Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story

Press_Coverage · 05-01-2008, 08:11 PM

more "liberal media bias" at work again...

[URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290005"]link[/URL]
[INDENT]Since The New York Times reported on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on April 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not mentioned the report. By contrast, during their April 28 evening news broadcasts, all three networks reported on the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus.

As Media Matters noted, the three networks also reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour regarding the Times story; Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC also refused to appear in the PBS segment.[/INDENT]

intelligentjetsfan · 05-01-2008, 09:56 PM

[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2520298]more "liberal media bias" at work again...

[URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290005"]link[/URL]
[INDENT]Since The New York Times reported on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on April 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not mentioned the report. By contrast, during their April 28 evening news broadcasts, all three networks reported on the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus.

As Media Matters noted, the three networks also reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour regarding the Times story; Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC also refused to appear in the PBS segment.[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

But we have all these channels to choose from surely with abc, nbc, cbs, fox, fox news, msnbc, telemundo, the local fox channel, upn, whatever channel 11 calls itself now, someone would have covered it, right? Whats that you say....[B]all those channels are owned by 4 companies? [/B]

Oh well, [url]www.siberianews.com[/url] had a story on it, so Americans should have logged on there to get their news. Its really their fault for not knowing more about this story. there are no issues with controlling the media in our country. :zzz::zzz::zzz:

sackdance · 05-02-2008, 07:43 AM

Is it really so newsworthy or surprising to learn that retired generals have connections and relationships with the Pentagon? Shows you how desperate the NY Times is to bash the administration, if anything. And, of course, the objectivity of MediaMatters.

Oh, I got something for ya...:zzz::zzz::zzz:

intelligentjetsfan · 05-02-2008, 08:05 AM

[QUOTE=sackdance;2520807]Is it really so newsworthy or surprising to learn that retired generals have connections and relationships with the Pentagon? Shows you how desperate the NY Times is to bash the administration, if anything. And, of course, the objectivity of MediaMatters.

Oh, I got something for ya...:zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

If you actually read the original article you would see that its a little more then mutual friends from the military having a cold one, watching a redskins game.:zzz::zzz:

And, yes, lets paint the Bush Administration has victims as they sent us into a war that cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and detroyed our reputation around most of the free world. Oh, yeah...still no weapons of mass destruction.....still no credible link with 9-11.

And their the victims:zzz:

sackdance · 05-02-2008, 10:31 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2520822]""" as they sent us into a war that cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and detroyed our reputation around most of the free world. """"[/QUOTE]
Oh, I get it. It's not about journalism.

Winstonbiggs · 05-02-2008, 10:57 AM

Good thing I watched the News Hour and saw the entire report. Why is this story any different than having news reporters embeded by the Pentagon or having a Washington bureau of reporters who are inbeded in the White House.

doggin94it · 05-02-2008, 12:46 PM

[quote=intelligentjetsfan;2520465]But we have all these channels to choose from surely with abc, nbc, cbs, fox, fox news, msnbc, telemundo, the local fox channel, upn, whatever channel 11 calls itself now, someone would have covered it, right? Whats that you say....[B]all those channels are owned by 4 companies? [/B]

Oh well, [URL="http://www.siberianews.com"]www.siberianews.com[/URL] had a story on it, so Americans should have logged on there to get their news. Its really their fault for not knowing more about this story. there are no issues with controlling the media in our country. :zzz::zzz::zzz:[/quote]

Yeah, good point. Since, you know, the story was only covered by the hardly available NY Times and PBS . . . :rolleyes:

Yep, the media conglomorates are definitely choking our access to information - since its only being reported by two widely available sources . . .

intelligentjetsfan · 05-02-2008, 03:30 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2521379]Yeah, good point. Since, you know, the story was only covered by the hardly available NY Times and PBS . . . :rolleyes:

Yep, the media conglomorates are definitely choking our access to information - since its only being reported by two widely available sources . . .[/QUOTE]

I did not write the thread topic article. It was the position of a respected media watch dog that the major networks [B]declined to report on this story.[/B] The whole existence of this site is to report on these types of issues in the media. So you would think that it would be logical to consider their work. Logical, except to some of the apologists at this site who gladly look the other way as these events unfold.

doggin94it · 05-02-2008, 03:59 PM

[quote=intelligentjetsfan;2521706]I did not write the thread topic article. It was the position of a respected media watch dog that the major networks [B]declined to report on this story.[/B] The whole existence of this site is to report on these types of issues in the media. So you would think that it would be logical to consider their work. Logical, except to some of the apologists at this site who gladly look the other way as these events unfold.[/quote]

And you are missing the point - which is that despite the agendas of several major media outlets, the story [B]is being reported in widely available and well known media[/B].

