who controls the media?

[AR182]

we have had debates in this forum about whether the conservatives or the liberals control the media, so i thought that people might find this interesting.


Friday, May 16, 2003 1:58 p.m. EDT
Estrich's Anti-Clinton Column Spiked

A column urging Bill and Hillary Clinton to leave the national stage so that Democratic presidential candidates won't have to labor in their shadow has apparently been spiked by news editors who regularly carry Hillary's Creators Syndicate essays.

A LexisNexis search Friday morning turned up not a single published version of the Estrich screed, in which the liberal Democratic operative implored the Clintons to "shut up" and predicted that Hillary would never be president.

Still, millions of Americans learned of Estrich's analysis from Rush Limbaugh, who spent several segments of his top-rated radio talk show on Thursday discussing Estrich's bombshell remarks.

Fox News Channel hosts Sean Hannity and John Gibson also gave Estrich, a regular contributor to the top-rated cable news channel, TV airtime to explain her concerns.

By Friday, after it became apparent that no mainstream print outlet had carried the controversial column, Limbaugh publicly protested the media censorship.

"Nowhere on the Internet can you find Susan Estrich's column from yesterday," he told his audience. "Now, that just doesn't happen - a column to be spiked everywhere."

"I'm sure Susan's still scratching her head," Limbaugh added. "What have I got to do? I write a column, I send it out and on this one column, everybody that runs it spikes it."

To read the Susan Estrich column the mainstream media doesn't want you to see, visit the Creators Syndicate Web site at: http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=ses

 

[Frogy]

Always interesting articles you post.
Never miss to reed one.

TX for taking time to share your findings.

 

[AR182]

thanks frogy, appreciate it.

will be in quebec in august, let me know if you would like to meet for a few.

 

[Pujo21]

Monica has a show on Foxx..wow,, will she be after The Most Powerful Man in News--- O'Relly Factor?

 

[kosar]

Re: who controls the media?

Friday, May 16, 2003 1:58 p.m. EDT
Estrich's Anti-Clinton Column Spiked

A column urging Bill and Hillary Clinton to leave the national stage so that Democratic presidential candidates won't have to labor in their shadow has apparently been spiked by news editors who regularly carry Hillary's Creators Syndicate essays.


---I'd love to hear the names of the outlets who 'regularly' carry Susan Estrich's 'column'. Who is this person, and why in the world is it shocking that she didn't get the national audience that some people crave?


A LexisNexis search Friday morning turned up not a single published version of the Estrich screed, in which the liberal Democratic operative implored the Clintons to "shut up" and predicted that Hillary would never be president.


---I don't know about 'lexisnexis', but a friday 'evening' search of three search engines found that article right at the top.


Still, millions of Americans learned of Estrich's analysis from Rush Limbaugh, who spent several segments of his top-rated radio talk show on Thursday discussing Estrich's bombshell remarks.

---LMFAO! 'Bombsehll remarks'? Are you kidding me? What was the bombshell? That Hillary will never be prez? That the liberal operative implored the Clintons to 'shut up'? Yup, really crazy stuff. Bombshell material.



By Friday, after it became apparent that no mainstream print outlet had carried the controversial column, Limbaugh publicly protested the media censorship.


---LOL. My God, it's hardly controversial and more than that, who in the hell is required to print any specific column? How many friggn' columns by how many people are put out each week?


"Nowhere on the Internet can you find Susan Estrich's column from yesterday," he told his audience. "Now, that just doesn't happen - a column to be spiked everywhere."


---again, who exactly is expected to run this persons column? Let's not forget, there are plenty of right biased papers around the country. Apparently, they didn't find it compelling or fresh material either.


"I'm sure Susan's still scratching her head," Limbaugh added. "What have I got to do? I write a column, I send it out and on this one column, everybody that runs it spikes it."

---who normally 'runs it'? Who normally runs her column?


To read the Susan Estrich column the mainstream media doesn't want you to see, visit the Creators Syndicate Web site

----this borders on the absurd. It's a column that is benign and simple. That Rush(and plenty of others i'm sure) thinks that there is some great media conspiracy to keep this 'bombshell' in the dark is laughable.

---Oh, and perhaps most importantly, her thesis itself is incredibly foolish. If Gore had not rebuked Clinton when he offered to help during his campaign, he wouldn't have had to sweat out hanging chads and supreme court rulings. He would have won in a landslide(well, *more* of a landslide).

---Gore thought that Bill would be a hindrance, much like this lady thinks about the upcoming election. Gore was wrong, and it cost him an election and like Bill or not, any serious democratic candidate would be wise to encourage his active support.

 

[StevieD]

Interesting article AR but what I can't figure out is who was suppose to publish her article? I mean just who is censoring her. It is kind of like Eminem yelling about censorship. If they wanted to censor him we wouldn't even know he was alive! It seems like yes she does write some coloums that occasionally get published. I took this from the link you posted. Besides if she ran the Dukasis campaign who is interested in anything she would have to say about anything!


About Susan Estrich
Is politics destroying the criminal justice system? What's the true nature of sexual harassment in the workplace? What is the future of feminism? Why can single-sex education be a good thing?

To learn the answers to questions like these, one need only look through some of the prolific writing of Susan Estrich -- politician, professor, lawyer and writer. Whether on the pages of newspapers such as The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post or as a television commentator on countless news programs on CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC, she has tackled legal matters, women's concerns, national politics and social issues with the same high level of intelligent analysis and insight.

A best-selling author, Estrich's recent works include: "Who Needs Feminism, Sex and Power?" (2000), "Getting Away With Murder: How Politics is Destroying the Criminal Justice System" (1998) and "Making the Case for Yourself: A Diet Book for Smart Women."

Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. She serves on the Board of Editorial Contributors for USA Today, as a presidential appointee on U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and as a mayoral appointee on the City of Los Angeles Ethics Committee.

Estrich first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988, but she has been at the forefront of the academic and intellectual debate for decades. After graduating as a Phi Beta Kappa scholar with highest honors from Wellesley College in 1974, Estrich went on to attend Harvard Law School. She was selected president of the Harvard Law Review and received her JD magna cum laude in 1977.

After serving as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, Estrich had her first taste of politics as Deputy National Issues Director with the Kennedy for President campaign in 1979.

In 1981, Estrich began teaching at Harvard Law School, and by 1986, she had received tenure. Her professorial duties did not limit her involvement in political campaigning, however, as she was named executive director for the Democratic National Platform Committee in 1984 and worked as a senior policy adviser to the Mondale-Ferraro presidential campaign.

Estrich also performed some private legal practice, serving as a counsel for the firm of Tuttle & Taylor in Los Angeles from 1986 to 1987. The call of national politics was too strong for her to stay out of the fray for long, however, leading her to accept the job with the Dukakis campaign in October of 1987.

Susan Estrich lives in Los Angeles.

 

[AR182]

i think her point is that clinton will over shadow any of the contenders, that they will play second fiddle, doesn't make the candidate presidential.

i agree that gore should have welcomed clinton's assistance. that is why i think gore is probably the worst politician in the last 20 or 30 years.

estrich is a professor in either usc or ucla & has been an advisor in democratic politics for years. i happen to like he because she is candid.

 

[djv]

We should control the media. How? Don't buy some of the BS advertised on them. Better yet tell them your not going to. Easy now days just send email. It's a starting point.
O'Rilley ripped Red Crosse because he thought they did poor job with 9/11. Chit on there case ever since. But guess who now advertises on his show. Not all the time but couple times aweek. Wonder where that money came from. Spin we call that. So does he. But he took there money.

 

[AR182]

djv,

i watch o'reilly often & have never seen the red cross advertise on his show. and even if they did, he would not get any of that advertising money since he does not own his show.

 

[AR182]

here is the article in question. btw, i happen to agree with her.it's right on point with what's wrong with the democratic presidency. the clinton presidency is over. it's time to let the new candidated take center stage.
i voted for clinton twice, but the more i see of him, post his presidency, the more i am getting to dislike him. i believe there are many like me, enough with this ham. get off center stage!!



by Susan Estrich



FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003, AND THEREAFTER



The Clintons are back.

Sidney Blumenthal -- much-hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist -- $850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right-wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

Hillary's book is next.

Could someone please tell these people to shut up?

The Democrats might have a chance of electing a new president if they could get the last one, and his defenders, to clear the stage. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They should be history.

The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they'll never do so long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990s.

Don't get me wrong. No one spent more time defending Bill Clinton than I did. Too much, according to most of my friends. But in a constitutional crisis, there was no choice. Enough is enough.

There's no excuse for a grown man to have an affair with an intern, whether his name is Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy. What the former president did was wrong.

It's bad enough that Fox has given Monica Lewinsky a talk show. Of all the hundreds of women who could help find Mr. Personality, the last one on earth who's earned the right to do it is the Queen of Blow Jobs of the 1990s.

