Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on August 12, 2008, 09:22:01 PM
-
Wouldn't all these super left wing ideas and theories be constantly jammed down our throats as truth?
You know extreme things all the libs cite as truth?
There are mostly liberals or democrats that are in the media. But they are controlled by the men with the gold. And the men with the gold don't like super left wing ideas and conclusions.
The liberal media idea is a tool used to create conflict between to ideologies. It's virtually monopolized news. Owned by very rich companies.
Or you can't be into reporting the truth unless you are a liberal? ;)
-
Why didnt FOX NEWS report on John Edwards' love child?
Why did FOX news donate more $ to obama campaign than MSNBC did?
-
Why didnt FOX NEWS report on John Edwards' love child?
Why did FOX news donate more $ to obama campaign than MSNBC did?
Who owns fox news? Did the owner send the $$$? Does the owner of FOX have more to gain financially with Obama in the whitehouse?
I really want to know. Because i don't see the media being liberal. I see liberal journalists. And i see editors who want advertising revenue constantly coming in and i don't see businesses and corporations funding extreme left "truths"
-
Wouldn't all these super left wing ideas and theories be constantly jammed down our throats as truth?
No. They typically have to be subtle. Sometimes they're blatant. There must be at least the appearance of objectivity.
-
No. They typically have to be subtle. Sometimes they're blatant. There must be at least the appearance of objectivity.
That never stopped Fox in the past 8 years, ...why would they change their ways now?
-
No. They typically have to be subtle. Sometimes they're blatant. There must be at least the appearance of objectivity.
If you look at the volume of content as a whole compared to the content you would get from many of these "left and liberal" web sites, you'll see they are 2 different things. If it really was liberal it would lean left always. It doesn't. It leans where the advertising revenue comes from.
And subtle?
they would challenge nearly every statement made by the US government regarding anything for the last 8 years if it was the "liberal media"
In fact wouldn't they use other outside the USA networks like arab ones and cite stories to balance out the governments statements if they were "liberal" and not controlled by conservative US corporations?
-
If you look at the volume of content as a whole compared to the content you would get from many of these "left and liberal" web sites, you'll see they are 2 different things. If it really was liberal it would lean left always. It doesn't. It leans where the advertising revenue comes from.
And subtle?
they would challenge nearly every statement made by the US government regarding anything for the last 8 years if it was the "liberal media"
In fact wouldn't they use other outside the USA networks like arab ones and cite stories to balance out the governments statements if they were "liberal" and not controlled by conservative US corporations?
I wasn't really referring to websites, many of which are clearly biased left or right (e.g., huffington post v. newsmax). I was talking more about the MSM.
They can't be subtle and blatant at the same time.
Ever since I actually started paying attention to that angle, I've seen it repeatedly.
-
I wasn't really referring to websites, many of which are clearly biased left or right (e.g., huffington post v. newsmax). I was talking more about the MSM.
They can't be subtle and blatant at the same time.
Ever since I actually started paying attention to that angle, I've seen it repeatedly.
Like when CNN, cuts to a shot of McCain giving a speech for 15 seconds, showing some commentary of the meeting or speech, then all of a sudden they pan back to the reporters as they mention the network will be airing a special presentation of "The Real Obama" a 2 hour event tonight 8pm eastern time.
Yeah I notice that subtleness as well.
-
The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News
-
Like when CNN, cuts to a shot of McCain giving a speech for 15 seconds, showing some commentary of the meeting or speech, then all of a sudden they pan back to the reporters as they mention the network will be airing a special presentation of "The Real Obama" a 2 hour event tonight 8pm eastern time.
Yeah I notice that subtleness as well.
More subtlety:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
-
The best part of this was a few nights ago when Rev. Pfleger, was at a Black Convention and said that Hannity from Fox "controls the direction of politics" he went on later to say that he should be "stopped" whatever that means ::)
Wow this guy is nutty.
-
The best part of this was a few nights ago when Rev. Pfleger, was at a Black Convention and said that Hannity from Fox "controls the direction of politics" he went on later to say that he should be "stopped" whatever that means ::)
Wow this guy is nutty.
{LOL} A "BLACK" convention? Was that the name of it? What exactly is a "Black" convention anyway? ::)
Hey Big_Mal, Parker, DrKaje, ...did you get your invitations to the "Black" convention? I didn't get mine. :(
-
Who owns fox news? Did the owner send the $$$? Does the owner of FOX have more to gain financially with Obama in the whitehouse?
