Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE

Oct. 24, 2008 —

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country &

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

************************************************************************************

Commentary

Mr. Malone, an honest journalist, (gee, that's almost a contradiction in terms) has correctly assessed the situation. Maybe he and Bernard Goldberg could get together and actually create an honest and informative publication of some sort.

Let the word go forth to the executive suites of media organizations across the land - keep on with this infernal bilge that you allow your lackeys to spew forth on a constant basis and you will witness an even further erosion of your circulation and / or viewership. Smaller numbers of readers/ viewers means you can't charge advertisers as much i..e decreased revenues. Decreased revenues mean smaller paychecks or maybe even NO paychecks.

This message should also be heeded by the executives of the firms that advertise in the various media. The American public can always decide that they are not going to support your firms and buy other products. Lower sales = lower profits = smaller paychecks

.In summary, message to all members of "management" whether you are CEO, CFO, VP of News, Managing Editor, Assignment Editor, etc. - if you keep on the current path you will be stabbing yourselves in your wallets.

Race Cards and Speech Codes

By Patrick J Buchanan

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.

Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.Came then the morning of the South Carolina primary, where Barack was rolling up a smashing victory. Bill volunteered: "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign, and Sen. Obama's running a good campaign."That broke it. Bill Clinton was openly "playing the race card."Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win -- and my opponent can't."The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.""There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."This shot Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post into low orbit."As a rationale for why Democratic Party super-delegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry ..."Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition -- a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people -- has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.

Ron Paul is interviewed by John Roberts on CNN's American Morning

Benz Speaks!

Recently ( April 28, 2008) , Ron Paul was interviewed by John Roberts on CNN regarding his (Paul's) new book - - The Revolution - A Manifesto and also Paul's continuing campaign for the Presidency. Watch the almost eight minute video posted on YouTube. Click the title to go to YouTube.

Book Description (via Amazon.com)

This Much Is True:

You Have Been Lied To.
The government is expanding.
Taxes are increasing.
More senseless wars are being planned.
Inflation is ballooning.

Our basic freedoms are disappearing.

The Founding Fathers didn't want any of this. In fact, they said so quite clearly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that beautiful, ingenious, and revolutionary document is being ignored more and more in Washington. If we are to enjoy peace, freedom, and prosperity once again, we absolutely must return to the principles upon which America was founded. But finally, there is hope . . .

In THE REVOLUTION,Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has exposed the core truths behind everything threatening America, from the real reasons behind the collapse of the dollar and the looming financial crisis, to terrorism and the loss of our precious civil liberties. In this book, Ron Paul provides answers to questions that few even dare to ask.

Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious. Candidates across America are already running as "Ron Paul Republicans.""

. About the Author

Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation's capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."

After serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a civilian medical practice, delivering over four thousand babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of fifty-one years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."

"There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."

General, Ambassador Wave White Flag After Ron Paul's Grilling

Both the electronic and print media made certain that the world knew that Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain had questioned Gen. David Petraeus before the Armed Services Committee but totally ignored the blistering by Rep. Ron Paul before the House Committee on Foreign Affair

“Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq,” Paul said.

Paul expressed concern about claims that “new enemies” were emerging in Iraq with ties to Iran: “First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the ‘bitter-enders’ from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became al Qaeda in Iraq, a prime focus of the presentation by Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus last September.

Now the two were saying that the new enemies are mysterious ‘Special Groups’ that are said to have spun off from Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

“If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies,” he said, “perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect?”

Paul said he suspects that these Iranian-supported “Special Groups” are not the prime enemy. He suggested they are being used to provide an excuse for a U.S. attack on Iran or are meant as justification for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq.

“It makes little sense to assert that Iran is funding militias to undermine the Iraqi government.

“The leading political parties of Iraq, the Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, have close ties to Iran. Leaders of these parties were in exile in Iran until the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iranian President [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is warmly welcomed in Baghdad by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Why would Iran set up militias in the south to destabilize a government with such strong Iranian ties? I find the allegation that Iran just cannot tolerate an elected government next door to be unsatisfying.”

