Author Topic: Myth of Liberal Media  (Read 3968 times)

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
Myth of Liberal Media
« on: August 12, 2008, 03:39:33 PM »
A "Liberal" Media?
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby

In the past, the Right Wing penetrated the Media through such CIA programs as Operation Mockingbird, which had placed most of the US Media leaders on the CIA payroll. In the 70's, the Church and Pike Reports to Congress exposed this and other illegal domestic CIA operations. Then, in a Rolling Stone expose (10/20/77), Carl Bernstein reported that there had been over 400 US journalists on the CIA's books. He also named such high-level Mockingbird operatives as Katherine Graham (Washington Post), Henry Luce (Time), William Paley (CBS), the Sulzbergers (New York Times) and "publishing magnate" Richard Mellon Scaife.
After this embarrassment, it was necessary for the Right to use its own private network to replace Mockingbird. As a result, there is now the Cato Institute, with Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch (Fox, NY Post, TV Guide) on the Board with ATT/TCI's Malone

Another big contributor to Cato is Viacom, which recently acquired CBS. Consequently, CBS/Viacom is now headed by Sumner Redstone, who is yet another powerful right wing figure with a WWII intelligence background and apparent ties to OSS/CIA figures

Cato serves the purpose of infusing the Media with Right Wing Propaganda, along with such organizations as Accuracy in Media(AIM), the Independent Women's Forum, the Western Journalism Center and -- of course -- the Heritage Foundation (See Main Page for Details <index.html>).

The difference between the days of Operation Mockingbird and the present situation is that, instead of actually placing network executives, publishers, editors, reporters and pundits on the CIA payroll, their contemporary counterparts are now members of the Right Wing Think Tanks*. In addition to Cato's Murdoch, some high profile examples are MSNBC's Laura Ingraham (a notorious "Scaifette" from the Independent Women's Forum 

and ABC's John Stossel <14> . CNN's Kate O'Beirne is a Heritage fellow (and previous VP) who is a regular columnist for the National Review. Also, old Bonesman/CIA hand William F. Buckley Jr. is the Editor of the arch-conservative Review. The National Review's President and Chairman is none other than Thomas Rhodes, who was recently a Heritage Board member. Other right wing journals financed by these sugar-daddies (and mommies) include the American Spectator, Human Events and Murdoch's Weekly Standard.

*.

Of course, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News is packed with Right Wing spokesmodels, including the Free Republic icon and Hate Radio DJ Sean Hannity, and Tony Snow, previously a Bush speechwriter and journalist from Reverend Moon's "Washington Times"
The lone "token" liberal, Alan Colmes, has to share a show with the overbearing and bombastic Hannity -- some "fair and balanced" programming!
It goes without saying that Rush Limbaugh is in deep with the Right Wing, especially through the Heritage Foundation and the "Town Hall" program. Furthermore, Rush's show is broadcast by ABC, which was acquired in the eighties by Capital Cities--a suspected CIA front. Check out this history of Cap. Cities.


...the CIA has bought many domestic media companies. A prime example is Capital Cities, created in 1954 by CIA businessman William Casey (who would later become Reagan’s CIA director). Another founder was Lowell Thomas, a close friend and business contact with CIA Director Allen Dulles. Another founder was CIA businessman Thomas Dewey. By 1985, Capital Cities had grown so powerful that it was able to buy an entire TV network: ABC

The above information is drawn from Dennis W. Mazzocco's "Networks of Power: Corporate TV's Threat to Democracy" , as is this excerpt:
Moreover, the type of elite control which occurs with economic concentration in the media industry can directly affect the news itself. For example, William Casey, Director of the CIA, was a major stockholder in Capital Cities which originally took over ABC. As a result of his influence and that of other officials, certain stories that were sensitive to the CIA were not covered and the way other news stories were covered was sometimes affected. In addition, with TCI controlling the cable TV systems in many markets, it has the ability to limit the type of information that is available in many people's homes. It has been suggested that TCI is now contemplating offering three conservative-leaning channels in some markets, and eliminating the only liberal-leaning one it carries.