I really want to know. Because i don't see the media being liberal. I see liberal journalists. And i see editors who want advertising revenue constantly coming in and i don't see businesses and corporations funding extreme left "truths"
The notorious right winger Rupert Murdoch owns FIXED News, as well as the Wall Street Journal, NY Post and a bunch of other things.
The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News
great video
You can never have too much Chomsky. :)
-
obama is better for ratings. good or bad, his name and face keeps viewers longer than mccain's does.
-
I wasn't really referring to websites, many of which are clearly biased left or right (e.g., huffington post v. newsmax). I was talking more about the MSM.
They can't be subtle and blatant at the same time.
Ever since I actually started paying attention to that angle, I've seen it repeatedly.
I reference web sites because that's where you get the most radical stuff. If the media was really liberal, we'd get that.
There are plenty of liberals in the media, but that doesn't make the media Liberal.
And you assertion about objectivity goes out the window, because if the media was liberal they wouldn't have to balance out their content so much. Think about the power the media has. they can create whatever truth they want and sow distrust in our government in a heartbeat
-
Like when CNN, cuts to a shot of McCain giving a speech for 15 seconds, showing some commentary of the meeting or speech, then all of a sudden they pan back to the reporters as they mention the network will be airing a special presentation of "The Real Obama" a 2 hour event tonight 8pm eastern time.
Yeah I notice that subtleness as well.
That's not being subtle that news. No one wants to here about some old gray haired fart. I'm look at you, you spend more time focusing on Obama then talking about the benefits of having McCain in the White house.
don't you have any good to ay about what McCain will do? Other then not doing what you are afraid Obama will do.
-
No one wants to here about some old gray haired fart.
Quite an opinion you have there.
Topic of discussion is on liberal media, so your not denying the fact that CNN shows more of Obama "specials" than McCain?
Thought so
-
Quite an opinion you have there.
Topic of discussion is on liberal media, so your not denying the fact that CNN shows more of Obama "specials" than McCain?
Thought so
McCain is a lame duck presidential candidate. GOP knows this, they know they have to put a horse in this race but they know they aren't going to win it. Politics is a giant show for the public to see. The things that need to get done will get done the rest is fluffer.
Barring nothing extraordinary happens, Obama has this presidency. It really doesn't matter though. Same bullshit different president.
-
Quite an opinion you have there.
It's business, the news business, the business that's driven by advertising revenue. Not my opinion.
Topic of discussion is on liberal media, so your not denying the fact that CNN shows more of Obama "specials" than McCain?
Thought so
No, not at all, I'm explaining why it is that way which is something obviously beyond your understanding of how ratings influence what's covered on the news because of advertising revenue. This is a hard concept for you to grasp becuase it dispels your notion about bias. The news is NOT obligated to be objective and give each candidate Equal time. They will report what people want to hear and see. And no one is interested (at the moment) in an old pandering whore geezer you are deny or not even supporting and it seems you are more gay for Obama than anything else.
You are so naive dude. :)
-
McCain is a lame duck presidential candidate. GOP knows this, they know they have to put a horse in this race but they know they aren't going to win it. Politics is a giant show for the public to see. The things that need to get done will get done the rest is fluffer.
Barring nothing extraordinary happens, Obama has this presidency. It really doesn't matter though. Same bullshit different president.
Perhaps. I'm not in disagreement that he is a lame choice for president, the GOP should have went with Mitt, but Ozmo's opinion makes no sense that no ones wants to see or hear of McCain when just 5 months ago, he was the most talked about politician on all major news networks, and discussions were cast on how the media coverage was biased towards him.
-
Perhaps. I'm not in disagreement that he is a lame choice for president, the GOP should have went with Mitt, but Ozmo's opinion makes no sense that no ones wants to see or hear of McCain when just 5 months ago, he was the most talked about politician on all major news networks, and discussions were cast on how the media coverage was biased towards him.
Read OzmO's last comment and you will see.
-
You are so naive dude. :)
Please enlighten me ::)
You seem to know so much, yet remain a loser, mystery.
-
Perhaps. I'm not in disagreement that he is a lame choice for president, the GOP should have went with Mitt, but Ozmo's opinion makes no sense that no ones wants to see or hear of McCain when just 5 months ago, he was the most talked about politician on all major news networks, and discussions were cast on how the media coverage was biased towards him.
And................. McCain been doing what lately?
And................. What has OBama been doing? Traveling where? Making news where?
You think it's about fairness........... how silly.
