MSNBC Bosses Were 'Basically Pro-War' : Chris Mathews

MSNBC Bosses Were 'Basically Pro-War' : Chris Mathews

rawstory.com

MSNBC's Chris Matthews gave a speech last night at Harvard's Institute of Politics Forum where he made a few eye-opening confessions:

“I am here to make something of a confession,” Matthews said. “Television is limited in the way it can tell the political story of our time.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ahh, and another small piece of the puzzle comes together...No wonder they refused to comment on the "Pentagon Propaganda Scandal"---They likely WERE IN ON IT...

There's something very, very wrong when the media heads are involved in and pimping war and destruction, and this stuff seems to be rampant with our cess-pool of an MSM.

"That's not what I get," he continued. "And it was basically pro-war during the war.. the bosses were. And I was up against that.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Not surprised.

Probably the same way over at CNN, but they have to try and keep a "liberal bias".

They all suck.

Same ol' same ol', always way after the fact and it has no effect on anything. If Chris Matthews has a conscience, he's been fighting it a long time. I'd tell him to save it and go eff himself!

Peace

"MSNBC Bosses Pro-War"

No DUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

MSNBC is owned and run not by even just one, but a conglomerate of TWO major Military Contractors: Microsoft, and General Electric (who owns NBC).

Why is anybody surprised a "News" organization wholly owned by the military-industrial complex has a pro-war slant?

To sell their products--military hardware and software--they need military conflict.

To sell conflict they create "News" networks to feed propaganda to the people and con them into accepting War based on fear and lies.

They keep it going so those who are too stupid to "get it" will keep up with the fear-mongering and drive us further into the hole.

And people are actually surprised when one of their darling "reporters" tells the truth about it? A truth anybody with five minutes, Google, and an iota of curiosity could discern?

Let's see how many pro-war "conservatives" jump into THIS fight.

For those who are curious, here's an item with some useful info attached. Scroll down to the "Comments" and you'll find Wiki articles on the major "news" media and who owns what.

"Liberal Mainstream Media" my right nut.

I have to admit, this is only news to those who weren't paying attention all along. Clearly however there seems to be some kind of 'off' trend now as several 'talking heads' are starting to either 'come clean' or appear to 'come clean.'

Of course, this begs the question, what are the leaders of these 'stalwart defenders of journalistic integrity' up to now? Are they trying to hedge their bet so at some future time they call call for mercy saying 'we were used',?

If Mr. Matthews really wants to confess something, it had better be something that helps actually restore journalism to its rightful form, and not just a half-a##ed confirmation of what diligent citizens have been pointing out for years.

Back in 2003, the TV news media was basically a 24-hour pro-war cheerfest, if I remember correctly.

Now that the war has turned out to be a hugely unpopular disaster, media figures (with an eye for ratings) are pretending they were against the thing from the outset.

There are some people with integrity still working in the MSM, but they're a dwindling minority. As The Nighthawk points out, we can't hope to get a straight story from the MSM, when they are owned by the same people that are making huge profits from the taxpayers pocket, thanks to our addiction to foreign wars.

No surprise that Hillary is the New York Media's favorite either - that's been kind of obvious. And after all, she appears to be running as Bush Lite

[edit on 5/7/08 by xmotex]

reply to post by xmotex


Its not that they're pro or anti war, though.

Its all about ratings. They change the slant of their stories to fit the viewership and the political winds. That's why the left thinks the media has a conservative bias, while the right believes it has a liberal bias. In reality, it has no bias, except lining its own pockets. To that end, the news media will alter its delivery of the news to suit the market. Its all a load of crap and we usually just get one side of the story...the side the media thinks that we want to hear.

Its actually just a form of entertainment, not news.

reply to post by vor78


I can't say that I agree. It seems that the bias was one of doctrine, not convenience. Entertainment value is, of course, the bread and butter of media, but these are people who were and still are calling themselves journalists. It's sort of like a historian who only writes historical material that makes them feel good. It doesn't work if you're going to try and pass it off as 'history'.

Journalism, and news are not really pliable to 'what the people want to hear' - or at least it never had been when the point was to 'get the story' and publish 'what the people have a right to know.' I am old enough to remember that as the rallying battle-cry of the reporters of old.

Now we are looking at some fuzzy notion of news as 'what's popular?' I can't get my head around that as a paradigm shift in the industry. I think it was clearly that most of the news industry simply bought into the agenda in play and engaged in institutionalized propaganda - a decision which met with little to no resistance all the way down the line.

