Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-04-27 at 1.58.13 PM
Your host at work.

***

  • ***

********


« Who's Now Winning Every Day on the Democratic Campaign Trail? John McCain | Main | Thorazinetime for Hillary »

February 23, 2008

Comments

Realist

This story shows how much the media has decayed since they were taken over by corporatists. They have lost their ability to even know what news is, much less what to do with it and how to present it. Being off their game for so long has made their muckraking muscles flabby, and there's no quick fix for it.

There are newer and more agile competitors to the traditional newspapers and their offspring in the radio and television fields emerging out there. They don't need multi-million dollar presses or transmitters - just access to the Internet. They heard Jello Biafra's call issued while addressing a Kent State audience not to fear the media, but instead to be the media, and they will run rings around the dinosaurs they will quickly supplant.

Mooser

It's impossible not to notice that McCain expects everybody involved to change their story to conform to his latest megillah.

When they won't, or can't (those damn intertubes!) do that, he blows his stack.

And the real scandal is how little sex it takes to wrap McCain around your finger:

She: Oh Mr. McCain, you don't look a day over 60!
McCain: Did you need something from the FCC?

Angelina MaldeTesta

I'm thinking this stuff about McCain and the female lobbyist may be a clever Rove move: put the story out now, everyone focuses on the non-story that has absolutely no proof behind it - just allegation - that he had an affair with her - who cares? But it can be dismissed and forgotten - taking with it the critically important part - McCain is DIRTY with lobbyist money - has lobbyists working right from his campaign bus...that's the story that will go away and never be mentioned again (if it works - like duhduh's cocaine bust...disappeared - poof!)

Lj

Great commentary, PM. Although I disagree a tad with "Realist's" assertion that the media had "decayed since taken over by corporatist." Yes, we did have a high level of excellent reporting and investigative journalism in the late 1960s and early '70, for example Walter Cronkite's reporting from Vietnam and Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate reporting.... but that great reporting ONLY came after the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops, volunteers AND DRAFTEES, in the Vietnam war. As a "for example," the American media SWALLOWED the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" hook, line and sinker in 1964... reflecting the American national attitude that we wanted to kick some Commie insurgent ass in Saigon and Vietnam. (The 1960s saw a blossoming of thousands of other important small-d democratic and anti-business, anti-establishment issues as well, but like the meat packing scandals of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" of 1906,
http://www.capitalcentury.com/1906.html
so many of these issues were crying for attention, and were LONG OVERDUE - partly because the media had neglected them for so long. As another example, for almost 100 years, Americans had _IGNORED_ the 15th Amendment, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" when anyone with an IQ over 12 understood that the vote most certainly WAS DENIED and ABRIDGED for almost 100 years in segregated states, until Johnson finally forced the Voting Rights and Civil Rights bills through a stubborn Congress (and media) in 1964 and 1965, and that success would have been quite impossible without the "Camelot" image of the martyrdom of President John F. Kennedy for "freedom and democracy" being used to confront the segregationists.)
Please excuse my digression, but the above is only a historical preamble to my main comment: that PM hits the nail on the head of an important issue, that "conservatives" may protest that they doth dislike John McCain much (for this issue or that issue), but this is mostly sound and fury narcissism, like Rush Limbaugh's career bashing of those convicted of even minor drug crimes, while he was sending his maid out to buy Oxycontin "hill-billy heroin" on the street in what would get most Americans convicted for conspiracy to deal in controlled drugs.

In the main, being a Bush-Cheney "conservative" means HATING, EXPLOITING, and DEMAGOGING SOME GROUPS for the economic and social benefit of the entrenched elite, and that "Conservative" REJECTION of McCain would spin around to SUPPORT for McCain, as soon as he rose to the nomination, and he more finally tuned his campaign to match the high-powered lobbyist who swarm the senate at all times in the first place.
PM's other major point, that the Times could UNDERCUT an otherwise good report by a few semantic issues - in this case, failing to declare that the in-depth investigation into McCain's history was part of a parcel of in-depth investigations into all the other candidates - just points out what we already know, that the public often responds to style OVER SUBSTANCE.
(For example, the world-class BS notion that George Bush is a "compassionate conservative" or that his administration has even remotely made America more secure or safer.)

The comments to this entry are closed.