Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Maniacal Media Factory and Dr. No

The Maniacal Media Factory and Dr. No

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I am often amused at how the mainstream media uses overt propaganda under the guise of news in its incessant quest to brainwash the public. What I find even more hilarious is how various political pundits will refer to certain television networks as "liberal". What often comes to my mind is certain references made recently regarding MSNBC as being of a liberal bent. I never thought of General Electric (who owns NBC) as being of that political persuasion at all.

That being said the primary purpose of this article is not only to point out how some of these corporate entities engage in propaganda, but also to show how they will outright lie either by omission or commission to further their agendas, which in my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with news.

I have watched for quite some time how Dr. Paul has been ignored in the press. I do not mean never mentioned, I am more referring to how little they report on him, or if they do at all it is often done disparagingly. Taking the cue from one of these behemoths, the one with the slogan "fair and balanced", I would think that other media outlets would follow suit. I cannot refrain from occasional sarcasm.

What often surprises me is how many times I see people in the public swallow such obvious bias. The most recent that I have seen was last Thursday's  Republican Presidential Debate on CNBC. One would think that in a "free and democratic" country with "open and fair" elections that professionals in the 'truth' business would do everything that they can to insure fairness to the process. After all we are electing our next President, and this is arguably the most important political event of these next few years.

So was it an accident, that as usual Ron Paul was called on last with a question in the last debate? He usually is, so I do not think this was an accident. However this was just the beginning of the charade. I suspected, and it was soon confirmed, that Dr. Paul would not be given a fair chance to present his views. The debate lasted 90 some odd minutes, and the total time that Ron Paul received was six and a half minutes. This was less than half of the time of ANY other candidate. Not only that, he was also asked considerably less questions than ANY other candidate. MSNBC decided that they would allow each candidate to ask another a question, conveniently none of the others asked Paul a question. This is how you treat a Candidate? This brings to mind the Fox News debate where Dr. Paul was not allowed to participate at all. What I found even more shocking was that they would not even return his phone calls! If this is not the height of arrogance and hubris I do not know what is. The guy is a presidential contender and can't even get a lousy phone call back!

Also, in what looked like a blatant and overtly hostile, but "fair", question from Tim Russert; Paul was asked if he really wanted to get rid of Social Security, and say that to 3.5 million Florida voters. For the record Dr. Paul has never said that he advocated removing elderly or disabled people from the sysem.  He has always said that this would not be done. So I found it to be a little bit disingenuous on Russert's part to ask such a leading question. Incidentally, this was also done in a similar fashion on Fox's Republican debate (you know the one after the one where they banned Ron Paul from participating).  He was again put on the spot and asked to distance himself from 9-11 Truthers. I wonder why they did not ask Rudy (whom Dr. Paul has beaten in every engagement) about his relationship with a certain former NY Police Commissioner.

It is one thing to either disagree with or fear a Presidential Candidate's position on the issues of the day, but quite another thing to use the "news" to unfairly and untruthfully characterize his positions, not to mention overtly ignore him in such an unseemly fashion.

A case in point is the recent Nevada Republican Caucus, where Fox News aired reports with graphics showing McCain  coming in second, when he did not. There is a video link at the bottom that shows this. I am not particularly concerned with what the mainstream media may object to in Paul's philosophy. What I am against, is their omission  and deliberate snubbing of a serious and well financed (without corporate sponsors) contender. It smacks of favoritism, dishonesty, and occasionally character assassination.

Unfortunately this has not just been done by the news organizations that I have referenced, it has been done my most media news outlets. Among them Newsweek, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The LA Times, the Sacramento Bee, and numerous other so-called respectable news outlets. In my opinion they should be ashamed of themselves, to have the audacity do deny the citizens of this country fair and balanced coverage of Presidential Candidates.

Dr. Paul has come in second in two states. Nevada and a recently held Caucus in Louisiana, this fact has hardly been mentioned, and to this day is still for the most part being ignored by the mainstream media. The media know that their reporting or lack thereof, or painting a picture of a candidates positions can and will have an effect on the voter. So in fact, they are doing two things at the same time. One is pretending to present something as news, while at the same time trying to foment opinion away from or towards a particular candidate, although they would never admit it. It is plainly obvious.

