Marc Ash writes, "Effectively promulgating a faux voter stampede for Mr. Romney amounts to a very large campaign contribution. The US corporate media should either report it as a donation or stop it."
Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford debate on Oct. 22, 1976, in Williamsburg, Va. (photo: AARP.org)
Corporate Media Gets Behind Romney, Big Time
10 October 12
oes Romney still have bushels of money stashed away in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands? He certainly appears to, with $30 million in Bain Capital funds alone in the Cayman Islands, according to Vanity Fair. How bizarre that no one in the corporate media is talking about that. Perhaps they don't have time with all the attention they are paying to the Obama Style Points Deficiency Scandal.
Heard the one about the the factory in Freeport, Illinois, that Bain Capital is closing? The workers are being forced to train their replacements - in China. Bain took control of Sensata Technologies in 2006. Romney still holds an interest in Sensata and still appears to share in the financial rewards, according to Think Progress. TP points to a Washington Post report that "under Romney's leadership Bain invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs." That should matter; it should be central to the US media's reporting of the 2012 presidential race. It is not. It is worthy of note that Romney is as corporate-friendly as any candidate who has ever run for the US presidency. Why should the corporate press look any further? They are not.
Romney's tax returns, or the lack thereof, were a big news item up until three weeks ago. At that point Mr. Romney did American voters the grand favor of releasing one year's returns, 2011's. That was good enough for every major news outlet in the US. They dropped the story like a bad habit, never to touch it again. But the story is there just the same, waiting for the attention the nation deserves that it be given.
Close Elections Are Good for Business
Listening to the media chatter after the first presidential debate of 2012 you might well have thought that there had been a major gaffe by Obama, like Gerald Ford's blasphemous dismissal of the most fundamental precept of the cold war when he argued in his 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Or a gotcha moment by Romney like Lloyd Bentsen's "Senator [Quayle], you're no Jack Kennedy" stunner. But beneath the bluster, nothing. So why then the media crucifixion of Obama?
Part of the problem with the influence of money in elections is that all players in the game are affected by it, the corporate media included. Presidential elections are big money. Ratings, readership and advertising rates all soar, particularly when the game is close in the fourth quarter. But not if it's a blowout. If one candidate has a comfortable lead, it is in the best interest of news reporting organizations, driven by the bottom line, to depict a tightening race. It's as easy picking cherries, or convenient facts. There were two major polls released Monday and Tuesday, a Pew Research poll showing Romney ahead by 4 points and a Gallup tracking poll showing Obama ahead by 4 points. Which one did you hear about? For the sake of accuracy Nate Silver, in The New York Times' "FiveThirtyEight blog," does a good job of putting the polls in perspective.
Effectively promulgating a faux voter stampede for Mr. Romney amounts to a very large campaign contribution. The US corporate media should either report it as a donation or stop it. Mitt Romney is utterly transparent in his greed - let's get back to talking about that.
Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
For all the complaints among some left-wingers that there's no difference between the two outlooks, the corporate media, fossil fuel industry, and far-right social architects see a completely different picture. They see HUGE differences and they plan to do everything in their power to ensure this election turns out the way they'd like.
Once again we have a knock-down-drag -out fight between the left and right. Once again, the right is knocking down and dragging out the left, while the left is indifferently acting as though the fight isn't happening.
It's ok 3rd party fantasizers. Just go to your happy place. Maybe President Romney will accidentally dismantle the power structure that's putting him in place while you sleep.
Not too long ago, MSNBC was at times a voice screaming against noise coming from the Centrist Right MSM and thunderous roar from the Ultra Right Wing Fox. As MSNBC has gotten more recognition, their screaming has lessened. That would be a good thing if they had not made some sort of Faustian deal in the process. Fox has made a tiny step towards from Ultra Right Wing to merely Extreme Right Wing. In return MSNBC went from Centrist Left to merely Centrist and stopped shouting.
Sad to say, that includes Rachel. It was apparent when she allowed Chris Mathews, who hasn't gotten anything right in the last 10 years to express his worthless opinion. She immediately asked the nice guy Right Winger to give his review first.
So after co-opting MSNBC by allowing them to have token credibility in the MSM world; the voices on the lefty side are all but muzzled. Colbert was right, truthiness is the truth.
If the media had this much say in the way a major sporting event progressed, the nation would be outraged.
I disagree with you Rachel is informing us about so many issues NOBODY else mentions.
She reported that the governor of Michigan had fired the city councils and school boards in some of the smaller cities and installed "emergency" managers, a total dictatorial action.
I looked for that information, but didn't find it anywhere else. Not in he news on TV, not in the LA Times....NOTHIN G. SHE WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THE ISSUES OTHER MEDIA JUST BURIES.
She is not a screamer, thank heaven. She is much too intelligent for that, but I don't know anybody better than Rachel.
The truth not told often enough seems to become a lie - or worse, a missed opportunity. I sure hope our film master from Flint makes a documentary about the mess in Michigan, but I fear that ALEC is working overtime to bury more of the citizens in other states.
There is a good possibility I was the one mentioning it, for I have done so more than one time.........Ba rbara K confirmed it.... and she should know....She LIVES in Michigan and was lamenting the horrible governor, so it is on the up and up.
You are correct Rachel does continue to cover stories that few outlets cover. But, in this case I was referencing the debate night coverage where she moderated the analysis panel and the number of eyes and ears in her audience was way higher than her normal night. With the opportunity, and I would say, the responsibility, to provide a balanced criticism of the debate, she allowed the discussion to emphasize performance over substance. She should know better, and I was very disappointed. Until I saw the articles here, I thought I was only one that saw a man who seemed to be all over the place both physically and argumentatively , and the only constant in his arguments was to deny that he is the same Mitt Romney we saw in the Republican debates.
I am glad she is not a screamer, I listen to Mike Malloy for that.
MSNBC has always had one credibility problem though, they allow wingnut Joe Scarborough his own show pushing his right wing nonsense.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
The alternative is treacherous
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/uk-companies-pour-cash-into-us-elections
This proves the Supreme Court was wrong when they said Citizens United would not bring in foreign money to U.S. elections
It is nauseating that we don't know WHO or WHICH country? I am sure both China and Netanyahu are pulling strings, but to which extent?
It is unbelievable that the Supreme Court would deny the influence of foreign money.
Do they REALLY believe we are THAT ignorant. They made sure that our elections has become SECRET AUCTIONS.
The highest bidder will get what he wants.
That's what the networks and multiple channels-with-n othing-on, has done to them.
When Jimmy Carter/Ford debated and for a while afterwards, there was still a vestige of content on TV and Public radio but the "Idiotocracy" (silly movie but somewhat resonantly predictive of the times) is fast approaching in portrayal of public shallowness as a latter day version of "Panem et Circenses".
How else could such a sorry and shallow bunch of insincere and bloviating phoneys like Dimwits and Twit even be considered for office?
And then there's the good ol' racist motivations not to far beneath the surface and actually quite open in some places where I live -and that's in a relatively progressive state.
for the 47%
Only from our point of view, as masters of the table,
does the eater of crumbs glow with a terrible loveliness.
He clings to our pity like a bat,
certainly. And a few, independent of us princes,
think that disgusting, our table his rafter.
They miss the light in his face when we bowl him
the crumb.
For a moment he sees it with the fullest glance, a baby's,
his crumb beyond compare.
There is nothing else in his world but its hollows,
its rims,
bounding dreamily over the tablecloth like sagebrush.
From a distance he drinks the shadows in, facet by facet,
and swells..
What a pleasure to hear us, the masters, counting -- two, ah,
three
until, lovingly, it's his!
Oh well, if Romney wins in November the upside will be that all of Obama's supporters will have to learn thinking and have to start dealing with real issues and opposing policies they've been cheering for the past four years instead, for a change you can believe in, and it'll all be Romney's fault.
He didn't get the message, and support for him continued to dwindle.
His 11th hour pretense at being a Democrat doesn't ring true to those of us who are life-long Democrats.
[snip]
He is NOT caving. When someone continually and repeatedly goes along on everything with someone else whom they 'claim' to be opposing, it's not 'caving'.
