Just How Sick of Lies Are We?

It would be funny if it weren't so damn frustrating to watch corporate owned media cabal commentators who call themselves journalists compete to be the voices of up-from-nothing real Americans -- moreso than those whose lives they so cavalierly harm each day with vile attacks and irresponsible reporting.

Aren't you sick yet of "Some people say" as a lead in to a spin denied? Aren't you tired of "An academic told us" kinds of evidence for bias? Some people where? How many? Which academic? Aren't you tired of these guys who own multi-million dollar homes telling us about the pain of the real guy - what the real woman out there is thinking - while refusing to interview anyone but each other?

Are you fed up yet with a Supreme Court that claims to base its decisions on precedent when they're playing us like fiddles, sometimes voting as the Republican block they largely are, then turning on a dime and throwing us a fish so we won't march on Congress to overturn, as almost happened with the Ledbetter case, the power of the supreme? And as they take away rights, they throw us one so we won't get so angry we vote en mass against Republicans just to keep more of the same from ruining this country.

When do we finally decide against being entertained by inside the beltway pundits who call themselves "crack senior analysts" based on nothing but labels? When do we turn off the television and cease to purchase a biased newspaper?

When do we refuse to participate in vicious, eat-your-own-kind attacks that have become all too prevalent in blogs just to put down the honest disagreements? When do we go back to keeping Washington honest?

And what of reason? Where has it gone? Why have we become so hungry for vacuous consensus? How tired of that monstrous, habitual saboteur of democracy are you?

When do we take back the country from corporate owned media who would sell their grandmothers for another day at any front desk telling us how to think so long as it squares with the mindset of those who hired them? And Democrats are worried about corporate lobbyists? Sure, they should be. But what about the propaganda that comes through our television sets or passes for print news?

But these attack dogs are so powerful, or so they have us believe with their tight-knit, love fest inner circle crossing network lines, no presidential candidate or political party has dared to take them on and reveal them for what they truly are. And yet, that's for whom "real Americans" would vote. That would be someone more like them - a person who wants to know the truth, as best we can know it, a person who is courageous rather than one tip-toeing through the political tulips for fear of stepping on parasitic weeds.

Just how sick and tired of all of this are we? Not nearly enough.

See also Neil Gabler on the liberal press

Comments

[DavidJames]

Every time you pay your cable bill, some of it goes to Fox News, some of it to CNN, etc.

Cancel your cable and you do not give them one cent!

The new broadcast digital TV is available almost everywhere. The new TVs have the digital receivers and can use the UHF portion of your old TV antenna .

As a plus, the major networks are all in Hi Definition!

[texanna]

Look at what happened to John Edwards and you'll see why the remaining candidates don't dare piss off the corporatist media. First they belittled him with the Breck Boy tag and the hullabaloo about the cost of haircut, then they covered him so sparsely that you couldn't find out what he was saying and when he had outlived his usefulness in helping them create the idea that there was ever a real primary race they just ignored him until he went away.

[ebanks84]

This country has been totally under control by the MAIN STREAM MEDIA for years. It's a sin and a shame to know how much we, the people, have been brainwashed thanks to the media. I have been longing to hear from a Woodward and Bernstein again, with no luck.

I'M MAD AS HELL AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Starting tonight, I'm turning my channel to REAL NEWS, without political bias. If I never hear another political commentator ever again in my life, it will be too d*mn soon. I actually hate those people and the more I listen to them, they more I find myself cursing to the TV. I'm going to go what "ella52" has been doing and turn to those channels she suggested and find my own if I have to. I don't give a "hot" turd about listening to MSM any longer.

I still like Huffington because I can express my feelings instead of their feelings. It's going to be absolutely wonderful to hear the "good ole news" again. But I have to keep listening to Keith Olbermann though. He's cool.

[seawolf77]

The media today are clowns compared to the Cronkites,Brinkleys of old. When did journalism die? I put the end of common sense when we impeached Bill Clinton. After that, anything was possible, and believe me it scares me when I think what they have done. Our leaders are a catastrophe. The Bush name will go donw in history as a modern day Nero. And our reporters by extension are catastrophes. Ditto our news channels.

[Durango]

While things are undoubtedly worse today than ever ,don't go glorifying the Corporate media of yore.

They sat on Watergate until Nixon was safely re-elected. And he would have served out his term if the smoking gun had not been a tape.

Once 'permission" was given they piled on. But they ignored the obvious for an awfully long time.

Edward R. Murrow and the rest of the Corporate news folks sold out to McCarthyism. He fired William Shirer, one of the true great American reporters, for vague leftist tendencies.

Having said that: What passes for news today is despicable. And unforgivable.

How did so many stupid people get into positions of authority in the network news departments? And how did corruption become so rampant in the print media.

All is not bad. But most is.

[ella52]

Just how sick and tired are you of the "talking heads" on mainstream media? Not nearly enough. Formerly in the newspaper business for 21 years... I got sick of the undocumented opinion reporting at the very beginning of this campaign...yes nearly two years ago. Since then I will not allow Fox to be on the air in my house at all... ever. I never watch the mainstream news. I watch McNeil Lehrer every night at 6 pm, Now, Washington week and Bill Moyers on friday nights and this year have become addicted to listening to the radio tuned to NPR where thoughtful, meaningful discussion goes on all day.. and on the weekends some levity to make you think and laugh out loud.
I find I have calmed down and no longer dread the news. Friday night is my night to listen to all the news and try to make sense of the news week cycle, of my world.
Try it you'll like and send a big ole message to mainstream media to get their facts straight or get the heck of the biz.

[NicholeWebb]

two of my favorite non-corporate news sources: www.democracynow.org and www.fair.org

[ebanks84]

I'm writing all those stations down so I can start myself. I'm so sick of the MSM that I could puke. They do nothing but cause mayhem and chaos to keep the people bickering and arguing about nothing. This country is so media brainwashed, it's pathetic.

[RI]

I'm with you: totally fed-up and boycotting MSM.

But the larger question is, what about the harm that is being done by all of the manipulating and misrepresenting (lying) commentators to the masses who will watch the MSM? Free speech is one thing, inciting people to violence is another. And that is just what the controversy-as-news people are doing: provoking violent reactions in people (at least at the level of their nervous systems). Can this be regulated or does it need to be nationalized as Mogamboguru has posted below?

[ella52]

It used to be that networks had to perform a public service in order to retain their licenses to broadcast. Most did this by creating news divisions and funding it toward the "greater good'' thus qualifying for the the public service credit. Then it was decided the news had to generate income and got folded in to the entertainment division.
And all-news cable station have as their bottom line profit making. CNN when it started kept its expenses low by employing journalists within countries around the world, making it cheaper to have access to news and reported by local people on the ground wherever it was happening and who had a better idea of the what the real story was.
But clearly even cheaper is employing talking heads who don't have to bother with fact gathering, fact checking and can just sit and spout opinions ad nauseum.
Regulated? by who the FCC? Nationalized? I don't know I think NPR and PBS have a pretty good model though I know a lot of people see them as having a liberal bias... if you critize this administration on anything you are labeled a liberal.

[Sundialsvc4]

In our country's past history, there are words of fire. "Forbid it, almighty God!" Or, the bold words of the Declaration of Independence itself.

Many of our Presidents were military supreme-commanders before they accepted the Presidency. Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower easily come to mind. What did THEY say and do?

Washington refused to participate in a coup d'etat which would have bloodlessly installed him as King.

Grant snarled, "Generals don't start wars, Politicians do."

And the man who wore more stars (five) on his lapel than anyone else created the name "military industrial congressional complex." He saw that war-itself had become an industry, and that it would overshadow and wash-away every other social priority .. to the destruction of the Republic itself. Yes, he foresaw that "in the name of Homeland Security," it would utterly destroy the same.

And in merely the last 40-odd years, that is what it has done.

The question, for the more than 300 MILLION of us Plaintiffs, is, as they put it variously in the Harry Potter films: "Are you a wizard, or not?"

[mamacat]

It looks like there has been an effort by a group of people to intentionally misinform and control the public. Some, perhaps enough, of us have become aware of this phenomenon, so that, like a developed immunity, past doses of the Big Lies and Spin Machines have helped to make our immunity to these diseases stronger.

If I may: 1/3 of the voters will always go Democratic, and 1/3 will always go Republican. That leaves 1/3 of us voters who are somewhere in the middle. The GOP dirty tricks campaign will be just as bad this election cycle as it has been during every election in recent memory. To hope that they will grow a conscience, and change their behaviour for the better, is naive.

What is different this time is that those of us in the middle, who vote our consciences, have mostly become disgusted with the Republican party. Their unbelievably dirty tactics have actually shoved most of the voters in the middle toward the Democrats, as the only viable alternative. As long as the Democrats do not try to be as bad as the Republicans, they will remain a genuine alternative to the neo-cons.

[ebanks84]

Yes there has and those people have been the republican government, Bush and company. They have instructed the media bosses what to say and how to say it. They are intent on causing chaos and tension 24/7. That's the media's NEW JOB and we are the OLD PATSIES. If we don't turn them off, WE WILL NEVER STOP THEM. It's just that we have become so habitual with them now that we are afraid to have to go through the "withdrawal" stage. It's worse than trying to quit smoking. But I quit "cold turkey" so if I can do that, I can certainly give us those creeps quit, fast, and in a hurry.

[Cathexis]

One-third minus one.

This former-Republican put Principle over Ideology and Country over Party -- forcing me to quit the GOP. They have become a bunch of power-hungry hacks who mouth "Conservative" and wrap themselves in the flag ... for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of themselves and their friends. They don't have any Principles, much less actual "Conservative Principles."

You Dems had better not let me down and go corrupt, after you sweep into power, next term!

[Sundialsvc4]

Actually, "you folks in the middle" are supposed to become so disgusted that you don't vote at all.

You might not like the name "Karl Rove," but the man is an infernal genius, albeit begotten from hell's own fires.

Do some surfing tonight: read up on "Crowd Psychology." Read how it actually works; how it is done. HuffPo might be your home-page (wink! wink!) but the Internet is a fantastic research library. Fantastic and terrifying.

When "the election" finally happens, paperless machines will "decide" it and they will quietly "elect" John McCain. We know that. But... while the show has been going on over here, have you been watching that little man behind the curtain?

Consider this... just how long has this "election show" been going on, at the exclusion of all else? Right. More than two years now, and at the exclusion of all else. All your fury and angst and horror at what's coming down is being channeled .. diverted .. funneled .. into this. A place where it will do no good at all.

You're seeing tens of BILLIONS of dollars going straight to ... now-sitting ... senators ... and that's only what they admit to.

To break through "crowd psychology," you have to rush that curtain and tackle that little man. You can plainly see the strings: find out who's pulling them. You want your nation back? Rip off those "blinkers" from your eyes and Do It.

[Mogamboguru]

This won't change as long as media and news are considered a business. A business SELLS things to the best-bidding person. Whos's bidding best? The rich, the corporations, the big capital.

News in the USA must be nationalized, like in Britain (BBC), France (Television Francaise), Italy (Rai), germany (ARD and ZDF), aso, aso.

Those nationalized networks are BY LAW obliged to report to the public free, unbiased, CORRECT news. In response to that, they draw a certain payment from each user (In Germany, roughly 30 bucks a month per household). Sounds like a lot of money? Perhaps.

But, on the other hand, for that fee you'll receive TOTALLY ad-free, TOTALLY unbiased-by-law, TOTALLY comprehensive news and information in the highest order, produced from skilled pro's - and TOTALLY free from that constant nauseous feeling you get by watching brainwashing US-network-news.

[ebanks84]

That'll be the day when something is on the boob tube without advertisers:). Talking about a change, I can live with that one.

