Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 4929 times)
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 10 2018 @ 02:10 PM CST

In this piece from April 13, 1954, Edward R. Murrow did what was taken for granted at that time – he acted as a responsible journalist who was very-effectively destroying the reign of terror inflicted by Sen. Joseph McCarthy.   The American public of that time expected this to be both the purview and the duty of “The Fourth Estate.”



How strange, then, that the successors to these journalists today see fit to do nothing of the sort with regard to Mr. Mueller today.   Indeed, as the first legal challenge is finally posted today by Dr. Corsi, they can only see fit to prefix their stories with demeaning adjectives.   Where, oh where, did journalism in the United States vanish to?

And, to those of you who might too-quickly dismiss the parallels that have been drawn between Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the contemporary happenings of today, I would simply say – click, and listen carefully.
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Monday, December 10 2018 @ 03:26 PM CST

As a stark contrast with Edward R. Murrow ... here we see a paragraph in politico.com ... not called-out as opinion but merely as a paragraph in the article,
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, is just the latest maneuver in a public campaign against Mueller by Corsi and his attorneys.
... in which the headline refers to the plaintiff prejudicially as “conspiracy theorist,” but never by name.   Furthermore, this “journalist” (sic ...) is in fact telling the audience precisely what they should think.   (Other alternatives need not apply.)

And my Google-search offers about thirty other pages which say more-or-less the same thing, many of them quoting the same text as though they were merely “bots.”   In every single case, nonetheless, the article begins with a decidedly-prejudicial adjective.

Do you see a wee bit of a problem here?   I sure-as-hell do . . .

Did they actually run out of adjectives with which to begin the text of their articles?   “Wingnut ... Conspiracy Theorist ... Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorist ... the [person] accused of lying ... Swiftboater ... Roger Stone-linked ... InfoWars Conspiracy Theorist ... Defeat Trump #ProtectMueller #DefeatTrump ...” ... .... ... and this is just where I stopped paging forward.   No, reckon they didn’t ... yet.


“Rest in peace, Edward.   I am very glad that you did not live to see this, although we can certainly at some future time discuss the potential power-generation options at your gravesite.”   At least we know this – you were not a bot.

When the Founders of our Country worked hard to sanctify “Freedom of The Press,” I don’t think that they intended to be referring to ... nor sanctifying ... this.
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4641
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Tuesday, December 11 2018 @ 04:36 AM CST

Um, the venerable Mr. Murrow was reporting on a ruthless, self-aggrandizing demagogue whose false, unsubstantiated accusations ruined many innocent lives. McCarthy was a calculating fraud and liar who leveraged the "Red Scare" fear of the period in an attempt to increase his own political capital. As Murrow alluded, McCarthy was quick to add anyone who disagreed with him to his infamous list.

It is no small irony that the current resident of the White House's early mentor and lawyer was Roy Cohn, McCarthy's legal counsel and attack dog. Much of Trump's political approach mirrors McCarthy's attack philosophy e.g., ("enemies of the people").

I am fairly certain that if Mr. Murrow were around today he would show the same measured disdain for the conduct of the president and his felonious subordinates that he showed to McCarthy. In truth, he would probably NOT be nearly as measured as he was all those decades ago, because this situation is not based on unfounded allegations, but rather on facts — and evidence.

And, indeed, Journalism HAS changed. But it had to. Why? because Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes made it so. Ailes' brilliantly-conceived scheme to circumvent the filter of news coverage by creating his own network voice was first imagined while he was working as a consultant for then-president Nixon. With patient, unlimited financial support from Murdoch, the Fox News concept slowly evolved into a free-wheeling, splashy eye candy approach to "News" that proved wildly successful.

This Tabloid TV model forced not only TV network competitors, but print operations as well, to adapt in order to remain competitive. Still, there are many institutional print and electronic news organizations that remain true to the tenets of professional journalism.

In addition to Fox News, I would also point my finger at Reality TV (Reality? Really?) and the Internet Age, which has severely blurred the lines between professional journalists and wannabes.

As one who spent time on both sides of the Political/Journalism fence, I am keenly aware of the shift away from the ideally pure, objective form of journalism you apparently pine for. But the way politics, people and the world have changed no longer allows for mere Who? What? Where? When? Why? and sometimes How? to suffice.

The issues today are far more complicated, nuanced and serpentine. What you may view as calculated and prejudicial, likely owes more to deadline currency and some combination of objective/subjective summary. Good reporters work hard to get ALL the relevant facts of a story — from ALL sides. They carefully weigh the facts they find and concisely summarize those facts and the nuances that are involved, in their stories.

In Mr. Corsi's case, the facts ARE that he IS a proven purveyor of false conspiracy theories and that fact is germane to the story. And if you had any experience in the legal-political world, as these reporters do, you'd recognize Mr. Corsi's transparent legal maneuvers and gambits for what they are — smoke and mirrors, to delay the process and incite controversy among the gullible.

No, I'm sorry, Mike, but if Edward R. is turning over in his grave, it's NOT because of the state of Journalism. It's because he sees another demagogue and his band of felonious cronies threatening Murrow's beloved Democracy.