It's like he says what we are all thinking... LMAO

yeah.. this is nothing new.. but it's almost like your American media is FLAUNTING it's corruptness cause it knows American people will do nothing about it..

Originally posted by vor78
Its not that they're pro or anti war, though.

Its all about ratings. They change the slant of their stories to fit the viewership and the political winds. That's why the left thinks the media has a conservative bias, while the right believes it has a liberal bias. In reality, it has no bias, except lining its own pockets. To that end, the news media will alter its delivery of the news to suit the market. Its all a load of crap and we usually just get one side of the story...the side the media thinks that we want to hear.

Its actually just a form of entertainment, not news.

To some degree you are absolutely correct. Having worked in the media I can tell you ratings tend to trump bias on many occasions, although on a local level (I worked in small-town radio) stories that might offend sponsors (most of whom in our small town tended to be conservative) tend to be buried as well.

I think your statement rings true for many major media outlets. But, there are those who also have even more at stake, specifically those involved in military contracting.

What I find really fascinating is learning how many companies whose products we use every day, are also involved in the MIC--and how many of those are also involved in media ownership.

We have a situation in this country where, for example, Fox runs ads for Kraft. Kraft is a subsidiary of Phillip Morris. Phillip Morris is owned by NewsCorp, Fox's parent company. So, Fox is actually taking advertising dollars from one of its own subsidiaries. And Fox isn't alone in this. There's this crazy, incestuous, cannibalistic relationship between the biggest media outlets where they're all literally paying each other for advertising at some level, or getting ad dollars from within. When you go high enough to see the big picture of who owns what and how monolithic the Machine really is it's a very scary and humbling experience. How does one deal with that? And knowing that it's owned by people with evil (or at least selfish, which I consider evil) intent, but that your quality of life would be less without it, what do you do? What can you do?

reply to post by Maxmars


I just see it as any other business. Whatever sells. That doesn't mean that they're making stuff up, mind you. They aren't, but there's little doubt in my mind that the emphasize the good or bad depending upon their viewership and the political winds.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Journalism, and news are not really pliable to 'what the people want to hear' - or at least it never had been when the point was to 'get the story' and publish 'what the people have a right to know.' I am old enough to remember that as the rallying battle-cry of the reporters of old.

My father was a Journalist of the Old School. He came up as a copy boy in St. Joseph, MO, when journalism was primarily a Trade instead of another avenue for colleges to milk students for tens of thousands of dollars. Right now I swear I could hook electrodes to his grave and power half of Chicago, he's spinning so fast.

I think a big part of journalism's decline is the shift from being a trade one came up in, learning directly from other journalists with actual hands-on work in the office and in the field, to being a degreed profession one now pretty much has to get four years (or more) of school for. In radio I worked with degreed journalists, and frankly I wasn't impressed--they knew the theories and the ethical concepts, but they didn't live them the way the "old guys" did. They had trouble with the practical world of day-to-day news gathering, writing, etc. One of them, the last one I dealt with before leaving radio, was next to useless--she had a Master's Degree in journalism, but she wanted to work in radio because she "couldn't BS a page-long story three times a week", she couldn't write worth a damn, had horrible grammar and spelling issues, and didn't want to have to get up early in the morning or stay out late to get an important story. Oh, but she whined all day long about how the program director was incorrect on ethics and journalistic theory and how all he cared about was money (the PD was one of the owners, family-owned station). How she even got an Associate's Degree, let alone a Master's, is beyond me.

Aside from the questionable quality of journalistic education there's also the fact that after taking out tens of thousands in student loans newly-minted reporters are willing to put integrity aside and whore themselves out for the best paycheck they can get. Gotta pay all that money back, ya know.

Now we are looking at some fuzzy notion of news as 'what's popular?' I can't get my head around that as a paradigm shift in the industry. I think it was clearly that most of the news industry simply bought into the agenda in play and engaged in institutionalized propaganda - a decision which met with little to no resistance all the way down the line.

There's that, and there's also the fact of massive media conglomeration in the past twenty years or so. As the broadcasting industry deregulated fewer companies ended up owning more media, to the point where something like 98% of everything we see and hear is owned by only five major mega-companies. In that environment "truth" is completely subject to the whim of the Elite who write the paychecks.