[dadw5boys]

WE ARE SO SICK WE NEED TO SETUP ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AND DECLARE THE ONE IN WASHINGTON ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kae]

the FCC is not doing it's job...

[dadw5boys]

BUSH HAS STRIPPED THE SEC BUDGET OF OVER 45% OF ITS FUNDS SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO ENFORCE ANYTHING. THAT IS WHY THE IRS HAS TO GO AFTER THE SWIDD BANKS WHERE THE HEDGE FUNDS ARE HIDING OFF SHORE TO CRIPPLE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THOUGH HEDGE FUND TRADES.

[gelfling545]

My least favorite no-news reports are the "could" or "may" reports such as "there could be a terrorist attack early in the next presidency" ...or there could be one tomorrow, or never. These statements are used almost exclusively to promote an agenda in default of actual fact. This is not reporting or debate; it is tea leaf reading. I move that all could or may statements be edited to read could or could not, may or may not unless strong supporting evidence is cited. Pigs may fly but it is unlikely.

[KillTheMessenger]

When a real academic talks about something of importance, it is ALWAYS in form of a paper which can be ordered through the library and is sometimes available online. It comes with a large number of citations which show the relationship of this work to previous publications by the same and other academics.

How comes we do not explain this to our children when they are in school and have to write term papers? Peer reviewed publications are the format through which educated people exchange ideas. AND ONLY PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS.

There are no tv appearances, nobody talks about on the radio about truly important stuff. If an academic wants to make an academically valid contribution, they write it down. There is an established way of doing it which is being followed for some two centuries now. And then they let their peers judge them. And only when the peers are convinced that what the academic wrote makes sense, only then can the contribution be published.

Mrs. Reardon, as an academic I expect you to know this. And I expect you to explain it to us if you are in doubt if we know. What you are calling "academics" are "pundits", a completely different breed of people. Please use the correct terminology. The real academics will appreciate it. And so will the kids who need to understand the difference. Thank you.

[bellecp99]

The writer was not actually calling anyone an academic, but rather was accusing the media of supporting claims of bias by irresponsibly citing to unnamed academics rather than offering real proof of the allegations presented.

[KillTheMessenger]

I understand that. But in the wake of it her argument she feed fed into America's already poor track record of distinguishing between real and false information. It is not as hard as some want to make it. We could teach our kids the difference. We have to teach our kids the difference if we want to survive as a nation against billions of people who actually do.

[lennix]

thanks for so munch for the this msm is nothing but a bunch of fools that help bush led us in to war and know doing the same for mccain lairs who send the poor off to war and thier kids to collage and the poor die for thier kids but when they come back can't even live in the nighborhoods yes when is enough is enough

[VillyVal]

The question becomes are the liars and defamers malicious or incompetent? How you answer determines the kind of solution you seek?

Take Keith Olbermann's rant on the Second Amendment. It might be hard work to use the Google or speak to your resident legal scholar Jonathan Turley before going on the air with your entertaining but entirely creative interpretation of the Second Amendment.

What's the payoff for getting it right? Why bother putting together an informative discussion when a Worst Person segment on a Supreme Court justice is better for ratings?

We have reached (again and again and again) a point the founding fathers anticipated and that Alexis de Tocqueville described. The fault is in human nature. It can be countered but never completely abolished. It has to be countered with intelligence, education, and hard work.

Wouldn't you rather watch a grudge match between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann?

[benjaminblue]

What's truly frustrating is that the members of the media are as irresponsible and unaccountable as Mr. Bush.

They purposely shape the news and mislead the public, advancing their causes, knowing that they'll still be paid handsomely to report "the news," no matter how dire it is thanks to their willful lies, omissions and innuendo.

[KillTheMessenger]

Media are ENTERTAINMENT. Just because they also show some images that look like reality does not mean they provide reality. If I want my reality fix, I go to the library, non-fiction section. That's where the real stuff is. And even there one has to be a skeptic to sort it all out.