So you want to explain to me again how this backs up your contention that we are being denied access to news or justifies your snide reference to "[URL="http://www.siberianews.com/"]www.siberianews.com[/URL]"?

05-02-2008, 06:47 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2521091]Good thing I watched the News Hour and saw the entire report. Why is this story any different than having news reporters embeded by the Pentagon or having a Washington bureau of reporters who are inbeded in the White House.[/QUOTE]

If you're asking that, then news hour didn't do it justice.

This was a propaganda machine and the networks and their audiences were suckers. Generals were not just given access... they were told what to say, or else lose their access.

Put another way... it was the opposite of journalists embedded at war or covering the White House... this was executive branch embedding people in network news.

intelligentjetsfan · 05-02-2008, 06:59 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2521782]And you are missing the point - which is that despite the agendas of several major media outlets, the story [B]is being reported in widely available and well known media[/B].

So you want to explain to me again how this backs up your contention that we are being denied access to news or justifies your snide reference to "[URL="http://www.siberianews.com/"]www.siberianews.com[/URL]"?[/QUOTE]

Sure I will explain that to you. As soon as you explain to me how a story could be [B]widely[/B] reported in the main stream media if it was ignored by [B]NBC, CBS, ABC and, for the most part, Fox?[/B] (That includes Fox News, MSNBC, and all of the sister stations)

Considering all of the above, explain to me how this story could possibly be [B]widely[/B] reported in the [B]main stream media?[/B]

HDCentStOhio · 05-02-2008, 07:25 PM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2522156]Sure I will explain that to you. As soon as you explain to me how a story could be [B]widely[/B] reported in the main stream media if it was ignored by [B]NBC, CBS, ABC and, for the most part, Fox?[/B] (That includes Fox News, MSNBC, and all of the sister stations)

Considering all of the above, explain to me how this story could possibly be [B]widely[/B] reported in the [B]main stream media?[/B][/QUOTE]

You can't get the New York Times or PBS?

05-02-2008, 07:41 PM

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2522177]You can't get the New York Times or PBS?[/QUOTE]

The issues isn't that it wasn't -covered- but that it wasn't -widely covered-

A story covered in what many here like to regard as 'the left-wing media' isn't widely covered.

Winstonbiggs · 05-02-2008, 10:49 PM

[QUOTE=bandwagon;2522144]Put another way... it was the opposite of journalists embedded at war or covering the White House... this was executive branch embedding people in network news.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think the White House or the military lets reporters be embedded? It's not for access it's for propoganda. You can't get access unless you report what they want reported.

Press_Coverage · 05-03-2008, 01:53 AM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2522358]Why do you think the White House or the military lets reporters be embedded? It's not for access it's for propoganda. You can't get access unless you report what they want reported.[/QUOTE]

ding ding!!! exactly right...

intelligentjetsfan · 05-03-2008, 06:21 AM

[QUOTE=bandwagon;2522201]The issues isn't that it wasn't -covered- but that it wasn't -widely covered-

A story covered in what many here like to regard as 'the left-wing media' isn't widely covered.[/QUOTE]

[B]BINGO.[/B]

And that is why we have a potential threat to our liberties. The fact that it wasn't really reported in the main stream media means that the majority of Americans will not see this story. Therefore, the majority of Americans will not express outrage or want to learn more details and probe further; you know, all the things that a real news media does.

A story or event does not enter into our reality unless it enters into our consciousness.

