Now if only a few million Americans call their legislators this would be awesome are Americans just too far to the right or just apathetic.
Mainstream Media admits to being part of the establishment and so MSNBC gives Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks a choice to play by the rules and not be as aggressive in his style especially towards the people on the Hill.
He was told to treat those in positions of power with kid gloves.
And that is not Cenk's style as those of us who cheer for and admire what he adds to the conversation.
Was Cenk's spot at MSNBC too popular. In his ratings he beat Fox News Channel.
Its not really that surprising as last year MSNBC got rid of Keith Olbermann for being too outspoken .
" Cenk Uygur Press Conference: I Left MSNBC So I Could Tell the Truth" by Adele M. Stan at AlterNet, July 21, 2011
In his exit from MSNBC, Cenk Uygur is not going quietly. In a teleconference call with reporters, Uygur reiterated his assertion that he was denied a permanent show in the 6 PM slot he has occupied on the the cable news channel since January because he was too challenging to government officials. (Before he signed off his final show last night, In last night's episode of his own, internet-based program, "The Young Turks," Uygur broadsided the network for its timidity at speaking truth to power; video below.)
In lieu of a weeknight hosting gig, MSNBC offered Uygur what he says was a lucrative contract for a weekend show plus punditry on the channel's week-night programs -- a deal he turned down. Uygur, who also hosts the Web-based video program, "The Young Turks," says he walked away from MSNBC because he felt it more important to be able to be truthful with his audience. Network executives, he said, had asked him to tone down his aggressive interviewing style.
More on the media scandal story involving Rupert Mudoch
Question of the day will Obama if at all possible prosecute Rupert Murdoch?
Most likely not he fears the GOP, the conservatives which make up most of Fox News audience.
If he really believed in pushing for honesty and integrity and fighting against Inflammatory Hate Speech he would at least set up a congressional or Senate investigation into Rupert Murdoch and his media outlets in the US.
But no Obama owes too much now to the powerful elites in America whether they are neoliberal or Neoconservative.
President Obama is more interested in starting more wars to show he's a tough minded and action oriented "Commander in Chief" .
Obama is also more concerned about jailing whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning rather than commit to an in depth investigation into various government departments including the military and pentagon. Instead Obama defends unconditionally the military, the Pentagon, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and black ops personnel.
In Obama's world a whistleblower is worse than military personnel who slaughter innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan , Pakistan, Libya, Yemen
Obama also defends the brutality and the disregard for Human Rights by American friendly regimes in Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Honduras, Phillipines and so on.
Will the Obama Administration Prosecute Murdoch? by Adele Stan via alternet.org, July 21, 2011
The transgressions of Rupert Murdoch's now-defunct News of the World make its parent company, News Corporation, fair game for U.S. prosecution, writes Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
How so, you ask?
Well, because News Corp. is an American company, based in New York, and therefore subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which allows for the prosecution of U.S. companies for participating in the corruption of foreign governments. If it's proven that News of the World paid bribes to members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, News Corp. is vulnerable.
It would, Tomasky admits, make for a novel application of the law, but nonetheless well within its scope. But the law is generally enforced not by crusading district attorneys, but by the top figures in the Justice Department. Civil suits may be brought under the aegis of another federal agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
So, given the temperament of the current chief executive, an opportunity to sanction News Corp. for its egregious behavior will likely be lost. Writes Tomasky:
Would Barack Obama and Holder would be willing to take the inevitable heat for an arguably unusual application of the law? I think we know enough about Obama at this point to conclude that this is something he’d never do, unless new information inflamed U.S. public opinion (if, say, we learned that the News of the World hacked Americans’ phones), and maybe not even then.
Murdoch: Hacking Not My Fault; Everybody Done Me Wrong by Adele Stan at Alternet.org,July 19, 2011
Rupert Murdoch's refusal to take responsibility for the phone-hacking scandal now roiling his British newspapers exposes News Corp's culture of blame-laying.
In a rather grueling day of testimony yesterday before a committee of the U.K. Parliament, Rupert K. Murdoch, chairman and chief executive officer of News Corporation -- the second-largest media company in the world -- refused to take responsibility for the phone-hacking scandal that has engulfed his company, saying that he had been failed "by people I trusted."
Murdoch explained that, well, he was a very, very important guy who couldn't be on top of every little thing that happened at his little newspaper, News of the World -- a 168-year-old publication that, before Murdoch shut it down earlier this month, claimed to be the most widely read English-language newspaper in the world. News of the World, Murdoch told the House of Commons' Culture, Media and Sport Committee, constituted "only 1 percent of our business." He continued, "I have a much bigger ship to run."
"The Murdochs Must Stop Spinning and Resign Over the Phone-Hacking Scandal
Fox News has long blurred the line between corporate interests and journalistic integrity. But the phone hacking scandal is a step too far--it's time for Murdoch to go." by Robert Greenwald via Alternet.org, July 20, 2011
In 2004, I created Outfoxed to expose Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism. Focusing on Fox News, we examined how NewsCorp has long blurred the line between corporate interests and journalistic integrity. The film presented an in-depth look at the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public’s right to know.
