Former Network TV Producer Disgusted by Andrea Mitchell Wawa Edits: 'I'm Done' Denying Liberal Bias
Greg Kandra, a blogger and Catholic deacon whose last job in network TV was at CBS working for Katie Couric, took to his Deacon's Bench blog to lament the sorry, biased state of TV news as NBC's Andrea Mitchell attempted to edit Mitt Romney's remarks at a Wawa convenience store into a "supermarket scanner moment" that would make him look like an out-of-touch rich guy.
I used to defend the networks and tut-tut liberal bias, he wrote, but no more. "Forget it," he said, "I'm done. You deserve what they're saying about you."
I’m tired. Truly. I’ve grown weary of trying to defend the indefensible and explain the inexplicable. For years, people have stomped their feet and pounded their fists and snorted “Liberal media bias!” and I’ve always tut-tutted and shooshed them and said, “No, no. Calm down. They meant well. It was just a misunderstanding. A mistake. These things happen.” I spent over 25 years working in the oft-reviled Mainstream Media and I saw up close and personal how the sausage was made. I knew the people who wielded the knives and wore the aprons, and could vouch (most of the time, anyway) for their good intentions.
But now?
Forget it. I’m done. You deserve what they’re saying about you. It’s earned. You have worked long and hard to merit the suspicion, acrimony, mistrust and revulsion that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you. You have successfully eroded any confidence, dispelled any trust, and driven your audience into the arms of the Internet and the blogosphere, where biases are affirmed and like-minded people can tell each other what they hold to be true, since nobody believes in objective reality any more. You have done a superlative job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press.
Good job.
I just have one question:
What the hell is wrong with you guys?
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Bingo
Submitted by oldfart on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 6:26am.
Why did it take so long?
As a whole the American people follow the Lincoln model: " You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Just look at their ratings vs Fox.
And why people continue to call ABC, CBS, NBC el.al. the 'main stream media' is unreal. That may have been true during Vietnam and the Nixon Years but now they are the 'Lame Stream Media' with little connection with this quantum universe.
I call them
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:14am.
the MAIMstream media.
@ motherbelt
Submitted by GigglingGoogler on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:46am.
I like your depiction of the "media" but I just thought of one too:
How about.............The HateStream Media!
Biased media?
Submitted by stratosaurus on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 8:33pm.
Say it ain't so!
Call them "mainstream","MAIMstream", or "lamestream", they're all about the same. Even a formerly "fair and balanced" source has now gone more liberal. In the case of a "pundit" like O'Reilly, he flops around more than a fish out of water. Shep has been flying in tighter and tighter clockwise circles because of his severely-overdeveloped left wing.
Most of the "trusted" news sources are no more credible than my dog when he says he won't bother the pork chop on my plate while I go get a drink. I think you'll find pictures of most of those lying idjuts in an encyclopedia entry for "flaming a$sholes" at worst, "those who must don asbestos underwear" at least.
took too long?
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:44am.
With the Internet we are returning to the "Old Days" of journalism when there was bias at every turn of the page but there was enough information out there that you could have honest debate. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and many, many others had media outlets to directly voice their opinions and in most cases attack their rivals with some degree of separation.
This existed until Television dominated the landscape of the news media and with the wire services and conglomeration of the media outlets - it only became much, much more singular in the lack of variance in view points.
The best we seem to be able to hope for from the profession of journalism is numerous outlets backing various points of view and leaving it up to the consumer to digest. The idea of an unbiased news source is similar to believing in the Tooth-Fairy.
Sad isn't it?
Submitted by paratisi on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 3:17pm.
Maybe I'm to old or just out of touch but, The Junior Varsity Media is what comes to mind.
The Blogosphere have become the Varsity or Mainstream and the alphabets and their cable and print lackeys have relegated themselves to Junior Varsity... The JV team.
The JVmedia
This way you don't have to explain why they are so lacking in talent or common sense or intellectual integrity... They are the Junior Varsity, they just haven't reached the level of basic journalism 101. They simply can't yet grasp the difference between journalism and advocacy.
Not to mention it would roast the chestnuts of all the pseudo-intellectual, elitist wanna-be's that make up the vast majority of the JVmedia.
I love Deacon Greg's blog
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:30am.
He definitely is a person who gives the benefit of the doubt, and I could tell he was well and truly fed up.
His characterization of Mitchell's reaction: "Oh, bother. Fine. Here's what we left out" is spot on.