What amazes me even more than this unprofessional approach to the news is how many people swallow it, usually without any real outrage. The fact that these Corporations now are the ones to deliver the debates to you in living color with such overt conflicts of interest should bring a chill down the spine of freedom loving Americans. It does not, and that is one of the reasons that I have little hope of this Republic surviving.

Sometimes I think that people like being lied to, and will continue to like this type of behavior as long as their candidate is represented fairly. Those of us that are Americans have been raised for the most part to believe in fair play, particularly when it comes to such things as elections, and counting votes. I do not see this anymore for the most part. No outrage, no protest, an occasional call for instance for paper ballots as opposed to invisible computer ones perhaps.

I think that it is time for all of us to admit that we have little to no say in the electoral process as Americans anymore. This election is brought to you, and paid for by huge Corporations who's interests rarely are the same as most voters. Perhaps we should start calling this process and the Corporate Electoral Presidential Race.

There is another video on here showing very suspicious behavior regarding New Hampshire's electoral recount process currently underway. You may notice, as did I that one particular public official looks like a deer caught in the headlights!

Enjoy your election, its better than the movies, even if we all know what the ending will be. Stay tuned.



Powered by

About Pablo

  • David

    “Sometimes I think that people like being lied to, and will continue to like this type of behavior as long as their candidate is represented fairly.”

    The situation created is that the mainstream media shapes the way we decide how to vote. Voters are making their decisions with a limited set of information on the candidates — effectively letting the media put the blinders on them for them.

    Many people are apathetic and lazy, and do not seek out more information on their own to make informed decisions. These sheeple are the kind of people that they want constrained votes from.

  • huck

    Here’s another video on youtube for you.. check out the stats in the USA Today article and how they ignored the one candidate who actually has answers for the upset Republicans who were polled..

    The “old media” is getting desperate and sloppy in revealing their bias.

  • huck

    oh.. and check this video out.. the local Florida TV cropped out a HUGE number of Paul supporters in their report. Anti-war Democrats can vote for Paul in Florida btw since FL won’t be earning any Democratic delegates for them.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Not to burst the bubble of justifiable rage here, but I have to point out that the Media’s treatment of other low-polling candidates has been equally shoddy. Kucinich couldn’t even get on the stage in the last few debates before he dropped out. And Bill Richardson who was far more mainstream than Paul and getting similar results in polls and primaries got even less media airtime and debate face time than Paul did.

    Dave

  • http://www.coinspiracy.wordpress.com Pablo

    Dave,

    This is one of the few times that I wholeheartedly agree with you sir. Since they use polling almost exclusively and incessantly to point out various strengths and weaknesses of candidates, and the fact that the New Hampshire Primary (aside from conspiracy theorists such as myself) election results were so completely wrong, you might think that these media outlets would show a little humility. They quite frankly make me sick.

    Occasionally I do watch these networks, frequently what I will do, is when the ads come one, I will take notes on some of the sponsors, and make sure that I do not buy any of their products. It may not be much, but I get satisfaction out of it. :)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It’s not just the New Hampshire polls that were wrong. The polls in every primary have been way off. The pollsters are doing something very wrong. They’re missing some key element or portion of the public they ought to be taking into account. I’ve never seen results so terrible.

    It started with the exit polls which have been so far off for several elections and now it’s getting worse and worse.

    I actually expected them to miss the enthusiasm for Paul by more than they did, but missing the levels of support for major candidates by 10+ points as they did in South Carolina? That’s just incompetent.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    Dave,

    Well you can call it incompetent, I would call it something else altogether, as you know how fond I am of invisible computer voting machines, and conspiracies.

