PDA

View Full Version : Ouch-- The truth hurts


Wise Old Producer
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:43 PM
I don't usually "cut and paste".. but this article is too important. Anyone who calls himself a journalist should read this and take it to heart. Whatever happened to objectivity?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall//ColPics/columnistsBlankley.gif (http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley)
The Man Who Never Was
by Tony Blankley


70 (http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2008/09/24/the_man_who_never_was?page=full&comments=true#comments)





The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.
While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Volkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)
And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.
Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."
I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.
To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.
The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.
More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.
But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.
Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.
The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.
Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.
The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

Brooklyn
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:44 PM
<DIV id=divForAd1 style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FLOAT: right; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px">if (!_THATLASPAGEID) {var _THATLASPAGEID = new Number(Math.floor(99999999*Math.random())+1);}docu ment.writeln("");on error resume next if (plugin

I'm pretty good at code, but trying to read that...that hurts. :shifty:

Wise Old Producer
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:52 PM
I fixed it. Sorry about that.

Brooklyn
Oct 2nd 2008, 06:01 PM
I fixed it. Sorry about that.

No worries...I'm at work and trying to kill time. ;)

:cheers:

Southernguy
Oct 2nd 2008, 06:55 PM
This is not a bad article and it is worthy of thought. I'm still on the fence in this election but the line about examining how Obama came to be in the notorious political atmosphere of Chicago is worth questioning. If we get right down to it the Mainstream Media has never really nailed down all those years between Jesus' birth and crucificion. I'm just sayin.'

Nevertheless, the article raises questions that should be asked. It's that simple.

No Hush, I'm not a Republican--I'm a journalist.

Wise Old Producer
Oct 3rd 2008, 06:41 AM
If we get right down to it the Mainstream Media has never really nailed down all those years between Jesus' birth and crucificion. I'm just sayin.'


Bet they would if Jesus were still walking the earth.

ewink
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:04 PM
Most media has lost it's balls. Not just in national stuff like the presidental election, but on an everyday basis locally.

For instance, how often does a station simply rebroadcast a press release given by police with little or no questioning?

Rosenblum
Oct 3rd 2008, 05:43 PM
Tony Blankley?
Are you kidding me?
From The Washington Times - you know, the paper owned by Rev. Moon?
The Tony Blankley who wrote that 'racial and ethnic profiling are acceptable in time of war (like now).
That 'objective' and 'honest' Tony Blankley?

theultimatetruth
Oct 3rd 2008, 06:20 PM
Tony Blankley?
Are you kidding me?
From The Washington Times - you know, the paper owned by Rev. Moon?
The Tony Blankley who wrote that 'racial and ethnic profiling are acceptable in time of war (like now).
That 'objective' and 'honest' Tony Blankley?

How pathetically typical for a left-wing nutjob.....totally ignore the substance in the article and attack the writer.

TVMattNYC
Oct 4th 2008, 10:32 AM
Yep. Every word is true.

It's even worse at the network level ... trying to do my job as a journalist while everyone else (including the people I answer to) chug down the Obama Kool-Aid.

east coast producer
Oct 4th 2008, 11:11 AM
Ha, Matt! I've been secretly spiking your McCainerol with Obamasicles.

HushHush
Oct 4th 2008, 02:55 PM
No Hush, I'm not a Republican--I'm a journalist.

Just an FYI - I don't normally read the JForum. ;) The Headline caught my attention tonight though.

s'news
Oct 4th 2008, 08:22 PM
Oh my.

Spike
Oct 5th 2008, 07:05 AM
I quit reading as soon as I saw the phrase "the mainstream media." That's one of those keywords that tips you off immediately that everything that comes afterward will be some kind of political whining, usually about how liberal "the media" is.

Tripe Face
Oct 5th 2008, 04:33 PM
Tony Blankley?
Are you kidding me?
From The Washington Times - you know, the paper owned by Rev. Moon?
The Tony Blankley who wrote that 'racial and ethnic profiling are acceptable in time of war (like now).
That 'objective' and 'honest' Tony Blankley?

Yes the same guy who was Newt Gingrich's towel boy for a decade or so.

Wise Old Producer
Oct 6th 2008, 03:24 PM
....is the issue. I've noticed how slanted the coverage has been this political season for months. I've truly never seen anything like it. It seems like reporters and producers have stopped even trying to balance their coverage of the election-- and have gone even beyond faking balance to actually endorsing a candidate-- whether it be in their choice of words, their demeanor or the phrasing of questions.

