Chris Matthews: Poster Boy for Pseudo-Journalism – A Rant

[Time for change]

This may be my first rant post on DU – or anywhere.

There are three inspirations for this rant: 1) My belief that fraudulent journalism poses one of the greatest threats to our democracy, perhaps a little behind election fraud and a little ahead of the corrupting influence of money in politics – though of course all of these threats are closely related; 2) My long standing contempt for Chris Matthews, stemming from his coverage of the 2000 election season; 3) Last Sunday’s episode of Macho Balls – I mean “The Chris Matthews Show”.


The threat of pseudo (fraudulent)-journalism to our democracy

As far as I know, nobody said it better than Bill Moyers in his book chapter, “The Fight of Our Lives”, which I describe in this post. I won’t dwell here on that issue, since this post is mainly a rant against Chris Matthews, except to include this one great quote by Moyers, which notes the great threat to our democracy posed by the cozy relationship between our current administration and our Corporate Media:

Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress. Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know.

And while I’m on the subject of Bill Moyers, I must say that the difference as journalists, between Chris Matthews and Bill Moyers, is like the difference as evolutionary scientists between Pat Robertson and Charles Darwin, or the difference in integrity between a snake and …. well, Bill Moyers.


The origin of my contempt for Chris Matthews – The 2000 election cycle

My contempt for Chris Matthews dates from approximately December of 2000, when Al Gore conceded the presidency to George Bush, at which time it occurred to me that Matthews was as responsible for Gore’s “loss” as anyone I could think of.

Of all the great amount of unfair Gore bashing that I had heard on television over the previous several months, it seemed to me that I had heard far more from Matthews than anyone else (Of course that begs the question of why I watched his stupid show so much – to which I can only plead guilty to having been sucked in by it). Most disgusting of all were the repeated false and contemptuous references by Matthews about Gore claiming to have “invented the internet” and about Gore being “willing to do anything to be President”. The former was simply untrue, and the latter was simply an opinion, but coming from a supposedly unbiased journalist with millions of television viewers, those statements must have influenced at least a tiny fraction of the electorate to change their vote – and a couple of hundred Floridians is all it would have taken.

To graphically make his point, Matthews would repeatedly say things like “Al Gore would lick the bathroom floor to be President”. Where did he ever come up with such bullshit? Of course, Matthews or anyone else certainly has a right to their opinions. But as a journalist who has the responsibility of communicating news to millions of Americans, this kind of editorializing seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility. At least when Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter do this kind of thing they are doing so as an admitted right wing ideologue. But Matthews makes it sound like news. Can you imagine any journalist from the left spewing out such bullshit about a prominent right wing figure?

And then there was the controversy over the Florida recount, when Matthews had Mary Matalin on his show, attempting to explain why the hand counting of ballots was a terrible thing to do. She enlightened us all by explaining that the mere handling of a ballot caused chads to form, thereby invalidating the results of any hand recount. Without thinking, Matthews asked her to demonstrate how this could occur, with the ballot that she had brought to the show. I thought to myself, “Great move Chris”. But then, after a few seconds of extremely awkward embarrassment on Matalin’s part, as she tried to demonstrate the impossible, Matthews came to her rescue by saying (I’m paraphrasing from memory here) “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, let’s move on to another subject”.


April 9, 2006 – Matthews tries to take his viewers “Through the Looking Glass”

That brings us to last Sunday. My wife convinced me to violate my pledge never to watch Chris Matthews again by informing me that he was talking about Libby’s testimony on Bush’s approval of the Plame leaks. I suppose that Matthews discussed Libby’s testimony because he had no choice if he wants to continue to be viewed as a balanced journalist. But then he needed to do something to cancel out the damage done to Bush’s credibility.

So out of the blue he mentions a poll that he claims showed that Bush and Cheney won the 2004 election because they were seen as more “presidential” than Kerry and Edwards! He gave no details on the poll, not even to say who conducted it or what the poll asked. But he did provide some video clips to make his point.

