BBC: Death of Main Stream Media

That could be the headline in the UK in the future, but in the US, it is the headline today.

MSNBC writes an obit for main stream media in the US. But in the obit, Howard Fineman, accuses the wrong culprit in this whodunnit and fails to understand the new paradigm for the media.

WASHINGTON - A political party is dying before our eyes — and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the "mainstream media," which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox's canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying journalistic standards. At the height of its power, the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party) helped validate the civil rights movement, end a war and oust a power-mad president. But all that is ancient history.

Notice who he blames right off the bat - the opposition. Only at the end does he attribute some of the demise to "fraying journalistic standards".

He manages to get at least two things correct in this paragraph, even though he tries to bury them both and hide the identity of one.

The destruction of main stream media is being led by the internet but more specifically "bloggers". But there is a very valid reason for this movement.

He presents us with a "gang" of suspects but there is really only one culprit in all of this, fraying journalistic standards. The CBS "Rathergate" report makes that abundantly clear.

Look at this claim: "which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party". After the CBS and New York Times, to name but a few, attacks on Bush, is there any wonder? MSM's "own fraying journalistic standards" caused "the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party", not to mention the disdain of the public. CBS's and the BBC's viewing figures prove that. MSM still fail to understand that the dynamics have changed, we no longer trust them to be fair and accurate. The Internet and bloggers changed all that.

MSM fell all over themselves to get out a bogus story, using obviously forged documents, defaming Bush. But when presented with authentic documents and overwhelming evidence that Kerry lied about his Vietnam service, MSM initially sat on the story and when they did speak it was to attack the source. These are not "fraying journalistic standards", these are failed journalistic standards.

Notice how he takes credit for MSM ending a war. I imagine he means the Vietnam war. MSM didn't just help "end" the war, they lost the war. They, with the help of John Kerry's lies, snatched defeat from certain victory. The North Vietnamese specifically cited MSM and the anti-war movement as the reason they changed their minds from surrendering to "going the limit". Who knows how many more thousands were killed because of MSM and John Kerry?

Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

Few people in the world are aware of these facts.

Fineman continues in denial.

Now the AMMP is reeling, and not just from the humiliation of CBS News. We have a president who feels it's almost a point of honor not to hold more press conferences — he's held far fewer than any modern predecessor — and doesn't seem to agree that the media has any "right" to know what's really going in inside his administration. The AMMP, meanwhile, is regarded with ever growing suspicion by American voters, viewers and readers, who increasingly turn for information and analysis only to non-AMMP outlets that tend to reinforce the sectarian views of discrete slices of the electorate.

It's not a "point of honor" it's a matter of survival, survival of the truth. Remember how Rumsfeld was set up by a reporter when he visited troops in Iraq? Turns out the unit he was speaking to were 80% "armored up" and were 100% the next day. Worse, MSM snipped his remarks so that all that was remembered was the phrase, "you go to war with the army you have". A read of the complete statement reveals a different story.

Then there is this gem: "and doesn't seem to agree that the media has any "right" to know what's really going...". Bush knows, as do we all, that MSM will not report "what's really going [on]". Again, Rathergate, and indeed, the CBS internal investigation into Rathergate, proves that.

Here is where Fineman's denial shines: "The AMMP, meanwhile, is regarded with ever growing suspicion by American voters, viewers and readers". Howard, it is not just the AMMP, it is the entire world wide media, that is regarded with ever growing suspicion. The charge is being led by bloggers in the US but the "take back our media" movement is spreading around the globe.

Fineman seems to feel that MSM's demise began when they started to lose their neutrality and speak out on important issues. When in reality their demise began when the began to lie and deceive us about important issues like Vietnam.

The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.

That's because we didn't have the Internet then to fact check your ass Howard. If the public had been aware of John Kerry and his Winter Soldiers lies, do you think the public would have seen things your way? Do you think the Vietnam war and its' aftermath would have turned out the way it did? All wars since have been viewed through the Vietnam prism. In short, all of America's liberating actions around the world, are viewed with suspicion and disdain. All thanks to your lot, Howard.

Fineman descends into a deeper and deeper denial, shows the black heart of MSM, and proves why we should not trust MSM.

Some Republicans learned how to manipulate the AMMP, especially its growing obsession with personalities — and its desire to be regarded as even-handed. The objective wasn't to win the AMMP's approval, but to isolate it by uncoupling its longterm relationship with the Democrats. At least that's what happened in the Monica Lewinsky Years: The party that had nominated him in 1992 had eventually impeached him, thanks in good part to information supplied by GOP investigators.

Howard, were the GOP responsible for Clinton's semen on Lewinsky's dress? Did the GOP supply the cigars that Clinton used on Lewinsky? Were they responsible for the audio recordings between Clinton and Lewinsky? Were the GOP responsible for all the other affairs and sexual assaults of Clinton?

Howard, you and your ilk, are responsible for America's loss in Vietnam and for helping to keep Clinton in office. I doubt either of these would have happened if we had had bloggers then. We do now and that is why you have lost our trust and that trust is your life blood. Without it, MSM dies.

Fineman shifts the blame from MSM to the public figures.

Rove and Bush decided that most forms of "exposure" offered by the AMMP would be likely to do more harm than good.

They didn't decide that Howard, MSM decided long ago to side with the Democrats against the Republicans. You said so yourself.

How far down the rabbit hole is Fineman willing to go? All the way to invoking 9/11 to attack Bush.

Bush doesn't hate the AMMP (indeed, he likes his share of reporters on a personal basis). He just refuses to care about what it's up to. The terrorist attack of 9/11, and the added security concerns it fueled, have given the White House a new reason to keep the AMMP at bay. Pools are "tighter," more and more events are "closed press," and those that are open are to be viewed at a distance, if at all.

When Richard Clarke wrote his book and appeared before the 9/11 commission, MSM gave him wide exposure and he made the rounds of morning talk shows without little regard for the validity of what he was saying, most of it now discredited.

Likewise, when Joseph Wilson claimed he proved Bush lied in his state of the union address when he claimed that Saddam was seeking uranium for Niger, MSM promoted the story. But Bush actually said that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa and attributed that to British intelligence, which has been proved correct. Turns out Wilson was the one who lied.

MSM were quick to tout both these mens stories when it fitted their agenda and quickly ignored their exposure as liars. Is it any wonder then that "Pools are "tighter," more and more events are "closed press,"?

Fineman ends in complete denial and is more clueless than when he started. He ignores the truth that is staring him in the face, fails to grasp the new reality, and gives up completely. If only the rest of MSM would do likewise.

In this situation, the last thing the AMMP needed was to aim wildly at the president — and not only miss, but be seen as having a political motivation in attacking in the first place. Were Dan Rather and Mary Mapes after the truth or victory when they broadcast their egregiously sloppy story about Bush's National Guard Service? The moment it made air it began to fall apart, and eventually was shredded by factions within the AMMP itself, conservative national outlets and by the new opposition party that is emerging: The Blogger Nation. It's hard to know now who, if anyone, in the "media" has any credibility.


"Egregiously sloppy", Howard? They knowingly used forged documents to fabricate a false story. That's not sloppy, that's criminal.

It was the bloggers who first exposed this scam and MSM's initial reaction was, once again, attack the source. MSM did no shredding of anything other than the credibility of those who tried to expose CBS's forged documents. If the bloggers had not exposed MSM's blatant attempt to get Kerry elected, who knows how the election would have turned out.

And no Howard, it is not hard to know who has credibility, bloggers have proved MSM lost theirs a long time ago.

The King is dead, long live the King.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------