Why I Don’t Trust The Mainstream Media, Example # 4,579

Last week, the Washington Post did a hard-hitting investigative expose’ on Senator Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) past, and discovered that he’d been living a lie. Instead of having fled Castro, it turns out that his parents actually came to the US before Castro took power. This put the lie to all of Rubio’s claims that they fled communism.

 

Well, that piece fell apart incredibly quickly when people actually did some real digging. Yes, Rubio’s parents had left before Castro came to power, but actually started to return afterwards. Rubio’s father started wrapping up the family business in Florida while his mother returned, got a good whiff of the way things were going, and came hustling back to the US, where they stayed. So, while you could argue, technically, that Castro didn’t drive them away, he still kept them away. Further, most reasonable people would say “close enough” when explaining it to a young child about where his family came from, and how they ended up in the US. Kind of like how most people first learn that the US won its independence from England in the Revolutionary War, but England didn’t fully accept that until after the War of 1812.

 

And then things got even more interesting. The Miami Herald did their own digging, as Rubio is one of their senators, and couldn’t find a single time he’d actually declared that his own family had fled Castro. All the public statements he’d made had been vague enough to encompass all Cuban refugees, regardless of when they’d left the island.

 

This comes only a brief time after the New York Times tried its own hit piece on Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), one of President Obama’s most persistent and powerful critics. That piece was so riddled with errors that even the shameless Times should have been embarrassed, and has been quietly retracting the errors, one piece at a time.

 

And I will never forget what the Times did to John McCain in 2008. First, they endorsed him just before the New Hampshire primary. Then, when he had the nomination all but sewn up, they released a smear piece that alleged (with no credible evidence beyond the words of some unnamed disgruntled staffers, who only hinted at it) that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. Basically, they set him up just so they could knock him down.

 

Now, this wouldn’t be so bad if it was just sloppy, sensationalist journalism. If they were like this in all cases. But the McCain smear came on the heels of the mainstream media ignoring and actively covering up John Edwards’ own affair. No, they seem to almost always focus on tearing down Republicans and covering up for Democrats.

 

You want proof? Look at the starting point of the Rubio case — he talked about the lives of his parents, even before he was born, and talked about how that had shaped his life. Now, the logical inference here is that since Rubio wasn’t around for the events, he’s going on the details told to him by his parents — and it’s the rare parent who doesn’t simplify or shade or spin the truth when raising their children. (I was in my late teens before I did the math and realized that my parents had not married 18 months before my birth, but 6.) He simply spoke of his reality.

 

But here’s where the bias comes in. Other politicians — even more prominent ones — have made similar “embellishments” of their family background, ones even more readily disproven, and have been given a pass. For example, President Barack Obama.

 

While campaigning, President Obama spoke of the civil rights movement as fundamental in his very existence. He even spoke of the legendary march on Birmingham as making his parents’ marriage possible. Later, he talked about the actions in Selma as key. Sadly for his tale, Birmingham was in 1965, Selma 1963, and his parents’ marriage was in February of 1961 — with his birth six months later. (Gee, that sounds familiar to me…)

 

More significantly, when Obama was pushing for his health care financing program, he talked about how his mother had struggled with the ovarian cancer that eventually claimed her life while fighting with her insurance company to cover her illness. Turns out he’d been fibbing a bit; her health insurer handled her case quite honorably; the fight she had was about getting disability insurance.

 

Now, by the Rubio/Issa/McCain standard, this would immediately call for a full, thorough investigation into the true facts behind Obama’s stories, explorations of what actually happened, how many times he’d told the falsehoods, and at what point he reasonably should have known that he was telling fables. But remember, this is not some prominent Republican, but the Democratic President of the United States — a far, far lower standard applies.

 

Plus, there’s the element that Obama’s fables — oh, hell, let’s call them “lies” — are fundamentally different from the tales of Rubio, Issa, and McCain. And that element is that they help advance the liberal/progressive agenda. His fairy tale about his parents’ marriage tying in to key elements of the civil rights movement lets him claim to be almost a literal heir to that movement, and his mother’s fictitious battle with her health insurer powered his push to get ObamaCare passed. On the other hand, the Republicans oppose that agenda, and therefore all’s fair.

 

There’s only so much that carelessness or incompetence can excuse. After a while, the steady, constant “errors” all falling into the same pattern makes the “accidental” explanation utterly unbelievable.

 

I figured this out a while ago. But every now and then, the media gives me a whole new example that is so egregious, I simply can’t resist publicly tossing it on to the pile of previous examples.