Knowing what I know now...
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:30am.
I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if the Bush scanner incident was edited too.
Maybe not edited,
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:00am.
I don't recall the actual footage that they played, but the incident was definitely mischaracterized.
I was a canard that wouldn't die (mostly because they kept it alive).
They made it seem like Bush didn't know what a supermarket scanner was, but in reality he was marveling at technology that could even read ripped or mangled bar code labels.
scanner
Submitted by right of way on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:57am.
motherbelt, you are absolutly correct about the torn bar code, and on top of that, i heard rush say that it could also weigh produce and price it, which at the time was brand new technology. so yes, the lame stream media distorted the truth to make a republican look dumb and out of touch.
Ann Coulter totally debunked it in one of her books
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 3:04pm.
I have read them all, but I can't remember in which one she unravelled the whole thing.
Apparently two things happened, according to her. The first was that GHWB at first thought it was a bit odd that the guy was proudly demonstrating a well-known technology (bar code scanners), but 41 politely went along with it (he was known for his courtesy). Then when he saw how well it could read torn or wrinkled bar codes, he was impressed.
The only original source of the story was a press stringer who did get it right, but it was distorted to fit the template when it was retold by others.
IIRC
wrong again
Submitted by Mycos on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 6:50pm.
Bar code readers do not weigh items to this day, but merely read what is stated somewhere within the code it reads. It does not weigh produce without additional info gained from another device. So Rush was, and still is, wrong.
Myopic, OHH L@@k, a lib flails and fails again.Flap flap flap
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:23pm.
two devices in one...since the 90's
You Didn't Build That.
Out of touch?
Submitted by fulldroolcup on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 11:47am.
Mycos: Use a self-service checkout a supermarket and you'll see how wrong you are; single devices that weigh and scan are now the rule.
For, say, bananas, you put them on the scanner after the scanner reads the code. The scanner /scale weighs the item and registers the total amount .
Alternatively, some boxed items sold by the pound/oz are treated the same way: put the item on the scanner with the code facing down. Scanner reads code and weighs. Voila!
No separate device is required.
You really ought to get out more.
Bush/Scanner
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:08am.
President Bush was being shown a brand new scanner that was not even on the market yet. It is my understanding that the scanner never did make it to market.
That said, how many presidents or their spouses are able to waltz into a supermarket and do their shopping.
Except for the moocher, of course.
Compare it to the Shirley Sherrod episiode
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 12:17pm.
Sherrod was an Obama political appointee to the Georgia office of USDA. She was recorded giving a speech at a function in which she came across as a racial bigot. Someone sent Breitbart several minutes of the video, and he posted it. Sherrod was fired.
But someone else had a longer video of the speech, in which Sherrod appeared to have been describing her personal transformation from bigotry to tolerance.
The MSM jumped all over Breitbart for taking Sherrod's speech -- several minutes of it -- out of context. Moreover, they insisted that it was just this kind of episode that demonstrated why true journalism should be left in the hands of trusted, trained professionals like NBC News -- and presumably, Andrea Mitchell.
You forget, Galvanic, that Andrew also represented
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:14pm.
the story related by Sherrod to be depicting contemporaneous or at least very recent events, when, in fact, a five-minute google search would have established they took place over a couple of decades earlier.
It was irresponsible.
Jer
As usual, Jer, your take on an event from a---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:32pm.
left side perspective.
MD
Jer, WHAT?!!!You are wrong!
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:41pm.
Jer,
WHAT?!!!
You are wrong!
I heard the Sherrod story for the first time from Glen Beck on the day it became news. he, who got it from Breitbart, clearly said that it had all happened years before, what she was talking about in her speech. Not for a second did I believe, through the news I heard about Sherrod, that her actions were contemporaneous.
Sorry, you are either being dishonest or like Matthewdean said, looking at things from the Left wing side which makes it comfortable to claim Breibart was irresponsible.
You are the one who is irresponsible for claiming Breirbart did something he never did.
Sorry, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:33pm.
You are confused. We may disagree about the degree of his irresponsibility, if any. But what I posted is correct.
Jer
You so believe your opinion to be correct, Jer, that you ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:54pm.
simply cannot allow for the fact that it is liberally biased.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:23pm.
I allowed for disagreement with my opinion, but facts are facts. If you don't wish to check them out and don't trust my word, then have one of your conservative buds check for you.