I've always seen journalists as crucial to the democratic process because they are the only unbiased conduit for information for public information. Maybe the internet has killed that, I don't know. I just worry that this kind of bias in what is considered the "mainstream media" could truly spell the end of what we know as true journalism. People will no longer trust the media as an unbiased resource. They can go online, and find writers who support their opinion all day--without ever tuning in to the other side. It's only serving to add to the sad polarization of this country.

Rosenblum
Oct 7th 2008, 06:25 AM
News reporting has become incredibly biased.
The days of even attempting balance are clearly over.
I trust what Tony Blankley has to say about as much as you trust The Huffington Post.
Few and far between are the sources that are objective, fair and honest.
And they are getting fewer all the time.
Mr. Blankley and his Washington Times clearly are neither objective nor fair and honest. Why would I even bother to read what he has to say, let alone be influenced by it in the least?

Bureau Chief
Oct 7th 2008, 06:53 AM
We have met the enemy...and he is us!

Wise Old Producer
Oct 7th 2008, 08:20 AM
News reporting has become incredibly biased.
The days of even attempting balance are clearly over.
I trust what Tony Blankley has to say about as much as you trust The Huffington Post.
Few and far between are the sources that are objective, fair and honest.
And they are getting fewer all the time.
Mr. Blankley and his Washington Times clearly are neither objective nor fair and honest. Why would I even bother to read what he has to say, let alone be influenced by it in the least?

I'm afraid, very sadly, that you just made my point for me. I still read, listen to, and try to understand both sides. Do you? I've always considered it my job, and that I essentially gave up my right to a publicly-stated opinion when I became a journalist.

2:30
Oct 7th 2008, 09:17 AM
Except, of course, to the psycho-right, who think that even Moonies are a little pink for their taste..

CKMD
Oct 7th 2008, 05:14 PM
I quit reading as soon as I saw the phrase "the mainstream media." That's one of those keywords that tips you off immediately that everything that comes afterward will be some kind of political whining, usually about how liberal "the media" is.

Bingo! People who use that word are part of THE MEDIA!!! It's all MAINSTREAM.
Idiots.

Produce man
Oct 10th 2008, 01:58 PM
I quit reading as soon as I saw the phrase "the mainstream media." That's one of those keywords that tips you off immediately that everything that comes afterward will be some kind of political whining, usually about how liberal "the media" is.So the truth DOES hurt...

MyracleMan
Oct 11th 2008, 09:14 AM
Everyone has an agenda... whether it is to see their guy elected, or to see the other guy get trashed... all reporting is biased based on a persons' beliefs and values. Me? I'm biased towards me. Whatever I feel is best for me, my family, and my interests, is what is on my agenda. Of course, I'm not a reporter, either.

If I remember properly from the journalism classes I had in college, it's important to get both sides of the issue and let the viewer/reader decide for themselves what is right and wrong, not gift-wrap your opinion and hand it to them on a silver platter.

The problems in journalism are symptoms of a larger problem in this nation, inthis world, one that I am ashamed to say I just admitted to being part of in my first paragraph. There's no sense of national unity anymore... everyone is in it for themselves, and they'll step on/screw over anyone they need to to take care of #1. I don't take it to that extreme; I merely exploit every advantage I'm given to improve my own situation, but you get my point.

Until people can start looking beyond the end of their own noses, and start thinking about what's best for the world, and not just what's best for them, their friends, and their families, then we'll continue to have bias in reporting, in business practices, in everything in everyday life.

Until such time, I will continue to take care of myself and my own, and hope the rest of you do the same.

Wise Old Producer
Oct 11th 2008, 05:59 PM
(Edward R. Murrow flips over in his grave..)

sun dog
Oct 11th 2008, 10:18 PM
The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the run-up to war.

While they have failed to stand up to American militarism for decades, in 2003, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for the Bush administration and consciously are knifing those who have objections. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda.

And as a result, we are weeks away from possibly starting a war that has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs--the press. The image of Iraq the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the actual threat. They consciously have ignored the incomplete nature of the administration's charges and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in the National Intelligence Estimate that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on the Niger uranium forgeries. Should the media be curious? For weeks, the media have focused on inflammatory statements by members of the administration, such as Dick Cheney's claim that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Cheney's rise in the defense industry. How did Cheney rise in the famously odious Halliburton corportation with the full support of the Pentagon? Despite the great--and unflattering--details on Cheney's years as a government contractor presented in Dan Briody's new book on Halliburton, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book.

