Main Stream Media Hypocrisy?

At the tender age of 19, Newt Gingrich married Jackie Battley (26), his former high school geometry teacher. One wonders what Mary Kay Letourneau would think. The angle of the dangle? Newt allegedly served Jackie with divorce papers while she struggled with illness in a hospital in 1981, a clear indication of the strength of his family values.

Six months later, Gingrich married Marianne Ginther, with whom he strayed until 2000. His straying fuck partner, Callista Bisek, eventually ended up as #3 wife. At the same time, Newt led the Congressional inquisition about Bill Clinton’s blow job from Monica Lewinsky, stating the blow job constituted "a level of disrespect and decadence that should appall every American."

This year, Gingrich converted to Catholicism, in essence telling the Main Steam Media that all of his sins are forgiven. They seem to have accepted his story. Again. Divorced? Catholic? OK.

Compare the deafening silence one hears about Newt’s hypocrisy and questionable family values to the feeding frenzy surrounding John Edwards.

In late 2007, The National Enquirer reported that then presidential candidate Edwards began an adulterous affair with a campaign worker, Rielle Hunter. By July 2008, the rumors grew, and suggested that he fathered a child with Hunter. Edwards admitted the affair in August.

Every news organization has been going crazy over Elizabeth Edwards’ book, (which spends only a handful of pages on the affair), badgering her and confirming almost daily, that Edwards’ political future is dead meat.

On one hand you have a self-proclaimed conservative, a leader in the family values movement, having affairs, and proving to be the ultimate in hypocrites. Newt now appears ready to replace Rush Limbaugh as the head of the Shrinking Regional GOP, appearing on cable, news, and talks shows repeatedly. In terms of Regional GOP opinions, he is the "go to guy."

On the other hand, Edwards is repeatedly lambasted, attacked and insulted, even though he and Elizabeth remain married. (Their FIRST marriage, Newt. Just saying.)

The question is why? Why can GOP sinners, creeps, pederasts, adulterers, cheats, and liars be greeted with standing ovations in Regional GOP meetings, (even in the halls of Congress) while Democrats are attacked by the media?

After reviewing how today’s Media treats the Democrats in general, and Obama/Biden in specific, it would be a mistake to call MSM a bunch of hypocrites. Hypocrisy implies that those taking certain positions are phonies, sanctimonious deceivers, and liars, because they say one thing, yet do another. I disagreeabout MSM being hypocritical. They are not. They are far worse. Today’s corporate media are simply doing what Newt Gingrich did with his high school teacher before they made it legal. In other words, the MSM is sleeping with the Shrinking Regional GOP.

Is it hypocritical to be such a strong fan of one party, and against your opponent? Is it hypocritical to do everything within your power to further the goals and aims, even in subtle In terms of sports, a great example is feeling that every flag or whistle against your team is uncalled for and unfair? And why do they get away with it? The answer is Bill Clinton and his deregulation. With the passage of his horrific Telecommunications Act of 1996, Bill said, "we will support removal of judicial and legislative restrictions on all types of telecommunications companies: cable, telephone, utilities, television and satellite. Market forces replace regulations and judicial models that are no longer appropriate." While some changes were clearly called for, given the advent of the intertubes and portable technology, the mergers and buyouts are leading to the eventual destruction of our news industry.

When ownership rules for radio changed, media bastards like Clear Channel came into their own. Clear currently mishandles the majority of radio outlets in Chicago. By destroying creativity, banning Dixie Chicks, replacing it with pro-Regional GOP opinionators and boring elevator music, Clear has turned its best Chicago assets into shit, the only glimmer of light in this whole mess.

Other changes have been even more destructive. Just five companies – count them, FIVE – Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC, News Corp, NBC) and AOL (Time Warner), now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing. Cable costs have exploded. And now, after corporations squeezed 16% rates of return from newspapers, radio and TV, they find themselves with a product so beaten up, so damaged, that the very future of news seems to be in question.

