NY Times / Media and censorship in hand of ultra-liberal organizations

JaJae · 04-17-2007, 03:06 PM

The president of NOW, Tammy Bruce, is no more. And she is now on national television telling how corrupt and far left our media is.

I used them. I mean, my best friend when I was the president of NOW is I could dial a phone and I would move the story through the "New York Times" owned newspapers. It was the network that I could rely on. There I was sitting in my basement alone writing the National Organization for Women in Los Angeles, and because I would get an idea and package it, I would move it nationally the next day. That certainly is not -- now frankly, I'm proud of most of my work. But the truth of the matter is I used essentially what is a conspiratorial network of people in the newspaper and television industry at the time that would move whatever it is that I wanted moved.

And coming from the left, one of the agendas that we had of course was the realization that we had to at least make our agenda appear to be broader and more accepted than it was. We would create sub groups, separate special interest groups making it appear as though there was a large mainstream movement occurring when there wasn't.. Of course the argument was that the end justified, was justified the means. Now in this instance in what you have just talked about with, with Mr. DeLay is what happened to you is what happened what I consider the test case back six, seven years ago to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, with a word plucked out of a sentence used in an attempt to destroy one person. That effort, Bill, was launched by about a half a dozen people only and facilitated through the internet of well financed, small group of people who have literally and they did then and they still do, have a list of individuals that that are to be targeted, because they know that– Well, you are on it of course. It's, it’s people who are not intimidated, who will not be silenced of their own accord, and so they must be destroyed. We saw it start with Coulter a few months ago, and it's moved to Imus. And of course they will move down their list because we're moving into this election.

Why would anyone attack Imus?

Well, he’s, just the reason I get targeted is quote, not being a, quote, "real Democrat." He is targeted because I see him as being the Lieberman, if you will, of, of the Democratic framework. There is a civil war going on right now between the far left individual extremists as you’ve, as you’ve noted them to be, and the classical liberal basic Democrats. And that is where you saw the Lamont-Lieberman attack happened, the attempt to purge Lieberman. In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually or conservatives, these far left forces need to purge our own house of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are. That's why Imus had to be eliminated. And that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list.

O’REILLY: But, but you’re telling me you had people that you could feed stories to they would print verbatim. Wouldn't check them you could just feed what you wanted to them and pop it right out there.

BRUCE: Yes. It was mostly, it was mostly about, it was mostly theory, it was attitude, it was the idea itself. And we'd move it through the "New York Times" and of course it would move to the "Boston Globe."

O’REILLY: Right, right, and now you have Rosie O'Donnell who is now doing this in the entertainment realm. They contact her, they feed her this crap. She spits it out in front of all the women who are watching her on ABC. And this is how it goes.

BRUCE: Well you have multiple impressions using different media. You’ve got of course newspapers and people like Frank Rich. It's moved through the guarantors on camera like Rosie O'Donnell. So a regular Americans hear it from so many different avenues they believe it's true. And they get really immersed in it. Our job is, and part of what I see as my job now is to expose that method so that Americans can finally make up their own minds. And that's through talk radio and the internet. That's why this–

I think this is another example that lays to rest the corruption of liberals and the media. A former president of a far left liberal organization admitting that she used to write up stories in her basement and would send them to the NY Times who would print them verbatim. And then the Boston Globe picked it up, and then it was out publicly. She admits the Democrats have a list of people they are going after to try to destroy in order to move the party further left and that unquestionably Americans are getting the views of ultra left wingers in their media.

Whenever anyone complains about the bias of Fox, I think this goes to show that the rest of the media isn't all that much better. They run the stories that are being fed to them by the ultra-left verbatim in an attempt to deceit Americans into thinking it's a widespread issue, when it's not. This is huge dishonesty. If the ex-president of the NRA went on CNN and said Fox ran the stories he typed up in his basement verbatim and he used them to promote their propaganda without question, we'd all be shitting bricks hearing this story on every other major news network. Yet there is practically nothing at all about this. She is confirming something many of us have known for some time. Our mainstream media is the mouthpiece of liberals and Democrats. It is why Fox gets such high ratings. If there were other conservative channels to watch, Fox wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is now.

