Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"

Former Democrat, Carter administration adviser talks about how biased and dangerous our media has become. He hits the nail on the head. It's worth the watch, especially if you doubt the media is in the tank for Obama and Democrats. He gives many EXCELLENT examples of how the media purposely avoided reporting or asking tough questions when it could affect Obama negatively. That's dangerous. It's dangerous that we basically have no real press and actually have something more akin to the information ministry of North Korea.

everything is becoming extreme - so it can get noticed in our digitally saturated world

they are all going howard stern on us

should have seen it coming

Originally posted by PvtHudson

He gives many EXCELLENT examples of how the media purposely avoided reporting or asking tough questions when it could affect Obama negatively. That's dangerous.

It's dangerous that we basically have no real press and actually have something more akin to the information ministry of North Korea.

The worrying thing is, many reporters are such left wing Marxists at heart, they probably feel they ARE being balanced.

Pat Caddell is right..
From cnn msnbc and fox. To the network news of abc cbs and nbc.
They have become a cesspool of political pandering, out right lies, and trying to create
mass hysteria either over some flu, murders, pedophiles, and terrorist.
IT IS unbearable to watch, we would be left in the dark without the internet.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought that most "aware" individuals knew how destructive the media was.

Do yourselves a favor, call your cable company, and cancel your TV service. Unplug yourselves from the propaganda, and seek truth from the plethora of online venues. I did so several years ago, and I swear it was the most positive step I've ever made in my life, and in the lives of my family.

The whole of the western media are enemies to all of us.
Investigative journalists aren't allowed to give us the truth.

The real news is kept hidden and we are fed nothing but lies.
If we could get the media back on our side, I don't think we'd be in so many wars and the bankers and government wouldn't have got away with everything that they have done.

I wouldn't deny that media is crap these days and some agencies lean toward Obama. But let's be candid here Accuracy in Media certainly has it's own agenda and bias. They are a heavily Right leaning group.

AIM was founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, when Irvine called for sedition charges to be brought against Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the Progressive Labor Party, arguing, "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small." [Village Voice, January 21, 1986]

In the 1970s, Irvine endeared himself to the New Right by alleging that the corporate media were a propaganda tool for the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro. In 1982, AIM attacked New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner for his reports (later proven accurate--see Extra!, January/February 1993) about the El Mozote massacre. Along with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AIM succeeded in pressing the Times to pull Bonner from his Salvadoran beat.

Just take a look at some of their funders...

Bethlehem Steel
Carthage Foundation; see Scaife Foundations
Chevron
Ciba-Geigy
Coors Foundation
Dressor Industries
Exxon
Lawrence Fertig Foundation
Getty Oil
Horizon Oil and Gas
IBM
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
F.M. Kirby Foundation
Mobil Foundation
Pepsico
Phillips Petroleum Company
Smith Richardson Charitable Trust; also see Smith Richardson Foundation
Texaco Philanthropic Foundation
Union Carbide

sourcewatch.org

Caddell, who was a pollster for President Jimmy Carter and is now a Fox News contributor

Nothing like shouting at the corruption in media while working for the worst actors on stage.

Aim (accuracy in media) is as you have guessed, a hack neocon site (one of those websites so absurdly right that Rush Limbaugh and Bachman probably has it as their homepage)
Can't help but notice the Heritage sign in front of the podium

The heritage foundation:

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

They are of course not so much skewed as fully lobsided in their message, intent, and ideals..but thats fine, they don't pretend to be anything outside of a right wing organization.
What bugs me about them is that they seem to be massively supported by asian donations (taiwan, korea, etc). Whom are always the big gainers in outsourcing initiatives. Heritage has a lot of power, they influence both the media and washington right.

Anyhow, more and more people are using news now not as the end all/be all, but rather for suggestions on what to search for. The big players may own the media..but the internet checks the top guys and reveals the truth fairly quickly.

+So, there you have it. a fox contributor talking at a hack website conference hall funded by a right wing puppet organization. Yep..surely the truth will be said here.
lulz

reply to post by Kali74


What do you have to say about all the examples he gave of the media outright ignoring negative news of Obama and towing his talking points? This isn't about AIM really. It's about Pat and the excellent points he made. He is a Democrat after all.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
+So, there you have it. a fox contributor talking at a hack website conference hall funded by a right wing puppet organization. Yep..surely the truth will be said here.

Care to address anything he said? Why is the media silent on the fact our Ambassador didn't have adequate security, but Valerie Jarrett had an expensive secret service detail? You're telling me the media wouldn't have jumped on something like that had a Republican been president? It's a pretty severe lapse in judgement on the part of Obama.

Do you have anticking to say about what was said in the video, or are you just here to deflect for the Obama information ministry?

Oh, I wanted to also weigh in on the actual youtube video a bit
One thing that annoys me is that, truth, wherever it comes, is still truth. Though the source is retarded, there is some merit in his overall tone of how the media is failing us..
But, his agenda of course is nonsense and the example given is absurd.

The libya crisis:
I remember watching this on both cnn and msnbc. Right from the beginning, Egypt and Libya were distinctly different as was reported. Whereas Egypt seemed little more than mob violence and opportunists, they spoke of Libya's terrorist style attacks. They spoke of the new government and how there are still many terrorist elements. They spoke of in the following days how the FBI was going on there..it was almost a given, but they awaited official word before calling it an official terrorist attack.
This isn't bias news journalism..its called being credible..you don't start reporting as news what your gut tells you...you go with facts..and if there are not enough facts, you report that also.

Fact: There was demonstrations going on about this crappy video. Fact: people died. Fact: libya's attacks were different in style than egypts. This was what was reported. If you want a gut news..then turn off the television and just join in your local lynch mob and watch jerry springer. News is not emotional, its factual. So, Props to news organizations whom didn't report it as anything outside of what it was until it was confirmed. Those whom were screaming terrorism right from the get go because it felt like one need to have their journalistic license pulled. Panic monkey idiots.


There should be a tax payer funded non commercial news network...no sponsorship allowed, no left or right demanded angle, don't even put them in the ratings system...lets see what news reporters report on when they aren't worried about upsetting advertisers and the like and the only thing they are required to do is tell the factual news as close to the truth as humanly possible without regard of who it goes against. It should be the standardbearer for all news outlets. So long as our news organizations chase after ratings, there will be sensationalism over content. We will know more about Casey Anthony than the debt ceiling debate.

Originally posted by PvtHudson
reply to post by Kali74

 

What do you have to say about all the examples he gave of the media outright ignoring negative news of Obama and towing his talking points? This isn't about AIM really. It's about Pat and the excellent points he made. He is a Democrat after all.

maybe the rest of media doesn't want to become like FOX NEWS, where you are given your daily talking-points by roger ailes. i find when i factcheck both sides, it is the right-wing media that overwelmingly and consistantly lies or leaves out information.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by SaturnFX
+So, there you have it. a fox contributor talking at a hack website conference hall funded by a right wing puppet organization. Yep..surely the truth will be said here.

Care to address anything he said? Why is the media silent on the fact our Ambassador didn't have adequate security, but Valerie Jarrett had an expensive secret service detail? You're telling me the media wouldn't have jumped on something like that had a Republican been president? It's a pretty severe lapse in judgement on the part of Obama.

Do you have anticking to say about what was said in the video, or are you just here to deflect for the Obama information ministry?

Nations holding embassys are required to secure the ambassadors around the world. We on US mainland are required to protect, with our lives, the russian and pakistani ambassadors that are here. No, we don't want 200 russian soldiers suddenly flown in to new york, or pakistani, etc..this is why nations that house ambassadors have this rule overall.

I think if there was credible advanced warning of an actual planned assult, they should have been yanked out. If this is the case, then some restructuring needs to occur...restructuring as in people fired and investigations to see if any criminal charges are warranted (such as criminal negligence).

Valerie is not an ambassador. She is an administration official whom is given protection. surely you understand the difference...

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by SaturnFX
+So, there you have it. a fox contributor talking at a hack website conference hall funded by a right wing puppet organization. Yep..surely the truth will be said here.

Care to address anything he said? Why is the media silent on the fact our Ambassador didn't have adequate security, but Valerie Jarrett had an expensive secret service detail? You're telling me the media wouldn't have jumped on something like that had a Republican been president? It's a pretty severe lapse in judgement on the part of Obama.