Lech Walesa decides against OWS visit
"Young people playing at being poor"
  • herddog505

    Jay TeaKind of like how most people first learn that the US won its independence from England in the Revolutionary War, but England didn’t fully accept that until after the War of 1812.

    One of the things I learned in college was about the vital necessity to find an authoritative source for any assertion I made in one of my papers.  I pretty rapidly found out that “everybody knows” wasn’t good evidence, mostly because my papers were returned looking like a prop from a slasher film.

    Journalists just LOOOOOVE to talk about being “professionals”.  Yessir, they got to special schools!  They work their way up through the ranks!  And they’ve got layer upon layer of editors and fact-checkers!  TOTALLY professional from top to bottom.

    Yet… They never seem to have learned the simple lessons about sources and citations that I learned early on in my humble state university’s chemistry department.

    How does that happen?

    / sarc

    Poor Marco Rubio: like Herman Cain, he has committed the ultimate sin of being a conservative minority, and the inquisitors of MiniTru will see to it that he is properly punished for his misdeed.

  • jim_m

    Once again we see that truth is not about facts it is about whatever advances the agenda.

  • Orlando Baker

    Once again the right tries to cover for its lies by pointing at others.

    Rubio lied. There’s no excuse.

    • jim_m

      The Miami Herald did their own digging, as Rubio is one of their senators, and couldn’t find a single time he’d actually declared that his own family had fled Castro.

      So Rubio lied where?  Or maybe it’s that the WAPO lied (again) and you are once again demonstrating your feeble reading comprehension skills.

    • Anonymous

      You have to excuse Orlando. You see, he missed the part where Rubio didn’t actually lie, and the parts where Obama actually did, because…

      Actually, there is no excuse. Period. Orlando is just such a hyperpartisan leftist hack that he has mastered the art of rejecting reality.

      J.

      • Anonymous

        Orlando is proving the point of the post. Thank you for illustrating what liberals do in the face of the facts.
        RLD

      • Orlando Baker

        And lying about Rubio’s lies accomplishes what?

        Marco Rubio updates his Senate Web site biographylink

        Following an article in the Washington Post stating that the senator had embellished the story of his family’s arrival from Cuba to the United States, Sen. Marco Rubio’s Senate Web site biography has now been changed.

        The Post piece talked about how Rubio repeatedly invoked his family’s
        exile as he rapidly rose to political power in Florida and then nationally
        . It also pointed to a then-current version of Rubio’s Web site biography stating that his parents had come to the U.S. from Cuba “following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”

        But as of Friday night, the day the Post story was published and about
        24 hours after he conceded it was inaccurate
        , the senator updated the
        second sentence of his Web site biography to clarify that his parents arrived in the U.S. in 1956.

        Rubio has pushed back hard against the contention that his parents are not Cuban exiles, even if they came to the U.S. before Castro’s revolution.

        “If The Washington Post wants to criticize me for getting a few dates wrong, I accept that,” Rubio said in a Politico op-ed.

        Rubio realized hie had lied and was now caught – his Senate bio was lying (In addition to his verbal lies)and he corrected it.

        Guilty!

        I can understand why others would feel the need to lie a bout Rubio’s lie – but he’s not… He admits he lied.

        Need more?

        The Post story reports that Rubio got his parents’ story wrong, saying for instance, on his Web site that his parents “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.” Yet documents reveal that Rubio’s parents were admitted as lawful residents on May 27, 1956, a date of which Rubio was apparently unaware.

        “My parents and grandparents came here from Cuba in ’58, ’59,” Rubio said in a 2010 interview with Sean Hannity.

        He lied. He’s now corrected his lie, but he lied. He lied on his Senate bio, he lied in the Hannity interview, and he’s told the same lied numerous other times.

        • Anonymous

          Here’s the difference: lying means intent. You wanna show how Rubio KNEW the full precise details of his parents’ lives before he was born? It took digging through government records to get the exact dates.

          On the other hand, Obama’s lies are flagrantly obvious, but you don’t wanna discuss them, do you? Again proving my point. Smearing Rubio advances your agenda; as does burying and ignoring Obama’s.

          J.

          • jim_m

            He proves my point too that to the left truth and lies are not about the facts.

          • Orlando Baker

            So now, finally, you admit that he lied.

            You just want to grant him a pardon because he “says” he didn’t know he was lying.

            But… he’s already been caught lying. How do we know he’s telling the truth now?

            We don’t. He repeated the first lie over and over again. He’ll no doubt repeat the second lie over and over again too.