Paul then challenged them to produce “any hard proof ” that the Iranian government is arming groups in Iraq.

Paul: “Why should the American people continue to support a war that was justified by false information, since Saddam Hussein never aggressed against the United States, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?

“It is said that we must continue the war because we have already sacrificed so much. But what is moral about demanding even more needless sacrifice of human lives merely to save face for the mistakes of invading and occupying Iraq? Doesn’t it seem awfully strange that the Iraqi government we support is an ally of the Iranians who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq? If (Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki is our ally and he has ‘diplomatic relations’ with (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad, why can’t we? Why must we continue to provoke Iran, just looking for an excuse to bomb that country? Does our policy in Iraq not guarantee chaos for years to come?

“It is estimated that up to 2,000 Iraqi soldiers refused to fight against al-Sadr’s militia. Why should we not expect many of the 80,000 Sunnis wehave recently armed to someday turn their weapons against us, since they as well as the Mahdi Army detest any and all foreign occupation?

“Is it not true that with the recent surge in violence in March, attacks are now back at the same levels as they were in 2005? Does Iran not have a greater justification to be involved in neighboring Iraq than we do, since it is 6,000 miles from our shores? If China and Russia were occupying Mexico, how would we react? Since no one can define ‘winning the war,’ just who do we expect to surrender? Does this not mean that this war will be endless since the political leaders will not end it—until we go broke?

”Paul said, “I do have one question that there is enough time to answer: In your estimation, does the administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further congressional approval?”

Petraeus: “Uh, congressman, I, uh, I’m the commander for Iraq, and I do not know the answer to that question, and it’s not within my purview.

”Crocker: Er, uhh, congressman, nor is it in mine, er, ahh, uh, I, uhh you know, my job is Iraq, and I’m just not competent to pronounce on, uh, an issue like that.

”Paul: (who must have been wondering if either had ever read the Constitution) “It disturbs me to no end that we cannot get a flat-out “no” on this question.”

Is He One of Us?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday, April 25, 2008

As one looks at the polls, the issues and the candidates, the election of 2008 resembles what poker players call a "lay-down hand.

"Two-thirds of the nation believes the Iraq war a blunder. Sixty-nine percent disapproves of President Bush. Eighty-one percent thinks America is on the wrong course.

Inflation is at 4 percent and rising. Unemployment is 5 percent and rising. Gasoline, heating oil and food prices are soaring. The dollar has lost half its values against the euro. Homes are being foreclosed upon at Depression rates. The stock market is in a swoon. And 3.5 million manufacturing jobs have vanished under Bush.

Hillary and Obama have both raised far more than John McCain.

Democratic turnout in the primaries and caucuses is two and three times what it was for the GOP. The youth, energy and enthusiasm are on the Democratic side. Voter registration is rising dramatically, and the new registrants are almost all Democrats or independents.

Thirty Republican House members are retiring. In the Senate, the big question is whether Democrats will achieve a 60-40 margin to enable them to kill Republican filibusters.

By all odds, Republican retention of the White House should be as imperiled as it was in 1932, when the hapless Herbert Hoover faced FDR.

Yet John McCain, who presides over a disconsolate party many of whose leading lights not only do not love him, they do not like him, is even money to be the next president of the United States.

What explains this?

Answer: Barack Obama, the probable nominee of the Democratic Party -- his cool and pleasant demeanor aside, and his oratorical skills notwithstanding -- is being steadily pushed by his own mistakes, and rivals Hillary Clinton and McCain, outside the social, cultural and ideological mainstream of American politics.

Hillary's victory in Pennsylvania confirmed what Texas, Ohio and Florida hinted at. Barack has not closed the sale with Middle America. Moreover, he may never close the sale.

What is Barack's problem?

