bush first announced his candidacy for president, they changed - and became more like FAUX.

Over at the Columbia Journal Review, NewsHour chair [I refuse to call such a partisan 'anchor'] Jim Lehrer is being excoriated for Parroting the Party Line [by Paul McLeary Aug. 10, 2006]

The author says of Lehrer's remarks made during in an interview with CJR Daily's Liz Cox Barrett that Lehrer believes "that he is an 'objective' journalist, concerned with the facts and the quotes, but not, presumably, with figuring out which party (political or otherwise) might actually be telling the truth, and which is just practicing spin."

Lehrer himself says in that interview, "I think all kinds of discourse is good for our democratic society -- civil discourse, uncivil discourse, screaming, hollering, poetry, however you want to have a discussion is fine with me."

Male Bovine Excrement.

All anyone needs to remember is how he talked with wrong-wing 'analysts' while major Democrats were giving talks at their convention, while during the GOP convention he announced 'he wanted to hear' certain speeches, stopping any discussion he was having with 'experts' - in effect, slanting the news coverage by allowing the GOP convention speakers to have direct access to the public.

The focus shifts at that point away from Jim Lehrer - and on to other 'journalists' spinning wildly for the GOP.

Time's Mike Allen is next in the barrel for promoting the GOP's "Fall '06 rallying cry -- that the 'radical left' has hijacked the Democratic party, and that Lamont's victory can only boost the spirits of -- Osama bin Laden..."

Of this McLeary says:

Allen seems utterly indifferent about whether these charges are true or not. He shows an utter lack of curiosity about any possible Democratic rebuttal to the Republican spin until the final paragraph, when he mockingly writes, "Trying to look on the bright side, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement this morning pointing to strong turnout in the primaries and declaring that Democratic voters 'are energized.' "

He paints the Democrats as "doleful" and Republicans as "gleeful," while wondering if the "Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08."

McLeary goes on to show what a real journalist would be doing - pointing out the facts:

All the big-ticket names in the Democratic Party publicity supported Lieberman in the primaries, from Minority Leader Harry Reid to Charles Schumer to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton to Joe Biden to Barbara Boxer. They didn't reject him -- rather, it was the voters of the Democratic party of the state of Connecticut who rejected him. That would be the liberal state of Connecticut, with whom Lieberman had fallen out of favor...

McLeary expands his beachhead by pointing out efforts by Slate's Jacob Weisberg and former FAUXist Tony Snow (quoted by Allen) to color the Democratic Party as 'taken over by extremists', and then notes "the tendency of many national reporters to take an isolated incident and extrapolate national ramifications from it, whether called for or not. And in doing so, reporters help shape the reality they are trying to describe."

McLeary states that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times did a straight reporting job, and that the Los Angeles Times "at least treats the Republican pushback as a coordinated spin campaign rather than the spontaneous outpouring of honest opinion that Allen portrays it...", so the formerly-solid media defensive wall has been breached. But will the breech be sufficient?

As McLeary puts it:

It's all too reminiscent of the political horse race coverage we read during the 2004 presidential campaign. After all of the mea culpas, hand-wringing and breast-beating that the national press corps engaged in after that sad-sack performance (and indeed, after the 2000 race as well), we held out some hope that things might be different this time around. And maybe they will. But this is not a promising start.

I agree.

Joe Lieberman's comeuppance is just a skirmish in the War to Reclaim America, a little political bloodletting that isn't going to match that of the coming slaughter as the defensive (and very offensive) power elites dig in to defend their ill-gotten gains from the growing assault of the rest of us. No punch will be pulled, no prank considered too low to use, no slander too salacious to be thrown in defense of that elite.

How will the rest of us deal with the slander that we are 'extremists' - a joke when one considers that even FAUX 'Newz' says that 56% of us disapprove of King George's performance [PDF]? Such a percentage is a clear majority, one that even Diebold can't spin into a victory - and which points out the lie in the charge of extremism.

We can't count on the Captive Corporate Media
to get and present the facts!

That role is likely to fall upon the shoulders of the New Media, bloggers such as we who have taken over the function of reporting the news and presenting opinions concerning that news in a manner reminicent of the earliest newspapers in America. There are so many of us that the full spectrum of opinion is presented, something that the entrenched and elitist controllers of public information will not do lest the advertising largesse come to an end. Thus, as even Republicans cannot deny, we bloggers have more of an influence than the major sources have - the Truth - unvarnished with slick full-page color ads while the news is trimmed to fit in the space remaining.

Because most of us are in this because we believe in presenting facts and opinion, and not in that of making our generous living off of information, we can be more personally honest in our presentations [I can hear the trolls spinning up already!], and are more open to rebuttal in turn by our peers, whose access to the Internet matches our own, and which forces us to remain true to our ideals in order to withstand such examination.

This open and wide-ranging discourse is what the newspapers once were able to provide before economics drove many of them into receivership, to be assimilated into huge media BORGs.

Luckily for America, technology provided a means, now being realized, of enabling the very open discourse which made this nation what it is, even as the economic forces of exclusion dominate the previous media means. Thus, one can read the papers and watch the telly for information regarding the latest sales and product offerings, but if you want to know what's going on, leave PBS and the other networks, both broadcast and cable, to the DINOsores like Lieberman and the RINOwhores like Bu$hCo.

Instead, check into your local blog and see what we're talking about. I guarantee you will leave better informed than when you arrived - and your nation will be better off for the effort.

Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


FAIR USE NOTICE


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 10:12 AM :: Comments (6) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!