Jer
I doubt I missed any of your posts, Jer, relative ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:47pm.
the Breitbart - Sherrod brouhaha; and suffice it to say, I believe every single one of them demonstrated having an axe to grind with Breitbart, while you simultaneously fell all over yourself in attempting to defend Shirley Sherrod.
Taking the left side is what you do - your raison d' etre here at NBs.
As I stated before; your belief that your version is the truth is understandable; but that does not make it the correct version.
What in the world makes you think my "conservative buds" could check out a set of facts and find that a lefty subscribed to them?
I do believe you set my conservative buds an impossible task. :o)
MD
More deplorable behavior from Uncle Jer
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 3:11pm.
Uncle Jer being batpoo crazy: ...Andrew also represented the story related by Sherrod to be depicting contemporaneous or at least very recent events...
Utter nonsense. He simply related that story AS TOLD. Nothing at all to indicate the time of the events was old or new. Despicable behavior again.
As usual. Don't take my word for it. Look at the original article as saved on the wayback machine.
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Vet flails wildly...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 3:30pm.
Utter nonsense. He simply related that story AS TOLD. Nothing at all to indicate the time of the events was old or new. Despicable behavior again.
Nothing at all except Sherrod's explicit reference to the just passed Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. As I noted, a five minute google search would have established that occurred back in 1986, a fact which would have changed the entire narrative. But, heck, why mess up a good smear about Sherrod's "racist tale" and mistreatment of the poor white man. Breitbart and Fox Nation commenters were too busy hand-wringing and screaming "call the farmer, get him a lawyer, sue the pig Sherrod." to check for themselves. Despicable behavior indeed.
Tighten up, Vet. You're slipping.
Jer
Actually, Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 3:35pm.
Breitbart represented the SPEECH as recent, not Sherrod's deplorable racism.
It was apparent that Sherrod was referencing something that happened in her past.
Actually, RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:22pm.
The clip as initially presented gave the unmistakable impression that Sherrod's story involved very recent events occurring during the exercise of her federal duties as a USDA appointee. That impression was reinforced by an introductory script overlay noting the date of Sherrod's appointment, the sums the Department administers, etc.
After the furor erupted, there was a partial clarification added at the bottom of the introduction to the video indicating the incident predated her federal service. It still failed to mention the episode occurred 24 years earlier.
Jer
Actually, Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:44pm.
your whole argument reference Breitbart/Sherrod has been a left side barrage from day one.
Statements like "--gave the unmistakable impression that --", are merely proof that the inclinations inherent in your thought processes slue left; and that you will push your opinion as if it were gospel.
While a comment like that may play well to a lefty crowd - it gets the amount of raspberries it deserves when pushed on a conservative site.
MD
Actually, Matthew--
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 6:08pm.
Some form of "you're a lefty" has been such a constant refrain of yours that it has lost its punch. It's like the rule that explains everything, explains nothing.
And the specific and critical flaw in that argument here is what I alluded to earlier: The commenters at Breitbart and FoxNews.com--not exactly lefty websites--were virtually, if not completely, unanimous in their initial reaction as well, i.e. believing Sherrod's white farmer story depicted very recent events.
Jer
It is a constant refrain, Jer, because it is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:25pm.
true; and the fact that it has no "punch' as far as affecting you personally is immaterial, as it is the truth.
As a lefty you are going to lean left, talk left, and support and defend the left - something you demonstrate continually.
You disagree with the right, bad mouth the right, argue with the right, attack the right, and talk down issues presented by the right while talking down to any one representing the right.
The fact that you are a lefty - by it's very essence- makes your opinion of, your presentation of, and your comments on, most any matter on these threads, slanted with a leftward orientation.
That makes your comments, on this most conservative of sites, subject to the gimlet eye relative being accepted as the unvarnished truth.
MD
..24 years ago, was that recorded on beta-max?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 6:32pm.
Remember Jer's home page is Media Matters....
Yea sure....whatever....
Sherrod replied, "I did say that, but they, for some reason, the stuff that Fox and the Tea Party does is scaring the administration.
Nothing scares this The Lord over the Fly, dictatorship!!!!
Travel back further in time to answer this: Oh both parties do it, blah blah almost equally.
Tomorrow there will be so many new threads , and so little time ea, pal.
You Didn't Build That.
Yeah, well,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:22pm.
For a story leaving such an "unmistakeable" impression, it sure gave me the impression that Sherrod's story had taken place in the past. I never, when seeing the video, thought she was referencing recent events.
