C-SPAN WJ: Cindy Sheehan's Resignation Letter

[KharmaTrain]

They sure couldn't wait to hop on this one. The "host" asked one caller who supported Cindy with "well, what has she done for you??". Sheesh.

Looks like the corporate media is about to have a field day with this one. They've been waiting for a distraction like this for a long time. Sure beats covering real news.

Now I'm sure we'll get the Moonie Time's take on this story as well. C-SPAN...carrying more GOOP water.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. C-SPAN is corporate media?

Huh? :shrug:

[KharmaTrain]

2. They Get Their Money From The Major Cable Companies

who are corporate media in my book.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. And it is a non-profit enterprise....

and they sell no advertising.

please, calling C-SPAN "corporate media" is just silly.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Well, not all corporations are evil.

And I don't think C-SPAN is especially slanted (I think they make as serious an effort as any to be truly even handed), but it's hard to argue it's not "corporate media" given its funding.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Then what are examples of

non-corporate media? Joe's Blog?

Come on, using the term that way totally debases any meaning the term might have.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Pacifica, PBS (arguably), NPR, Democracy Now

come to mind.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. and

The Pacifica Radio Foundation is a non-profit, just like that which controls C-SPAN.

The CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting is, well, a non-profit corporation, just like that which controls C-SPAN.

Democracy Now is a program, not a media outlet.

[Doremus]

29. Hmmm...wonder who decides that ALL the important committee hearings so far

have gotten stuck on C-Span 3 .... where very few can watch unless they stream them on their computers?

As you know, a decision like that serves to benefit the * junta by limiting the fallout, especially since M$M doesn't consider hearings important enough to interrupt soap operas for nowadays. Whether you consider that a corporate or government decision, either way it reeks of fascism.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Excellent Example

Also notice how many AEI goons they have on. A couple weeks ago, they gave an entire hour to an editor of the Moonie Times to spew non-stop lies about the Clintons...and this was in a "Booknotes" segment. There's also the list of guests on these shows...F.A.I.R's report is two years old now...I hope they revise it, as it appears this situation has gotten worse as support for this regime and criticism of the betlway media elite has grown.

Cheers...

[KharmaTrain]

8. I'm Not Saying Their Evil

That wasn't my OP...it was about how they were framing Cindy's letter and the regular practice that many of us have seen here of Washington Journal's repugnican party and right wing bias. Right off the bat, the host starts by jumping on callers offering support with a "what's it to ya" attitude. I'm sure later we'll get a right wing talking piece for a half hour and then a repugnican congresscritter with some bitch about those evil Democrats.

I've worked with corporate media for 30 plus years. I'd be a hypocrite to take their money and say they were bad. This is just calling a network that claims to be "objective" on their obvious biases.

[KharmaTrain]

6. No Advertising Doesn't Mean Corporate Ownership?

C-SPAN began as a bone to local communities that originally issued charters to set up cable systems...the channel was set up with money from Time Warner, Cox and other large cable operators to fulfill their "public service" requirement to get charters that gave them domination of cable systems across the country. In '96 that requirement was dropped, but C-SPAN still exists...as a PR gesture and political presence for these companies.

Look at the history...F.A.I.R. has looked into this issue and C-SPAN has never responded:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2764

To think that just because they appear to be "bipartisan" and they say they're non-commercial means they're not corporate. Au cortraire...Brian Lamb lives a very nice life and the network is flush in cash. It's gotta come from somewhere.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Fine

call it "corporate media" if you wish. But then don't be surprised when the term "corporate media" no longer means anything. And then PBS is a "government station".

[KharmaTrain]

11. PBS IS A Government Station

I'd suggest you check out the Columbia Journalism's review of "Who Owns What"

http://www.cjr.org/resources/

It shows how interconnected all the cable channels are and then I'd suggest you run those company names (there aren't many) with their contributions to the Democratic or Repugnican parties. Look at the history of "deregulation" and how C-SPAN helped in creating a smoke screen of "public service" while the large corporates got a strangehold on the public airwaves and cable systems.

Sadly, it's not corporate media that has lost meaning...it's local media...cause there is very little of it.

BTW...yes, PBS is funded by tax dollars...that sure fits the definition of "government controlled".

[MonkeyFunk]

12. No

it does NOT fit the definition. PBS is a non-profit, private corporation. Receiving money doesn't mean the government controls it, any more than C-SPAN receiving money from cable companies means those companies control the editorial content.

You're making the terms absolutely meaningless.

Do you have ANY evidence that there's any editorial interference in C-SPAN's coverage by the cable companies who pay their pittance for it?

[KharmaTrain]

15. CPB...

From their own website...

CPB, a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967, is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting.

http://www.cpb.org/

I didn't say the government controlled PBS...you did. I'm strictly talking funding here...the money. Most PBS stations about 25% of their money from local subscribers...the rest come from either the government (state and federal) or through corporate grants. And if you don't think those grants have strings attached...think again.


To think that there isn't corporate money involved with C-SPAN is being very naive. And a sample of the network...again, I'll cite the F.A.I.R. report...that goes into the network's political connections.

I've cited several links in previous posts...and it's apparent you didn't bother to read them.


Peace...

[OzarkDem]

21. Non-profit enterprises

are no less likely to be controlled by private interests than any other business. Selling no advertising also calls into question how they are funded.

You'll need to come up with better reasoning.

[SoCalDem]

9. the callers crack me up. They call LONG DISTANCE

hold FOREVER, and then get cut off because they cannot follow the ONLY instruction they get..

MUTE THE TV/radio..

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

10. It's all over the place already; I heard about Ciindy on CNN last night.

Funny, when she's actually fighting for peace, we didn't hear a peep. But now, they will trip all over themselves to talk about her.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Didn't hear a peep?

I've heard plenty about her. Seen her on the news many, many times.

Come on now... let's be real.

[babylonsister]

14. Gimme a break. No, we heard nary a peep.

All of the events she's attended, all of the speeches she's given, do you honestly believe she's been covered for all of her anti-war efforts? What are you listening to, because I think she was ignored, except in 05 when she first started Camp Casey in Crawford, or when she said or did something that was a supposed faux pas.
She was in Crawford at Easter and we heard hardly anything.
She was in Vermont for about a week supporting impeachment efforts recently.
Those are only two, and I read about them on the internet, didn't hear anything on the news.

[KittyWampus]

19. she was indeed featured extensively, was it already TWO summers ago? Time flies

Anyway, she recieved A LOT of favorable media coverage then. I think it's incorrect to imply otherwise.

But it's true they haven't given her a spotlight lately.

[babylonsister]

20. That was my point; lately we haven't heard squat about her efforts;

I wasn't implying otherwise when I wrote what I wrote and do know she got a lot of positive press initially, which is why we all know about her.

[KittyWampus]

25. actually, looking back the media did manage to feature her briefly since. Remember

the SOTU where she was removed? And the trip to Cuba?

But I'm not sure why one would expect the corporate media to cover her every move.

[babylonsister]

28. Like I said, only when she did something the media could ridicule

was she profiled; she did not get any press otherwise.

And why shouldn't she have been covered? Well, I guess, like not covering massive anti-war demonstrations, or deflating the numbers of attendees, THAT is the media's job, not to highlight events that are pro-peace.

But you're putting words in my mouth; I didn't say I 'expect' the media whores to cover her, I made an observation that they didn't, but will probably do so now that she's resigning.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Sadly Here "It's The Company You Keep"

I'm not gonna point fingers, but I am still a member of Gold Star Mothers For Peace and support their efforts, along with other groups, to help those afflicted by this war for profit. While I support Cindy 100% in her efforts to get this regime to be accountable, that doesn't mean that I support all the groups that glammed onto her or she became affiliated with. That's where I think some people disconnected with her.

Unfortunately, she got caught up in issues she really had no expertise on and that her fame had become a meal ticket for others to peddle their causes. I tend to think she got too trusting...we've all had that happen...and that some of the people she thought were helping her were using her.

I'm glad she's taking a rest...she's been on the go for a long time and hasn't had time to herself. May she find true peace and that that she is both recognized and appreciated for being one of the first to dare to speak out against this insane invasion and put a very human face to it.

[KharmaTrain]

22. That "Positive Coverage" Was With A Caveat

The first reports were positive...I was all but ready to get the plane tickets and fly to Crawford. I attended a local candlelight vigil in support of Cindy. That positive coverage was always played off against her being "anti-war"...always a euphamism (especially in 2004) for "un-American". It wasn't said at first, but sure implied by how mroe and more critics came along and how Cindy went from being a grieving mother into a Faux Noise Monster. Put her face next to Michael Moore's and others who dare to speak truth to power...power doesn't take kindly to that.

Cindy's moment came and went. Just like a Rosa Parks, she was a gateway...someone who opened eyes to this ugly invasion and gave voice to many of us who needed to speak out. But since then things have changed...issues and times require different symbols and leaders to step forward. Cindy did her job and deserves a lot of gratitude for her hard work, but, sadly, she's become a media cartoon figure...easily maligned. Other voices now must carry on the good fight.

Cheers...

:hi:

[bananas]

16. Who's the host?

One caller called her "Greta"?

[KharmaTrain]

18. She's A New Host

And not a very attractive one...and I don't mean looks. No personality and she snarls a lot when callers take issue with this regime or one of their mouthpieces (like the one whose on now).

[rasputin1952]

23. If Sheehan decided to "leave" the D's, it's her right... as far as

C-SPAN coverage, that's the way it goes.

There are plenty of times I do not agree w/the points given on C-SPAN, but there are times I applaud what they are doing. I don't watch C-SPAN to bolster my own POV, I watch it to get informed on what's going on. All in all, they do a damn good job putting info and ideas out there...:D

[onenote]

24. if the msm was waiting for cindy's letter as a "distraction", I guess DU was also

Its been a big topic of discussion here. Does that mean we're trying to make it a distraction too?

[KharmaTrain]

27. Yep...Some Are

I've been critical of Cindy speaking outside the realm of her own experiences as I knew she would be framed by others as a "media whore"...it was apparent back then that she has upset the "status quo" and had to be "put in her place".

This is just another "DU Flavor Of The Moment". It sure made a lot of people forget about that disastrous vote last Thursday and, thank goodness, about Rosie and whatever her name is. But it's how this place ebbs and flows. It's kinetic and interesting to watch...starting from a single post less than 24 hours ago now into a full-fledged rage.

Ironically, by the end of the week we'll be on to some other "big thing"...Cindy will once again be forgotten.

[bananas]

26. Great caller! Just mentioned that everyone needs to register with DHS to work

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x1526