US TV networks 'kissed ass', says Wolff
Ciar Byrne
Wednesday June 25, 2003
The Guardian

Michael Wolff, the media commentator and New York Magazine columnist, has accused American television networks of "kissing ass" in their coverage of the Iraq war in return for a relaxation of media ownership rules in the US.

Wolff put forward what he described as the "semi-conspiracy theory" that major media companies in the US meekly followed the flag-waving agenda of the Bush administration in order to persuade the federal communications commission to change its regulations.

"Ass kissing has gone on to a profound degree. It's pervasive throughout all these news organisations. They need the FCC to behave in certain ways. In order to do this we have got to go along to get along," said Wolff, who delivered the keynote speech at today's MediaGuardian forum on war coverage.

He added the FCC's decision to relax media ownership rules came shortly after the end of the war.

"Any reporter in America who would see that quid pro quo in any other business says: 'No, that doesn't happen in the news business'," Wolff added.

Wolff also claimed the system of embedding journalists with troops in Iraq was little more than a public relations operation.

"I have difficulty in understanding why somebody didn't say: 'You're not becoming a war reporter, you're becoming a PR guy'," he said.

Journalists who thought the Bush administration took a risk with the embed system were mistaken, Wolff said.

"One of the thoughts was - this could potentially be very devastating to the Bush administration. What if we saw carnage? What if the coalition forces really were bloody?

"A lot of media people went round talking about that without any realisation that this was the most one-sided war that will ever have been fought in history.

"From the beginning the embedding was safe. They couldn't lose.

"I think the whole principal is intrinsically dangerous. I don't think we should be attached to military forces. There's no way you wouldn't become an adjunct to those forces.

"I don't know how we launched into this without any form of scepticism."

He added journalists who were promised access to the "head of General Tommy Franks" at Central Command in Dohar were forced to become "Jayson Blairs" because of the pressure on them to provide news when they were being starved of information by the US military.

New York Times journalist Blair was fired for fabricating and plagiarising large parts of his stories.

Wolff ran into trouble with the Bush administration when, at a Dohar press briefing, he dared to ask the question: "What are we doing here? What is the value proposition? What do we get out of this?"
MediaGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

...be like Airic, frescaw and the rest of the shills - kiss ass to get ahead.

Unless of course you are old fashioned enough to have a sense of honor and decency.

BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with kissing a little ass to get ahead. There's also nothing wrong with sucking your boss' cock. I've been told that I'm quite adept at it.

I wrote that. Forgive me. I'm still upset that when my boss shot his load down my throat that I wasn't able to catch it all.

"Unless of course you are old fashioned enough to have a sense of honor and decency."

That's right. Ernie Pyle, a enbedded correspondent during World War II, was an ass-kissing shill with no sense of honor and decency.

I wrote the fake "anti-moron" post. I'm so clever!

The more things change the more they stay the same.
There were also non-embeded reporters.

Read what Ernie had to say about his experiences. He only got away with it because his Cartoons were so incredibly popular with the Troops. More than once the attempt was made to shut him down. Also he was not in-bedded he was Enlisted.

My favorite is the 2 Grunts making the little Looie repeat 100 times that he would not splash mud on the Grunts before they would help him get his Jeep unstuck.

War Correspondents during "the big one WWII" did shade their accounts for "Patriotic Reasons".

The question of the "in-bedded" "Journalists" is that they were actually assigned to a Unit, were hand chosen, and because of the realities of day to day needs to get along with the guys YOU ARE SERVING WITH would naturally tend to portray their comrades in the best light.

Not necessarily evil.

Not objective either.

Biased.

That their bosses cynically used this as an opportunity to conduct a little Crony Capitalism is quite frankly disgusting.

BUSH LIED, AND THE PRESS HELPED.

"War Correspondents during "the big one WWII" did shade their accounts for "Patriotic Reasons".

Exactly. Earnie was an unpatriotic, ass-kissing lying little shill with no sense of honor and decency doing the bidding of the fascist US government. Thank you for agreeing with me.

...the majority of people believed that:

A. We were in a fight for our lives.

B. That we were serving a higher good by turning back Hitler and the Japanese Empire.

Was the nation well served by the Press?

Ultimately one has to acknowledge that the Press, despite it's pretensions otherwise, exists as a money making enterprise and is under the control of people whose First Priority is making money - not reporting the reality of events - which might upset advertisers.

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton - New York Times - New York Press Club Dinner at which he was being honored for being one of the top Journalists of his day. (1947 or 49 if memory serves)

Sadly some people will do anything to make a buck.

