On Monday morning, April 17, C-Span senior executive producer and political
editor Steve Scully
hosted the Washington Journal. As C-Span's answer to the morning programming
on the three network and the three cable channels, it opens with a summary of
the days upcoming political events. On this day, we were informed that George
Bush would be hosting an Easter Egg roll on the White House lawn and that he
would be travelling to Virginia to speak about, i.e. propagandize, his failed
economic policies. Brief mentions of the problems facing the American puppet
government in Iraq, a visit to the U.S. by the President of China, that day's
tax deadline and yet another paid vacation taken by the men and women in Congress
who purport to represent the American people ensued.
A reading of news from around the nation followed, which found the host reciting
bits from mainstream newspapers. The sources cited are those for whom the label
of "credible " is attached. There is never any expression of skepticism
about whether said story is, in fact, "credible".
The guest line-up for Washington Journal was presented. The schedule for this
particular day included an author to discuss the 45th anniversary of the Bay
of Pigs Invasion; Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform; Steven
Johnson of the Heritage Foundation; and Wayne Smith from the Center for Immigration
Cuba Program. Then the show launched into a discussion of whether Newt Gingrinch
is, should, or will run for the office of President.
Interspersed throughout the show, viewers were encouraged to call in
and comment, either on specific topics or during "open line" segments.
There is a misconception concerning this forum, and concerning the whole of
C-Span programming. The misconception is that bias does not exist throughout
both the general programming and the call in portion. The incident that follows
clearly illustrates that bias.
Between a segment on a teenage winner of the Student Cam contest and the appearance
of the ever loathsome Grover Norquist came a call from Bowhead City, Arizona.
Attempting to tie his thoughts in to a mention of the "general's revolt
" against Rumsfeld and the defense of the war criminal by Gen. Myers, the
caller began by observing that Gen. Myers should be commenting on the attack
on the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. It is obvious from the response that the
caller received that he had to begin by attempting to tie his comments to a
previous topic. As the host clearly demonstrated, no discussion of the many
anomalies surrounding the events of 9-11 would be tolerated as a stand alone
" a search on Google for Pentagon 9-11, for instance, will show
a plethora of graphic...media reported graphics data that indicates a complete
lack of any air craft crash debris...there's no....
Political editor Scully then cut the caller off and responded:
"caller we have had...I'm gonna stop you there ... we've had
this call... and I'm just gonna move on... but, thank you ..appreciate it
...because it is completely ludicrous, to be perfectly honest, based on all
the accounts and all the evidence at these sites"
of this exchange can be found at the C-Span website. The pertinent segment appears
at the 1 hour 47 minute mark)
One minute later, the despicable Grover Norquist was introduced.
One can plainly see that censorship, not only bias, is part of the agenda of
C-Span. Censoring the merest hint that something is amiss with the official
comspiracy theory surrounding 9-11. During an "open line" segment
of a call-in show, it is off linits to discuss the fact that evidence clearly
points to a government cover up of offiicial involvement in mass murder. A senior
executive producer and political editor may dismiss fact as theory by simply
stating that it is so.
all over the globe understand that no full investigation has ever been performed
to discover the truth behind 9-11... while research
plainly shows that the version of "truth" being fed to the American
people about 9-11 is false....while evidence
gain as a result of the of tragedy exists.....while even a casual observer
can tell that what they
saw with their own eyes contradicts what they have been told....while even
a novice can judge the difficulty
of pulling off the events of that day without impressive skill and training
the nation counter the cover-up of the 9-11 Commision Report...while everyday
more and more people become aware
of the fact that complicity in the crimes of 9-11 reaches to the highest level...C-Span
dismisses it all by labelling a callers views "ludicrous".
C-Span has long been touted as presenting public affairs with a minimal intrusion
by hosts or reporters. That may be true. As a rule, C-Span allows the cameras
to capture, without comment, the circus that masquerades as the american politcal
process. Presenting the folly in an unvarnished form may be a service to the
public, although, it is probably true that many people watch and conclude that
the system is viable: orderly men and women acting in orderly ways to facilitate
the functioning of the government. To others, to those who are willing to look
past the rhetoric and decorous behavior that defines the process, the agenda
of the elite at work, working hard to insure that the interests of all BUT the
average american are served, is exposed.
Unlike the "reporters" on Good Morning America (ABC), the Today Show
(NBC) and the Early Show (CBS), Steve Scully and the rest of the C-Span staff
do not cook or model the latest fashions. They do not devote their entire programming
schedule to focusing in on the latest upper middle class missing or dead white
woman, as is the habit on American Morning (CNN). Over on MSNBC, they have forgone
the typical morning show venue in favor of Imus In The Morning, an "irreverent"
little endeavor, full of racist and misogynist commentary, featuring a host
who has perfected the art of kissing the ass of politicians and journalists
and the zionist, warmongering corporations who sponsor him. Of course, the hosts
of Washington Journal are much more subtly subversive than the blatant Bush
Administration toadies who serve up a breakfast of broadcasting bullshit on
Fox and Friends (Fox News).
