More Dishonesty from our Liberal Press

[onmyknees]

As I'm sure you Palin haters are well aware, Palin is on the cover of Newsweek. I have not read the piece but from what I hear, they take a fresh look at Mrs Palin. But that's not the point. I often mention and provide examples of how an agenda driven ,ideological , dishonest press can form a narrative in an attempt to sway public opinion. It one thing to do that with facts, it's another to do it with dishonesty, nuance, and sins of omission. I'm sure lazy libs like Hippe is rolling his blood shot eyes right about now... I get that many of you don't like Palin, and I've never said I would support her President, but that's not the point. Read the article below....Mr. Capehart is a far left journalist, but a smart one, with credentials...and it's no surprise he's not enamored with the Palin cover, or with Palin herself, but notice his style. In reading the article you would believe that Ms. Plain posed for that cover in running garb. Mr. Capehart is a smart guy...he knows damn well the photo was used by Newsweek ( who by the way came under fire for it) and never authorized by Mrs. Palin or the runners magazine who owned the copyright), and the original intent of the photo was when she was the governor in an attempt to show readers Governor Palin was an avid runner and to encourage fitness for Alaskans. No big deal...right? But notice how dishonest and snarkey he is...and the fact he let the story stand for hours before the editor issued a "clarification". But even with the clarification they don't come clean. It's perfectly understandable that Mr. Capehart loathes Palin....that's his prerogative. His entire premise is to continue the narrative that Palin is not presidential, and he uses the fact that Newsweek stole an unauthorized photo, but doesn't tell you that. And how many goofy pictures of Obama have we seen on the golf course? Or of Slick Willie working off some of that Arkansas lard running through the streets of DC. Not very "presidential"...LOL. And what exactly is the problem with the picture of Palin in running gear promoting fitness? Oh....a president would never do that....right. But Palin isn't running for president Mr. Capehart gleefully informs us...so what really is his point? But I digress. My point is this is exactly how the press in this country operates, even the supposed main stream ones. it's not a huge issue, and it certainly won't change anyone's mind, but it happens every day in every newspaper and blog in this country. If an accomplished writer like Capehart will lie about something like this....what else would he lie about ? When his hate for a political party or candidate clouds his journalistic credentials....he's no longer a journalist, but a hack. I don't know where Capehart got his journalism degree from, I know where I got mine, and this is not the way they taught it.


at 09:59 AM ET, 07/11/2011
Sarah Palin as Newsweek cover girl — again

By Jonathan Capehart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/jonathan-capehart/2011/02/24/AB1tR7I_page.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/03/04/Editorial-Opinion/FYI/Writer%20images%20and%20templates/Writer%20images/capehart_145x100.jpg?uuid=kUiakEaWEeCcZWBW5YEkAw

As celebrity glamour shots go, Sarah Palin’s cover photo on this week’s Newsweek is danged good! The best-selling author and reality-TV star looks young and vibrant. Her devil-may-care countenance aided and abetted by the wind conspicuously blowing hair back. And while her outfit might be laid back, there’s no doubt she’s in total control. But when Palin’s cover shot is viewed through the prism of presidential politics, it’s a dud.
Folks want to be able to envision someone sitting in the Oval Office.http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/post-partisan/Images/PalinNewsweekCover.jpg?uuid=C3BJgKu-EeCFpKaU6lFY-Q
They don’t necessarily want to envision them in the pages of Esquire magazine’s “Sexiest Woman Alive 2011” or Maxim. She can’t possibly be taken seriously as a presidential contender dressed like that, especially since this is the second time (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-newsweek-cove_n_360334.html) [/URL]she has graced Newsweek in a less-than-presidential pose. But let me move away from the superficial to the substance of what the half-term governor has to say in the Newsweek interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-newsweek-cove_n_360334.html). I’m particularly incensed by the lunacy of her comments on the impending default of the United States.


