I went over to Wikipedia the other day and discovered that there were some really interesting things happening for Rupert Murdock during the 1990s involving the FCC. He 'became' a nationalized citizen then so he could own more news outlets in each market. Dual citizenship for him.

Pull the plug on the SOB.

Self-awareness is always the first thing out the window....

Gee, if only there were a major network with an affiliated cable news channel where there was, say, a "political director" on the staff who could, perhaps, direct coverage of the news to offset the craziness. Someone who could, say, organize some stories about the craziness, and say in simple terms, "Folks, they are lying. They are crazy." Where there was someone who, instead of just saying "Wow, this is amazing," could, you know, do something about it.

If only.

You're so right!

This post touches on another related issue.

So, ... If I wanted to watch Glenn Beck and the other Fox News idiots, I would tune in to those channels, but I don't. I tune in to MSNBC, and guess what I see on Olberman et al? God damn Beck and the other Fox News idiots.

Honestly, why can't the left or the center just ignore the crazies. Every time someone repeats their 'news', that crazy 'news' is validated.

I just want to block all crazy stories from all my news/media outlets, included any and all controversies ...

Well, one thing Chuck Todd can be certain of is that no one in his line of work has anything to do with the propagation of lies and half-truths that pass for news in this country. The bias of the media cannot be laid at the feet of the media.

Right on point, ME. Faux News doesn't cover the reality based communities refutations of the wingnut hallucination. Olberman and company clearly enjoy doing their hysterics, but if they would simply confine themselves to reporting that " X accused the Obama administration of Y today - we have determined the accusation is baseless, and therefore will not report if further', they would confine the fuel for these things to the nut-o-sphere, which hopefully would eventually burn itself up.

Note: This comment is recycled from one of my posts at NYT on the same subject today:

dcshungu
New York City
September 4th, 2009
9:47 am

From the "birther" movement, to talks of secession in Texas, to the rabid and angry mobs at town halls, to loaded gun-toting nutcases outside presidential events, to the latest talks of "indoctrination and socialism" about something as innocuous as the President of the United States planning to give kids returning to school "a pep talk" to motivate them, it is time that we recognize what is happening and sound the alarm before it turns into something awful and tragic: there is a small group of loud and vicious right-wingers out there that has a "problem" with President Obama, not because of anything "bad" that he has done, but simply because he is a black man who dared to be elected POTUS -- something that they consider an act of lese-majeste bordering on heresy. I don't know about you but I am outright spooked by the daily spectacle of individuals or group of individuals becoming so visibly unhinged about anything involving this POTUS that the underlying cause is unmistakable; we have seen it before and it is woven within the very historic fabric of the Republic: Yes, you guessed it...it is called Racism, and it is alive and well in [an increasingly visible and vocal] segment of Americans today...

I'm starting to think I should just watch network news to get a baseline idea of what is an actual controversy.

How much would I hear about this stuff on the evening news? Unfortunately I have no idea. That is one part of the problem for those "reading the blogs" and spending 24/7 with cable news and commentary.

OTOH, one reason that the right wing media has such an easy time spreading their lies is that they are presented in the form of gossip, not intellectual discourse. That form of communication makes it okay to simply repeat what you heard someone else say without expressing much of an overt opinion. Example: "I hear Joanie's daughter is dating that new black guy, so-n-so saw them together at the mall. She thought it was a bad sign." It kind of allows the insecure right to play both sides of any extreme issue, express that you know about the issue, but allow yourself an out, either way.
It really makes more sense to think about Glen Beck and friends as head gossip columnists than important thinkers.

Schmuck Tool is as dumb as a bag of wet rocks. What else is new?

And in other breaking news, David Gregory recently pulled his head out of Karl Rove's ass, only to plant it firmly in John McCain's.

All Limbaugh has to do is order his humanoid facsimiles to march around defecating in their pants and the MSM has to report it without passing judgment.

what dcshungu sez... i mean, hell... you dont hafta be a rocket scientist...

racism is apple pie.

Well ... let's see. One part of the media manufactures controversies (and frequently makes up its own facts). The other part then reports on those same controversies without calling BS.

And then - Chuck Todd is surprised about the resulting craziness and proliferation of bad information that comes out of this?

I think credible (at least what's considered credible these days)news outlets fall into the trap of 'covering' a story that gains a lot of traction. Meanwhile the faux news outlet that is FOX, is busy not covering news but rather creating stories to make sure they get a lot of traction. That's a huge difference. One that puts non-propaganda based news at the mercy of conservative media direction.

Traditional news needs to drop the he said/ she said coverage and start doing investigative journalism. Then, today's story would look more like this:

"we've learned that a poorly worded line in the president's supplemental education packet has caused an outcry by Rush Limbaugh causing the FOX News network to tell it's audience to keep kids home during the President's address on Tuesday."

How hard would it be to tell the truth.?

If president Obama helped a little old lady across the street, gun-toting wingnutters would appear on MSNBC, CNN, and Fucksnews to claim he was using her a human shield to protect himself from assasination.

Scmuck Todd would breathlessly wonder why people on both sides of the political spectrum were politicizing little old ladies.

Just checked with my local school district (Bellevue, WA). Their plans have not changed, they are taping the speech and it will be available online or via tape to any teacher who can use it as part of their curriculum.

Important for me was that the local school district didn't make any changes based upon the recent controversy (they were surprised by the number of pro/con callers). But it is also important that my kid's math class doesn't get interrupted by a goal setting session.

In fact, if my school district had organized an assembly so that everyone could watch the speech together, then the time would come out of all classes, just like a regular assembly schedule.

But it is also interesting that my local district is using "tivo" technology to allow each teacher to make use (or not) of this speech as and when they see fit.

Maybe in two weeks, after the hysteria has died down, some additional teachers will use it.

Todd is amazed, and yet is central to the problem: namely, the willingness of the press to shine on the craziest and loudest. It sells the soap. And the republicans have figured it out, and play it like a harp. I wrote about this on my blog yesterday.

What amazes me is just how dense upChuck Todd is. There is such a thing as news judgment and it appears no one at the national level has it. Whitewater is a perfect example: the locals ignored a crank while the nationals hyped his rants to an impeachment. We need to practice objective journalism, where you report actual verifiable facts against a backdrop of official claims and declarations.

Chuck, journalism !! Practice it !!

It's funny how everyone gets upset when their own ox is gored.

The hullabaloo over the president's school speech doesn't seem to be getting a lot of coverage (or really any) in the network news or the major print outlets. That said, the Dems were pretty worked up when 41 did something similar but without a similar DOE work-up, I believe.

Both sides of the political aisle are hyper-sensitive about schools in part because there are entire ideologies premised on the idea of capturing school-children. For parts of the right, it's school prayer and Darwinism; for parts of the left, it's an article of faith about shifting language, sexual mores, "community" in the left's mold, and the like.

And every 9/11 truther in a high-profile presidential position is going to incline the opposition to be more worried.

Welcome to America, where contentious, and even scurrilous, debates have been going on for two centuries.

You have besmirched his reputation.

It is necessary for liberals to be right about a thing,

for conservatives it is only necessary that they're loud.

Getting away with it is all that matters.

BRAVO- Very well said and very true!

Remember the old saying that goes: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"? It always amazes me when Chuck, and many of his "liberal media" cohorts, come up with these deep thoughts, especially since they come up with them AFTER they've contributed to the firestorm!!

That said, the Dems were pretty worked up when 41 did something similar but without a similar DOE work-up, I believe.

Link please. And remember that you will also need to show that MSNBC did 24/7 coverage about how horrible it was that the president was indoctrinating our children to make it equivalent. A few Democratic congresscritters complaining doesn't count if it never actually made it into the national media and sparked nationwide boycott threats by Democratic parents.

Here's a link to excerpts from the speech (full text apparently on the Bush library website)

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/09/george_hw_bushs_speech_to_scho.php

And here's the link to Politifact's references to some of the Democratic reaction:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

FWIW, 1991 was not 2009. Email was just on the up-swing, alternative pathways to news distribution like the Internet we're still years away from becoming wide-spread or popular.

But the speech still was used as an example of the "arrogance of power." And that didn't come off the heels of the reported NEA solicitation for help advancing a president's agenda.

Here's a link to excerpts from the speech (full text apparently on the Bush library website)

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/09/george_hw_bushs_speech_to_scho.php

And here's the link to Politifact's references to some of the Democratic reaction:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

FWIW, 1991 was not 2009. Email was just on the up-swing, alternative pathways to news distribution like the Internet we're still years away from becoming wide-spread or popular.

But the speech still was used as an example of the "arrogance of power." And that didn't come off the heels of the reported NEA solicitation for help advancing a president's agenda.

Do I remember this sort of crap in the summer of 2001? Maybe not then, but I remember all sorts of nonsense about how the Clinton staffers "vandalized" the White House offices, prying w's off keyboards etc., earlier in the year after the inauguration.

Although I don't think that exactly rebuts Todd's point...

It was short and sweet, but I almost fainted when I heard Andrea Mitchell report on the "partisan echo chamber" that has highjacked the WH message this evening.

http://nightly.newsvine.com/_video/2009/09/04/3227169-obama-gets-schooled-in-culture-wars

One of my oldest friends from college is a journalist in DC. Sometimes I raise issues like this with her and she says "Do you want us to become part of the story?"

That's the deal. They see themselves as standing outside looking in. They are not part of the story. They are just watching it go by.

That, of course, is nonsense. You are always part of the story. The only question is what part in the story do you want to play -- witless dupe, or seeker for truth? If the latter, then you must engage your critical faculties. Sometimes you will make mistakes. Par for the course. The point is not to be perfect. The point is to try.