We all see this story for what it is: a bogus hit job by the MSM on Bush, coordinated with the Kerry Kamp, who already has a commercial out.

Is there any doubt that we must replace the MSM, regardless of who wins the election?

As long as the MSM is so biased, we do not live in a totally free country. We live in a country where the MSM has disproportionate power.

I'm calling BS on this CBS "report" as they're still unreliable from the previous scandal. They're like the NYT, anything to help Kerry get a boost.

The MSM still has not yet realized that a new era of media has arrived. An era dominated by alternative news outlets, talk radio, cable, the Internet...

They are still operating like it is 1979 and I think they are in for a rude awakening on the morning of November 3rd.

To bad CBS doesn't even search their own archives before theu run a story or do a Lexis-nexis search. How long do you think media outlets will allow their past archives to be searched by the public?

Is anybody else having trouble getting to blogspot blogs?

If you will google "Qa Qaa" and the date April 4 and April 3 2003 you will see that the AP and Fox also did a story on the 3ID s searching of Qa Qaa and not finding any seals of the IEAE and also finding a mysterious powder that was stored in Vials. No one let any ordinance get away. An obvious attempt by the media AGAIN to sink President Bush. You know that CBS was aware of their own story on the 3ID, they chose to ignore it. They still don't mention the 3ID chosing rather to interview the 101, who didn't bother to search because the 3ID already had.

I think it's great that the LSM is caught again creating a story that isn't true, and was proven false by their own previous reporting.

I also agree with the above person who inquired as to how long it will be until the LSM closes their acrhives for good.

I wonder who will be the first. I can hear it now.

"We at this pathetic media outlet no longer have the resources to allow a search of our archives. Everything we have ever said is true. So There. Move along now, we need to create the, errr.... report the news."

So where are the retractions?

I wonder what they are working on now?

Regards,
Sonar5

It would seem as though the UN searched the Al Qaqaa facility numerous times as early as March and found no weapons.

AT,

Is there any doubt that we must replace the MSM, regardless of who wins the election?

I see you saying this a lot and I'm curious, how do you propose this would be accomplished?

Mantis, it is already done, In my opinion.

Honestly, for the pure reporting of what is happening right now, any news source will just about do. (Video, etc...)

But news is now opinion based, and facts are checked against previous actions to determine intent, context, etc... In other words, their past is now linked to their present and future. And for Politicians, that is important to many IMHO, including me.

So, I think it is already accomplished, and the LSM now has a choice, conform to the new realities, where poeple don't believe everything they read, and do their own research, OR the LSM can simply die a known reduced ratings slow death.

One only has to look at the putrid continued decline of ratings by the big 3 on their nightly news shows for evidence of that outlet's insignificance. It has been a steady decline, and when ratings go down the tubes, people like Rather and the NYT get desperate and will try anything to advance their cause dejour. (lying, creating news instead of reporting news, etc...)

Just take this latest NYT story, and look how bloggers and others like Fox dismantled it so quickly, and decisively, IMHO. And all they had to do was find the many stories from April 2003, that the embeds wrote.

What a great program that was, now that witnesses are coming forward, and the printed word of that time contradicts quite well what the NYT failed to disclose.

Welcome to the new media, Mantis, and we hope you enjoy your stay.

Regards,
Sonar5

Well, thanks for welcoming me to the new media, but I've been here a while. I currently study new media and work on a journal with that very phrase in the title, but whatever. In any case let me respond to your post, but in no way is this a defense of MSM, which I do see as corrupted and falling apart; I just don't see it as quite the revolution you may be hoping for.

But news is now opinion based, and facts are checked against previous actions to determine intent, context, etc...

I completely agree that bloggers are doing this, and trying to do influence the MSM to be more responsible. Is it working? In some cases, yes. Does it matter? To the average viewer, my bet is no. Most people watching the news or reading the paper aren't really thinking about what is behind the story, if the context is complete, or looking for other sources of information.

One only has to look at the putrid continued decline of ratings by the big 3 on their nightly news shows for evidence of that outlet's insignificance.

Well, decline in ratings for network nightly news shows has been widely shown to be a product of the spread of cable television, and with it 24-news channels. Is that because the nightly news is insignificant, or just because there is much more competition now? Millions of people still watch the nightly news. However, yes, the internet is taking away some of this viewership as well, but studies show internet use takes away from TV watching in general, and does not effect certain kinds of programs or channels.

So, I think it is already accomplished, and the LSM now has a choice, conform to the new realities, where poeple don't believe everything they read, and do their own research, OR the LSM can simply die a known reduced ratings slow death.

Has the MSM's replacement been accomplished? No. Has exposing the irrelevance and/or unreliability of the MSM been accomplished? Mostly, yes. But that has been going on for a long time, there has been a steady drift towards what could be seen as partisan behavior in the news media, which was also accompanied by an almost obsessive focus on sensationalism which continues to this day. This can be seen as the product of there being so many options available to people through cable, that media outlets have to constantly up the ante and stay with that which is titillating, scandalous, or fear-inducing until it is bone dry, then move on to the next thing. This of course was accompanied by the increasing consolidation of media outlets, emphasis within them increasingly away from expensive things like investigative reporting, fact-checking, and real work and towards flash, good looks, and sensation. So, yes, they are crap and have been shown to be unreliable. So what? People still watch! It doesn't matter to most people, they watch TV because it takes no effort. You've seen the reports of surveys that show most americans don't have a clue what's going on. This is not because they really want to know, but only have TV to tell them a limited or biased story. These are not the people that are going to get their news from the internet, are not going to check five sources to get to the bottom of a story. They just want to be told. If you want to revolutionize the media, you have to change how people use it, and changing people's behavior is hard.

So is it accomplished because bloggers are having some influence on news reporting (during a very close election)? Is that going to keep? Do you think that will push the news organizations to once again return to the objective and thorough standards of the journalists of yesteryear? Or do you think people will abandon TV for the internet in droves, happy to click away like all of us for hours to find out if some white powder halfway across the globe disappeared before March or after March?

So can the MSM be saved? Who knows. Is it worth it to try? Probably not, because new technology will determine the shape of news media, and all media for that matter in the years to come. I'm not sure what sort of hybrid TV/Internet vehicle average people will be getting their news from in the near future, but I'm pretty sure it will give it to them in a way that's flashy, easy to digest, and highly profitable.

This is the IAEA's statement about a Jan 11, 2003 visit to the site. They mention the HMX stockpile. Interestingly, no mention of RDX at all.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Iraq/For-Ministry/iraq-mfa-inspex-011103.htm

Mantis,

That is the best post I have seen from you since I showed up here.

Mostly good points, and I think we agree on more than we disagree, at least on this subject.

The failure of the MSM is their denial to respect the change that is taking place and has been for some time.

It has been slow, but nonetheless, has been occuring for some time.

I've been a member of FreeRepublic, (same screen name), since 1998. And that matters not, except that there are many like yourself and myself that have been at this for quite some time. Go read my diatribes about the Space Shuttle disaster, where I pretty much documented what happened very soon after, and was chastised for stating my fact besed opinions. It turned out I was right after all.

But I am not alone, because I share the information with friends, neighbors, family, etc., and many more are turning to alternative repositories regarding their news and they are researching for themselves, prior to making their decision or forming their opinions.

That is the Revolution, in my opinion. And yes, the LSM has rebutted this change, even attacking in response to retain their alleged turf.

But their turf is no more. They may begin the initial fact reporting, but when they twist their agenda into it, that is where the revolt is on all sides, whether it is FOX, CNN, or the NY Slimes.

I used to enjoy watching BOR, but even he has pretty much become insignificant, one can only wonder why. he is a ratings whore like many of the rest. And I don't listen to hardly any talk radio, either.

My respect goes to ones who do this for no profit, post no ads, and are not in it for money, but for truth.

To me, it has always been about truth.

For many in the LSM, that truth is now missing, and they are paying the price of that choice.

It isn't just CBS, or NYT, or ABC with their holding of the terrorist video, it is the fact that they are getting caught almost every time now, whereas before the revolution, they pretty much ran unapposed to their viewpoint.

No longer is their view taken as pure truth, and I believe it will be a long time before they can begin to gain it back.

The bias is there, their objectivity is gone, and they would just as soon see another attack as a positive if it would guarantee them the ratings, IMHO.

Regards,
Sonar5

Sonar you have a really really good point there, I agree- I would just retort that when you choose to make a big stink about something you should realize it might be counterproductive, unless youare the fucking pope of the internet and can control the universe, its better to let things go then to rattle someone's chain and insult them. But hey, that's JMHO