“It is not the apocalypse,” she said, and questioned the need for the urgent negotiating sessions Republicans and Democrats were conducting in search of a debt-limit agreement (ongoing at press time). “The fact is that we have $2.6 trillion in revenue coming in, and if we just use some common sense there — take that revenue, service the debt first, take care of national priorities — we don’t have to increase debt.”See my previous post (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/palin-plots-her-next-move.html) on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s appearance on yesterday’s “Meet the Press” to see why I described the above as lunacy. It’s not the first time Palin sputtered nonsense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/palin-sputters-nonsense-about-geithners-debt-ceiling-warnings/2011/03/04/AG2iW0HH_blog.html) on this issue. And don’t get me started on “The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders,” (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435) Palin’s latest snark-filled musing on her Facebook page.

... the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments.Rather than remain “a strong chief executive” toiling in Juneau afterhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/post-partisan/Images/Palin2009Newsweek%20.jpg?uuid=BTWA7qu-EeCFpKaU6lFY-Q
her failed 2008 bid as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, Palin quit halfway through her first term as governor of Alaska to cash in on her newfound celebrity. Why anyone would take her comments on leadership seriously is beyond me. Palin’s declaration “I can win!” is laughable on its face when you know that her “unfavorable” rating rests at an unelectable 57.9 percent (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435). Why anyone still thinks all this — the movie (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/fav-palin_n_725513.html?xml=http://pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/USPalinFav.xml&%253bchoices=Unfavorable,Favorable&%253bphone=&%253bivr=&%253binternet=&%253bmail=&%253bsmoothing=&%253bfrom_date=&%253bto_date=&%253bmin_pct=&%253bmax_pct=&%253bgrid=&%253bpoints=&%253btrends=&%253blines=), the short-lived bus tour (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clips-from-sarah-palin-doc-the-undefeated/2011/06/10/AGkouEPH_video.html), now this Newsweek nuttiness — is a precursor to a presidential run is mystifying.

Sarah Palin is not running for president. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/sarah-palins-one-nation-bus-tour-shifts-into-park/2011/03/04/AGGKWpfH_blog.html) She is a star. And she is doing what stars do best when they feel the spotlight is drifting away from them. She’s trying to snatch it back by any means necessary.
[Clarification, 2:55 p.m.: The original post said “this is the second time she has given Newsweek a less-than-presidential pose.” The first Newsweek cover was a shot originally posed for by Palin for Runner’s World. Nonetheless, as the copy now reflects “this is the second time she has graced Newsweek in a less-than-presidential pose.”]



By [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/jonathan-capehart/2011/02/24/AB1tR7I_page.html"]Jonathan Capehart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/palin-2012--rapture-on-oct-21--not-gonna-happen/2011/03/04/AFN2GXAH_blog.html) | 09:59 AM ET, 07/11/2011

[robertlouis]

As I'm sure you Palin haters are well aware, Palin is on the cover of Newsweek. I have not read the piece but from what I hear, they take a fresh look at Mrs Palin. But that's not the point. I often mention and provide examples of how an agenda driven ,ideological , dishonest press can form a narrative in an attempt to sway public opinion. It one thing to do that with facts, it's another to do it with dishonesty, nuance, and sins of omission. I'm sure lazy libs like Hippe is rolling his blood shot eyes right about now... I get that many of you don't like Palin, and I've never said I would support her President, but that's not the point. Read the article below....Mr. Capehart is a far left journalist, but a smart one, with credentials...and it's no surprise he's not enamored with the Palin cover, or with Palin herself, but notice his style. In reading the article you would believe that Ms. Plain posed for that cover in running garb. Mr. Capehart is a smart guy...he knows damn well the photo was used by Newsweek ( who by the way came under fire for it) and never authorized by Mrs. Palin or the runners magazine who owned the copyright), and the original intent of the photo was when she was the governor in an attempt to show readers Governor Palin was an avid runner and to encourage fitness for Alaskans. No big deal...right? But notice how dishonest and snarkey he is...and the fact he let the story stand for hours before the editor issued a "clarification". But even with the clarification they don't come clean. It's perfectly understandable that Mr. Capehart loathes Palin....that's his prerogative. His entire premise is to continue the narrative that Palin is not presidential, and he uses the fact that Newsweek stole an unauthorized photo, but doesn't tell you that. And how many goofy pictures of Obama have we seen on the golf course? Or of Slick Willie working off some of that Arkansas lard running through the streets of DC. Not very "presidential"...LOL. And what exactly is the problem with the picture of Palin in running gear promoting fitness? Oh....a president would never do that....right. But Palin isn't running for president Mr. Capehart gleefully informs us...so what really is his point? But I digress. My point is this is exactly how the press in this country operates, even the supposed main stream ones. it's not a huge issue, and it certainly won't change anyone's mind, but it happens every day in every newspaper and blog in this country. If an accomplished writer like Capehart will lie about something like this....what else would he lie about ? When his hate for a political party or candidate clouds his journalistic credentials....he's no longer a journalist, but a hack. I don't know where Capehart got his journalism degree from, I know where I got mine, and this is not the way they taught it.


at 09:59 AM ET, 07/11/2011
Sarah Palin as Newsweek cover girl — again

By Jonathan Capehart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/jonathan-capehart/2011/02/24/AB1tR7I_page.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/03/04/Editorial-Opinion/FYI/Writer%20images%20and%20templates/Writer%20images/capehart_145x100.jpg?uuid=kUiakEaWEeCcZWBW5YEkAw

As celebrity glamour shots go, Sarah Palin’s cover photo on this week’s Newsweek is danged good! The best-selling author and reality-TV star looks young and vibrant. Her devil-may-care countenance aided and abetted by the wind conspicuously blowing hair back. And while her outfit might be laid back, there’s no doubt she’s in total control. But when Palin’s cover shot is viewed through the prism of presidential politics, it’s a dud.
Folks want to be able to envision someone sitting in the Oval Office.http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/post-partisan/Images/PalinNewsweekCover.jpg?uuid=C3BJgKu-EeCFpKaU6lFY-Q
They don’t necessarily want to envision them in the pages of Esquire magazine’s “Sexiest Woman Alive 2011” or Maxim. She can’t possibly be taken seriously as a presidential contender dressed like that, especially since this is the second time (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-newsweek-cove_n_360334.html) [/URL]she has graced Newsweek in a less-than-presidential pose. But let me move away from the superficial to the substance of what the half-term governor has to say in the Newsweek interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-newsweek-cove_n_360334.html). I’m particularly incensed by the lunacy of her comments on the impending default of the United States.


“It is not the apocalypse,” she said, and questioned the need for the urgent negotiating sessions Republicans and Democrats were conducting in search of a debt-limit agreement (ongoing at press time). “The fact is that we have $2.6 trillion in revenue coming in, and if we just use some common sense there — take that revenue, service the debt first, take care of national priorities — we don’t have to increase debt.”See my previous post (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/palin-plots-her-next-move.html) on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s appearance on yesterday’s “Meet the Press” to see why I described the above as lunacy. It’s not the first time Palin sputtered nonsense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/palin-sputters-nonsense-about-geithners-debt-ceiling-warnings/2011/03/04/AG2iW0HH_blog.html) on this issue. And don’t get me started on “The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders,” (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435) Palin’s latest snark-filled musing on her Facebook page.

... the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments.Rather than remain “a strong chief executive” toiling in Juneau afterhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/post-partisan/Images/Palin2009Newsweek%20.jpg?uuid=BTWA7qu-EeCFpKaU6lFY-Q
her failed 2008 bid as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, Palin quit halfway through her first term as governor of Alaska to cash in on her newfound celebrity. Why anyone would take her comments on leadership seriously is beyond me. Palin’s declaration “I can win!” is laughable on its face when you know that her “unfavorable” rating rests at an unelectable 57.9 percent (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435). Why anyone still thinks all this — the movie (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/fav-palin_n_725513.html?xml=http://pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/USPalinFav.xml&%253bchoices=Unfavorable,Favorable&%253bphone=&%253bivr=&%253binternet=&%253bmail=&%253bsmoothing=&%253bfrom_date=&%253bto_date=&%253bmin_pct=&%253bmax_pct=&%253bgrid=&%253bpoints=&%253btrends=&%253blines=), the short-lived bus tour (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clips-from-sarah-palin-doc-the-undefeated/2011/06/10/AGkouEPH_video.html), now this Newsweek nuttiness — is a precursor to a presidential run is mystifying.

Sarah Palin is not running for president. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/sarah-palins-one-nation-bus-tour-shifts-into-park/2011/03/04/AGGKWpfH_blog.html) She is a star. And she is doing what stars do best when they feel the spotlight is drifting away from them. She’s trying to snatch it back by any means necessary.
[Clarification, 2:55 p.m.: The original post said “this is the second time she has given Newsweek a less-than-presidential pose.” The first Newsweek cover was a shot originally posed for by Palin for Runner’s World. Nonetheless, as the copy now reflects “this is the second time she has graced Newsweek in a less-than-presidential pose.”]



By [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/jonathan-capehart/2011/02/24/AB1tR7I_page.html"]Jonathan Capehart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/palin-2012--rapture-on-oct-21--not-gonna-happen/2011/03/04/AFN2GXAH_blog.html) | 09:59 AM ET, 07/11/2011

Thanks omk. Not wishing to steal your thunder, but personally I'm a lot more interested in the article headed "Murdoch's Watergate".

That should be a really interesting insight into the media dark arts.

[trish]

Don't read Newsweek, not a Palin hater, didn't know she was a cover-girl. Good for her. Now do you have any real news that you didn't bother to read before you report on it, or are you just trolling again?

[Stavros]

My point is this is exactly how the press in this country operates, even the supposed main stream ones. it's not a huge issue, and it certainly won't change anyone's mind, but it happens every day in every newspaper and blog in this country.

on myknees: there is actually something in journalism called Effects Theory -in local parlance the 'drip-drip' effect of planting small, apparently inocuous stories that accumulate over time as they sink into the public consciousness: some of it is used as advertising: Murdoch often uses his press to 'advertise' films or tv programmes emerging from that side of his business -the stories aim to arouse interest and ultimately paying customers.

Effects theory was used to devastating effect against Qadhafi in the 80s -about 18 months before the airstrikes in 1986 there were regular stories about the 'mad colonel' in the quality press and intellectually savvy news programmes on the BBC and Channel 4 -we were 'softened up' for a long term attack: the attacks were written into strategy IF Qadhafi went out of line as he did with the Berlin disco bombing, it wasn't a conspiracy -the same happend with Saddam prior to 1990 -Farzad Bazoft, the super-gun, the Kurds: all real stories, but as Saddam had been an 'ally' of the West in its war with Iran, 'we' needed to be given a different script prior to the botched overthrow in 1990-91, although I genuinely think Thatcher and Bush were taken by surprise when Iraq invaded Kuwait -the point being its a tactic not a strategy as some things are beyond control.

Effects Theory was also used by the Murdoch press against the Labour Party in the 1980s: regular stories, some of them exaggerated or fabrications about individual Labour politicians designed to undermine the public's confidence in the party and its leader at the time, Neil Kinnock.

Here, its an attempt to undermine the gravity a President is assumed to need if he or she is in the Oval Office -although Reagan was not touted as a great, serious intellectual -to his advantage- and neither is Palin: some people may actually warm to the image of her as being 'like us', it can work both ways.

Is she playing along with this, will she run? I am fatigued by PalinMania but luckily for me I don't have a vote. But I would rather she be judged by her politics than her shapely legs and love of bears...

[Prospero]

Im curious about your (or the) theory of effects Stavros. When applied to the Murdoch empire it is clear - the selling of a product by the drip feed of stories. An obvious tactic really - and one of the things that has provoked anxiety about his trans-media power beyond his political influence.

But not so sure it applies to such things as Ghadafy. That sounds remarkably like a conspiracy theory to me. Who do you suggest is pulling the strings of the various media outlets you are talking about here? The government? Military intelligence? A cabal of editors in collusion? The lobby system? Within one news organisation you can believe this to be true - viz Murdoch again and the labour party. I don't think you can really show evidence that this operates across the media. Certainly a certain generally accepted view will develop, based in part on evidence, but also on what journalists have read by other journalists and political commentators etc.