Being subtle, however, does not equate to being evenhanded.
has found that Washington Journal
"skews rightward, favoring Republican and right-of-center interview
subjects by considerable margins over Democratic and left-of-center guests.
The study also found that women, people of color and public interest viewpoints
were substantially underrepresented."
"Out of the 205 partisan guests, Republicans outnumbered Democrats nearly
two to one (134 to 70): Republicans accounted for 65 percent of Washington
Journal’s partisan guests, while Democrats made up 34 percent. No representative
of a third party appeared during the study period."
"Elected officials who appeared on Washington Journal were slightly more
balanced than overall partisan guests. Of the 97 elected officials appearing
on the show (senators and House members), 58 were Republican and 39 were Democrat—a
60 to 40 percent imbalance in favor of the GOP."
"Despite its declaration of balance, the Washington Journal hosted journalists
from right-leaning opinion magazines more often than it did those from the
left. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard furnished three guests,
as did the like-minded National Review (including National Review Online).
Only two guests from the liberal American Prospect were invited on the Journal,
and only one guest from the left-leaning Nation. "
"When opinion journalists from all outlets were included, the right-leaning
bias was nearly as strong: 32 right-of-center journalists appeared, vs. 19
left-of-center reporters (even counting editor Peter Beinart, the New Republic’s
pro-war editor, as being on the left). Perhaps this tilt to the right could
be rationalized if right-wing magazines were distinctly more popular than
their counterparts on the left, but the reverse seems to be true; Mother Jones
and The Nation both best National Review’s circulation numbers by a
wide margin, and The Progressive outsells the Weekly Standard and American
"Given this pattern, it’s not surprising that right-of-center
and centrist think-tanks dominated Washington Journal’s 75 think-tank
guest slots during the study period. The conservative American Enterprise
Institute and the centrist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace were
the best-represented think tanks, providing 10 guests each. The centrist Brookings
Institution had seven guests, followed by the Heritage Foundation and the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, two conservative groups whose
experts each appeared five times. Among left-leaning think tanks, only the
Center for International Policy provided as many as two guests."
"Although they could serve as a valuable corrective to the show’s
elite-skewed guestlist, citizen-based organizations and public interest groups
accounted for just 9 percent of total guests on Washington Journal, with 57
appearances. Despite its relatively small size, this category did much to
increase the ideological diversity of the program, with guests spanning the
political spectrum from Club for Growth, the Family Research Council and the
Independent Women’s Forum on the right, to Public Citizen, the Alliance
for Justice and the National Women’s Law Center on the left."
"While corporate representatives made up a small group of Washington
Journal guests (24, or 4 percent), the number of guests who might have provided
a balance to corporate views were even less. Union representatives, environmentalists
and consumer rights groups accounted for just six guest appearances, or 1
percent of the total."
These facts define the supposedly evenhanded, unbiased and unintrusive Washington
has become one voice, bringing us one message. The message is the message of
the elite. The media
no longer serves the people for whom they are charged with providing information.
The well known and "respected" figures who should be investigating
the corruption have become water carriers for their corporate bosses. The Sunday
talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are dominated by conservative voices, from
newsmakers to commentators. Hosts such as Chris Matthews declare while
speaking about George W. Bush, " I JUST LOVE THIS GUY AS COMMANDER
IN CHIEF ", using propaganda tactics on his show
, which is overly representated by Republican and conservative guests. Tim Russert,
the much ballyhooed host of Meet the Press, has been called "shameful"
Branfman, writing for the Huffington Post:
"Russert is either at the feet of the powerful or the throat of those
who challenge them. By so doing with a conservative Administration, he winds
up supporting war, violence, inequality, harm to the environment, and expanded
"What is particularly shameful about his behavior is that Russert does
not toady to a conservative Administration out of ideological conviction.
However one feels about Sean Hannity, he is at least sincere. Russert, however,
has no real beliefs. He sucks up to conservatives today simply to build his
career, income, and power."
The esteemed and sainted Peter Jennings was able to amass a personal fortune
worth over 50 million dollars. Given that fact, the statement
that "he was a willing whore of the Corporate Press and that should be
his legacy" rings true. Amazingly, these shills for corporate and elite
interests are tagged with the label "liberal". Ted Koppel, often portrayed
as a darling of the left, has embraced
the policies and legacy of none other than Henry Kissinger. Even so called
"radical left" journalists such as Amy
Goodman strive to achieve what passes for "balance" by presenting
"both sides" in a debate. No matter that one side may be proven liars
It is no wonder people turn to the internet to stay informed. The topic of
the crimes of 9-11 wil not be discussed in the mainstream. It is unlikely that
any of the researchers who speak the truth about 9-11 will be appearing on Meet
the Press as a counter to the 9-11 commissioners.
As Jesse, the Editor of TvNewsLIES wrote:
"the media is waiting for their marching orders. They are all remaining
silent until they receive instructions to proceed with their reporting...the
coordinated story has to be approved so that there are no contradictions when
the corporate media unit brainwash the public with the exact version of the
story that they want us to believe."