It's ABOUT money! News is money. If you report what epopel are interested in they will watch it. McCain isn't making news lately so he's not being reported.
-
Read OzmO's last comment and you will see.
Let me guess your his son, that can't read English or speak Spanish.
The resemblance of losers is uncanny.
Maybe I should support Democrats, so they can continue to build education in the lower line poverty areas.
Haha.
"will report what people want to hear and see."
Interesting since 50% of America says they are getting tored of Obama
Almost half of Americans polled in a new study say they have heard too much about Sen. Barack Obama recently and 38 percent want to hear more about his opponent Sen. John McCain.
The report by the Pew Center for the People and the Press shows that Obama is more visible to the public than McCain by 76 to 11 percent, but that exposure could be working against him, the research center reports. Twenty-two percent say that they recently have had a less favorable view of the presumptive Democratic nominee, compared to 16 percent who have a more favorable view.
The media has covered Obama more than McCain every week since the race narrowed to the presumptive nominees, except for last week when the coverage balanced out, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The Pew report also shows that Republicans and Democrats think Obama's television advertisements have been mostly positive, while both parties believe McCain's have been mostly negative. However, Republicans are less likely to call McCain's ads negative, similar to how Democrats are more likely to call Obama's positive.
Respondents noted seeing highly-visible commercials from both campaigns. Forty-three percent saw Obama's commercial, in which he told the story of his family roots in Kansas. Forty-one percent saw the McCain campaign's "celebrity" ad that compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
Maybe when you two make money you can, quite thinking the world is a conspiracy ran by the NWO
Your so naive
-
And................. McCain been doing what lately?
And................. What has OBama been doing? Traveling where? Making news where?
You think it's about fairness........... how silly.
It's ABOUT money! News is money. If you report what epopel are interested in they will watch it. McCain isn't making news lately so he's not being reported.
38 percent want to hear more about his opponent Sen. John McCain.
-
Please enlighten me ::)
You seem to know so much, yet remain a loser, mystery.
If you can't figure it out with what i wrote in the same post you quoted it from, then you will always be naive.
Being naive is nothing to be ashamed of youandme. You are still entertaining. :D
-
Heavy reporting on Obama is negatively correlated with media profits. Meaning the more they report on one candidate, the more money they keep losing. Example: The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek. Who is making money: WSJ, Time, Fox.
The numbers don't lie
-
Let me guess your his son, that can't read English or speak Spanish.
LOL
No I started a thread like this earlier and fortunately OzmO went further with it. :)
He's asking good questions that seem to be stumping you. You don't want to see media conglomerates have an agenda. I'm not attacking your intelligence here and I don't want to. That isn't up for debate atm.
This whole idea that the media is liberal is hogwash.
-
38 percent want to hear more about his opponent Sen. John McCain.
What percentage wants to hear about rape, death and child abduction?
McCain isn't making news, Obama is.
get over it already.
McCain may just be too old to make news.
Maybe McCain doesn't know what TV is. ;D
McCain will make news. Its not all his fault, it's partly BUSH's fault becuase he will always be tied to BUSH. IF BUSH's ratings weren't so low, people would want to hear more about him, possibly.
-
Heavy reporting on Obama is negatively correlated with media profits. Meaning the more they report on one candidate, the more money they keep losing. Example: The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek. Who is making money: WSJ, Time, Fox.
The numbers don't lie
Not true. When Obama goes to Europe it's news. when the first black or half black presidential candidate gets nominated by a major party it's news. People are interested in what Obama is doing. That's news. that doesn't mean they would vote for him or want to, it just means Obama is news. McCain isn't AT THE MOMENT.
-
No need to get all pissy youandme. geez.
-
I hope this continues, and doesn't get out of hand. this is a great discussion IMO. Sorry about calling you naive youandme.
-
Ozmo what's the matter you can't make a real point without trying to come up with some witty remarks? I posted factual evidence, the news is better off reporting in a non biased matter....it's what brings in more viewers, more money.
This whole idea that the media is liberal is hogwash.
Media is not liberal? So what are they conservative? I'm only seeing one conervative MSM channel and that channel seems to be lagging on being ultra right, and coming to the center, FOX. The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek - Ultra Left, and they are losing money.
Media is left. Show me otherwise?
-
Ozmo what's the matter you can't make a real point without trying to come up with some witty remarks? I posted factual evidence, the news is better off reporting in a non biased matter....it's what brings in more viewers, more money.
So you are saying the media is purposely losing money?
