Bush controlling the 'free' press - for what purpose?

Yes, all the news networks are controlled by the same parent companies, EXCEPT FOX NEWS CHANNEL. And PBS I guess.

So, all the liberal networks are controlled my the same liberal parent. Which is AGAINST The President. Again, I ask where is the evidence that Bush controlls the media. There are NEVER any positive news storys about him.

It is foolish to think that he controlls the networks.

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp - known conservative

CBS is owned by Viacom

The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

www.opinionjournal.com...

ABC is owned by Disney

Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York, WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC is considered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts, both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt Drudge.

Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September 11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I totally concur." It's hard to imagine that anything in Moore's film will be more controversial than that.

Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all his work: "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market," he has explained (Oregonian, 10/26/94). No journalist is allowed to advocate for a balancing point of view on ABC's news programs.

www.fair.org...

NBC is owned by GE

GE is a defense contractor with deep links to the pols in Washington.

Election Cycle
Total Contributions
Dems
Repubs
% to Dems
% to Repubs

2004
$2,141,622
$957,056
$1,182,816
45%
55%

2002
$2,024,799
$860,145
$1,164,204
43%
58%

2000
$1,981,534
$791,150
$1,185,946
40%
60%

1998
$1,151,412
$490,875
$655,487
43%
57%

1996
$1,116,323
$495,993
$617,650
44%
55%

1994
$955,419
$568,964
$389,030
60%
41%

1992
$1,345,758
$774,391
$576,892
58%
43%

1990
$634,736
$382,381
$254,355
60%
40%

TOTAL
$11,351,603
$5,320,955
$6,026,380
47%
53%

www.opensecrets.org...

Total GE PAC contributions in 1999-2000 can be broken down by Presidential, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representative races: GE PAC contributed $268,500 to House Democratic candidates and $357,900 to House Republican candidates, $100,600 to Senate Democratic candidates and $147,500 to Senate Republican candidates. In addition, GE gave $5,000 to the George Bush campaign. The Company also put up $100,000 for the elaborate inauguration ceremonies for the new President. No money was given to Democratic presidential candidates.

www.geworkersunited.org...='General%20Electric%20politics'

PBS:

NEW YORK — Ken Ferree, the new president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is asking some tough questions. For example, “Does public television belong to the Democrats?” In fact, in a recent New York Times Magazine article, he argued that PBS should try to attract more conservative viewers.

Questioned by writer Deborah Solomon about whether he was worried that this might turn off the network’s liberal base, Ferree replied, “Well, maybe we can attract some new viewers.”

More conservative ones? Solomon wondered. “Yeah! I would hope that in the long run we can attract new viewers, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves to a particular demographic,” he said.

www.vermontguardian.com...

PBS, frequently in the crossfire for a perception that it leans left, has hired conservative commentator Tucker Carlson as host of a weekly public affairs program.

www.sfgate.com.../news/archive/2003/11/10/entertainment1556EST0622.DTL

Don't kid yourselves - these guys are neck deep in Bush and Co.

Don't kid yourselves - these guys are neck deep in Bush and Co.

So, do you believe Bush as ordered the networks to report nothing but NEGITIVE news storys about him? Because that is what is happening!!

No matter how you connect Bush to the companys that own NBC, CBS and ABC. It does not change the fact that President Bush has NO control over them. This is because they only say bad things about him!

Again, why are you not looking at the facts???

Or do you think Bush has ordered them to speak only ill of him???!?!?!?

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Boatphone]

To say Bush has control over the media is unbalanced in the way our government works. I feel the control over the media is there but not by Bush. You have several other polititions in the government that would have more lobby money and operatunities for the media. Besides that from my own experience with prior issues, knowing what was going on with a situation, then being breifed about what not to say, then be briefed on what is "public" info and see the same "public" info come accross the news(including Fox), that is totally different than what "really" happened, oh, and the president wasn't responsible for what was released to the press, it was a 2 star general that gave the press release. I am sure the president knew what was going on, but out of any of the stories I have seen take place like that, the president was never involved in the press release. Even if the president or general joe bob was invloved in the press release, the majority of the time it is "censored" for national security reasons. The majority of the stories that are changed is because any and all of our enemies can watch those channels, and it is usually not a good idea to let the enemy know the entire truth about what is going on. It is not the fact that the american people get a shady story, its the fact that other countries can also see those stories. If I didn't make the thought clear, let me know, I will try to better explain.
--Valnrick

So, do you believe Bush as ordered the networks to report nothing but NEGITIVE news storys about him? Because that is what is happening!!

Oh, really? And which negative stories would those be? Would it be this one on ABC:

WASHINGTON Jun 12, 2005 — President Bush thanked U.S. service members and their families at a pretaped Fourth of July celebration Sunday night at Ford's Theatre.

