Positing A Theory

I wrote this as a thought on another thread, but i got curious to see how many others might buy in, so i thought i'd start a separate thread.

If i'm nuts, tell me so. (About the thread, i mean. I already know i'm nuts.) If you agree, feel free to toss in some other aspects i neglected.

Here's the idea:

The media gave Li'l Georgie a honeymoon period, like any other prez. Just about the time that grace period would have expired, we had 9/11, so he bought time.

But, i don't think that even the media, in their hyperventilating race to be the most patriotic, would give more than a year. So, they were about to get back on the job of criticizing and hammering away, and then Iraq! So, let's give him a little more time.

Over the course of that 2 years, the press and broadcast journalists were getting increasingly irritated at the tone with which they were treated. Favors granted, and then pulled. People cut off from access. Lack of press conferences. Lack of access to the prez. Etc.

At some point, lots of people, even those in the corner offices, started to realize that Georgie was a buffoon, and that his string pullers were some really bad guys. So, the gloves were starting to come off.

Now, here's the part where i reach.

These folks were so disgusted with him and his gang, that they decided to keep the lid on what they knew until 6 months before the election. The point was to not let the american voter forget what these guys have screwed up by doing the story in early 2003, given the short attention span of the average american.

So, they saved up the rancor and decided to hammer on every mistake starting 2nd quarter of 2004. In this way, they send a message to the politicians and power brokers that the media (the 4th estate for goodness sake) still has power to make and break.

Li'l Georgie and his thugs pushed them too far, and now, with a target rich environment provided by this arrogant crew, they are getting even.

Whatcha think?
The Professor

but... I also think especially after 9.11 there
were clear threats, life and death threats.

Can we all say Anthrax?

but... I also think especially after 9.11 there
were clear threats, life and death threats.

Can we all say Anthrax?

I agree and would only add in my opinion that the reason for the media letting him slide was more about fear of backlash from people watching their networks then feeling sorry for administration.

The NYT for one is still busily whoring for bush and tearing down Kerry.

In case you think anything significant has changed...

here is more evidence nothing really has.

deal with is ALL OF THEM giving him a pass.

I do think quite a few in the media are pi**ed off with too much secrecy, too many tracable lies, the admin. using the media as pawns. I seem to remember it was during the NIxon admin. when it was well publicized that the worst thing a candidate or and administration can do is pi** off the press, because they can make you or break you.

Also, remember how many posters who believed Deans downfall was when he said he would break up the media conglomerates during an interview on MTP?

But, the front page, including analysis pieces, have been hammering pretty hard. I was also thinking about what appears to be a sea change in broadcast news. Suddenly, it's not considered inappropriate to blast away. Geez, on McLaughlin this weekend, Buchanan, McLaughlin, and everyone else (except for the idiot Blankley), were hammering away for the entire 30 minutes!
The Professor

To be honest I don't really take in much of the crap that is dished out as 'news' these days. I use Buzzflash and LBN most often because it still seems to me that foreign outlets are the most likely to do honest work and most stuff here (with few exceptions) is just filtered, watered down propagandistic crap.

As for teevee's talking heads, based on the MediaMatters information I've perused I think the McLaughlin stuff may be the exception rather than the rule. One can hope, though!

While I've posted here on my thoughts that the corporate media is owned by the RNC, truth is that they probably have followed a script close to your outline. They seem to be a bit lazy, fishing for shark stories rather than hardhitting journalism that would shut them off from the WH. But the cumulative arrogance, screw-ups, and downright un-American behaviour seems to have reached a tipping point that even the pundits can't justify anymore.

It must be so, because I've been hearing the whining of the RW now accussing the media of treating the weasel-king unfairly. If the media had been 1/2 as critical on Bush's actions as they were onClinton, Bush would be down in the low 20's/high teens in popularity now.

I doubt that anybody's been saving stuff up, plotting to release the dirt, bit by bit, when we're 6 months from D-Day. I think it's more like critical mass has finally been reached.