And the owners of these companies are ok with that?
What are they stupid capitalists?
Media is not liberal? So what are they conservative? I'm only seeing one conervative MSM channel and that channel seems to be lagging on being ultra right, and coming to the center, FOX. The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek - Ultra Left, and they are losing money.
Media is left. Show me otherwise?
The media is "capitalistic" They are neither conservative or liberal. They are what ever gets them money.
-
Not true. When Obama goes to Europe it's news. when the first black or half black presidential candidate gets nominated by a major party it's news. People are interested in what Obama is doing. That's news. that doesn't mean they would vote for him or want to, it just means Obama is news. McCain isn't AT THE MOMENT.
It was biased news, that backfired? Agree? Dropped 9% point lead, and then the networks dropped their viewership, after the trip. That points to the fact that the liberal media, was too biased for even liberals, and they go burnt out.
Why was McCain such a hot ticket back in the day? His left views? His constant arguements with the President Bush?
McCain is a con. headache the media went after him, because he would side with their views, and ATTACK his own party, did you forget that? He still attacks his won party too much!!
Then, he went right again...sang "bomb Iran" and then the coverage went negative, on CNN etc, and then FOX gave at him, and started to run his speeches, and trails.
Media is biased people don't like that.
Hannity and Colmes great example. Colmes may be a secret con. that is in love with Clinton, but he shuts Hannity up, which people love because it's an arguement that follows two sides, and gets interesting.
-
Ozmo answered your question towards me. Thanks OzmO
did you watch the video on the first page?
-
It was biased news, that backfired? Agree? Dropped 9% point lead, and then the networks dropped their viewership, after the trip. That points to the fact that the liberal media, was too biased for even liberals, and they go burnt out.
IUt was news. That didn't backfire for the media. If it back fired, it back fired for Obama.
Don't confuse the media with Obama.
Why was McCain such a hot ticket back in the day? His left views? His constant arguements with the President Bush?
McCain is a con. headache the media went after him, because he would side with their views, and ATTACK his own party, did you forget that? He still attacks his won party too much!!
He hasn't been attacking his party much lately. His spent quite a bit of time firming his based with in the party to get nominated and now he's mostly, it seems, going after Obama.
Then, he went right again...sang "bomb Iran" and then the coverage went negative, on CNN etc, and then FOX gave at him, and started to run his speeches, and trails.
Singing Bomb Iran was done far before he was in the running to get nominated and that was such a stupid move by him. REally stupid. You think Obama does stupid things? Com on. Bomb Iran made news becuase it was good news to report for the media. "good" in being people will want to here about it.
Media is biased people don't like that.
People perceive it that way, mainly conservatives. the media is capitalistic
Hannity and Colmes great example. Colmes may be a secret con. that is in love with Clinton, but he shuts Hannity up, which people love because it's an arguement that follows two sides, and gets interesting.
Both those guys are great. But look at hannity, the "stop Obama Express". WHY? becuase Obama IS news and MCCain Isn't. ATM. ;D
-
I reference web sites because that's where you get the most radical stuff. If the media was really liberal, we'd get that.
There are plenty of liberals in the media, but that doesn't make the media Liberal.
And you assertion about objectivity goes out the window, because if the media was liberal they wouldn't have to balance out their content so much. Think about the power the media has. they can create whatever truth they want and sow distrust in our government in a heartbeat
My position is the liberal bias is usually subtle, so your examples really don't apply. If you pay attention to stories that are highlighted, how headlines are worded, what stories are covered, who gets better and/or more coverage (like the excerpt I posted above) it really isn't that hard to piece things to together.
I remember a story on CNN about Bush talking with food in his mouth. The headline was something like the "cussing, talking with food in mouth president" or something like that. It didn't last long.
I created a thread about this a while back with some other examples.
-
My position is the liberal bias is usually subtle, so your examples really don't apply. If you pay attention to stories that are highlighted, how headlines are worded, what stories are covered, who gets better and/or more coverage (like the excerpt I posted above) it really isn't that hard to piece things to together.
Who gets better coverage or wordings, or, who warrants better coverage based on what attracts viewers?
You are acting as if a media company has to be fair to 2 different points of view. A business doesn't have to be fair to anything when it comes to reporting news. It only has to fair to its customers.......the advertisers and there commitment to their customers is viewers, becuase the more viewer the more happy the advertisers, the more money they give to the media company.
As if the a media company is supposed to be completely objective? In theory and in a perfect world. but not in a capitalists system and certainly not a communists system.
