Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative »
Posted by: bluetexasvalley 3 months, 1 week ago117 Comments Report this Story
"The higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives ... to put on positive stories about the president" By Glenn Greenwald
Read Full Story at salon.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 117
-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 1 week ago
Sounds about right if NBC is any example of what was going on:
At the same time, MSNBC fired the only real war opponent it had, Phil Donahue, despite very healthy ratings (the highest of any show on MSNBC, including "Hardball"). When interviewed for Bill Moyers' truly superb 2007 documentary on press behavior in the run-up to the war, Donahue reported much the same thing as Yellin, Couric, and Banfield revealed:
Reply-
0%
gamahuche3 months, 1 week ago
BILL MOYERS: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector. Who was saying that if we invade, it will be a historic blunder.
PHIL DONOHUE: You didn't have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn't have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.
BILL MOYERS: You could have the conservative.
PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.
BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.
PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true.
BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?
PHIL DONOHUE: Yes. I was counted as two liberals.
A leaked memo from NBC executives at the time of his firing made clear that Donahue was fired for ideological reasons, not due to ratings
Reply-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
Are they trying to make up for their propaganda with Olbermann? Of course no one can get away with propaganda unless the public allows it, so I have to wonder whose really to blame for this. When I noticed that Paula Zahn consistently gave conservatives the last word in her 'unbiased' interviews, as well as allowing the creeps to yell above opposing views and interrupt them, I emailed and asked for an explantation. Never got one, so stopped watching CNN.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago
gamahuche:
Does that not speak of a fascist type of organization. One that has designs on implementing the new world order no matter if it kills many innocents in the process.
The neo Nazis' are already in place for the new world order they seek. These are not conservatives. They are sadists and criminals just as Hitlers' and Mussolinis' propaganda ministers were.
If you don't like the truth make up your own. Hell Johnson did it during the Nam war, Nixon continued it. This is just to damn stupid to allow it to continue.
But the right wing fanatics will say this is all hog wash.
And they ought to know since that is all they seem to spew forth about the war and the neocon positions.
Waiting for the usual suspects to neg it. Proving I hit the nerves.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago
gamahuche:
Well of course. The fascist leaning corporate powers that be cannot allow views from both sides to be seen and examined in the light. Who the hell would accept the neocon garbage. LMAO
Hitler and Mussolini would be proud of the propaganda spin ministers the right wing fanatics have assembled. No truth just assertations and fear mongering. Yep that seems to cover the major medias today.
Watch for the usual suspects to come in with negs flying to prove we hit the nerves again.
Good story bluetexasvalley. Thanks for the invite.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
HannibalBarca3 months, 1 week ago
No, when you jump ship with the mob, you get cement boots and a swimming lesson; not a $10,000 speaking engagement all over N.America...:-)
Reply
-
-
0%
bluetexasvalley3 months, 1 week ago
Wow, can't believe you guys beat me to the punch while I was composing my comment. Thank you so much, my friends.
Just couldn't let this one go by.
As a former journalist, I am totally outraged about this happening in the U.S.A.
This is the type of thing I used to hear as a youngster about Pravda. How could this be in a country which is supposed to be about freedom?
Reply-
0%
DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago
People keep forgetting that during the runup to the war and for a couple of years after, the FCC was debating whether or not to raise the ceiling on how much market share media conglomerates could control.
Corporate media was in suckup mode, eager to appease the Republican-controlled FCC and other agencies. They got their way, until SCOTUS overturned the media ownership rules that resulted.
What the public got was embedded journalism. Now, how eager would you be to expose anything wrong with the people who are protecting your life in the most immediate sense?
Reply-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
Actually, the market share for media began to change with deregulations by Reagan. And Bill Clinton put another nail in that coffin by going along with even more deregulation. There was a reason the media was regulated. Propaganda is the most dangerous threat to a democracy, and we're seeing the results of it right now. Regulation was heightened after WW11 when it was shown how an entire nation could be manipulated by propaganda. It's what hitler did, and the Germans believed it. Greater minds than we have today recognized that must never happen here. But it has.
Reply
-
-
0%
Lurch3 months, 1 week ago
This SOP for manipulation of govt in order to create vast profits off the unwitting taxpayers/consumers.
Someone like Murdoch buys some business. Then, through manipulation of and control of legislatures, create enough regulations and rules to create barriers to entry to the market. According to your own timing such as right when you have the financing/cash to buy competitor, pay lobbyist to write new law relaxing anti-monopoly/pro-competitive free market laws. Then pay legislatures to pass the bill as written by lobbyists.
This way, you keep the regulations that strengthen your position in the market (enhancing your profits) while removing the regulations that prevent your creation of near-monopolies, thereby allowing you to cut quality and costs (enhancing your profits even further).
Reply
-
0%
Spadecaller3 months, 1 week ago
They behave worse then the Mafia; the mafia has shown more care about the welfare of the nation. They may be ruthless with those they do business with, but generally they do not like to do anything that will hurt the U.S.