Though he has stitched together the McGovern wing of the party -- the anti-war crowd, the cause people, the professoriat -- with the Jesse Jackson wing -- 90 percent of the African-American vote -- he is being systematically pushed out of the heartland of the party, the white working and middle class. And reinforcing the impression in Middle America that Barack is "not one of us" is the core of both the Clinton and Republican strategies. And they are working.I

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, resistance to the probable nominee hardened and calcified among Catholics, ethnics, union and blue-collar voters, even as Barack outspent Hillary two and three to one.

Racism is the reason, wail the pundits. But this is not a reason, it is an excuse. Barack, after all, ran up record totals in virtually all-white Iowa and is favored to win in virtually all-white Oregon.

Moreover, all politics are tribal. There was resistance in rural Pennsylvania to voting for an African-American, but there was also wild enthusiasm for voting for an African-American in Philly, where Hillary -- spouse of "our first black president" -- was getting about the same share of the black vote as Barry Goldwater.

On balance, as Joe Biden undiplomatically blurted out, the fact that Obama is a black man is an extraordinary asset in 2008. It is the reason a junior senator, three years out of the Illinois legislature, is running first for the nomination, and has become the favorite of a national media intoxicated with the idea of a black president.

Barack's problem is social, cultural and ideological.

Increasingly, he is seen not as a man of the middle, but as radical chic, a man of the liberal and leftist elite who confides to closed-door meetings in San Francisco that folks in Pennsylvania cling to guns, Bibles and bigotries as crutches, because they cannot cope in the Global Economy and government has failed them.

He is seen as a man comfortable with friends still proud of the radical role they played planting bombs in the 1960s, a man who feels relaxed about sending his daughters on Sunday to hear the racist rants of an anti-American berserker.

And if your wife, beneficiary of a Princeton-Harvard Law education denied to 99.9 percent of the people, says she cannot recall ever being proud of America before now, folks are naturally going to be suspicious about why you dumped the American flag pin.

On the big issues of 2008 -- amnesty, the hemorrhaging of American jobs, Iraq -- McCain is on the same side as George Bush, whose approval rating is 28 percent. McCain can be defeated on those issues.

But if, with a little help from Hillary, McCain can paint Barack indelibly as a man of the trendy and radical left, he can win. America will have nowhere else to go.

Journalists disagree on whether immigration, Iraq or the economy will be the major issue in 2008. The real issue may be -- and this is what is causing heart palpitations among Democrats -- is Barack Obama one of us, or is he one of them?

Buenos Dias from Northern Mexico.

by Jim Gilchrist

You will not see this heart-stopping photo on the front page of the NY Times or on the lead story of the major news networks. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School in California .

I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington . The image of the American flag subsumed to another and turned upside down on American soil is already spreading on Internet forums and via e-mail.

Pass this along to every American citizen in your address books and to every representative in the state and federal government. If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be "redistributed" to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the "fray". Check history, it is full ofnations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values. One person CAN make a difference.

One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one....... The battle for our secure borders and immigration laws that actually mean something, however, hasn't even begun.

If this ticks YOU off...PASS IT ON!

Jim Gilchrist is the Founder and President of the Minuteman Project

http://www.minutemanproject.com/index.asp

Ron Paul Survives Lies, Manipulation Of Mass Media

By Mark Anderson

A recent article entitled “A Requiem for Ron Paul,” written by Stacy Cowley for Fortune Small Business magazine online, begins:

“Ron Paul’s Friday announcement that his presidential campaign ‘will soonwind down’ removes from the race a quixotic figure whose doomed pursuit of the White House inspired libertarians and free-market purists, including many business owners who loved his message about a nation free from regulatory fetters.

”Asked by AFP why she wrote that Paul had dropped out when he has not, Miss Cowley replied, “I think we stand by what was written,” while claiming that the article was “not a bias against a particular candidate; it’s just a function of how the media operates.

