 We ignore the legacy of propagandists who call themselves journalists, but it is very destructive. Like master propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, they do not distinguish the difference between great statesmen and vile criminals and they pervert the integrity of history, in the process. The Clinton White House is responding to the constant, concrete threat of international terrorism. The media raised "wag the dog" theories -Clinton allegedly manufactured a crisis to divert attention away from the [yawn] rehearsed Lewinsky testimony. Now that is reputable criticism, isn't it? It isn't surprising, just more of the same. Indeed, as soon as Clinton delivered his confession, the wheels of persecution churned absurdity and obscenity. Even the "reputable" New York Times was inane to the point where it claimed to be "especially disturbed" by President Clinton's appeal to repair the fabric of national discourse. There is no sanity in the opportunity to ridicule an obvious need. Everyone who is honest and independent rejects gutter dialogue politics and understands the public need to focus on what really matters. Having undermined the public interest, the New York Times owes the public and the First Family a heartfelt apology. [posted August 21, 1998] Why is the media so exceedingly harsh in its tendency to accuse Clinton and so exceedingly soft in its willingness to condemn the Starr Inquisition? That is the question that people are quietly contemplating as they muse over the responsibility of a free press and Starr's stubborn determination to keep abusing his power. Clinton has certainly taken the bait and given his critics the opportunity to arouse passion, pride and prejudice. At the same time, the fundamental injustice of developing accusations that are clearly grounded in a witch hunt is profoundly troublesome. In particular, the often quoted expectation that Starr's "investigation" will expose the truth is pure delusion. Will Starr's Report expose the fact that the Tripp camp was prepared to use a fraudulent document referred to as the "talking points" in effort to make obstruction of justice charges stick? Did Starr confront Clinton about the "talking points" document when he forced him to testify? Why isn't the press asking, let alone answering these questions? Instead of substantive reporting, the public is confronted by a staple of television pundits who publicly plot strategy to impeach Clinton, [if their ties or jewellery are coded, they're not talking] pundits who are so predictable that they are deragatorily called "talking heads." And why do they want to impeach Clinton beyond frivolous, "high crimes and misdemeanours" allegations? Well, he answered a question he should never have been asked in the first place. If there is a silver lining in this entire mess it lies in the fact that the plot to cripple the Clinton Presidency is too obvious to deny. A conspiracy is very difficult to prove, but since this one has been entirely "trial balloon tested" in the media, it is difficult to ignore. And while the public has been embarassed and disappointed by Bill Clinton, it is not prepared to leap into the political gutter that produced the mess in the first place. Indeed, it is a tale of two gutters, and the public is obviously more willing to forgive than to join the effort to impeach President Clinton. [posted August 24, 1998] In 1896, the credo of the New York Times was "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of any party, sect or interest involved." Those were the days. Americam educator, Joseph Ward echoed principled media guidelines when he said: "I want to tell you what a newspaper means. It's a serious sacred business. The least smell of corruptionn, fear or favoritism must never creep into its news columns... A newspaper doesn't belong to the men who run it or to those who own the plant. The press belongs to the public, to the people. It is their voice, their shield, their champion." Today, the media is knee-deep in the gutter of the plot to cripple the Clinton Presidency. In particular, the media has abandoned its responsibility to challenge the pervasive abuse of power and a convenient lack of scrutiny has produced a culture where the distincton between a legitimate investigation and the abuse of power is ignored. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren defined the significant distinction when he said: "But the power to investigate, broad as it may be, is also subject to recognized limitations. It cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose. Nor does it extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate." In its dereliction of duty, the media stands doubly accused -it routinely commits crimes of omission as well as commission. On the one hand, it suppresses the truth by abandoning serious investigative reporting and on the other, it grants special interest advocates the opportunity to dominate the media. It is a grave dereliction of responsibility, and if the lapse is not reversed, media credibility will certainly decline to the point where the fourth estate becomes irrelevant. [posted August 25, 1998] Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is like a young, freckle-faced, shy lad who would do or say anything to satisfy the tribe. When he says that journalists feel vindicated over the fact that Clinton got caught in a lie about sex, he betrays the beast -the deep insecurity that colors, distorts and sells the human soul to the devil for the sake of belonging to the so called vindicated group. The world according to Howard consists of two tribes; the truth-seeking journalists and the White House spin machine. It is an unbelievably perverted sense of reality, particularly since Kurtz himself admits that what he calls the "big megaphone" gives him and his colleagues the opportunity to dominate spin. Howard Kurtz may be a nice guy but he should grow up, and given the fact that his kind dominate the "big megaphone" he should stop being a cry baby. [posted September 9, 1998] Footnote; On February 15, 1999, Howard Kurtz said that "media credibility has been impeached". Bravo Howard, it may be a sign of real growth. The media has clearly erased the distinction between news and gossip, and it is up to every individual to constantly filter out politically motivated garbage which is promoted with such lockstep consistency that it almost toppled the President of the United States. And if anybody thinks that the media was directly behind the plot, how do you explain the media attention that Monica Lewinsky received? With national television shows like Hardball, which sound off like paid political announcements, how can you possibly absolve media responsibility?. The Drudge Report was evidently the Internet equivalent, and that is what makes it so relevant when Monica Lewinsky quotes the Drudge Report because Starr has effectively muzzled her testimony under the threat of prosecution, if she dares to expose first hand knowledge about the plot to destroy Clinton. The Drudge Report was evidently the media pipeline of the vast right wing conspiracy, and if Monica Lewinsky is allowed to use it as a reference point... it is obviously the carefully constructed cover story of the real truth. We are not talking about rocket science. When Dick Morris claimed that Matt Drudge was the “Woodward and Bernstein” of the Clinton scandal, the story tells itself. The effort to destroy Clinton through the arrogance of the media is clearly what the Lewinsky media circus was all about. And Dick Morris is evidently so intoxicated by the delusion that the circus is the message, he actually believed that he would pull it off. Poor Dick. And, by the way, you know that 'bombshell tape' that the New York Post highlighted? That tape was prepared under the advice of Linda Tripp's good friend, Lucianne Goldberg. Who else was in on the “dirty tricks” decision to surreptitiously tape-record Monica Lewinsky? Sneaky political operatives work in teams. In 1972, Lucianne Goldberg was a spy who posed as a magazine writer covering the Democratic presidential candidate, for the sake of reelecting a criminal like Richard Nixon. Some things never change.  Valentine's Day, February 14, 2001, and the Senate is currently holding hearings over the controversy created by Clinton's decision to pardon Marc Rich. This is very strange because Bush is the President now, yet the Bush Justice Department has opened a preliminary criminal investigation into the circumstances of President Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. Initiated by Mary Jo White, a US Attorney in New York, you can read about it here if you have the time to waste.  | ||
 |