  • troll

    as I understand it cell phone numbers are only now being incorporated into the sampled population of phone numbers

    this should help accuracy

  • Andrew

    You, sir, are exactly right. The major media claim that they treat Dr. Paul the way they do because his poll numbers and primary performance are so poor. Not so. In many cases, he’s out-performed Guliani, and, when he was still in, Thompson. Actually, cause and effect are being reversed. Paul is not getting that kind of treatment because his numbers are poor. Paul’s numbers are poor because he gets that kind of treatment. The media, in fact, do not like his libertarian leanings. They therefore marginalize him by asking leading questions, no questions at all, or outright ignoring him. Media people know how to effectively brainwash people. You don’t come right out and tell people what to believe; you present the story in order to LEAD people to believe what you want. The media have been doing it for years, but until this election cycle, I thought it was just the liberals…………..

  • Clavos

    I’d better not get some f–ng pollster calling me on my cell and costing me minutes.

    He/she will get an earful, and their bosses will get a very nasty letter.

  • troll

    …not to worry Clavos – use the “no call” list which I believe covers pollsters (if someone knows different please correct me)

    your attitude will be factored in as will other problems caused by including cell numbers such as the significant multiple representation of some individuals in the surveyed population

    it seems unlikely that many people will give up their cell phones protesting the intrusion or the expense

  • Clavos

    I’m already on the no call list, so that’s good to hear, troll.

    I gave up my landline (except for the DSL) a couple of years ago; my wife and I each have our cells, with different #s (of course).

    The no call list works well; it’s great not getting solicitation calls anymore…

  • Chad_Underdonk

    Actually, in their defense I’ve seen a number of very favorable pieces from the L.A. Times about Dr. Paul. There may have been others which were not so nice that I didn’t read, but there have also been many which were not slanderous or disingenuous like have been found from so many other sources.

  • Les Slater

    Pablo,

    You make some good observations, but I do not believe you are particularly ‘amused’ by what you find. You seem more surprised, even shocked and certainly frustrated.

    What you are beginning to see is a reality. It is not just that recently that this reality has been around. You see it through the eyes of someone who has sympathy for the candidacy of Ron Paul. He certainly is not covered with the seriousness that he deserves.

    You conclude with:

    “I think that it is time for all of us to admit that we have little to no say in the electoral process as Americans anymore. This election is brought to you, and paid for by huge Corporations who’s interests rarely are the same as most voters. Perhaps we should start calling this process and the Corporate Electoral Presidential Race.”

    This should be heeded by the supporters of Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney too. The fact that your candidate is treated with more respect is an indication of the fear that those that control the major media of the potential instability and social crisis that we are facing. They want the blandest, most ‘trustworthy’, no surprise, candidate they can find. This rules out Obama at the top of the ticket. He would raise expectations too much. VP would be just fine.

    Les

    PS: There is nothing ‘maniacal’ about it. It is just their interests at work.

  • Brad Smith

    It’s been quite a few days now and still no official word on the Louisiana caucus results. There are a few reasons for this and for anyone who still is interested I’ll try and explain why.

    The easy part is the provisional ballots. The date to register as a Republican was Nov 29th. but the LOGOP only used a list that included people who had registered as of the 1st. So all the voters who Registered between the 1st and 29th had to cast provisional ballots. It is presumed that most of these were Ron Paul supporters. Furthermore, some of the delegates for Ron Paul were also forced to cast Provisional votes. None of the Provisional votes have been released that I know of. This is one of the official reasons for the delay.

    The second reason is a little more complicated. It goes something like this. When you vote in their caucus it is not for your candidate of choice but for a delegate. These delegates then go on to vote for delegates later at the state level. Depending on whether the later primary has a consensus their vote will either determine 20 or 42 delegates who will go to the national convention. Most likely no candidate will get enough votes in the later primary to garner the 51% needed for a consensus. Therefore, the caucus delegates will determine 42 delegates not 20.

    Now I’ll back up a little. When you go to the caucus to vote you are voting for a delegate (person). However, you are supposed to know which delegate to vote for because the candidates’ name and picture is on a piece of paper or ticket. This ticket included the names of the candidates delegates and a little info on each candidate. The combination of the candidate and his delegates is called a slate.

    In this caucus for the first time and most likely last time delegates where actually allowed to be on more than one slate. This came about with the Ronald and Nancy Reagan slate (their picture was on the ticket) that was titled pro-life pro-familly. The Reagan slate included delegates for Giuliani , Huckabee and McCain. However, most of the people who voted for the delegates on the Reagan slate did not know that the same delegates were also on the slate for Guilioni, Huckabee, and McCain. They thought they were voting for delegates who where uncommitted or basically none of the above.