I remember a story on CNN about Bush talking with food in his mouth. The headline was something like the "cussing, talking with food in mouth president" or something like that. It didn't last long.
I created a thread about this a while back with some other examples.
You could cite and argue a thousand points and instances. It doesn't matter becuase it's not about a bias, it's about what MAKES news.
-
Who gets better coverage or wordings, or, who warrants better coverage based on what attracts viewers?
You are acting as if a media company has to be fair to 2 different points of view. A business doesn't have to be fair to anything when it comes to reporting news. It only has to fair to its customers.......the advertisers and there commitment to their customers is viewers, becuase the more viewer the more happy the advertisers, the more money they give to the media company.
As if the a media company is supposed to be completely objective? In theory and in a perfect world. but not in a capitalists system and certainly not a communists system.
You could cite and argue a thousand points and instances. It doesn't matter becuase it's not about a bias, it's about what MAKES news.
I'm not necessarily talking about fairness. The media does report/cover "bad" stories about both parties.
Yes the media is supposed to be completely objective. I know it will never happen, but no harm in pointing out bias when you see it.
It's not about what makes news most of the time. It's how the news is reported.
-
I'm not necessarily talking about fairness. The media does report/cover "bad" stories about both parties.
Yes the media is supposed to be completely objective. I know it will never happen, but no harm in pointing out bias when you see it.
It's not about what makes news most of the time. It's how the news is reported.
Then it's not much of a liberal media is it?
So some program director or journalist who's liberal writes in a way that subtly reflects their opinion? Works both ways.
The media will never by objective. Objectivity doesn't sell. ;D
-
Then it's not much of a liberal media is it?
So some program director or journalist who's liberal writes in a way that subtly reflects their opinion? Works both ways.
The media will never by objective. Objectivity doesn't sell. ;D
Depends on your perspective. Some people think there is a liberal bias, some don't.
I agree the media will never be completely objective. They constantly manipulate the news and public opinion. They are a necessary evil.
-
Depends on your perspective. Some people think there is a liberal bias, some don't.
I agree the media will never be completely objective. They constantly manipulate the news and public opinion. They are a necessary evil.
they are an unnecessary evil
we shouldn't be calling them media companies. We should call them propaganda distributors.
-
they are an unnecessary evil
we shouldn't be calling them media companies. We should call them propaganda distributors.
They are a necessary evil because they shine the light on government and in many ways hold them accountable. I just don't always agree with how they report the news.
-
I believe they do the opposite. They are only a necessary evil if they are doing their job properly. If you are happy with that POV, fine.
I read earlier you said it's more important how they give the news. That's one aspect but what I think is more important is what they are saying and more importantly what they are not. Especially in these times. But it isn't happening.
-
Depends on your perspective. Some people think there is a liberal bias, some don't.
I agree the media will never be completely objective. They constantly manipulate the news and public opinion. They are a necessary evil.
Manipulate the public to what gain?
-
I believe they do the opposite. They are only a necessary evil if they are doing their job properly. If you are happy with that POV, fine.
I read earlier you said it's more important how they give the news. That's one aspect but what I think is more important is what they are saying and more importantly what they are not. Especially in these times. But it isn't happening.
You think the media covers up government activity? How so?
What quote of mine are you referring to?
-
Manipulate the public to what gain?
To keep their current readers/watchers and gain new ones.
-
To keep their current readers/watchers and gain new ones.
To what end?
-
To what end?
$
-
You think the media covers up government activity? How so?
What quote of mine are you referring to?
yes, I think they do, MSM media leaves out details and spins things to the governments advantage.
here is the quote
It's not about what makes news most of the time. It's how the news is reported.
-
yes, I think they do, MSM media leaves out details and spins things to the governments advantage.
here is the quote
You'd have to give me specific examples of how the media "spins things to the government's advantage." What I see quite often is the media doing FOIA requests, trying to report on government misconduct, waste, fraud, abuse, etc. That's one of the valuable functions they serve.
You took my quote out of context. I didn't say "it's more important how they give the news." I was speaking in the context of a liberal media bias. It's the way the news is reported that shows a liberal bias, not necessarily what makes the news most of the time.
-
read about Gary Webb for example.
____
Into The Buzzsaw: 18 Tales Of Media Censorship
http://www.alternet.org/story/12753/?page=entire (http://www.alternet.org/story/12753/?page=entire)
-
You'd have to give me specific examples of how the media "spins things to the government's advantage."
This Russian conflict.
