Skip to main content

An Open Note to Members of the Media:

I watched the evening news tonight, popping between the Big Three on broadcast television.


Barbaro was a nice horse. We get it. We loved him too.


Redeem yourselves and become the Fourth Estate instead of slaves to corporate masters.

Remember that the first couple of stories you covered — the Iraq War and the wounded Iraq vets — are a direct result of the Niger yellowcake lies.



A Concerned Citizen

[cross-posted in comments at your best source for live blogging the U.S. vs. Libby trial,]

Originally posted to Rayne on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:18 PM PST.


Is the media doing its job?

1%1 votes
15%11 votes
10%8 votes
63%46 votes
9%7 votes

| 73 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's a neocon plot! (5+ / 0-)

    They deliberately killed Barbaro in order to draw attention away from Scooter's trial!  (Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them . . . )  LOL

    Never give up! Never surrender!

    by oscarsmom on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:21:21 PM PST

  •  No pretty pictures (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, bablhous

    I mean, how many times can we see the same picture of Scooter leaving the courthouse.  Not very exciting.  Now horse racing!  Them's some good pictures there.  And everyone loves ponies!

    Journalmalism is hard work!

    •  Staying online (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You know, on the toobz I get all these really cool things like evidence and filings.

      And I don't have to look at a picture of that lying sack of dung Cheney and his spineless puppet Scooter if I don't want to.

      I thank Gore every day for the toobz.

      Just wish those chimps in media production rooms around the country would figure out how to use them.

  •  Hey..great idea (0+ / 0-)

    what an excellent way to persuade people!

    ....insult them!


    •  Hey! What a great idea! (7+ / 0-)

      Let the good folks at ABC/Disney continue to abuse the publicly-owned airwaves by not calling them on it!

      Let Timmy Pumpkinhead Russert continue to abuse the publicly-owned airwaves by allowing partisan promotion under the guise of a Sunday morning talk show!

      Let the rest of the gang who sat by and watched 2-day-fiddy-dollar-certified man-whore journo throw softball questions within slapping distance at the President, while rolling over and playing dead!

      I think the media has not been insulted enough.  I think the media has been paid far too much for what they do.  I think the media has abused the public interest they are licensed to serve with broadcast.

      If anybody has been insulted every single minute of every single day for more than a dozen years, it's the American media-consuming public.

      But I can see where somebody like you would expect someone like me to just roll over and let the media have their way while trying to talk nicely to them.

      F*ck that. I am so done with that victim crap.

  •  C'mon... it's a pony. sorta. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, bablhous

    To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult of all -Goethe

    by commonscribe on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:38:24 PM PST

    •  Reminds me of that Monty Python routine (2+ / 0-)

      You know which one I'm thinking of?

      Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This pony is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to 'is stall 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the 'ay! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-pony!!

  •  the evening news.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, bablhous

    ...loves fluffy stories. Anything that can be compacted down into a short segment will get top billing over any complicated story that will force people to think.

  •  It's quite simple (4+ / 0-)

    Which is larger:  the annual income of the average American working person, or the Bush tax cut received by network news anchors and producers?

    •  Think higher up the food chain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We can lay this at the doors of the former CEO of GE, Jack Welch, Sumner Redstone at CBS, and the wealthy neo-cons in the ranks at the House of Mouse.

      They can use the media to manipulate public perception about tax policy (and Welch definitely did that), which paid them for the cost of their investment in the media.

      They don't even have to make money on the media; they only have to make more in tax cuts than the cost to run the media business.

      The corporate owners are the real problem; anchors, editors and producers are just whores working for very nasty pimps.

  •  a very few are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, AmericanRiverCanyon

    But news about this has been pretty slim. I suspect, too, that some of the journalists covering this are holding back a bit while some of the details around the case come to light. We have to expect that there are a lot of journalists who have information that they can't publish yet (certainly so, given that there are journalists being subpoenaed).

    In other news, Dan Froomkin's latest White House Briefing, The Unraveling of Dick Cheney, is chock-full of Cheney hubris. He gives a fine round-up of some of the not-so-great press he's been receiving of late.

    Carl Hiaasen writes in his Miami Herald column:

    There are several possible explanations for the vice president's bizarre performance:

    • He's crazy as a loon.
    • He's a compulsive liar.
    • He's gotten his prescriptions mixed up with Rush Limbaugh's.

