You are herecontent / President CNNMSNBCFOX


by R. J. Kovic

The media reminds George Bush that his "earned capital" is rightfully "media loaned currency" made available to him by his true Creator- the media.

Media coverage of the ongoing Bush/Sheehan matter is worth following, not for its substance - that is sorely lacking - but rather, for the audacity the media is showing by giving its favorite child a public spanking.

"Media" refers to the conglomerates that currently pose as the fourth estate and, in effect, lull the public into thinking it still has someone or something looking out for it by checking government excess and/or abuse of power.

In the current Bush vacation/war/Cindy script, the media is attacking its own valuable creation. After all, Bush is pro-business, anti- regulation, and has done wonders for media conglomerates with his version of the FCC. As for being a media creation, even Bush has recognized his true Creator for some time now. This is evidenced by his quote while mulling his first run for Governor of Texas:

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."

He was re-cast as a successful businessman and a brave fighter pilot and the rest is history.

Currently, the media is defending the attack on its own valuable asset by grumbling that August is a "slow news" period (a recurring excuse) and the reporter's outside of the ranch in Crawford have nothing else to do. On its face, that statement is untrue as anyone who ventures outside of what the American media defines as news can attest to.

The actual answer is simple. The media has proven that it can easily destroy its opponents. The attack on Bush is just a method of keeping its minions in line. Knowing that George Bush is wont to believe the unbelievable, it is reminding him of his quote as he was weighing running for Governor of Texas lest he let his self-described "earned capital" go to his head. It is also a reminder that the "earned capital" is rightfully "media loaned currency" made available to him by his true Creator.

In order to avoid real damage to its favorite politician as it flexes its muscles, the media has also set both guns blazing against Cindy Sheehan. That way, should any signs of serious damage to Bush emerge, the healing process can begin by the media pointing to the "source" who, as its pundits are fond of saying, is a "crackpot", a "traitor", and is "betraying her son's sacrifice". Competing moms, scripted appearances, and references to 9-11 can be trotted out and the whole issue of Iraq will, once again, magically disappear.

The 2004 election coverage left no such outs for Howard Dean and John Kerry. Dean was left with- "I'm not crazy… really, I'm not." Kerry was left with accusations that he was too slow to respond to the question of, "When did you stop beating your Swift Boat?"

Most people are under the impression that Howard Dean's campaign was sunk by the "Dean Scream" in Iowa. That, by itself, ignores the forces behind the altering of a non-event into a monumental meltdown.

According to the National Journal's Hotline, cable and network news aired "the scream" 633 times in the 4 days after it was made. This count did not include local news affiliates or talk shows.

ABC's Diane Sawyer reported on the ramifications as well as the reactions from some who were behind the scenes at cable and the networks.

She stated that it sounded very different in the actual room. The difference was because Dean was holding a handheld microphone that filtered out background noise and isolated his voice. She collected other tapes from that night that had crowd noise on them. She concluded that the "so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all." She also collected some sound bites from top executives at CBS News, ABC News, Fox News and CNN, all of whom acknowledged that the media overplayed the scream.

To understand why Dean took this beating (in January, 2004), one should refer to an interview Dean did with Chris Mathews on Hardball in the previous month.

The following are 3 Dean quotes from the interview:

"What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one… Yes, we're going to break up giant media enterprises… You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-- if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy."

Lastly, if 633 replays of a misleading tape proved insufficient to derail the Dean threat to their continued consolidation, the Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 39 percent of Dean's coverage on the network evening news was positive during the week after Iowa. By contrast, rival John Edwards' coverage was 86 percent positive during the same period, and John Kerry's was 71 percent positive.

That is not to say that Dean would have won. It does show that he stood little chance of winning after his comments on Hardball.

As the Democratic field winnowed and John Kerry was selected to run against George Bush, cable catapulted the Swift Boat Veterans onto the world stage.

It should be kept in mind that immediately after the Democratic convention Kerry had a comfortable 3-5 point lead. So comfortable, in fact, that he signaled that he might take another look at media regulation and the effects of consolidation.

At the beginning of August, the infamous "slow news" period, "liberal" TIME (August 3-5) and "conservative" FOX News (August 3-4) conducted polls asking which issues were most important in the 2004 presidential election.

The public chose the economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care or Medicare, moral value issues, education, and taxes.

Cable news offered viewers, "Kerry and Vietnam- Liar, Traitor, or Both?" Network news, in an apparent effort to hang on to some sense of decorum and perspective, stepped aside preferring to let cable news carry the smear burden.

A sampling of programs from August 5th - 26th revealed that the CNN, MSNBC, and FOX provided more than 283,593 words and over 34 showings of an otherwise sparsely seen attack ad(s) on the smear for free within the body of "news" stories.

Again, these numbers are but a sampling and are not the complete count (in other words the total numbers would be even higher). Furthermore, the FOX word count was limited to 1/3 of the total so that no claim could be made that FOX skewed the results. The results showed very little difference in intensity and type of coverage regardless of outlet.

Publishing industry standards place 283,593 words beyond a regular novel and into the realm of a 1,134 page "epic" novel or a trilogy.

Anticipating criticism, cable used the "provocatively dressed" defense. Cable pundits stated that by referencing his service in Vietnam, Kerry "opened the door" and "asked for it". "It" being a torrent of - "Kerry has not been honest. He's- lying, lied, no war hero, betrayed, dishonored, lacks the capacity to lead, can't be trusted".

9 repetitions of all 18 prime time Republican Convention speeches skewering Kerry on character, trustworthiness, and strength would be required to approach cable's effort.

As for coverage, among many other absurdities, viewers were treated to:

A "purple star" discussion (as introduced by Heidi Collins- apparently a 'Barney' fan);

After 37,162 words and 17 showings of the first attack ad, Sean Hannity asking, "… why are 'they' trying to silence you? Why won't 'they' let this ad run…?";

A second attack ad (not even aired at the time) eagerly teased by Andrea Mitchell, "Let's take a look at it…the new ad… they have not bought time yet…. Take a look."; and

Campaign "advice" from Chris Mathews, "…the only way he (Kerry) is going to change this story is to say he's gay".

Some, apparently fed up with the coverage, openly disagreed with the "opened the door" rationale.

Jeff Greenfield admitted that fault rested with cable news, which he described as, "…an endless mob that has to be fed…". As for the non-starter story, he said, "…it was given a kind of fuel by this very media".

As Kerry's poll numbers dropped, cable began fingerprint removal by relentlessly repeating, "people don't know where he stands", and attributing credit to "Bush's convention bounce".

On September 14th, analyst and poll aficionado Bill Schneider finally pointed out the obvious, "…By late August, the number who said Kerry's military record made them more likely to vote for him had dropped by half. Kerry's advantage was neutralized by the controversy".

He added, "In early August…Kerry had the edge over Bush as the more honest and trustworthy candidate. In late August just before the Republican convention, the advantage had tilted to Bush".

Schneider's "cause and effect" observations were widely… unreported.

Party affiliation, "likeability", and a "man of the people" matter little if the candidate shows contempt for media conglomerates (Dean) or even ambivalence towards them (Kerry). They will be defeated. Even if one is aware of their Creator (Bush) and pays the proper homage, that individual will be taken to the woodshed on occasion just as a reminder of where the real power resides.

True Republicans and real Democrats alike should be aware that if they play the current media game they will allow our democratic process to be hijacked in a way only imagined by William Randolph Hearst.

R. J. Kovic lectures on Political Science and Law with an emphasis on the role of the rule of law in developed and emerging democracies.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's not just the media.

I think I recall that, a few weeks ago, this site published an article on the subject of corporate power in America. It may be interesting to note that such amassed power in corporate hands was not something that was favorably contemplated by the founders. It is, instead, something that has it's primary origins in legal decisions awarding to corporate entities the full spectrum of rights that were originally put in place to empower ordinary citizens.

Needless to say, the corporate exercise of such rights gives them extraordinary power and influence under a republican form of "democracy". There's some additional background here.

Very well done... Next question. Why did Bush the media creation (which I believe to be true) need a spanking? Whose agenda isn't he following? And what is it? We can't be taken by surprise with the next stage...we have to get out ahead of these guys.

One can only speculate, but the following comment seems to make some sense: "The men at the top of the corporate food-chain are not fools. They understand failure and they know when to cut their losses. The Bush ship-o-state is rudderless and adrift and the media is just helping them to the nearest reef." Read more here.

I find it interesting that there is no information by the media even air america about the New American project for the 21'st century written by Cheney and Rumsfeld and others in the administration in the late 90's. This is chilling and needs to be all over the media! IT SHOWS THEY INTENDED TO GO TO WAR!

PNAC has been all over the UK media the last few years. The average British citizen knows everything about the PNAC. They would be shocked to know the average American knows nothing about it! Of course Europe is wary of the PNAC >>> Heil Bushie!!! If BBC did a report on PNAC , a lot of people could see it through DVD's and cable and free internet downloads or in the movie theatre near you! MICHAEL MOORE>>> Please do a documentary on the PNAC!!!,11209,1036685,00.html

"Hey, what's the PNAC?"

I am amazed that like an abused spouse, we keep participating in a relationship with corporate media that is detrimental to our collective mental and physical well-being. What is wrong with us?

What is it that makes us sit in front of our tubes and be abused with the constant barrage of lies, spin, and useless information?

I know it is a one person war but I just refuse to listen to the babble from the likes of Mathews, O'Reily, Blitzer, et al. There is such a wealth of information on the Internet that having to rely on these yokels for information has become obsolete. I'm ashamed I ever let myself become involved with them.

All these corporations President CNNMSNBCFOX are giants made of steel with clay feet. There at Camp Casey I and II they have it together. People feel the flow of love when they visit both camps. The love is so contagious that people are returning, and those that use the internet are going in masses to get contaminated with that love. The media neglected to tell the American people about the Downing Street Minutes, which contain a lot of truth of why America went to war in Iraq. The question Cindy's asking GWB is based on the truth brought forth by these documents.

The truth is also that the President CNNMSNBCFOX never made any publications or comments regarding Cindy Sheehan. However thanks to the internet, "AfterDowningStreet.Org," people started going out to support Cindy Sheehan. The President CNNMSNBCFOX are now covering this miracle of a woman. The spirit of Love Cindy radiates has prevailed and caught fire through the internet where President CNNMSNBCFOX has no control.

President CNNMSNBCFOX might have their guns pointed at both Cindy and GWB, perhaps even allowing "The Swift Boat" addvertisment and propaganda attack Cindy's moral make up by smearing her. This way playing both sided of the fence. Yet in the midst of all this manipulation Cindy has responded with a smile and with love.

Love is Cindy's wapon. It is obvious that she has continued to prevail with her attitude of unconditional love that is growing like wild, at both Camp Caseys. Judging by the way Cindy impacts people and the love she radiates one can assume that this love will spill over to the pro-war protestors. News worthy of being broadcasted to America, and for sure President CNNMSNBCFOX will pounce on it. If anything all these corporations President CNNMSNBCFOX owe one to the internet.

Cindy Sheehan is real and all these corporations President CNNMSNBCFOX are giants made of steel with clay feet. Remember clay feet crumble when a rock like Cindy Sheehan lands on them.

Saw Cindy on tonight, they did about 22 minutes on Camp Casey and the protests in Idaho . These shows are also archived at Pacifica Radio on (Berkely) and WBAI in New York
I believe. Pacifica Radio has very good alternative Radio programs
Its listener supported and ad free. also right wing nut free.

When I heard Dean make those comments about the media I knew it was all over for him. I don't care that much for Dean as he appears a supporter of this insane war, but I was impressed with the media comments. That they completely destroyed him immediately after certainly shows how much power they have.

Nice piece, Ron, - well thought out. I have one question though. Is it possible that Dean is simply being more pragmatic now and says he supports the war to avoid criticism? I do wonder...

The Democratic party elite, I think, were just as happy about the scream as were the Republicans. Probably the only reason they gave him the DNC chair job, was to ensure he doesn't run in 2008.


Restrooms (handicapped stall, older folks and disabled are more receptive to this news)

The corporate media (and indeed, the whole corporate power structure) is a threat to democracy. Our only hope is to wake more people up to this threat, and to stay well informed.

A good antidote to the corporate propaganda and censorship is which is the best source of news on the Web. It gives the stories and information that rarely slip through the corporate media's filter.

Another interpretation of this situation is that the corporate media will never let us elect a progressive Democrat. They ignored Kucinich and the other progressives, and they demonized the Democrats who were marginally progressive.

Part of the reason they can do this is because the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything. A Democratic candidate simply makes up their position on issues. While the Democratic Party claims to support working peoples' interests, "Democrats" can vote for NAFTA, the WTO, and other trade agreements that sacrifice American jobs for corporate profits.

A Democratic candidate must inform the voters where he/she stands, because of the lack of direction from the party. This is difficult because the voters are, in general, ignorant about the issues, and most wouldn't understand a reasonable discussion about policies.

So, candidates focus on imagery. They use words that focus groups indicate resonate with the public. They dress and act in ways that send out the message they're "regular guys". But this vagueness can be used against them by the corporate media, which can selectively choose what images to show the public, e.g. Dean's yell. Meanwhile, these "regular guys" regularly sell us out to corporate interests, to get funding for their campaigns.

In contrast, the Green Party has a set of Ten Key Values, that are supported by all its candidates ( ).

When you vote for a Green, you know what you're getting. Green candidates don't have to present a personality, and are much less likely to sell us out once in office. Plus, your Green vote sends a clear message to the corporate parties that they'll continue to lose votes unless they start representing citizens' interests.

If the corporate parties think they can count on our votes, expect to see more erosion of our civil liberties, more jobs going to low-wage countries, and more people without affordable health care.

It's time to be more selective about WHO we vote for. Before voting for a Democrat, check their voting record. If they voted for NAFTA, the WTO agreement, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy law, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or any of the other measures that sell out working people, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!

I also wouldn't vote for any Democrat who has not joined the courageous Democrats who are demanding an explanation from Bush for the Downing Street memos, and for the communications the US has had with England.

The Democratic Party has shown that they won't represent working peoples' interests unless we make them. Let's make them!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.