Or, remember that Israel conflict with lebanon/hez a while back. CNN would have witnesses in Leb on the phone, and the CNN anchors would counter everything they said. I mean, there are people reporting - and CNN kept stopping them. I'm all for a strong ISR as our backup gun in the region. But CNN was pretty damn one-sided on it.
Yes, cable news changes angles of reporting based upon ad revenue. I'm glad you see that BB. But they also "play ball" for bigger national goals. Might be just their CEOs/editors getting in cool with white house, might be patriotism, etc. But they do angle stories.
-
The Failures of Post-9/11 Media
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/29833/?page=entire (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/29833/?page=entire)
-
The Failures of Post-9/11 Media
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/29833/?page=entire (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/29833/?page=entire)
FOX news and drudge actually both reported missiles used that day. Remember the "object" that came from the skiy and clipped the south tower before hitting WTC6? FOX and drudge both reported a projectile unrelated to the planes had hit WTC6. A missile would involve someone other than 19 pricks, no? ;)
FOX news interviewed condi, 5 days after, and Tony Snow got her to admit that there had been a mole in the White House, threatening AF1, AFTER all the hijackers were blown to bits.
They do their job. Why thehy don't follow up is anyone's guess.
-
it can be about anything.
some quotes from Gary Webb
"Do we have a free press today? Sure we do. It's free to report all the sex scandals it wants, all the stock market news we can handle, every new health fad that comes down the pike, and every celebrity marriage or divorce that happens. But when it comes to the real down and dirty stuff—stories like Tailwind, the October Surprise, the El Mozote massacre, corporate corruption, or CIA involvement in drug trafficking—that's where we begin to see the limits of our freedoms. In today's media environment, sadly, such stories are not even open for discussion."
- Gary Webb's words from, Into the Buzzsaw
" In seventeen years of doing this, nothing bad had happened to me. I was never fired or threatened with dismissal if I kept looking under rocks. I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, So how could I possibly agree with people who were claiming the system didn't work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite? Hell, the system worked just fine, as (far as) I could tell"
"... And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job. It turned out to have nothing to do with it. The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."
(Webb, 'The Mighty Wurlitzer Plays On', in Kristina Borjesson, ed., Into The Buzzsaw - Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, Prometheus, 2002, pp.296-7)
"...the one thing that I've learned from this whole experience is, first of all, you can't believe the government -- on anything. And you especially can't believe them when they're talking about important stuff, like this stuff."
- Gary Webb speaking to an audience in Eugene, Oregon, January 16, 1999 about CIA connections to Contra Drug Trafficking
-
read about Gary Webb for example.
____
Into The Buzzsaw: 18 Tales Of Media Censorship
http://www.alternet.org/story/12753/?page=entire (http://www.alternet.org/story/12753/?page=entire)
Unless I missed it, here is what your link says about Gary Webb:
Other times, like with Gerard Colby's book about the Du Pont family and Gary Webb's San Jose Mercury News series about the CIA's role in the crack epidemic, the bosses are spooked after the fact and withdraw their support from work already published, hanging reporters out to dry.
-
it can be about anything.
some quotes from Gary Webb
"Do we have a free press today? Sure we do. It's free to report all the sex scandals it wants, all the stock market news we can handle, every new health fad that comes down the pike, and every celebrity marriage or divorce that happens. But when it comes to the real down and dirty stuff—stories like Tailwind, the October Surprise, the El Mozote massacre, corporate corruption, or CIA involvement in drug trafficking—that's where we begin to see the limits of our freedoms. In today's media environment, sadly, such stories are not even open for discussion."
- Gary Webb's words from, Into the Buzzsaw
" In seventeen years of doing this, nothing bad had happened to me. I was never fired or threatened with dismissal if I kept looking under rocks. I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, So how could I possibly agree with people who were claiming the system didn't work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite? Hell, the system worked just fine, as (far as) I could tell"
"... And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job. It turned out to have nothing to do with it. The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."
(Webb, 'The Mighty Wurlitzer Plays On', in Kristina Borjesson, ed., Into The Buzzsaw - Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, Prometheus, 2002, pp.296-7)
"...the one thing that I've learned from this whole experience is, first of all, you can't believe the government -- on anything. And you especially can't believe them when they're talking about important stuff, like this stuff."
- Gary Webb speaking to an audience in Eugene, Oregon, January 16, 1999 about CIA connections to Contra Drug Trafficking
Pretty vague. What did he say and what specifically did the government do to suppress his writing?