Tuesday, February 5, 2013

We Need To Remember What
The Lapdog Media Considers
The OTHER Half Of It's Job

It's not just slanting the news they DO cover with fancy edits - like those that just got NBC News President Steve Capus fired.

No, there's another whole side to how the Lapdog Media goes about being the propaganda arm of the DNC & the White House.  It's by how they decide what ISN'T news.

And the past week has provided several sterling examples of this:

1. Where are the Benghazi survivors? - The pre-planned, organized terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi on 9/11/12 was over four months ago.  Congress convened hearings 2 1/2 months ago on how Benghazi happened, who was responsible and what can be done to prevent it's happening again. 

While 4 Americans died in this terrorist attack, 30+ managed to escape alive - chiefly due to the heroic actions of two men who fell in the attack, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty.  You would think the eyewitness testimony of the survivors of the attack would be pretty pertinent information in figuring out what happened that night.  

Unless of course what happened that night is a story that must never be told because it would contradict the Obama Administration's already quite public version of how Benghazi went down.  

  • They have denied repeatedly that they refused to send any help to Benghazi while the attack was underway while refusing to say if they did in fact receive any communications requesting aid.  
  • They have denied that Woods & Doherty were ordered to stand down and stay at the CIA Annex building, a direct order that Woods & Doherty then disobeyed. 
  • They claimed for almost a month afterwards there was 'no evidence' that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack while simultaneously blaming a 'YouTube video' for causing a 'spontaneous demonstration' that got out of hand.  This despite the fact not one shred of evidence has ever surfaced there was ANY kind of demonstration anywhere near our consulate on 9/11/12.  

Eyewitness testimony from people under oath who were there day would likely contradict many of the claims Obama & Co. have been making since the event occurred. 

Yet the media can't seem to get interested in why over 4 months after the fact not a single one of the Benghazi survivors has come before Congress to testify about what really happened that awful night.  Senators & House Reps. have complained repeatedly about this, trying to get an answer from both the White House and the State Dept. about why their repeated requests to talk to these Benghazi survivors haven't produced any witnesses.  

According to Google, note it's only the New Media asking where the Benghazi survivors are: 

Which Media Outlets Are Asking Why No Testimony From Benghazi Survivors?

As it stands right now, the complete stonewalling of the White House on this could lead  to the Congressional committee investigating Benghazi subpoenaing  the Administration to discover who these survivors are so they can testify about what happened that night.  

If that happens the sight of the MSM struggling to explain to the people that follow it why Congress is having to FORCE the White House to let these people testify about what happened will be fun to watch.  

2. The Menendez Scandal - a sitting Democratic Senator was revealed to be under investigation by the FBI since June of last year for accepting illegal favors from a big political donor and engaging in sex with prostitutes in the Dominican Republic after being flown down there on this donor's own private jet.  This story actually broke last November when Drudge Report & The Daily Caller revealed it.

Daily Caller Story From November 1, 2012

New allegations surfaced two weeks ago of other illegal favors and the fact the FBI investigation of Menendez was still ongoing.  One new twist was that now the investigation had found evidence several of the prostitutes in this story were underage.  The New Media covered this for two weeks while the Old Media sniffed and ignored it, claiming there was still no story here.  

Despite the fact this news first broke last November, the MSM couldn't get interested in this Menendez scandal until 2 things happened: 

1. The FBI investigation was revealed to ongoing and to have turned up plenty of new allegations besides the DR sex parties with underage girls. 

2. Last week the big donor's business was under FBI surveillance & when a truck from a paper shredding service pulled up out front the building was quickly raided to prevent the destruction of any evidence.  

Readers Of NYT's Go "Prostitution Scandal? What Prostitution Scandal? 1st I've Read Of This In The NYT's!

Forced to cover the scandal at this point, the MSM has limited itself to merely discussing Menendez's denials of any wrong doing.  Had this been a Republican caught doing this, you can rest assure the Lapdog Media would be rushing investigative journalists to the Dominican Republic and New Jersey to start furiously digging.  

Of course, there's no reason to do any furious digging into the story here because the it's the wrong sort of target. 

3. IRS report projects that in 2016 the cheapest family health insurance plan will be $20,000 - When he was selling his Obamacare monstrosity to the American public, Obama was fond of saying his new boondoggle would 'bend the cost curve downward'.   He also threw out the figure $2,085 a few times as being the 'cheapest' family plan's cost.  

Last week the IRS released an official report after crunching all the numbers and said the cheapest family health insurance plan for a family will be $20,000.  


So turns out according to the IRS Obama  was only off by a factor of 10.  

And as yet, over 5 days after the IRS released this report, not one Lapdog Media outlet has breathed a word about it: 

Google Search For 'IRS Report Family Insurance Plan $20,000

Anyone solely trusting the MSM for important news impacting them and their family is gonna be in for one hell of a shock later on while people who surf the net and don't participate exclusively  in the Big Brother Media Complex  will be much better informed.  

Well there  you have it. 

Last week the MSM decided to cover these 3  important stories with the overwhelming sound of......*crickets*.  

The Lapdog Members of the Big Brother Media Complex are VERY well aware of what the OTHER half of their job is, even if plenty of people haven't realized it yet.  


  1. Your partisan hackery aside, you've barely scratched the surface of MSM censoring/under-reporting. Given the conglomerated, centralized nature of the corporations that run the MSM, it's pretty stale news that they only publicize the things that help them and deliberately hold back information that would damage their bottom line or expose the plebs to gray areas that might require critical thought.

    1. Let's look at your own hackery for a minute here. If this were just 'bottom line' $ by corporations, can you explain why this mainstream media malfeasance only benefits one party and not both?

