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.

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

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—

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.

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

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—

—W—

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.

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.