Reply -
0%
AnteUp3 months, 1 week ago
Off thread, but don't miss the piece below this McClellan
story on Salon:
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/05/29/c...
That's only if you feel like MORE frustration and anger.
Back to this story. I well remember the day that Generals
Franconi and Jacobs, being used as cable news analysts
during the 2006 Israeli War against Lebanon, were commenting
on some aerial video within Lebanon. The video was
following a tanker truck and BOTH these men concluded that
they (the drivers - hence,terrorists) must have been from
IRAN or SYRIA because it appeared that they didn't know
where they were going!! Their incredible assumptions were
NEVER challenged on the air and they never modified their
view of these events.
Think they were pushing an AGENDA? We sure did.
Reply -
-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
Journalism died with the well orchestrated efforts of conservative thugs to take it over, and it began with the Reagan era. For three decades, the thugs have been buying up control of our air waves, and Bill Clinton helped them to do it by advocating even more deregulation.
Reply
-
-
0%
berkeley3 months, 1 week ago
the direct link is
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/...
pravda in the bad old days, the mafia anytime, and corporate news for the past 30 years: how are they different?
that would be a good topic for a high school history class, if the teacher didn't get fired for being uppity.
Reply-
0%
Goppy3 months, 1 week ago
Well, this is not so outlandish.
Much of the Neo-Conservative mindset is derived from Cold War experiences with the Soviet Union.
For Neo-Conservatives, the fall of the Soviet Union is on par with Jesus Christ risin from the dead. Its a miracle! And Neo-Conservatives have successfully orchestrated a media campaign to portray themselfs generally, and Saint Ronald Reagan in particular as the Miracle Bear Slayer.
But you know, its not uncommon for someone - after havin been in struggle for years and years - to come to a place of 'grudgin respect' for your adversary.
Much of the Neo-Conservative 'Vision' (such as it is) relates to supercedin the Soviets throughout the world. And Neo-Cons have found that employin the Soviet Style can work effectively for this purpose.
In fact, invadin Iraq could be said to mirror the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan 35 years ago.
Reply-
0%
Goppy3 months, 1 week ago
By the way ... I dont want to imply that 'THIS' Christian Conservative supports the craven moral vacancy of the typical Neo-Conservative ... especially the "Libural Media" lie.
Thats why I havent minded sometimes 'spillin the beans' that we Conservatives USE this as a little PLOY to angle for 'Special Treatment' in all media.
You have to understand, the Expression of Neo-Conservatism in this modern era is so fraught with Hypocrisy and Moral Compromise, that without this EXTRA SPECIAL 'kid glove' treatment, America would round up all the Neo-Cons and make them Ex-patriots ... liek the Chileans did with that Fascist, Augusto Pinochet.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Poulenc3 months, 1 week ago
Thanks for this, blue.
One needs to put on the spectacles through which one sees that all TV shows, not exempting (so-called) newscasts, are commercial artifacts meant primarily to SELL--and that anything that threatens this fundamental mission will be challenged.
Corporations tread with particular care (stealth?) when it comes to offending "patriotic" sensibilities, which is to say, lowest-common-denominator boosterism.
Nothing can put a dent into the bottom line as quickly (read: threaten advertising revenues) as a suggestion that American might isn't always right.
Reply -
0%
walden33 months, 1 week ago
Liberal media. What a joke.
I'll never forget the satellite feeds from Iraq with the brave newsreaders of The Media riding on tanks and hummers with their wrap around Oakley's like the conquering heroes that they are not. They were acting like it was some sort of dune buggy ride through the Baja rather than the invasion, destruction and occupation of a nation.
Makes for good rating though. Shock n' Awe broadcast live.
Reply-
0%
AnteUp3 months, 1 week ago
walden3 ~
I've mentioned it before, but how blind can the public be
not to notice a corporate media agenda?
Did they not see the bold-face titles at the bottom of the
screen in March of 2003 on CNN, "COUNTDOWN TO IRAQ"?
I mean, Geez! If the problem had been diplomatically resolved, without going to war, were the viewers going to be let down?
Ala Geraldo and Al Capone's vault - the viewers would protest that the networks hadn't delivered the advertized excitement.
Sadly, the networks DID deliver - didn't they.
Reply -
-
0%
antibrainwasher3 months, 1 week ago
Heck Yes it is. The war, the chimpanzee in chief, the war between libs and cons, propagated the media owners, all a distraction.
Its the richest 1% who will kill this country. In fact, its game over. GAME the freak OVER.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
antibrainwasher3 months, 1 week ago
You mean NBC/Universal MSNBC Westinghouse?
How do you scape goat a hundred billion dollar corporate organization? I guess you could fire a couple news directors, bring it in back to the united Neocon straight line.
Reply
-
-
0%
raats66623 months, 1 week ago
I'm kind of glad that I too have been vindicated in recent months.
I was one of the people who took did NOT approve of the war in Iraq and every time I voiced my opinion I was billed as a traitor, Un-American, TERRORIST, or not supporting the troops.
