Give Faux News to BushCo; then tell * to shut up about media. (rant)

[DLnyc]

Why not just hand control of Faux News to the * administration. Most of us here know that BushCo controls Faux News already. But if we just made it official, then we could just tell * to put all his 'happy stories' about Iraq on Faux and then shut the F up about the media. Furthermore, the rest of the media could stop feeling guilty about not spinning the story exactly the way * wants it spun and focus on putting together the best reports they can. People who only want to see what Big Brother wants them to see could keep watching Faux and the rest of us could pick our way through the rest of the media and decide which is the most accurate.

I'm really tired of the * administration responding to every problem by trying to fix up the image. If they got the reality and the policies right in the first place, they wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to spin the image. The problem here is that Iraq is a huge f'ing disaster. The fact that the public has started to notice this is a result of the reality and fixing up the public's perception still leaves a totally f'ed up reality on the ground in Iraq. Also, since * has now claimed absolute, dictatorial powers, I think it is fair to say that whatever the reality is in Iraq, it's HIS GODDAMNED FAULT!

more ranting here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=756583&mesg_id=756583

Okay, I'm done. For now. Thanks for listening.

[beltanefauve]

1. There are old Repubs

out there who believe we would have "won" Vietnam if only the media didn't "turn" the American people against it.

And there seem to be striking similarities between the quagmire known as Vietnam and the quagmire known as Iraq...

[DLnyc]

3. I would say the public turned against the war in spite of the media,

not because of it. It is true that the current maladministration has a tighter grip on the media than Nixon did, but my recollection is that even during Vietnam, up until very near the end when the vast majority of Americans had turned against the war the media (including, famously, the New York Times) basically didn't challenge the idea that we were fighting the spread of communism, when in fact we were fighting for war profits, cheap labor and 'expansion of American Influence' (aka empire). In my humble opinion. And in the opinion of millions of Vietnamese who kept on fighting us.

So why not officially give these reptiles their own station (which they actually have already) and let them give it their best shot. Show all the happy pictures they want. In fact, if there are so many happy stories in Iraq, why haven't they been showing them on Faux? I guess because
1) Faux is secretly owned and operated by a vast liberal conspiracy
or
2) Faux ratings are already falling and they're afraid that if their BS gets any more obvious then they'll only have 2 viewers left
or
3) Iraq is a goddamned hell-hole now and nobody can find any happy stories.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

2. Why not just hand control of the F word network to Bushco.

Hmmm... I think that's an excellent idea.Besides being a propaganda tool for Bush Co and the Republican Party, what's the purpose of Faux News anyway? Since Faux's sole purpose is being a propaganda mouthpiece for Bush Co and any criticism of Bush Co considered treason by the chickenhawks at Faux,I wonder if Bushes cousin still runs programming for Faux. I use the F word already for both. Lets see Faux News,Faux President,yep the same.:rofl: :hi:

[DLnyc]

4. Two F's in a fraud.

I like it.

[MessiahRp]

5. Don't they already control it?

The entire station is just White House PR anyway.

Rp

[OneBlueSky]

6. BushCo already HAS Faux News . . . they also have . . .

CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and, to some extent, most every major newspaper in the US . . .

ok, maybe not completely -- but their influence is certainly the guiding hand for most news and editorial decisions throughout the corporate media . . .