Even though ABC/Capital Cities was acquired by Disney in the nineties, it's a safe bet that the CIA has not been cut out of the picture. In fact--bizarre as it sounds--the CIA was actually lending a helping hand to Disney at the time that the ABC/Cap Cities deal was going down, as Jim Hightower reported in 1995.
The CIA's former station-chief in Paris, plus four of his undercover officers, were summarily expelled from France. Seems they were caught trying to bribe French trade officials...the CIA is now reduced to "commercial espionage" against our allies --on behalf of American corporations...They were trying to get the French to let more Walt Disney movies into their country.
This is Jim Hightower saying . . . If Congress is serious about cutting the budget, how about starting with the $13 billion the CIA is frittering-away on spy games for Walt Disney?

(This may seem almost laughable, but keep in mind that Uncle Walt has been gone a long time. Disney is now just another huge entertainment conglomerate run by Michael Eisner--a CEO as shrewd as they come.)


No doubt, articles like these did not keep Hightower from being axed by ABC radio later that year In fact, while ABC/Disney has been aggressively pushing right wingers like Rush and Dr. Laura, they have been firing many of their counterparts from the left. Just this March, both Stephanie Miller in LA and Mike Malloy in Chicago were cancelled by ABC radio.

Meanwhile, the Right Wing has also been attacking progressive voices from the Independent Media Sector. The highest profile example is the Bay Area's Pacifica Radio (KPFA), which was targeted early on by professional scapegoater David Horowitz Horowitz heads the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which plays a key role in the New Right's campaign to dominate the Media. As yet another arm of the Heritage network, CSPC has received millions of dollars from the Bradley, Olin and Scaife Foundations.
With the New Right leaders exerting such a pervasive influence over the Media, it is now absurd to call it "liberal".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID45/1908.html

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2008, 03:43:43 PM »
Once again the media has been donating 100-1 for Obama.
Nothing says bias like money.
Z

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2008, 03:47:29 PM »
Once again the media has been donating 100-1 for Obama.
Nothing says bias like money.

It's like people have been saying "I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils" They will do the same things. It's no difference. Everything has been set in motion a long time ago.

It's not as if this was some strategy starting in 2007. Who ever wins the country will still be on the same path no matter which "party" is in office   ;)

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2008, 03:48:33 PM »
This doesn't surprise me. I had long heard there was quite the symbolism to the CBS logo.

I had always suspected there was something 'special' about Sumner Redstone.

No way does a man hang from a burning building with one hand (which btw happenes to be 'on fire' without having some extraordinary discipline behind him. That's far more discipline than the entrpreneurial mind can muster,
...I don't care how determined a man you are.
w

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2008, 03:53:02 PM »
It's like people have been saying "I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils" They will do the same things. It's no difference. Everything has been set in motion a long time ago.

It's not as if this was some strategy starting in 2007. Who ever wins the country will still be on the same path no matter which "party" is in office   ;)

When you vote for the lesser of two evils you're still voting for evil.  :-\


24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2008, 03:55:00 PM »
When you vote for the lesser of two evils you're still voting for evil.  :-\



Does that mean you won't be voting this year?  :)
w

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2008, 03:55:11 PM »
Once again the media has been donating 100-1 for Obama.
Nothing says bias like money.

So the companies that own the media outlets have been doing that?

Or is it the "liberal" journalists?

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2008, 03:55:47 PM »
Does that mean you won't be voting this year?  :)

I already told ya, babe, I'm penciling in Ron Paul.


MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2008, 03:56:38 PM »
When you vote for the lesser of two evils you're still voting for evil.  :-\



They will do the same things. It's no difference.

 ;)

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2008, 03:59:24 PM »
;)

Swell. Our choices are Beavis or Butthead.


headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2008, 04:00:00 PM »
Yeah no Lib media, from a CT site...NYT, NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc etc. Funny how Fox teleprinted McCains entire, stronly worded condemnation of the Russian invasion into Georgia, while CNN gave the last senatnce or two, while printing Obama's entire limp wristed response condeming the "violence". Whateve r the hell that means. 76% of Americans polled are following this story, it will be very interesting to see the candidates respond.
L

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2008, 04:06:21 PM »
Yeah no Lib media, from a CT site...NYT, NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc etc. Funny how Fox teleprinted McCains entire, stronly worded condemnation of the Russian invasion into Georgia, while CNN gave the last senatnce or two, while printing Obama's entire limp wristed response condeming the "violence". Whateve r the hell that means. 76% of Americans polled are following this story, it will be very interesting to see the candidates respond.