    So this is the situation we have now. The Reagan/uncommitted/none of the above recieved the most votes. However, sense McCain had the same exact delegates (same persons) on two different slates some of these delegates got enough votes to go to the state and cast their vote. But who are they supposed to vote for McCain or Reagan? No one knows. However, because they were on McCain’s slate they have unofficially declare McCain the winner because more of his delegates have received enough votes to go on to the state and cast a vote for an actual candidate. But, his delegates aren’t really his if more people voted for the Reagan slate than the McCain slate. All delegates are uncommitted and can vote for who they please, but most vote for the candidate that put them on the slate. As I stated earlier this is the first time that Louisiana has allowed delegates to be placed on two different slates. I suspect (and hope) it will be the last considering the confusion.

    So, in a nutshell this is where we are. Ron Paul got the most votes that where actually cast for a candidate. Reagan got the most votes cast for a slate. And McCain got the most delegates of any candidate because his delegates received votes from people voting for his and Reagan’s slate.

    If anyone is interested or is still confused just ask and I’ll try and confuse you (I mean clarify) this a little more.

    Ron Paul for President 2008!

    Peace, Brad Smith (just another devoted Ron Paul Fan)

    Ps. The reason the media is not covering this mess is that it would give Ron Paul a bump going into Florida.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I humbly submit that the actual reason the media is not covering this is that it is such a godawful and cack-handed way of going about things that they figure it’s best just to let Louisiana sort itself out, wait fot them to announce the final results (in about February 2010 by the sound of things) and then publicize it.

  • Pablo

    For all you freedom lovers out there, the following link will take you to a Bev Harris interview that was recorded today concerning the overt voter fraud occurring right now in New Hampshire. Those of you that are not interested you can go back to sleep again, all is well with the world.
    Bev Harris runs blackboxvoting.org and has been working for years to bring fairness and accuracy
    to our electoral process.

    Bev Harris 1-28 interview

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Thank you, Brad, for reminding us how unrelentingly retarded the state of Louisiana is.

    I was wondering how the hell they ran their ramshackle version of a primary and now that you have explained it I still have no fucking clue how they do it.

    I do think it’s cool that you can vote for Ronald Reagan even though he’s dead. Given the backwards character of their system I’m surprised Napoleon or Andrew Jackson aren’t still on the ballot.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “Given the backwards character of their system I’m surprised Napoleon or Andrew Jackson aren’t still on the ballot.”

    Or Jean Laffite…

    As to their backwardness, one has only to look at the stark contrast between NOLA’s and Louisiana’s handling of the effects of Katrina and Florida’s response to any hurricane since the 1950s.

  • Pablo

    Dread,
    You said:
    “I humbly submit that the actual reason the media is not covering this is that it is such a godawful and cack-handed way of going about things that they figure it’s best just to let Louisiana sort itself out, wait fot them to announce the final results (in about February 2010 by the sound of things) and then publicize it.”

    This is taking one instance, that being the Louisiana Caucus, and in my opinion dismissing as either unimportant or irrelevant the numerous references that I made to the MSM distorting, ignoring, and if necessary outright lying to denigrate a candidate that they do not like. That may be fine for a political commentator, but to present it as “news” is nonsense and hypocritical in the extreme.

    As far as the Louisiana Caucus is concerned, Dr Paul has made a formal complaint contesting the credentials and selection of delegations, and possible voter fraud. Here is the link to his Press release dated 1/26:

    Ron Paul Press Release

  • Richard Wicks

    I’d like to point something out.

    Anybody that was vocally opposed to the Iraq war before the Iraq war began, and is against a pre-emtive war with Iran, has been marginalized.

    This is Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul.

    THIS is the issue. Everybody that’s being ALLOWED to run, isn’t really for ending the war in Iraq, and is willing to blow up Iran.

    That’s what the media is promoting.