HDCentStOhio · 05-03-2008, 07:38 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2522493][B]BINGO.[/B]

And that is why we have a potential threat to our liberties. The fact that it wasn't really reported in the main stream media means that the majority of Americans will not see this story. Therefore, the majority of Americans will not express outrage or want to learn more details and probe further; you know, all the things that a real news media does.

A story or event does not enter into our reality unless it enters into our consciousness.[/QUOTE]

Our resident Chicken Little claims yet again "the sky is falling". Enough with the "threat to our liberties". You really sound like a drama queen on this one. The paper boy threw my paper in the bushes yesterday. Was he trying to prevent me from reading it? Was that a threat to my liberties also?

intelligentjetsfan · 05-03-2008, 08:02 AM

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2522507]Our resident Chicken Little claims yet again "the sky is falling". Enough with the "threat to our liberties". You really sound like a drama queen on this one.[B] The paper boy threw my paper in the bushes yesterday. Was he trying to prevent me from reading it? Was that a threat to my liberties also?[/QUOTE][/B]

The idea that you would try to compare the topic of potential media consorship with where your paper boy threw your paper is ignorant in ways I cannot truly find words for.

For over two weeks I had to read from your hero, goofy5ever, about how this cannot possibly be true. All the while you and the rest of his disciples nodded their heads in unison that he must he correct because he is smart...just ask him. :zzz::zzz::zzz:

Now more stories like the one that was the topic of this thread have come out and you want to change the topic because it bores you.

sackdance · 05-03-2008, 08:42 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2522515][/B]
Now more stories like the one that was the topic of this thread have come out and you want to change the topic because it bores you.[/QUOTE]
This toothless story bores nearly everyone it has reaches - except for NY Times editors, mediamatters.org, and a handful liberal tacticians on Jet messageboards.

intelligentjetsfan · 05-03-2008, 08:45 AM

[QUOTE=sackdance;2522529]This toothless story bores nearly everyone it has reaches - except for NY Times editors, mediamatters.org, and a handful liberal tacticians on Jet messageboards.[/QUOTE]

and we all know that the first rule of judging the importance of a story is based on how entertaining it is :zzz::zzz::zzz:

05-01-2008, 08:11 PM	#1
Press_Coverage Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,123	Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story more "liberal media bias" at work again... [URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290005"]link[/URL] [INDENT]Since The New York Times reported on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on April 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not mentioned the report. By contrast, during their April 28 evening news broadcasts, all three networks reported on the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus. As Media Matters noted, the three networks also reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour regarding the Times story; Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC also refused to appear in the PBS segment.[/INDENT]

05-01-2008, 09:56 PM	#2
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2520298]more "liberal media bias" at work again... [URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290005"]link[/URL] [INDENT]Since The New York Times reported on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on April 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not mentioned the report. By contrast, during their April 28 evening news broadcasts, all three networks reported on the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus. As Media Matters noted, the three networks also reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour regarding the Times story; Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC also refused to appear in the PBS segment.[/INDENT][/QUOTE] But we have all these channels to choose from surely with abc, nbc, cbs, fox, fox news, msnbc, telemundo, the local fox channel, upn, whatever channel 11 calls itself now, someone would have covered it, right? Whats that you say....[B]all those channels are owned by 4 companies? [/B] Oh well, [url]www.siberianews.com[/url] had a story on it, so Americans should have logged on there to get their news. Its really their fault for not knowing more about this story. there are no issues with controlling the media in our country. :zzz::zzz::zzz: Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-01-2008 at 10:05 PM.

05-03-2008, 06:21 AM	#16
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=bandwagon;2522201]The issues isn't that it wasn't -covered- but that it wasn't -widely covered- A story covered in what many here like to regard as 'the left-wing media' isn't widely covered.[/QUOTE] [B]BINGO.[/B] And that is why we have a potential threat to our liberties. The fact that it wasn't really reported in the main stream media means that the majority of Americans will not see this story. Therefore, the majority of Americans will not express outrage or want to learn more details and probe further; you know, all the things that a real news media does. A story or event does not enter into our reality unless it enters into our consciousness. Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-03-2008 at 06:26 AM.

