Who said the following...........

[onmyknees]

“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate,” XXXXX observed before slamming the new owner/editor who picked a picture to make Bachmann look crazy: “Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
In the August 19 column, “Newsweek Bachmann cover is outrageous (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-08-18-newsweek-bachmann-cover_n.htm),” XXXXX explained how “last week's cover featured a full-page, wide-eyed facial picture of Michele Bachmann, carefully selected to match the headline, which calls her ‘The Queen of Rage.’”


He recalled: “A full-page cover picture of Bill Clinton in June showed him as a smiling nice guy, in contrast to the Bachmann Queen of Rage cover.”


XXXXX who began by writing that “Newsweek magazine, under new ownership and a new editor with a London background, has become almost as crazy and racy as the scandalous British tabloids,” concluded: “Editor Tina Brown should acknowledge that her magazine is substituting London fog for real news.”




Well it could have been said by me, but if it was ......it would have been met by either lots of eye rolls, or disdain by my progressive "friends" on here. It's instructive for no other reason that it's one more in an avalanche of examples of how a formerly adversarial, intellectually curious, non partisan press has rolled over, and taken a big wet one up the ass ....and it's not at all about liking Bachmann or not. (I personally wouldn't vote for her) It's about ideology and it's tarnish on objective reporting and information dissemination. When Media Matters has a tax exemption as a non profit, therefore non idelogical entity...Houston we have a problem ! And wasn't it just a couple weeks ago Blue Grass was over the top about some charts and graphs from Heritage, an openly and admittedly conservative think tank? lmao


By the way...the above was written by Al Neuharth, founder and editor of USA Today, and a lifelong staunch liberal writing in his Friday column. Not that it will have any impact on the far left, but I do enjoy being on same side as Al Neuharth ......or is Al on the same side as me? !!!



http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2004-05-28-CSP-Neuharth.jpg

[Stavros]

What surprises me about this is that the kind of people who bother to read Newsweek, or Time, for example, will usually be reasonably well informed about politics and not need this ubsubtle, tabloid-style approach to candidates. Does it help emphasise existing feelings -as in, people who are not sure about Bachmann see a wild-eyed photo and react emotionally in a negative way? The Murdoch press in the UK did not invent muck-raking in journalism, but in the 1980s in particular they chose photos of mostly Labour politicians that were deliberately unflattering, with hysterical headlines to match. There is a term which I have forgotten which is used to describe the photo of someone with their mouth open, its from psychology and concerns feelings of depression, fear and tiredness, it is often used deliberately when reporting something about a politician and is used to reinforce something negative.

These tactics are available to all in the media; this link will give you a detailed set of examples of embedded messages in advertising for example (look for the words sex and kill in Gadhafi's face near the end)
http://sub-lim.blogspot.com/

There is some astonishing stuff in this link, such as the deliberate coded message that was sent by Janet Jackson to Attorney General Ashcroft when she exposed her breast at the Superbowl -very long and contains some conspiracy stuff which I will leave you to judge, if you can be bothered to read it.

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/lucifer-timecode-2.htm

[BluegrassCat]

“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate,” XXXXX observed before slamming the new owner/editor who picked a picture to make Bachmann look crazy: “Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
In the August 19 column, “Newsweek Bachmann cover is outrageous (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-08-18-newsweek-bachmann-cover_n.htm),” XXXXX explained how “last week's cover featured a full-page, wide-eyed facial picture of Michele Bachmann, carefully selected to match the headline, which calls her ‘The Queen of Rage.’”


He recalled: “A full-page cover picture of Bill Clinton in June showed him as a smiling nice guy, in contrast to the Bachmann Queen of Rage cover.”


XXXXX who began by writing that “Newsweek magazine, under new ownership and a new editor with a London background, has become almost as crazy and racy as the scandalous British tabloids,” concluded: “Editor Tina Brown should acknowledge that her magazine is substituting London fog for real news.”




Well it could have been said by me, but if it was ......it would have been met by either lots of eye rolls, or disdain by my progressive "friends" on here. It's instructive for no other reason that it's one more in an avalanche of examples of how a formerly adversarial, intellectually curious, non partisan press has rolled over, and taken a big wet one up the ass ....and it's not at all about liking Bachmann or not. (I personally wouldn't vote for her) It's about ideology and it's tarnish on objective reporting and information dissemination. When Media Matters has a tax exemption as a non profit, therefore non idelogical entity...Houston we have a problem ! And wasn't it just a couple weeks ago Blue Grass was over the top about some charts and graphs from Heritage, an openly and admittedly conservative think tank? lmao


By the way...the above was written by Al Neuharth, founder and editor of USA Today, and a lifelong staunch liberal writing in his Friday column. Not that it will have any impact on the far left, but I do enjoy being on same side as Al Neuharth ......or is Al on the same side as me? !!!



If you think I was "over the top" because Heritage is conservative, you completely missed the point (& have a strange definition of over the top). They're obviously conservative, it's that they manipulate and twist the data into misleading graphs so they can lie about our president, THAT'S the problem. An honest conservative think tank would wait until the real data showed something they liked & then present that. Sure it's cherry-picking but it's a whole lot better than just making shit up! lol

My problem is not with conservative ideology per se, it's the disregard for the facts that winds me up. I'm a liberal because I value accuracy so much. Media Matters exists to call out the deception pouring from the right-wing echo chamber. I think they have experienced some mission creep but if you have a problem with their tax exempt status I assume you want the highly conservative Media Research Council's status revoked as well? But really, who cares about their tax status, the fact that we need them in the first place is a much more important discussion. Why has the modern GOP abandoned science & facts?

& btw where's the evidence that Al Neuharth is "a lifelong staunch liberal"? He's certainly a staunch defender of the freedom of the press but calls himself an independent.

[hippifried]

& btw where's the evidence that Al Neuharth is "a lifelong staunch liberal"? He's certainly a staunch defender of the freedom of the press but calls himself an independent.
What? you didn't get the memo? It's all broken down to 2 kinds of people these days. Lifelong staunch liberals & dittoheads.

[runningdownthatdream]

What surprises me about this is that the kind of people who bother to read Newsweek, or Time, for example, will usually be reasonably well informed about politics and not need this ubsubtle, tabloid-style approach to candidates. Does it help emphasise existing feelings -as in, people who are not sure about Bachmann see a wild-eyed photo and react emotionally in a negative way? The Murdoch press in the UK did not invent muck-raking in journalism, but in the 1980s in particular they chose photos of mostly Labour politicians that were deliberately unflattering, with hysterical headlines to match. There is a term which I have forgotten which is used to describe the photo of someone with their mouth open, its from psychology and concerns feelings of depression, fear and tiredness, it is often used deliberately when reporting something about a politician and is used to reinforce something negative.

These tactics are available to all in the media; this link will give you a detailed set of examples of embedded messages in advertising for example (look for the words sex and kill in Gadhafi's face near the end)
http://sub-lim.blogspot.com/

There is some astonishing stuff in this link, such as the deliberate coded message that was sent by Janet Jackson to Attorney General Ashcroft when she exposed her breast at the Superbowl -very long and contains some conspiracy stuff which I will leave you to judge, if you can be bothered to read it.

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/lucifer-timecode-2.htm

ahem.......you may enjoy this: The Lost Language of Symbolism: Amazon.ca: Harold Bayley: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/51ZZZ2P0NDL.@@AMEPARAM@@51ZZZ2P0NDL (http://www.amazon.ca/Lost-Language-Symbolism-Harold-Bayley/dp/0486447871)