The Cover Up Continues

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/4/2018 at 8:49 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Corrected and correct.  Today I saw one non headline story on the law professors letter to the Senate on MSN.  It's up to 650 now with several from Harvard, where he now used to teach, and I believe a few from Yale.  You'd think the opinion of such distinguished professionals would carry more weight with such an august body.  Though the letter has yet to be delivered, perhaps it will receive more recognition when it does.  Nothing I saw on the Ministers today.  Considering the power of the religious right might the media be perplexed on what to do with this?  (As opposed to their owners wishes).

Ron, Ok, So in this case the  MSM  is not enough of an advocate for you. It's sort of like Trump's "the press is the enemy of the people", but with a different slant?

Your source here, the New York Times has come out against the Kavanaugh nomination. In a supposed "free press" society, what more a condemnation of Kavanaugh can they do? So you're saying the "powers that be" intervened with the New York Times to not follow up the story? Not a chance in hell, Ron, even if there was a chance, the story is just too wimpy.

There  are no backroom edicts involving the media and their owners involving this story about the Law Professors at all. These  publications have a very good idea who they're talking to. They know the people who like these articles probably don't need a follow up, after all WTF are they going to say to follow up? The people who won't read them will just see them as the same old "liberal experts" flaunting their opinions on them. These people  don't generally hold any liberal law professors, or religious experts (outside of maybe Evangelicals) or any "experts" or "eggheads" opinions in any esteem at all.

There's not much more they can say. They don't want to be seen to be forever "preaching to their choir" and in today's polarized society are trying to avoid the appearance of partiality. I don't see anything conspiratorial but just the usual way the news media does their business.It's really that simple.

Nobody here wants to make a case for the fairness of the MSM, but instead of jumping at the concept of a "massive media conspiracy", maybe you should focus on specific media entities in each specific case.

Though I don't blindly follow all the supposed "experts". I agree with you that it's regrettable because most people should think this article is more important, but I don't think they do.

But you do bring up a  a good question. What makes a story "have legs"? Right now, I think there's a much greater story broken from the same "media conspiracy"  New York Times, a story in part compiled with the obligatory financial disclosures made by his sister as a Federal judge that 1) Trump isn't a self made billionaire at all. 2) Was a millionaire by the age of 8. 3)Was given a million every year after he was 21 by his Father.4) Got bailed out of bad real estate deals by his Dad. and 5) got 413 million dollars from his Dad in illegal tax dodges, using ghost corporations, putting a property assessment of 13 million dollars on what is in fact a quarter billion dollars in Real Estate, that the government may not ever be able to collect.

In other words. He's a complete phony. If that doesn't move the needle, instead of blaming the MSM, (without whom, you would never know this), maybe we should just blame ourselves.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Kirk, I don't believe in a mass media conspiracy.  I think the 1% owners of the MSM tell their corporate heads who tell the editors, producers, directors and writers what is news and what is not.

Steve Thomas noted the number of legal professors to sign the document had grown to 2400 (where did you get this Steve?).  I don't know how many legal professors there are in the US but I'd imagine that's a significant percentage of them.  Considering a few of them are from Yale where he went to school and Harvard where he now used to teach that's important.  The NYT picked up on it.  Your right CBS, NBC, ABC  and CNN and FOX among so many others didn't.  Why?  Legislators need lawyers to keep from running afoul of the law.  Several of them Are lawyers.  Yet the considered opinion of their educators is ignored.  Why?  This is news that would sell in the msm.

So is the religious aspect.  The "National Council of Churches, a coalition of churches attended by 40 million" is in large part the Religious Right.  When their leaders are calling for him to withdraw from nomination that's news.  Catholic or not he's one of them, Religious and Right.

Both the Law Professors and Clergy based this not exclusively on the claims of Ms. Ford and others but his lying to the senate committee and demonstrated contempt for them and the legal process.

That's news, but they were ignored.  That's Ownership of the news, spoken.

It's been going on in some form, at some level, not just since the JFK assassination but since WWI or before in some respects. 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the story that Kirk refers to above near the end should have gone viral.

But not only has it not, but now people over at Politico, Washington Post Jr. are mocking the story.

As Kirk says it goes to the heart of Trump's fairy tale about his success. He became extremely wealthy because he and his family cheated the government by lying about their assets.

But the story just did not catch on.  I have no idea why?  Is this how much the media worships success?