This is why your list of detractors continues to grow.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 6:28am.
You argue that BREITBART says a story happened recently..
I say he did no such thing and bring the entire 2 paragraph Breitbart post forward.
Your refutation? Look at the video! Look at the video! Nothing at all except Sherrod's explicit reference... What the hell does Sherrod saying anything at all IN THE VIDEO have to do with what Mr. Breitbart represented? YOUR ARGUMENT WAS TO WHAT BREITBART SAID.
...Andrew also represented the story related by Sherrod to be depicting contemporaneous or at least very recent events...
You then attempt to EXPAND the argument by bringing in Fox Nation and making even further wild accusations. Now, knock off the horseshit. This is your accusation, let's focus on that before we discuss NEW arguments you make ---
Andrew also represented the story related by Sherrod to be depicting contemporaneous or at least very recent events..
In fact, he did not represent any such thing. I dare you to show us where in that 2 paragraphs Mr. Breitbart represented exactly what you claim. And do it without discussing what Sherrod or Fox Nation or anyone else on the planet said. Because you were were discussing BREITBART not Sherrod or Fox Nation or Fox News. And do it without reciting every single detail of the case because it is a given that -
How about sticking with backing up one claim before you introduce 16 others. Again, this is your accusation ---
...Andrew also represented the story related by Sherrod to be depicting contemporaneous or at least very recent events...
Point out in the 2 paragraph's in which Mr. Breitbart mentioned the clip, point out how in those 2 paragraphs he represented the story as being new.
This is why a fairly significant number of reasonable members
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:48am.
at this website have long regarded and continue to believe your compulsively overwrought, excessively harassing, annoyingly repetitive, occasionally hilarious, intermittently effective, admirably sourced but frequently embarrassing--and at times stunningly unhinged--posts to be ultimately counterproductive.
Don't bark orders at me, Vet. I'm thoroughly unimpressed and unswayed by such tactics. Nor am I interested in a classic Vet-orchestrated flamefest or in witnessing yet another "debate" devolve into farce. On the other hand, if you would like to have a straightforward, constructive and respectful exchange of views, I'm more than willing.
Jer
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:57am.
Uncle Jer: ...Andrew also represented the story related by Sherrod to be depicting contemporaneous or at least very recent events...
The Vet: He simply related that story AS TOLD. Nothing at all to indicate the time of the events was old or new. And look at that >>> Here is the entire 2 paragraphs he wrote.
Uncle Jer: Nothing at all except Sherrod's explicit reference to the...
The Vet: What is with the Sherrod's crap? You said Breitbart represented blah blah blah.
Uncle Jer: Look at me feets. Shuffle. Shuffle. Shuffle. Bet you can't name that dance.
You made the claim. Now I am expected to find the evidence of your claim?
Whatever. Tell us some more about how Fox Nation commenters forced Breitbart to represent the 'hood. Whatever.
Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 1:59am.
For the record, a representation doesn't have to be deliberate. That said, in the follow-up posts I used the term "gave the impression" and maybe that phrase would have been the better way for me to have framed it from the beginning.
In any event, by introducing the clip with the prominent note that Sherrod was appointed to her USDA position in 2009 [her NCAAP speech was in 2010] and referring to her duties as a federally appointed employee, and then immediately thereafter airing the video excerpts of Sherrod relating the story regarding her experiences with the white farmer, I believe the assumption that it involved a matter which had taken place during that time period [2009 and later] was a reasonable one. And my reading of numerous comments posted shortly after the excerpts were put up at Andrew's website tended to confirm that it was a common reaction and understanding of those viewing it.
Look, Breitbart did some really good work. His untimely death was a real tragedy. The nature of Sherrod's words and the NCAAP response may be open to criticism. But I think posting those videos without additional vetting was a poor decision.
NBC's actions in airing the misleading Zimmerman 911 tape were seriously irresponsible and inexcusable, and I blasted the network for it. I don't care about the ideological considerations. If, in my opinion, behavior was inappropriate and unjustified, I don't mind saying so.
Jer
I could accept that you got the impresson.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:13am.
a : a characteristic, trait, or feature resulting from some influence
c : a telling image impressed on the senses or the mind
Others might get the impression that people might need to have it explained exactly who and what Sherrod was and did seeing as how prior to the article, no one had a clue. Who is this woman and why are we to care? Ah, now I see from the text prior to the video....