There's just TOO MUCH stuff to ignore, now. People are starting to get upset. There's so much shit that even some true believers are starting to complain. And all but the worst knuckledraggers are starting to recognize that the few times the cavalier would-be king graces us with crumbs from his table, we still don't get squat. It's the same damn crap. And it's no longer endearing. It's starting to look like just what it is: just plain stupid. Further, I think many of them are starting to bristle at the short leash the White House has kept everybody on (OY! Visions of Lynndie England and her leashed Iraqi "slave" come to mind! ICK!). Too much just isn't adding up anymore and even people who've had their noses removed can still tell something's starting to reek. And there is such a huge failure - truly a cascade failure of shit - that is coming down that just has to be investigated.

Meantime, we have Keith Olbermann "outing" the White House by revealing, on camera, the how-to interview notes his office was emailed, THREE TIMES, along with exhortations to "please call me about this" from the White House Communications office. This on the heels of Joseph Wilson "outing" various reporters who have admitted to him that they're afraid either of being "Gitmo'ed" if they dare write the wrong thing, or they're fearful for the future of their kids in their private schools, and the mortgages they still have to pay. When you have this stort of stuff being openly spoken about, and AP Chief Tom Curley announcing a media lobby group to fight against government censorship (all of a sudden it's just becoming noticeably too difficult to get information, or to see documents, because so many are now locked away under various veils of secrecy), and you have other stories citing how the media actually did give georgie a free pass for far too long, and meantime there's just too much more coming out to keep a lid on and not get your dander up and your bullshit detector clanging...

...and there you have it. It wasn't a conspiracy of collusion with the White House or later on, to GET the White House. It was a conspiracy of fear and intimidation. Fear of loss of access, connection, and sources that make for breaking stories and juicy stories and prominently-placed bylines and celebrity status in their own right. It's a DIS-harmonic convergence of a very unfortunate kind - at least for the bushies. The wheels have come off their cart, and the bricks are rapidly crumbling out of their walls. And worst of all, it's out in public and everybody all over the place can see this.

Can you say - "blood in the water?"

another surprise from the Administration. They need to keep the media beast properly fed and distracted.

The media never gave his campaign the same scrutiny as they gave Gore. In fact, they made up things about Gore.

They might be questioning some things now, but I still don't trust them to tell me the truth.

Could they nominate someone else at the convention to run against Kerry? If this happens a new candidate can brush aside all the malfaesance of the Bush administration with a platform roughly about "a new administration, a new start" or something like that. It would also leave Kerry without much of a platform. I don't like this. I hope you are wrong.

How many times has that happened in our history, that a sitting prez wasn't renominated by his own party? Two or three times, maybe? (Really not sure, just guessing.)

It's not unprecedented, but i find it hard to believe that it would happen.

Also, that would not pull the pins from under Kerry. It would underscore the mess these thugs left, and that someone from other than the Republican party would need to clean it up. Sort of like how Ford never had a chance against Carter, because nobody trusted him to clean up Nixon's mess.
The Professor

sockpuppet installed.

That this disaster of the last four years will teach the Repub power brokers that an empty suit CANNOT be president.

No matter how badly they would like a pliable puppet in the bully pulpit, this will be the unmitigated embarassment to stop this strategy and start looking for a real statesman with similar, but not lockstep, ideology.

Face it. Even though he's a repub, wouldn't have McCain been a better prez than Li'l Georgie?
The Professor

he wouldn't have followed order from the PNAC like Georgie does. I often brought that up with Repukes during campaign 2000. I used to say, if I have to have a Republican for a President, couldn't you guys have voted for McCain in the primaries?

is a mistake.

The strategy to parasitize the Mainstream Media while creating a self-referencing Nazi/Commie style Party-Loyal Sub-Media (which adds to and aids the parasitization) cannot be underestimated.

Our media is dying, becoming the global laughingstock, because the Busheviks have been poisoning it for years, perhaps decades.

There may be an element of truth to your assertio, but those forces if they exist, pale before the might of what I like to call Goebbels v2.0, the overall startegy to creat a Nazi/Soviet media for the Imperial Family to use to smear opponenets, launde lies, etc.

