Its not a fight vs. Bush; it's a fight to expose the Whore Media lies.

[TruthIsAll]

Whether it's manipulated poll results, Bush's TANG desertion, the Plame investigation, the Enron connection, the Saudi connection, the 9/11 cover up, Halliburton, Medicare funding scandals, environmental terror, global warming, HAVA, BBV and stolen elections, disenfranchisement, false jobless numbers, Swift-boat smears and lies, the massive evidence that BUSH KNEW......

The Bush Fascists in the media have been exposed long ago. They are so obvious, so transparent. It's a lie or misrepresentation or of actual omission EVERY minute on CNN/FOX/NBC.

KEEP THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!

[cthrumatrix]

1. it's Kerry against the media .since shrub has no record to run on

[michigandem2]

2. I agree...our fight is not with *

its with this "liberal media" its disgusting how they distort, and lie to try to make a case for *

Where are the journalists that want to expose the truth? are any of them out there anymore?

[BillZBubb]

4. No doubt there are many journalists who want to expose the truth,

but they want to keep their jobs more! Right wingers pay their salary. Sadly, the truth won't make them a dime.

[cthrumatrix]

6. I find the whole sellout disgusting....payback is coming

[northstar]

7. I don't think they are all selling out....

...individual journalists don't have a 'leg to stand on', largely due to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (see my post below).

If the laws were still in place that REQUIRED media to report on CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES in a FAIR & BALANCED way, a journalist could go back to his organization and say: 'by law, WE MUST do this story."

As it is now, there are no such laws anymore, so the poor journalist must do what the owners of the media (and you know who THAT is) tell him/her to do. Otherwise, some other schmuck will be found who is 'better at following orders'.

[Armstead]

3. Dean has learned this

He takes on the media, and calls them on their bullshit to their face.

He turned the tables on Wolfie recently. Wolf gave one his usual pundit qurestions that ignored negative facts about Bush. Dean replied "well one of the important stories that you in the media have not covered is....."

Wolfie got all embarassed and defensive and said some blather like "We're looking into everything and covering all sides..."

Our folks need to do more of that, and it would be great if Kerry would too.

[Karmadillo]

8. It's too bad the Democrats are so willing to be outfoxed on this issue.

It would be easy enough for every Democratic pundit to do what Dean did and point out stories the media was intentionally ignoring. Passivity simply allows the Republicans to continue spewing their "liberal media" lies.

[buycitgo]

12. he didn't say they were covering all sides

be assured of that

what he said was, IIRC, cause I saw it, was that they "were doing their best"

too bad J Stewart didn't have that one to chew on when Leslie was a guest, as it would have fit in with his "retarded" evaluation quite nicely

[northstar]

5. More than anything else, the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

must be reinstated if we citizens ever hope to have a genuine and fair media again.

I've only known about this for about 2 years or so, but now I can see how vitally important it is. If you don't know anything about it, please google it up and read.

Here's a little basic piece from Wikipedia for starters:

<snip>
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy enforced in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission that required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in a fair and balanced manner.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment.

The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Conference decision in 1987. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio host like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.
<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[grasswire]

9. I have been proposing....

...a People's Bill of Media Rights of sorts. I have a draft for the rights the people should enjoy regarding access to the president (the threat of denied access is the reason WH correspondants say they must suck up).

Access to Congress by the press is codified in law. The same should be true for the WH.

The first step in restoring the press as a watchdog to government would be to return the credentialing of White House correspondants to the profession and take it away from the WH press office, which seized it after WW2.

This could be accomplished by the approval in Congress of a People's Bill of Rights for White House-Media Transparency.

If you want to read my argument and my draft, go to http://webdems.blogspot.com and scroll down.

[northstar]

10. Thank you. I have read some - will finish tonight. One question

(although perhaps I should finish reading, before I ask it, Why this new thing of a 'People's Bill of Rights for White House media' instead of just a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine? Also, by the title, sounds like your proposal would only apply to WH media and not ALL media. Wouldn't something 'all encompassing' be better?

Just asking (hopefully not prematurely)...as I said, I will finish reading your argument & draft tonight. Thanks for the link.

[grasswire]

14. good questions

I started working on this idea when the immediate problem was apparent after that awful orchestrated press conference last year. That's why this draft focuses on access of WH correspondents to the president. (The press always excuses its lackluster performance by claiming their access will be revoked.)

But yes, the problem is larger. Widespread media reform is overdue. But how do legislators reform the media without opening doors that could lead to tampering with freedom of the press?

Why a people's bill of rights?

Because it could force the profession to regulate itself. It could be the least restrictive impetus -- the least intrusive, the least potentially abusive.

Bills of rights sanctioned by Congress regulate various industries. There is precedent.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be adopted in its previous form. It was basically unworkable. It could be modified. However, there's little chance for it to be enacted for many, many years.

My thinking was that promotion of a People's Bill of Rights could at least 1) apply pressure to media to fix itself and 2) bring the situation to the American people's attention in a non-partisan manner. Republicans have as many beefs with the press as to Democrats.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. kick

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Bush's strenght is the RW Echo Chamber - that's what we need to attack

And we need to do it NOW.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[ClassWarrior]

15. When the Kerry Landslide happens...

...we need to HAMMER it home that "the people have rejected the shameless RW spin from the Conservative Media Establishment" every opportunity we get!!