But I think posting those videos without additional vetting was a poor decision.
Agreed. But we were not arguing that.
PS: The Hammer time dance.
Vet...are you saying any initial impression--by me and others--
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:30am.
that the events described by Sherrod [concerning her story about the white farmer] were of recent origin was an unreasonable reaction and not warranted by anything posted or stated (or unstated) by Breitbart?
Anyway, gotta run for now. I'll respond to any further comments tomorrow.
Later,
Jer
Correct.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:33am.
Coulda swore I made that kinda clear in my very first post.
Fair enough...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:44am.
Sometimes I allow myself to be distracted when a point is intermingled with the 'batpoo crazy...deplorable behavior' stuff. Bad habit of mine.
;-)
Jer
Dude. Serious?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 4:07am.
...inexcusable...unprecedented...obnoxious... hectoring...taunting...incredulously...fired back ...Amazing effrontery...snotty little bully-boy ...ushered off the premises right then and there. ...breathtakingly rude...shameless dissembler ...blithering idiot.
I was using colorful rhetoric as taught by one Cisco loving uncle. Apparently, I sounded too much like you and it scared even you.
Dude...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 11:13am.
That colorful rhetoric concerned a public figure who [presumably] was neither a commenter at nor otherwise associated with this website rather than a fellow NB member with whom I had enjoyed a friendly relationship over the past few years.
Jer
Now I feel bad.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 11:51am.
Uncle Jer is neither deranged or catpoo crazy or suntin I said before. Just wrong. A lot.
It's okay...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:14pm.
I'll try my best to be right more often.
:-)
U J
Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 3:17am.
the following, submitted by you;
--- *new This is why a fairly significant number of reasonable members
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:48am.
at this website have long regarded and continue to believe your compulsively overwrought, excessively harassing, annoyingly repetitive, occasionally hilarious, intermittently effective, admirably sourced but frequently embarrassing--and at times stunningly unhinged--posts to be ultimately counterproductive. ---
without going into what "a fairly significant number" might be, or even why a lefty would reasonably be found on this site except to antagonize conservatives, can easily be edited down appropriately, and more honestly, to:
Dear Vet,
As a lefty on these conservative threads, I really do not appreciate getting my ass handed to me.
DO YOU MIND?!?!?
Jer
No charge. :o)
MD
Matthew, don't you have some socks to sort
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 11:18am.
or a new thesaurus to memorize?
The Vet is quite capable of defending himself.
Jer
Uh, we beg to blandly differ with no colorful rhetoric..
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 11:55am.
I believe that was more a swipe at you than a defense of me. But whatever. Blandness. Oatmeal. Bag full of barley. Dust. Plain old tap water.
The Vet is quite ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 10:58pm.
capable of defending himself. Soooo---
Wait. What?
Really?!?
How much duz I owes ya, Jer? Dem blindin' glimpses uv da obvious mus be spensive, eh?
MD
Andrea Mitchell....
Submitted by adamsmith on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:01am.
She's a 99%er alright. A real comrade for the people. Are you and Alan going to be able to make the bills this month, Andrea? You being a 99%er, I figured maybe I can loan you and Alan some money. Let me know. These liberal pinko types make me sick. And no sweetheart, you have no integrity left. The only ones still believing you are the "useful idiots" your kind has been brainwashing for the last eighty years. Everyone else is onto your swill........
Andrea Mitchell...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:17am.
...not with 10 super strength grocery bags, not with a titanium condom, not ever! God,... what a disgusting thought! My mind needs cleansing with bleach!
"Don't blame me"
Submitted by Falze on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:45am.
I like how he was in there making the sausage for 25 years (the sausage that's been rotten at least since Cronkite's day) and it's only now that the media has gone biased, it's all about "you" still working there.
Admitting there is a problem
Submitted by Big TJW on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:31am.
Admitting there is a problem is often the first step toward a recovery, too bad he's a former producer and no longer involved.
If he admitted it...
Submitted by journoprof on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:40am.
If he was still a producer and admitted the 800-pound gorilla really was in the room he would soon be a former producer.
MFNBC has published Kandra's blog post
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 2:41pm.
"I defend the indefensible and explain the inexplicable. For years, people have said, “They mean well.” I spent over 25 years working in the Media and can vouch for their good intentions.
