http://jammiewearingfool.blogs.....uring.html

Thank you all for coming.

The failed policies of corporate journalism have failed. Worse yet, while their businesses were failing, the CEOs took millions of dollars in bonuses and compensation at the expense of their workers and the American public.

The New York Times is the latest example of such rampant corporate greed and social injustice. Their CEO is literally killing an elderly old woman, one gray hair at a time.

Let me be clear, I don’t stand wid tat.

So today, I call upon Congress to pass historic legislation that I will call Universal Journalism Reform. This transformative legislation must contain a robust Public Option to reduce costs and introduce competition.

No more journalists amputating the news. No more reporters performing unnecessary interviews. And most important of all, no Editorial Panels deciding which editorial lives and which editorial dies.

I don’t want to hear “no” from those who made the mess. I want them to get out of the way.

So, let me be clear. When history calls, history calls.

Are you fired up? Are you ready to go?

I said, ARE YOU FIRED UP? ARE YOU READY TO GO?

ARE YOU FIRED UP?!! ARE YOU READY TO GO?!!

–copyright PBo 2009, all rights reserved

. . . upload teleprompter . . . send . . .

Probably requires another czar or two, as well.

“Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC –

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....02009.html

This is REALLY SERIOUS STUFF.

How on earth in this great country can the office of the President of the Country slander, malign and intimadate a private news organization that is protected by the Constituion of the United States.

“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Constituition of the Unitied States.

repeat: prohibiting the free exercise..or abridging the freedom of speech..of the press

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

Main Entry: abridge
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈbrij\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at brief
Date: 14th century
1 a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish
2 : to shorten in duration or extent
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

Notice that in the amendment, the “abridging” comment is not linked to “laws”.

But then, with these criminals and charlatans, they would no doubt say that they are not Congress.

I’m so tired of making decisions and needing money to live.

Obamy will do a better job of avoiding the crooks anyway. Just look at how he is so pure, even though he came out of nasty old Chicago.

Somehow I kind of doubt it.

“Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one” : A.J. Leibling of the New Yorker

In any case, this doesn’t worry me all that much since information spewed by the nationally owned news syndicate is already at a horrible state and smart people get the real, factual and unvarnished information from the internet and “rogue” stations that do independent talk shows on the radio.

The effects of which are already showing, with subscriber numbers plummeting for the NYT and MSM news programs feeling the pain. So the first thing they think they need, of course, is to throw money at it. And the most obvious source for that money is, the gubbmint and those “givers” sympathetic to control over everything (or, more colloquially known as ‘power’).

This, instead of course of being a truly eye of critical thinking when it comes to all things, not just the things they don’t like.

It is very possible that the people involved are so immersed in this practice that they really think they deliver “news” and “balanced and fair” reporting. Has to do with the shade of the glasses they wear.