Good Night — and Good Luck. Wink

MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Tuesday, December 11 2018 @ 05:22 PM CST

Thank you for your interesting observations, Mr. Stewart . . .
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Tuesday, December 11 2018 @ 07:20 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
: Thank you for your interesting observations, Mr. Stewart . . .


P.S.:   Without knowing a thing in advance about Mr. Corsi, I did take the time to read the entire text of the complaint that was filed with the Honorable Court.   Having done so, and being free of any prejudices that might be caused by pre-conceived notions about the man (of which I have none), or his history (of which I know not), I happen to have been left with the impression that most of the complaint seems, on its face, to have merit.   It will be very interesting to observe what – if anything - now comes of it.
Ed Hannifin
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 3525
Location: , MA USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 13 2018 @ 07:13 PM CST

Quote by: J.A.Stewart
Um, the venerable Mr. Murrow was reporting on a ruthless, self-aggrandizing demagogue whose false, unsubstantiated accusations ruined many innocent lives. McCarthy was a calculating fraud and liar who leveraged the "Red Scare" fear of the period in an attempt to increase his own political capital. As Murrow alluded, McCarthy was quick to add anyone who disagreed with him to his infamous list.

It is no small irony that the current resident of the White House's early mentor and lawyer was Roy Cohn, McCarthy's legal counsel and attack dog. Much of Trump's political approach mirrors McCarthy's attack philosophy e.g., ("enemies of the people").

I am fairly certain that if Mr. Murrow were around today he would show the same measured disdain for the conduct of the president and his felonious subordinates that he showed to McCarthy. In truth, he would probably NOT be nearly as measured as he was all those decades ago, because this situation is not based on unfounded allegations, but rather on facts — and evidence.

And, indeed, Journalism HAS changed. But it had to. Why? because Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes made it so. Ailes' brilliantly-conceived scheme to circumvent the filter of news coverage by creating his own network voice was first imagined while he was working as a consultant for then-president Nixon. With patient, unlimited financial support from Murdoch, the Fox News concept slowly evolved into a free-wheeling, splashy eye candy approach to "News" that proved wildly successful.

This Tabloid TV model forced not only TV network competitors, but print operations as well, to adapt in order to remain competitive. Still, there are many institutional print and electronic news organizations that remain true to the tenets of professional journalism.

In addition to Fox News, I would also point my finger at Reality TV (Reality? Really?) and the Internet Age, which has severely blurred the lines between professional journalists and wannabes.

As one who spent time on both sides of the Political/Journalism fence, I am keenly aware of the shift away from the ideally pure, objective form of journalism you apparently pine for. But the way politics, people and the world have changed no longer allows for mere Who? What? Where? When? Why? and sometimes How? to suffice.

The issues today are far more complicated, nuanced and serpentine. What you may view as calculated and prejudicial, likely owes more to deadline currency and some combination of objective/subjective summary. Good reporters work hard to get ALL the relevant facts of a story — from ALL sides. They carefully weigh the facts they find and concisely summarize those facts and the nuances that are involved, in their stories.

In Mr. Corsi's case, the facts ARE that he IS a proven purveyor of false conspiracy theories and that fact is germane to the story. And if you had any experience in the legal-political world, as these reporters do, you'd recognize Mr. Corsi's transparent legal maneuvers and gambits for what they are — smoke and mirrors, to delay the process and incite controversy among the gullible.

No, I'm sorry, Mike, but if Edward R. is turning over in his grave, it's NOT because of the state of Journalism. It's because he sees another demagogue and his band of felonious cronies threatening Murrow's beloved Democracy.

Good Night — and Good Luck. Wink



Thanks, Jay, for being brave enough to speak a little truth around here.

I appreciate it very much.

"We have to remember...when it's surrender that's called for, it's not surrender of your brains. It's surrender of your ego. It's a different thing." --Bruce Cockburn
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 13 2018 @ 07:16 PM CST

Now, here maybe is another angle that might be worth “smoking over,” J.R. ...

Although Joseph McCarthy’s immediate processes and targets were obviously a fairly-direct consequence of his (“duck and cover” ) times, perhaps it might be argued that his objectives were not.   Or, the final consequences of his actions.   Lives and careers were utterly devastated by the merest contact with his tactics, and, although he himself was finally extinguished by the censure of his colleagues, the consequences of what he had said and done lived on.

I very frankly cannot fairly dismiss the thought that we are witnessing the selfsame “essential political strategy” being practiced out today.   I cannot convince myself that “today is altogether different.”   (Wish I could.)
bud
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/17/05
Posts: 3868
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 13 2018 @ 09:59 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Now, here maybe is another angle that might be worth “smoking over,” J.R. ...

Although Joseph McCarthy’s immediate processes and targets were obviously a fairly-direct consequence of his (“duck and cover”) times, perhaps it might be argued that his objectives were not.   Or, the final consequences of his actions.   Lives and careers were utterly devastated by the merest contact with his tactics, and, although he himself was finally extinguished by the censure of his colleagues, the consequences of what he had said and done lived on.