Though the rubric "Goebbels v2.0" to me means their entire democracy-destroying prograsm, not just their Media Infiltration and Parasitization Strategy.

. . .that the theory i'm tossing out allows the "real" journalists to poison the water back leaving the power brokers, within the journalism system, and in the political backrooms, with little recourse.

They aren't castigating him for minor issues. The whole world is unraveling.

So, the real rank and file folks in the press can now take the whip out.

I agree with your point, but most of the poisoning has been occurring in the management ranks. This current situation lets the folks on the street get their jabs in, finally.

Again, not saying i'm right. Just defending a thesis.
The Professor

Yo, Prof, just so ya' know...I almost NEVER (sure I make mistakes like evryone else & sometimes say thing I later regret or realize were foolish in the first place) flame anyone for a respectful disagreement where civility and proper deate are used.

Though I have learned that a "reputation" once conferred by the "community at large" is a hard thing to live down, partiuclarly if only partially true.

Anyway, food for thought. I agree that the majority of Bushevik Infiltraon in the legitimate media (Party-Loyal Sub-Media being odious Pravda and therefore infiltrated by design and uninfiltrated by any trace of journalistic morals or ethos)is at the management level.

It allows them to direct from behind the scenes and gives them "plausible deniability" because the reporters themselves shield these faceless Busheviks from the consequences of their acts.

is getting its revenge on Humpty-Dumpty and all of the king's men?

Revenge is a powerful motivator.
The Professor

...but then, MY pet theory is that the the Bushies have been getting their way for so long by sheer arrogance masquerading for brilliance that whatever "October Surprise" they decide to unleash will be so obvious to so many that it will backfire and he'll crash & burn in November.

Don't know how true that will end up, but it's worth putting out.

It doesn't have to be fully organized. It just has to be a cascade of events that lets a few media outlets take shot at real criticism.

Then AAR starts up, and the ratings are better than expected. Suddenly, even from the biz side, folks realize that there is a market for both news and opinion that hammers away at people who are truly screwing up everything they touch.

The media is a follow the leader business. Once somebody gets away with it, they all get on board.

This is really more what i would surmise happened. That way, it doesn't have to be as conspiratorial and organized.

Does that help any?
The Professor

...they've stalled the small stampedes, just to create conditions overripe for a BIG one, and enough cattle are tired enough of getting pinched that they're stating to move... and what happens next is pretty much given.

I can go with that.

Probably should have expounded that further the first time, huh? I didn't mean to sound like they all got into a dark room and whispered out a plan. That would, indeed, be nuts.
The Professor

The press in this country is part of the establishment -- in fact, it is its mouthpiece. By "establishment", I am referring to beltway insiders and the big business community. The soft slide to the right over the past 30 years or so has meant that the establishment has slid in this direction.

Now, there may have been elements of the media establishment who didn't actually like what Bush was doing, but for them to call him on it out in the open might just cause more damage to the status quo than their sitting on their hands, allowing things to continue. They did this in the aftermath of 9/11, because everyone was shaken during that time. Hell, I was pissed as hell at my Sierra Club because even they adopted a "step back" posture in the wake of 9/11 -- and it wasn't like the Bush administration was stopping their environmental assault.

The media establishment trumpeted the Iraq conquest just as they have traditionally boosted any American military adventure throughout history. It wasn't like their sons and daughters were going to suffer as a result. They, like the business elites and those in the highest offices of government stood only to primarily benefit from such a misadventure.

I think what we're seeing here isn't some sort of grand plan unfolding. I think that it's the media establishment finally realizing just how incompetent Bush and his gang of thugs really are. I think they're realizing that the damage to the status quo just might be more by allowing them to remain in power than to get them removed. I think that this is why we're seeing the worm turning somewhat -- because more of them are seeing a second Bush term as possibly unraveling what is currently left of the United States of America.

