The administration, with the full cooperation of the media, has successfully turned “Benghazi” into a word associated with nutters, like “Roswell” or “grassy knoll,” but Attkisson notes that “the truth is that most of the damaging information came from Obama administration insiders. From government documents. From sources who were outraged by their own government’s behavior and what they viewed as a coverup.”...
She notes that the program, which under previous hosts Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer largely gave her free rein, became so hostile to real reporting that investigative journalist Armen Keteyian and his producer Keith Summa asked for their unit to be taken off the program’s budget (so they could pitch stories to other CBS News programs), then Summa left the network entirely.
When Attkisson had an exclusive, on-camera interview lined up with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the YouTube filmmaker Hillary Clinton blamed for the Benghazi attacks, CBS News president Rhodes nixed the idea: “That’s kind of old news, isn’t it?” he said.
२६ ऑक्टोबर, २०१४
"Two expressions that became especially popular with CBS News brass, [Sharyl Attkisson] says, were 'incremental' and 'piling on.'"
"These are code for 'excuses for stories they really don’t want, even as we observe that developments on stories they like are aired in the tiniest of increments.'..."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
The brother of the president of CBS News is Benjamin Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications.
How strategic.
I think this is one of the reasons Republicans are afraid to publicize their agenda for the upcoming election. They may have a health plan to replace Obamacare but if they release it, and it is a good plan, the media will pick it apart and convince people that it really isn't. Unlike what they did for Obamacare. We need a fifth estate to protect us from the fourth estate and the internet can provide that role
It's old news and we want to keep it that way.
Benghazi should put Hillary completely out of contention.
1. She and the administration took Kadafi out. They bragged about it afterwards. They armed the "rebels." They didn't ask for congressional approval.
2. She decided not to defend the compound adequately. For politically expedient reasons because they didn't want to admit extremism was on the rise.
3. After the compound was sacked she shook the hand the father of of one of the dead ex-veterans defending the compound and lied to his face about the cause. She knew it was the al-qeda affiliate. She knew they were using weapons she gave them.
Hillary is defined by a lust for power. She has lied to people whose family members died because of her decisions. Anyone who finds an excuse to vote for Hillary is a disgusting human being.
Isn't it amazing that an administration that thinks that Benghazi is an over & done non-event never let the survivors talk to the press or Congress until (& if) they left the pay of the government. Even the contractors who wrote their book on the attack on the embassy quit before they published.
No surprise here. Who's going to try to stop them from doing this? It's why they must must must paint Fox News as wild eyed nut jobs every chance they get.
Most "main stream media" should be considered in-kind campaign contributions, and taxed accordingly.
Propaganda television, brought to you by the Obama Administration.
A good reason for watching the broadcast evening news is to see what they don't cover.
And I watch CBS because their "anchors," - bad as they are - have the least annoying voices and personal mannerisms.
You would think that with money these outfits throw around, they could get some better talent.
I plan on teaching a lesson on media bias in my U.S. History class this week. I am using the Hunter Biden cocaine story and the Bristol Palin violence story (combined with the Ray Rice story) as the case study.
This is the number one reason we need, NEED republicans in the White House: So the media will tell us when they are doing things wrong.
I bet ole Ben Bradlee would be kicking ass right about now. Truth to Power! He was a real journalist, rest his soul.
Steve said: "I think this is one of the reasons Republicans are afraid to publicize their agenda for the upcoming election. They may have a health plan to replace Obamacare but if they release it, and it is a good plan, the media will pick it apart and convince people that it really isn't."
You nailed it. People complain that conservatives don't do a good job of selling their platform. There is a reason they choose their words so carefully.
America's real enemy is the media. The Democrats are just along for the ride.
Midterm elections not much of a story either! According to MRC study, ABC has not reported on the elections since September 1. Study compares coverage to the 2006 midterm elections.
http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/tv-news-blacks-out-years-bad-election-news-democrats
There was a time when she would have been described as "dogged", even " heroic". Now she's just irritating.
Think even if Sheryl's book sells a boat load the NY Times will do whatever they can to keep it off the best sellers list?
We have heard that similar story before about authors they did not like!
Bradlee only kicked Republican butt, he kissed Dem butt.
Gahrie said...
"I plan on teaching a lesson on media bias in my U.S. History class this week. I am using the Hunter Biden cocaine story and the Bristol Palin violence story (combined with the Ray Rice story) as the case study."
