dr. elsewhere here
CAMPAIGN WARS, '06; THE MEDIA FRONT
Folks, I do believe what we are witnessing is just the first move in a well-designed media blast from the Architect himself.
Check out the second offensive; seems our lady Katie, in order to draw viewers and ratings for her first week as the first woman to solo anchor a prime time news program at CBS, will be inviting as a news commentator none other than (wait for it)...Rush Limbaugh.
So we are left to wonder just what awaits us from NBC, eh?
A few thoughts. First, Rove is directing this propaganda onslaught, shock'n'awe style, from his desk down the hall from the Oval Office. Paid for by taxpayer dollars. (By the way, did you hear that - according to Slater and Moore's new book - Rove invited Catholic priests into his new West Wing office, which had been Hillary's, to have it exorcised! Yup.)
Second, it is so easy to read the deals Karl has made with these media giants, as Joe has pointed out. No doubt, Karl has promised them they'll dissolve media ownership rules entirely, or some such risk-worthy covenant.
Third, with regard to Rush as a news commentator, I'm wondering just how much longer his ilk can get past the actionable position of misrepresenting "facts" while they are increasingly given such real and ostensibly "credible" attention as real and ostensibly "credible" newsmen. How does the law go on that?
Fourth, all Rove has to do - and he needs the media to pull it off - is to crank up poll numbers in enough districts to get within spittin' distance. After that, all he has to do is work the machinery numbers to keep the repugs in power. Remember, the manipulation of votes won't really work if the results contradict long-standing and sizable Democratic leads in the polls.
And fifth, think just how desperate they're getting. Not much of anything is moving the poll numbers, except in the wrong direction. As I suggested in a comment to a previous Joe post on this ABC story, the whole thing could really backfire in their faces. The mood in this country has gotten pretty jaundiced and cynical. The majority of folks appear to not trust this regime anymore, and they're as likely to laugh at anyone's attempt to rewrite history as swallow it. I'm getting the image of Rove frantically paddling his way into quicksand, deeper and deeper and deeper....
Nice fantasy. Whatever. We should nonetheless take all this as only the beginning of a major offensive in Rove's dirty little war.
5 comments:
And people still believe in the myth of a liberal media!
Michael Parenti once told an amusing story. This was about ten years ago. When he heard a young person blather on about the liberal media, Parenti asked: "So, just who in the media represents the voice of liberalism?"
Lots of uhhhhs and errrrs. And finally the young person said "Howard Stern...?"
Well if you are so hip to the evil ways and means of this administration , then why do you pimp links to 9/11 sites that support this same administration's version of what happened that day?
Popular Mechanics?
Frigging Abovetopsecret?
C'mon.
You must be joking.
not even a word about iran?
now that will be rove's desperate manouveur, but even it will backfire.
america has looked behind the curtain and have seen the true face of big brother.
but it will get a lot uglier before it gets better.
turn off the tvs now, it is really the last weapon they have
anon 439, great story!!
anon 553, get a clue. finding weaknesses in the various theories that make all manner of outlandish claims about missiles hitting the pentagon (without explaining where the plane and its passengers went) and so forth and so on, ad nauseam, is NOT the same thing as buying the official report, which also has numerous weaknesses.
be careful you don't make the same black&white ideological errors made by our criminal leaders. you'll end up being blind to truth.
dr.elsewhere:
re: "finding weaknesses in the various theories that make all manner of outlandish claims about missiles hitting the pentagon (without explaining where the plane and its passengers went)"...
Your comment begs the question:
Just exactly how is someone who is skeptical that a 757 could "fold up" to go through such a small hole without apparently also making holes where the TWO WING-MOUNTED ENGINES THAT WERE AT HIGH THROTTLE (according to "witnesses") would have been expected to have impacted, how are those people supposed to answer the question of "where the plane and it's passengers went", and why do you insist it is their question to answer? They didn't plan or execute the event, so how would they know?
Anything could have happened to the plane - that's not the point, and demanding an explanation of that only serves to distract from the issue raised. 911 skeptics (the sincere ones, there is a lot of deliberate disinformation out there to distract people from the real issues and discredit skeptics) mostly do not claim to know what happened so much as they claim that the official account doesn't seem to fit the known evidence.
I agree in part with some of the recent tone of this blog concerning 911 conspiracy theories, insofar as we should be skeptical of those who claim to "know what happened" (as in, absolutely no plane at the Pentagon or certainly controlled demolition at the WTC) because I don't think the known evidence supports those positions with that degree of certainty (though I will say that so far my own research leads me to believe that both of those are more likely than the "official account" based on the limited amount of available information - this opinion is subject to change in consideration of further information). We must keep in mind that there is probably more unknown about the events of 911 than there is known. But I also think it's a mistake to dismiss out of hand the opinions of people who are purely skeptical about events that many think have been inadequately explained by the "official investigations" that have been published to date, and I must say I've felt a little insulted by the condescending tone of some of the comments you and Joe have made concerning 911 skeptics.
I've got a question I wanted to ask you and Joe on an earlier post on the subject of 911, but was too late reading it to expect a reply:
The "pancake theory" explaining the tower collapses (which, please correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to support over the theory of controlled demolition) has the floor trusses breaking away from their mounts as the floor above crashes down on it. After the collapses, several stories of the smaller, more numerous outer vertical support columns that these floor truss mounts were welded to were observed standing at various angles above the rubble. Can you provide a plausible explanation as to what happened to the 47 thicker, stronger central vertical support columns in the middle of the towers, that went clear down and were solidy attached to bedrock, that these same floor trusses were also attached to? Can you show me any photos showing any significant portion of these central columns standing? Take a look at the floor plans, shouldn't the floors have pancaked around the central columns that surrounded the elevator and utility service shafts and left a significant portion of them standing like the weaker outer columns?
(not the same anonymous you were commenting to in my quote)
Post a Comment