First he shows a clip of Cheney making a presidential sounding (if one can overlook the fact that Cheney is a tyrant) speech. Then he says that Kerry was seen as almost “depressed” because his campaign was so negative. And to illustrate that point he shows a video of Kerry saying, “W stands for wrong”. Then he shifts to Bush speaking a six word macho sounding sentence without any bungling or grammatical errors! And then he introduces Edwards’ speech by saying, “and for the most feminine …”

What world does that moron live in? Does he really believe that Kerry’s campaign was more negative than Bush’s? Oh yes, I forgot, Bush didn’t do the swift boat ads himself, so he was able to look “presidential” while his minions were spreading lies about his opposition. And if “W stands for wrong” is the best evidence of negative campaigning by Kerry that Matthews could find, then his point totally escapes me.

And I have to hand it to you Chris, that was one helluva journalistic feat, finding a six word sentence that Bush delivered without any bungling or grammatical errors. Maybe you’re a decent journalist after all.

And as far as John Edwards sounding feminine, well I must admit that I didn’t see any of the macho chest thumping that accompanies the speeches of real men such as yourself. So you have a good point there Chris.


Chris Matthews in summary

If there were previously questions about his integrity as a journalist, this disgusting display of ass kissing of Tom Delay, recently posted on DU by DemMother, offers further evidence of Matthews’ motives. In short, he appears to be a full-fledged member of the Republican message machine, though considerably more dangerous than most other members because of his perceived bi-partisanship, enhanced by his previous work for the Democratic Party.

He doesn’t much care how stupid or undocumented are the things that he says. He knows that if he repeats his asinine remarks enough times a lot of people will believe them. That’s the nature of humans. Hell, I must admit that I used to have a strong tendency in that direction myself. If people continually hear that John Edwards’ soft and humble style of speech is feminine then that’s the way that some will see it, and of course we don’t want a feminine sounding male President, because that’s not Presidential! Or, if we’re continually told that the sports that Kerry engages in are “elitist”, then some will believe that too. Or, if we’re continually told that George Bush is firm and unwavering (as Matthews is fond of saying) and likeable and down to earth (because he rarely publicly speaks a sentence of more than three words without bungling it), or that he’s plain spoken and honest, then people will believe that also.

People like Chris Matthews will always exist. I can handle that. But what is so upsetting to me is the power and influence that he and others like him have in our country. The fact that someone like him can continue to host a regularly scheduled television show while someone like Bill Moyers is let go from PBS is a profoundly sad commentary on our society.

Thank God there are still real journalists out there, like Keith Oberman, Helen Thomas, Paul Krugman, Eric Alterman, and Seymour Hersh, who manage to function in our corporate environment without selling out their integrity. And thank God as well for the numerous excellent alternate news and opinion sites, such as the DU. Maybe some day enough people will wisen up and get their news from such sources that we’ll be able to bring a decent government back to our country.

[joemurphy]

1. You should rant more often! Literate, thoughtful, heartfelt.

I loved it!

Chris Matthews is a frog faced loudmouth with no journalistic integrity whatsoever. All he cares about is Chris and his ratings.

I used to get pretty steamed about him too. But people here clued me in. He really isn't watched by very many people. You should do a rant on Fox sometime. They're the ones that have the ratings. Matthews is small potatoes by comparison. Oddly, Matthews is a paragon of fairness when compared with slimeballs like O'Reilly and Hannity.

[Time for change]

5. Thank you Joe - with regard to FOX, I don't think that I could stomach

watching those guys long enough to have enough material to rant about them.

At least Matthews gives the appearance of being a decent journalist, and so I guess he fooled me for quite a while. I say that because I figure, why would I watch him so much (prior to Dec. 2000) if I didn't think he did a decent show? And I think that that's what makes him more dangerous than FOX - he may appeal to moderates and perhaps sway them, whereas I think that FOX appeals only to far right wingers. But you're right, they do have quite a following - I don't understand why, but you can't argue with the facts.

One thing I don't understand about what you said though. You agree that Matthews has no journalistic integrity, but then you say he's a paragon of fairness compared to O'Lielly and Hannity. But how can you have less integrity than none?

[joemurphy]

6. Caught me in a logical fallacy!!

Matthews, periodically, veers left and unloads on a Bush apologist. Then he swings back to his usual spittle spewing adulation of Bush. Maybe that's part of his attraction -- sort of a phony even-handedness.

O'Liely and Hannity make NO pretext of even-handedness. So Matthews is a shade better -- but not by much.