            That’s what liars do. They just keep lying, and when they’re caught they invent a new lie.

          • Anonymous

            shut up

          • Anonymous

            Well, Orlando just convinced me.

            We can never, ever, ever trust Barack Obama, because he’s a lying liar.

            Thanks, Orlando!

            J.

          • Anonymous

            Actually he’s a lying SCOAMF.

          • jim_m

            Jeez Orlando, what about the statement that the Miami Herald “couldn’t find a single time he’d actually declared that his own family had fled Castro.” tells you that Rubio lied about his family fleeing from Castro?

            Are you that stupid that you are incapable of reading a simple sentence? 

            The Miami Herald has demonstrated the WAPO story to be a bunch of crap, but you cling to it like the unethical, lying leftist that you are because (as I said originally) truth to you has nothing to do with facts.  You will say that white is black and black is white if it will advance your agenda.  You’ve been presented with a statement that the WAPO story was factually incorrect and you ignore it and repeat over and over the same lie that the WAPO did. 

            “That’s what liars do. They just keep lying, and when they’re caught they invent a new lie.”  Indeed.  Great self description.  Once more the leftist projects what his own actions are on his ideological opposites.

          • Orlando Baker

            He lied on his Senate Bio and he lied during the Sean Hannity interview, as documented above.

          • Anonymous

            There is nothing documenting a “lie,” and he probably changed his web site to try to avoid further attacks for the left (which personally I think was a chicken-shit thing to do, but that’s what politicians do).

            However, your Freudian and anal fixation on “liar” exposes you for the sockpuppet you are.

            Thanks for the smite of the hammer, JT, but I think a Wipe of the Charmin or a Spray of the Bidet would have been more appropriate.

          • retired.military

            “You just want to grant him a pardon because he “says” he didn’t know he was lying”

            If you think what u are saying is the truth than it is not a lie but a misundertanding of the facts (something you are really familiar with spongebob). 

            unlike Clinton’s wjat is tje meaning is IS. 

          • The left always resorts to hyper-literalism to “prove” its non-case. One remarks about the “fog of war” and the leftist digs up a weather report to “prove” there was no fog that day.

          • Anonymous

            I’m tempted to demand he apply his own standards to Obama’s declarations I cited… but I’m really not into clubbing baby seals.

            J.

        • Anonymous

          shut up

        • Anonymous

          Who’s trying to accomplish anything? The organgrindingganizer? Put up or shut up

        • Orlando Baker

          Here’s more of Rubio’s lie – see video.

          Jay Tea adds: Orlando is obviously a racist, as he hates brown people and doesn’t think that black people are capable of being held to the same standard as other people. If he keeps up his racism, I might have to ban him.

          • jim_m

            Honestly, saying that your parents left Cuba because of Castro, when they actually left shortly before he came (due to the unrest perhaps?) and wanted to go back but couldn’t because of him (Castro) is less of a lie than saying “my parents got together at the Selma March” 4 years after you were born; or “My mom was denied insurance coverage for her cancer”, when it was her bogus disability claim they denied; or “I was named for Sir Edmund Hilary” before he climbed Mount Everest; or “I have that hat to this day”, etc, etc, etc.

            Rubio’s telling of his family history has the sound of something that is parents probably maintained to him when he was young.  The others are just made up BS to make themselves look good.

            The left loves to parse words to idiotic effect. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.  Please.

          • Anonymous

            who cares?

          • Anonymous

            So, if I understand you? If you are correct.  Somebody lied so your panties are wet? Who cares? 

          • retired.military

            But Jay Tea  you already banned spongebob once. 

    • Anonymous

      I would think that Orwellian (see I am avoiding Godwin’s Law) Laws, such as:

      But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. 

      would be an excellent explanation for the banal swill that erupts so predictably from your fingertips.

    • Anonymous

      Shut up

    • Anonymous

      shut up

    • Anonymous

      SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Pravda East publishes for a minor subset of the liberal northeastern population and has been shown to be an easy target to pick apart. Their stories are gross distortions of the actual facts or flat out lies, proven published article after published article. Hell, its getting hard to believe the obituaries they publish.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • Anonymous

    “…a far, far lower standard applies….”

    Well, they are Democrats.  And they’re always about lowering the bar.  Just look at Orlando.

  • Excellent piece. The National Enquirer has more credibility than the NYT.

    Hillary has mountain-scaling in her blood and dodges hostile fire. Kerry stealths his way to Cambodia during Christmas. He throws his medals away on returning home. Only they weren’t real so he didn’t mean it. ObamaCare is going to save money, be more efficient, insure more people than ever before, and you will get to keep your doctor. The government would never interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.

    It is one fairy tale after another with these people, with a never-ending line of idiots prepared to be lulled to sleep by them.

    • Anonymous

      Actually, Jeff, Kerry says that the medals he threw over the White House fence were someone else’s who couldn’t make it to DC. They were real medals, just not his.

      Which makes you a LYING LIAR.

      Have you no shame, sir?

      J.

      • Anonymous

        Lurch didn’t go with that explanation until after it was pointed out that he was also displaying said ‘thrown’ medals in his Senate office.

  • Anonymous

    I’d rather be a lying liar the a lied about lying lawyering politician liar.  

    Ohh, sorry. Wrong jeff

  • Anonymous

    The Cuban Revolution didn’t start on December 31, 1958 and end on January 1, 1959–it lasted five or six years. At or around the time that Rubio’s parents left (15 years before Rubio was born), the US had embargoed Cuba and had withdrawn its ambassador. The revolution was well underway and the rebels were attacking urban targets. So the part about whether or not Rubio’s parents came before or after Castro “took over” is irrelevant–they left because of Castro and were exiled because of him and his violent revolution, which is his point.

    Obama’s lie about his mother being denied health insurance is something that Obama claimed he saw after he had graduated from law school. It’s not something conveyed to him years after the fact.

    That’s the difference.

  • Anonymous

    Orlando? Where is Dawn? 

  • Anonymous

    Yeah I linked this on Facebook and my sister giving me the silent treatment.  lol. I’m super conservative but very open minded and forgiving

    She uber liberal and nonsensical

    • @914:disqus wrote:

      She uber liberal and nonsensical

      …but you repeat yourself.

  • jim_m

    Orlando:

    If Rubio lied and you believe that that disqualifies him in any way for the job he does, then why are you not railing against obama, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and all the other dem liars who have made far greater lies about their history and background?

    Or are you just the typical leftist hypocrite that doesn’t really care about truth but are solely interested in advancing the agenda?  If you are the latter then I have to agree with 914:  Shut up.  Until you spend as much time talking about the far more egregious lies of others you are just a hypocrite.

    • Anonymous

      hahahahaha , ask a stupid question and he will answer sure as shit at the crack of dawn.

    • retired.military

      orlando = spongebob

      • jim_m

        At first I didn’t buy into that, but the reasons you gave on the other thread are compelling: 1) he never denies it and 2) he never asks who spongebob is despite appearing promptly after bob’s dismissal.

        He hasn’t called anyone a racist yet, but he is picking up the same “liar” meme that spongebob had.  What he really needs is the same ad hominem style that bob used.  Bob always ignored the subject of the post and attacked the author or the author’s source and never addressed the content.

      • Anonymous

        yup,, pretty much! Without the colored analogies.

      • Anonymous

        Notice the constant declarations of racism and calling people liars for the flimsiest of reasons but is perfectly okay with Democrats doing it blatently. Who else do we know who did that?

        Orlando = Spongebob = Lee Ward??

        • Anonymous

          I got no evidence, but it’s close enough for my “screw you and everyone who looks like you” rule.

          J.

          • retired.military

            I like that rule.

            Plus the fact that Orlando was accused several times of being Spongebob and he never once denied it nor even asked who Spongebob was (since he started posting after spongebob was hammered).

        • Anonymous

          It was obvious from his first post .
          The same timbre ,style and rhetoric .
          Oh well, back to the random screen name generator -he’ll be back within days unless the attendants remove internet access from the day room computers.

  • Anonymous

    Its like being int he 2nd or 3rd grade again. Liar liar pants on fire! Is that all the left is good for anymore? Liar,Racist,Sexist,and whatever else they can scream to drown out what they don’t want to hear.

  • Anonymous

    I played being poor when I was young too! Now that I’m older, I’m poorer but wiser from the experience!!

  • Anonymous

    Alas, Orlando… we hardly knew ye, but e’en that were too much. Now, thou art but the latest stain on the Hammer.

    J.

    • Anonymous

      We may have known Orlando better than we thought we did. Anyway, bye-bye.

    • I’m sure he’ll be reincarnated soon. He seems to be regressing each time.

    • Anonymous

      Be the Miracle!

