Why the Media Hates and Fears Super PACs

story from Breitbart
by John Nolte

Why the Media Hates and Fears Super PACs
This article brings a theory to light about how it's the Media that wants full control of the "electioneering" that seems to be focusing on the new wave of "Super-PACS" having all the money and power to somehow sway public opinion and determine the outcome of elections.

Perhaps not as far fetched as it sounds.

The ultra Left leaning media has always loved to keep their thumbs in the eyes of the public at just about all costs.

Maybe they were used to doing this because the media is funded by the advertisers who pay the fees for commercials.

Maybe it's the extreme jealousy that drives them crazy now that there are new kids on the block.

Some people now think that the "Super-PAC" is actually just a "neutralizer" and a form of competition.

To begin with, you can't look at the mainstream media as a biased or out-of-touch entity. Instead, you have to look at the media for what it really is: a gaggle of left-wing operatives disguised as journalists who use objectivity and a near-monopoly to control the news and information-narrative all in an effort to damage the Right and promote the Left.

As we've seen since the rise of the Internet and the media criticism that has become much of its muse, the media cannot be reasoned with, made to see the error of its ways, or shamed into doing its job honestly. This is a corrupt institution and if you love your country, the only moral approach in dealing with it should be to do whatever you can to put it out of business.

And "business" is why the media fears the Supreme Court decision known as "Citizens United," a First Amendment victory that allows individuals and corporations -- through the use of the dreaded super PAC -- the right to spend as much money as they want on electioneering. Because the "business" of the media is not the dissemination of information for the public good or even commercial profit, but rather the furthering of leftist causes, what most terrifies the media is the competition for the narrative these super PACS will hopefully create.

New "definition" on Citizens United ?

The article brings up some good points.

Do the "Super-PACS" Really make a difference ?

Can bigger money Actually change people's minds ?

Who among the voters are the most "Vulnerable" ?

Related Story
same author

I don't know much about Tarini Parti, the co-author of today's Koch-a-palooza feature piece at Politico, but Kenneth Vogel is one of Politico's top hatchet men. Something you won't learn on Vogel's Politico bio is that he's a former George Soros' employee, but the way in which he conducts his "journalism" sure does give that fact away.

What's especially hilarious about Vogel is that if you look at the body of his hack-work (and Twitter feed), you'll see an obvious theme develop about his utter disgust towards money in politics. And if you look at Vogel's last 10 Politico articles, you'll see that all but a few revolve around all that evil outside money benefitting the GOP. This includes today's feature piece referenced above, "Inside the Koch World," which makes it sound as though Nancy Drew and a Palin-stalking Hardy Boy just blew open the Illuminati.

Ken Vogel: Politico's Ex-Soros Employee Attacks GOP Super PACs

That article has to be one of the dumbest in recent history.

Superpacs make it possible to anonymously outright buy politicians, and it should be abundantly clear why that's wrong. Why is it that Coca Cola can donate money like that, even if you as an employee are of a different opinion? Corporations are NOT people for crying out loud, no matter what Romney says.

It should also be clear why having money (instead of ideals) steer politics is a horrible idea.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Amazing.

Even now, as readers like those of ATS see utterly through their theater to the truth, they persist in trying to establish a narrative dependent on the idea that the left arm of the monster fights the right arm.

Super PACs OWN the media. They are the well-spring of funds from which the media makes obscene profit (by making it impossible to run for office unless you have millions at your disposal.) As if drug dealers were going to start complaining about the drug addicts who keep them in profit. As if the military industrial complex were to beg for peace at any time between any two armed parties. As if the Banks were going to complain about how much we "borrow" from them (there's a hearty laugh that follows that notion.)

Honestly, after the details and performance of past media - calling elections with mere fractions of a percent of the vote in - wasn't proof enough that the matter is well within their ability to influence wrongly. Layer that over that, the potential that those who are the "object" of the vote are completely subjugated by their sponsors and are a far cry from what the surface of their smiles and demagoguery are meant to imply - we are left unrepresented, with no redress, and with the establishment fearing us.... watching us.... almost certainly planning on a day when they have to seize control - despite the 'people' not being "the enemy."

I disagree that Super PACs own the media
No those that pay the most own both, which may be different parties

The media doesn't only make money through advertisers, no that's just a front
YOU are the product they are selling, not the news, they are selling viewers.
You go to certain politicians or big corporations and say "we have x many viewers, what do you want us to say to this demographic and how much are you willing to pay?".
That's the selling process of MSM

The viewers are the product to sell misinformation to, or opinionated commentary under the guise of "News", that's where the money is not advertising.

So the media sells you while super pacs try to buy you.
In that way yes Super PACS are a competition to the media, they are both outlets but Super PACS will have less accountability

Sorry but the article is stupid.

I am not a fan of Super PACs, and it is easy to point out and make an argument for why they can potentially be so destructive, but the author of the article instead of doing that, decides to fan the flames of the left/right paradigm instead.

Wow, talk about missing the big picture.

reply to post by Maxmars


Exactly!

Politics are like gladiator games to entertain and manipulate the dumb public...and the media are nothing but the delivery method.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Your are of course, correct. The Super PACs per se don't "own" the media. I may have inadvertently misrepresented my meaning...

Those "interests which comprise the Super PACs" is what I intended to imply.

But it came out flatly, and I appreciate your expansion.

Ultimately, this is however, a discussion about an illusion; namely that "the media" somehow hates and fears the Super PACs...

Do you believe them to be that shallow and short-sighted "behind the curtain?"