[Time for change]

23. Yes, he certainly is an enigma

I strongly suspect that his veers to the left are fake, meant only to maintain an image as a real journalist.

I can't think of another reason for such bizarre behavior.

[scarlett1]

14. Chris' Brother Jim is running as GOP Candidate for Lt Gov. in PA

So I don't know what else you'd expect of Chris Matthews

http://www.matthews4ltgov.com/

February 23, 2006
Matthews tries to bring southeastern voters to Swann
By Sharon Smith
Of The Patriot-News
Jim Matthews knows a thing or two about being the sidekick to somebody else's bigger star.

He is the conservative younger brother of Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Now, he's the Republican running mate of Lynn Swann, the GOP's candidate for governor.

[vssmith]

2. I know I know you are right but...

I have to admit that I do watch him every night. He has interesting guests but one big complaint that I have is that he treats some of them with more deference than others. He seems to be particularly obnoxious toward the females he has on the show.

[Time for change]

8. Welcome to DU vssmith

Yeah, like I said in my OP, I used to watch him quite frequently myself -- but that 2000 election really did it for me.

Talking about treating some of his guests with more deference than others, here's the kind of thing he has to say about Bush:
"Bush sometimes glimmers with sunny nobility." :puke:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510250003


And all this talk about Bush being so "likeable".

[KT2000]

3. Would also like to add

his propensity to invoke the name of Tip O'Neill. Pardon me, but Tip O'Neill would not approve of the idiocy Matthews spews.

Your post was a really good rant.

[Time for change]

9. Thank you - His invoking of O'Neil's name reminds me very much of Bush

invoking Jesus' name. In both cases it's just the name that's being invoked, while the principles are entirely ignored.

[durrrty libby]

4. Sadly, all too true.

You should send a copy to Hardball producers, just because.

[Time for change]

16. Thanks for the idea - I'll consider it

What point do you think that will serve?

Here is my opinion on this. The producers know damn well that Matthews is a pseudo-journalist, and they know damn well that millions of tv watchers know that.

But they don't care, for the same reason that the producers at FOX news don't care, and the producers of other pseudo-journalism shows don't care.

The problem is IMO that our Corporate media is willing to accept fraudulent news shows and even low ratings in order to get their corporate point of view out there. There is no other reason for the extremely low quality of news on main stream television these days. They must know that if they put out a quality product they would get better ratings, but that could threaten the status quo.

Keith Oberman is getting very good ratings now, because he is one of the few quality/independent journalists on tv today. I think that his corporate masters would love to get rid of him, despite the ratings, because he threatens the status quo. But they can't get rid of him, because that would cause a scandal. So they're just waiting for him to make a mistake so that he can go the way of Dan Rather or Phil Donohue.

[durrrty libby]

"What point do you think that will serve?"

The point it serves is to let them know...we are not a bunch of idiots,
and we've got his number.

[Time for change]

21. Point well taken

I will consider how best to do this.

[Poiuyt]

7. It's his hypocrisy that bothers me

If Tweety advertised himself as a conservative moderator, I would have more respect for him. For him to say that he will ask the tough questions that we want asked is bullshit. He asks tough questions to the Democratic guests, but when he gets a powerful Republican like Tom DeLay or John McCain, he fawns over them like a lovesick schoolgirl. What a sycophant.

BTW, there is a web site you might be interested in:

http://openlettertochrismatthews.blogspot.com/

[Time for change]

22. Yes, I feel the same way -- the hypocrisy is blatant

There is very little if any honesty in him, and I feel that 'sycophant' describes him well.

Very interesting we site. It looks like a great many people have his number. And it doesn't appear that NBC cares much whether their employees violate their own rules. The ethics rules appear to be a kind of window dressing.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Great Rant...K&R

I can't stand Tweety for 10 seconds! A total worm.

[Time for change]

25. Thank you -- Here's a link to his "misinformer of the year award for 2005"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512230005

[Hubert Flottz]

29. That's quite a list of mostly just oughtright lies.

The media has gotten so that the funny papers are more truthful than the front page. Olbermann is the ONLY good hour on MSNBC or NBC.

[suegeo]

11. Is he horny to get into it?

That is what Chris asked some jackass on his show. He wanted the jackass guest to speculate what Walter Mondale was feeling when he was considering a run for the senate after Wellstone died/was whacked.

