Chris Matthews Admits: The National Media ‘Leans a Little to the Left’

[Miss Annie]

Like it wasn't really obvious! LOL

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-matthews-the-national-media-leans-a-little-to-the-left/

[Fredom101]

Don't buy into the left/right false paradigm.

The media protects one thing and that is the pro-government status quo. They want us to get all wrapped up in left vs. right, but the reality is that the media only gives us one point of view and that is that we NEED government to solve our problems.

[FrankRep]

Don't buy into the left/right false paradigm.

Typical Republicans tend to be slightly left of center and Democrats tend to be far left of center.


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g58/JRoberto_2006/The-True-Political-Spectrum.jpg

[moderate libertarian]

Which way MSNBC that hosts Mathews leans?

A month after Iraq invasion, MSNBC yanked their highest rated Phil Donahue show at the time because of Donahue's anti Iraq war leaning views and replaced it with whiny fascist Michael Weiner's show. MSNBC like much of so called "left" media is controlled by douchebags.

[Travlyr]

Typical Republicans tend to be slightly left of center and Democrats tend to be far left of center.
I used to believe that too. But I can't tell the difference at all anymore. Can you demonstrate the difference between the Republicans and Democrats by their actions?

With the UN and NATO calling the shots for the military along with the World Bank, the IMF, Bank of International Settlements, their Agenda 21, and the medical-industrial-complex, the world is being ruled by an illegitimate oligarchy of what is depicted in your picture of far leftist Socialists.


Excerpt from "War Is A Racket (http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket)" by General Smedley D. Butler
"The publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "And above all, Fascism… believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace…War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

[acptulsa]

Yeah, nice tacit admission designed to make it seem like he's indulging us with some full disclosure. But it's a lie. The media leans neither right nor left, but toward the corporate agenda. Every time.


'All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance. '--Will Rogers

[Anti Federalist]

I used to believe that too. But I can't tell the difference at all anymore. Can you demonstrate the difference between the Republicans and Democrats by their actions?

With the UN and NATO calling the shots for the military along with the World Bank, the IMF, Bank of International Settlements, their Agenda 21, and the medical-industrial-complex, the world is being ruled by an illegitimate oligarchy of what is depicted in your picture of far leftist Socialists.

Boy, that.

While both sides may toss concessionary bones to their various constituencies, when it come right down to it, both are marching to the exact same place.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, nice tacit admission designed to make it seem like he's indulging us with some full disclosure. But it's a lie. The media leans neither right nor left, but toward the corporate agenda. Every time.

That too. ^^^

The media supports the state and the corporate oligarchy.

[flightlesskiwi]

Yeah, nice tacit admission designed to make it seem like he's indulging us with some full disclosure. But it's a lie. The media leans neither right nor left, but toward the corporate agenda. Every time.

two sides of the same corporatist coin.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yeah, nice tacit admission designed to make it seem like he's indulging us with some full disclosure. But it's a lie. The media leans neither right nor left, but toward the corporate agenda. Every time.Towards the GOVERNMENT agenda.

Each week, Media corporate executive representatives meet at the White House to go over what to push and what to censor, with their partners in crime.

Department of Propaganda

[Miss Annie]

Towards the GOVERNMENT agenda.

Each week, Media corporate executive representatives meet at the White House to go over what to push and what to censor, with their partners in crime.

Department of Propaganda

This is truth!!

WaPo’s Ezra Should Have De-Kleined

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/wapos-ezra-should-have-de-kleined_b56658

From JournoList to activist, it appears that WaPo‘s liberal blogger Ezra Klein is once again blurring the lines between being a journalist and trying to sway politics. In what appears to be at a minimum a breach of journalism ethics, Klein spoke to a group of Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday about the Supercommittee, just days before the Committee announced its failing. “It was kind of weird,” said a longtime Senate Democratic aide, explaining that while people “enjoyed it” and gave it “positive reviews” this sort of thing is far from typical.

A longtime Washington editor who deals with Capitol Hill regularly also said this is not the norm: “”I have never heard of a reporter briefing staffers. It’s supposed to be the other way around. This arrangement seems highly unusual.”

Klein’s speech to high-level Democratic aides was in the Capitol, closed door and off the record. It lasted 30 minutes. “I think they thought it was very helpful,” said the aide. “I think it’s unusual. What’s more common is to get someone like Paul Begala or a White House staffer. To get a journalist to talk is a little unusual.”

But then again, Klein is unusual. In the summer of 2010, his exclusive partisan JournoList, a secretive listserv of some 400 members, collapsed as contents of the exchanges began leaking out. Journalists took hits for their participation, such as then WaPo‘s Dave Weigel, who quickly apologized on the newspaper’s blog for some of what he wrote. He was fired over the matter and is now at Slate. The Daily Caller reported extensively on the offending material. The end result: Klein shut the list down.

Briefings for journalists covering Capitol Hill are usually the reverse of what transpired here. Lawmakers brief reporters. Aides brief reporters. Think tanks brief reporters. Think tanks brief aides. But reporters briefing aides? This is unheard of.

Important questions to have answered: Was Klein strategizing with Democrats on messaging of the Supercommittee’s failure? What exactly was the purpose of the reporter’s speech?

We wrote Klein for comment. While he may refuse to read FishbowlDC, preferring instead to stick to the confines of CJR, his readers need to demand answers from him if they are going to trust the integrity and validity of his journalism. We also wrote WaPo Publicist Kris Coratti to find out what the rules are on these sort of talks and if WaPo was even aware that Klein was giving the speech. She said she’d look into it. That was three hours ago. If we get a statement we’ll bring it to you.

See the email FBDC sent to Ezra after the jump…

Hi Ezra,

Hope you’re headed into a great Thanksgiving holiday and hope you get the wishbone. Wanted to ask you about a briefing you gave to Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday. Why were you briefing them? Isn’t a reporter supposed to be briefed by lawmakers and aides, not the other way around? Do you see this as a breach of ethics? If not, how do you see it?

Thank you.

[Miss Annie]

Question..... now I will take a sec to remind ya'll that I am fairly new, so be gentle....LOL.
But..... would you say that the "government / oligarchy / banks" are what one "might have called left" at one point?
I understand the point that the left is no longer the left or right no longer the right..... that left leans right and vice versa.
But just curious about the fore mentioned question.

[AuH20]

The right, despite it's infiltration has been fighting the globalist forces for decades as opposed to the rank & file left. This left/right paradigm exists but to not to the degree that some people insinuate.

[Miss Annie]

The right, despite it's infiltration has been fighting the globalist forces for decades as opposed to the rank & file left. This left/right paradigm exists but to not to the degree that some people insinuate.

Does it not exist anymore due to the infiltration? Or some other reason?

[Anti Federalist]

Question..... now I will take a sec to remind ya'll that I am fairly new, so be gentle....LOL.
But..... would you say that the "government / oligarchy / banks" are what one "might have called left" at one point?
I understand the point that the left is no longer the left or right no longer the right..... that left leans right and vice versa.
But just curious about the fore mentioned question.

Well, that requires defining the terms, what exactly is left and right.

I say the terms are meaningless anymore.

Both sides worship at the altar of the government, everything is about expanding its power and influence, any disagreement is just minor side noise and chatter.

[FrankRep]

Well, the requires defining the terms, what exactly is left and right.

The true political spectrum.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

[AuH20]

Does it not exist anymore due to the infiltration? Or some other reason?

Take over the Republican leadership and you'd see the screws tighten. The republican leadership undercuts any tangible change from occurring. Look at some of the GOP leaders in the House and Senate. Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Tom Delay, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell. Their job is to (a) benefit themselves (b) throw a wet blanket on any grassroots insurrection.

[flightlesskiwi]

i don't think due to infiltration-- rather mutual exchange. a kind of "you rub my back, i'll rub yours".

look at recent history-- the "left" used to hoot and holler about wars of aggression. the warfare state, you see, took away from the gains of the welfare state.

the "right" used to hoot and hollar about the welfare state. the welfare state, you see, took away from the gains of the warfare state.

about 100 years ago, tptb started a system that allowed for both. and while a few still hoot and hollar (to pander to their constituents), this country is at the apex of the welfare/warfare state, where each progressivist side is pretty much getting what it wants: growing the behemouth (big government) by feeding it our furture generations (passing the buck).

edit: big government = fascist (crony corporatist) State.


Does it not exist anymore due to the infiltration? Or some other reason?

[Miss Annie]

This all makes sense! Thanks for taking the time to splain! :)

[AuH20]

i don't think due to infiltration-- rather mutual exchange. a kind of "you rub my back, i'll rub yours".

look at recent history-- the "left" used to hoot and holler about wars of aggression. the warfare state, you see, took away from the gains of the welfare state.

the "right" used to hoot and hollar about the welfare state. the welfare state, you see, took away from the gains of the warfare state.

about 100 years ago, tptb started a system that allowed for both. and while a few still hoot and hollar (to pander to their constituents), this country is at the apex of the welfare/warfare state, where each progressivist side is pretty much getting what it wants: growing the behemouth (big government) by feeding it our furture generations (passing the buck).

No it was infiltration. Rothbard had talked about this extensively.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard25.html


This new force – people grouped around National Review – set out to transform the nature of the American Right, and they succeeded brilliantly. Headed by a brace of shrewd ex-Communists, steeped in Marxist-Leninist cadre organizing tactics, allied to youthful Eastern seaboard Catholics, the New Right determined to crush isolationism, and to remold the right-wing into a crusade to crush Communism all over the world, and particularly in the Soviet Union.

At first, NR had a patina of individualism, in order to capture the considerable amount of Old Right libertarian sentiment and wed it to a policy of global war. The Buckley machine founded Young Americans for Freedom as its youthful political arm. The Intercollegiate Society of Individualists for libertarian-minded student intellectuals, and headed by NR publisher Bill Rusher, moved to capture the College Young Republicans, then the YRs nationally, and finally moved to dominate the Republican Party with the Goldwater movement.

Early in this process, moreover, National Review, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, moved quickly to read out of the New Right, or "conservative" movement, all "extremists" who would prove an embarrassment in its march to power. And so, in a series of purges, the Birch Society, the Randians, and the libertarians (those who remained isolationists) were ousted from the right wing. NR and the New Right were ready to achieve power, which they eventually would attain with the Reagan administration. But the point is that the ideological transformation – into a warmongering and vaguely theocratic movement – was achieved by the early 1960s. The Old Right was dead, and those libertarians who still remembered and cleaved to their principles, were out in the cold.

[flightlesskiwi]

No it was infiltration. Rothbard had talked about this extensively.

are you talking specifically about classic liberalism (true conservatism) and the statist infiltration? i do agree to an extent.

i think people LET the party be infiltrated for personal gain (or out of just plain laziness).

[AuH20]

are you talking specifically about classic liberalism (true conservatism) and the statist infiltration? i do agree to an extent.

i think people LET the party be infiltrated for personal gain (or out of just plain laziness).

That's part of it. But if you first take over the institutions of a party (or create new ones), grab it's leadership positions and exile the dissidents, you can set up this patronage system.

[TheDrakeMan]

Typical Republicans tend to be slightly left of center and Democrats tend to be far left of center.


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g58/JRoberto_2006/The-True-Political-Spectrum.jpg

I disagree with Monarchism being thrown in there with Socialist & Fascist dictatorships, but otherwise that it's a good graph.

[flightlesskiwi]

That's part of it. But if you first take over the institutions of a party (or create new ones), grab it's leadership positions and exile the dissidents, you can set up this patronage system.

it's also about redefining terms. thanks for the LRC link.

(quite interesting you mention the patronage system. i was having a conversation with a NM historian a few days ago about this very thing. he was presenting some very eye opening real-life examples of how it works on the local level in this state. he had some crazy stories.)