Somewhere Esquire went from being a vacuous rag for narcissistic homosexuals to a magazine that publishes stuff like this:

http://www.esquire.com/features/new-solutions-to-global-warming-0809

I was impressed.

It tells me that I’m not as smart as I think I am about media.

carbon dating

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling–bosses-scared-it.html

The quote from the article is:

“In a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now ‘effectively BBC policy’ to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: ‘I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

‘The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that “the science is settled”, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.

‘But it is effectively BBC policy… that those views should not be heard.”

Cronkite: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

Playboy: What’s the distinction between those two terms?

Cronkite: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause – but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they’re preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can’t be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.

http://www.archive.org/details/his_girl_friday

I pray that I am just being paranoid, but it may not be that easy to make a “change”.

When you consider that Obama told us what he was going to do prior to the election (some stupid promises yet unfulfilled) and yet 50%+ voted for him, I think the ignorant masses waiting for a bailout will continue to override reason.

TamRob (14:29:20) : What we have here is not a socialist agenda.

What do you call income redistribution?

Why are we here? I’m reading THIS site, instead of watching Good Morning America because I want REAL news and analysis on Climate Science. Many of my colleagues go to a number of financial blogs because they want REAL news and analysis on financial markets and individual companies of interest.

This site IS the replacement for MSM. Not totally, to be sure, but in time, it’s going to be sites like this who become the gold standard for news and analysis.

Make sure you give Anthony’s sponsors a gander.

I know. And? All the more reason to disassemble not just his base of power, but that of the unconstitutional government as a whole. Trust me, if this is not done whoever replaces him will only continue down this path. When our money is based purely on imagination to create a debtor nation that is slave to it’s creditors, there can be no ethical government. Not here, not anywhere in the world.

Our Founding Fathers knew this, thus they wrote into the Constitution what the definition of money is, in hope that a society free from bankers breeding big governments would spread to the world.

http://www.professorfekete.com/default.asp
http://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFOpeningTheMintToGoldAndSilver.pdf

http://www.moronpolitics.com

No doubt, but so have a lot of presidents been dangerous. FDR paved the way for the ‘Great Society’ by removing from domestic circulation and the private ownerhsip of Constitutional money. And not to be out-done by those shamelessly less limited democrats, Nixon cut it out of interanational trade to create the bubble-bust market for Wall Street speculators. A feud between two types of robber-baron dictators, most presidents after FDR, in my estimation, were either dangerous men or taging along with the philosophies and agendas of dangerous men.

And so we got the change we allowed to take place, as the result of a growing government over the last century. We may not like it, but it is what we allowed.

Obama is dangerous because he is defending the failing base of the expanded government/bank power structure… as rabid wolf in sheeps clothing (but the wool is terribly worn and rotten. Some emperor we have, eh? But if that is the emperor, our empire is in shambles just the same). Yet even without him, the power structure would still exist. Another wolf it more than likely would be that took his place.

Except Ron Paul. At this time, he is the only presidential candidate that understands the problem. He gets on the back of the central banking system that is FORBIDDEN by the supreme law of the land, our Constitution. Trouble is, even if he became president, Congress is rife with corrupt supporters of the status quo. I think we will need to rebuild the nation through reclaiming local and state government first, from the bottom up. Top down never works. If no suitable replacements exist, then the incumbent must be RELENTLESSLY guided by our voice to conform to our Constitution as originally penned by our Founding Fathers, until they do or suitable replacements are found.

As for the media… perhaps when such a movement took root and grew in momentum, their objectivity might return as a matter of professional survival.

It’s the same thing.
Socialism, Communism, National Socialism, Corporatism, read Fascism, all failed experiments from the past.
They all caused and still cause numerous deaths, wars and disasters.

We can do very well without.

And I pretty much agree with most of the rest of the statement. Both parties. Corporate leadership. All mainstream media (which is all corporate). Much of academia. Most of the science publications. Google by all means, front and center. Corrupt — the whole bunch. With respect to science there is not much to trust; it is all filled with propaganda, with a multitude of new centers set up in our prestigious universities to create false science that the media then ply us with. I took Nature for years. Cancelled a number of years ago — too much propaganda. Science Mag is coming close. Scientific American, Science Digest, gone, never to return. The only place an honest, inquiring mind can go these days is to the internet. What our brave bloggers need is some of the money.

http://gawker.com/5311055/white-house-press-corps-spent-the-fourth-of-july-hanging-out-with-obama-off-the-record

It would seem that the White House Press Corps got an off the record fete on Independence Day, replete with singers and comedians.

Ms Gray has part of the problem: us. Another commenter hit on the moguls aspect. Another, major factor: The J Schools. For decades now, they’ve transitioned from reporting driven journalism to agenda driven journalism. The reason that most of the traditional news media don’t cry foul on the current events (with a couple of notable exceptions) is that they simply agree with what’s happening, therefore, it must be protected.

I am also a long standing contributor to a blog on world events and geopolitics. It’s our practice to edit out the ‘journalism’, leaving the facts and then add our own commentary. Not much different to what happens here at WUWT.

This made me realize 2 things.

1. For most people, all news of relevance is local. They don’t care what is happening in Yemen or the Antarctic icecap, except to the extent it affects their neighbourhood or hometown.

2. Those of us who are interested in what happens in these places, generally know more about what is happening and why than the journalists who write the news articles and consequently their journalism is just annoying noise to be filtered out.

“This is an entirely natural process.
It happens when a free society is turned in a Government Controlled Socialist State.”

This is not about a “Government Controlled Socialist State.” Unfortunately, it seems that the conservatives who frequent this site seem to want to blame it all on the Liberals. But the fact of the matter is that control of the corporate media has been just that: Corporate. It is time for people to set down their ideological biases, whether conservative or liberal, and begin to see the global corporate and financial elite are the ones working in tandem with the governing administrations (both Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal; remember, one of the chief architects of Cap & Trade was Ken Lay of Enron fame) to bring about their agenda. As the controllers of the media, they report what the government wants them to report. And in turn, the government is more than willing to do their bidding, since it is these major corporate sponsors that prop up the governments.

We do not get truth through the media. We get spin. Both conservatives and liberals do it, and the major media are more than willing to lap it all up. What we are told about climate change, Afghanistan, Iraq, 9/11, Honduras, Venezuela, drug wars, Iran, etc. is all spin, and frequently flatly false. NBC does it. CNN does it. FOX does it. BBC does it. Sure there is petty partisan bickering that goes on, which the media love to highlight and they play upon that activity to feign impartiality and neutrality, but reporting on the real state of affairs in this world is remarkably absent.

What we have here is not a socialist agenda. In fact, we have something far more akin to fascism of the Mussolini form; that is, the corporate elite working in tandem with government to implement their global agenda with the voice of the people being progressively silenced and made irrelevant. So long as they can keep the masses bickering across the left/right boundary, they are more than happy to carry on with their own plans.