As if the jackass guest would have any idea about what Mondale was feeling, and as if it was appropriate to ask such a disgusting question at that particular time.

I stopped watching the clown after that point, save for the occassional stop on the channel for a few minutes while surfing the tv.

Matthews is like the rich frat boy in college Rhetoric class. He thinks he's cute, he won't shut up, he's annoying as hell and NOT cute, and his silly jibbering keeps me from learning in a class that I am paying good money to attend.

He gets on my last nerve. AND I never learn anything new.

[Time for change]

26. Yeah, that's Matthews' idea of news

Ask his guest some stupid question like that, which the guest has no special expertise to answer.

In that case Matthews was simply trying to hurt Mondale's chances of getting elected. Come to think of it, that kind of thing may be the main thing that his corporate sponsors pay him to do.

[nicknameless]

12. Thank you for posting this great rant.

I was just thinking about Matthews and wondering what if any fallout would result from that kiss-ass exchange he had with DeLay.

He's certainly no journalist. Simply a whore.

[Time for change]

31. I would certainly hope to see some fallout

I haven't been paying too much attention to him though.

But is his obsequious treatment of Delay that much different than normal for him?

[nicknameless]

32. What was caught on tape went beyond just being in agreement with rw.

He's consistently obnoxious about Dems and fawning over rethugs.
But that recording though was proof positive that he is completely in the rethug camp. NOT a journalist.

IMO, he should lose his job over it.

[Time for change]

36. I agree he should lose his job over it

But in today's corporate world that's a little too much to hope for.

[Chiyo-chichi]

35. I had hoped there would be fallout, but apparently not.

In fact, Matthews played a clip from the Tonight show last night where he discussed the very same focus group report. He & Jay didn't talk about the pre-show chat with Delay.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Matthews is a drunk...

reminds me of my dad. Lot's of spittle and little spine.

[Time for change]

37. I'm sorry to hear that

[Gregorian]

15. Pseudo-Journalism. Phrases like that can cause change.

Brilliant. I haven't heard that before. That alone is worth it's own post.

There are a lot of "Moyers" out there. I don't feel threatened, even though we are threatened. It's not unlike the Wizard of Oz. It's a machine. Until we know what is behind the curtain, it can do great damage. And it has. I give you people who watch the corporate news a hell of a lot of credit. I could never do it to save my country. Thank you. We will overcome.

[Time for change]

38. Yes there are a lot of damn good and courageous journalists out there

Problem is that in today's corporate environment their voices tend to get drowned out.

Your comparison to the Wizard of Oz is quite appropriate IMO. I used the example from Alice in Wonderland, "Through the Looking Glass", which is quite similar, in my OP.

Listening to today's corporate news is a dizzying experience, as it is all meant to disorient us and believe that we are in some world other than the one that we actually live in.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Now, Now, Now....Chris is doing a "Public Service"!

It's true!! That's what he said the other night.

I almost threw up my dinner! :puke:

[Time for change]

39. Geeeeeezus!

So what was the public service that he claims to be proving?

[Notoverit]

18. You forgot the orgasmic reporting of "Mishun accomplished"

He and Liddy were all over W's straps!
This from a guy who was at times making anti-war noises (but only to demean democrats, mind you)

[Time for change]

40. Yeah, it's hard to figure him

What on earth caused such a sudden turnaround in his attitude towards the war?

[Patsy Stone]

19. K&R this most excellent rant

All true -- and so nauseating.

[Time for change]

41. Thank you -- It certainly IS nauseating

That's why I have hardly watched him at all in the past five years.

But I just had to watch Senator Boxer appear on his show today. She did an excellent job, and Chris seemed quite subdued. I don't think that he was eager to tangle with her.

[smartvoter]

20. Great rant. Controlled and logical and depressingly accurate. nt

[Time for change]

43. Depressingly accurate indeed. I like your sig

I wonder who it refers to.

[immoderate]

24. Beautiful rant.

I think Matthews started out OK, when his show was called "Politics" and he was on after Charles Grodin. (Remember?)

During the 2000 election, he became very provincial. I remember him criticising Gore for wearing khakis instead of regular dress pants. Then he made such a big deal over the earth tones, and that (admittedly) loopy consultant Naomi Wolf. And the admiration for Bush's cod piece enhanced flight suit had Mathews drooling.