05-03-2008, 08:02 AM	#18
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2522507]Our resident Chicken Little claims yet again "the sky is falling". Enough with the "threat to our liberties". You really sound like a drama queen on this one.[B] The paper boy threw my paper in the bushes yesterday. Was he trying to prevent me from reading it? Was that a threat to my liberties also?[/QUOTE][/B] The idea that you would try to compare the topic of potential media consorship with where your paper boy threw your paper is ignorant in ways I cannot truly find words for. For over two weeks I had to read from your hero, goofy5ever, about how this cannot possibly be true. All the while you and the rest of his disciples nodded their heads in unison that he must he correct because he is smart...just ask him. :zzz::zzz::zzz: Now more stories like the one that was the topic of this thread have come out and you want to change the topic because it bores you. Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-03-2008 at 09:42 AM.

05-02-2008, 07:43 AM	#3
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,907	Is it really so newsworthy or surprising to learn that retired generals have connections and relationships with the Pentagon? Shows you how desperate the NY Times is to bash the administration, if anything. And, of course, the objectivity of MediaMatters. Oh, I got something for ya...:zzz::zzz::zzz:

05-02-2008, 08:05 AM	#4
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=sackdance;2520807]Is it really so newsworthy or surprising to learn that retired generals have connections and relationships with the Pentagon? Shows you how desperate the NY Times is to bash the administration, if anything. And, of course, the objectivity of MediaMatters. Oh, I got something for ya...:zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE] If you actually read the original article you would see that its a little more then mutual friends from the military having a cold one, watching a redskins game.:zzz::zzz: And, yes, lets paint the Bush Administration has victims as they sent us into a war that cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and detroyed our reputation around most of the free world. Oh, yeah...still no weapons of mass destruction.....still no credible link with 9-11. And their the victims:zzz:

05-02-2008, 10:31 AM	#5
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,907	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2520822]""" as they sent us into a war that cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and detroyed our reputation around most of the free world. """"[/QUOTE] Oh, I get it. It's not about journalism.

05-02-2008, 10:57 AM	#6
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 13,083	Good thing I watched the News Hour and saw the entire report. Why is this story any different than having news reporters embeded by the Pentagon or having a Washington bureau of reporters who are inbeded in the White House.

05-02-2008, 12:46 PM	#7
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,521	[quote=intelligentjetsfan;2520465]But we have all these channels to choose from surely with abc, nbc, cbs, fox, fox news, msnbc, telemundo, the local fox channel, upn, whatever channel 11 calls itself now, someone would have covered it, right? Whats that you say....[B]all those channels are owned by 4 companies? [/B] Oh well, [URL="http://www.siberianews.com"]www.siberianews.com[/URL] had a story on it, so Americans should have logged on there to get their news. Its really their fault for not knowing more about this story. there are no issues with controlling the media in our country. :zzz::zzz::zzz:[/quote] Yeah, good point. Since, you know, the story was only covered by the hardly available NY Times and PBS . . . :rolleyes: Yep, the media conglomorates are definitely choking our access to information - since its only being reported by two widely available sources . . .

05-02-2008, 03:30 PM	#8
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2521379]Yeah, good point. Since, you know, the story was only covered by the hardly available NY Times and PBS . . . :rolleyes: Yep, the media conglomorates are definitely choking our access to information - since its only being reported by two widely available sources . . .[/QUOTE] I did not write the thread topic article. It was the position of a respected media watch dog that the major networks [B]declined to report on this story.[/B] The whole existence of this site is to report on these types of issues in the media. So you would think that it would be logical to consider their work. Logical, except to some of the apologists at this site who gladly look the other way as these events unfold.

05-02-2008, 03:59 PM	#9
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,521	[quote=intelligentjetsfan;2521706]I did not write the thread topic article. It was the position of a respected media watch dog that the major networks [B]declined to report on this story.[/B] The whole existence of this site is to report on these types of issues in the media. So you would think that it would be logical to consider their work. Logical, except to some of the apologists at this site who gladly look the other way as these events unfold.[/quote] And you are missing the point - which is that despite the agendas of several major media outlets, the story [B]is being reported in widely available and well known media[/B]. So you want to explain to me again how this backs up your contention that we are being denied access to news or justifies your snide reference to "[URL="http://www.siberianews.com/"]www.siberianews.com[/URL]"?

