Think of what the world has had to suffer during the past seven years because so many reporters cooperated with the Republicans' coordinated attacks. Here is the (partial) list of liars:
Maureen Dowd
Katharine Seelye
Ceci Connolly
Chris Matthews
Lou Dobbs
Katie Couric
Brian Williams
John Broder
Katharine Seelye
Ceci Connolly
Chris Matthews
Lou Dobbs
Katie Couric
Brian Williams
John Broder
Not one of these despicable journalistic frauds ever suffered professionally for lying about Gore and electing George W. Bush. My only problem with the Vanity Fair piece concerns the "Why did they do it?" question. "Some of it was a self-loathing liberal thing," says Melinda Henneberger, who was an NYT writer.
The reason why these "Aspen-rooted" journalists loathed themselves should be obvious to any thinking person: They were paid off.
We will never be able to prove that assertion with canceled checks or an audit. But we don't need to, just as we don't need video of an arsonist at work to know that a fire was man-made. We need merely reason from result to cause.
Whenever the RNC issued talking points to their minions, these journalistic frauds would invariably tell the same lies, in the same words -- on the same day. It's not as though they took their cues from FOX and Rush; they all worked from the same cue cards.
When you see the mainstreamers act in concert with the RNC's dictates, always presume that money has changed hands.
The same presumption applies to Nader.
The same presumption applies to today's "progressives" who incessantly smear the top three Democratic candidates.
6 comments:
Back then I stopped paying attention when Bill Bradley fell away. All those writers you mention are alive today only because Ralph Nader made sure that seat belts, air bags, and padded dashboards are standard equipment, so I can see your point about including Nader in the 2000 sell-out. How much does Vanity Fair weigh these days? In 1992 I stopped paying attention when Jerry Brown fell away, but I voted for the dope-smoking, womanizing, draft-dodger because those features appealed to me more than anything I'd ever seen in a major candidate. How many anti-Jew votes do you think cost Gore the election? Did Gore accept Lieberman because Lieberman was the anti-Clinton conscience of the Senate Democrats? Didn't Lieberman, on the Senate floor, more or less ask Clinton to resign? What reasons did he give? So his granddaughter wouldn't have to hear about blowjobs on TV. TV has replaced cotton as king. Do you remember when Bobby Kennedy brought Ralph Nader to testify at the Senate hearings, and thereby made a hero of him? You could blame Bobby for Ralph if you won't blame Lieberman for Bush. "And all of a sudden, all of a sudden they all just started shooting" - Blanche Barrow.
I think it is far more a subtle bribe than a check as a quid pro quo.
It's more the career opportunity afforded those who know how to put out the preferred spin.
Ink-stained wretches hard at work at newspaper or magazine journalism know the glamor and bigger paychecks go to those who make the leap from print journalist to tv commentator/pundit.
But how can you get there? Show the owners of the media, those who dictate the editorial policies (ala Jack Welch at GE/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC), that you are on the plutocratic side, and are willing to slander Democrats several times a minute.
(Jack Welch was at NBC's election-night coverage, and plaintively asked 'who can I get to call Florida for Bush' or something like that. Whatever he said was so blatantly inappropriate an intervention that although cameras recorded what he said off air to the anchors, NBC has refused to make that available, even upon request from Democratic Congressional officials.)
So, the journos don't get a check, per se, but the promise of a more lucrative career (maybe they can get a book deal as well as television appearances).
Similarly, it's highly unlikely that progressives get checks for their positions. Maybe the very highest profile ones, but certainly not the run of the mill progs that populate DU, or bother you so much on this blog.
...sofla
i agree, sofia; it's a 'go along to get along' mindset that drives this evil banality of every aspect of our corporate world, and not just in journalism. the fact that that mindset has so thoroughly permeated journalism is what is so dangerous to our democracy; the press is no longer free, it's cheap, as in 'on the cheap'.
and god knows, progressives don't get checks for being crazy any more than the crazy fringes of the rightwingnuttery do. well, granted, some of those do, but this is the nature of the bell curve in human behavior; there will just simply be those weirdo fringes. back in the day, the very black days, those fringe characters were simply ostracized within an inch of their lives, burned at the stake, or some other form of torture to ensure 'normalcy'. now, we tolerate them.
yup, we tolerate the fringes. as much as i agree with joe that these progressive purists are shooting themselves and the entire progressive movement in the face (these bizarros don't have a clue where their feets is), i have to remind myself that i am grateful to live in a democratic society (such as it is these days) that allows enough freedom of personal expression that such idiocy is indeed tolerated.
it's part of the package; deal with it. and might i suggest, deal with it gracefully? the most successful way to discourage bad behavior is to simply ignore it. the more attention you give it, joe, the more it flourishes.
Don't forget George Stephanopoulos.
As I recall (very narrowly though) the early and middle 1960s, a self-named 'conservative' movement identified themselves as a fringe minority, who were lumped together with the John Birch Society, nuke-crazed Air Force generals, Lester Maddox, and Barry Goldwater, who 'defined' the movement. Man, were they ridiculed! If you read Charles Reich's The Greening of America when it came out (1969-70), do you remember how you felt and what you thought? What do you think guys like G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Haldeman, John Dean, Nelson, David, Winthrop, Laurance, John D III, and Harpo must have thought? We know what Daniel Ellsberg thought.
It was an interesting piece, however Robert Parry at Consortiumnews.com reported on the media's Gore animus way back in 1998-1999. Vanity Fair's a little late in the day don't you think?
Post a Comment