Do you have anticking to say about what was said in the video, or are you just here to deflect for the Obama information ministry?

didn't have adequate funding?....really?......gee, i wonder why?................
thehill.com...

this is the same party that said NO, NO, NO to the jobs bill for returning veterans. when it comes to spending money, for our people in the service of our country...the republicans give a big fat middle finger to it

Originally posted by jimmyx
this is the same party that said NO, NO, NO to the jobs bill for returning veterans. when it comes to spending money, for our people in the service of our country...the republicans give a big fat middle finger to it

edit on 30-9-2012 by jimmyx because: addition

Congrats, you fell for a common Democrat political ploy. Put spending on pet projects and controversial issues within bills like this one, so that Republicans take heat for *GASP*, not helping the troops! It's also an example of how the media is complicit in their tactics.

Originally posted by jimmyx
maybe the rest of media doesn't want to become like FOX NEWS, where you are given your daily talking-points by roger ailes. i find when i factcheck both sides, it is the right-wing media that overwelmingly and consistantly lies or leaves out information.

This simply isn't the case. They were like Fox before Fox was even around. You're just fine as long as they're spinning, lying and ignoring things that are a means to en and you agree with. You're incapable of seeing your points of view as the wrong one, or one that's been influenced by partisan media.

There is mountains of evidence to back this up at this point. So many studies have been done. So many in the media have admitted it. One need have paid attention to how the media treated the last president and Republicans in general, to the standards they have for Democrats. Everything that Bush was responsible is now spun as "out of Obama's control", or not his fault by some other rationalization. If you don't see it, you're in denial.

pack of whores, judas! sold out,betrayal to the people,and the countrys they are suppose to serve. it is treason to the highest form. instead of being a becon in the night its total oposite,fog in the night.what soldier on guard stays quit wile letting the enemy in?correct! the worse kind.sell out whores to the best pimp.but! advise to them all,they are the first killed once change of power is in place.why?the reputation and fear of such repugnant filt.decievers! to you i say,there is no real side you belong to or accepted to,based on your actions alone.

In an article from 2004.

Pat Caddell split from Democratic consulting firm Caddell, Doak & Shrum in December 1985, six months after its creation [Washington Post, 12/18/85], with what The Washington Post described as an "acrimonious lawsuit." Robert M. Shrum is one of Senator John Kerry's closest political advisers, and Doak is a prominent media consultant with Democratic advertising firm Doak, Carrier, O'Donnell & Associates.

In eight separate appearances on the FOX News Channel in 2004, Caddell -- identified as a "FOX News contributor," "Democratic strategist," "Democratic pollster," or "former Democratic strategist" -- appeared opposite Republican pundits. But on almost every occasion, he issued harsh attacks on Senator John Kerry and other Democrats:

Who is Pat Caddell?

So it would seem Mr Caddell has an axe to grind and is not adverse to making money while doing so.

Do media outlets have their own bias? Of course.

Can we take any of Caddells sour grapes as gospel? Absolutely not.

reply to post by PvtHudson


But it is about AIM and the Right Wing media. What happened to Ambassador Stevens was tragic and senseless. I do not support Obama or Liberal leaning media, I'm not a Liberal... I tend to fact check all news articles that interest or shock me and dig as deep as I can into them. Expecting to correct Liberal media with Right media is just astoundingly futile as well as detrimental to the tone of our Nation and to the truth of anything. Liberal media spins and may be soft on Dems (honestly, they are light on all politics... both sides) but the Right media just plain outright LIES.

In my opinion the statement about Valerie Jarret is another wild swing by the GOP of late, there's no logic to anything they say at all anymore. What does Secret Service detail have to do with anything Military? If in fact the Marine Detail at the US Consulate in Benghazi was lighter than it should have been, then yes that should be news and it should be addressed but it has absolutely nothing to do with Valerie Jarrett or The President's prerogative to appoint Secret Service to whomever he chooses. In fact I would go as far to say that I find it repugnant for Caddell to use the Ambassadors murder to further the Rights' agenda of demonizing Jarrett (she's a commie dontchaknow ).

I'm all for tearing apart the Obama Administration alongside the fiasco known as the Romney Campaign in the media, but I'd like to see it done with honesty and integrity... neither of which I can find within any Right wing media sources.

reply to post by PvtHudson


And I think Pat Caddell is a terrorist operator and an enemy of the American people trying to do away with our free press. Just because someone says it, even Pat Caddell, doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Kali74
\. Liberal media spins and may be soft on Dems (honestly, they are light on all politics... both sides) but the Right media just plain outright LIES.

This is such bullocks. Do you keep up with the things that come out of the media to even know what you're talking about? The media is regularly caught, outright lying in order to attack or discredit Obama's opponents. It acts as an extension of the Democrat party.