[Silcc69]

http://warriorwriters.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/troll.jpg

[Faldur]

Elevating liberal blood pressure since 2008

http://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/bachmann_palin_2012.png

[Stavros]

It sounds like a conspiracy theory but its a mixture of tactics and strategy. In the 1980s, Iran and Libya were the main enemies in the Middle East = perceived by the democratic west to be 'out of control' -Iran was trying to export its revolution to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and Lebanon (and it succeeded in mobilising those Shi'a there who were not already involved with Amal), but was bogged down in the war with Iraq. Libya was a threat to the democratic west because Qadhafi was playing games with inter-Arab actors, particularly his personal squabbles with Arafat, occasional sponsorship of Abu Nidal; meddling in African politics in Mauritania and Chad, but significantly it was Qadhafi's dealings 'out of area' with the Provisional IRA, and its roles in at least two murderous aeroplane bombings across the decade; not to mention the murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher in 1984 that meant the west decided that at some point they would have to act to punish Libya.

It was Qadhafi who began the process of nationalisation that completely re-structured the petroleum industry -although the supply crisis and oil price rises that followed the defeat of Egypt and Syria in the 1973 war with Israel are taken as the moment OPEC seized control of the pricing and production system of global oil, Qadhafi had nationalised its oil industry in 1971 -setting off a train of legal action by BP and Hunt Oil, who had discovered oil in the Sirte basin in the 1960s. Qadhafi from the start put himself in the frame as someone the west could not deal with rationally -because everything he did made it hard to use 'normal' diplomatic channels.

By the 1980s the western democracies -specifically the USA, UK, France and Germany- had been forced to develop a range of tactics to deal with Qadhafi in the short term, and a longer term strategy to deal with any escalation of activity against western targets. It was therefore not a conspiracy to overthrow the Qadhafi regime, but a range of options to punish Libya whenever it breached international law.

When I say we were 'softened up', I mean that prior to the 1986 raids on Libya, negative stories about Libya appeared on tv, principally the programmes watched by educated people like you and me: BBC-2's Newsnight and Channel 4 News; augmented by analytical pieces in The Guardian, The Times, and so on. There were editorial decisions behind these stories -discrimination against African migrant workers, Qadhafi's arms deals with the Provos, the murder of Yvonne Fletcher in 1984, allowing Abu Nidal to open an office in Tripoli the following year: the point is, you didn't need to be an expert on the Middle East to become affected by the effects: Qadhafi=Problem seeped into the brain over a period of 18 months: why was there a bombing raid in 1986 and not 1984? One Policeman murdered in London, two people killed in Berlin. My argument is that it would have been easier to bomb Libya in 1986 than in 1984, even though it became a hugely controversial event -and as I am sure you remember, a lot of people in the UK, not all of them liberals thought it was an 'over-reaction' and not a 'balanced response' to the La Belle Disco atrocity. The strategic response to Qadhafi was developed over a period of 10 years, and at those uncertain moments, those stories -some generated by immediate events, some 'deep background' issues that you occasionally get on tv about places like Burma and North Korea, followed. The bottom line is that not that many people were surprised or even outraged that Libya had been bombed -but many were and Qadhafi survived.

Without going into Iraq too deeply, the point again is that opinion on Iraq hardened in the late 1980s, particularly after the end of the war with Iran. Yes, there needed to be no conspiracy to report stories like the execution of Farzad Bazoft or the super-gun, they were unavoidable -but there also followed many other stories about the horrors of life under Saddam even though his crimes had been documented since the 1960s when, with the help of the CIA, he had rounded up Communist Party members after the Ba'th Party coup in 1968. My argument is that again, if you are not an expert on the Middle East but watch opinion forming programmes, the sly effect is to create the simple equation: Saddam-BAD, and I have met enough deluded fools -not all of them Trotskyists- who couldn't even work that out and believed Saddam was indeed a victim of a western conspiracy to grab Iraqi oil.

Its about making it easier to take punitive military action by reducing the understanding of Qadhafi and Saddam to simplistic values: there are complicated social structures in Libya and Iraq, and rarely is an historical explanation of how and why these regimes existed put on tv, as its considered needlessly academic, but the drip-drip of negative copy creates the right effects for the strategic actions that follow.

I don't mean to bracket Sarah Palin with either Saddam or Qadhafi, she is much better than them, but there are reasons why stories appear in the press, and their timing and their tone. And also, of course, the stories that don't appear in the press -sometimes about the same people....how much do we really know?

[Dino Velvet]

If both sides quit talking about Sarah Palin she would go away. Bashing her helps her as much as brown nosing her. I'm a Conservative type and I don't care for her either. If she were running against Obama (which will never happen) I'd stay home on Election Day.

[Prospero]

Well argued piece of writing Stavros, but I still don't see real evidence of intentionality in there. In my professional life I've been paying deep and serious attention to Middle eastern politics for some 35 years. All the info you've offered is true. And yet.... somewhere in all of that is the implication which i infer from this that there are people manipulating us very deeply. I KNOW public opinion was manipulated in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, but over Libya? Simply reporting Gadafy is enough to breed a deep understanding of the volatile and unpredictable nature of this particular leader with his meddling in regions far from his immediate area of concern trying to become the leader of the african union for instance, funding the provos in northern ireland, the attack on the jet airliner over Lockerbie (which this son has admitted to people I know was directly ordered by Gaddafi) etc... the media is a complex matrix and yes, intelligence services feed information into it. Murdoch's Sunday Times has actually been one of the portals through which stories have been slipped. But an overaching disinformation strategy? i don't buy it. What I do suspect are other motivations by Government which have been shrouded. Oil being a significant one. But other strategic issues too. Hence action in libya, protests (over Syria and support for the Egyptian and Tunisians but scarcely an official rebuke for Bahrain which is part of the GCC and HQ for the US fleet.

[tsdvdman]

Not a coincidence Sarah Palin worked for Rupert Murdoch at Fox news It's all sleazy tabloid "dumbing down" "entertainment" journalism.

[Stavros]

I still don't see real evidence of intentionality in there

I did say that it is not a conspiracy as such, and I probably overstated some of it, and for clarification when referring to Iraq I meant the situation in 1990. If people are already familiar with the Middle East and get their information from the usual sources -academic journals and briefing papers, personal contacts -a lot of the stuff on tv is known and sometimes known to be inaccurate -John Simpson of the BBC is someone whose reports I now ignore as they never engage with the reality on the ground -my point was that the effects strategy is there be it deliberate or not -the editorial decisions that are made explain why I have yet to see a serious report about the overspill of the drugs wars in Mexico into Honduras and Guatemala; the Middle East and North Africa are strategically important because of oil, but also because some of the people there have attacked targets here or of 'western interest' in the region. Its not a cop out, but maybe my simple point was that, conspiracy or not, the effect of drio-drip reporting is to reduce the tension on intervention that might otherwise be greater without it -and yet there is always this nagging feeling I have -which too many Arabs share with me- that some of this stuff is deliberately planted. Perhaps its the legacy of cover-up and duplicity in this region.

[Ben]

This could either be the N.Y. Times (they, more than any other News organization, facilitated the illicit invasion of Iraq) or FOX News: "I often mention and provide examples of how an agenda driven ,ideological , dishonest press can form a narrative in an attempt to sway public opinion."
Murdoch, like the N.Y. Times, has a right-wing agenda and is deeply ideological. Ask yourself: Why did Murdoch support Hillary Clinton in her Senate run? Why did he back Tony Blair?
Remember these are capitalist institutions. So therefore reflect capitalist interests. Whatever capitalism is. I mean, what does bailing out the banks and the auto companies have to do with capitalism. Sorry to get off on a tangent.
And, too, what is liberal (we need to remember that conservatism came out of classical liberalism) and what is conservative? What is left-wing???? And what is right-wing?
I like what Warren Buffett said: There is a class war and my class is winning.
Or the old divide and conquer. Murdoch is concerned about his own class. He's indifferent to political stripes. Hence his support of Clinton and Tony Blair. His interest is mere control. Nothing more.

[Prospero]

Stavros wrote:"and yet there is always this nagging feeling I have -which too many Arabs share with me- that some of this stuff is deliberately planted. Perhaps its the legacy of cover-up and duplicity in this region."... and I know that many arabs feel this as do many others and what you are referring to here is the belief that the Jewish lobby in the US is too powerful, are you not? Just yesterday i was looking at the website of a Saudi professor of science - which had links to sites alleging that Obama was secretly run by the Zionists, that the Jews run the world, and to a site all about the protocols of the elders of zion. Fantasy isn't the preserve of the US right - often on show here - but of idiots of every political shade. I hasten to add I am not accusing you of buying into this in an shape of form. Just illuminating the final point you made, I think.

And yes I've seen 'The protocols of the elders of Zion" on sale openly in bookshops all over the Middle East. Also Henry Ford's "Book Of Jews" (may have got the title wrong) a particularly poisonous work of anti-semitism by that great American businessman.

As for the Drug wars of Mexico. Nope - not that covered in the UK by the media because there is no immediate UK connection. But look at the average US daily paper for any foreign news coverage other than what is going on where US boys are fighting. I see the NY Time often and even a good paper like that seldom has significant coverage of news in africa for instance. The Middle east IS important for all of us for energy reasons and for all kinds of other geo-political reasons. It goes back for centuries viz the great game etc.

[Stavros]

what you are referring to here is the belief that the Jewish lobby in the US is too powerful, are you not?

No, and I never said that. But the effect of the tone and selective news stories with which the Middle East is reported in the USA in particular, has been more beneficial to Israel than to the Arab states or the Palestinians- but given the behaviour of the latter is that so surprising? Arabs for years refused to acknowledge their own role in their own failures -Sadiq al-Azm being one of the few -his book Self-Criticism After the Defeat was one of the first Arab studies of 1967 to puncture the illusions generated in part by Nasser's bloated rhetoric. In fact if anything, the generation that has since grown up and is at the core of the demonstrations across the Arab world is more focused on their own failings than conspiracies from the outside.

The original argument that I was proposing suggested that there is a theory of Effects in journalism that through a drip-drip approach to news stories can 'soften up' an attitude: if you want to put it in Gramscian terms a sort of 'cultural dominance' on a range of subjects -the Milly Dowler aspect of the crisis in the Murdoch empire was a bombshell, but we had already been softened up over the years to expect the worst of the Murdoch press, not by lurid stories about infidelity by footballers, but by the suspicion that the means to get them had not been legal or fair -Effects in journalism in this case may not be deliberate, and therefore not a conspiracy, but you could hardly call The Guardian a neutral observer of Murdoch's empire.

The key point in all of this -Sarah Palin, Saddam Hussein, Qadhafi, Obama, Hugo Chavez -is whether or not it is part of a deliberate strategy to promote/undermine a political cause. I admit that in the past I have swayed -I was in the Middle East in the summer of 1990 and there was a ferocious row about Saddam amongst the people I met because educated and in a mundane sense, ordinary and decent people believed he was a Champion of the Arab cause. It was an 'us against them' mentality which meant they set aside the evidence of his crimes -and I knew that some of the people I met knew what they were. When I suggested at the home of one individual with impeccable connections to the state, that the west was developing a new agenda and that Saddam would be dead by Christmas, I was treated like an idiot and almost thrown out of his house, I was given an impromptu lecture on 100 years of discrimination against the Arabs and it was a very difficult situation, and I left; although I patched it up with him some years later. During that trip -and I had pondered a short trip to Baghdad but didn't have the money or the time, I visited some friends in a remote part of the country I was in -first thing I was asked (this was late July) 'Has Saddam invaded Kuwait yet?' - it wasn't a shock when it happened. In addition, I had reached the conclusion that summer Saddam was a target: but of course he was, after the Gulf War his behaviour had become erratic even by his standards and, crucially, Iraq was bankrupt and everyone knew he had to do something about it, and by July he had got nothing out of OPEC or Kuwait; but the question is why in 1990 and not in 1980? Or even 1970 if it comes to that. And of course for the Arabs, it was proof of double standards: Iraq invades Kuwait and gets hammered, Israel invades Jordan/Palestine/Israel/Syria and gets rewards... It is easy to think in conspiratorial terms, I have since adjusted the intensity of my engagement with the Middle East, and have changed my mind.