      • Anonymous

        Thanks for the smite of the hammer, JT, but I think a Wipe of the Charmin or a Spray of the Bidet would have been more appropriate.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks for the smite of the hammer, JT, but I think a Wipe of the Charmin or a Spray of the Bidet would have been more appropriate.

    • retired.military

      Jay Tea
      Thanks for smacking Orlando Bob Armstrong.  He deserved it.

      Chico take note. I didnt call for Orlando to be banned once. I simply remarked how he was Bob Armstrong in disguise.

  • Anonymous

    Please folks, it is long past time to stop calling these scum the MSM or anything like it.

    They are “the Corporate Media.” 

    The Campaign Cost Factor:
    Obama plans to raise a billion dollars for his re-election campaign.  Where does the money go?  Campaigns spend money on consultants, travel, offices, “walking around money” and advertising in the Corporate Media.

    One of the reasons why the Corporate Media plays the game the way they do is to force politicians to buy ads.

    The Loss Leader Factor:
    You have all been in a grocery store at some time recently.  Every grocer has what they call the “loss leader.”  They heavily advertise something they will sell cheap to get you in the store with the goal to get you to buy higher profit items while you’re there.

    Similarly, the Corporate Media sells ads, but that is not where the real money is made.  The real money is in owning politicians.  The Corporate Media behaves as it does because U.S. voters are stupid enough to go along with their crap.  So, since the Corporate Media can tilt the balance of who wins or loses elections they can actually own politicians.  In a sense, they have unlimited campaign contributions because they own the media.

    Do you really think that GE cares how many ad dollars come in during the broadcast of NBC news?  Compare that income against what GE makes off of tax breaks, subsidies and government contracts.  Then ponder the value of having enough control of government to make sure there are plenty of new regulations to abuse and disrupt your competition.  Hell, GE could actually pay their advertisers for the ads during the news broadcast and they would still be way ahead.

    But, But, Not Every Media Company is Owned by GE:
    I can hear some of you thinking that the rest of the media is not GE. True, but who really owns the rest of the media? Much of the Corporate Media is extraordinarily unprofitable.  The NYT paid $1.1 Billion for the Boston Globe.  They gave up trying to sell it when the best offer they got was $35 million and a pension debt assumption that took the deal up to $94M.

    The media has to know their profits would go up if they quit attacking so many Americans, unless there is another way the media gets its reward.  How much of CBS is still owned by Westinghouse?  Who really owns the stock in the NYT?  Carlos Slim owned a big chunk last time I looked.  It certainly isn’t his best investment in a cash sense.  Hedge funds also own substantial chunks. (I also own a couple shares through a mutual fund. Strangely enough, that fund isn’t performing that well.)

    What about Washpo?  Did you know Warren Buffet owns a lot of it through Berkshire Hathaway?  Warren is a great investor.  Why did he buy any shares of this dog? Maybe he had another reason.

    But, But, But, The Writers are independent of the Corporate Boardroom:
    In a word, bullsh*t.  If their bathrooms are clean, someone in the organization cares about performance for a paycheck.  Eventually even the most bureaucratic corporations care enough to stop giving paychecks to people who are not doing what the boardroom wants.

  • Anonymous

    So why does this jregghead bozo keep harping on the need to change the name from “Mainstream Media” to “the Corporate Media?”

    1. Because “Corporate Media” is far more accurate.
    a. By definition.  The U.S. is a center/right country.  A center/right media would be mainstream.  A leftist media is a lot of things, but mainstream is not one of them.
    b. By function.  The media is Corporate.  Our media is all about Wall Street, and they work very, very hard trying to deny that fact.  It is time we started talking about why they behave that way.

    2. Because I believe the Corporate Media is a key element of the power held by the left.
    The Corporate Media can tilt election outcomes enough to take an ownership position in our politicians.  I want to destroy their ability to use our own democracy against us.
    a. In a country where 50-50 voting is common and 54-46 is a landslide, the ability to sway even a tiny percentage is all that is required.
    b. Example given as evidence – how long did GE try to prop up Anthony Weiner after he was clearly damaged beyond hope?  Why would they bother?  I think it was because he was their boy and they did not want to lose their investment in him.

    3. Because I think there is presently an opportunity to greatly diminish the power of the Corporate Media.
    a. They are already under severe financial pressure due to the internet and host of other factors.
    b.  The incrementalism the left has practiced over the past century has been greatly accelerated in this decade. The Corporate Media has chosen to overextend with an all-in bet on Obama / Pelosi / Reid.  The all-in bet on has opened cracks in the Corporate Media’s armor that can be successfully exploited.
    c.  The Corporate Media has the arrogance of a group of people that have not been seriously challenged for as long as they can remember.  I think they will be slow to react to changes around them.