I apparently made it seem too much like i was proposing a grand conspiracy, when i meant, in fact, that the press had enough and that a few people sent rocks down the hill. Since that business is a "me too" game, it simply became profitable, or better yet, not unprofitable, to throw a few more stones down the hill.

If you were fed up, and you saw it no longer "unpatriotic" to call a spade a spade, wouldn't you jump on the bandwagon, too?
The Professor

Prof, I agree with you regarding the "few more stones down the hill" as representative of what is happening among mainstream journalists and columnists. However, I still cannot get past the fact that most major journalists are insiders themselves. They do not live in the same world that most of us live in -- theirs is the world of politicians, the world of Beltway insiders and Wall St. bigwigs.

When looking at things through their lens, it's not discernable whether things are really worse off for them right now or not. Among most "regular people", it's clear that things are worse off -- but the people we're talking about here are not "regular people", and do not have the same concerns nor perspective.

You asked me, "If you were fed up, and you saw it no longer "unpatriotic" to call a spade a spade, wouldn't you jump on the bandwagon, too?" I think a more apt question would be if it were now to your personal professional advantage to call a spade a spade, would you? The only way in which patriotism influences this paradigm is whether it is popular (and therefore profitable) or not. If anything, the press is simply FOLLOWING popular opinion on this, as opposed to actually blazing a trail.

Other factors/ideas:
-they keep ratings up by cowtowing to RW viewers (they get their news from TV more) and then create the fight that keeps everyone riveted-look for it to really heat up after the summer vacation period.

-If what you stated is right, W&Co. (Rove) got sucked into believeing their own press releases and their lies are suddenly not only questioned but so ridiculous that no one can miss that they are lying. No one called them on it before so they figured why not keep it going?

-Look at a graph of approval/disapproval, it looks like a Christmas Tree on its side. Everytime the numbers started to cross (as they are now-putting the star on top) something HUGE happened and everyone rallied are him, fed by the media.

there are those who have been groomed by the Heritage Foundation and other foundations that you can find if you google Town Hall. They are hard core and part of reason for their loyalty and intense determination is because a good part of their position has been supported by the people they report to, they are probably also born-again, and they think the world will be ruled by the right wing.

There are others who go along with their corporation so that they can pay their morgage and their childrens education and/or pay for a sharp weekend getaway place or boat. There was money to be made in ranting against Clinton and Gore and they then had to compete to gain favor from Bush handlers. Think of all the shows that were born at the NBCs during the 1990s - all to get the Clintons. Then, they were used to poke fun at Gore, then to push Bush.

If any in the second group are pulling away from Bush, it's because a few may realize how ridiculous their associations have been and how they pimped. But, others are only morphing in the event Kerry wins, not that the corporations are going to change their overall objective which matches PNAC, but they will have to appear more open for awhile. They may only be manuevering to get a seat at the WH (if K wins).

They are opportunists (or you could call them slimey).

I, for one, will find it difficult to allow the morphing to influence me that they have converted. I'm sure, however, they would like to listen to an educated person since our darn country is all focused on one man, most of the time.

Written all over it. I suspect there may be some of what you described happening, i.e. pent up media rage being judiciously applied at the right time, but the people with the real motives to take these thugs down are the intel agencies who have VERY secure networks in place in the media establishment. I suspect that the CIA is working closely with their contacts in the media to drop bombs at the right times at the right intervals. It's definitley a coordinated effort that SOME in the media are helping along with, but they are probably doing at the direction and under the guidance of the intel agencies.

Think about what we've seen. The systematic breaking of bombshell stories (that are based on info that would/could/should be something intel would know), at critical junctions and the spreading of them to various sources. 1sth Sy Hersh and the NY'er, the ABC got a big one, then NBC etc. Someone or some group w/ deep contacts is spreading the love around and doing it judiciously. And the "best" is most assuredly yet to come! If I were Bushco. I'd be VERY nervous. They have no clue what's next or from which direction it's coming! Bwhahahahahahahahaha!

You're still nuts Prof! But that's why we love ya! ;-)

My wife's been telling me that every day since 1978! Ha! I laugh at your attempt to analyze me. Thank you, Captain Obvious!

BTW: Thanks for chiming in on the thread. I can buy that the media is being fed the information by the spooks and they're running with it, since getting it from the CIA makes the reporter bulletproof.

Good point.
The Professor

While they are finally reporting a bit more responsibly about Georgie's fabulous misadventures, they are simultaneoulsy reporting a whole lot of non-news about Kerry, trying to undermine him. Is that part of the plan too? If so, does that mean they are actually for Nader?

except I think the "honeymoon" was given for different reasons to some extent. Somebody on O'Franken, I think it was Richard Cohen, brought this up in an interview a few weeks ago. He said that something people forget about is the anthrax attacks that were directed at the media. He talked about how during that time they resorted to taking the mail off to sealed rooms (in newspaper and television facilities) before delivering it and how everyone was afraid. Said reporters and those involved in the media were very scared and were backing the pResident out of fear, thinking he would do things that would protect them. Well, I think that bit of initial panic has waned and now reporters are starting to think a bit more rationally and they aren't going to give Shrub the benefit of the doubt anymore. They see how he's fucked things up and they aren't going to sit by and let it get worse. They see that the emperor has no clothes and they are gonna tell everyone (I hope).

:hi: Professor!

First, while "honeymoon periods" are generally accepted as conventional wisdom, not all presidents get them. Clinton, for example, was hammered from day one, sometimes for good reason, sometimes due to pressure from the right or from groups invested in their policies (including corporations that controlled many of the media oulets). Conversely, Reagan had a honeymoon that lasted at least six years- he was "teflon Ron" partially due to the assination attempt, but also due to FCC Chairman Mark Fowler's dismantling of every sort of broadcast regulation you can imagine. He was, in terms of degree, much worse than Michael Powell and just as blatant in his disregard for the public interest.

So my premise is that the media acts in what its executive believe to be in its own self interest and won't go after buffons, even when they lie, say stupid things or their policies are profoundly damaging to the country.

Bush's "honeymoon period" began long before he ever got selected. The media by and large gave him a free pass about things as blatant as his tax cut arithmatic- and continued to do so. 9-11 and Iraq exacerbated the situation, but I suspect the "hooneymoon" would have continued in any event. Even if the front line journalists or the people who write copy were irritated (insulted?) at how they were treated, their material had to be approved by editiors and on up the line. Since the media is consolidated to the point where about 11 corporations, all with right wing leanings, control the vast majority of what's broadcast, there's little decent journalists can do to get the stories out- if they want to keep their jobs. So deceit goes unchallenged and actions on all levels of government that should shock the concience are concealed.

For the most part, American newspapers aren't any better. Even in progressive cities like Portland, the editors or publishers are at best apologists for the far right. They'll continue to spin away, if not for Bush, then for some other irrational anti-tax whacko..

These points aside, I agree with many of your observations and with your conclusion. In fact, the lid has been kept on many of these stories- in part for the reasons I mention above and in part for fear of advertiser backlash. Now that it looks as though Bush is going down- and now that he's no longer a "popular" "war time" pResident, he's becoming fair game in a target rich environment. And there are a lot of scores to settle.

Iraq has run out of gas. Bush vs. Gore sold lots and lots of papers and air time.

The story of downfall of the BFEE will kill trees for centuries.

At most, I think that the sequence of events you described provided a handy series of excuses for the soft-pedalling they were already determined to do. As others here have suggested, I think the press had their orders from On High to put Shrub into office and to stifle all sorts of dissent, unhappy news, etc.

All this is based on the assumption that the press acts
independently and in what it considers to be the public interest.
They are dumping on Shrub now because he has screwed the pooch
so extravagantly that they are impelled to start cutting their
losses. Scapegoats will now be disembowelled and sacrificed on
the alter of the "public good" until the illusion of integrity
in the political process is restored. The international political
damage does not appear to be repairable, and adjustment to that may
take much longer.

I'm actually saying the exact same thing as you. He went too far, they had enough, now that the public sentiment has turned, they are letting everything they know out.

It's not a matter of public interest. It's a matter of power. They always knew they could attack, but didn't because it was unpopular. Now, it's not.

My point is really, that they are relishing it.
The Professor

And I certainly have no desire to pick a fight with you.
I can see that we might be looking at two sides of the same
coin, and perhaps you are being more diplomatic than I feel
in a mood for today. :-)

In November 2002 the Iraq buys uranium from Niger nonsense was debunked thoroughly by the IAEA, who easily proved the documents were childish forgeries. The media did not deign to make a flap about its mention in the SOTU speech in any significant way until AFTER 'major combat' had ended.

Plus, this would be 'ends justify the means' thinking, because taking a hard line early one could easily have brought many of his destructive policies short. The war rationale was a lie in every sense--the information was there, on Chalabi and the INC, Rumsfeld's OSP, the false witnesses before the Senate, Powell's hole-filled speech, the dubious nature of the Al Qaeda connections, all of it. But the media sat on all of this, and they did it either because they are incompetent or because they have their own agenda that decided to let the Iraq war go by without so much as a whimper. Letting so many bad policies go through to just let things pile up to clobber him with now just seems pretty depraved.

I don't think they let it pile up. I think that they may have kept the lid on things after the rain came, though. Rather than hammer away from August to December 2003, they got ducks in a row, strengthened leads and sources (and confirmations) and hammered well into 2004.

Not a matter of holding back, as much as building momentum until the stories were irrefutable. That way, they could really hit back and settle some scores. It's not like the Bush Gang didn't have it coming.
The Professor

just another Smitian 'Invisible Hand'

The rules are different during elections. The President is always reduced to just another candidate. Lots of media people have been holding their fire for years waiting for campaign season to start. Since then it's been a bloodbath.

The media if fully prepared to install Kerry. They were unwilling to install Dean, so Dean was assassinated by the media. That's how it works... but there's never a meeting or even conversation. The process is the sum of thousands of individual agendas.

Partly, I think you are right, simply because it is now "fashionable" (or maybe a better way to state it is it is now supported by polling data) that the invasion of Iraq is not viewed favorably by the public at large. Bush's favorable ratings have dropped enough that media is no longer afraid of revenue lost by offending the viewers/readers. Make no mistake--everything the media does is driven by the profit it can generate.

Given the turnabout in public opinion, it is now safe to put this stuff out, and it is now safe to editorialize about the administration. Six months ago that was not the case.

Something that I've wondered about for a while now, however, is the idea that bush has become such a liability that maybe the really big money guys (who have control of a lot of the media) are ready to see bush go. He's run his course--he's delivered up the main items on the agenda they had when they selected him--and now it is time to bring him down.

Editorial policy is a big factor in what gets in the media--we all recognize it. I do think the word came down from the higher levels that the gloves are to come off--we want him gone. I also think it was stirred, in large part, because of the stuff that has been leaked out of Iraq.

Laura

I think the power brokers realize they have made an error. My fondest hope, as i mentioned in another post on this thread, that it would prevent them from pushing forth any other empty suits in the future. I could disagree with the philosophy and politics of a Republican, but still respect him. This puppet, i can't even begin to respect.

Like i said, my fondest hope.
The Professor

that's made the media report it. 60 minutes has broken many important scandals of this maladministration and the mainstream media has failed to follow through. Since there were pictures of naked men, sexual innuendos, and titillation then they couldn't wait to tell this story for ratings. The resulting drop in support for the war and * has emboldened the press to follow up on other stories. I don't think the press would ever have reported any scandal like this if it hadn't been the pictures and the sexual part of this.

I am beyond disgusted at the press and the American people. We have a administration that took us to war for no reason, bankrupted the country, gave away our national treasury to rich elites, destroyed the environment, abused all of our civil liberties, and continually lies and it's the titillation of the sexual torture that brings down (hopefully) this corrupt regime.

the media is still protecting him and obeying his orders.