”When reminded that Paul has not actually pulled out like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney did when they officially quit, she seemed to dodge the matter, while portraying her article as a whole as “a tribute to what he (Paul) was trying to accomplish.” She also told AFP that she put the article together (with two other reporters, just for an average length piece) near deadline, though Miss Cowley said she watched all of Paul’s latest video.

The mainstream media sees Paul as numerically out of the running in terms of delegates. But Paul confirmed he’s still in the race to keep his ideas in the arena (and to be there if McCain falls from grace or if delegates are not bound to McCain in September at the Republican National Convention).

Reporters and editors in the mainstream media want to spin their stories, instead of reporting actual statements and events as they unfold without prejudice. The result is that not enough Americans know about “the other guy” still standing in the GOP field. This deceives the electorate when the nation is in dire straits—and when many who don’t want to vote Democratic also don’t like McCain but generally are not aware there is another choice.

AFP viewed the same video that Miss Cowley and many other mainstream hacks saw, which is Rep. Paul’s latest video statement to supporters posted on ronpaul2008.com. It shows that he has not dropped out of the presidential race. But nearly all media outlets have persistently claimed that he has quit. While Paul does say “victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race,” he nevertheless clearly remains in the presidential race.

“The campaign for freedom will continue in this new phase—in this we will need financial resources to continue,” he states in a comment that the major media will not touch in its relentless effort to nudge Paul out of the race, much in the way that former Democratic candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) was forced out of the running when he was not asked by network wonks to take part in a major televised debate. He charged then that the media was making his decisions for him, rather than allowing him to decide for himself whether to remain in the running.

A valuable spinoff of the Paul campaign is exposure of the major media for what it is—an untrustworthy propaganda belt that cannot be believed. This manipulative information ministry lately has hung its hat on Paul’s statement in the video that “the presidential campaign will soon wind down.”

However, the next words out of Paul’s mouth were: “But we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that’s ongoing in other states by loyal volunteers.”

The big media also has latched onto Paul’s words: “We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects.”

Many reports have characterized that video comment as signaling a dignified surrender. However, Paul said on CNN’s American Morning show: “If you’re in a campaign for only gaining power, that’s one thing. If you’re in a campaign to influence ideas and the future of the country, the campaign is never over.”

Some supporters say the Paul campaign is slow in setting the record straight when the media lie about his status. Evening news reports on NBC and other national networks report as if Paul doesn’t exist. It’s just the lackluster McCain on one hand, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the other.

Paul has remained true to his word that as long as his supporters want him to remain in the presidential running, he will do so—even as McCain remains the media hyped “leader” for the GOP but is vulnerable to mounting scandals and revelations about his counterfeit conservatism and his checkered past.

Besides being listed as a member of the infamous Council on Foreign Relations in the CFR’s 2007 report— putting him in close quarters with the ruling-class establishment that pushes for a U.S. empire and a North American Union—McCain has not earned much heartfelt support from Republican-leaning media pundits (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc) and various longtime GOP fixtures such as evangelical leader James Dobson.

But this GOP clique will not even mention Paul as the Reagan-like figure they claim to be longing for. But, as noted in Newsweek, Paul knew Reagan well, admires and practices some of his philosophy (get rid of the Education Department) and won “The Gipper’s” personal support when seeking election to Congress.

Paul did not want to lose the Republican nomination for his Texas congressional seat, since he wants to continue his revolution. He won that hands down versus a determined opponent. And, as AFP has noted, with that victory in his back pocket, his load is lighter and he is able to stay in the presidential running to at least give old-guard Republican voters a constitutional choice.

Republicans, Paul said on CNN, “have a right to vote for someone that stands for traditional Republican principles.”

In his latest video, Paul also reiterated the idea of having a summer march in Washington to amplify his revolution’s ideas and emphasize its enduring presence on the political scene.