    4. Because I think the stack of lies created by the Corporate Media represents a house of cards that can be taken apart.
    a. The left has carefully crafted a bunch of narratives and sadly our society tends to accept each and every one of them as true. However, that strength is also a weakness.  If one lie falls, the entire group can be taken down.
    b. Embedded in the narrative is an obvious and ridiculous lie – that everyone on the right is a pawn of big business and everyone on the left is “for the little guy.”  This lie is so absurd that it represents a soft underbelly that will allow a larger attack on the overall narrative.
    c. Silly thought — I have entertained the silly notion that Corporate Media hacks tout their anti-corporate credentials just to gauge the current acceptance of their lies.  I think of it as a figurative canary in a coal mine.  As long as an audience will continue to believe that a media hack taking a huge corporate paycheck is actually anti-corporate, that audience will probably keep accepting a long list of other lies as well.
    d. Example given as evidence — How important is their anti-corporate street cred, and how far will they attempt to stretch it?  Dylan Rattigan actually tried to offer the Occupy Wall Street mob help with their message.  That’s right – GE actually paid a guy to support a supposedly anti-corporate uprising and absolutely nobody said anything about the obvious irony.

    5. Because we can pit the left against the Corporate Media by using their own BS against them.  
    The left has created and reinforced a negative connotation to the word “corporate.”  They are ripe for throwing it back in their faces with gusto.
    a. We have been handed a great gift.  All we have to do for a first step is simply to start calling “the Corporate Media” what they actually are.
    b. The left loves flinging around the hypocrisy label.  I say turn it around and drive it home with enthusiasm.

    6. Because leftists annoy the living sh*t out of me.
    a. Most of them just babble the stupid sh*t they heard from the Corporate Media like it is gospel.  It is long past time to shake their confidence.
    b. Leftists actually sit in front of their TVs and nod their heads knowingly as a corporate media hack that is getting millions a year tells them that every republican is all about big business.
    c. If we use the phrase “the Corporate Media” incessantly we can reduce the tendency of people who are predisposed to lean left to believe what they are told by the Corporate Media.
    d. If we are ever going to get through the thick skulls of our leftist friends, the obvious and ridiculous lie that the media is actually anti-corporate is a great place to start.  Taking apart one lie will help knock down others.
    e. We can use the phrase “the Corporate Media” in a condescending and dismissive manner that can help immunize youngsters by making leftist propaganda sound contradictory and stupid on its face. There is a hope to reduce the number of leftists in the next generation and we should pursue that opportunity as hard as possible.

    7. Because not everything our leftist friends say is 100% wrong.
    a. Believing in a free market system does not require us to be oblivious to the behavior of certain corporations.  Example given as evidence — GE poisoned the Hudson River and lots of other places as well.
    b. Corporations play our government for fools all the time, and use the government to steal from us and give the proceeds to those same corporations.  We don’t have to share the left’s idiotic belief in a perfect government to get tired of that BS.
    c. Big corporations use the power of big government to kill off competition from smaller firms. That thought is a little too sophisticated for the average leftist, but perhaps we can help them see.
    d. We should try to get out of GE’s control. They can compete in an open free market system with everybody else.

    8. Because our two-party system is a reality I can’t change, and I believe the Left/Corporate alliance is too entrenched to overcome.
    a. So as much as I fear being played for a sucker by the Republicans, I am forced to invest my hopes with them.
    b. Any real change will have to include freeing Republicans from the Corporate Media prison.
    c. An aside — am I the only one who has wondered why Republicans are still allowing themselves into debate formats established and controlled by the Corporate Media?  Three possibilities:
    i. they are astronomically stupid;
    ii. establishment republicans are simply a part of the show designed to fool people like me, but they are only pretending; or
    iii. they know better, but they think they have no choice but to play by the Corporate Media’s rules.
    d. Example given as evidence — only Newt Gingrich actually has thrown it back at the media during 2011 debates, but he is still pretty damn timid when he does.
    e. If we create a widely established shibboleth about “the Corporate Media” we might be able to open the prison doors far enough for the right Republican to tell them to stick it and get away with it.

    So, I beg of all of you. Stop using phrases like MSM, Mainstream Media, Make Believe Media, Establishment Media, etc. Please start referring to them as “the Corporate Media” at every opportunity. If enough of us do it loudly and constantly maybe some of the speculation in this post will come true.