The ugly truth amongst the superpowers as they were in the Cold War, and as major powers are now, is that when it is expedient to dump someone they get dumped, when they have to be brought into an alliance, they are: sometimes the factor is money, sometimes military preparedness, sometimes other factors, the fact that the focus is a dictator with a taste for torture and murder is just taken as read in the classic sense Morgenthau used in Politics Among Nations to explain why morality is not -indeed, should not be- an element in the 'realist' perception of international relations which most politicians adhere to: and yes, the Middle East does get more coverage than most regions of the world, although Tony Blair managed to ignore it for most of his political career until he thought he had a special gift for conflict resolution.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I do no longer believe in conspiracies, but that the truth is probably that a set of prejudices has set in over many years and that a lot has been created by the effects of journalism: those effects which tend to cast Arabs in a negative light, and I say that even though I disagree with most of the 'Orientalism' criticised by Said. Effects in recent cases have been exposed for their tired platitudes by the Arab Spring because the discourse of liberation doesn't match the stereotypes that journalists (with the possible exception of Robert Fisk though he is hardly either neutral or on occasion accurate), but whether or not you think the Arabs have brought it on themselves or are victims of prejudice, effects work. I don't know in what direction it necessarily goes: as this thread is about Palin the issue was: does it help or hinder her political career.

[Prospero]

Indeed - help or hinder Palin. Helps her career as a moneymaking celeb certainly. But as a serious politician. Probably not. Lets leave the arab issue to rest. I think i agree with the bulk of your thesis.

[beandip]

I’m particularly incensed by the lunacy of her comments on the impending default of the United States.Are you retarded?

Do you understand 4th grade math?

We are not able to service the debt. Raising the debt limit (more spending) is not the answer.

If your household takes in $1000.00 a month and pays out $1100.00 a month, do you ask for a line of credit increase?

There is no risk of defaulting, All we have to do is cut spending. There is no need to raise taxes.

[trish]

Are you retarded? If you can't pay your debts you don't renege, you increase your revenue stream to pay off what you owe with interest as well as curb spending. Under Reagan and Clinton jobs grew by twenty percent. But then the tax rate on the wealthiest one percent was greater than 70%. W's administration disproved trickle down theory. It's time to return to Reagan era tax rates.

[thombergeron]

Are you retarded?

Do you understand 4th grade math?

We are not able to service the debt. Raising the debt limit (more spending) is not the answer.

If your household takes in $1000.00 a month and pays out $1100.00 a month, do you ask for a line of credit increase?

There is no risk of defaulting, All we have to do is cut spending. There is no need to raise taxes.

Maybe you should have continued your education past the 4th grade.

Try this: Amazon.com: Macroeconomics 101: The Animated TextVook eBook: Dr. Vook Ph.D, Vook: Kindle Store@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41SaToR8YBL.@@AMEPARAM@@41SaToR8YBL (http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-101-Animated-TextVook-ebook/dp/B0052PJPTU)

Your first assignment is to figure out the difference between a single-family household and a federal republic with a national reserve bank.

[Silcc69]

Are you retarded?

Do you understand 4th grade math?

We are not able to service the debt. Raising the debt limit (more spending) is not the answer.

If your household takes in $1000.00 a month and pays out $1100.00 a month, do you ask for a line of credit increase?

There is no risk of defaulting, All we have to do is cut spending. There is no need to raise taxes.

I never knew the government was run like a normal household or corporation.