"Whether Rightly or Wrongly ....... (we believed) we were serving a higher good by turning back Hitler and the Japanese Empire."

That people like you and me turned our back on good, loving people like Hitler and open and free empires like Japan is a continuing disgrace to this day. Ernie was a shill, and Hitler was good. Ah, the essance of truth to people like you and me.

...face you just can't handle the truth.

I'm not daveman.

The truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and introduced itself. If you were in the cave with Bin Laden as he was planning 9/11 and got to meet each of the hijackers personally, you would still deny they did it. If you were in the room when Arafat and Hamas drew up their next attack on Israeli civilians, you would deny they had anything to do with each other. Truth? You don't have a fucking clue about truth. I spit in your face.

...can't handle disagreement?

Anger management problem?

The reality is that while Hitler and the Japanese Empire were evil, and did need to be taken down, that is not the full story.

If you are as you sign yourself a history buff then perhaps your are familiar with the Financing and Support Hitler received from British and American Interests. He was put in power.

The War with Japan could have been avoided. FDR - if one accepts the McCollum memo as valid, and it seems to have passed the test with Professional Historians, indicates that the Japanese were set up and cornered by FDR to provide a pretext to enter the European War, on Britain's side, which FDR had campaigned on NOT getting involved in. The mood of the American Public was generally "Just Another European War" and a Pox on them. FDR campaigned on the promise not to "get our boys involved in Europe's War".

The question one must ask is how much of that maneuvering was known by the mainstream Presstitutes who did not report it?

"(P)erhaps your are familiar with the Financing and Support Hitler received from British and American Interests. He was put in power. The War with Japan could have been avoided. FDR - if one accepts the McCollum memo as valid, and it seems to have passed the test with Professional Historians, indicates that the Japanese were set up and cornered by FDR to provide a pretext to enter the European War, on Britain's side, which FDR had campaigned on NOT getting involved in. The mood of the American Public was generally "Just Another European War" and a Pox on them. FDR campaigned on the promise not to "get our boys involved in Europe's War".

To which we answer:

"One of the difficulties in debunking conspiracy theory is that the debunker has to track down and disprove every alleged piece of evidence. Since conspiracy facts rarely exist in a coherent context, each must be tracked down and disproven separately. It’s a no-win situation. To ardent conspiracists, anyone who challenges their theory becomes part of a cover-up."

Truer words have never been spoken.

If you try and demonstrate to a conspiracy theorists that their theory is unfounded, that's further evidence to them that it is accurate, otherwise why would you be trying to convince them differently.

...count them "3" books out on FDR's complicity in forcing the Japanese into the Pearl Harbor Attack.

One them "Day of Deceit" was written by a mainstream historian who thinks FDR did the right thing.

Hitler's ties to Wall Street and the British Banking houses are well documented. They aren't talked about it polite company because it would disturb the Fairy Tale about how the good White Knight took out the Evil Ogre.

History does not occur that way. The World Stage has it's players, past and present, who pull the strings and make the Puppets dance.

To think that, while such is well documented in history, that we have somehow managed to avoid it in our time requires a degree of childish credulousity that I just cannot summon.

Give me the truth Warts an all.

"that I just cannot summon"

... I can't summons a lot of things, like how the hell I'm ever going to find my way out of this circle of vicious lies I continue to tell myself and others on a daily basis. My conscience is so seared from the years and years of having lied to myslef that it doesn't really matter anymore.

"Wassamatta, can't handle disagreement?"

Let's be real clear on who can't "handle" disagreement. That someone is you. You cannot conceive that someone can have examined the same "evidence" as you and yet have reached an entirely different conclusion. You can't begin to understand that. That's been your problem since day one. If you could ever learn to accept that, you'd do a lot better here. To date, you haven't. If someone has examined the same "evidence" as you and has reached a different conclusion, you immediately deride and belittle them as being stupid. Dale Carneige's method, I believe. Very convincing there. That's gonna make 'em want to examine the "evidence" more closely, isn't it?

...anyone who represents themselves as "the people" is therefore making the assertion that they are accurately stating the opinion of "the people". Of course "the people" is a generality. There are many people and if you have not personally consulted each and every one of those INDIVIDUALS that make up that VAGUE GENERALITY "the people" then you are misrepresenting yourself.

Lets diagram it and see....

All people of America think like I do.
All people like me think that there was no conspiracy.
Therefore
All people of America think that there was no conspiracy.
Some people named Diogenes think that there was a conspiracy.
All people named Diogenes are people who live in America.
Therefore
Some people who live in America are people that think that there was a conspiracy.

Some is not All
Dio wins.