“It looks to me like June 21 would be a good day,” he said, adding, however, that other individuals or groups, instead of the Paul campaign, would have to be the march’s main organizers. He attributed this to legal, logistical and practical reasons. If his march happens, AFP will be there.

As for the other media, who knows?

Mark Anderson can be reached via email at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
(Issue # 12, March 24, 2008)

Video message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_vVaZxTno

Benz Speaks aka "The Idiotorial"

Benz Speaks aka "The Idiotorial"

If you think that what you get from the various "news media" is the "truth", the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth."You are sadly mistaken. The "news" that you get is modified, distorted, hidden or eliminated by the various "news" outlets as dictated by owners, major advertisers or government entities as needed. Three examples come readily to mind. One has to do with the non-coverage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan. The other two have to do with people that have recently spoken out on the controversial topic of UFOs. One of these was a resident scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The other was a reporter at a small newspaper in Texas. I could go on and on, but why should I. I think you get the picture.

Crossing The Rubicon: Breaking The Fake News Trance

by Neil Kramer

The phrase ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ is a metaphor for proceeding past a point of no return. It originates from 49 BC when Julius Caesar directed his legions south across the river Rubicon (a traditional barrier between the Roman province of ‘Cisalpine Gaul’ and Italy proper) towards ancient Rome in defiance of the Roman Senate. Upon crossing the river, Caesar is reported to have shouted "Alea iacta est" ... the die is cast!

In terms of the awakening process, Crossing the Rubicon is a key revelatory stage when you realize, beyond any doubt, that the government is NOT your friend. The stark recognition that you have been living in a false paradigm created by someone else begins to sink in. It is here, at this bleak philosophical crossroads, where most people experience such a disturbing degree of

cognitive dissonance, that they instinctively turn back. Too much to process and the implications are huge. So even knowing that there is a greater truth on the horizon, they choose instead to return to the Control System, to the Village, with all its securities and comfortable certainties.

“You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? [Takes a bite of steak]. Ignorance is bliss.”

Abandon Self-Limitation All Ye Who Enter Here

Journalist Nick Davies has arrived at the shores of the Rubicon. He’s currently causing quite a stir in UK media circles. His article in the Independent sums things up nicely -

How the spooks took over the news. Essentially reflections from his book Flat Earth News, Davies illustrates how “shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and the media simply swallow it wholesale.” It’s really energizing to observe how this information can land slap bang in the middle of the mainstream outlets. Without doubt, it reaches people and helps to consolidate awareness of how easily the news is skewed towards a pre-determined message. Even more interestingly, Davies also suggests who the perpetrators are and why they’re doing it. Sure, he’s selling a book – but his information is credible (according to my research), and after listening to a recent interview with him, you can tell it is also heartfelt.

In the Guardian, Davies describes how

Our media have become mass producers of distortion and he evidences this with clear, unambiguous examples. He convincingly delivers the message that “the mass media generally are no longer a reliable source of information.” That is, for those who need any more convincing. Regardless, he is pretty much a lone voice taking an admirable and revolutionary stance against hordes of supercilious hacks.

Davies is careful to characterize the problem as a structural thing; it’s not really about attacking individual journalists. He points to the momentous change of press ownership as the pivotal event responsible for mutating quality news into fake news. Switching from the historic patriarchal proprietors to the mega corporations, like News International owned by Rupert Murdoch’s

News Corp. We know that the raison d’être of the corporations is to make money. Quality and truth are quite irrelevant. So over a short period, Davies believes that the instinctive logic of commercialism gradually replaced the objective logic of journalism. The consequences were devastating for the integrity of impartial news reporting. The corporate ownership of news has now all but destroyed the principle of truth telling by grossly politicizing the news agenda and drastically reducing the actual time available for journalists to do their jobs. This tends to propagate churnalism (bad journalism; journalists that churn out rewrites of press releases) and hence bias. And we’re not talking about the gutter press here. We’re talking ‘quality’ newspapers.