    Whatever the clinical reason might be, Cheney continues to float blissfully through a smug and surreal fog.

    •  Got you on that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      subtropolis, QuickSilver

      They've had to put Kelly O'Donnell on the trial over at NBC because their top two guys that cover the White House and politics are up to their ears in this stuff.  I imagine their legal department madly crunching away trying to figure out their exposure this afternoon after Ari Fleischer says he talked with David Gregory about this -- no mention of Russert.

      I like David Gregory, and I suspect he's been aggressive with the White House because he knew how bad these snakes are...but he never pushed back about this issue, never turned it into a report.  How can I tell from out here whether his legal department put him on a leash, or his corporate masters told him to eat it and let it go?

      Froomkin is great, did an admirable job today with his take on Cheney; almost makes it sound like DeadEye is shooting for an insanity defense. (Heh. Shooting.)  But one Froomkin can't make up for the damage that Bob Woodward has done to the WaPo franchise with this story.

      And Carl Hiassen?  Hell yeah, he'd tell it like it is.  But he's not a journalist, he's a well-known author of fiction.

      On the other hand, I would LOVE it if Hiassen could turn this fine mess into a novel.  The only thing missing in all this is sex, and I think Hiassen could figure out how to weasel that into the mix.

  •  glad to see I'm not the only one (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, peace voter, bablhous, 3goldens

    whose outrage grew as the day went on. Frankly, I took no pleasure whatsoever at hearing some of my worst suspicions confirmed today. It was horrifying.

    The historians will have to debate this question: would we, or could we, have been lied into war had Time,  Newsweek, the New York Times, Slate, and NBC, among others, not all shilled for it? What if any one of those outlets had broken ranks with the White House's marketing plan?

    So Ari leaked Mrs. Wilson's CIA role to three reporters in Uganda (from Time, Newsweek, and NBC), and none of those news outlets went public with it. Joining the Times, that makes at least four media conglokmerates who have omitted key details about the CIA leak case and their reporters' roles and knowledge. Had any of those media outlets disclosed key details to the public in a timely fashion, Bush's 2004 "re-election" might have been thwarted.

    So naturally you have to roll back the question: why did these four media outlets support the Iraq invasion in the first place? If they were lying later, when a war critic was smeared and his wife attacked, is it fair to wonder if they were lying to us all along? What are they still not telling us?

    Isn't the media's complicity with Bush at the heart of the matter? This case is fundamentally about the "legitimacy of concealed knowledge," to borrow Gitta Sereny's memorable phrase (regarding Albert Speer). I hate to say it, but all this talk about journalists and their role is beginning to look like the "Good German" debate. But who is to say? Historians might well find the comparisons apt.

    •  Agree wholeheartedly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Fourth Estate is no more; it has been completely subsumed as a function of the Second Estate (used to be the nobility, but is now the Corporate Sector).

      It's up to us as the Commoners of the Third Estate to hold the feet of the Nobility to the fire.

      Maybe it's time again to shout, "Off with their heads!!"

    •  John Dickerson certainly has questions to answer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rayne, bablhous, 3goldens

      about this smarmy Slate piece, "Where's My Subpoena?", from February 7, 2006.

      Previously, Dickerson published (on October 31, 2005) a telling paragraph in response to Libby's indictment and Fitzgerald's press conference:

      More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position.

      Am I the only one wondering if Dickerson was taking his cues from what he perceived Ari to be saying, and tailored his public statements accordingly? You'll note that Dickerson's October 2005 article expresses a lot of sympathy for Libby; for his part, Jacob Weisberg, Slate editor, has repeatedly minimized the importance of CIA leak investigation.

      The fact that Dickerson was still carrying water for Time up until February 2006 (and under the auspices of a new employer) really does speak volumes, and possibly sheds new insight on the cozy ongoing CooperNovak/RoveLuskin relationship. Some profile in courage, that John Dickerson... Is that why Weisberg hired him?

      •  Dickerson responds (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rayne, peace voter, bablhous

        in his dispatch today from the trial.

        Why do I (strongly) suspect that Dickerson really told Matt Cooper "I heard that, too" about Plame's wife when they spoke later that night from Africa? Lots of reasons, not least that Rove told Cooper it was on super double-secret background, and because Cooper probably knew by that point that people at the Agency wouldn't answer questions or confirm Mrs. Wilson's role. So they knew it was a secret, and I'm betting Ari knew it, too.

        No wonder it's not in email from Time (or wasn't turned over), and no wonder Cooper didn't bring it up in testimony, either — it was more expedient to make it look to like the WH leaked to just one Time reporter, after all. But didn't the very title of Cooper/Dickerson's piece suggest a smear about Joe Wilson involving multiple reporters?

        From the beginning of the scandal, Time had every incentive to lie. Why? Because Time not only misinformed its readers about Rove and Libby's role in the leak (reporting McClellan's false claim that neither man was involved), but because Time fought all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent the public from knowing the truth. And all the while, Viveca Novak was running information back to Luskin, Rove's lawyer.

        Frankly, there are a hundred little tells with Dickerson. Poor guy...he really wasn't expecting this! That much I believe.

  •  Well.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, bablhous

    ...he was a hell of a fine animal. (ducks and covers .... I am saying that only as a horseperson)

    If the Veep can drink beer and shoot somebody in the face and the Texas Dept. of Whatever Shouldabeen Regulating Hunting doesn't even bother to show up til the next day, and  the media didn't exactly cover that one live, then covering a trial of a CIA agent very nearly done in by Cheney's minions isn't going to excite them much, either. Another day, another body along the wayside, Cheney bang bang, ho hum. Oh wait, this one's live and trying to throw him under da bus.
    Call the bloggers.

    •  ARC.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rayne, peace voter

      Since you troll-rated me repeatedly a few weeks ago for asking a good faith question, you should be aware that Dale Peters and "Janet G" was thoroughly debunked by a number of Kossacks.

      No "rethug" coroner was holding the body of "Janet G", and her body never materialized; the diarist later deleted his diary in an apparent effort to cover his tracks. Dale Peters, as it turned out, has a long history of pulling stunts on other sites.

      Live and learn. A lot of us took lessons from the experience.

      •  Quicksilver.... (0+ / 0-) couldn't be bothered to provide me with a link to the actual diary by Torta, could you? Instead I have to wade thru a comment chain, read the entire diary and the comments AGAIN, read your diaries, all 2 of them, your comments history,  and see how and what you were saying in the comments before I can come up now with a response. This is a royal pain in the arse.

        From the diary of Torta, whom did an outstanding job of research and then put it in a diary form so the rest of us wouldn't have to play treasure hunt over and over again, it seems that there was an obit in the paper and some sort of memorial service for somebody held, but the persona of Dale Peters seems to have multiples but does exist.  Above that I really don't have an opinion on this as as about 25% of the personalities one interacts with on the internet are not what they appear to be and I already know that. So I wasn't snookered so much as digging up this particular anomaly was not going to be my pet project, but I'm always happy to talk to multiples. I am also happy to troll rate people being disruptive just for the sake of being royal pains in the arses instead of actually doing real research.
                                                                                                                       Other than that, if you start questioning my existence, ilona's existance, or any other person I've seen or met in person again after midnight, and keep repeating a link to ONE of your comments out of context in a thread, upsetting everybody in it, and feeding a troll, I will probably still troll rate your arse, but not as quickly.  Got bigger fish to fry.

        •  ARC, all you have to do (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter

          is click the "View Diary" button above the comment thread. You will get wader's more comprehensive diary, as well as links to Torta's earlier diary. Many Kossacks have weighed in with investigative discoveries.

          As for ilona, I apologized in the original thread. Ilona later implied to this community that I had not apologized, and that there was an outstanding question about her mere existence, so I apologized again. Perhaps since ilona herself was grieving for a Kossack who had been registed for less than a month (and whom she later admitted never having met nor spoken with), it was easier to accuse me of being insensitive. Like you, ilona waved it all off, saying she had "bigger fish to fry."

          I hope such sentiments, and the threat to troll-rate me again, are not mere excuses for failing to learn the lessons of this incident. For there are lessons here for all of us. (FYI, my friend's funeral was the day after Ilbear's "rethug" diary, and for the record, I'm still very much in mourning. Go figure! And all those who mourned Janet G? They seem to have moved on. A resilient bunch, those Kossacks....)

        •  and for the record (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter

          I haven't diaried on this, so there is no reason to read my "two" on the subject. Other Kossacks did the debunking work.

        •  troll-rate first, ask no questions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter

          Frankly, the thread shows what kind of person you are, ARC. The fact that you are unwilling to click a link, unwilling to examine your actions, unable even to acknowledge the fact that you were defending a phantom, speaks volumes.

          I asked a good-faith question about Janet G. So why were you so upset about my "hijacking" all that fake mourning?

          There's a reason Ilbear deleted his diary. And there's a very good reason why he, and Dale Peters, wanted this community to get worked up about a "rethug" coroner who was holding a non-existent body. Anything to disgrace this site, apparently.... Were it not for my words, what do you think would have happened?

          •  It would probably be a very good idea for you to (0+ / 0-)

            ....stop lying about my actions now, as to speculating about what I do and do not do.

            People who troll do it for attention, good or bad. You were feeding the troll. You had several people in that diary tell you to stop, you refused, you kept repeating yourself, are you now hunting them down one by one and demanding they now applaud your actions?

            As I said, if you are going to start following me around in unrelated threads on unrelated topics, and attempting to harass me by repeating yourself over and over, I'll troll rate your arse because it's inapropriate.

            I don't know you either. For all I know you're just another freeper concern troll I've met before on other boards. Same modus operendi.  

            Fake personalities always out themselves eventually.  

        •  A question for AmericanRiverCanyon (0+ / 0-)

          I'm curious.  What do you mean when you say to QS:

          "You were feeding the troll"


          "if you...keep...feeding a troll..."

          Perhaps you and I have different understandings of what "feeding a troll" means.  Do you have any evisence of QS "feeding a troll"?


          •  He's doing it right now in this thread (0+ / 0-)

            ....this thread has nothing to do with Dale Peters.

            He's following my every comment about THIS thread with a comment telling me I was wrong to troll rate him in another diary.

            He's made 5 comments so far.  I'm SICK of clicking on his dumbass single context links to one comment, taken out of a larger context. Because I do go back and check.  I'm also sick of his insults, and his implying I don't bother to click links or check back histories.

            There are now 13 comments in this diary that are completely off topic because he apparently wants to harass me on this.

            This is the exact same CRAP that he was doing in the original diary, repeating himself over and over again. It was trollish behavior done during a troll festival weekend. Act like one and you'll be a casualty whether it was deserved or not.  

            If "Dale Peters" is watching this, he is getting exactly what he wanted.  His theme was that people harass vets and QS was certainly doing an outstanding job of harassing an imaginary one, feeding his martyr complex.  You feed trolls by negative attention just as readily as by positive attention.

            I was not the only person in the diary suggesting he stop before getting exasperated enough to troll rate.  

            Best thing to do with trolls is to question once, ignore, and then refute with facts.

  •  They're just sucking up to all the horses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that watch TV. It's a niche market.

  •  "Beating a dead horse." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rayne, bablhous

    I'm tempted to give you a recommend just for that!

    There's only two additional Americans I want to see sent to Iraq: Jenna and Barbara.

    by jazzmaniac on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:41:29 PM PST

    •  I saw that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And thought, "Oh s/he went there!"  I was disgusted earlier today when I saw that the story on the horse was BREAKING while the fact that 200 people died in Iraq was just a sidebar.  

      Black by popular demand!

      by fabooj on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:25:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sad, wasn't it? (0+ / 0-)

        Trumpeting later about the victory over a millenial cult consisting of a broad spectrum of Iraqi citizens.

        5+ different stories about what happened, and this is the best explanation they could devise?

        And less coverage than Barbaro?

        Ugh.  This country has completely lost its moral compass.

    •  Quite literally meant it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, AmericanRiverCanyon

      There they were, shamelessly flogging on about what a marvelous piece of horseflesh Barbaro was.

      Sure, I know, my sdchool-aged kids followed the story.  They were quite sad about the loss of a lovely animal.

      But my stepson -- their older brother -- served in Iraq, continues to suffer from PTSD because of his tenure.  It's personal to us that this kid has gotten nothing but hassle from the VA for serving his country...

      And in the mean time, Barbaro has had 9 months of the finest medical care in the world, and a eulogy fit for a king.

      Beating. A. Dead. Horse.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site