You deserve what they’re saying about you. It’s earned. You have worked long and hard to merit the trust that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you. You have successfully driven your audience into the arms of objective reality. You have done a superlative job of a great profession and one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press.
Good job."
I think the MSM-SUM-FTCM deserve a standing ovulation.
Now I wonder about Joe McCarthy
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 2:49pm.
Obviously, I don't really wonder about his patriotism, or the context of the times in which McCarthy operated in the anti-Communist days. My contention is that the media has vilified him to the point where his name is now used routinely with any claim of censorship and blacklisting.
What I AM wondering, however, is how the new media will rectify the actual events with the facts, including dispelling many myths that were routinely espoused by the socialist Left in this country, in addition to suppressing any actual censorship by those whom the Left would glorify.
The next decade will be interesting as Old Media migrates to the New Media model, in which more conservative/libertarian (re: correct) facts are presented.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
No need to wonder...
Submitted by Djinn1975 on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 3:25pm.
If you haven't already read M. Stanton Evans' gem, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against Americas Enemies. You'll wonder how the hell we ever won the cold war. You can point the finger at two former government employees for Communist China. And you can see the shameless castigation of one of America's greatest patriots because he was a breath away from breaking open the greatest government infiltration in history, until the recent regime, rather than listening to the evidence and facts presented by Senator McCarthy. The kicker is that he was proven right, on all but a few of his original suspects, in the late 90's by a declassified Army project called the Venona Papers.
Lots of rhetoric
Submitted by Mycos on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:53pm.
but name a single spy McCarthy identified, who was then ignored, and has been letter proven by the Venona papers to have actually existed.
Y'know.... If you subscribe to a POV that requires you to make stuff up in order to promote it, this is seen by other people placed in a similar situation as evidence that the POV has nothing factual about it that can instead be used for that promotion. Logically then, reason demands that we reassess our original reasons for wanting to promote a POV so lacking in inherent selling points that it requires we sell our own veracity and character short by making up lies to sell as a truth; often while attempting to portray our challengers as suffering from the same inability to tell the truth that we ourselves are engaging in to do so!!
Changing ones POV is the most ethical thing we can do in situations where conforming to an established POV means we must lie to ourselves about whther we need to lie top others in order not to be seen as wrong about the ideology we follow.
Total rubbish, Djinn...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:17pm.
I didn't read Blacklisted by History, but I did spend several hours researching it as well as the extensive online commentaries and correspondence by one of the individuals whom Evans relied upon as a--if not the most--prominent source in support of his pro-McCarthy thesis.
The bottom line: After thoroughly examining the evidence to date, including the Venona Intercepts and subsequent revelations, and then analyzing same in conjunction with every iteration of McCarthy's lists of alleged communists, he ripped the "McCarthy was right all along" argument to shreds.
Jer
And Ann Coulter disputes your "total rubbish" BS. ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 9:40pm.
So, like every other dispute with libs and lefties on these threads, the truth apparently lies on the side of one's ideology.
Problem for you is, this is a conservative site.
You lose here; and the current state of the nation indicates most clearly that libs and lefties are losing in the world outside these threads as well.
MD
I know what the Soviets thought...
Submitted by paratisi on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:07pm.
Hey comrade, get a load of McCarthy... his list only has 300 of our 3000 operatives... were good for a century.
KGB records that were opened after the fall of the Soviet Union showed over three thousand operatives in the U.S. at the time of the McCarthy hearings.
deacon
Submitted by theyjustcantstop on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 4:24pm.
25yrs.,i'm glad to hear your revelations, was there a pink slip coming in the mail from an arch-bishop maybe.
Conservatism = authoritarian deference ( r = 0.73 )
Submitted by Mycos on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 6:57pm.
Neither conceptually nor empirically does there appear to be any grounds for distinguishing authoritarianism and conservative personality - except that the former may be regarded as a somewhat more particular case of the latter" (Wilson, G. (1973). The Psychology of Conservatism. New York: Academic Press.)
"It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexual aggression.
An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in the traditional conservative personality than others."
.
Persons who had a dogmatic belief in religions tended to be more frequently and more intensely emotionally disturbed than those who followed less dogmatic religion (Ellis, 1986). Authoritarianism is significantly related to ethnic and racial prejudice, hostility and punitiveness (Wylie & Forest, 1992).
Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent"
(McClosky, H. Conservatism and Personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45.).n
Mycos, I never met a poor person who could offer me a job.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:40pm.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
How many of you want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage because he can't pay the bills? Raise your hands! Are you listening, Mr. President?
