Republican Noise Machine

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
The Republican Noise Machine

Such a great title deserves a thread. The book, just out, is one of those 'insider' books: by a former conservative writer of Republican screeds like the hatchet job on Anita Hill.

It has excellent reviews.


David Brock, the reformed conservative noise-maker, on how the Right has sabotaged journalism, democracy, and truth.

{from the Mother Jones site}

David Brock
Interviewed By Bradford Plumer

September 1, 2004


As a young journalist in the 1990s, David Brock was a key cog the Republican noise machine. Writing for the American Spectator, a conservative magazine funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, Brock gained fame for his attack pieces on Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton.

Then, in 2002, Brock came clean. In his memoir, Blinded by the Right, Brock admitted that his work was based on lies and distortion, and part of a coordinated smear campaign funded by wealthy right wing groups to discredit Clinton and confuse the public.

Since then, Brock has continued to expose the conservative media onslaught. In his newest book, The Republican Noise Machine, Brock documents how right-wing groups pressure the media and spread misinformation to the public. It's easy to see how this is done. Fringe conspiracies and stories will be kept alive by outlets like Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, until they finally break into the mainstream media. Well-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation overwhelm news reporters with distorted statistics and conservative spin.

Mainstream cable news channels employ staunchly rightwing pundits -- like Pat Buchanan and Sean Hannity -- to twist facts and echo Republican talking points, all under the rubric of "balance." Meanwhile, media groups like Brent Bozell's Media Research Center have spent 30 years convincing the public that the media is, in fact, liberal. As Brock says, it's all a sham: "I have seen, and I know firsthand, indeed from my own pen, how the organized Right has sabotaged not only journalism but also democracy and truth."

Not content to merely complain, Brock launched _Media Matters for America_ in May, a media watchdog organization devoted to exposing rightwing distortions in the news, and to chart undue conservative influence in the media.

Brock recently chatted with MotherJones.com about Media Matters,
 
Not like the Democrats don't do all that also.

Hell, its impressive how well at political manuvering on the Republican Parties part how well they spin issues.

But to imply that the Democrats and their supportors don't do that is a little misleading.
 
BigAndTall said:
Not like the Democrats don't do all that also.

Hell, its impressive how well at political manuvering on the Republican Parties part how well they spin issues.

But to imply that the Democrats and their supportors don't do that is a little misleading.

True. politics is politics. you can't fault one side for playing better. Everyone's in the game...

Q_C
 
If you stick to the plain truth you change no minds, but it is very refreshing to hear it spoken just the same. I do not defend the liars.
 
cantdog said:
If you stick to the plain truth you change no minds, but it is very refreshing to hear it spoken just the same. I do not defend the liars.

That's true too. lol

It's a Catch-22. But theb, everything is any more.

Q_C
 
Big, you'd be hard pressed to find Democratic counterparts for some Republican 'moves', e.g., the 'literature' on Hillary Clinton.

The 'swift boat' guys of 'truth' on Kerry.

In terms of 'reach' there's no matching Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

It's hard to think of a Dem liar on a par with Cheney.

The right manage a true hysteria over such things a gay issues.

Mostly the Republican 'character' issue, beginning with Clinton, is lies and smokescreen. In fact the Rep'n don't have better 'character,' just as George Bush did not have superior and stronger 'resoluteness'.
 
Quiet_Cool said:
True. politics is politics. you can't fault one side for playing better. Everyone's in the game...

Q_C

Sorry, QC, but I respectfully disagree.

Lying is lying. It's not playing the game. It's easy to forget, but at one time there were ethics in politics.

---dr.M.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Sorry, QC, but I respectfully disagree.

Lying is lying. It's not playing the game. It's easy to forget, but at one time there were ethics in politics.

---dr.M.

When?

I'm not taking either side here, but they all lie, maybe not on the same scale as we've been lied to recently, but just the same... as you said, lying is lying.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Sorry, QC, but I respectfully disagree.

Lying is lying. It's not playing the game. It's easy to forget, but at one time there were ethics in politics.

---dr.M.

What cloudy said, plus this: At one time, doesn't mean now. We're not the Whigs and Tories anymore (did I spell those parties' names correctly?). Politician's lie now.
Period.
End of discussion.

Q_C
 
When Dwight Eisenhower was forced to admit that he had lied when he said that the US was not spying on the USSR with U2 spy planes, our country responded with shocked surprise. We could not believe that our president had lied to us about anything.

After that we began to accept that there were "state secrets" which were acceptable to lie about. Kennedy lied, Johnson lied, Nixon lied big time, Ford maybe a little, Carter maybe a little, Reagan lied, Bush lied and Clinton lied a little, mostly about sex.

Almost everyone in this administration has lied big time about important issues; war, the economy, education, national defense and even terrorism. Not even the Nixon gang was that bad.

Hell, lying has become so accepted that it is a way of life. You are considered a naïve fool for trusting anyone anymore. And that’s the sad truth.


Eddie The Liar
 
Edward Teach said:

Hell, lying has become so accepted that it is a way of life. You are considered a naïve fool for trusting anyone anymore. And that’s the sad truth.