05-02-2008, 06:47 PM	#10
bandwagon Edit Status Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2521091]Good thing I watched the News Hour and saw the entire report. Why is this story any different than having news reporters embeded by the Pentagon or having a Washington bureau of reporters who are inbeded in the White House.[/QUOTE] If you're asking that, then news hour didn't do it justice. This was a propaganda machine and the networks and their audiences were suckers. Generals were not just given access... they were told what to say, or else lose their access. Put another way... it was the opposite of journalists embedded at war or covering the White House... this was executive branch embedding people in network news.

05-02-2008, 06:59 PM	#11
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2521782]And you are missing the point - which is that despite the agendas of several major media outlets, the story [B]is being reported in widely available and well known media[/B]. So you want to explain to me again how this backs up your contention that we are being denied access to news or justifies your snide reference to "[URL="http://www.siberianews.com/"]www.siberianews.com[/URL]"?[/QUOTE] Sure I will explain that to you. As soon as you explain to me how a story could be [B]widely[/B] reported in the main stream media if it was ignored by [B]NBC, CBS, ABC and, for the most part, Fox?[/B] (That includes Fox News, MSNBC, and all of the sister stations) Considering all of the above, explain to me how this story could possibly be [B]widely[/B] reported in the [B]main stream media?[/B]

05-02-2008, 07:25 PM	#12
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2522156]Sure I will explain that to you. As soon as you explain to me how a story could be [B]widely[/B] reported in the main stream media if it was ignored by [B]NBC, CBS, ABC and, for the most part, Fox?[/B] (That includes Fox News, MSNBC, and all of the sister stations) Considering all of the above, explain to me how this story could possibly be [B]widely[/B] reported in the [B]main stream media?[/B][/QUOTE] You can't get the New York Times or PBS?

05-02-2008, 07:41 PM	#13
bandwagon Edit Status Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2522177]You can't get the New York Times or PBS?[/QUOTE] The issues isn't that it wasn't -covered- but that it wasn't -widely covered- A story covered in what many here like to regard as 'the left-wing media' isn't widely covered.

05-02-2008, 10:49 PM	#14
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 13,083	[QUOTE=bandwagon;2522144]Put another way... it was the opposite of journalists embedded at war or covering the White House... this was executive branch embedding people in network news.[/QUOTE] Why do you think the White House or the military lets reporters be embedded? It's not for access it's for propoganda. You can't get access unless you report what they want reported.

05-03-2008, 01:53 AM	#15
Press_Coverage Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,123	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2522358]Why do you think the White House or the military lets reporters be embedded? It's not for access it's for propoganda. You can't get access unless you report what they want reported.[/QUOTE] ding ding!!! exactly right...

05-03-2008, 07:38 AM	#17
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2522493][B]BINGO.[/B] And that is why we have a potential threat to our liberties. The fact that it wasn't really reported in the main stream media means that the majority of Americans will not see this story. Therefore, the majority of Americans will not express outrage or want to learn more details and probe further; you know, all the things that a real news media does. A story or event does not enter into our reality unless it enters into our consciousness.[/QUOTE] Our resident Chicken Little claims yet again "the sky is falling". Enough with the "threat to our liberties". You really sound like a drama queen on this one. The paper boy threw my paper in the bushes yesterday. Was he trying to prevent me from reading it? Was that a threat to my liberties also?

05-03-2008, 08:42 AM	#19
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,907	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2522515][/B] Now more stories like the one that was the topic of this thread have come out and you want to change the topic because it bores you.[/QUOTE] This toothless story bores nearly everyone it has reaches - except for NY Times editors, mediamatters.org, and a handful liberal tacticians on Jet messageboards.

05-03-2008, 08:45 AM	#20
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,320	[QUOTE=sackdance;2522529]This toothless story bores nearly everyone it has reaches - except for NY Times editors, mediamatters.org, and a handful liberal tacticians on Jet messageboards.[/QUOTE] and we all know that the first rule of judging the importance of a story is based on how entertaining it is :zzz::zzz::zzz: