For more than 2 years Barack Obama has fought alongside Big Media to suppress information of his many unsavory associations.
Big Media organizations charge “racism” alongside the Obama campaign if a black face of a creepy Obama associate is shown. Big Media organizations charge “racism” alongside the Obama campaign if a white face of a creepy Obama associate is shown. Yesterday Politico admitted that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext.
Historically, most people read NEWSpapers to read the NEWS, not opinion. News organizations are strong when they report news. News organizations weaken when they become propaganda sheets. During World War II the BBC World Service was believed and trusted by all sides of the conflict because the BBC delivered reliable news.
In the past few decades American news organizations have moved towards becoming entertainment outlets and only pretending to be news gathering and news disemination operations. In 2000 Big Media trashed Al Gore and skewed the coverage to hurt Al Gore. This election cycle Big Media became an adjunct of the unqualified Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and has done everything possible to trash Obama opponents and praise and promote and worship Obama.
Because Big Media “news” organizations have become Obama shill operations, not news gathering and reporting operations, Americans no longer value Big Media “news” operations. Americans continue to read Big Media, but less and less believe there is any value worth actually paying for when consuming Big Media “news“.
Today, the New York Times posted it’s own eulogy:
It’s been an especially rotten few days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up to 3,000 people.
Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it.
It goes on. The day before, the Tribune Company had declared that it would reduce the newsroom of The Los Angeles Times by 75 more people, leaving it approximately half the size it was just seven years ago.
The Star-Ledger of Newark, the 15th-largest paper in the country, which was threatened with closing, will apparently survive, but only after it was announced that the editorial staff would be reduced by 40 percent. [snip]
More than 90 percent of the newspaper industry’s revenue still derives from the print product, a legacy technology that attracts fewer consumers and advertisers every single day. A single newspaper ad might cost many thousands of dollars while an online ad might only bring in $20 for each 1,000 customers who see it.
The difference between print dollars and digital dimes — or sometimes pennies — is being taken out of the newsrooms that supply both. And while it is indeed tough all over in this economy, consider the consequences. [snip]
The Los Angeles Times, which toils under Hollywood’s nose, has one movie reviewer left on staff. And dozens of communities served by Gannett will have fewer reporters and editors overseeing the deeds and misdeeds of local government and businesses. [snip]
At the recent American Magazine Conference, one of the speakers worried that if the great brands of journalism — the trusted news sources readers have relied on — were to vanish, then the Web itself would quickly become a “cesspool” of useless information. That kind of hand-wringing is a staple of industry gatherings.
The lesson for Big Media is that consumers will pay for news, not cesspool propaganda. Citizens want news organizations to investigate and provide information on “the deeds and misdeeds of local government and businesses” but fairness is also required. No one will pay for Big Media product that goes through the garbage of Governor Sarah Palin and Joe – The Plumber but provides Barack Obama immunity from investigation.
The New York Times and Big Media tried to deny its readers information in order to protect “sources” such as “Scooter” Libby and other high Bush administration officials along with reporter Judith Miller when Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald investigated a national security matter. The protection of sources excuse eventually fell apart.
Today Governor Palin said “If there’s a Pulitzer prize category for excellence in kowtowing, the L.A. Times wins“. Governor Palin was referring to the latest Big Media protection of Barack Obama.
John McCain’s presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.
The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama’s ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. ” . . . The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public.”
The L.A. Times is engaging in news suppression not news dissemination.
But there’s a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn’t be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won’t fully explain. And it’s looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.
I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won’t discuss in detail why it’s keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper’s “readers’ representative,” Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.
The Jeremiah Wright tapes are effectively banned on national television and now the Rashid Khalidi tape is suppressed.
Big Media is worried about their tool Barack. Big Media knows that the Jeremiah Wright tape had a negative impact with voters. Big Media knows that Obama’s “bitter” and “cling” tape had a negative impact with voters. Big Media is helping Obama hide the latest negative impact tape which shows who Obama really is.
The original L.A. Times story cast doubt on Obama’s public statements in support of Israel and private feelings by Khalidi and some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”
One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”
Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.[snip]
Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering “from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel” and to renounce violence. [snip]
Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.
One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama’s outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.
“In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that’s what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.
American voters need information not protection of a candidate.
Joe Biden has already warned America that Obama make unpopular decisions as president and that it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.
Yesterday Politico admitted that most reporters find Obama a distant and undefined figure.
The Khalidi tape being suppressed by the Obama endorsing L.A. Times can help define Obama – that is what Big Media and Barack Obama are most afraid of.