If anything, what makes Mathews watchable, is you don't know what he's going to do.

He runs over Katrina van den Heuvel, but shows deference to Amy Goodman, although he never lets her say much.

He opposed the Iraq war but fawns over Bush. He's hard to figure.

I agree that Tweety could have been the difference in the 2000 election. It was very close. I can't forgive him for that.

--IMM

[Time for change]

46. Good to see someone agreeing with me about his coverage of 2000 election

I can't forgive him either. I'm sure he knew what he was doing.

[fooj]

27. I sent him this a few weeks ago...

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Guess he didn't read it.

[Time for change]

42. Good try fooj

Problem is, I don't think that that kind of stuff interests him.

It isn't Hardball type material.

[Gabi Hayes]

28. instant example of what a total shill he is:

interviewing USC college pugs/dems, the pug says something about them being for 'fiscal responsibility,' Matthews said to the fat pugster, "what about the trillion dollar defict?" the fatso said, "You HAD to bring that up, didn't you!"

now, get this...his response> "The democrats are JUST as bad!" he really said that, honest to Jesus. guess he forgot all about that little Clinton interregnum. You know, the one in which we actually started paying DOWN the national debt.

can you get any more dishonest than that?

[Time for change]

47. Yes, one more indication that

his show is all about spinning opinions rather than portraying accurate news.

[Time for change]

30. OMG - How ironic

I just received an e-mail from Senator Boxer saying that she wants as many people as possible to watch Hardball tonight, as she is appearing on it.

So the day after my Chris Matthews rant I end up making plans ahead of time to watch his show for the first time in five and a half year.

Give him hell Barbara!!!
:grr:

[rosesaylavee]

33. Any know-it-all-women close enough

to stage a protest outside the MSNBC studio? I would if I had the money to fly in or lived close. I wrote an email to the studio execs over Delay's comment last week and Tweety's lack of response.... still pissed. :grr:

[bobbieinok]

34. I hadn't watched TV for a while and then tuned in ca 98

I had never seen Snow, Hume, O'Reilly, Matthews, Russert, Williams, Mathews, Hannity, etc before.......and there they all were foaming at the mouth 24/7 about Clinton and Monica and how evil it all was and how US credibility was totally destroyed in the world etc etc

It was a weird into to the modern M$M

[Time for change]

48. Yes, the modern M$M

bears little resemblence to the news that we used to receive from journalists such as Walter Cronkite.

[Neecy]

44. He's already on the job for '08

On every one of his shows - whether it's the noxious Hardball or his half-hour weekly program - you can bank on him bringing up Hillary in a disparaging, sneering, mocking fashion.

One would think perhaps he's obsessed with the Clintons, but he's so obvious about it you can tell he's been given his marching orders from GE to start smearing her early.

I'm no Hillary fan, god knows, but he's so over the top I resent the hell out of it.

[rosesaylavee]

45. I agree as I am not a Hillary fan either...

but no woman deserves Delay's comment - a smear on all women who think for themselves in my opinion...

[Time for change]

49. Delay is a crook and a thug

Of course, the comment was made off the air, and even Delay has enough sense not to purposely make such a comment on the air, but it does provide some additional insight into his character (if we needed any more).

And Chris Matthews cozying up to him like that leaves little doubt (if there was any doubt previously) about his character.

[KharmaTrain]

50. He Has A Hillary Fixation

I swear it's bordering on stalking. Yep, there's not a show where he can't avoid taking a shot at Hillary. Be assured any Repugnican puppet, the question will be about how evil Hillary is, and when it's shoved at a Democrat or someone who plays one on TV like Bob Shrum, it's how Hillary is dividing the party.

Also, Tweety still never got over Bill's hummer. If there's a chance to run the finger wag or make a snide remark if Clinton makes headlines, Tweety is right there. Yet when his manchild idol lies about outting a CIA agent and then lies again...Tweety has a real bad case of selective memory.

His problem is he's too inside the beltway...too much into the "getting the get"...having the biggest names on his show, and to do it, he panders to power. He kisses DeLay's ass, telling him how he "owes him one"...even after the scumball has just been disgraced. Ya think Tweety would have done the same thing had it been Clinton stepping down? He'd have the bongos and cigars out.

