The war on Sharyl Attkisson
The MSM can’t tolerate any deviation from the script; it must present a unified front to maintain the fiction of its own neutrality.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
The MSM can’t tolerate any deviation from the script; it must present a unified front to maintain the fiction of its own neutrality.
I had a rant, but….
I’ll leave it with a question: Why do we continually act surprised when bad people do bad things?
Let’s admit that at the very least we are impotent in stopping them from doing the bad things they do.
But there must be a way, mustn’t there, to stop these bad people from harming this woman? Men? Anyone?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/339804.php
Wrong link? Read that yesterday. LA Times needs to be bought by the Koch’s, and also one of the failing networks. But they’d rather sell to Al Qaeda.
Excerpt from the book, “How Saul Alinsky taught me to use artistic license:”
Death Jones mattered. She thought so. She acted like she did. But that all came to an end, her end, a most ignoble and damning end.
The people had been used. They were angry. They seized Jones and killed her. But not before they had sodomized and tortured her. And they had reminded her that what was happening to her was the same thing she had enabled and protected. At one point during the awful event, she had been dragged through dog shit. The shit clogged her airways and it is most likely true she died of suffocation. In any event, it was an awful death, but the people did not slink away or act as if they faced any reprisals for their actions. Indeed the opposite was true. They rejoiced. They celebrated. They knew there would be no reprisals. Their attack was already being reported as a “demonstration” and they knew there were forces which would help suppress the truth of what they had done to Jones. Besides, the force of the revolution was on their side. The decadent and corrupt Powers wouldn’t be able to muster enough outrage to do anything. They knew this because the slogan of the Powers was “What difference does it make?”
It’s not so much “the war on Sheryl Attkinson” as it is a war upon the truth.
It’s “deliberate suppression of the news for political purposes”, it’s “politicization of the news for the benefit of a political party” due to ideological allegiance and justified through the rationalization that the “end justifies the means”.
That the MSM denies, conceals and lies about the truth is proof positive that their views are insufficient to withstand reasoned examination. That they lie and manipulate the news is a betrayal of the public. They are, at the least, engaged in sedition.
Ace has updated the page, here’s the correct link Neo refers to: CBSNews Bigs Fret That Sharyl Attkisson is Coming “Dangerously Close to Advocacy”
The MSM has no reason to change, and as private corporations they are under no obligation to change. Yes, they are hypocrites in the extreme when they claim objective reporting.; so what? Again, for them the ends justifies the means.
As holmes suggests, the only way out of this is to break the stranglehold they have over the information the majority of the public receives. Only through economic takeover will the MSM ever change.
Mike: who’s surprised? I’m certainly not, and I don’t see a lot of people here expressing surprise.
physicsguy…”The MSM has no reason to change, and as private corporations they are under no obligation to change.”
But as *publicly-held* corporations, or subsidiaries of such, they do have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders.
Sooner or later, someone is going to file a shareholder lawsuit against some of these executives, alleging wanton disregard of shareholder interests by promoting their own personal political beliefs in ways not conducive to the long-term health of the business.
The MSM is a monolith, but it is a crumbling edifice. They are bleeding cash as reader/viewership declines. IMO the real issues are the failure of the republicans (politicians and the pundits) to confront the talking heads and to refuse to discuss issues based upon the left’s talking points. Time to walk the walk, not talk the talk.
David Foster said, “Sooner or later, someone is going to file a shareholder lawsuit against some of these executives, alleging wanton disregard of shareholder interests by promoting their own personal political beliefs in ways not conducive to the long-term health of the business.”
Yes! What we need are a couple of conservative Carl Icahn types to buy into the networks and start raising cain with the managements. This would stir the pot a bit faster and might even get results. Heck, the Icahn types might even make some money.
However, we have the case of Newsweek. They refused to change and disappeared as a paper publication. Their on line publication is nothing but progressive propaganda and I doubt it is making much money. So, even profits don’t seem to matter to the progs. It is a cult.