Example #5,876,492 of why the Corporate Media Sucks

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/1/2008 12:59:12 PM

See here for an explanation of my headline:

Broadcast networks falsely suggested that Clark criticized McCain's service

Summary: All three network evening newscasts misrepresented retired Gen. Wesley Clark's comments about Sen. John McCain on Face The Nation, with none noting that Clark praised McCain as a "hero" for his Vietnam war service. ABC's David Wright asserted that McCain's experience as a POW made Clark's comments "especially provocative." CBS' Dean Reynolds falsely suggested that Clark had questioned McCain's patriotism and had "critici[zed]" McCain's "service, including five years as a POW." And NBC's Brian Williams falsely suggested that Clark had impugned McCain's "war record."

I also heard the SUPPOSEDLY "liberal" National Public Radio do the same thing this morning, falsely claiming that General Clark had criticized John McCain's military record.  

In contrast, the McCain campaign today truly HAS attacked General Clark's service:

Here's what Orson Swindle, a fellow POW of McCain's, said on the call, in a reference to generals, admirals, and other officers who back the Arizona Senator:

  "General Clark probably wouldn't get that much praise from this group. I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar."

Clark's last service was as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

So does this count as demeaning Clark's service? This McCain surrogate actually lodged a direct criticism of Clark's service itself, whereas Clark's comments about McCain were, well, not this at all.

So does McCain himself agree with this? Will this be covered as an "attack" on Clark's service, as Clark's non-attack on McCain's service was?

Yeah, let's see how the idiot, McCain-loving corporate media covers this one.  Is anyone out there holding their breath waiting for them to clarify that Clark did NOT attack McCain's service, but that the McCain campaign DID attack Clark's service?  If so, I wouldn't recommend it...serious asphyxiation danger.

Comments



Thanks Lowell - your research is very valuable (Bernie Quigley - 7/1/2008 2:13:47 PM)
 . . . I'm kind of astonished at the "reawakening" of Wesley Clark these last two days. This pseudo-media event - institutionalized Swiftboating - has backfired on them. He is coming up now a Democratic folk hero just as we need him. CNN had a thing up this afternoon saying "ask Wesley Clark a question." They might actually begin taking a look at McCain's military record now and his life record.


patriotism revisited (bamboo - 7/1/2008 3:39:34 PM)
I too was disturbed when the MSM piled on yesterday. It's really the worst of pack journalism and group think. When did military service become so sanctified that it disappeared behind a thick veil of patriotism into an other worldly realm where it's beyond discussion? Are non-veterans so intimidated and those of us who are veterans so self-infatuated that we dare not question the relevancy of a particular military career to presidential office? That's all Gen. Clark was doing and he was right to do so.  


They do protest too much (Teddy - 7/1/2008 4:23:48 PM)
The Republicans, I mean, are like Lady Macbeth, which arouses my suspicions. They make a great show of conspicuous patriotism because I suspect they secretly fear they are not truly patriotic, and hope by excessive protestations to prove their sincerity---- watching each other carefully in the hopes of proving one of their fellow-travellers can be called out for not being fawning enough (a typical parlor game among courtiers surrounding a tyrant).  

Then too, there is in this activity something of a shell game, where the carny guy seeks to distract the naive rubes by moving the shell-bearing prize around from one spot to another, distracting them from the real game that's going on. Also, I am reminded that we have observed that Republicans often telegraph what they intend to do, or are already doing, by accusing their opponents of that exact same thing in another version of their shell game. That's why we have to watch them closely and give them no credit for honor or honesty when it comes to campaigning.



Irrelevant (KathyinBlacksburg - 7/1/2008 4:34:34 PM)
McC's service and former POW status is honored by everyone i know of, including me.  That does not translate into him being qualified for the presidency.  That experience is part of who McCain is, but not an automatic qualifer for the White House.  

And no one, not even Obama, will persuade me to stop arguing against McCain's version of job prep for the highest office of this land.  He has voted with George W. Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008.  GWB is the worst and most ruinous president in US history.

Bill Clinton didn't serve in the military and yet he was 100 times --even more--the president that George W. Bush, who isn't worthy of licking Bill Clinton's boots, is.  Ditto for Bush 3, McCain.  McCain's financial advisers alone are reason to conclude he hasn't the judgment to be president.  (Phil Gramm's stealth unraveling of much federal regulation that would have protected us against Enron and the housing crisis should have given McCain pause.  Those facts didn't and there sits GRamm on the McCain campaign and trying to ruin America even more.  But McCain chose him and other rotten advisers.  also, McCain's lobbyist-rich campaign staff should disqualify him from running.  That is doesn't is a statement of how low the process has gone.

Spare us from this kind of job "preparation."  And, no, Barack, I won't be silent.  You can repudiate Clark and everyone else, but you'd be wrong.  Wesley Clark said nothing wrong.  Period.  And the hysterical McCain loving media and even more hysterical McCain campaign can just shove it.

McCain's serving as an aviator and POW all those years ago had nothing to do with being president in 2008.  McCain and the GOP can pitch the message (interesting how they shred everyone else's service) all they want, but it doesn't make it so.

MCain has been wrong on too many issues to count.  He supports ruinous policies, and he can't keep the facts straight to save his life.  

Furthermore, if Americans knew how not-straight his so-called Straight-Talk Express is, they would be appalled. For years the media concocted tales about Al Gore's supposed dishonesty.  Gore wasn't dishonest.  But that didn't matter.  Now here they are spinning McCain's supposed honesty day after day.  I am sick of it.