There are other examples of the MSM’s pro-Regional GOP tilt. Nancy Pelosi stated her belief that the CIA misled her on the issue of torture. The resulting firestorm, stoked equally by the MSM and the Regional GOP, has taken over the airways. Yet, the very same Regional GOP members who attack Pelosi, have themselves previously accused the CIA of lying, if not worse. The willingness to excuse and ignore high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of the Regional GOP would be astounding, but for the fact that they are so consistent about it. Except for a very few, brave, and probably short-lived media reports, no one is considering just why Dick Cheney ordered the CIA and DOD to torture folks into admitting that Saddam Hussien and Al Qaida were working together. The Iraq quagmire, with its million dead, 4 million homeless, and its trillion dollar price tag, is the real issue. Except for the MSM, which is doing its best to studiously ignore it. And god forbid that they investigate who profited from the war!

The MSM is not hypocritical. Because of mergers and corporate take overs, it is now a corporate cheerleader, and therefore, pro-Regional GOP. It should be treated no differently than the collapsing support for the nation’s #2 political party. They created their own mess. Let them perish in it. News is a valuable commodity. Others will pick up the slack, and figure how to make a profit on it, while delivering real news. (for a welcome change)

In honor of our MSM, let’s give Newt the final word and recall how he justified investigating Clinton’s Blow job: "This is not about politics. I don’t know — and I don’t care — how this ‘strategy’ polls. This has nothing to do with vendettas or witch-hunts or partisan advantage. This is very simply about the rule of law, and the survival of the American system of justice. This is what the Constitution demands, and what Richard Nixon had to resign over."

13 Responses to "Main Stream Media Hypocrisy?"

  1. woody188  May 25, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    The MIC swore after Vietnam they would never let the media interfere in their business again and started the consolidation of newspaper, radio, and television into the huge media corporations of today. That is why there is no war coverage. Those that profit from war are also operating the corporate media. It’s great to watch them fail miserably at it. The media, not the war, though their failure at war is inevitable as well. No one can win an undefined war like the War on Terror.

    Truth comes out sooner or later and these companies will never regain the control they had. We just need to discredit their election coverage and remove the debates from their forums. Their efforts to smear Ron Paul went a long way towards this end because it was very obvious he was being purposefully marginalized while they promoted corporate favorites like Rudy “The Ghoul” Giuliani and that has been actor from Law & Order.

    Efforts to limit Internet access will be met with creative solutions. Competition is increasing and the hair-brained metering solutions Comcast and Time Warner are considering will only expedite their demise. Now that we have our intertubes there is no taking them back. :)

    One path back to freedom is to remove the individual rights given to corporations. The best arguement I’ve seen to this end is that if corporations are individuals, then they cannot be owned because they are then slaves to the owners. Since corporations can’t be owned and can’t operate without ownership, then they can’t be individuals and therefore, do not deserve the same rights as individuals.

    Now where are those activist judges we here so much about to make the above law?

    Oh right, another myth by the system perpetuated by the corporate media.

  2. John1172002  May 24, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    In my opinion, Newt is exactly what his name describes: A creature similar in body shape to a lizard, which hides under leaves on the forest floor.

    For those who don’t know, he served her with divorce papers in the Recovery Room, after a mastectomy operation for breast cancer. What a slimeball! I’ve stood by my wife of 47 years through breast cancer and chemo, so I KNOW what I’m talking about here.

    Remember this, all you female Republicans! Would you rather be in Newt’s former wife’s place, or have your husband lie about getting a blow job?

    John1172002

  3. Cherubim  May 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    We who are low income want John Edwards back as
    our spokesperson. We appreciate the fact that he is human. Please click on the links below and you will see videos that clarify what I am requesting:
    Residents of Whitesburg, Ky, a coal mining town
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRWL4c9XxVk
    A foreclosed neighborhood, Ceveland, Ohio.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_GWrYkcCI
    Chicken Plant Workers in Canton, Miss
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y510mj5J99I
    9th Ward New Orleans, LA.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAqktFnA4nk&feature=related

  4. Warren  May 24, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    It’s all about money. Yeah, OK, everything you said is true. And just to add one, look how the MSM supported all of the early Bush war effort and destruction of the constitution without any questions.

    But then there’s the adulation and adoration showered on Barack Obama for the past year and a half. Non-stop, no questions asked. All except Fox (BTW I’m no fan) have shamefully been drooling all over him. Sure, let’s have the government own the banks and the biggest manufacturing sector in the country. And isn’t it cute what Michelle was wearing last night? Seems OK to the MSM.

    My impression of the MSM is they cater to whoever is going to put food in their bowl. They can’t piss off the current administration for sure. And they can’t piss off bigwigs and rising stars in the opposition because the outsiders could well become the insiders very quickly. The net effect is news coverage determined by present and future ability of those covered to effect the cash flow of the MSM.

    —W—

  5. Uncle Ludwig  May 25, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Not hypocrites, it’s true.

    Incompetent? Inept? Biased?

    Absolutely.

    Nevertheless, if one goes back through the history or journalism, and even in the media portrayals of journalism, one finds that there’s probably never been a time when the Fourth Estate acted in a properly dispassionate and unbiased way. We want them to, certainly, but when have they really delivered?

    All my life, we’ve had a variety of news outlets known for conservative or liberal outlooks, or simple sensationalism. We’ve also had individuals writing or delivering editorial opinions, or think pieces, or in-depths, or whatever else from a wide variety of viewpoints that helped highlight or explain (or mask) the situations at hand. Many of us can list names of crusading columnists who made their names exposing villains in public and private enterprises. And if we think about it, we can also think of “journalists” who have compromised their own reputations and trotted out “party line” propaganda pieces.

    So has that changed? Yes, I believe it has. It all began when cities and towns could no longer “support” more than one daily local newspaper. When that trend started showing up in major cities, too, things got worse. Having one outlet for news meant that the public’s requirement for a broad description of what was happening now fell to single purveyors. The “marketplace of ideas” went from supermarket to boutique practically overnight.

    It’s no wonder that certain viewpoints fell by the wayside in communities. But did Congress see the handwriting on the wall and work to keep as much diversity in the public debate as alive as possible? No, of course not. Why have multiple outlets to have to pay for political advertising when single sources to send money to are so much more efficient? (Too bad they couldn’t transfer that understanding to public health care funding).

    The saving grace is the Internet. Individuals are still doing the real and proper public work of journalism. Their only failing is that they lack the “corporate weight” of a major brand behind their stories. People also need to go out and find for themselves what they’re offering.

    In some cases, however, even that appears to be changing. CHB, Huffington, Kos,and others are starting to gain the cachet that Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal may be losing. And RSS feeds bring daily headlines to our desktops without little effort on our part. Thanks to the Internet, we may finally see the Fourth Estate doing the job we’ve all wanted it to do from day one. And the variety of information and opinions is back, even though it often seems like the Internet is functioning like pirate radio, or Voice of America.

    So, when “they” start to curtail universal access to the Internet – watch out. We’re done for.

  6. gazelle1929  May 25, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    “The MIC swore after Vietnam they would never let the media interfere in their business again and started the consolidation of newspaper, radio, and television into the huge media corporations of today. That is why there is no war coverage. Those that profit from war are also operating the corporate media.”

    Would it be presumptuous of me to ask that you provide some documentation to support these statements?

  7. Warren  May 25, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    How about:

    1) Complete blackout on soldiers’ remains returning?
    2) Reporters not allowed at any sites of deaths due to insurrection until after the cleanup? An no pictures allowed of any blood or gore under any circumstances? Have you ever seen a picture of a dead body, of any nationality, in an MSM publication? If you can recall one please refresh my memory.
    3) Reporters who are ‘embedded’ subject to censorship that’s well beyond tactical military issues? “Cover the war, but no pictures of any violence.” Right.
    4) Reporters who don’t play by the strict rules not allowed to cover much of anything?

    The MSM gets ‘food in the bowl’ as I was talking about earlier by playing by the strict censorship rules and thereby being allowed to participate in any coverage at all.

    —W—

  8. woody188  May 26, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    It is a generally held conservative belief that Jane Fonda and the media made the US lose in Vietnam.

    To this day, conservatives argue that the U.S. was winning in Vietnam until “the battlefield victory of the 1968 Tet Offensive was turned into a defeat with a few words from Walter Cronkite.”


    If you bother to see who owns and is on the boards of these media and defense companies they often intertwine. GE, Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Boeing, Raytheon, all are invested in or bailed out a media company in some form or another.

  9. GovtFlu  May 26, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Operation Mockingbird and “American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond” by E. Howard Hunt would be good to start with.

    Newt and his zero credibility DC Mafia ilk are modern day propaganda clowns put on display by the talking box circus MSM.

    The MSM loves to re-cycle these has-been easily discredited tools and give them ample air time to belch out their laughable opinions with impunity.

    The DC hacks drone on about stupid shit that doesn’t matter to 99% of the population while trying to secure their next book deal. Newt sits around all day getting his make up & hair helmet done, for 7.5 minutes of air time that will be debated by other hacks for days.

    There is a reason news anchors are mostly pretty people with the intellectual horsepower of a Fern; they’re easily trained and too fuckn stupid to think fast enough to call bullshit on freaks like Newt. If the “reporters” start embarrassing the guests with real questions, they risk losing their money for nothing news job… and what else can a news host do? except maybe serve coffee with the other out of work actors?

    The MSM is a joke by design.

  10. Warren  May 26, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Umm, remember that guy who pretty much started the war, championed it, ran it, and made most of the rules? I think his name mighta been Dick something… maybe started with a ‘C’. Anyhow he was Mr. MIC.

    —W—

  11. gazelle1929  May 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    But where is the proof that the military-industrial complex ordered such actions?

  12. AustinRanter  May 26, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Non-journalistic corporate buy-outs of news related companies have altered the course of what the founders labeled “Free Press”. And of course the founders believed that “Free Press” would forever hold the title of “The Guardians of Freedom”.

    The Corp/Media believes that “tabloidism” is a more “profitable” and fashionable method of “reporting”, or in some cases, “creating” news about events from local to global.

    Rob,

    The nuances between Newt and Clinton isn’t all that much. But, I have to say that Newt’s silver bullet was that while both were adulterers…only Clinton lied about it before a Federal Grand Jury. That’s highly illegal. Then Clinton has to add insult to injury by lying to Congress and the public.

    Now…I think that Newt’s indiscretions were certainly something of value to Corp/Meda, however, it wasn’t quite the story that possessed the “Tabloid” value that Clinton’s bold untruths about his behaviors, which read like anecdotes from along the line of: Hey, while on my way to the store to get some bread, I just happened to get a blowjob from an intern.

    Tabloid news companies, which most corp/media companies are now, does somehow have to determine the sellable value of a story. After all they are a business with the primary goal of making money.

    We all have to eventually accept that “Free Press” as we’ve known it to be, in relationship to the Constitutional definition, is no longer the foundation of the communicated word. We now only get a sellable version of what the seller has created for us all.

    So as a matter of sellable value in journalism or media stories…we get what the corp/media has discovered is more sellable to us…a collective society.

    Im not sure who created the following, but it’s something to think about:

    “When I always do what I’ve always done, I’ll always get what I’ve always gotten.”

    When we stop buying bullshit…then the market for it will begin to disappear. Apparently the “Truth” is just too boring for the world.

    So-called “News” is a commodity now…not a source of knowledge.

  13. gazelle1929  May 26, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    “It is a generally held conservative belief that Jane Fonda and the media made the US lose in Vietnam.”

    Thanks. I needed a good laugh. That is just plain ludicrous IMHO. Just goes to show how out to lunch the conservative base is.

    We “lost” the Vietnam War because we the people got sick and tired of sending our finest young men to die in a pissant country which amounted to nothing then and amounts to even less today. The underlying argument that failure in SE Asia would result in the total enslavement of SE Asia, India, Maylasia, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand under the godless Communists is not dissimilar to the “reasons” we invaded Iraq.

    We lost” the Vietnam War because we the people told the politicians to end it and end it now. The mainstream media opened up the eyes of us the people as to what was going on and what an unholy waste that whole situation is.

    And guess what? We the people were right. The rest of the hemisphere survived quite nicely, thank you.

    Jane Fonda. Snortle. Chortle. Chuckle.

Comments are closed.