Media Sneaks Take The Lead

[Flanders]

In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs forever and ever.

There might have been a distinction between government and journalism when Oscar Wilde made that observation but not now. Government and media are so interchangeable today it’s impossible to determine which entity is populated by the biggest sneak —— Democrats in government or their media stooges. So for my own satisfaction I turned it into a horse race. Most of the time Democrats led. Now, the media has taken the lead.

I should say that the media horse has a new jockey by the name of FOX News. I say new because subscription television is relatively new in the field of journalism.

I’ve always said that FOX gave more conservative ears to liberal talking points than all of the overtly liberal networks combined. And FOX got away with it by convincing conservatives that FOX talking heads defended conservatives ideals by being fair & balanced. The liberals who appear on every FOX news show panel proved otherwise.

There is no doubt in my mind that the government puts liberals on FOX’s payroll. Last night a new one appeared on Bret Baier’s panel. One Sally Kohn was so bad she had to be put there by the government. I can’t believe decision makers over at FOX headquarters would put someone like Kohn on the air. She was so obvious she erased years of carefully executed sneaky business.

Click on the link for a video sample of a government plant. I take that back. Click on the link if you’re a conservative so you can identify Kohn and run like hell when she shows up on your TV screen.

Krauthammer vs. Sally Kohn: Detroit Not A GOP Failure, "It's Been Run By The Democrats For 60 Years" | RealClearPolitics

Sally Kohn did not give the media the lead in my horse race analogy. Excerpts from two articles did. The first:

The popular perception in America is that while most major media networks lean left, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation – owner of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, for example – is a bastion for conservatives.

The record of News Corp’s campaign contributions, however, doesn’t paint the same picture.

According to data accumulated from the Federal Election Commission by the Center for Responsive Politics and published on OpenSecrets.org, the total contributions by News Corp political action committees, employees and their families favored Democrats by a more than 2-to-1 margin in the 2012 election.

XXXXX​

. . . News Corp executives, though, have led the charge to the left. Peter Chernin, News Corp’s president and chief operating officer from 1996-2009, and his wife, Megan, have sent 87 percent of their contributions to Democrats since 1990.

Fox News parent company funneling money ... to Dems?
Contributions favored Obama 5-to-1 over Romney
Published: 13 hours ago
DREW ZAHN

Fox News parent company funneling money ? to Dems?

The above is self-explanatory. The second article encompasses the entire MSM. The excerpt is subtle, but it does show sneaks at work:

Democrats and Republicans largely heaped praise upon Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano after she announced she would resign her post later in the year, but a longtime constitutional attorney says there is not much to applaud – especially for anyone concerned about preserving freedom and limiting government intrusion in their lives.

“What the Department of Homeland Security became under Janet Napolitano is this monstrous surveillance and very intimidating group,” said Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney for the past 40 years and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”

XXXXX​

A change at the top of DHS doesn’t give Whitehead any hope that the government will rein in its activities. He says potential replacements, like New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, will likely be no different from Napolitano.

Big Sis' shockingly dirty secrets go public
'There's just something really weird that happened under Janet Napolitano'
Published: 12 hours ago

Big Sis? shockingly dirty secrets go public

Bottom line: Media sneaks are already pumping up Janet Napolitano’s political clones. Three or four years from now the media will do the same thing with the character who replaces Napolitano’s replacement if Americans have any freedoms left.

Not one network, not one sneak on the executive level of any network will give talking heads the authority to call for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[Pogo]

Not entirely sure what your point is here although I'm sure you have one. Perhaps a summary is in order to strain the various parallel points into a single idea. Perhaps a definition of the term "sneaks"?

RE the (apparent) idea that government leads media I'd say no, it's the other way around. Mass media doesn't need politicians to exist (not when there's royal babies and Jody Ariases and Michael Jacksons and Janet Jacksons around) but politicians absolutely need media, just to be clear on who the buyers and sellers are.

If that's even part of the point.

 

[Flanders]

Not entirely sure what your point is here although I'm sure you have one.

To Pogo. The point is to identify which of the two entities is the sneakiest at any given time.