  • TK

    #11 — January 28, 2008 @ 08:59AM — troll

    …not to worry Clavos – use the “no call” list which I believe covers pollsters (if someone knows different please correct me) .

    Sorry but our dear politicians excluded themselves from the “No Call” list. Figures!

    Ron Paul’s treatment including outright censorship or negative comments passing-as-news by the establishment press, was becoming so obvious they had to switch to fully-ignoring him in hopes Joe six pack taxpayer, who is about to be out of a job, and his soon to be draft age sons, will not notice him running at all.

    The problem for the establishment is Ron Paul’s ideas of returning to constitutional limits and to a sound money policy and his promise to stop the U.S. from invading other countries, for oil or otherwise.

    The press, including the talking heads on T.V.,cable, are now in the hands of heads of a few big corporations or rich and powerful owners and they pull the strings. It appears the owners have more than a vested interests in who is in power and exercise their clout when it comes to any real threat like Rep. Ron Paul.

    Pass along the word and keep your powder dry.

  • troll

    thanks for the correction re politicians…but does that cover pollsters – ?

  • Clavos

    “Everybody that’s being ALLOWED to run, isn’t really for ending the war in Iraq, and is willing to blow up Iran.”

    So GWB is in control of BOTH parties now???

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “So GWB is in control of BOTH parties now???”

    Bush, like all modern presidents, represents the interests of a small minority, the super wealthy capitalist families. It is they that control both parties and NEED to continue these wars. Whomever becomes the next president will continue the war policy in some form.

    Les

  • Clavos

    “Bush, like all modern presidents, represents the interests of a small minority, the super wealthy capitalist families. It is they that control both parties and NEED to continue these wars.”

    Ah, yes.

    The super wealthy.

    God bless them.

    And me; that I may soon become one of them and add significantly to the defense stocks in my portfolio…

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “The super wealthy.”

    “And me; that I may soon become one of them…”

    I doubt this very much.

    “…we are a one-driver ……, three car family.”

    And I doubt very much that your chauffer is that ‘one’ driver.

    You are not now nor will you ever be counted amongst the super wealthy. But otherwise you agree with my #25?

    Les

  • Clavos

    You misunderstand me, Les.

    I meant that I would like to become one of the super wealthy, though I think you’re right that I likely won’t.

    It’s not impossible, however; Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim, Ted Turner and Warren Buffett (even George Soros) all come readily to mind. There are thousands of others (I sell boats to some of them); hell, all of the Forbes Four Hundred are billionaires, and most didn’t inherit it.

    So I’ll settle for just wealthy (which is on the horizon).

    Unlike you and Pablo, Les, I don’t think the super wealthy are in control of everything, no.

  • troll

    why do you want to be rich Clavos – ?

  • Irene Wagner

    A friend and I passed out a hundred Ron Paul flyers this weekend, and we had conversations of a minute or more with about half the people who took them. I was pleased, and disgusted at the same time, by the large number of people who said, “This guy sounds terrific. Why haven’t I ever heard of him?”

    Start knocking doors, Pablo, and/or leaving these Ron Paul trifolds where ever you can legally. You can print them right from the .pdf page, and they look fine in B/W if you don’t have access to a color printer.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Maybe the press is wary of appearing to support a candidate who spent years publishing racist, homophobic, paranoid newsletters that are filled with hate. Please read them for yourself; pdfs of complete pages are available at the link, which leads to the New Republic’s invaluable story on the bigoted history of Ron Paul.

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “Unlike you and Pablo, Les, I don’t think the super wealthy are in control of everything, no.”

    The politically active layer of the capitalist class and their hirelings don’t really control everything, correct, but they try to control what they think they can. Evidence shows that they are having trouble with control. Events keep on surprising them. In actuality it is events that determine what this class can do. Their control is not absolute, it is within certain bounds, which they can only try to influence.

    The basis of my optimism is that this class is finding itself boxed further and further into a corner and they have even less power to control events.

    Les

  • Kathy from PA

    Thanks for posting the link for the tri-fold. I will begin printing and distributing everywhere I go that it is legal.