It's the plan. The INTENTIONAL plan.
http://antemedius.com/content/it-not-obamas-fault
That said, I agree with fredboy: Obama is indeed "caving in," though I doubt it's from exhaustion. As I pointed out in "Outside Agitator's Notebook" after the dreadful debate, Obama is a creature of the Ruling Class -- and the Ruling Class clearly rejects Obama's creeping fascism in favor of Romney's race to JesuNazism.
Therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume, just as I argued in my blog, that Obama has been ordered to lose the election. Hence the Ruling Class Media's focus on the Pew Poll -- thus to preserve the illusion of democracy.
So you're saying the left is deserting Obama because he's black?
For what it's worth, I consider myself left of center and will be voting (albeit reluctantly) for Obama in November. Like a lot of third-party enthusiasts I'm disappointed in him, but Romney would be worse and no third party can do anything but spoil the election as lon g as it takes an absolute majority in the Electoral College to win the White House. Want to change that? Press for a constitutionaal amendment.
wasn't the message of occupy that both parties are servants of wealth, not we the people?
didn't obama send homeland security to bust thier heads?
didn't chomsky and greenwald just point out the sameness of the duopoly?
hasn't obama completely embraced and expanded the war or terror?
what about this is difficult?
and you gonna vote for your own enslavement? again?
on behalf of the people of afghanistan, and the soldiers being betrayed as connonfodder for the 1%, i won't be voting for the duopoly.
morally and legally constrained.
When will Americans DEMAND the breakup of such narrow, tight and exploitative control of Media in America by 4-5 Global Corporate 'Media Fiefdoms' into thousands of separate and diverse bits and far more Fair, Balanced and Democracy Friendly Pieces more broadly and widely owned and operated by much more numerous and individually far less powerful different entities?
Why else would so many Americans keep going along with this entire 'Smaller Government' flim flam which is leading to a literal Corporate Lobby Cabal takeover of America and many other Western Nations by Global Corporate Corruption of Government on all levels if they were not being 'TALKED' into it 24/7 by a highly manipulative and clever Corporate Media Empire?
Remember America-- Corporate Boards are not beholden to Country or their fellow Citizens. They are beholden exclusively to their (Global) Corporate Shareholders and the very specific mandate to increase their Shareholders' Wealth.
WAKE UP..!!
Smaller Government..a.k .a.. Less Government...a. k.a. Privatization of Government-- are all Corporate Lobby Scams!!
It's just a way to undermine democracy, which is probably because the people are stupid. I admit I don't want my government run by some kind of conglomeration of manipulated mobs. You have to have people with a brain who have something other than their own benefit when they vote.
It was like watching your team go into the bottom of the 9th inning with a 10-0 lead and then allowing the home team to score 11 runs.
I think it was the media and Romney that rope-a-doped President Obama into thinking that dislike of Bush is so primary in people's minds that he did not have to campaign.
Last night ON PBS FRONTLINE there was a documentary about both Romney and Obama, although it seemed to me to be more of an ad for Romney when you compare their lives.
This makes me go right back to the moment when I reluctantly decided to vote for Obama after voting for Clinton in the primary. I was disappointed at the time but remember Obama got a boost from Republicans like Colin Powell and even Christopher Buckley (William F.'s son) who threw away his whole career to support Obama.
Over a year ago I said Obama was going to have a very hard time getting re-elected and that he ought to bow out and let Democrats debate parallel to Republicans. Why is Obama still here when he said if the economy did not recover he would be a one term President? He can see that for whatever reason what he has done has not worked, that is trying to work with Republicans and compromising.
He is still doing the same thing. Does anyone think he is going to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
You do realize his looking down was him writing notes, and he was probably up all night. Remember, the night before the debate was when Syria first fired missiles into Turkey and it's pretty certain he didn't get to bed. All the Mittwit had to do was get sleep. Nobody seems to have brought these facts up because the media loves controversy.
Sure is tough to find completely 'objective' factual reportage these days, and at a time it has never been so critically needed.
Even without resorting to name calling and blame, why the aversion to (real) facts and fact-checks? Why is a candidate not called when a position adamantly stated one day is completely reversed the next, and then again the next day, and next?
At least there was a slight breath of fresh air (nee "Truth") in a recent CNN interview. (Who watched?) For the most part, broadcasters "know where their bread gets buttered" - by the infinite money pits of the few - the would be deed-holders to the remaining few percent of non-harvested real people's life savings and small piece of the "American Dream". That dream is so nightmarish - we need to wake up and ask both the media and the candidates for some Truth. Follow the facts. Follow the record. Follow the money.
Also made that ersatz racist comment about having 5 boys so being used to lies.
The fact is, it seems to me that we are all supporting Obama as some kind of Progressive, or even a Democrat when his actions have been based on the false assumption - right to the end - that he is going to win people's approval by walking the middle line and disavow whatever it is that he believes in.
Democrats are in a crummy position, we basically can only vote for Obama and Obama is not much of a Democrat. It's the same with Romney, he is not the Republican most of the Republicans wanted, but he will say even less than Obama.
And the election is decided by people who do not know what to think or know much about either candidate except what they see in the media.
Agreed that we are collectively all in a "crummy position". My point is that if the lies and spin were supplemented by occasional reality and facts and documented history, we might all learn. (No doubt there's lots of support for whatever specific positions we hold.) We can't vote on important issues, if they're not attended to, by candidates or the media. Facts can be helpful, if used in good faith, understood, and accepted. It's the only way to counter the "say it often enough and people believe it" principle so beloved within political campaigns.
I am reading two books right now that have me so mad at the entire system I wish I could find another country to live it.
Predator Nation by Charles Ferguson of "Inside Job" documentary fame.
Beyond Outrage by Robert Reich.
Now these are good books, and they are starting to move towards talking about what can be do, and saying that something has to be done - something active.
Well, maybe Obama should have the presence of mind to mention this is the next debate.
I am also moved almost to tears by the fate that awaits my American friends as they seem poised to elect Mitt Romney as their president.
This would be a calamity for the American middle and working classes, the elderly and children, women and ... well just about everybody.
On the other hand, the bulk of the victims in the "third world" are not normally the authors of their own misfortune; in the USA, however, people have the right to vote.
Now, Mr. Obama has been a severe disappointment, but it could be worse ... and might soon be much, much worse.
As well, I am not only worried about American society, but about the entire world. You are the at the center of the largest and most powerful empire to date. Your military, diplomatic and environmental policies affect everyone on the planet.
If not for your own sake, then for ours - please vote for the lesser of the two evils from whom you must choose.
Something was funny though. I was wondering if he was ill. Either a tremendous headache or something worse, or had something on his mind or even worried about being shot at or something.
I think he has had the world on his back for too long with hardly any support, not gotten much credit or love for it, and been kicked in the teeth daily with lies by the Republicans. He very likely has a case of job burnout and is coming close to his breaking point.
I cannot believe all the public appearances these guys have to make, but the President has a full time job and he has a lot of varying things on his mind.
I was wondering if he was worried about security because the fringe Republican's are loonies and maybe someone was out for him, could be even the secret service had told him about something.
I am critical of the President, but it does not keep me from seeing that he does have a very tough job, there are a lot of powerful people that want use him or throw him away.
I just wonder if some days he just curses the day he decided to run for President.
Romney is an ambitious businessman but not a very good politician.... Romney’s greatest success in life was his tenure as CEO of the Bain Capital hedge fund, which is not the best experience to have when campaigning for voters whose lives have been ruined by the actions of corporate America.
[snip]
Unlike Romney, Obama is a very good politician. He excels at garnering support from voters by telling them what they want to hear while simultaneously doing things those same people wouldn’t want him to do.
[snip]
He has spent so much time agreeing with Republicans in private that he forgot he was in public with more than 60 million viewers who were under the naive impression that the two parties are very different.
[snip]
Obama cannot even muster support for Democratic low-hanging fruit like Social Security. When the moderator asked the president if he saw a difference with his opponent on Social Security he happily replied, “You know, I suspect that on Social Security we’ve got a somewhat similar position.” Those words may have been shocking but they were true. It is Obama who appointed a deficit reduction commission which called for cuts to entitlement programs.
The president floundered uncharacteristi cally because he forgot that his audience wasn’t made up of the Republicans he is so anxious to please
...
http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-why-romney-beat-obama
RSS feed for comments to this post