Don't forget, they advertised an Obama "primetime" special just after that.

Worse yet was when CNN continued to use the fake Obama presidential seal in-between studio breaks.

It's not a myth...it's a fact.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2008, 04:08:14 PM »
I already told ya, babe, I'm penciling in Ron Paul.


Another so called "spoiled ballot"   :D

What I think would be really hilarious is if people all over America pencilled in Paris Hilton, ...and she won!  :D
w

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2008, 04:15:56 PM »

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2008, 04:36:21 PM »
So the companies that own the media outlets have been doing that?

Or is it the "liberal" journalists?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats
It is across the board.
Not Just Journalists

    Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

    Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio....

    The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. [See link above to article.]

    The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

    What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain)
Z

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2008, 05:01:54 PM »
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats
It is across the board.
Not Just Journalists

    Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

    Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio....

    The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. [See link above to article.]

    The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

    What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain)

$315K?  kind of meaningless.

Its the companies that make a difference here.  Are the CEO of the companies donating?  Are the CEO allowing left wing based reporting?   You know things like "democracy now" reports?

reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers they are all democrats but in the end, who really calls the shots?

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2008, 05:14:41 PM »
Journalists are a more intelligent crowd as a whole, ...so it's natural many of it's members gravitate to Obama.

If the Republicans could field a candidate that didn't suffer from senility or multiple personality disorder, the numbers wouldn't skew so far to the left.
w

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2008, 05:27:24 PM »
Jag, I can guarantee that I know more of those people then u do, and being an elitist media jerk does not make u more intelligent, just a head in the sand Lib. But I can also say that with most, after spending 3 weeks in the field with grunts, they hate the douchebags as much as we do. Its all a matter of perspective.
L

Cavalier22

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3309
  • Citizens! The Fatherland is in Danger
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2008, 07:49:30 PM »
FACT

by a margin of 4 to 1 those working for the AP were more likely to label themselves democrat or liberal than conservative or republican
Valhalla awaits.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2008, 07:55:40 PM »
Journalists are a more intelligent crowd as a whole, ...so it's natural many of it's members gravitate to Obama.

If the Republicans could field a candidate that didn't suffer from senility or multiple personality disorder, the numbers wouldn't skew so far to the left.
ignorance, ignorance, igornance more and more jag you say things that make me question your intelligence, and none of them have to do with politics :-[...LOL this from a person who backs a man with a wife with racist writtings, attended a racist church and has practically no political background that shows he should be president.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2008, 07:56:28 PM »
FACT

by a margin of 4 to 1 those working for the AP were more likely to label themselves democrat or liberal than conservative or republican

Hey you know what, I think that is the same statistic used for college texts. Even James Carville (B. Clinton, and C. Clinton advisor) gives lectures about media being liberal.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2008, 08:04:24 PM »
Once again the media has been donating 100-1 for Obama.
Nothing says bias like money.

FOX news gave more $ to Obama than MSNBC did ;)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2008, 08:10:55 PM »
FACT

by a margin of 4 to 1 those working for the AP were more likely to label themselves democrat or liberal than conservative or republican

And that brings up another interesting question:


Why are journalists predominately "liberal"? 

does that suggest, that people in the know are liberal and conservatives are not?

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2008, 12:09:17 AM »
FACT

by a margin of 4 to 1 those working for the AP were more likely to label themselves democrat or liberal than conservative or republican

That's hardly a surprises, ...just look at the Republican posterboys of late.

Even w8tlftr does even call himself a republican these days. The neocons have made it a nasty word.  :-X
w

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
Re: Myth of Liberal Media
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2008, 09:17:08 AM »
The CIA Fakes is a catchphrase term to describe a group which includes:

-- Covert Operatives of the CIA, NSA and DIA; of the U.S. Corporate/Military Industrial Complex; of the intelligence services of U.K. Spain, France Holland, Germany, and Russia.
-- Political Agents working within the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Democratic Black Caucus, Green Party, and Patriot Movement.
-- Politicians in the U.S., U.K. Spain, France, Germany and Russia --who pose as 9/11 skeptics.
-- Media, including Mainstream, Alternative Media and Internet broadcasting media who either front for, cooperate with, or are directly employed by intelligence services mentioned above.


-------------------

I'm willing to believe there are people unknowingly manipulated for certain causes so take that into account.