"We appreciate the military families who are with us tonight," he said at the end of an evening of song and comedy. "It is not easy being left behind while a loved one who goes to war. Our military families also serve our nation. And America is grateful for all of them and their support and sacrifice."

Bush and his wife, Laura, had been entertained by a slew of show business stars, including the host, "blue collar" comedian Jeff Foxworthy, who started off by saying what a pleasure it was for him to be performing for the leader of the free world.

"And her husband," he added to a big laugh from Mrs. Bush, who made a protracted tour of the Middle East last month.

Foxworthy noted that the event, dubbed "An American Celebration" and attended by many of Washington's power players, was not his normal crowd.

"I don't see any ballcaps or sleeves cut off," he said, peering out at the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

abcnews.go.com...

Or perhaps it's this one on MSNBC:

Vice president says Dean 'over the top'
Cheney says DNC chairman's comments helping Republicans

WASHINGTON - Howard Dean is “over the top,” Vice President Dick Cheney says, calling the Democrats’ chairman “not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party.”

“I’ve never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I’ve never met anybody who does. He’s never won anything, as best I can tell,” Cheney said in an interview to be aired Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

Dean was elected governor of Vermont five times between 1992 and 2000. He ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination but closed down his campaign after poor showings in early primaries.

In recent weeks, Dean has described the GOP as “pretty much a white, Christian party” and said many Republicans have “never made an honest living.” Republican leaders have called on him to apologize, and even some Democrats have distanced themselves from his remarks.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Or perhaps it's CBS you don't like:

Bush Arm Twists On Stalled Agenda

(AP) The future economic security of the nation is in the hands of Congress, President Bush said Saturday.

Setting the stage for a week in which he will push stalled sections of his domestic agenda, Bush told his weekly radio audience that lawmakers need to get an energy bill to his desk within weeks and embrace his ideas for changing Social Security.

On Tuesday, the president will discuss Social Security with young people in Pennsylvania.

"Our young people understand that if we fail to act, Social Security will not be sound when they need it," Bush said, repeating the message he's carried cross-country on his campaign to change Social Security and ensure its future solvency. "They know that the millions of baby boomers about to retire will live longer and collect benefits that the system cannot afford."

www.cbsnews.com...

Or perhaps it's this 'negative' story on CNN that you don't like:

Rice takes stage to help ailing singer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A musician long before she became an academic and then a world-famous diplomat, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took to the Kennedy Center concert stage Saturday to accompany a young soprano battling an often-fatal disease.

Rice's rare and unpublicized appearance at the piano marked a striking departure from her routine as America's No. 1 diplomat. A pianist from the age of 3 she played a half-dozen selections to accompany Charity Sunshine, a 21-year-old singer who was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension a little more than a year ago.

The soprano is a granddaughter of Rep. Tom Lantos, D-California, and his wife Annette, who Rice has known for years. The Pulmonary Hypertension Association, formed in 1990, presented the concert to draw attention to the disease from which more than 100,000 people are known to suffer.

www.cnn.com...

Please provide links to these terribly negative news stories about Bush that you object to. I'm waiting ...

I would also add, that even if they don't out and out cheer for Bush, merely ignoring unflattering information - like the downing street memo for one example - aids bush.

Just because something isn't gross and in your face doesn't mean it isn't there, right?

That said though, isn't it possible that the cut to PBS has more to due with trying to save money where ever you can, and lets face it PBS is generally a sink hole for cash. I would view this more as a economic decision more so than a political one.

I was watching NBC Nightly news the other night where I saw some Iraqi's all performing in an orchestra. I guess everything is going great over there

They sure are loving all their freedom!


[edit on 6/13/2005 by Lecky]

That said though, isn't it possible that the cut to PBS has more to due with trying to save money where ever you can, and lets face it PBS is generally a sink hole for cash. I would view this more as a economic decision more so than a political one.

I might agree with you if every single news article on the funding cut didn't directly link the politics of PBS with the cut.

Here's an example of the inside politics at PBS:

This is no trivial concern. Congress contributes some fifteen per cent of the annual budget—two billion dollars—of PBS and its three hundred and forty-nine member stations. In the Bush era, with Republicans in control of Congress, an organization like PBS, which is perceived as liberal, seems particularly vulnerable. In February, Common Cause warned that conservatives in Congress were planning to slash federal funding for public broadcasting. One target was the weekly PBS program “Now with Bill Moyers,” which, since its launch, in January, 2002, has aired more than three dozen stories and interviews exploring how conservative policies have endangered the environment.

During the Reagan era, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting came under particular scrutiny. Richard Brookhiser, then a C.P.B. board member and a senior editor at National Review, urged a “content analysis” of PBS programming, in order to study the purported left-wing bias of public television. When Newt Gingrich was designated the Speaker of the House, in 1995, he denounced public broadcasting as “this little sandbox for the rich,” while proposing to “zero-out” its federal subsidies. “The only group lobbying” for public broadcasting, Gingrich said, is “a small group of élitists who want to tax all the American people so they get to spend the money.” Some elected officials talked about selling part of the public broadcasting system to investors; Senator Larry Pressler, of South Dakota, wanted to enact legislation to privatize public broadcasting.

Public television arose from a conviction that commercial television was often, in the words of a Federal Communications Commission chairman, Newton Minow, “a vast wasteland.” President Johnson wanted to model American public broadcasting on the system devised for the BBC—independent, yet with continuing government funding. According to Bill Moyers, who was then an aide to the President, Johnson believed that a dedicated tax would erect “a moat” between politicians and public broadcasting; he laid out “the most impassioned case” to Wilbur Mills, who was then the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. As Moyers recounts it, Mills listened, and when Johnson had finished he said, “Now, Lyndon, you know—you know, Lyndon!—that if you were still up here you would be on my side. But you know, Lyndon, we’re not going to give money to anybody we don’t control.” Moyers sighed. “We lost the game right there,” he said, “because we didn’t have the independent fund.”

www.newyorker.com...

And even more of the politicking:

Bill Moyers is not taking attacks by Bush Administration allies on public broadcasting in general and his journalism in particular sitting down.

"I should put my detractors on notice," declared the veteran journalist who stepped down in January as the host of PBS's NOW With Bill Moyers, who recently turned 70. "They might compel me out of the rocking chair and into the anchor chair."

Moyers closed the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis on Sunday with his first public response to the revelation that White House allies on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have secretly been holding PBS in general -- and his show in particular -- to a partisan litmus test.

"I simply never imagined that any CPB chairman, Democrat or Republican, would cross the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House. And that's what (CPB chair) Kenneth Tomlinson has been doing."

Recalling former President Richard Nixon's failed attempt to cut the funding for public broadcasting in the early 1970s, Moyers said, "I always knew that Nixon would be back -- again and again. I just didn't know that this time he would ask to be the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

That was a pointed reference to Tomlinson, a Republican Party stalwart, who contracted with an outside consultant to monitor Moyers's weekly news program for signs of what Tomlinson and his allies perceived to be liberal bias. Moyers ridiculed the initiative first by reading off a long list of conservatives who had appeared on NOW, then by reading a letter from conservative US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) praising the show, and finally by noting that Tomlinson had paid a former Bush White House aide $10,000 to do the monitoring.

"He spent $10,000 of your money to hire a guy to watch NOW to find out who my guests and stories were, $10,000!" Moyers exclaimed. "Gee, Ken, for $2.50 a week you can pick up a copy of TV Guide on the newsstand. A subscription is even cheaper, and I would have sent you a coupon that can save you up to 62 percent! Or for that matter, Ken, all you had to do was watch the show! You could have made it easier with a double Jim Beam -- your favorite -- mine too! (We had some things in common.) Or you could go online where the listings are posted. Hell, Ken, you could have called me collect and I would have told you who we were having on the show!"

www.thenation.com...

and

“In other words,” says Jonathan Mermin, “if the government isn’t talking about it, we don’t report it.” He concludes: “[Lehrer’s] somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the ‘liberation’ of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment ideal of a press that is independent of the government.”

Take the example (also cited by Mermin) of Charles J. Hanley. Hanley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Associated Press, whose fall 2003 story on the torture of Iraqis in American prisons — before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced — was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact that “it was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source.”

www.freepress.net...

The press is being locked down tight by this administration. We should worry.

Yes, I'd have to agree that there is some type of conspiracy going down with the Bush admin and our media. It's obvious and getting more and more ridiculous...

His purpose (or their purpose) is to downplay what's going on in Iraq, as well as in his own administration, diverting attention from some suspicious documents (supposedly more than 1) that have been 'leaked' by the British gov't.

Reasons why I think this:

- There's no DSM mentioned hardly anywhere in the mainstream media.

- That fiasco in congress w/ Sensenbrenner and his outburst over the patriot act the other day...barely even discussed

- Ministers Were Told of Need for Gulf War 'Excuse'...again, nada

- What's this PBS nonsense? God...please no!

- Kerry made the same grades as Bush in college!...BIG NEWS apparantly.

A slip through:

- That global warming 'cover-up' (oops busted!) What in the hell is that about? (again this is barely even touched upon in the MSM)

and last but not least...

ALL OVER THE NEWS IN AMERICA: Howard Dean said that the republican party was "pretty much a white Christian party"

...even Cheney thought it was so important he mentioned it today, way more important than any silly British memo. He seems really concerned about the future of the democratic party.

Right when I signed on to AOL (yes I know it sucks), there was Cheney's big evil face and a poll if whether or not I thought Dean was helping or hurting the democrats.

Who owns AOL btw?

Stay tuned: I just know Hillary Clinton is going to do something evil! I hear there's a book coming out!

(Sorry for anything BIG I've left out, I've just noticed the above over the last couple of days)


[edit on 6/13/2005 by Lecky]

Oh please, in is a fact that the majority of news stories on the big three are anti-Bush. Your examples are few and far between. Remember Dan Rather?? Or how about the false reports of Koran abuse...


get real people...

Originally posted by Boatphone
Oh please, in is a fact that the majority of news stories on the big three are anti-Bush. Your examples are few and far between. Remember Dan Rather?? Or how about the false reports of Koran abuse...


get real people...

Remember both were part of a larger story, the larger story was true. Essentially isn't that political equivilent of getting off on a technicality?

Which is the anti bush stories again?

Originally posted by Boatphone
Oh please, in is a fact that the majority of news stories on the big three are anti-Bush. Your examples are few and far between. Remember Dan Rather?? Or how about the false reports of Koran abuse...


get real people...

You know there has to be a certain amount of bad press on Bush to keep folks like you lulled into believing this free and liberal press BS. Of course they only focus on the Democrats attacking Bush making him look bad then that gives you the idea of liberal media. They then ignore the real dirt on Bush showing Bush always under attack from them evil democrats.

Now where was this so called liberal media when they were crucifying Clinton over sex? If they were so liberal why did they go after Clinton like that? Nobody died over that, but here if this Downing Street memo (Prime Ministers home and government offices the same importance of a White House memo being leaked) proves true then that would mean that this President lied to Congress and the American people to lead them into a war by fixing facts and intelligence.

And this has been in the British press for over a month and not hardly a word here on it and you want me to believe that the free press exists that the republicans don't have control over it. If the media was so liberal they would have been reporting this over and over. If they were doing their jobs they would be reporting this over and over. Wake up! You think because you hear a little dirt on Bush that the press are after him. if they said nothing bad about him it would be obvious so they have to put out a little dirt but they control the dirt and what little dirt get out they got folks everywhere believing the liberal press made it up.

observer.guardian.co.uk... US military confirmed yesterday that soldiers and interrogators at Guantánamo Bay did desecrate copies of the Koran.

Originally posted by Passer By

Originally posted by Boatphone
Oh please, in is a fact that the majority of news stories on the big three are anti-Bush. Your examples are few and far between. Remember Dan Rather?? Or how about the false reports of Koran abuse...


get real people...

Remember both were part of a larger story, the larger story was true. Essentially isn't that political equivilent of getting off on a technicality?

Which is the anti bush stories again?

Regradless of truth it AT LEAST shows that the media is not covering for Bush and at worest shows that their personal bias is leeking into thier reporting...(which I believe is the case).

Again, no evidence that Bush is getting any breaks from the media.

Originally posted by Boatphone

Again, no evidence that Bush is getting any breaks from the media.

Exactly what would it take for you to believe he was?

The government does have a lot of influence over the media, but I don't see evidence of direct control. However, the amount of influence is enough to spread the spin and propoganda the government wants spread.

How does it work? Remember that the media is dependent on the government for permission to attend press conferences, for the right to ask questions at such conferences, and for tons of other information the media has no direct access to. The media dutifully reports such information without questioning its truth, as it is official information and can not be independently verified even if they wanted to.

Those who don't play the game don't get the juicy scoops, so everyone who reports at the national level plays the game, or risks getting the brush off, which is career suicide.

Bulldog 52:
I agree with you here. People might suppose spending a little more time listening/reading and learning what's going behind the lines.

Then we all might learn the truth re how distorted the facts can really be by the same people who represent the Country.

My good God ! Wake up and smell the deceipt.

Dallas

Bush controlling the Press..

For Dictatorship to the U.S. Public through the media.

Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas

Bush controlling the Press..

For Dictatorship to the U.S. Public through the media.

Dallas

Most kings don't even have the level of control in the daily lives of the population that the US federal government has. The US is the most regulated nation on earth based on the number and extent of laws, combined with the ability to enforce them. It's not the most tyranical, because it is for the moment mostly a nation of law, but that's the piece Bush & co. are attacking with legislation like the Patriot act, the real ID, etc.

Your average dictatorship mostly leaves the population alone as long as they claim loyalty, pay their tributes, and don't get caught doing anything treasonous.