The Hillary fixation is obsessive these days. Tweety's not only certain she's gonna run in '08, but it's his mission, and his mission alone to stop her!

[Time for change]

51. And it's not just the fact that he offers opinion, stupid or otherwise

When Matthews offers an opinion on his show he always makes it sound like he is merely reflecting popular opinion. So if you watch Hardball you will be up on all the latest inside opinion in Washington.

For example, "everybody likes Bush personally, even if they disagree with him". That's not general opinion -- and it's probably not even Tweety's opinion -- he couldn't be so stupid as to believe that. It's simply the opinion that his corporate masters want him to put out there to try to spin things in the the direction that they want them spun.

[Neecy]

55. Yes, it's certainly a fixation

Have you ever noticed how often he does the following schtick?

1. Matthews brings up Hillary to guest

2. Matthews' rotund face turns red yet manages to beam with joy - he knows he's about to lay a stinkbomb on ol' Hil

3. Practically jumping out of his chair, he spits the following question at the guest, gulping for air and repeating himself to make sure his little word association game is understood: "So, is Hillary a socialist? IS HILLARY A SOCIALIST?"

Rinse (literally, go take a shower, you've just witnessed filth) and repeat.

Notice how slickly he inserts the Hillary=socialist propaganda into so many of his shows? Expect Frank Luntz to start laying this particular rotton egg into some of his "polling" - "So, when you think of Hillary Clinton, what's the first word to come to mind after socialist?"

What's hysterical about this is that she's about as much of a socialist as my Pomeranian, and Matthews KNOWS this. If he doesn't, he's too fucking ignorant to have his own show.

[Uncle Joe]

52. I believe you are right on Time for change!

It was not the rabid right that hurt Al so much in 2000 as it was mainstream Pseudo-Journalism. I believe the reason the MSM including Matthews trashed him so much was precisely because he empowered us when he championed the internet. They wanted then and to this day to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth and the internet threatens their monopoly. Information is power and they fear an empowered American People with access to the truth. The upshot, Al was trashed because he gave the American People too much power in the minds of the corporate owned MSM monopoly and the corporate owned members of Congress that prefer the American People to stay blissfully ignorant. To this day, they are still trying to turn over the internet to the MSM with the result of making it less accessible to the people and no doubt costing more to use it.

When I think of the internet, I think of Martin Luther King's Dream. A place where someone can be judged by their ideas and thoughts as opposed to the color of their skin, we are all blog colored here and for that matter you cannot even be sure what someone's gender is. This sounds like an ideal dream, but for those people still wedded to the superficial physical appearance of someone in determining their worth, this must be threatening to them.

Kicked but too late to recommend!


:kick:

[Time for change]

53. I never thought of it exactly like that Uncle Joe

It seems to me that you very well may be right about that.

But what about some of Gore's other ideas? For example, Gore as President would almost certainly take major steps to deal with global warming. Wouldn't the CM be as likely to be against him for that as they would his championing the internet?

[Uncle Joe]

54. I believe regarding his ideas on global warming,

the oil, timber, natural gas and to some extent auto industries are resistant to changes that could be uncomfortable and cost them some money during the transition, even though it would basically save life as we know it and they could make money on new technologies. While Japanese auto manufacturers were spending money on hybrids and environmentally friendly technologies with global warming in mind, Detroit was spending money on attorneys to fight the very idea and building gas guzzling SUVs. We as Americans and Wall Street in particular are notoriously short term thinkers.

The championing of the internet however hit too close to home for the MSM echo chamber and their army of pundits. This is what I think Margaret Carlson had in mind when she actually said something to the effect of "it's fun to trash Al Gore", Chris Matthews is just the most obvious tip of the iceberg on how "American Journalism" has betrayed the people. On a secondary level it would no doubt also threaten the aforementioned energy companies that were more intent on obfuscating the facts about global warming, because a free and neutral internet makes hiding the truth more difficult. I believe had the internet been around in the fifties and sixties, the tobacco companies would have been held to account much sooner and far fewer people would have died from it's affects.

[Time for change]

56. And now they're trying to get absolute control of the internet!

Congress better fight back on this big time.

[Uncle Joe]

57. It does not look like they are fighting too hard here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=914624&mesg_id=914624