Liberal Media

[Controlled Chaos]

Nitpicking the 9-11 ads

Brent Bozell (archive)

 

 

March 10, 2004 |

 

 

John Kerry's Super Tuesday wins on March 2 marked the formal start of this year's presidential campaign. This might explain why the liberal media silliness began with the first Bush-Cheney ad buy on March 4. The Bush ads were positive, promotional, piano-plunking, the type that usually bores reporters to death. But this time, they were quickly slammed by the press.

 

The Democrats thought they had an angle to trip up the Bush campaign, and they pushed it. Say, didn't those ads flash about a second of pictures of September 11? Well, yes, and so what? After being attacked unmercifully by the Left for his handling of the war on terrorism before and after 9-11, shouldn't the president be allowed to defend himself?

 

Apparently not. Bush, we are told, is playing politics. Which is exactly what his hypocritical critics are doing.

 

Some relatives of the lost, like Debra Burlingame on MSNBC, said the images of 9-11 "belong to all of us. We were all attacked." But most of the relatives quoted were fierce critics of Bush. Many of those featured in early press reports were members of a little radical conclave called "September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," founded by about 80 relatives of the more than 3,000 victims of that infamous al Qaeda attack. The Washington Post called them "nonpartisan," which is laughable. They are very active lobbyists of the far Left.

 

See their Web site at peacefultomorrows.org. Last year, they were hosting protest marches to condemn "the illegal, immoral and unjustified U.S.-led military action in Iraq." They opposed the war uprooting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and complained that 9-11 was "used to justify the deaths of thousands of Afghan men, women and children." Their members give speeches across the country with titles including "Exploiting 9-11 for Empire Building."

 

Their fundraisers starred Amy Goodman, the host of Pacifica Radio's morning show "Democracy Now," the taxpayer-funded public radio show that replays long speeches by radicals like Michael Moore and Arundhati Roy spewing hate at Team Bush in the ugliest language. "Nonpartisan" is a rotten label for this group because it assumes they have no agenda, that they're quietly apolitical or perhaps soggy centrists.

 

By the way, please note that the "Peaceful Tomorrows" gang has been funded by a liberal philanthropy called the Tides Center, as their first newsletter in 2002 explains. The Capital Research Center notes that the Tides Center received at least $650,000 in 2001 from the Howard Heinz Endowment, led by none other than Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry. Keep waiting for the media to report any of this.

 

Some anti-Bush critics were so nonpartisan they could not recall whether they voted for Bush or Gore. On MSNBC's "Hardball," Monica Gabrielle, who gained prominence for slashing the Bush ads as "a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," was asked how she voted in 2000. She said, "Politics don't have anything to do with it." Chris Matthews pressed again. She claimed: "You know what? To be honest with you, I don't even recall."

 

Uh-huh. Maybe Mrs. Gabrielle can recall her political position last summer, when she complained to the left-wing Web site Salon.com: "We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House." She told Matthews that Bush spent September 11 in a schoolroom and then on his airplane, so he wasn't a leader. So she is uncommitted on Bush's re-election? She has no agenda? Her activism can be seen as a laudable response to losing her husband, but she should not be presented as having no axe to grind.

 

Our sensitivity to every image in a Bush ad is not matched by any sensitivity to the tone of Bush's critics. One widow, Kristin Breitweiser, even claimed, "Three thousand people were murdered on Bush's watch." Can you imagine a widow ever getting national media exposure by throwing hardballs about murders on President Clinton's "watch" in Oklahoma City, or the Khobar Towers, or our embassies in Kenya or Tanzania? That would be seen as a low blow, not worthy of broadcast. But not in this election year.

 

The media are at their most hypocritical when they suggest Bush is unfairly benefiting from 9-11 in his ads. But who has piled on the profits with hours and hours of specials, and newspaper and magazine special editions, devoted to 9-11? Because Bush has done a good enough job in preventing attacks on the homeland, the media can go back to profiting from the usual sludge on Martha Stewart and Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson.

 

Imagine how the media will react when the Bush people go negative!

[Texsox]

Here we go again.

 

Bush could have shown what * he did * after 9-11, not used the images of people dying inside. I guess he thinks we all forgot and we needed a reminder. To use a personal and national tradegy for personal gain is wrong. The only reason he used that footage was to sell himself to the US public. It would like if Bounty used them to sell paper towels.