The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

Why are we? Or, to put it more accurately, why are they?

Not because it serves the interests of Democrats of the future.

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt.

It makes George W. Bush look good.

It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me, during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me in trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder Republicans are delighted to see his return to the spotlight.

It raises money for their causes.

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show on CBS has proven to be a colossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention non-working, independent, non-political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

But the more people talk about her as a future president, the more money Republicans raise. The more people talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats ...

 

[StevieD]

AR182, I can see why that article was not printed and why Murdoch ran to have Rush and the boys feature it.
First off, as pointed out by Kosar and her bio she does not write a regular column so no one was obligated to run it.
To say that no one likes the Clintons is kind of stupid. Hillary was elected senator from New York. It doesn't matter if Susan Estrich likes her or not but someone must like her.
If she wanted to write an article about the Clintons she should of looked at it from the angle of why do the republicans trash them every chance they get. It is not anything new for that group. They have been, and are still trashing Kennedy, Not Ted but John what's this now 40 years after his death! Every time there is a threat of a Kennedy running somewhere out comes the Kennedy bashers. Now they keep bringing up the same old dirt on Clinton, even though they spent millions during his time as President trying to prove something that they couldn't.
The fact is that right now the person they are most worried about is Hillary. Like her or not they see her as a threat. Or else why would they keep trashing her?
I thank you for bringing light to the article but it is way off base.
By the way what is Neil Bush doing now?

 

[djv]

Why do Republicans trash the Clintons. Because there scared of them. Every time they run against then they lose. Even good old Bill they investigated from day one. But he won a second term. And remember many Republicans are old SOB that just count there money everyday. Man they hate the young folks in there own party as much as the young ones in the Dems. And that far right out fit on the east cost is really lost in a time warp.
AR182 red crossed did advertise on O'Rilley show. And he does have a say on who does. Im guessing at least hopeing he did not know they were. I kind of like the guy somedays. But it sure looked bad. Hey MSNBC who is fighting with Fox all the time picked up on it. Nothing said by Fox.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

In response to the question posed in this post, it is obvious to the educated posters and visitors to this site that the conservatives, corporate America, religious right and republican party control the media in this country and have for quite some time.

I have often enjoyed the gullibility of Americans in general when they buy into the Republican spin that the media is liberal. Goes to show the truth in the old saying that the best offense is a defense. Republicans and consevatives have been effectively portraying themselves as victims of the "liberal" press for years when in fact they have controlled the press to the point wherein they have been able to garner enought votes to elect outright criminals into the highest offices in this land.

Soon, Bush and his henchmen, the corporate criminals (bankers, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.) will remove the last bastion of freedom of the press when they permit media corporations to own all, let me repeat that, all of the media in geographic areas.

Yeah, I can see it now, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting scooping up all the media in all the national markets. NOT. As the scum in the white house continues to attempt to cut funding to non-corporate radio. Poor, poor Clear Channel Communications. Won't be able to get Rush on the airwaves.

You morons are being taken over by communications giants who will control the information you receive and you don't care. Rush,
Hannity, Fox, et. al., will be putting there own special spin on things 24/7 all across your radio dial kids. You will think that that is the news.

This country is over. As long as corporate america runs the show, you will get the lies of McDonalds coffee case, the malpractice crisis, etc. You know whose to blame. Guys like me who have allowed the scum to win the war. Then again, they have all the gold.

How in the hell did we elect the criminals and minions that are in Washington today. Well funded corporate america getting there way at the expense of the individual people of this country. I ask you this, if the media is so liberal why have you never heard the full story of McDonalds? Because corporate america doesnt want you to hear it. They want you to buy the sound bite of woman burns herself when she spills coffee and gets millions.

Clear Channel wins, you and I lose.

Ed

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

My goodness Eddie
Looking closely at your post I have observed the following.

"You morons are being taken over by communications giants who will control the information you receive and you don't care"

Yeh your the only one here with any intelligence,if they don't agree with you their morons. Freud has a definition on that syndrome.

"Republicans and consevatives have been effectively portraying themselves as victims of the "liberal" press for years when in fact they have controlled the press to the point wherein they have been able to garner enought votes to elect outright criminals into the highest offices in this land."

I think crimnals are elected on both sides by my last count.now pardoning 10 most wanted and terrorist in confined to just a select few.