    2. If you're going to claim ideology doesn't drive what the MSM chooses not to report on, and what slants it decides to give the news it does give people, but that it's instead all about $, how do you build that case?

  2. The malfeasance of course slices both ways. You look at everything through a partisan lens while you yourself make nary a peep about the things that you have no problem with. You have never once taken a stance on the Obama administration's police state tactics. But meanwhile you and your Breitbartian echo chamber get hung up on molehill bullshit. It's a con by the MSM and you keep falling for it despite your maverick stance. Your framework is wrong from the get-go.

    How much MSM ink gets spilled on NDAA. HR 347, kill lists, resource wars in Africa, Bradley Manning, rendition, torture and fake domestic CIA terrorist plotting and etc.?

    Do you have a problem with these things being under-reported or just crap about guns and abortion and (debunked) no bullets at foreign embassies?

    I ask rhetorically because your brain cannot compute these things and apparently never will. You should side with the sane on the conservative side because this old failed Teabilly drivel is played out. I don't hate you - I would beg you to move past the failed hyper-partisan BS.

    The MSM blows which ever way the wind blows and Obama plays the game, so they'll go with this narrative as long as it suits their purposes. They detected a loser in Romney from the get-go and foresaw the failure of the extremists element within the GOP - the shrinking demographic, the outmoded "message," and hooked their wagon to the exciting story of changing times, changing America. Now there's a fucking headline - more riveting than "Old Stiff White People Turn the Clock Back to 1950."

    But it's a distraction from reality. That much we may agree on.

    1. Can you find one slanted NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN news story or cleverly edited video/audio done in the past few years that made the LEFT look bad?

      If what you are claiming is true, let's see how it cuts 'both ways'.

    2. The press went to sleep during the first 6 or so years of the Bush presidency. They carried water for the Neo Cons to the point that they helped sell a phony war to the American people. They were propaganda pimps just as you're accusing now. They woke up again when it became clear Bush was losing favour. That is exactly how it works and it's what you're seeing now.

      Unless Obama screws up on a massive scale, the MSM aren't going to turn on the first black president.

    3. Sure. Sure the press went to sleep and Bush got this huge pass for 6 of his 8 years in the WH.

      Pardon me, but the 2004 election was in year 4 of Bush's presidency. Are you seriously going to make the claim that the mainstream media was NEUTRAL between Bush & Kerry?

      The slants NEVER favor the Right or a Republican. EVER. The fancy video/audio editing NEVER works out in favor of a Conservative narrative. It. Just. Doesn't. Happen.

      You've constructed this alternative to keep from having to admit the obvious: the press is biased and favors the Left. It is overwhelmingly Left itself. It doesn't think it's biased, it thinks it's not wasting it's time presenting another side that's only believed by oddballs freaks and hillbillys.

    4. I see it differently is all. Big picture vs. small.

      And Fox (sorry, they're mainstream media too)has been caught presenting deceptive editing, misrepresenting facts, and oh yeah - bald-faced lying, as have figures like Breitbart, O'Keefe, Pam Geller, Ann Coulter, etc.

    5. "I see it differently is all."

      Through your own partisan lens, you mean. Anyone who claims complete objectivity or being "above it all" automatically out himself as a liar. Protip: don't do that if you want anyone to have any faith in what you have to say. You are your own worst enemy here.

      "And Fox (sorry, they're mainstream media too)has been caught presenting deceptive editing, misrepresenting facts, and oh yeah - bald-faced lying, as have figures like Breitbart, O'Keefe, Pam Geller, Ann Coulter, etc."

      And you have a source for these sweeping claims, right?

    6. Fox is full of shit, talking about partisan lenses. ("You didn't build that." Ring a bell?)

      Also Breitbart is a fountain of distractionary BS. I'm sure you think that the ACORN sting was top-notch new media stuff, so enjoy that. You can Google right wing media lies if you ever chose to, but again, you staying deluded and ignorant only helps keep you where you belong - in an ineffective morass of your own continued undoing, speaking of your own worst enemy.

      George Bush got a huge pass. Enough to concoct a war on a noun that has helped put the U.S. in the dumper. If recognizing reality is "above it all," then I'll stay here and enjoy the view, thanks.

    7. I wasn't asking you about Fox. Fox is not part of the mainstream media. You were attempting to prove the claim the Old Media isn't driven to do all it's slanting/fancy editing of news based on ideology, that instead it was corporate $ driving the machine.

      So asked a pertinent question: if it's NOT ideological, then it would stand to reason ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et. al. would at least in SOME cases end up slanting the news to favor the Right. They would engage in a bit of clever editing to bolster/manufacture a Conservative narrative.

      This doesn't happen. Not one thing you have said changes this. All their slants go the Left.

      Right now in the Christopher Dorner case, his manifesto has been released on-line in it's entirety but the MSM is insisting on leaving out the portions in it's coverage that demonstrates he is solidly on the Left. Since they can't play their usual 'spot the angry white guy' game to 'prove' a 'larger narrative', they simply drop details in their coverage.

      That's ideological.

    8. So, you don't actually read my posts. Cool.

      I know I've said it repeatedly, but you're delusional. You're so delusional that you've deluded yourself into thinking you are aren't delusional. But hmmm, let's see - who here has the proven track record of being totally wrong on numerous occasions, whose astute analysis about everything leading up to Romney's landslide win was delusional and informed by the non-MSM?

      Fox has even conned you into thinking that it's not mainstream.

  3. Godwin for the fail. - JF

    1. Fascism didn't end with the Nazis. People who think bowing to the superior wisdom of an elite who control everything with central planning is a really F**KING AWESOME IDEA haven't gone away.

      Don't tell me YOU haven't noticed this.