SwiftVets.com

[Me#1You#10]

Emphasis mine...

"The American people need to ponder, long and seriously, the consequences of freedom of the press unfettered by responsibility, accountability or rational perspective — the freedom of the press to commit treason."

[Barbie2004]

There certainly needs something to be done about the MSM.

But what scares me just as much is a press that is controlled by the government.

Something is causing the MSM (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, etc.) to act in tandem, even though they are from "different" and "competing" organizations.

We need to find out what that is, what allows or "forces" the MSM to act in tandem. Rush has said that it is "group think." I disagree. IMHO, it is something else. And I am determined to figure it out.

The MSM are NOT acting like "competitors" they are behaving like "conspirators" and there is a big difference.

Turning over the press to the government, IMHO, is not the answer. I believe MORE competition, like the NEW media, unregulated by the government, is the answer.

Remember: We never could get anyone in the government, McCain (who is a media darling) in particular, to challenge Kerry on any of his activities!

Sounds like the MSM is desparately upset that they no longer have their monopoly. And thank god they don't, or I am afraid I, and my fellow citizens, would never have heard of the Siftboat Veterans and Kerry would be "President-Elect."

[scotty61]

The sad fact is that today the term "journalistic ethics" has become an oxymoron. The MSM shot their wad for Kerry and he still lost. By 2008 Brokaw, Rather and possibly Jennings wil have left the scene. It remains to be seen if their replacements will wield the power that they did and how they will use it. Change is coming, but will the MSM become less biased or will they retreat and forgo any objectivity?
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times.

[Digger]

I agree that something must be done about the press and likewise I agree that a government controlled media is also undesireable. The Blogs are a good start. The internet offers us the best option of any available but we should use it to do more than just post counter statements to the nonsense that the Liberals write. We really need to go on the attack and take them out at their base. We need our own people in the field to dog their reporters and journalists where ever they go. If one of us coulld be at the same scenes as their people we could insure that they report the truth and not their rack of propaganda.
_________________
Hey swifty, I'm with you, Just watch you don't get "Kerry'd away in the propwash

Sgt. Maj. Seamus D.D. MacNemi R.M.C. Ret.

[Wynne]

I believe the lemming-like knee jerk reactions of the MSM are group think -- mandated by editors trained in liberal schools of journalism and supported by in-bred competition. Writers who manage to get through liberal journalism schools still thinking for themselves and daring to express it are almost never hired by the liberal MSM. And MSM outlets are all competing to get the scoop, to get the prize, and so the first one to say something is quickly followed by all the rest saying the same thing.

As much as I have sometimes wanted to regulate the MSM out of existence, I do not believe in any kind of regulation of the media other than standards of decency applied by the FCC. Freedom of the press is one of our basic rights, the bedrock of a free society. Just as President Bush said the desire for freedom is given of God so is the desire for free and honest expression.

It is no coincidence that the internet, virtually unable to be regulated, has evolved at the same time the MSM is being exposed as corrupt. The Blogosphere is the voice of the people, the first truly free press, self-monitored, held accountable only to and by honest thinkers, and where survival of the fittest is the order of the day.

The MSM, to survive, is going to have to CHANGE (translation: "report honestly") and they are beginning to realize it. But you can't legislate this. The MSM is changing as they watch their customer base shrink ($$ flying out the window). Already they've begun to 'hold meetings' trying to figure out how to 'get around it'. Soon they will realize they can't 'get around it' and they will either shape up or disappear. Those who last will demand change in journalism schools who will also be pressured to change by their own 'scholarly research' into the New Media and by their donors ($$ again).

It's called a 'free market society'. It works. Takes time but in the long run the 'fix' is permanent because it comes from the bottom up and is a natural evolution.

It's happening already -- big time -- and I'm sure enjoying watching it happen
_________________
TRUTH IS ALWAYS THE VICTOR

[srmorton]

Great article and great response, Barbie2004. I could not agree more.
It's amazing to me how many of those who lived through Vietnam are
ignorant of the true facts of how the media caused us to lose a war that
militarily we had won. Of course, I know the truth because I have been
listening to Rush for about 12 or 13 years. Rush is one of the alternative
sources of information that we are blessed to have now that we did not
have during the Vietnam era.

P.S. And megadittos to Wynne, a fellow North Carolinian!
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[Barbie2004]

Thank you, srmorton.

I know there is something very wrong with our press, but I definately don't think that gov't regulation is the answer.

What is so funny is when I hear those in the MSM blame the "New Media" for the MSM's transgressions. Where they seem to be suggesting that the answer is that we should all go back to the "good ole days" of ABC, CBS, NBC and NYT.



They sure don't like there competition, and will try to get their monopoly (oligopoly) back.

srmorton wrote:

[Paul Woll]

There just needs to be huge consequences and fines to MSM for misreporting the truth and/or evidence of using forged documents. As well as firings.

[I B Squidly]

I don't believe in regulation either. I do believe some hefty fines for FEC and FCC violations would have a salutory and instructive effect.

The news divisions of the big three have been loss leaders for their networks. Switching to 'infotainment' over the years hasn't stopped their precipitous ratings fall. Loss leaders don't work if they do not generate volumn. They've closed their bureaus, switched to a reliance on outside sources and can't justify their bloated salaries and continuing operating losses. The corporate owners can read the P&L even if the talking heads can't.

The big dailies are no better off. They're saddled with big new printing plants even though readership's been declining for decades before the web arrived. They've consolidated and scrambled for ad dollars in stranger and stranger places. It's becoming harder and harder to justify the death of all those Canadian trees for personals and grocery ads.

I don't think the OLM will have much force in 2008.

If Bill Bradley's and Wlm Paley's revelations over the years haven't convinced you that the news isn't what it seems consider what is it that sustains these thirty years the 'Myth of Deep Throat'?

[Beatrice1000]

[Barbie2004]

Let me clarify some of my statements.

I certainly don't think the press should be so "free" as to report anything that would harm our troops or mission.

Actually, I believe that the press should NOT be allowed to be "embedded" in the military, for many reasons. Reasons include:

First and foremost protection of the troops and mission,

Second, they are just in the way and more nuisance than anything else,

Third, the troops should NOT have the added burden of protecting the press, just their fellow soldiers and the mission.

If it were me making the decision, if I would allow the press there at all during any military missions, which I would not, the press would be there at their own risk! Period! Our troops have enough to worry about.

[Guest]