... Those dangers were shown to include ethic-less journalism, as well as the role of public relations spin in replacing the honest presentation of fact
... as Rupert and James Murdoch appeared before parliament, this theme was repeated. Their testimony was less about true and honest answers and more about the script of a public relations firm, and an attempt to spin the public debate on issues of corporate disgrace.
If their testimonies presented any information at all, it would be how much the Murdochs want to promote the spin of willful ignorance. For two incredibly involved businessmen, their testimonies would lead you to believe that they have long had absolutely no idea about what happens within their company.
James Murdoch claimed to be “shocked and surprised” to learn about the payment of legal fees for the jailed phone-hacking investigator, Glenn Mulcaire. Rupert Murdoch claimed to be unaware of out-of-court settlements made with hacking victims.
News Corp Nonsense: An American Problem, Too by Digby at Hullabaloo via alternet.org July 20, 2011
I've been hearing quite a bit of fatuous chatter over the past few day about the superiority of the American press over the Brits and our alleged unwillingness to be manipulated by someone like Rupert Murdoch. Please.Another question raised about Rupert Murdoch is whether he or his employees were responsible for the so called Climategate scandal in which a couple of scientists in E-Mails gave the erroneous impression that Global Warming was a contentious issue for a large number scientists which fed into the right wing's attacks on the notion of Global Warming.
John Nichols writes:
Just as Murdoch has had far too much control over politics and politicians in Britain during periods of conservative dominance—be it under an actual Tory such as former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major and current Prime Minister David Cameron or under a faux Tory such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair—he has had far too much control in the States. And that control, while ideological to some extent, is focused mainly on improving the bottom line for his media properties by securing for them unfair legal and regulatory advantages.
Over the past decade, as media reform groups have battled to prevent FCC and Congressional moves to undermine controls on media consolidation, Murdoch and his lobbyists been a constant presence—pushing from the other side for the lifting of limits on the amount and types of media that one corporation can own in particular communities and nationally.
The objection was never an ideological one. Media owners, editors, reporters and commentators have a right to take the positions they like. Where the trouble comes is when they seek to turn politicians and regulators into corporate handmaidens—and when they build their empires out to such an extent they can demand obedience even from those who do not share their partisan or ideological preferences.
And the corruptions of the process created by Murdoch’s manipulation are not merely a British phenomenon.
Murdoch’s political pawns in the United States have been every bit as faithful to the mogul and his media machine as the British pols.
When he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in May of 2003, at a point when he was the chief global cheerleader for George Bush’s war with Iraq (“We basically supported…I will say supported the Bush policy,” the media mogul would later admit), Murdoch was seeking to secure ownership of the nation’s largest satellite television company while pressing for FCC rule changes that would allow him to own newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same cities and for an easing of controls on the extent to which one corporation could dominate television viewership nationally.
Did Murdoch have a hard time of it?
Not hardly.
Did News of the World Hack into Climate Scientists' Emails? " by Brian Merchant at Treehugger via Alternet.org, July 20, 2011
The scandal du jour is unquestionably the phone-hacking debacle surrounding Rupert Murdoch's News of the World tabloid -- which, until it was canned due to allegations of myriad criminal deeds, was England's top-selling newspaper. We now know that the paper's reporters and editors illegally intercepted some 4,000 voice messages and emails of celebrities, crime victims, policemen, and others, and paid off top officials in the Scotland Yard to keep the whole thing quiet.
Over at Climate Progress, Joe Romm raises the question -- could the News of the World have played a role in hacking the email accounts of climate scientists that lead to the ridiculously persistent (and entirely baseless) event known as Climate Gate?
Here's the meat of his case:
There have been countless independent investigations into the scientists whose e-mails were hacked in November 2009. And the scientists have been (quietly) vindicated every time ... But we still don't know who hacked the emails! And now we know that one of the key investigative bodies tasked with tracking down the hackers -- Scotland Yard - were compromised at the time ...
In the light of the News Corp phone-hacking scandal, it is clear that Murdoch's outfit had means, motive, and opportunity for the Climategate email hacking. News Corp certainly has a history of defaming climate scientists and a penchant for hacking ...
So News Corp would obviously now be on the top of anybody's short list for possible suspects in the Climategate hacking. At the same time, we now know things were so cozy between News Corp, Wallis [Executive Editor of News of the World], and Scotland Yard that it is hard to believe News Corp would have been thoroughly investigated for Climategate, if they were investigated at all.
This once again raises the issue: how outrageous it is that we still don't know who was responsible for the so-called Climate Gate hacking. Can you think of another high profile hacking case in recent times when authorities have been content to let the perpetrator of such a crime get away scot-free? The fact that nearly no effort at all has been made to catch the hacker(s) seems to lend some validity to Romm's case.
With everyone obsessed over whether or not the hacked emails made scientists look bad, we never figured out whether the stunt was pulled by a party that had a vested interest in creating that impression. I second the motion: Investigate News Corp and the News of the World -- and let's find out who was paid to drag good scientists' names through the mud.
and so it goes,
GORD.
1 comment:
Congratulations on a fabulous website. Thanks so much for all your great information.… Gate Factory
Post a Comment