 

I am so tired of the GOP deflecting any criticism from them by calling it the liberal media. What a nice setup. Only believe what we tell you. Just like the Soviet Union used TASS for. Then the GOP starts labeling judges as activist who rule against them. The GOP would like to take away our Constitutional protection from unconstitutional laws.

 

So in the GOP world; they will be free to enact any laws that are against our constitution and if a newspaper voices outrage, it's just the liberal media. How cozy.

[Controlled Chaos]

Wait a minute the article sites facts.....and you reply with an opinion....

 

Have you heard ANY news station say that those people that were quoted belonged to that group??

 

I just posted this...because when a little research on a story is done...some different takes come out of it.

[mreye]

Here we go again.

 

Bush could have shown what * he did * after 9-11, not used the images of people dying inside. I guess he thinks we all forgot and we needed a reminder. To use a personal and national tradegy for personal gain is wrong. The only reason he used that footage was to sell himself to the US public. It would like if Bounty used them to sell paper towels.

 

I am so tired of the GOP deflecting any criticism from them by calling it the liberal media. What a nice setup. Only believe what we tell you. Just like the Soviet Union used TASS for. Then the GOP starts labeling judges as activist who rule against them. The GOP would like to take away our Constitutional protection from unconstitutional laws.

 

So in the GOP world; they will be free to enact any laws that are against our constitution and if a newspaper voices outrage, it's just the liberal media. How cozy.

Have you seen the commercial? The 1 second of 9/11 footage is absolutely harmless. They knew he was going to use 9/11 in his ads and I believe they had people that are "offended" lined up before the commercial came out. They would have been wiser to bait Bush by saying nothing and let the next ad have a little more 9/11 and say nothing again and then the next ad have even more 9/11. The come out and say he's politicizing it. Their arguement might have held water then. Now, it's just ridiculous.

[Texsox]

Yes, it is opinion. I disliked the ad. I believe he was wrong for running it. It is a fact that I thought it was wrong. It sounds like it is a fact that you liked them or thought they were ok.

 

The NRA likes to point out that the frst thing a dictator does is take away everyone's guns. That actually is the second thing they do. The first thing is to take away the media. They head to the tv and radio stations and take them over. This is the same thing the GOP has been trying to do. They are trying to get the American public to dismiss our freedom of press. A free press has served this country well.

 

The second thing is our main protection from unconstitutional laws is the Judicial system. I hope everyone remembers checks and balances from their high school civics classes.

 

And where did this article come from?

[Texsox]

You speak of bias. Here is what his web site says about himself.

L. Brent Bozell III

 

President of the Media Research Center, Parents Television Council,

and the Conservative Communications Center

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 48, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today.

 

Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Mr. Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America. Established in 1987, the MRC has made “media bias” a household term, tracking it daily and printing the compiled evidence biweekly in its well-known Notable Quotables, which also releases an annual “Best of NQ” edition selected by a nationwide panel of judges active in the news industry. MRC books include And That's the Way It Isn't: A Reference Guide to Media Bias; Pattern of Deception: The Media's Role in the Clinton Presidency; How to Identify, Expose and Correct Liberal Media Bias; and Out of Focus: Network Television and the American Economy. A sequel to And That's the Way It Isn't is pending publication. The MRC Web site at http://www.mediaresearch.org is one of the most popular and comprehensive conservative sites in America.

 

In June 1998, Mr. Bozell launched the Conservative Communications Center (C3) to provide the conservative movement with the marketing and public relations tools necessary to deliver its message into the 21st century.  C3’s online news division, the Cybercast News Service at http://www.cnsnews.com, has become a major internet news source with a full staff of journalists in its Washington, DC, metro bureau, and operates bureaus in London and Jerusalem, with other correspondents around the world.

 

Gee a conservative movement media critic attacks the families of the victims who spoke out against Bush. I'm shocked

[cwsox]

But most of the relatives quoted were fierce critics of Bush. Many of those featured in early press reports were members of a little radical conclave called "September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," founded by about 80 relatives of the more than 3,000 victims of that infamous al Qaeda attack. The Washington Post called them "nonpartisan," which is laughable. They are very active lobbyists of the far Left.

 

 

what some people term as facts I would term as bulls***, non-factual propaganda

 

the arrticle quoted in the lead of this thread is crap all the way through

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The media is only as liberal as its conservative corporate owners.

[mreye]

This is the same thing the GOP has been trying to do. They are trying to get the American public to dismiss our freedom of press. A free press has served this country well.

Huh? Source? Example?

[Texsox]

Huh? Source? Example?

Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, to name a couple.

 

As soon as the media says something negative about the GOP, it is labeled as inaccurate because it is part of the vast "liberal media bias". I am amazed when I hear Rush, mention how the media is so biased when he, Hannity, O'Reilly, Dr. Laura, etc. are the most popular radio shows.

 

mreye, you have to admit the GOP spends a lot of time trying to point out their perceived bias in the media.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Wait a minute the article sites facts.....and you reply with an opinion....

After some serious scrutinizing, I did find a facts in the article you posted, namely the citing of an illegal, immoral and unjustified U.S.-led military action in Iraq.

 

That is a fact, you are correct.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I got this from BartCop but it's pretty fitting:

 

What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush? It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all. But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?

 

I'll tell you what would happen:

 

Rush Limbaugh would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night, saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Dr. Laura would spend at least an hour on her radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

George Steffi and George Will would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.

 

Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Press saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Press saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Still with me? We're close to the end...

 

MSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Wolf Blitzer would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

 

Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN (Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.

 

John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?

 

Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.

 

Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.

Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.

Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.

Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.

Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.

William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.

 

OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."

 

Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.

 

My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"

 

When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?

 

Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.

 

There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television. The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing, Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I am amazed when I hear Rush, mention how the media is so biased when he, Hannity, O'Reilly, Dr. Laura, etc. are the most popular radio shows.

I guess these are all balanced out by the fair and balanced folks at Fox News.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I guess these are all balanced out by the fair and balanced folks at Fox News.

 

And now an announcement from the Ministry of Truth with Hannity, Rush, Dr. Laura et al.

[Queen Prawn]

And now an announcement from the Ministry of Truth with Hannity, Rush, Dr. Laura et al.

Personally, I like the Ministry of Silly Walks better.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yes, it is opinion. I disliked the ad. I believe he was wrong for running it. It is a fact that I thought it was wrong. It sounds like it is a fact that you liked them or thought they were ok.

 

The NRA likes to point out that the frst thing a dictator does is take away everyone's guns. That actually is the second thing they do. The first thing is to take away the media. They head to the tv and radio stations and take them over. This is the same thing the GOP has been trying to do. They are trying to get the American public to dismiss our freedom of press. A free press has served this country well.

 

The second thing is our main protection from unconstitutional laws is the Judicial system. I hope everyone remembers checks and balances from their high school civics classes.

 

And where did this article come from?

Tex and MrEye, this is from Free Press Media Reform:

 

"The past two decades have seen the number of major corporations which dominate movies, music, cable, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, the Internet and TV dwindle from 50 to less than two dozen, with much of the control concentrated in fewer than ten massive conglomerates. The largest firms today do well over ten times the business of the largest media firms of the late 1980s. The result is a cartel-like arrangement in which a few closely-linked industry giants call the shots to maximize profits by reducing competition and lowering risk.

 

Fueling this shift is corporate-sponsored "deregulation" as well as the government's collapsing commitment to antitrust prosecution. While enriching investors, these changes have impoverished democracy. The public is viewed as consumers by the media rather than informed and engaged citizens."

 

"Unfortunately, radio is much the same. The state of radio today is dire: perhaps nothing has devastated the diversity of voices heard on our nation's airwaves than the Telecommunications Act of 1996. With its relaxation of ownership caps, the number of radio station owners decreased by 34 percent even as the number of commercial radio stations increased by 5.4 percent. Dramatic changes have ensued indeed: in 1996, the largest radio-station owning entities owned fewer than 65 stations; today, one Clear Channel owns upwards of 1,200. Proponents of such a policy shift claim this has resulted in more efficient and effective operations by allowing broadcasting companies to take advantage of economies of scale."

 

There are also a few really good books on the subject:

 

The Media Monopoly - Ben Bagdikian

Rich Media, Poor Democracy - Robert McChesney

Our Media, Not Theirs - Robert McChesney

Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky

 

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ - I did a Google search for it about media ownership. It's pretty common knowledge that a lot of the owners of these media monoliths are fairly conservative and that this has a great effect on the news that we hear. Concentration of the mass media only serves to be antithetical to democracy. Media reform is not even like a left vs right issue. Like Orwell said "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." Having a more diverse set of opinions in the mass media can only serve to promote democratic discourse.

[mreye]

Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, to name a couple.