Davies has unearthed some incredibly damning information. “I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their "facts", they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn't be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these "facts" had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories. The implication of those two findings is truly alarming. Where once journalists were active gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest. Not journalists, but churnalists. An industry whose primary task is to filter out falsehood has become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.”

The news is horseshit. This can no longer be construed as unconventional, activist opinion anymore – it is plain, well evidenced, undeniable fact. We must seriously discipline ourselves (and those we care about) to stop being suckered by what we see on BBC & CNN, and by what we read in The Times or The Post. A far better alternative is to seek out one’s own news. Believe nothing unless you have done your own research. Use the Internet. Practice being a prudent and discerning researcher; employ equal measures of intuition and critical judgement at every turn. And remember, the Internet was not even widely available before 1994. There were no other easily accessible alternative news sources. You got your news from the TV and the paper or you got nothing. You could haul your ass down to a decent public library and spend a few days trawling through archive newspapers and microfilm. But rather unlikely. So now the Internet is here… use it.

The Matrix: It Just Works

Nick Davies has figured out that the media is a propaganda machine and there never was a golden age of independent, equitable journalism. However, Davies appears unaware (as most people are) of the sheer penetration of the Control System. For example, he states that [after 911] “For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception.”

To students of the esoteric and the transcendent, it is elementary lesson #1 that the Control System’s containment techniques have been in place from the very beginning. Thousands of years of deception and suppression. Though that is rather a mind-bending stretch for those without a basic grounding in the hidden history of mankind. You have to digest the works of a few dozen alternate historians and arcane researchers (employing the proper research techniques of course) to begin to understand that the real strands of history are revealed through esoteric symbols and the traditions of ancient mystery schools. The official history books and encyclopaedias give only a very limited, surface level of data. You have to dig deeper.

Even though Davies is eloquently and accurately proclaiming media collusion in a government/spook sponsored programme of mass deception – the public sort of don’t care. And that is the genius of the Control System: its ability to channel apathy. It is not enough to demonstrate that our governments are corrupt. Most people already know that. Sometimes Joe public might initially be shocked at the squalid details of exactly how crooked our governments are - but it’s still not going to shift the train tracks from the habitual circular layout. Work food tv sleep… work food tv sleep. I foresee a time when it will be proven beyond reasonable doubt that 911 was the work of a cabal of CIA, MI6 & Mossad agents conspiring with senior figures in the US government. Nothing to do with Arab terrorists. And guess what? No one will care. A few politicians and military personnel will go to jail. Enough time passes and people don’t care. They forget. They’re watching American Idol and 24. Everyone knows something is fishy about 911 but what to do about it. Who gives a damn that we’re still illegally occupying Iraq? And what are we doing in Afghanistan exactly? Did the American military lie about Iranian gunboats harassing warships in the Strait Of Hormuz? Whatever, let's watch Prison Break.

Ever since the days of Nixon and the egregious Kissinger, anyone who has kept an eye on politics has been aware that conspiracy and corruption are standard government practices. Assassinations and espionage are the staple diet of operational agencies like MI6 and CIA. Any

ridiculous claims to the contrary do not stand up for long. Amidst the tiresome Princess Diana courtroom charade (she was executed end of story), Ian Burnett QC, for the coroner, asked former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove the following question: "During the whole of your time in SIS (MI6), from 1966 to 2004, were you ever aware of the service assassinating anyone?" Dearlove replied: “No, I was not.”

You’ve got to laugh.

Michael Moore’s 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 is a classic example of the limited utility of pursuing documentary based exposés. He turns the spotlight on the US and military administration’s apparent ineptness and secrecy in handling the 911 event, but fails to explore the idea that 911 was nothing to do with 19 Arab hijackers. That would be crossing the Rubicon into unknown territory. He won’t do that. Moore does succeed, however, in highlighting corporate corruption, illegal invasions and political favouritism. But even the casual viewer intuitively knows that. Whist Moore’s analysis of government responses and dodgy deals resonates well throughout the film, the effect does not last. The viewer leaves the theatre and still goes to McDonalds, still votes Democrat, still thinks Football is important and still believes that CNN are broadcasting news.
No intelligent researcher who has taken the time to systematically analyze the events of 911 can come away thinking it was just another political and administrative fuck up. No chance. 911 was a breathtakingly audacious mega ritual. And it worked. Professionally executed, meticulously planned and successful in achieving its objectives of broadcasting fear and rushing through totalitarian legislation (masquerading as The Patriot Act). The parallels that some researchers draw between the corrupt governments of the US/UK and the Nazis are perfectly reasonable. Watch how they become even more closely aligned over the next few years.

So Moore’s predicament is quite explicable to me. Without a spiritual solution, there is NO solution. And I don’t think he can offer a way out. He can dish the dirt, but he can’t propose a meaningful resolution to the practical problems of living inside a dictatorship. Notions of lobbying congress, demonstrations in the streets, leafleting, boycotting stuff, even taking up arms – all utterly pointless. You’re playing their game with their rules and they will always win.
Jump off the moving train. Take the spiritual path.

Changing Beliefs, Raising Frequencies

As I have said before, if human consciousness allows itself to be manipulated through fear-based and trauma-based systems (entrenched in our media, entertainment and news broadcasts) then the Control System can implant a reality of its own that keeps us self-limiting and passive. We are just cabling for their network.

Breaking the trance and going through the cognitive dissonance is hard. But once through the other side, the profound insight and enhanced awareness are deeply liberating and a source of immense internal power. All the messed up, gloomy socio-political problems like immigration, crime, health, housing, war, economy, education – they all begin to make sense. They aren’t a mess because the government is inept, they are a mess by design. To keep the wheels turning and the workers working. Keep em busy. A life’s work to own a house. A decent pension right at the end if you’re lucky. Madness. Inhumanity. Once you have the ‘coordinates’ (the magic codes that make sense of all the surface weirdness), everything begins to slot into place. The mist of confusion evaporates. You can see. And the Control System coordinates are horribly uncomplicated: 99% of the planet lives in a consumer plantation designed to provide physical and spiritual slave labour to an elite few. A Control System exists to maintain and protect the system. The best metaphor for it can be found by watching

The Matrix.

Imagination is our holographic engine. It makes the world. Literally. If our imagination is running someone else’s program, we are living in someone else’s dream. It is time to take control and observe how manipulated scientific and religious dogma has misled us about how our world actually functions. Time is not linear. We are not hopeless wanderers in a cold lifeless universe. We do not cease to exist when the body (the bio-suit) is finished. Life is a progression of many lives, many consciousnesses and many worlds. This is one of them. You are one story; one piece of cosmic consciousness. Indestructible. We are designed to interact with the universe by articulating and encoding it with our wisdom, love, intent and creativity. These are things of galactic significance. Not nice-to-haves.

Do not let someone else’s belief system restrict your imagination. No religion, no government, no teacher can guide you better than you can guide yourself. The very act of comprehending the nature of our creative consciousness undermines the Control System by raising the frequency of consciousness out of the manipulation field and into inspired independence. I believe, as others have for millennia, that the outer world is a direct reflection of our own private inner consciousness. When a critical mass of people understand that the game is not a good game anymore, that there is a better way of living and evolving, then the awesome synchronous power of the universe begins to paint a new world into being.

Further Notes

Listen to an interview with Nick Davies. There are a number of items on this Guardian podcast, but after a bit of interviewer babble, Davies is first up.

David Icke on ‘repeaters’. Very relevant to this article.

Operation Paperclip describes how the Americans brought Nazis into some of their leading organizations (like NASA) following WWII.

http://thecleaver.blogspot.com/2008/02/crossing-rubicon-waking-from-fake-news.html

Nick Kramer lives in Manchester, England

koan@inbox.com