This will not be tolerated. Progressives will not allow your insubordination.
If Hillary runs the full truth about Benghazi should finally come out. If she doesn't run that's prob why.
The media was just as biased for Clinton. I remember the day after the 1994 election. They were astonished and the ABC news reader said "America had a temper tantrum."
Unfortunately, Gingrich never realized how he was playing their game.
"Rhodes nixed the idea" Hmm Rhodes, that name sounds familiar.. Oh wait...
"America's real enemy is the media. The Democrats are just along for the ride."
The media is just one tentacle of the Kraken that is the totalitarian left.
Hollywood, academia, pretty much all government bureaucracies, most big corporations, even the military has been purged of patriots and filled with leftist Obama stooges.
Oh yeah and the entire Democrat party.
Nothing short of a revolution can stop them, and I don't see that happening.
Chronic Boredom Syndrome
Isn't it kinda meta when we have news about news?
"We need a fifth estate to protect us from the fourth estate and the internet can provide that role."
Which is exactly why the Democrat-controlled FEC just released plans to begin regulating political content on the internet campaigns, blogs (take note, Prof Althouse), and Drudge. Is the Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine" about to be implemented on the web by the leftwing, unaccountable bureaucracy?
Dems on FEC move to regulate Internet campaigns, blogs, Drudge
I think Hillary would be an overall more competent president than Obama, and on domestic issues more pragmatic and consensus building. She lacks scruples and has a keen sense of her self-interest, which could make her a force on the international stage. So long as she can substitute the country's interests for her own.
Fat chance. Based on her history, Hillary should probably already be in shackles for her shameless and unethical promotion of her and her family's interests.
geokstr said...
"We need a fifth estate to protect us from the fourth estate and the internet can provide that role."
"Which is exactly why the Democrat-controlled FEC just released plans to begin regulating political content on the internet campaigns, blogs (take note, Prof Althouse), and Drudge. Is the Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine" about to be implemented on the web by the leftwing, unaccountable bureaucracy?
Dems on FEC move to regulate Internet campaigns, blogs, Drudge"
Critical mass approaches. They are on the other side now.
We need a Attkisson to tell us what we can plainly see? The corruption started when the Democratic party gave Obama Michigan delegates that he never earned on May 31, 2008 and there was not a peep from the media then or after.
After all these years, you've decided I might be a robot?
Hillary failed the bar and was fired by the Watergate Committee for corruption. Old, but compelling news.
To BDNYC:
Just when and where has Hillary! ever been competent? On what has she ever been pragmatic and a consensus-builder?
"Just when and where has Hillary! ever been competent? On what has she ever been pragmatic and a consensus-builder?"
She very competently banked those phony cattle futures profits.
I haven't watched the evening news in more than 20 years, but last week I happened to see the opening minute of one of the evening shows.
The anchor trumpeted the upcoming segment in which the movie "Interstellar" would be profiled and its stars interviews.
This on the evening news.
Hello?
“That’s kind of old news, isn’t it?”
Christopher Stevens
Sean Smith
Glen Doherty
Tyrone S. Woods
The media is pro-Democrat. Period.
Unprofessional pack of hacks.
Attention RC and ARM! Since you are both so deeply into the Kool-Aid, I'll be giving you real-time examples, now and then. Feel free to post any counter-examples you might ever find.
An administration working hand in hand with a cooperative Media, happens under Fascism.
Obama Admin is and has been doing it.
The exact opposite occurred during the Bush Administration.
Obama is on the Left.
Bush is on the Right.
So which one is more like that which also occurs under Fascism?
That would have been an interesting interview.
“I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”
-- I wonder if male reporters were dismissed the same way.
I think it is interesting that different people used "reasonable" to describe friendly media outlets.
Ironically,
the media's coddling of Obama ended up hurting him in the long run.
Had they done due diligence on things like the troubled development of the Obamacare website, those problems could have been publicized in time to fix them before they became embarrassing.
But they were sure that Obama was working on fixing the problems. Hence all they had to do was cover up the problems and give Obama time to fix them. Instead, the website problems blew up on live TV.
It's another example of what I've said before: It's the responsibility of a politician's supporters to be watchdogs, not cheerleaders.
The politician is more likely to trust his friends when they tell him there are problems, not his enemies whom he can dismiss as partisans.
If you circle the wagons around your favorite politician and protect him from constructive criticism, you're not doing him any favors.