Sadly so. One of the most moving lines I have read recently was actually written by a lawyer. Sir Edward Clarke, responding to Robert Ross's suggestion that they petition the Home Secretary for the early release of Oscar Wilde, wrote to say that he thought it futile - then added:

"It is impossible for me to forget that, before I undertook the most painful case which I have ever been engaged in, he gave me his word of honour as a gentleman that there was no foundation whatever for the charges which were afterwards so completely proved."

Wilde gave him his word. That was enough for Clarke. Ah, Oscar - I love you, but look what you've helped to bring us to.

Shanglan
 
Here's a Dem lie.

Jack and Bobby Kennedy made a deal with Khrushchev {actually Dobrynin}, to end the crisis in Cuba. Both denied it, and made sure there were hardly any documents about it.

OTOH Reagan's lies about Iran are in a league of their own.
 
BigAndTall said:
Not like the Democrats don't do all that also.

Hell, its impressive how well at political manuvering on the Republican Parties part how well they spin issues.

But to imply that the Democrats and their supportors don't do that is a little misleading.

It's not implication, but fact that predominantly Republican-run corporations own every major television network and publishing concern in the United States, Big. It's easy to shrug it off and say, "They all do it," but in fact, they aren't all able to do it because they don't own the news outlets.

The liberal media may exist at the journalist level, but at the level where money talks, the right wing is fully in control.
 
Pure said:
Big, you'd be hard pressed to find Democratic counterparts for some Republican 'moves', e.g., the 'literature' on Hillary Clinton.

The 'swift boat' guys of 'truth' on Kerry.

In terms of 'reach' there's no matching Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

It's hard to think of a Dem liar on a par with Cheney.

The right manage a true hysteria over such things a gay issues.

Mostly the Republican 'character' issue, beginning with Clinton, is lies and smokescreen. In fact the Rep'n don't have better 'character,' just as George Bush did not have superior and stronger 'resoluteness'.


I'd have to disagree.

See you say swiftboats, i say swiftboats and move on.

You say Limbaugh, I say Limbaugh and Michael Moore.

I don't think the "right" had to do very much to get hysteria over gay issues. In fact they didn't seem to speak much about it at all from what I saw. The only person that I saw really speak about it was Kerry talking about Chenay's daughter.

Now I realize you don't like the current admin, and I am not really out to change an opinion that is set. But I don't see how one side is any worse than the other.
 
Big said,

You say Limbaugh, I say Limbaugh and Michael Moore.

I don't doubt you'd say it. It's entirely obtuse. Moore's movie holds up rather well as far as errors and omissions go.

But I guess all that talk of Saudi influence is just liberal lies and propaganda.
 
Palaces with attitude. Illusions of power. The less power he's got, the bigger the illusions he builds.
 
shereads said:
It's not implication, but fact that predominantly Republican-run corporations own every major television network and publishing concern in the United States, Big. It's easy to shrug it off and say, "They all do it," but in fact, they aren't all able to do it because they don't own the news outlets.

The liberal media may exist at the journalist level, but at the level where money talks, the right wing is fully in control.

I haven't done the research to agree or disagree with this, but it doesn't make them less honest, it just means they've pretty much cornered the market. Again, the other side isn't better, just less "influential" (not the word that I really wanted, but...).

Q_C
 
Pure said:
Big said,

You say Limbaugh, I say Limbaugh and Michael Moore.

I don't doubt you'd say it. It's entirely obtuse. Moore's movie holds up rather well as far as errors and omissions go.

But I guess all that talk of Saudi influence is just liberal lies and propaganda.


I havn't a clue what you mean by that in the context of this topic.
 
shereads said:
It's not implication, but fact that predominantly Republican-run corporations own every major television network and publishing concern in the United States, Big. It's easy to shrug it off and say, "They all do it," but in fact, they aren't all able to do it because they don't own the news outlets.

Ah, yes! So Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and the News Networks that support their work are paupers?


The liberal media may exist at the journalist level, but at the level where money talks, the right wing is fully in control.

Ok. And it's all about the all mighty dollar. These right wing, big money corporations keep people like Limbaugh, etc., on the air because.... why? Must be that the public watches them and listens to them in droves! Hence the big advertising dollars that are earned. So it would seem that the "public" wants to listen to these cretins!

Go figure!

TiberiusM
(Mik)
 
BigAndTall said:
I havn't a clue what you mean by that in the context of this topic.

Because you have never seen any work from Michael Moore. You have no idea what Michael Moore is. You equate him to Rush with no data whatever.

Why do you bother to say these things when you are talking from such deep ignorance?

Do you imagine the rest of us know so little? It's preposterous.

Do you want to know what it means, Saudi Influence, in the context of this topic?
 
When it comes to issuing marching orders and staying "on message", comparing Republicans to Democrats is like comparing the Yankees with an A-league rookie team. Think of it - 30 years after Watergate, one of the reporters who broke the story is granted more access to the President than the putative "Terrorism Czar", and writes two books that the Administration spins into paeans to pomposity!
 
Back
Top