Linzyhop · 04-17-2007, 03:10 PM

like i've been saying. media is just as biased left as it is right.

ballz2wallz · 04-17-2007, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

like i've been saying. media is just as biased left as it is right.

7960 · 04-17-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

like i've been saying. media is just as biased left as it is right.

buckle your seatbelt, keep your head and hands inside the ride at all times, please no flash photography......prepare yourself for the "BUT I'VE WATCHED FOX SO I KNOW THEY'RE WORSE" ride!

Linzyhop · 04-17-2007, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

you don't think so?

Diamond Cross · 04-17-2007, 03:54 PM

Remember,only FOX News can be biased and no other newsmedia can because it's conservative. And only conservatives can be biased, not liberals.

ballz2wallz · 04-17-2007, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

you don't think so?

I can name only a few that could be considered right-leaning. I can name hundreds in mainstream media that are left.

It's hardly balanced.

Ardentfrost · 04-17-2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I can name only a few that could be considered right-leaning. I can name hundreds in mainstream media that are left.

It's hardly balanced.

I can't name 10 seperate news/media outlets.

Viacom, News Corporation, Liberty Media Corporation, CBS Corp, Time Warner...

That's 5.

I guess you could go foreign controlled media outlets like BBC, but they don't follow the same rules as us. BBC is state owned, which is illegal in the US.

You certainly can't count blogs and editorials because of course they're going to be biased... biased to the author's leaning.

JaJae · 04-17-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I can't name 10 seperate news/media outlets.

Viacom, News Corporation, Liberty Media Corporation, CBS Corp, Time Warner...

That's 5.

I guess you could go foreign controlled media outlets like BBC, but they don't follow the same rules as us. BBC is state owned, which is illegal in the US.

You certainly can't count blogs and editorials because of course they're going to be biased... biased to the author's leaning.

I think you're using a very micro definition of "media." Why not considering mainstream media outlets what they truly are.. the mainstream outlets people receive their media pertaining to news and politics. That includes cable, newspapers, internet, radio, etc.. The mainstream media as a whole in this country is not limited to 10 companies. There are sub organizations within those companies as well as media from all different outlets that Americans receive their news and opinion to form their political ideology. The overview of the mainstream media in this country is left leaning.

Ardentfrost · 04-17-2007, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think you're using a very micro definition of "media."

Well, I guess you could broaden it to non-news conglomerates, but I don't see how Comcast could be considered biased with their G4TV programs

I did forget Walt Disney Company who owns ABC, who does the news, though they don't have any other media besides ABC News (no news papers or magazines like the others have)

Ardentfrost · 04-17-2007, 04:42 PM

Ok, so far I'm up to 6... I'll add some more since I'm looking them up...

Hearst Corp (owns a lot of magazines and newspapers)

That's 7. The others I find our all foreign and I can't speak to them not being controlled by governments. The situation we're talking about is right or left LEANING, in some cases (as sited before), very extreme... but do we need to count up all the individual subsidaries to see what the score is? Rupert Murdoch holds the most popular subsidiaries of all 7 media conglomerates I listed... So even if his Fox News is the only right leaning, popularity should even it out, right?

Both sides use media to indoctrinate the masses... the score of right vs. left shouldn't matter, the fact that it's happening at all sucks.

Linzyhop · 04-17-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Both sides use media to indoctrinate the masses... the score of right vs. left shouldn't matter, the fact that it's happening at all sucks.

that's what I mean.

RMNIXON · 04-17-2007, 10:28 PM

You should read her books. Tammy Bruce still considers herself a true feminst and a liberal, but she hates the sort of liberal establishment hypocricy and media manipulation that has developed over the years and will speak and write honestly about it even if her former friends wont return her phone calls!