 

As soon as the media says something negative about the GOP, it is labeled as inaccurate because it is part of the vast "liberal media bias". I am amazed when I hear Rush, mention how the media is so biased when he, Hannity, O'Reilly, Dr. Laura, etc. are the most popular radio shows.

 

mreye, you have to admit the GOP spends a lot of time trying to point out their perceived bias in the media.

All of those you named are commentators! The Liberal bias they speak of is in the news. Not editorials.

[southsider2k5]

 

And now an announcement from the Ministry of Truth with Hannity, Rush, Dr. Laura et al.

So how is using a picture of Hitler in reference to Bush not degrading the memories of all of the Jews who died in the concentrations camps? That is hypocracy.

[Controlled Chaos]

Yes, it is opinion. I disliked the ad. I believe he was wrong for running it. It is a fact that I thought it was wrong. It sounds like it is a fact that you liked them or thought they were ok.

 

The NRA likes to point out that the frst thing a dictator does is take away everyone's guns. That actually is the second thing they do. The first thing is to take away the media. They head to the tv and radio stations and take them over. This is the same thing the GOP has been trying to do. They are trying to get the American public to dismiss our freedom of press. A free press has served this country well.

 

The second thing is our main protection from unconstitutional laws is the Judicial system. I hope everyone remembers checks and balances from their high school civics classes.

 

And where did this article come from?

Yes I thought they were ok...I dont think they were distasteful it was a couple seconds showing what happened when he was president....

 

I am not asking to take away the media....I want to see both sides that's all. I didn't hear one report about this group. DID YOU?? All I heard on tv and read on the internet was about what a disgrace this was. I never read or heard that some of these comments were made by people with a political agenda.

 

Yes the author is a conservative....That is my whole point...To find out some of that information you have to go all the way to the other side. You won't hear about it on CBS, ABC, NBC...when the local news stations put their littlle blurb out there about current events...they only say that people are upset and appaled at the presidents ads. They don't hear that....The people upset with the president's ad's, just so happen to be from this left group that is funded by a center that was in turn funded by a group which Mr's Kerry is the head of

 

 

As far as that long ass list posted by apu...yes I agree that radio personalities would probably address it...For years that was the only way to hear the other side....and the people on fox news would address it....but you naming all those other people is just fodder for your argument....I don't think they would address it and the evidence proves they wouldn't becuase you and I both know...this has never ever been mention on any station.

 

I don't think I ever heard a liberal say there is a media bias slanted towards the right.....that is a new one for me.

[Queen Prawn]

So how is using a picture of Hitler in reference to Bush not degrading the memories of all of the Jews who died in the concentrations camps?  That is hypocracy.

FYI - the guy in the post isn't Hitler. He is one of Hitler's henchmen. Point well taken though.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So how is using a picture of Hitler in reference to Bush not degrading the memories of all of the Jews who died in the concentrations camps?  That is hypocracy.

It's a picture of Goebbels, the propaganda minister.

[southsider2k5]

It's a picture of Goebbels, the propaganda minister.

Same difference. The point doesn't change.

[Texsox]

All of those you named are commentators! The Liberal bias they speak of is in the news. Not editorials.

And that is where more Americans listen and get their news. It's all MEDIA.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

SS2K4, read the chapter of Mein Kampf on war propaganda.

 

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

 

And the Goebbels photo wasn't a knock at Bush because there's no equivalence between Bush and Hitler. I concede that especially because Hitler fought on the front lines and won the popular vote but I digress.

 

It's fitting to discuss Goebbels with our mass media: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." It's a condemnation of the mass media conglomeration going on and the fellating of the Bush administration is just a byproduct of such conglomeration.

 

And fascism is not just Hitler's Reich...Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. It was easiest to post the Goebbels photo since he is one of the most synonymous people with the idea of government propaganda outside of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

[Controlled Chaos]

A long but good article...

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=11650

 

 

One Blurb from the article...

 

Or as Jay Leno put it one night: “A group of venture capitalists are in the process of developing their own liberal radio network to counter conservative shows like Rush Limbaugh. They feel the liberal viewpoint is not being heard—except on TV, in the movies, in music, by comedians, in magazines and newspapers. Other than that, it’s not getting out!” The joke got a great big laugh, which ought to tell us something, since the audience wasn’t made up of the Young Right-Wing Conservatives of America—just your regular Middle-American types. You think maybe just about everybody by now thinks it’s funny when the Left complains that, “the liberal viewpoint is not being heard”?