Perhaps a definition of the term "sneaks"?

To Pogo. When puzzled turn to a dictionary. I can find at least two definitions that apply to media and government without bending my OP out of shape:

sneak (verb)
sneaked also snuck sneaking, sneaks verb, intransitive

1. To go or move in a quiet, stealthy way.

2. To behave in a cowardly or servile manner.

verb, transitive
To move, give, take, or put in a quiet, stealthy manner: sneak candy into one's mouth; sneaked a look at the grade sheet.

noun
1. A person regarded as stealthy, cowardly, or underhand.

2. An instance of sneaking; a quiet, stealthy movement.

3. Informal. A sneaker.

adjective
1. Carried out in a clandestine manner: sneak preparations for war.

2. Perpetrated without warning: a sneak attack by terrorists.

RE the (apparent) idea that government leads media I'd say no, it's the other way around. Mass media doesn't need politicians to exist (not when there's royal babies and Jody Ariases and Michael Jacksons and Janet Jacksons around) but politicians absolutely need media, just to be clear on who the buyers and sellers are.

To Pogo: Your examples are fluff designed to keep TV addicts high. Even there, those stories are presented with enough spin to lead the weak-minded where the government/media wants them to go.

My OP is more concerned with the government/media conspiring to lead the country to totalitarian government followed by a totalitarian global government.

 

[Pogo]

I know perfectly well what the word sneak means. What I'm querying is your definition of your term "media sneak". It's not a term in common parlance.

RE the (apparent) idea that government leads media I'd say no, it's the other way around. Mass media doesn't need politicians to exist (not when there's royal babies and Jody Ariases and Michael Jacksons and Janet Jacksons around) but politicians absolutely need media, just to be clear on who the buyers and sellers are.

To Pogo: Your examples are fluff designed to keep TV addicts high. Even there, those stories are presented with enough spin to lead the weak-minded where the government/media wants them to go.

My OP is more concerned with the government/media conspiring to lead the country to totalitarian government followed by a totalitarian global government.

I agree. I'd just note that what they're leading the weak-minded to is where media wants them to go -- not government. Television exists for one purpose, and that is to sell advertising. That alone explains the level of the content. But government clearly doesn't control the media. Even as much as it reasonably should for a small-d democratic society.

It is certainly also a powerfully effective propaganda tool (which is what advertising is anyway) and absolutely can be used, and is used, as an instrument to dictate and control culture. I don't think it's used very much as an instrument to dictate government, except to the extent of keeping that government's hands off its ability to make money on its propaganda (advertising) and to keep the culture docile enough to accept it all.

It's a nasty side effect that in its voracious appetite for ad dollars it can and does drown the informational landscape with irrelevant crap like Zimmerman-Martin, the royal baby and the like, siphoning off the attention span for actual meaningful events. But as long as greed is the goal, mass media is not going to worry itself overmuch with that ethical dilemma.

So please... what is a "media sneak"?

 

[Flanders]

I know perfectly well what the word sneak means. What I'm querying is your definition of your term "media sneak". It's not a term in common parlance.

To Pogo: This is what I responded to:

Perhaps a definition of the term "sneaks"?

I thought the phrase media sneaks clearly meant sneaks working in the media. I would have said it that way had I known anyone would have trouble with my title.

Television exists for one purpose, and that is to sell advertising.

To Pogo: True from a business standpoint. Not true when you define television as an instrument of government propaganda.

That alone explains the level of the content.

To Pogo: Not completely true. For obvious reasons press barons do not want advertisers to lose their tax deduction for advertising —— not to mention losing their licences to broadcast. The current partnership guarantees that government sets the level of political content; i.e. propaganda.

NOTE: The Fairness Doctrine was a complete failure from liberalism’s perspective. Giving liberals a spot on talk show panels for whatever reason is nothing more than a version of the Fairness Doctrine; especially when it is applied to the FOX Network.

Incidentally, television cooperates with government every time it reports a UN press release as a news story. Ditto advertising of every kind. Over the years, I’ve seen numerous product commercials disguised as news. Example: “Scientists say that drinking a glass of wine a day MIGHT reduce the risk of heart attacks.” was reported as news.

Bottom line: Because of television’s power of persuasion caveat emptor is all but obsolete. Tens of millions of television addicts believe the lies told in product advertising; so what are the odds they are smart enough to see through the government’s lies when they are told by expert propagandists?

Finally, government/media selling a totalitarian ideology in bits and pieces as news crossed into the danger zone decades ago, yet no one is fighting to stop the government from using tax dollars to advance a political agenda most Americans abhor. No religion except socialism could get away with the same thing. Ask yourself this: How many Americans would stand still for it if Muslims, or Jews, or Roman Catholics, used tax dollars to do the same thing Democrats are doing on television in order to move the country closer to totalitarian government?

 

[Pogo]

So hearing none, I've basically given up any hope on clarification of "media sneaks"; I'll just ignore that part and deal with the present.

Television exists for one purpose, and that is to sell advertising.

To Pogo: True from a business standpoint. Not true when you define television as an instrument of government propaganda.

If we were living in, say, North Korea that would be a valid definition. In this country, government has no input into television. So while TV is definitely an instrument of propaganda, and could be used that way given a state-controlled media, in this country rthat propaganda is limited to the self-interest of the media moguls.

Not that that's any less reason for concern, just to clarify who the players are and who they are not.

That alone explains the level of the content.

To Pogo: Not completely true. For obvious reasons press barons do not want advertisers to lose their tax deduction for advertising —— not to mention losing their licences to broadcast. The current partnership guarantees that government sets the level of political content; i.e. propaganda.

Again, as above, the government doesn't set levels of political content. Or propaganda.
Losing a broadcast license virtually never happens. It should, or at least it shouldn't be automatic. But again that's the power of the New First Estate (see below).

NOTE: The Fairness Doctrine was a complete failure from liberalism’s perspective. Giving liberals a spot on talk show panels for whatever reason is nothing more than a version of the Fairness Doctrine; especially when it is applied to the FOX Network.

This is getting as muddled as "media sneaks" but the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Liberalism, or with any particular political philosophy at all. What the second sentence above about Fox means, I'm not at all sure. The FD has never had anything to do with cable television.

Incidentally, television cooperates with government every time it reports a UN press release as a news story. Ditto advertising of every kind. Over the years, I’ve seen numerous product commercials disguised as news. Example: “Scientists say that drinking a glass of wine a day MIGHT reduce the risk of heart attacks.” was reported as news.

That has nothing to do with government. That has to do with media. I know you're trying desperately to find government fingerprints here but it's just not the case. You don't need me to inform you there's no shortage of pseudo-news, including plenty planted by Corporatia as you describe here.

As for press releases-- they are news stories. It's a standard method used by governments or any large institution -- or small institution -- to put out an announcement. Hell, I've put out press releases myself and it had nothing to do with any government.

Bottom line: Because of television’s power of persuasion caveat emptor is all but obsolete. Tens of millions of television addicts believe the lies told in product advertising; so what are the odds they are smart enough to see through the government’s lies when they are told by expert propagandists?

While I agree wholeheartedly with the psychology you note initially about TV's power of persuasion (if anything you understated it), once again we don't have a state-controlled media and therefore we don't have an issue with government propaganda expressed through that medium. All of which is why I'm far more concerned with the power of Corporatia which could be considered very much the modern "first estate" of power taking the place of the traditional Church. Including the power it wields over the State in similar fashion. Basically I share your concerns about the end results, but I'm looking at the other end of the puppet strings -- the puppeteer rather than the puppet.

Finally, government/media selling a totalitarian ideology in bits and pieces as news crossed into the danger zone decades ago, yet no one is fighting to stop the government from using tax dollars to advance a political agenda most Americans abhor. No religion except socialism could get away with the same thing. Ask yourself this: How many Americans would stand still for it if Muslims, or Jews, or Roman Catholics, used tax dollars to do the same thing Democrats are doing on television in order to move the country closer to totalitarian government?

I don't think socialism can in any way be defined as a "religion", so no I'm not going to ask myself that. Democrats have no more "power" over television than Republicans.

