Who owns your FAKE NEWS OUTLET?

The world in the US has become of confusing place in which Americans are constantly bombarded with Corporate Media Propaganda.....with Fox News = Fake News leading the pack with their adolescent programming. 

There was a great book, well researched, that documented the Right Wing Takeover of Well Respected Media Outlets [including well respected publishers]. 

Not everything is a sound byte and some things required some actual thought on the part of Americans, not merely the consumption of Pre-Digested Media Regurgitation. 

Check it out: 

The Republican Noise Machine

It should be noted that the author, David Brock worked for the Moonie newspaper,  the Washington Times, an outlet frequently employed by Bush/Cheney to share their propaganda and misinformation. David Brock wrote many of those bogus tales.

Once a bogus story appears in the Washington Times, other Corporate Fake News Outlets can credibly report: "According to the Washington Times...." 

And when a Wall Street Journal article is referenced? Rupert Murdoch own WSJ.

Americans have sacrificed our Freedom of the Press for a willingness to be bombarded with Propaganda, slanted reporting and inaccurate information. 

This was posted more than 2 years ago:

'A Republic if you can keep it' ?

When Americans remained silent as the media was consolidated, silently lost was our Freedom of the Press that protected citizens since our Founding, a foundation of our nation. 

The media coverage during the period preceding the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq serves as a stark and horrific reminder - international media discredited the claims of the Bush/Cheney/Military Industrial Complex and the warmongers' drumbeat to war. 

Each person who spoke out, took a stand, attempted to bring facts and reason forward for consideration was discredited or attacked. The favorite epithet was 'UNPATRIOTIC.' 

Let's think again about how we categorize Edward Snowden and why we would believe anything we view on Corporate Media that is becoming more biased, more willing to genuflect.

We are currently writing a pathetic and horrifying chapter in our nation's history. 
When Benjamin Frankin was asked the kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created, he responded 'A Republic if you can keep it.' Let's not make this the generation that repudiates our responsibility.

DID YOU LAP UP THIS ONE? :

Big Corporate Media reported Donald Trump endorse by a FAKE ORGANIZATION!





Are we all so willing to follow the next Republican Judas Goat to the slaughter of the next WAR? 

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

---

Scott Galindez | The Media, Not Bernie Sanders, Is Going Negative

Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
Galindez writes: "The mostly irresponsible corporate media keeps creating stories about Bernie Sanders going negative."
READ MORE

he mostly irresponsible corporate media keeps creating stories about Bernie Sanders going negative. Let me give you an example: Jonathan Martin of The New York Times pressured Bernie Sanders with repeated questions about Hillary Clinton’s donations from employees of Goldman Sachs. More than once, Sanders said, “You will have to ask her,” but Martin pressed on. In the end, the title of his article was “Bernie Sanders Presses Hillary Clinton on Her Views on Banks.” It was Martin who did all the pressuring to create the story he may as well have already written.

The exchange took place during a press availability in Cedar Rapids in July. It was clear that Martin had his story in mind, and he pressed and pressed until Bernie said enough that he could write a story claiming that Bernie was pressuring Hillary. Maybe I shouldn’t have called Martin out individually, but I was embarrassed to be a reporter as I watched Martin act like a vulture.

More recently, we see the media trying to create conflict over Hillary’s email controversy. Article after article has seized on what they claim was Bernie changing his view on the email issue after the debate. Of course, they had to do something to tarnish the most memorable moment in the debate. The first critique was that Bernie let Hillary off the hook and gave her a gift. I didn’t see it that way at all. Bernie went into that debate with the goal of introducing himself to the American people, and I thought the “damn email” line helped to introduce him as the candidate who is authentic and telling the truth instead of making calculated statements to score points. But the corporate media couldn’t let Bernie benefit from the line of the night, so they first created the false narrative that it was a political mistake.

Sanders was asked in an interview with CNN immediately after the debate what motivated him to use the “damn emails” line. “Well, what motivated that is that I think the American people want substantive discussions on substantive issues,” Sanders said. “There is a process in place for the email situation that Hillary Clinton is dealing with. Let it play itself out. As a nation, let us start focusing on why it is that so few have so much and so many have so little.”

That was and always has been Sanders’ position. So when he told the Wall Street Journal essentially what he told CNN after the debate and has been saying for months, the vultures looking for a way to knock Bernie down started saying he had changed his tune since the debate. The Wall Street Journal article was titled “Bernie Sanders Takes Gloves Off Against Hillary Clinton in Interview.” Watch the video of the interview and judge for yourself. What has changed?

It is true, as I pointed out in my coverage of the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, that Bernie has become more “assertive” in pointing out the differences between himself and Hillary Clinton. Irresponsible and lazy journalists are making the case that he is changing tactics and going negative. They are either purposely lying or they are lazily following the pack.

I filmed a video a few months back in which a Wall Street Journal reporter tried to get Bernie to go negative on Hillary. Bernie refused to take the bait, but did lay out the differences that he thought would shape the debate.

Prior to the first debate, Sanders and his staff said their goal was to introduce him to the American people, they did that.

The strategy for debate number two is to highlight the differences between Bernie and Hillary. Pointing out those differences is not running a negative campaign. It’s not like Bernie plans to call her names or take cheap shots like Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders will stay above the fray and debate the issues. Don’t listen to the corporate media vultures who want to frame legitimate political debate as negative attacks. The only negative aspects are how they are reporting the story to you.

---

Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.