A good article but it's interesting that it describes the TANG documents attributed to Bush as "probably" fake. No they are not "probably" fake; they ARE fake.
"I think Hillary would be an overall more competent president than Obama, and on domestic issues more pragmatic and consensus building. She lacks scruples and has a keen sense of her self-interest, which could make her a force on the international stage. So long as she can substitute the country's interests for her own."
On what basis? On what single solitary fact in her life can you make such a ridiculous prediction?
America WANTS Pravda.
Wrote a lot more than deleted it. Nothing more to be said.
"I think Hillary would be an overall more competent president than Obama, and on domestic issues more pragmatic and consensus building. "
I sense some self-delusion building here.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
Attention RC and ARM! Since you are both so deeply into the Kool-Aid, I'll be giving you real-time examples, now and then. Feel free to post any counter-examples you might ever find.
An administration working hand in hand with a cooperative Media, happens under Fascism.
Obama Admin is and has been doing it.
The exact opposite occurred during the Bush Administration.
Obama is on the Left.
Bush is on the Right.
So which one is more like that which also occurs under Fascism?
I hope you aren't referring to me, I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment.
Too bad the conservative billionaires don't buy media properties. Carlos Slim bought the NY Times. Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. Wouldn't it be more cost effective for the Koch's or Adelson to buy media properties rather than give their money to their political media enemies via ad payments?
jacksonjay said...
"I bet ole Ben Bradlee would be kicking ass right about now. Truth to Power! He was a real journalist, rest his soul."
Ben Bradlee was well aware that Kennedy was fucking everything in a skirt.
It was ever thus. If the media and the arts could hide the fact that FDR was wheelchair bound and that the Depression had grown worse during his tenure, how hard can it be to cover up Benghazi.......You can see media bias in real time during their coverage of Ferguson. Many examples, but the other day a white kid got beat up for being white in the presence of Ferguson protesters. It was minimally reported in the print media, but, so far as I can tell, it didn't make the tv news......There's not much trust in the media, and what there is is declining. None of them seem to care, and no career has ever been damaged by a pro left bias.
On what basis? On what single solitary fact in her life can you make such a ridiculous prediction?
The usual answer is her husband's presidency. (Was Bill the most successful Democrat president since Truman?) Of course, no one is supposed to say it out loud, but I think there are a lot of D's out there who hope Bill will run the show.
"Attkisson mischievously cites what she calls the “Substitution Game”: She likes to imagine how a story about today’s administration would have been handled if it made Republicans look bad."
I like to imagine she would have a Pulitzer by now.
Edith Efron wrote a couple of books about bias at CBS News in the late 1960s. She literally counted the words in transcripts of CBS Evening News broadcasts and tabulated them according to which party they favored. The outcome was predictable.
"When a senior producer she doesn’t identify came to her in 2004 bubbling about documents that supposedly showed then-President George W. Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam War, she took one look at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”
The article has a lot of references to people she won't identify. That was frustrating.
sane_voter said...
"Too bad the conservative billionaires don't buy media properties. Carlos Slim bought the NY Times. Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. Wouldn't it be more cost effective for the Koch's or Adelson to buy media properties rather than give their money to their political media enemies via ad payments?"
1. There aren't very many conservative billionaires. Most truly wealthy people favor large government and statist policy. That's why they give so much more money to democrats.
2. Bezos bought the Wapo, but how long does it take to change the culture there? If someone bought NBC you would have to fire everyone and hire a complete new crew. You are fighting decades of statist media control. This is why Rush and Fox are so hated.
3. The FEC and other statist forces are currently trying to shut down drudge and other internet sources. If you haven't noticed they don't really take well to the other side being able to challenge their narrative.
On the day after the 1994 election I was on a 4-hour car trip. I made a point of hearing Rush's show from the beginning. His first words were, "Get out the Gloat-ometer."
From the 2010 election, trained gloating professionals.
From the 2010 election, trained gloating professionals.
I rarely listen to Beck, but caught the show that morning.
Tears of laughter ran down my face everytime the guy started his "Happy Days Are Here Again" spiel.
I also don't listen to Beck more than once in a great while. But I did catch that "professional gloating" episode back in 2009, and it's priceless. I'm hoping for a repeat performance in the near future.
Rec Chief wrote: I hope you aren't referring to me, I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment.
RC is Cook I believe.
Talk about incremental. They kept shunting her stories off the nightly TV news to smaller, less-viewed outlets, or they outright stomped her story ideas. It's too bad that Sharyl finally succumbed to their passive-aggressive approach by resigning, but I can't say I blame her.