Ardentfrost · 04-17-2007, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You should read her books. Tammy Bruce still considers herself a true feminst and a liberal, but she hates the sort of liberal establishment hypocricy and media manipulation that has developed over the years and will speak and write honestly about it even if her former friends wont return her phone calls!

That is certainly respectable. I might not like her politics, but she certainly has honor (at least now)

RMNIXON · 04-18-2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That is certainly respectable. I might not like her politics, but she certainly has honor (at least now)

She was head of Los Angeles NOW when OJ did his thing. Remember the police photos of beat up Nicole? That is the way she wanted to play it. As an abused woman who got murdered by a jelous ex-husband. But National NOW said they would not back her up. The Black anti-Police thing was more important to the PC crowd than the beat up and murder woman thing!

grembert · 04-18-2007, 11:06 PM

A few days ago there was a thread about how biased Fox News is. My comment was : ( 1 ) What harm is done? ( 2 ) Isn't it all just a matter of opinion?

Some of you are saying that many news channels are slanted liberal . My comment is : ( 1 ) What harm is done? ( 2 ) Isn't it just a matter of opinion?

The differences tells me that our news media is alive and well -- a good thing , not a bad thing

Ardentfrost · 04-18-2007, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

A few days ago there was a thread about how biased Fox News is. My comment was : ( 1 ) What harm is done? ( 2 ) Isn't it all just a matter of opinion?

Some of you are saying that many news channels are slanted liberal . My comment is : ( 1 ) What harm is done? ( 2 ) Isn't it just a matter of opinion?

The differences tells me that our news media is alive and well -- a good thing , not a bad thing

( 1 ) it has mislead the public into thinking certain ways, or leading them to believe problems exist where they don't, or 100 other things

( 2 ) "left" and "right" isn't a matter of opinion. Nothing is pure... wanting bans on abortion is "right" while wanting abortions 100% legal is "left".... those aren't the only two options (although the false dilemma is presented by the media), but the point is you can say you're "right" or "left" leaning on that issue if you favor one side over the other. However, there can be varying levels of it. Thorgrim often complains that he is the only "true liberal" on these boards, but that's just because he's the most left leaning. Just because Motivez is right of Thorgrim doesn't make him right leaning...

cliffs on ( 2 ): no

grembert · 04-19-2007, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

( 1 ) it has mislead the public into thinking certain ways, or leading them to believe problems exist where they don't, or 100 other things

Thorgrim often complains that he is the only "true liberal" on these boards, but that's just because he's the most left leaning. Just because Motivez is right of Thorgrim doesn't make him right leaning...

I think it is fine that you are offended about a news source that can be misleading or even destructive. It is almost like a public service to bring that to everyone's attention.

But the harm you are talking about is done only to the uninformed. And Americans generally have enough common sense to sort out different viewpoints and draw fairly reasonable conlusions.

I just draw the line when people, either on the left or right, suggest or imply that some news sources ( Fox, MSNBC, etc. ) should be shut down, destroyed, or somehow silenced.

I consider myself to be a little right of center politically. But others might think differently. It is somewhat a matter of opinion.

Ardentfrost · 04-19-2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by grembert

I think it is fine that you are offended about a news source that can be misleading or even destructive. It is almost like a public service to bring that to everyone's attention.

But the harm you are talking about is done only to the uninformed. And Americans generally have enough common sense to sort out different viewpoints and draw fairly reasonable conlusions.

I just draw the line when people, either on the left or right, suggest or imply that some news sources ( Fox, MSNBC, etc. ) should be shut down, destroyed, or somehow silenced.

I consider myself to be a little right of center politically. But others might think differently. It is somewhat a matter of opinion.

Go take the world's smallest political quiz if you don't know if you're overall right or left leaning

I do not promote shutting down of any media outlet, but the harmlessness, as you put it, is not harmless at all. Fox is the most popular news network, and people aren't watching it because they want to see what conservative policy they'll promote or Bush administration craziness they'll defend next. MOST users think that Fox is just telling the truth.

Using a case: both mine and my wife's parents. They watch it and take it as gospel.