I very frankly cannot fairly dismiss the thought that we are witnessing the selfsame “essential political strategy” being practiced out today.   I cannot convince myself that “today is altogether different.”   (Wish I could.)



Sorry, but I'm not picking up on what you're putting down here. Are you making a case for moral equivalency between the actions or McCarthy and those of Mueller? Or, are you saying that the political motives are the same, and therefore we are witnessing an historical rerun?

it's all too much
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 926
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Friday, December 14 2018 @ 09:03 AM CST

Quote by: bud
Sorry, but I'm not picking up on what you're putting down here. Are you making a case for moral equivalency between the actions or McCarthy and those of Mueller? Or, are you saying that the political motives are the same, and therefore we are witnessing an historical rerun?


“Well, yes and no.”   Obviously the scenario is not the same – except for the strangely ubiquitous, all-powerful and all-knowing “Russians™” lurking just off-stage – but I think that both the political motivations, and the impact upon other people’s lives, essentially are.   Having carefully read the text of Jerome Corsi’s recent lawsuit, and knowing absolutely nothing of the plaintiff nor his past – considering only the actual text, which can be found on scribd.com – I am left with the impression that much, although not all, of his complaint is straight to the mark and much too long in coming.   (As usual, the attorney didn’t quite know when to stop writing...)   Will this be part of what finally causes people to see that this man has no clothes?   (I doubt it – lawyers and lawmakers will do as they please, especially when Uncle Sam is paying them very generously.)

If you got snared in McCarthy’s web, you had to say what he wanted you to say, and sometimes to confess to what he wanted you to confess to, whether or not it was true.   And many people’s lives and careers were forever ruined by the touch.   I see Mueller doing the same.   I perceive, and am of the personal opinion, that Mueller is, indeed, “blackmailing” people into telling him what he wants as he systematically builds his politically-driven house of cards:   a construction which of course has only one true objective and one true target.
  • He is also making too-generous use of “court seals” and “classified.”   (I would love to see the entire thing be declassified, and I think that it properly should be.   If you are constructing a case that is leading up to what yours is so-obviously leading up to ... come now, why this pretense? ... nothing about it should be secret.)
Collusion has a very precise legal definition which is not and which has never been met by anything that has been unearthed, which now appears to include $4,000 in political advertising and a real-estate venture that didn’t go through.   The original chartered task of the special investigation, which was never considered very closely from the start, has been forgotten utterly.   But no one seems to care.   There is actually only one true purpose here, and everyone on the planet knows exactly what it is.   If the American taxpayer is left with a $100 million price-tag, that would just be collateral damage.   I consider the whole thing to be “abuse of process” or “malicious prosecution.”   Or, yes, a “witch hunt.”   And I am tired of paying for it.

I also feel that these people grossly over-estiimate the actual effect of “social media” – which by-the-way I do not participate in at all, and never have – probably just because it is an easy target.   If you lost an election that you were not supposed to lose, albeit because your handlers weren’t telling you that you didn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning it, you look for scapegoats.   And, you compel them to perjure themselves in a kangaroo court, if they will.   These professional politicians were blind back then to the actual political situation in their own country, and they are just as blind today.

“Well, that’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.”
 
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Friday, December 14 2018 @ 11:46 AM CST

As of March the cost of the investigation was reported at $17MM. Between $26MM and $40MM was seized from Manafort alone. The investigation has more than paid for itself.

The probe has lasted 18 months, less time than any other special investigation in modern history. Iran-Contra, Watergate and Whitewater investigations extended into at least 4 years.

33 people have been charged with crimes, including five prominant Trump campaign staffers and business associates.

Cohen admitted violating campaign law at the direction of an unnamed candidate — implicating Trump. He also pleaded guilty to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 about the length and scope of plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He originally told the committee the work stopped in January 2016 and was not discussed with others in the Trump campaign.

Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. Flynn lied to the FBI about it. Carter Page met in Moscow with Russia's deputy prime minister and a Russian oil official in June 2016. George Papadopoulos met in London in March 2016 with a professor who later told him Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities were indicted on charges of violating criminal laws to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election. On the same day, Mueller struck a plea deal with California resident Richard Pinedo who was accused of knowingly making tens of thousands of dollars by transferring hundreds of bank account numbers that were ultimately used to commit wire fraud.

12 Russian military officers were indicted for hacking and releasing the emails of Democratic campaign organizations, including the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, in an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 criminal counts, including bank fraud, tax fraud and hiding a foreign bank account. The verdicts were focused on his activities as a lobbyist for Ukraine. Mueller's team alleged Manafort violated his plea deal by lying repeatedly to federal investigators about his contact with the administration and a Russian. The judge agreed.

These are just a few examples of details the investigation has made public thus far. We won't know the full extent of findings until the investigation is complete. If you don't care about any of these activities, that's up to you. Personally, I'd like the full scope of malfeasance to be uncovered.

That is my evidence-based assessment and I am sticking to it.

Now, you can continue to create posts on this issue if you choose (posting in a discussion forum is participating in social media). Alternately, you could choose to abstain from political posts. It's kinda up to you to decide if you want politics to permeate this corner of the Internet as well.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles