It has become common practice to condemn mainstream news media for ignoring stories that are of crucial importance to the lives of the American people. The exact opposite is true. Year after year Journalism schools graduate thousands of young investigative reporters whose paramount mission in life is to become the next Woodward or Bernstein. Most of them are motivated by an intense passionate desire to emblazon their names in history as the person who broke the next big "Watergate" type news story than defines a generation. Those folks who comprise the news media work relentlessly in pursuit of that goal.

I don't doubt that people enter journalism school with high ideals. But I have to ask...where are they all working?

I don't understand your concern. When there is a real breaking story the MSM covers it and pretty much covers it objectively.

I often hear that the MSM overlooks stories some of you feel are important and thus conclude the MSM must be run by the evil Media Elite who are nothing more than Bushco puppets.

A case in point. On Monday night, June 9th Kucinich announced his intention to seek Bush's impeachment as he read his 35 articles of Impeachment into the record. These articles were put together by him and were suggested articles that he was attempting to have the house act on. He read these articles before an empty congressional chamber.

Outside of those few who want to see Bush impeached above all else, how is Kucinich's stunt newsworthy? It is obvious to anyone wo is really paying attention that these articles will never see the light of day.

If on the other hand, the full house was actively pursuing impeachment, the coverage would be non-stop - as it should be.

I don't think the MSM is being run by any shadowy figures who are censoring things you feel are important. I just believe that many of you have an unrealistic perspective on how others perceive the things that are most important to you.

stunt...hmm

this is where i see a disconnect, that people can go along with impeachment over a blow job. but when we have proof that the war started even though the white house knew their intel was bullshit, it is impeachable if you ask me

i bet you have not read the 35 and the corresponding research attached to them

or if you have, you just say what, no, didnt happen?

As you and I have debated on several occasions, people like Kucinich and I view the world very differently. I have no doubt that within Kucinich's view of the world he sees everyone of his 35 articles as impeachable offenses. Within my world view, I think Kucinich has gone of the deep end, as I don't see any of his material as remotely plausible. IMHO

If you would like to challenge my take on our differing world views and how it relates to Kucinch's articles of impeachment, go ahead and pick one of his 35 articles for debate and let's give it a whirl.

the fact that 3 weeks prior to the invasion they knew their intel was bullshit...curveball

is not only an impeachable act but an immoral act that is beyond my explanation

all the deaths that occured as a result...who answers to them?

so, they find out their intel is bullshit, in addition to the fact that they manipulated it in the first place and they invade anyway

that doesnt make you mad as hell?

article 1 thru, there are so many - i thought america didnt invade other countries unless our safety is at risk

Shoreke, you just may have hit on something with your thread title, Corporate News Media. I've read at various and sundry website that folks don't like the phrase "mainstream media" or "MSM" and have grappled for an alternative. You've got it! And it's catchie...CNM Corporate News Media!

CNM it is.

First, we are after Osama, and now Bush does not care if he is alive or not, that pretty much says it all.

Article 1 deals with an alleged secret propaganda campaign to make a case for war against IRAQ.

Much of the first article deals with Kucinich's evidence, but I think the following is at the heart of his argument in the first article.


ARTICLE I.
CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

"Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language: "No part of any
appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes
within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."
A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service states that "publicity or propaganda"
is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) selfaggrandizement
by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda."
These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's standard for determining
when government-funded video news releases are illegal:"

There isn't really much to debate with this one, as I can only think of two salient counter points. I don't dispute the administration used a vigorous marketing campaign to sell the American public on the Iraq war.

1) What constitutes marketing versus propaganda
2) Did the administration knowingly manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.

Article 1 only deals with the supposed propaganda campaign, but is closely tied to several other articles. Thus, I think this might not be one of the ones generating the most debate.

You mentioned manipulation of the intel in your above response. These are addressed in articles 3 and 4.

Let me know how you wish to proceed.

And ALL of them find out, soon enough, that their bosses(Editors) are OWNED.



Remember, Bush&Co have spent $BILLION$ on propaganda.

William Schaap - Part 1/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA by Carl Bernstein

If you wish to standup for Bush, please do, I love watching a pinata.

If you wish to debate an issue with me rather than play silly games and recite rhetoric, let me know and I will be happy to do so.

Good point. Another case in point is the false notion that corporate news media are engaged in a conspiratorial decision not to show us coverage of returning dead soldiers from Iraq. The news media would love nothing better than to show us dramatic footage of flag-draped coffins on the nightly news. The macabre, bizarre, grotesque and sensationalistic aspects of that such an emotionally intense news story would skyrocket prime time network news ratings. You do not see that kind of coverage because the news media is prohibited from televising it by government edict.

In the case of flag draped coffins, there is no compelling reason to have flag draped coffins shown on the evening news. If my loved one was in one of these coffins, I would be highly offended if it were shown in a news cast.

That's our gripe...the silence. They should not be the handmaidens of wrongdoers. They should speak up, loudly and often. The nation is falling apart and the "morning shows" are cooking hamburgers and the evening news keeps us abreast of celebrities breasts for crying out loud.

That's interesting.

May I ask why?

Seriously, I'm quite curious.

You would rather they be brought home buried and forgotten about?

Thought I answered with this comment:

If my loved one was in one of these coffins, I would be highly offended if it were shown in a news cast.

Other than for political reasons, to highlight Bush's failed Iraq policy, why would anyone want to have these coffins shown on national television?

They are remembered by their family and friends. Their casket doesn't need to be paraded in front of the nation to be remembered. A war memorial is a fitting tribute to those who gave their lives for their country.

Even if it would aid in putting an end to this war?

Again, that would be looking to use the caskets containing the remains of a loved one as political leverage. I think that would be reprehensible and I thank God the Government agrees.

Well we don't see eye to eye again, but that's not surprising. No one would know but who is inside that coffin but if it would convince one citizen to change their mind on the war it would be worth it to me. Better yet let the coffin be open so they can actually see the face of war.

Pictures such as this helped put an end to the Vietnam war;







I don't see that this war is any different.

You might get personal satisfaction, but its not your call. You are in no position to speak for those who have lost love ones in this war.

Good post, LibLaw. Those pics bring back vivid memories. It may be a cliche but a picture is truly worth a thousand words. The visual medium illustrates a point on a visceral level and emblazons itself on the human psyche in ways that transcend, supersede and override dispassionate intellect. Flag-draped coffins transform abstract statistics about the war dead to the universal human level of understanding. It is a graphic display of the terrible human price paid for a war based on a lie.

Yes people need to know there are Americans in those coffins and this is the price of war. Thank you.