This is of
course the tip of the iceberg. We have a
problem folks. It is managed curiosity. A free informed electorate is totally
dependent on a vigorous adversarial press.
It is never perfect and it certainly is not pretty. However the resources of the press must be
brought to bear on clear public interest issues, or there is simply no point in
providing these behemoths their special privileges. They may as well be broken up and replaced by
nimble news hungry new media.
The public
understands that humans will game everything and that the only real restraint
is public exposure. This is not a hindrance to advancing public agendas at all
but in fact encourages it. The instant
an axis of power has something to hide is the moment he becomes an impediment to
progress on any file.
We only have
to look at the profound lack of curiosity regarding Obama’s credentials and
personal history to understand that we have a serious problem that has now negatively
affected US stature in the world and has unnecessarily upset friends while
becoming a laughing stack to its enemies.
At this point
in history, the president is been laughed at by every thug out there who all
have his measure. The only thing that
restrains them is that they do not know who will come next and they know the
real potential for an ass kicking when that occurs.
Sharyl
Attkisson: When I'd Begin Getting Under Surface of an Obama Scandal, CBS
Would Pull Me Off
"There is unprecedented, I believe,
influence on the media, not just the news, but the images you see everywhere.
By well-orchestrated and financed campaign of special interests, political
interests and corporations. I think all of that comes into play."
4.11.2014
One month ago. long-time investigative
reporter Sharyl Attkisson left CBS amid rumors that she had
grown frustrated with the network stifling her investigations. Thursday night
on Bill O' Reilly's Fox News program she confirmed those
rumors. "There is unprecedented, I believe, influence on the media,
not just the news, but the images you see everywhere. By well-orchestrated and
financed campaign of special interests, political interests and corporations. I
think all of that comes into play."
After introducing his guest, O'Reilly asked
Attkisson about her investigation into the Fast and Furious gun-running
scandal.
The former CBS reporter asserted that she
began to make inroads into the story but had to drop it:
Attkisson: I found out that we had to
quit pursuing the story more or less due to lack of interest well before we
found answers to a lot of questions. Including what about all the other cases besides
the one you know as Fast and Furious that were also using similar strategies to
transfer weapons down to Mexico. And how did this, if at all, play into a
strategy the United States may be using to draw support or give support towards
one of the cartels in Mexico against one of the others much like they had done
in Columbia and other places.
O'Reilly: Playing one off against the
other. You said something interesting that you had to abandon the story for
lack of interest. Can you clarify that?
Attkisson: It just came to be that, I
don't think on the viewers' part, but on the people that decide what stories go
into the broadcast and what there is room for, they felt fairly early on that
this story was over when I felt as though we had barely begun to scratch the
surface. They didn't ask me what was left to report. They decided on their own
the story was done.
O' Reilly moved to her investigation into
Benghazi.
Attkisson: Benghazi I was assigned to
look into about three weeks after the attacks happened by management, and
pursued that aggressively, and as I felt we were beginning to scratch beneath
the surface on that scandal as well which I think had many legitimate questions
yet to be asked and answered. Interest was largely lost in that story as well
on the part of the people that are responsible for deciding what goes on the
news.
O'Reilly: So did they tell you, look,
we don't want you to spend any more time on this? Was it that direct?
Attkisson: No. It's more as though
there is no time in the broadcast. They really, really liked the story but you
start to hear from, you know, other routes that "why don't you just
leave it alone," "you know, you are kind of a troublemaker because
you are still pursuing it." It kind of goes from hot to cold in one
day, sometimes. Where they are asking you to pursue something heavily and then
it's almost as if a light switch goes off and look at you all of the sudden,
"Why are you bringing this story?"
O'Reilly: Is it possible because CBS
News is third in the ratings that they are just doing stories that they think
are going to get them audiences? Is that possible?
Attkisson: I suppose there could be
differences of opinion as to what the audience wants to see. But I think there
are larger things at play in the industry. Broadly there are overarching
concerns about, I would say just fear
over original investigative reporting. There is unprecedented, I believe,
influence on the media, not just the news, but the images you see everywhere.
By well- orchestrated and financed campaign of special interests, political
interests and corporations. I think all of that comes into play.
Attkisson's last big investigation at
CBS was Obamacare:
Attkisson: I was asked by CBS to look
into Obamacare and it had a similar trajectory whereby we broke some
interesting stories that I felt we were uncovering some good information and
making headway, but we and I feel like a lot of the media after several weeks
of this kind of fell off the radar on the story to a large degree on the
critical looks that we were taking, security issues, the lack of transparency,
the lack of providing figures and information, that I think belonged in the
public domain, belonged to us, that were being withheld, while being provided
in some cases to corporate partners of the government being withheld from us,
though.
…Just before Christmas came word that the top security official, the computer
person who still works there at HHS, had
refused to sign off and recommended, in fact, that this web site not go
live because of all the security issues. That was not considered a big enough
story, I suppose, is the way to put it by those who decide what goes on the
air. I thought it was hugely important, because this is an insider, someone who
works in the Obama administration who had made this assessment. If you look at
having had something like that occur with a private corporation that proceeded
to go online with all of these alleged security risks, I think the government
would be very upset by that if the tables were turned. Here it was the United
States government doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment