Take, as yet another example, Craig Smith's interview this week. He usually finds a Scaife money recipient to interview for Scaife's "news" paper and this week is no exception.
Cliff Kincaid is president of America's Survival Inc., a U.N. watchdog group, and editor of Accuracy in Media's "AIM Report."Ok, so we got America's Survival, Accuracy in Media and the Freedom Alliance. All beneficiaries of Scaife money:
An investigative journalist who specializes in analyzing communist and terrorist movements, Kincaid went through a national journalism program headed by conservative author and journalist M. Stanton Evans. He was on the staff of Human Events newspaper and was an editorial writer and newsletter editor for former National Security Council staffer Oliver North at his Freedom Alliance educational foundation.
- $885K from 1999 to 2009 for America's Survival
- $4.36 million from 1987 to 2005 for Accuracy in Media
- $125K from 1993 to 1998 for the Freedom Alliance
Regardless of the content of the interview (they could be talking yarn skeins for all I care) the fact that all that money changed hands with no mention of it being made on the page, is cause enough for criticism and ridicule.
Keith Olbermann got suspended for much much less. But then again MSNBC is a news organization and Richard Mellon Scaife's op-ed page - not so much. Obviously.
16 comments:
Big D,
Olbermann got shit-canned cuz he broke his contract...slightly different...btw I still think Ben Affleck is a better Olbermann than the real deal..so maybe Ben can take over the comedy show
Should Scaife's reader know that his reporters are giveing interviews to people who recieve millions of dollars from Scaife?
You are saying Olbermann should be crucified for giving $7200 while Scaife should not be touched for giving millions of dollars? Or are you saying liberals should be suppressed while conservatives should be allowed to do whatever they want?
Could it be argued that this interview/column and others, as a result of being on the Opinion pge/section, are inherently supported in some manner by the owners?
Now, I suppose you could argue that the Trip should disclose somewhere a disclaimer that says something similar to 'authors or objects certain columns may be supported by the ownership'.
I don't particularly agree with that because it's fairly well-known the Trib leans Conservative as a result of its ownership. Likewise, it is fairly well-known that the PG leans Liberal.
If you feel the Trib should disclose that then you'd have to agree other opinion outlets disclose their funding/bias. Not gonna happen.
Continuing anguish on this matter fills a portion of a blog page, but is not going to change anything. I do admire 2PJ's passion on this.
EDDIE,eddie, eddie, i dont care what happens to him..apparently his bosses do.And if you're still all in a snit about it, call Pres. Obama and ask him to ask GE CEO Jeff Immelt to give him a break. You know Immelt in India with the Boss? Right?
CM, you know, you can argue what government should do. You can argue whether there should be social security, or whether it should support or merely be a supplement for the elderly. You can even argue whether it should be a form of corporate welfare for stock brokers, although unless you are above board about what you are trying to do, then you are arguing to promote income inequity, not relieve it (vis a vis food stamps, at least individual family farmers work hard and are not all that rich). Those can be reasonable theoretical or even practical arguments.
But saying that liberals are just as bad as conservatives in the context of a) media bias and b) lying/concealing who they support and how much they do, and that nothing can/will be done about this ever, this to me ignores the issue of size and scope. People like Richard Scaife and the Koch brothers donate literally hundreds of millions to political groups. A largely conservative Supreme Court has been persuaded that large parts of this donation process should be anonymous, or at least difficult to trace. It seems to me a fair statement to say that the recent election was essentially bought. And the people doing the biggest spending were the conservatives/pseudo-libertarians.
I don’t believe that every action the government takes should have been voted on by all the people, and in the real world we live in I accept the rich will exert more influence than the poor. I am sure you believe that unions and bleeding heart millionaires like George Soros are in fact running that government (and have been for decades). The difference between your claims and Dayvoe’s and mine is partially opinion, but also some facts. Olbermann has a liberal bias, yes, and the PG is somewhat left leaning. Saife Trib is conservative, as is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and many other highly visable media figures. But Olbermann donated $7200 to candidates (whom I suspect e also talked favorably about, I don’t know, I don’t watch him), while Scaife and Murdoch have donated the hundreds of millions previously mentioned and then talked favorably about the people/organizations they donate to. And you want to tell us there’s no difference, and that nothing can be done.
The difference is that now conservatives have completed the process of bringing gridlock to DC, and people without high school degrees will continue to suffer a 15% unemployment rate, while people with MBA’s have a 4% unemployment rate. Conservatives, including you in defending Scaife, have revealed how little they care about the people in this country.
Ah, richie, richie, richie, can't answer a direct question, can you? So you give Scaife a pass on anything he does?
ask the liberal's boss if he's being suppresed..."Should Scaife's reader know that his reporters are giving interviews to people who receive millions of dollars from Scaife?" NO!Apples and oranges.btw..did I say SCOREBOARD to you, yet?
Also I love the use of "suppressed" and "crucified", it really ads to the "Victimization of Keith Olbermann." Watch SNL it'll be skit soon!!
Ed -
What our right wing trolls truly don't understand is just how deep and wide the gulf is between what they THINK the puppet masters are doing (supporting low taxes, smaller government, blah, blah) and what they are REALLY doing, which is an entirely different matter.
Guys like Scaife and the Kochs live in a parallel universe, where money equals access and power -- and they wield it constantly. While they may be ideologically conservative, they are REALLY focused on maintaining and expanding their fortunes. Period. End of story. If they could do it via the Democrats, they'd change their stripes in a nanosecond!
The entire right wing media thing is just smoke and mirrors meant to distract Con Mon and his cohort. RMS laughs at them the way the European aristocracy laughed at the peasants...
The real question is...why was Olbermann suspended, while Scarborough wasn't, for doing the same thing??
IOKIYAR
Rich, you still won't say anything about the topic of the post: Richard Scaife.
I guess according to you the wealthy can do anything they want in the United States.
And that's why we will have gridlock for the next two years.
I will say something about the post:
Once again, mediamatters is cited as a source without disclosing it's funding or political bias.
Further, it is said that content doesn't matter, so therefore I can take that to mean he also doesn't care about the truthfulness of the content of the material cited. What if mediamatters is just wrong?
One last thing...
It's an opinion piece.
O-P-I-N-I-O-N.
And we all know what they say opinions are like... we all have them and they all stink.
Ed, asked and answered."No"
It's his paper;he can do what he wants with it.If you read it stop paying him. If it bothers you get over it. If GE has a policy that states no contributions, that's their business. GE/NBC/MSNBC are in cahoots w/progressive liberal agenda. If GE allowed Joe Scarborough to contribute and not Olbermann, that's still a personnel matter!! Move on!!
"It's his newspaper, he can do what he wants..."
Well, yea. I guess. But most consumers actually believe that the newspapers they read have journalists on staff who actually are beholdin' to a set of standards -- and that they don't just make up shit and lie and hide and obfuscate.
If we are to take your stand, then I guess we should never believe anything that any journalist reports, since they are all just pawns in a game run by their bosses...
so naive....
too naive
Post a Comment