Proofs of the previous and continued coverups about the Republicans Iraq War the media (which they clearly have enough influence over to be called owners of, i.e. the GOP own or can influence all of network news and thus public perception!)...
The Smoking Gun: This action pretty much proves NBC complicity in the Iraq War coverup (& thus the smoking gun for any other coverups)....
Phil Donahue on His 2003 Firing from MSNBC, When Liberal Network Couldn’t Tolerate Antiwar Voices...
In 2003, the legendary television host Phil Donahue was fired from his prime-time MSNBC talk show during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The problem was not Donahue’s ratings, but rather his views: An internal MSNBC memo warned Donahue was a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war," providing "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Donahue joins us to look back on his firing 10 years later. "They were terrified of the antiwar voice," Donahue says.
This cover-up continued for years and is still going on in many ways. The following videos document this continued betrayal...
The Present: Iraq war lies ignored in Republican campaign coverage - Rachel Maddow sets the record straight on the deliberate lies told to support the decision to go to war in Iraq, and talks with Dan Rather of AXS TV about how political coverage of "the Iraq question" is allowing Republican candidates to re-write history. (if videos don't work click on video link to watch video - right click on video link and choose 'open in a new window/tab' to watch video while keeping this post open)
Senate Intelligence Report - Number Two
Phase 2 of the Senate's report on whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to go to war finally comes out and man, is it worth the wait. (04:24):
1:50 "There's a Headline: Government Misled Us Into War" Jon Stewart
3:30 - Stated that the report said the the Bush-Cheney administration misled us about the connections of Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda ... and the whole Iraq War (this should have led to a through media investigation)
A DEMOCRAT FROM VIRGINIA WAS INVOLVED IN PREPARING THE REPORT AS WELL
TOP STORIES IN THE US: LESBIANS KISSING!
CBS DID A REPORT ON WEB GOSSIP... WHICH WASN'T EVEN NEWS BACK THEN.
MSNBC DID CARRY THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT FOR A FEW MINUTES & THEN NOT ANOTHER WORD till Maddow.
So Wrong for So Long: Greg Mitchell on How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq...
As the Iraq war passes its fifth anniversary, we take a look at the corporate media’s coverage of five years of war with Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher. He has just written a new book chronicling the media’s failing on covering Iraq titled, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the President—Failed on Iraq.
GREG MITCHELL: Thank you. Happy to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re moving into the sixth year of this war. What’s so interesting about your book is that you start from the beginning, and it’s almost like a diary, a journal, of how the foundation was built, the justifications were built, for war.
GREG MITCHELL: Right. Well, it’s really the first five-year history that anyone’s written, I think, and it goes from the run-up to the surge debate last fall. So it really is a chronology. It’s not in calendar form, of course, but it really does cover the whole period, so you do get all the arguments and the debate and the failures before the invasion was launched and then the five years of deceit and shortcomings ever since.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the pre-invasion period and what you felt was most — how the media was most successful in laying the false foundation.
Why We Invaded Iraq...
Rachel Maddow Documentary Special: "Why We Did It" - The Invasion of Iraq (FULL)
Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War
Dick Cheney - Neo Con War Profiteer
One of the results of this war not talked about in media is it's growing effects....
The Iraq Effect: New Study Finds 600% Rise in Terrorism Since US Invasion of Iraq...
As the fourth anniversary of the Iraq approaches, a new study by Mother Jones magazine has found that the number of fatal terrorist attacks has increased by over 600 percent since the U.S. invasion. We speak with the study’s co-author, Paul Cruickshank. [includes rush transcript]
President Bush, speaking at his State of the Union last month.Paul Cruickshank is co-author of the new study, "The Iraq Effect — the War in Iraq and its Impact on the War on Terrorism." He is a research fellow at the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law.
The fact that Dick Cheney knew this would happen just makes this coverup treason (and makes me wonder what else they are covering up)...
Guardians of the Veracity - When a report that Brian Williams filed during the Iraq War changes suspiciously over time, the media is quick to scrutinize the longtime news anchor's credibility. (7:49):
With the media frenzy over lies by Brian Williams and Bill O Reilly Jon Stewart wonders why this sort of frenzy over exposing lies hasn't hit the Iraq War story yet. God knows there is enough evidence for a hardcore public outcry.
Raging Bill - Fox News's Bill O'Reilly draws criticism for his past war reporting, and intelligence suggests that Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu misled the U.N. about Iran's nuclear program. (7:13)
Here is Jon Stewart Slamming The Media On the Iraq War Yet Again (in his words words);
Buying the War with Bill Moyers
How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? “What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored,” says Moyers. “How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?”
“Buying the War” includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of MEET THE PRESS; Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.
In “Buying the War” Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration’s case for war. “Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn’t make sense,” says Walcott. “And that really prompts you to ask, ‘Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?’”
In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. “I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda,” he tells Moyers. “Saddam…was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn’t believe it for an instant.” The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits. While almost all the claims would eventually prove to be false, the drumbeat of misinformation about WMDs went virtually unchallenged by the media. THE NEW YORK TIMES reported on Iraq’s “worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb,” but according to Landay, claims by the administration about the possibility of nuclear weapons were highly questionable. Yet, his story citing the “lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons” got little play. In fact, throughout the media landscape, stories challenging the official view were often pushed aside while the administration’s claims were given prominence. “From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration’s case for war,” says Howard Kurtz, the POST’s media critic. “But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions.”
“Buying the War” examines the press coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy and asks, four years after the invasion, what’s changed? “More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration,” says THE WASHINGTON POST’s Walter Pincus. “We’ve sort of given up being independent on our own.”