"How in the hell did we elect the criminals and minions that are in Washington "

you voted for em like the rest of us.The problem lies in that nothing is done to them after they are caught and we all know why.

"They want you to buy the sound bite of woman burns herself when she spills coffee and gets millions. "

The very fact that this case EVER made it into the court system is the real problem,and proof positive for tort reform.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Kentucky clown:

Instead of portraying yourself as someone from the middle, why don't you tell those reading this thread exactly which insurance company you work for? More propoganda from the right.

Why do you think the McDonalds case should not have gotten to court? Why do you state that it is a good reason for tort reform?What are your facts Mr. good hands people? Or do you just want to continue the spin and blowing smoke.

Keep on collecting those premiums doggie baby and don't pay any claims. Then maybe you too can have a nice little home in Blowing Green with a white picket fence around it like your Ozzie and Harriet buddy.

Go blue!

Eddie

 

[kosar]

Eddie,

Many times in the last year or two you've mentioned that nobody knows the 'real story' in the McDonalds case, implying that you do. Do you? And if so, would you be so generous as to share with the group?

 

[THE KOD]

Yeh your the only one here with any intelligence,if they don't agree with you their morons.

..............................

DOGs told you off good that time Eddie !

:yup :yup :yup


KinG OF DoGs

 

[THE KOD]

Eddie,

Many times in the last year or two you've mentioned that nobody knows the 'real story' in the McDonalds case, implying that you do. Do you? And if so, would you be so generous as to share with the group?

kosar

kick his ass seabass !


KinG OF DoGs

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Kosar:

In response, insurance company pacs' and spin doctors have used this case to shape public opinion against trial lawyers and in favor of tort reform.

1. McDonalds coffee was not just hot (135 -140 degrees which can cause mild discomfort) but rather was scalding (180-190 degrees) which can cook through all layers of human skin within seven seconds.

2. The plaintiff didnt want to sue but rather wanted McDonalds to pay for her medical bills totalling $20,000.00 (she spent 8 days in the hospital, eduring multiple skin grafts and debridement treatments.)

3. McDonalds rejected her offer, further rejected her request for mediation and demanded a trial.

4. During depostitions and at trial, McDonalds admitted it brewed its coffee 40 to 50 degrees hotter than if fit for human consumption.

5. The plaintiff suffered 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body.

6. Prior to this case, McDonalds knew that over 700 people, including children and infants had been burned by its coffee.

7. During trial, McDonalds told the jury that it would not lower the temperature of its coffee (such arrogant and reckless position prompting the jury's punitive damage award).

8. The jury awarded the plaintiff 200,000 compensatory damages and reduced the sum to 160,000 based upon its finding that the plaintiff was 20% at fault

9. Jury awarded $2.7 million punitive damages which represented 2 days of coffee sales at McDonalds.

10. This punitive damage award was reduced by the judge to 480,000 and the case settled.

Of significance, after this case, McDonalds lowered the temperature of its coffee. You know what, thats exactly how the tort system is suppose to work. Then again, many of you probably approve of corporate america selling dangerous products like this without any accountablility.

Same thing that happened in the 80's with the Ford Pinto when Plaintiffs counsel in that case got a hold of that little ole interoffice memoranda which did a risk analysis on the amount of $ Ford would most likely pay out to those injured and killed by exploding gas tanks vs. the amount of the recall of the Pintos to install that $11.00 (I think) part.

This is not just "hot" coffee, people, this is scalding water served at that temperature in order to keep a longer shelf life for the product. Now, do the foregoing facts sell papers. Of course not. "Woman spills coffee in lap and gets millions" does.

I understand people spill coffee, cokes, and, in my case, beer on them all the time. On occasion, we can be clumsy, inattentive, and, in my case, drunk. However, when the product sold is brewed and sold at a temperature not fit for human consumption, I consider that dangerous and am glad that because of us scummy lawyers, it is off the market.

Hot coffee=no liability. Scalding coffee (intentionally brewed that way with notice of 700 prior burns= liablity reduced by contributory negligence of plaintiff. I think the civil justice system worked just fine in this case. Although, Dogs would have you think otherwise.

As with most bias and prejudice, facts are a terrible thing to know.

Eddie

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Eddie is right on almost the entire story, surprisingly enough. It wasn't coffee that was hotter than normal, but one that was within Company specs and McDonald's knew that it was a problem.

Tort reform will hurt the lawyers, but it keeps Corporations and more importantly, insurance companies in check, both of whom make lawyers look like they have integrity in comparison