Don't forget that Sharyl was the reporter whose home computer was hacked into by 'unknown' sources. I'm thinking someone at CBS might have an inkling of who did it.
And even though it seems like Fox News may be widely viewed, on average there are only 2 million people watching. For the old big 3 TV networks, there are still over 20 million people watching the evening news segments. America wants Pravda indeed.
Power corrupts. The media began by promoting Obama and his policies. Then it morphed into a celebration of their power to manipulate the truth. News broadcasts used to investigate. Now they entertain, not the public but themselves as they toy with their listeners to satisfy their addiction to power.
Jupiter said...
jacksonjay said...
"I bet ole Ben Bradlee would be kicking ass right about now. Truth to Power! He was a real journalist, rest his soul."
Ben Bradlee was well aware that Kennedy was fucking everything in a skirt.
Excellent point.
Kennedy being a Democrat, of course, this shows just how far back the media has been 'of the Left'.
Can anyone give an instance of the media spiking a piece of information that would harm the reputation of a Republican?
Seriously, I'm hoping for an example.
Anyone?
Can anyone give an instance of the media spiking a piece of information that would harm the reputation of a Republican?
Seriously, I'm hoping for an example.
Anyone?
Kind of a tall order, isn't it? It requires coming up with something believed by a few, but not widely reported.
Well, there were rumors President Nixon was once involved with a Hong Kong waitress named Marianna Liu (IIRC, the supposed affair was the butt of a joke on "Saturday Night Live").
And Kitty Kelley maintained in a book that President George H.W. Bush had at least two extra-marital affairs, one with a White House aide named Jennifer Fitzgerald.
Although these stories were "out there" (perhaps in more ways than one), I don't recall that the Mainstream Media made a big to-do about them - maybe because they weren't convinced they were true, or maybe because, as the saying goes, "it was a different time back then."
CBS shot down an interview with one of the few men who were sent to jail to protect a government lie?
That, for some reason, shocks me. Even I didn't think they were THAT low of a news organization.
This is crazy. The government was so afraid of Attkisson it planted classified documents on her computer "just in case"?
http://nypost.com/2014/10/27/ex-cbs-reporter-government-related-entity-bugged-my-computer/
MisterBuddwing said...
The allegations were not played up since no one would believe that Poppa Bush and Nixon were players.
For the old big 3 TV networks, there are still over 20 million people watching the evening news segments.
But look at the advertising on the big 3. Geritol. Reverse mortgages. Underwear liners. Walk-in bathtubs and showers. "Silver" multivitamins. Erectile dysfunction medications.
That audience is shrinking.
This is all well and good, highlighting the (now all to obvious) overwhelming media bias in favor of liberals/Democrats. But that's only really identifying the problem. Since there is and never has been any such thing as "unbiased" reporting, those who would like things changed need to actually do something about it. Just having Fox News as the opposition voice won't do it, because it's easy to corral and dismiss as "that conservative outlet" when the other 90% are on the other side. Conservatives and libertarians need to get into the ABCs, CBSs, NBCs, etc., and change the culture from the inside out in at least some of them. That means not only anchors, but reports and producers and executives.
They must similarly do the same with academia and the schools.
Doing the same in government is a problem because it will always attract those who like lots of government. Even Republicans.
But the Left has successfully normalized Leftism culturally. It won't change until the rest of us take back at least half of it.
Why would the Kochs or Adelson want to spend good money to employ bitter lefties selling a product fewer and fewer people are buying...?
I worked with Sharyl in Tampa in the 1990s, and she was clearly a level above the rest of us, skill-wise. (I cornered her one day to ask her if she could tell me why she was so good at her job, and she gave me a very polite rote answer, but the expression on her face said: "dude, if you haven't figured this out yet, I probably can't help you." And of course she was right. What I can tell you is this: if she said this shit happened, then it happened. She is not an ideologue and not a partisan. She's a craftsman who ran into the reality that is our 2014 life: there is no longer a 4th estate; there are just teams...and you sign on to play for one or the other. It is no surprise to me that she refused to play under these new rules, and quitting was the right and only response. Sharyl, thank you for your service to our country. Because you are a patriot. An anachronism perhaps, but a patriot nonetheless.
Was Atlas Shrugged a How-To book for these folks? Seriously?!
^^^bad dialogue and all!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा