http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002329581nadinbrzezinski Sun Feb 19, 2012, 04:59 PM
Something functional on media dysfunction
It is not just who owns the media, but also the incestuous relationship between parties, power structure and media.
The media wants to retain access, this leads to stories not running because of that need for access, perceived or otherwise. This has led to a crazy system where stories are not covered due to this need for access...for that matter candidates challenging the power structure get no media coverage due to these issues.
We do not have a government system of censorship. What we have is a self imposed censorship system that is just as damaging.
It will take small indie media to break these patters. And even that, it will be difficult.
Suffice it to say long gone are the days when you did not know Cronkite was a right winger, and access was much wider and news was a tad wider. This is also one reason the large media conglomerates want to shut down the small ones. They fear small indies will figure this out and start doing what they are not doing. As is traditional large media has ahem, trust issues.
Regardless, this is a very toxic state for our democracy and the future of the nation.
I don't claim to have the solution...since it is rather complex...but something will have to give.
Right, Cnn, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox, are afraid of Nads.
Only afraid she'll sit on their patters, and crack them.
I'd be afraid too.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:04 PM
RZM
1. Walter Cronkite a right winger?
That would be news to me.
It's in code, RZM. You wouldn't understand.
Response to RZM (Reply #1)
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:08 PM
nadinbrzezinski
2. Yes he was, but you never knew it you see, RZM, you're an idiot according to Nads.
It was a media code, hence billo and Keith would not have gotten news shows back then.
That media code disapeared with the Fairness Doctrine and... Yes, the rise of FOX. YAY!!1!
People coud have a bias in the editorial pages by the way. These days we are back into the era of partisan yellow journalism where papers are bought to push agendas. I will point to my local rag, the Union-Tribune, a RW paper that now is falling off the table when it was bought by Manchester....
As I like to joke, the 1880s are here all over again.
RZM throws the flag! Party on, DUde.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #2)
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:23 PM
RZM
5. No he wasn't. Quite the opposite, actually
Last edited Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
He was hated by the right. Here are a few choice bits from his wikipedia page:
He then list several sources. Many quite credible.
Nads freaks and scolds the nay-sayer.
Response to RZM (Reply #5)
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:32 PM
nadinbrzezinski
6. Look who you are quoting he did, DUmbass, that's why he threw the flag
He was to the right of the political spectrum for the era he was working in.
These days even St. Reagan is not right enough.
When I say he was, I am aware that by current standards nobody in the 1960s media system was. In fact,the concerted attack on the media by the John Birch types (and Nixon aparatchicks) started because of Watergate...as in full fledge.
Oh and having Rush call somebody a flaming lib is not exactly an endorsement. Anybody who does not agree with the far right are flaming libs, commies, socialists and fascists.
Why he is adored and hated, depending on who you ask, is precisely because he kept his personal believes that close to the vest.
This is also why that shoud be the ideal in reporting, but one I will never see in my lifetime...not unless a lot of things change...by the way.
There was a few more, then....
Response to RZM (Reply #7)
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:42 PM
zappaman
9. The OP is wrong. no sh*t
http://www.mrc.org/profiles-bias/walter-cronkite-liberal-media-icon
No reply from the great one.