I get the idea you imagine the government has some kind of control over the press, rather than the other way around. Perhaps that's where you need a course correction.

 

[Ava]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4ZQooPHHAA&feature=youtu.be]PURE DETROIT! (Pure Michigan Parody) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

So hearing none, I've basically given up any hope on clarification of "media sneaks"; I'll just ignore that part and deal with the present.

To Pogo: Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing. My meaning is stated throughout the OP, but for your benefit I’ll say it again; it means sneaks working in the media.

If we were living in, say, North Korea that would be a valid definition.

To Pogo: Your comparing oranges and apples. The government in this country is using propaganda to establish a totalitarian state; whereas, North Korea is already there.

Again, as above, the government doesn't set levels of political content. Or propaganda.

To Pogo: Of course it does. Doubly so when the government tells media what it cannot say.

Also, the scope of “Don’t say” is increasing under the national security umbrella. Here’s the rub. If the folks in the media are not willing participants in propaganda by omission the government must not trust them to do the right thing as journalists did in WWII. Either way you interpret it media sneaks come off as not very nice people. That’s another reason media sneaks are now leading in my horse race analogy.

NOTE: The government does NOT dictate to media every day or on every issue. The media operates under government guidelines. Editors enforce those guidelines. In addition, news writers know exactly what to say and not say. Even those few true conservatives who appear on talk show panels know which topics and opinions are forbidden. Careers depend on knowing what to avoid.

Losing a broadcast license virtually never happens.

To Pogo: The threat is enough.

This is getting as muddled as "media sneaks" but the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Liberalism, or with any particular political philosophy at all.

To Pogo: Not so. Only liberals wanted it. Only liberals benefit from it. Only liberals are trying to bring it back.

NOTE: Liberals spouting their garbage in entertainment mediums is protected by “artistic freedom.” No liberal ever demanded equal time for conservative views in movies and TV shows. In fact, fictional conservative characters were always portrayed as boobs while liberal characters had all the answers. The Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) turned out to be a godsend for liberals after television began to dominate the dissemination of information. Eventually, the very government agency that created the Fairness Doctrine —— the FCC —— made sure the Fairness Doctrine was used to force the liberal message into news and opinion shows. If not getting the liberal message heard then shutdown conservative views. That’s exactly what happened until 1987.

What the second sentence above about Fox means, I'm not at all sure.

To Pogo: Get some help before you read the OP again.

The FD has never had anything to do with cable television.

To Pogo: That’s why Democrats are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They are working around it for the time being by putting liberals on FOX’s payroll. The rest of subscription TV as well as the major networks are already dominated by on-air liberals and the Democrat position on every issue.

As for press releases-- they are news stories.

To Pogo: No they aren’t. Even stretching it to fit the definition of news they should be identified as press releases and/or advertising instead of presented as hard news.

I don't think socialism can in any way be defined as a "religion", so no I'm not going to ask myself that. Democrats have no more "power" over television than Republicans.

To Pogo: Socialism/communism is a religion in every sense except that government is its one true God and the tax collector’s morality is its doctrine. Democrats are socialism’s priesthood getting rich on tax dollar. Poor, and wealthy, welfare state parasites are the flock groveling for handouts from the priesthood. Of course, proof is more than my words, but I have been doing this for so long I no longer have the patience to detail the Socialist religion for everyone that comes along. Research my messages if you want more.

I get the idea you imagine the government has some kind of control over the press, rather than the other way around.

To Pogo: The power to revoke a broadcast license is one control.

No one can punish the government for violating print press’ First Amendment Rights is another control.

The most powerful control of all is seen in the media sneaks who want the same thing the sneaks in government want —— a Socialist theocracy. In practice they want unbridled capitalism for themselves and communism’s shackles for everyone else.

PURE DETROIT! (Pure Michigan Parody) - YouTube

To AquaAthena. Nice video. Sadly, it portends a Detroit bailout engineered by government sneaks, and sold by media sneaks. The propaganda has begun. Media mouths are saying there is no way Barack Taqiyya can bailout Detroit. That tells me that a bailout is certain. Figuring out how to do it, and what to call it, are the only things still undecided.