--CNBC Reporter Rick Santelli
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.
--Ronald Reagan
President Barack Obama - in his first 19 months in office - increased the national debt by more than all presidential administrations from George Washington to Ronald Reagan combined.
--R Emmett Tyrrell
Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
More on that subject....
You Didn't Build That.
And yet in practice...
Submitted by paratisi on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 8:14pm.
...these are the realms of the Liberals. Proving on a daily basis that there is no greater projectionist than a liberal talking about a conservative. I think it's absolutely hilarious that every time you hear a liberal accusing a conservative of anything, you would swear they were talking to a mirror.
Andrea Mitchell bias
Submitted by temporarilyqualmless on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:32pm.
I actually have her to thank for opening my eyes to media bias- I'll never forget it because it happened the day Reagan was shot. I saw the initial news reports that morning and decided to skip class. At the time I was somewhat of a liberal- I hadn't voted for Reagan. Anyway, the networks went wall-to-wall on the coverage and I watched all of it. Andrea Mitchell was the White House reporter for NBC. That night on the evening news, she completely made up the story regarding Alexander Haig's demeanor in his immediate post-shooting White House briefing. The media had been portraying him as a reckless hawk already. WHen he held his briefing, he asserted that he was in control on that scene until Mr. Bush was found and briefed and returned. In my view, he was simply trying to reassure everyone on hand. Mitchell began implying that he was attempting to wrest control of the situation from Mr Bush, and that Haig was wreckless SOB etc etc. Anyway, this characterization was just plain wrong- I had seen General Haig's press conference entirely. Anyway, I began looking askance at the news media since then.
Military Members Obeying Orders
Submitted by Clyde Gatton on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:13pm.
"...he asserted that he was in control on that scene..."
Interestingly, I was thinking of this incident the other day, and wondering where all my fellow military members were at the time. I could only conclude they were obeying orders and remaining out of the public discourse. Even my wife, whose only relationship to the military was through my service understood what happened, and the subsequent media BS made her livid. Now, of course, there are a myriad of ex-military consultants the networks can call on to analyze Haig's behavior, though only FNC would have done so, because the the analysis would always have yielded the following.
When an accident occurs (I only speak authoritatively for the Navy, but based on Haig's response at the scene I'd be willing to bet all the services are trained in a similar fashion), the senior man present ALWAYS makes a verbal announcement of the form "This is (RANK LAST NAME) and I am in charge at the scene," and he remains in charge until someone with more authority or expertise arrives and relieves him. Then - guess what - the new OIC makes exactly the same announcement! This prevents confusion by making it perfectly clear to all who are within hearing to whom they are to listen. Years of training and discipline make this an automatic, almost rote reaction to any casualty. My wife had only ever heard me talk about the various training we did, but she instantly recognized that Haig was responding (probably in shock, actually, as I seem to remember an initial unsteadiness in his voice and hands) exactly as he had been trained to do.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Andrea Mitchell bias
Submitted by temporarilyqualmless on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 7:32pm.
I actually have her to thank for opening my eyes to media bias- I'll never forget it because it happened the day Reagan was shot. I saw the initial news reports that morning and decided to skip class. At the time I was somewhat of a liberal- I hadn't voted for Reagan. Anyway, the networks went wall-to-wall on the coverage and I watched all of it. Andrea Mitchell was the White House reporter for NBC. That night on the evening news, she completely made up the story regarding Alexander Haig's demeanor in his immediate post-shooting White House briefing. The media had been portraying him as a reckless hawk already. WHen he held his briefing, he asserted that he was in control on that scene until Mr. Bush was found and briefed and returned. In my view, he was simply trying to reassure everyone on hand. Mitchell began implying that he was attempting to wrest control of the situation from Mr Bush, and that Haig was wreckless SOB etc etc. Anyway, this characterization was just plain wrong- I had seen General Haig's press conference entirely. Anyway, I began looking askance at the news media since then.
only ONE?
Submitted by Huapakechi on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 10:14pm.
Here's a couple of paragraphs of an article you'll probably refuse to believe, if you read it:
McCarthy was right
<snip>Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized American politicians of the last century, new information -- including half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations -- are showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.
"With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of <http://www.academia.org Accuracy in Academia's recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN.
Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Vanona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.<snip>
There's much more.
A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self. –
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
Is that addressed to me, Huapakechi...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:13pm.
If so, it's gratifying to see someone quoting one of my all time favorite philosophers. I read The True Believer over forty years ago, and it assisted in my cultivating a lifelong skepticism of ideologues--be they left or right. So, I try my best to always keep an open mind and let the facts take the lead, which, for example, led me long ago to reject the innocence of Hiss and the Rosenbergs and recognize the reality of the threat to our security posed by the penetration of Soviet spy rings in the 30's, 40's and 50's.
Joe McCarthy was highly intelligent. But he was also a rank opportunist, a lying thug, and a dangerous demagogue. He was neither a hero nor a patriot.
Jer
Finally, Jer, a decent quote from you about Obama ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:21pm.
"But he was also a rank opportunist, a lying thug, and a dangerous demagogue. He was neither a hero nor a patriot.'
What?
Oh.
Never mind.
MD
Sound Like Anyone We Know?
Submitted by Clyde Gatton on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:33pm.
"...he was also a rank opportunist, a lying thug, and a dangerous demagogue."
I had to start the quote where I did. N'Obama is only portrayed as highly intelligent. The rest of your comment fits him to a tee. I say that from experience and personal observation.
Your referencing them to Senator McCarthy however is based solely on your reading of biased, current "historical perspectives" of the man and has little basis in personal fact, unless you knew him contemporaneously of course. Are you claiming you were born prior to 1922?
Now that is a rhetorical question...
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Yes, Clyde...I celebrated my 90th birthday in May of this year.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/23/2012 - 11:52pm.
I knew Joe McCarthy. And, you, sir are only familiar with the Coulteresque revisionist deification of the man.
Jer
LOL...And I Have Some Swamp Land...
Submitted by Clyde Gatton on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 12:26am.
...I celebrated my 90th birthday...
ROTFLMAO.. You're either lying now (my personal belief) or the photo you posted of yourself is a lie. Feel free to correct the one in error. Of course, changing your photo will only make me believe they're both lies, lol. Yes, my mind is made up, my opinion on the topic fixed, but then I've read enough of your posts here to smell the reek of a fish story...
"I knew Joe McCarthy."
LOL...Strike 2...Nope
"..you, sir are only familiar with the Coulteresque revisionist deification ..."
ROTFL...Strike 3...I have no idea of what Ann thinks of Joe McCarthy, nor do I care, though I think I exchanged a brief comment about him in an email with Greta Van Susteren a few years ago, though I might be mistaken.. I seldom think of the man, though he was born not too far from here, and was considered "current events" when I went to school. But back then, we waited a bit before historically passing judgement about current figures. Unfortunately, teachers unionized after that and education rapidly went to the dogs.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Clyde...I will take that as a compliment.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 12:32am.
In fact, I was a youthful 78 years old at the time of that photo.
[Okay, you busted me.]
Jer
Are we getting to critical mass?
Submitted by Netstatter on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 10:36am.
Thank you Greg Kandra! I could not have said it better myself. The MSM (or maybe more appropriately the Dinosaur Media?) is killing itself off by its bias and irresponsibility. The only thing I would have added for the MSM is "Live up to the Second Amendment. You have a moral responsibility to follow it. Don't be a lapdog, be a watchdog. The country is counting on you."
Perhaps we are now getting to a critical mass where the MSM will be virtually steamrolled out of existence soon and be replaced by more responsible media outlets. When that happens we can all say: They should have seen it coming, they could have avoided it but they were too hide-bound to do anything but become road kill.
News Media Bias
Submitted by maquignon on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 12:59pm.
At one time I read three newspapers every day. I quit reading newspapers six or seven years ago. I quit listening to ABC, NBC and CBS five or six years ago. I tried to listen to MSNBC for about five minutes. That was all I could stand. ABC, NBC and CBS have been nationalized, taken over by the democratic party. Journalism is dead. One of the hack reporters said last night that people do not want objective reporting. I don't know how he came to that conclusion since we don't have any.
4 words...
Submitted by tomchris on Sun, 06/24/2012 - 1:25pm.
Welcome to the Matrix!
"MSM"
Submitted by jcalex on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 3:18am.
The "MSM" is 24/7,and the American tune in 24/7,and believe them....and people wonder why things are like they are.Some people still thing Holder is doing a fine job.
How Odd?
Submitted by jcalex on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 3:20am.
Any one notice that most of those that still stand with Obama are black,or,Biden.