Could the U.S.A media be defending Bush because the world is against him?

[glarius]

I have a thought on why some of the American media people defend or at the very least, cover up for George Bush. I know some of them are simply right wingers and others may be sticking to the party line because their news corporations are owned by Bush supporters and they are afraid of losing their jobs.....But could there be another reason? Something like a family closing ranks around a wayward son or daughter?....What I mean is, we will criticize or even condemn a member of our family for a wrong doing, but let an outsider say anything....and watch out!...Could it be that some intelligent, informed, thinking members of the American media know what a terrible mess Bush has made of things, but out of "family pride" they are refusing to condemn him?......Just a thought....:shrug:

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. they do it for money

not only the extra cash he pays for his own spots, but the fact he brings them war, and with war, ratings

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. Much truth here; remember the build-up to the Iraq war....

the media was positively orgasmic in it's anticipatory excitement.
At a couple of pts. it seemed as though peace might actually break out ( when the inspectors destroyed banned missles, for instance) the media's dissapointment and anxiety was PALPABLE.

Some disturbed stuff going on in this department.

[EVDebs]

2. Nah, They're paid to by "Operation Mockingbird" that the CIA has

had in place for years. Why do you think the DoD can't account for $2.3 trillion (about 20% of annual GDP) according to CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Somebody's gotta be paid lotsa $ in order to p.r. for this administration.

[papau]

6. The CIA pay is small - the corp whore pay is huge - And these folks are

just media whores.

By the way - the $2.3 trillion is not lost or mis-spent or unaccounted for.

What they are talking about is the mis-match between Dept of Treasury computer program's "name for funds appropriated in a bill that has passed Congress", and the Defense Dept accounting system's names for those same funds.

The names, and definitions of what is in the accounts, in the 2 accounting systems do not match - so the Defense Dept tries to use home made reports to prove to Treasury that the monies given them in a Bill were spent in the manner the bill called for.

Indeed - the lack of a tight accounting system match allows funds to go into accounts that Congress did not authorize! So a Little game playing - but no massive theft or loss.

[EVDebs]

12. Oh contrere mon frere. Ever hear of the book "Blank Check" ?

by Tim Weiner ? The DoD covers over much of the 'black budget' and the CIA is increasingly becoming irrelevant, witness Office of Special Plans stovepiping of intell, in the whole process.

Very massive theft and loss, if you read the book. Congressional 'oversight' is just ignored. Why bother even telling the jokers on the hill ? Black ops isn't something Congress is ever going to get a handle on...they lost that capability as "Blank Check" shows.

Also, it doesn't take a whole lotta money to bribe pliant media with, since they get fed stories and sources...take Judith Miller of NYTimes for example.

[Al-CIAda]

13. the NSA budget is 10 times that of the CIA - which is unkown

We have no idea how much of taxpayer budget goes to the 'operation'.

[EVDebs]

15. Correctamundo. And the propaganda / disinformation budget

must be in deep deficit with this crowd !

[papau]

16. True - I am just saying the reported Salaries run around $50,000 from

CIA or DOD to our media friends - not big bucks compared to media salaries from their corporate employer.

But I grant you there is no congressional oversight.

The accounting mis-match kills any Treasury look back - so you are asking DOD to do a spreadsheet, that you take on faith,that was tracking authorized monies from some bill.

The DOD accountants are honest - and very much overworked at the top end - but black ops are hidden before they even get the numbers.

So it is not theft per see - just a reallocation of resources determined by unkown person.

sigh .....

:-)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. No, they are paid shills!

[marc_the_dem]

4. $$$$$$

all about the benjamins

[DBoon]

5. No, either paid off or blackmailed

The ones who tried to criticize Bush find their gonads removed without anesthesia.

See Dan Rather and CBS for an example

[Crankie Avalon]

7. Our media are subsidiary entities of large corporations...

...and Bush is the chosen agent of those large corporations.

At its highest levels, the major media in America are simply the marketing division of parent conglomerates and are self-interestedly concerned with the promotion of the Bush Administration's pro-corporate agenda, rather than with anything as quaint as the even-handed reporting of "the news."

Often, ground-level reporters and other on-air talent may have some ideals and a desire for integrity, but the elite executives are the media's true decision-makers. These exectives would never have attained their positions in the corporate structure unless they were wholly loyal to it.

[el_gato]

8. bingo

[Disturbed]

11. Major Network Ownership Rundown:

Major Network Ownership Rundown:

CBS: Westinghouse Power
NBC: General Electric
FOX: Rupert "Satan" Murdoch
ABC: Walt Disney Corp.

[TWiley]

9. Bush spends billions with public relations firms.

It would be a real piss-poor reason to support that heel just because the rest of the world could see the truth about him.

[lachattefolle]

10. If they cared at all about "family pride" they would condemn him. The man

is a disgrace to the office and our country.