    I have cut and pasted a letter to the editor that I recently wrote our local newspaper. Please anyone who would like feel free to use it in part or in it’s entirety, make changes to it, whatever… but use it, and get it to your local papers NOW.
    Why the Media Boycott of Ron Paul’s Campaign?

    At first I thought perhaps I was one of the Tin Foil Hat people, complaining without justification that my candidate of choice, Dr. Ron Paul was not getting enough media attention. Recent events, however, have firmed my resolve that Dr. Paul’s message in some way threatens the established mainstream media, and his campaign is being treated like the red-headed stepchild of politics.

    First there was the December exclusion by Fox (or FAUX as I like to refer to them) of Dr. Paul in the New Hampshire Republican primary. Even the GOP pulled their endorsement of the event. Was the fact that he was excluded newsworthy? Apparently not.

    Paul has consistently beaten Rudy Guiliani in the caucuses and primaries to date. Guiliani is all over the news. He’s been “saving himself” for Florida where he hopes to take the state on the 29th. He’s still considered a “front runner.” HOW?

    As I watched the results of the Nevada caucus come in with great interest, Dr. Paul was either second or third all night, ending up in second, with 14% of the vote. It was largely ignored by the press and media. At one point, on Fox, they had a banner picture of Romney, who was in first all night and the winner hands down, no problems there. Next to him was McCain, who at that moment in the results was THIRD, after Paul, and next to him a picture of Huckabee with 9% of the vote – 5% less than Paul. Dr. Paul’s name wasn’t even mentioned.

    There have been other instances too numerous to get into here, but the treatment of Dr. Paul’s candidacy as if he’s some sort of insignificant inconvenience and not worthy of air time or discussion raises many questions to this voter.

    What is it about his message that has everyone running scared? His platform rests on the belief that the United States needs to get back to the constitution, back to our individual rights and freedoms, that we should not police the world, that we should not offer amnesty nor welfare to illegal aliens, that we should not continue to borrow from China and print money that is worth 1/14th of what it was in the 70’s when we went away from the gold standard, and perhaps most disturbing to those whose finances depend on it, that we should NOT be involved in this war.

    Great ideas all, and oddly enough Dr. Paul’s VOTING RECORD backs up these beliefs.

    I would urge ANYONE voting in this year’s primary in April to truly examine the candidates. Listen to what they say. Check their voting records and see if they have had the backbone to vote accordingly, or whether they are paying lip service to we, the gullible who only hear what we want to hear. Do you want your next President to be chosen solely based on religion, gender or race? Because that is apparently what is newsworthy and that is what we are spoon fed nightly on every major news channel.

    Change is the buzzword for this election. But if you truly research the candidates, you will find that there is only one who will enact change. That is Dr. Ron Paul. I think we are AFRAID of change. Let’s get back to Government BY the people FOR the people.

    Don’t let the media choose our next President, yet AGAIN.

  • Clavos

    troll #29:

    Independence.

  • Baronius

    Clavos – If you become mildly wealthy, do they give you power over some people? Do you get to join slightly secret clubs and control small-to-midsized media? You could be one of the 140 families that control your county, and maybe fix the prices at your local gas station.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Baronius: As Pablo will tell you, ;-) if you’re only midly rich you don’t get invited to join the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), but you do qualify for membership of the CFPP (Council of Foreign Pen Pals). The head of this organization is of course that guy in Nigeria who wants you to send him all your money so that he can share his lottery winnings with you. This ensures that you will never progress beyond being mildly rich, and the Sinister World Order can proceed unchallenged. Devilishly clever.

  • Clavos

    Exactly Doc.

    According to those of my clients who are mildly wealthy, it’s a mildly pleasant situation which can be fun at times with some circumstances being somewhat in your favor.

    Most of them get to control themselves some of the time.

    That’s why they buy boats; the Captain’s word is law.

  • Pablo

    Dread,

    Not a bad post, I suspect you are baiting me. I do like the clever humor though.

  • Clavos

    “I suspect you are baiting me.”

    Sharp, Dude!

    Nothing gets by you!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    …And for those of us who are not at all rich, there is of course the CFA (Council on Foreign Acquaintance), otherwise known as… well…

    …this site!