Like the Dixie Chicks and Susan Sarandon there was NO difference between NOT supporting the war and NOT supporting the troops.
What is REALLY interesting (IMO) is that I (like many people) have ALWAYS supported the conflict in Afghanistan because that really WAS going after those who attacked us on 9-11. And yet, that war is NEVER even discussed.
I just hope that MORE people come forth about the war in Iraq. Because all the people (including John McCain) who say "it doesn't matter how we got there, we're there now and have to finish this" are COMPLETELY WRONG.
How we got there DOES matter, continuing to destroy this country DOES matter, and ignoring the request of a sovereign nation DOES matter.
Reply-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
I was one of the people who took did NOT approve of the war in Iraq and every time I voiced my opinion I was billed as a traitor, Un-American, TERRORIST, or not supporting the troops.>>>>
Same here, but it never stopped me from saying the right thing. I'll never solicit the acceptance of fools.
Reply -
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
I've never been a big news watcher[I have a generally distrustful and skeptical nature about things I hear], so that's probably why the pre-war propaganda didn't work on me.
That and as soon as I heard Rumsfeld and Bush and the rest say 'we will be welcomed as liberators'. That's when the really big bells went off for me.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I can spot BS of that magnitude when I hear it.
Also part of the problem is people's inability to use 'in the other guys shoes' thinking
Someone comes into your country and kills a large part of your population, possibly friends and relatives, and throws your life into disarray, you don't throw out the welcome mat. That, and that islamic tenet about 'repel the invader'
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
as I've stated repeatedly for years now, the idea that Iraq was sold to us as a humanitarian mission is almost too hard to believe. About two weeks ago I replied to someone still spouting the idea that the Iraqi invasion was a humanitarian endeavor[this was adopted as a fallback political position AFTER we were already there and no WMD's were found. Before that the 'liberators' stuff was just thetoric, not a 'reason']
I usually just that say humanitarian missions generally don't begin with the killing of 50,000 humans
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk3 months, 1 week ago
Well we have the media confessing now how interesting. I'll wait and see what this means. i suspect since the Republicans are figuring on losing in the next election big time this sudden cleansing of the soul by the right wing media is a setup for the media to "correct" itself and criticize the next administration. We have popular news anchors admitting they were told to be quiet about things, (so many and not ONE leaked anything in the 6 years of Bush?), and NO repercussions NOW?? I can;t help but think this is nothing more then a preview of the Bash the Dem President in the making.
Reply-
0%
BB643 months, 1 week ago
Right wing media? Where? BTW, I'm not a fan of Bush but looking at the other side, over the last several elections it wasn't that I was voting for a candidate, it was that I was voting against the other guy.
There isn't a right wing media unless you really stretch things and add talk radio but that's mainly entertainment and not news. This story should be in humor.
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
entertainment and news seem to be the same thing these days. either that or people can't tell the difference
apparently it's not so much the right wing left wing thing, as usual it's about money, and since FOX sued for the right of their station to lie using the first amendment and won in 2003 [to spare themselves $425,000? or to set precedent?]
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
it's about who has the money and who tells the media what to emphasize and de-emphasize, and what their views are they want us to adopt
the re-election of Bush in 04 was still quite a shock to me, regardless of the media's manipulation of public opinion. I just thought people could figure it out I guess
Reply
-
-
0%
Lurch3 months, 1 week ago
Remember when Bush became the nominee, suddenly the media put a tremendous amount of pressure on both candidates and campaigns to run a `clean campaign`. I remember how the media just spewed about how Americans want a clean campaign and no negative campaigning after seven years of Clinton and Whitewater.
Well, Gore innocently kept his mouth shut and none of the media did their job in really exposing what a crook and criminal Bush was. The abortion, the AWOL, the draft-dodging, the Saudi connections/handouts, the failed businesses, the spend like a drunken sailor for crony policies as TX governor, the insider trading activities, the drunken driving, RangerGate (stealing of private property & increase of taxes for Bush profits), etc.
All known, but very little investigated, especially after Gore pledged to stick to the high-road. To this day, few US media have reported on Katherine Harris efforts to steal democracy away from Americans. Not new.
Reply
-
-
0%
HannibalBarca3 months, 1 week ago
I remember the day after Rosie made her comment about the twin towers and this said in Canada.
The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower
Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, March 26, 2007
"Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here."
This is not about the twin towers, just the way he states,"I guess we can talk about it here" to me it seems he was under orders not to talk about it, but of course it went no further as he was probably shut up somehow.
Reply -
-
0%
Goppy3 months, 1 week ago
Plus, you got a SINK from Nixie!!
Thats a veritable TRIPLE WHAMMY OmegaGnosis/Klarissa/Nixie SINK. ... ahhh... when I think of them together, I am reminded of Shakespeare.
"Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble, the fear and smear trio disgorge their snidely rubble."
Thas a direct quote from Willy Shakespeare.
Reply