The public image of the Bush and his team as having wisdom and courage in a time of great uncertainty is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of the administration, and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why Senator Barack Obama said that "what I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of the imperfections of the case for war (and dirtied up the image of those who oppose it), but also has put most of the questionable history of the Vietnam War down the memory hole.

The public will support the war based on their fears, and the idealized image of our leaders. If we go to war, however, we will find ourselves in a quagmire of terrible cost in blood and treasure. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as the administration will be for it's failings.

theultimatetruth
Oct 12th 2008, 11:57 AM
Why would I even bother to read what he has to say, let alone be influenced by it in the least?

Wow! What an incredibly naive, idiotic response. Talk about having your head in the sand....a better example has NEVER been so perfectly illustrated.

So even if there's "truth" to what he writes, you don't care!? How very sad and pathetic.

Sultanosurf
Oct 15th 2008, 10:19 PM
Well, one line in there sure got me asking questions: "...he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers." Imagine all the nutballs within a quarter mile when *I* lived in Manhattan...

W-O-P, I agree sometimes we probably need to ask more questions (Even many in the Bush Administration now say part of the problem with the Iraqi invasion was the media not asking enough questions in the run-up) but why is it people like Blankley use that codeword 'mainstream media' like it doesn't include them?

Have we been any less objective in our coverage of Obama than John Edwards? McCain than Ted Kennedy? I've worked in a lot of shops, and just don't see all this left-wing bias people with their own bias often cite. If anything, I've been seeing more blatant right-wingers. Which is OK either way, since I never really see it intrude into their reporting.

It's just my take, but then again I coulda been brainwashed inside that Manhattan quarter mile...

Another side
Oct 16th 2008, 03:17 AM
I'm afraid, very sadly, that you just made my point for me. I still read, listen to, and try to understand both sides.

I always snicker at such claims. Because I don't believe them, that's why. Sorry.

I've always considered it my job, and that I essentially gave up my right to a publicly-stated opinion when I became a journalist.

That's unfortunate. Journalism, reporting, was never intended to be a pursuit where you leave your freedom of expression at the door.

Another side
Oct 16th 2008, 03:24 AM
Wow! What an incredibly naive, idiotic response. Talk about having your head in the sand....a better example has NEVER been so perfectly illustrated.

So even if there's "truth" to what he writes, you don't care!? How very sad and pathetic.

Why is it "naive" and "idiotic"?

It's really not unusual for people to avoid columnists and other opinion-makers they have no faith in, for whatever reason.

For instance, I'm not interested in anything Bill O'Reilley has to say and it doesn't matter much to me whether you consider what he says "the truth" (if you do.)

I do get a kick out of Rush, though.

Wise Old Producer
Oct 16th 2008, 06:40 PM
I always snicker at such claims. Because I don't believe them, that's why. Sorry.



That's unfortunate. Journalism, reporting, was never intended to be a pursuit where you leave your freedom of expression at the door.


Actually it is. It's called objectivity.

Another side
Oct 18th 2008, 02:29 AM
Actually it is. It's called objectivity.

Then you should probably alert people like David Broder, who reports on politics for The Washington Post AND publishes one the best-read weekly political columns around and is a frequent TV political analyst.

The issue is not whether you express an opinion ... the issue is whether you can keep it out of your reporting.

photogguy
Oct 18th 2008, 08:48 AM
Most media has lost it's balls. Not just in national stuff like the presidental election, but on an everyday basis locally.

For instance, how often does a station simply rebroadcast a press release given by police with little or no questioning?

That's because news has become info-tainment, not journalism.

Wise Old Producer
Oct 18th 2008, 06:31 PM
Then you should probably alert people like David Broder, who reports on politics for The Washington Post AND publishes one the best-read weekly political columns around and is a frequent TV political analyst.

The issue is not whether you express an opinion ... the issue is whether you can keep it out of your reporting.


I agree. It's one thing to be a columnist or analyst. It's your job to express opinion. That's why it's called the Op/Ed (Opinion/Editorial) page.

It's entirely another to be a reporter covering an event or issue and take sides-- either in the tone of your reporting or choice of words or soundbites. Or the distain that you show when you speak a candidate's name. It seems few reporters even try anymore to just *report*. It seems ever reporter wants to be an influencer. That's NOT the job of a reporter.

That's my point. And in the 20+ years since I've been involved, I've never seen reporters be so openly blatant in their bias. You should never be able to tell who a reporter is going to vote for just by watching their work.