 

[Pogo]

So hearing none, I've basically given up any hope on clarification of "media sneaks"; I'll just ignore that part and deal with the present.

To Pogo: Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing. My meaning is stated throughout the OP, but for your benefit I’ll say it again; it means sneaks working in the media.

Maybe it's your lack of comprehension skill; I asked three times for a definition of "media sneaks" and you have yet to respond but with circles. If you can't define what you mean, I'm not worried about it; I just move on. But don't pretend you defined something you didn't.

If we were living in, say, North Korea that would be a valid definition.

To Pogo: Your comparing oranges and apples. The government in this country is using propaganda to establish a totalitarian state; whereas, North Korea is already there.

--- and your basis for this mysterious state media is.... where again?
As already noted, mass media here is driven by commercial interests, not the state. That's why the comparison to NK.
Apples and oranges? Of course it is. That's the point. I just showed the flaw in your point; we are not North Korea even if you seem to think we are.

To Pogo: Of course it does. Doubly so when the government tells media what it cannot say.

The gummint does not tell the media what it "cannot say" (politically). That's just a fact. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.
You can't, say, slander somebody or purvey false advertising, but those aren't political issues.

Also, the scope of “Don’t say” is increasing under the national security umbrella. Here’s the rub. If the folks in the media are not willing participants in propaganda by omission the government must not trust them to do the right thing as journalists did in WWII. Either way you interpret it media sneaks come off as not very nice people. That’s another reason media sneaks are now leading in my horse race analogy.

NOTE: The government does NOT dictate to media every day or on every issue. The media operates under government guidelines. Editors enforce those guidelines. In addition, news writers know exactly what to say and not say. Even those few true conservatives who appear on talk show panels know which topics and opinions are forbidden. Careers depend on knowing what to avoid.

Again, the only influence on "careers" or "topics" comes from the management of those commercial interests that run the media. Doesn't come from government. Once again, feel free to document any of these wild ideas, but I worked in broadcasting for over 25 years, including the entire licensing process, and I know for a fact it doesn't exist. And the only federal "guidelines" broadcasters operate under have to do with their technical specs as far as power and frequency, etc., that they can't engage in fraud or slander, and that they provide some service to their community... which is entirely left up to the broadcaster to document and justify. There are no "guidelines" on content, outside of whatever comic book you're drawing all this from.

You think the government is "dictating" that news programs follow the royal baby, or the ZimmerMartin thing, or Jody Arias? Bullshit. Those are news puppet theater emotion-magnet pieces. Their only purpose is, as we stated at the beginning, to draw eyeballs so they can sell ads. That's it. That alone should be enough to demonstrate all this gummint-paranoia is just that.

To Pogo: The threat is enough.

What "threat"? I just got done saying, denial of a renewal almost never happens. Once a license is granted, it's all downhill. Renewal is just a formality. Again, feel free to post evidence that it doesn't work that way.

To Pogo: Not so. Only liberals wanted it. Only liberals benefit from it. Only liberals are trying to bring it back.

Regardless who you think "wanted" it (see below), the FD had nothing to do with political parties or any particular political point. Nor did it ever have anything to do with cable TV, and your reference to Fox in this belies that you have no clue what you're talking about. Of course you never did explain your own sentence there, so it's got as much relevance as "media sneaks".

The Cliff's Notes: the FD simply ensured a level playing field of commentary in a time when mass media was limited to a very finite broadcast space (before internet, before satellite/cable TV etc). It simply said that, since broadcast space was severely limited to a select few, then if broadcaster A put out some opinion about Entity X, and Entity X wanted to respond, then X had the right to do it on A's airwaves. It wasn't selective about any particular ideology at all. It denied no one the right to speak; it ensured the right to speak back. Just as I have the right to respond to your post here. THAT is what the FD was for.
at.
And as for who "wanted" it, it was championed by Republicans, including Joe McCarthy, who used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's famous scorching program on McCarthy. Murrow gave him the entire program time to respond. That's what we call an exchange of ideas ... rather than a monologue.

That you're so fatally misinformed about all of this tells me there is definitely propaganda and you're lapping it up. Ain't coming from the government though. As with any propaganda it's coming from entities that stand to gain from how you're misinformed. It might be instructive to think about that.

NOTE: Liberals spouting their garbage in entertainment mediums is protected by “artistic freedom.” No liberal ever demanded equal time for conservative views in movies and TV shows. In fact, fictional conservative characters were always portrayed as boobs while liberal characters had all the answers. The Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) turned out to be a godsend for liberals after television began to dominate the dissemination of information. Eventually, the very government agency that created the Fairness Doctrine —— the FCC —— made sure the Fairness Doctrine was used to force the liberal message into news and opinion shows. If not getting the liberal message heard then shutdown conservative views. That’s exactly what happened until 1987.

That's exactly not what happened; see above. But again, feel free to document anything that in any way supports this wispy emotional pipe dream. Or at least share whatever's in that pipe.

To Pogo: Get some help before you read the OP again.

I asked the writer. You didn't respond.
The fact is that the idea of the FD, again sparked by conservatives who wanted equal time on FDR's fireside chats, was to address limited broadcast space of the time. Cable TV doesn't have that limitation, ergo it was never part of the FD. Period.

To Pogo: That’s why Democrats are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They are working around it for the time being by putting liberals on FOX’s payroll. The rest of subscription TV as well as the major networks are already dominated by on-air liberals and the Democrat position on every issue.

As noted above, the FD never had anything to do with anything like Fox News, nor could it have, even if Fox had been created in 1789.

And now you're saying the government "hires" people for Fox News??
What IS in that pipe??

To Pogo: No they aren’t. Even stretching it to fit the definition of news they should be identified as press releases and/or advertising instead of presented as hard news.

They already are. It sounds like this:
"The White House said today that..."
The operative word is "said". Don't blame the messenger if it flies by without your noticing.

To Pogo: Socialism/communism is a religion in every sense except that government is its one true God and the tax collector’s morality is its doctrine. Democrats are socialism’s priesthood getting rich on tax dollar. Poor, and wealthy, welfare state parasites are the flock groveling for handouts from the priesthood. Of course, proof is more than my words, but I have been doing this for so long I no longer have the patience to detail the Socialist religion for everyone that comes along. Research my messages if you want more.

Thanks, I think the above speaks for itself.

I get the idea you imagine the government has some kind of control over the press, rather than the other way around.

To Pogo: The power to revoke a broadcast license is one control.

Maybe. So feel free to, I think this is the fifth time, post any case to support your theory-- somewhere the gummint has yanked a broadcast license for political reasons. Just one.

No one can punish the government for violating print press’ First Amendment Rights is another control.

Ahem... SCOTUS?

The most powerful control of all is seen in the media sneaks who want the same thing the sneaks in government want —— a Socialist theocracy. In practice they want unbridled capitalism for themselves and communism’s shackles for everyone else.

Once again, ^^ ramblng wholly unquantified emotional paranoia using a term you refuse to define. No substance.

PURE DETROIT! (Pure Michigan Parody) - YouTube

That video is utterly unrelated to anything in this thread. This is the Media forum. The city of Detroit is not the media.

 

[Flanders]

Maybe it's your lack of comprehension skill; I asked three times for a definition of "media sneaks" and you have yet to respond but with circles. If you can't define what you mean, I'm not worried about it; I just move on. But don't pretend you defined something you didn't.

To Pogo: I’m content letting anyone who might be following this thread decide which of us has it right. This is where I get off:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWGPFpeyPw&feature=player_embedded]carousel music ride - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Pogo]

Maybe it's your lack of comprehension skill; I asked three times for a definition of "media sneaks" and you have yet to respond but with circles. If you can't define what you mean, I'm not worried about it; I just move on. But don't pretend you defined something you didn't.

To Pogo: I’m content letting anyone who might be following this thread decide which of us has it right. This is where I get off:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWGPFpeyPw&feature=player_embedded]carousel music ride - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks, well that has almost as little to do with this topic as the Detroit video. I say almost because, like your point and your non-definition, it does at least go around and around in circles.

Thanks for the thread. Cheers.