Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

American Pravda – How the State Run Media has killed Journalism

I sat down and spent 5 minutes jotting down ideas off the top of my head for reasons that real investigative journalism is dead in the State Run Media. I quickly came up with a healthy list of stories and examples that prove what I and many others on my side of the political spectrum have been saying about the Main Stream Media, namely, they are an ideological leftist bunch of propagandizing hacks.

For a bunch of people who claim to be just reporting the news, they get an AWFUL lot completely wrong and they omit very important stories, all to fit a template that is designed to elect and support Democrats. Just consider what we’ve seen in the past two weeks.

Rush Limbaugh made the news recently when his bid to buy a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams was leaked out. It took the State Run Media (SRM) five minutes to rush to print all over everywhere using absolutely made up, libelous, false quotes attributed to Rush in order to demonize him and force him out of the deal. There was NO fact checking. Not one person in the SRM called Rush to investigate, no, they used an anonymous poster’s quote from Wikipedia, that great paragon of truth. The truth is, they didn’t want to fact check the quotes because the made up racist quotes totally fit their bigoted caricature of conservatives and also, they hate that Rush has destroyed their media monopoly.

Along with this example, it took the SRM about 2 more minutes to go reach out to the other great paragons of truth and justice: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The fact that the media gives any level of credence whatsoever to anything those two men say further proves their total disregard for the truth. Sharpton is well known for totally fabricating the Tawana Brawley hoax and he and Jackson both were on the case when the white Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping the black stripper down there at Duke University in ginning up racial hate and fomenting outrage over another hoax, totally designed to push a false media template. Every time a black person is said to have been wronged, Jackson and Sharpton show up to foment racial hatred no matter the actual circumstances of the case. They would have no credibility if the SRM didn’t always trot them out to fill the “white conservatives are all racist” media template, yet we can constantly count on the SRM to do exactly that.

Here’s another example. Just this week, a fake email was sent out by the “Yes Men” claiming to be the Chamber of Commerce. They claimed that the Chamber had done a 180 on Cap and Trade and was now ready to support the legislation. They even held a fake news conference where members of the SRM attended and asked questions of the hoaxer! When a real representative of the Chamber showed up to set things right, the “journalists” told him to shut up because they wanted to finish asking questions of the liar claiming to be from the Chamber of Commerce! They were in the process of getting hoaxed, and then when presented with a huge story confirming a hoax, they chose to keep getting hoaxed! All because the story of supporting Obama’s Cap and Trade agenda fit the media template. Again, we have zero fact checking and in fact, an overt denial of the truth when presented with it. Later on CNN, they interviewed the hoaxer to get his opinion on things! Does this now just demonstrate how the SRM does not have any concern for the truth? Its all about fitting a media template and supporting Obama.

Another way I can show you the utter hypocrisy of the SRM is by documenting the way in which economic news is reported under various administrations. These days, there is a news story out every day that talks about “despite emerging signs of economic recovery, jobless claims rose unexpectedly” or “tax receipts are lower than expected” or “many economists see a ‘jobless’ recovery” or “BO claims 30,000 jobs “saved or created” by stimulus plan” even when we are at 9.8% unemployment and people are begging for handouts in cities like Detroit! They are doing everything in there power to convince us the economy is coming back, that recovery is right around the corner even when they are staring all kinds of bad economic news squarely in the face.

Roll the clock back to 2005, when we had 5% unemployment. Back then, since Bush (a republican) was president, the template was “Despite unemployment dropping a tenth of a percent, some economists warn of troubling signs.” For 6 years under Bush, despite a roaring economy and better than full employment (as defined under the Clinton years), the SRM tried to convince us daily that the economy was only steps away from utter catastrophe. Its not about reporting the news, its about fitting a preformed media template that involves carrying Obama’s water every step of the way.

I can also prove this thesis to you by demonstrating some of the stories the SRM refuses to cover. It took the SRM two full weeks to finally write ANYTHING about the ACORN scandal involving the fake pimp and prostitute getting tax advice at 4 different ACORN offices throughout the country…and when they did, they talked about how conservatives were spinning the story! (new york times perpetrated that one)

What about the treatment of the tea partiers, who gather by the millions on April 15th to protest wasteful government spending and taxation, in calling them “teabaggers” and doing everything in their power to discredit the message, instead of reporting on the whys and wherefores of the movement? How about the complete lack of coverage of the near 2 million people who peacefully marched on Washington DC on September 12, 2009? You had to go to the UK times to find out any real news about that, which turned out to be the largest protest ever held on American soil. You would think such a story would get some inquisitive journalist’s attention, but no, since the message was anti-Obama, it got a few seconds or a few lines at the end of the newscast.

I could go on and on here with example after example, but I wanted to keep this post to under the length of Stephen King’s The Stand.

In short, if you only watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or you only read the NYTimes, the Post Dispatch, or blogs at, you really need to expand your horizons. You are being brainwashed by a state-controlled propaganda outlet. Challenge your convictions by trying something new like Fox News ( I know Hannity is opinion…but check out Fox’s Sunday shows). Click on where all kinds of headlines are posted constantly. Do some independent thinking. Don’t let the State Run Media, America’s Pravda, control you.



    This is the fake Chamber of Commerce "press conference". Note the part where the reporter, upon hearing that the presenter is a fraud, says that he has a deadline and wants to finish questioning the hoaxer!

    No vetting, no fact checking. Nobody called the Chamber of Commerce to find out the truth. They didn't want to: the fraudulent email's message fit their preformed media template, so they ran with it. Fortunately, in this case, the truth won out.

  2. Scott, I've got no complaint on this. The credibility of news has been compromised (if it ever was not biased in the first place).

    Funny, though, how you don't seem to mention the Republican New Channel (Fox) in this credibility debate. They have the same problems as these other organizations you claim to despise. Fox News actually ran a news story, misspellings and all, that was just a talking point from the Repbulican National Committee ( I was planning a post on their bias as well.

    The real question becomes...Has the media ever not been biased? Sure, the creation of journalism schools was an attempt to end the yellow journalism of the late 19th Century and the newspapers dominated by the political parties of the early 19th Century. However, is it possible to have an unbiased news media?

    There was a journalism professor in the 1930s, I don't remember his name but I do remember the quote from my time in the Journalism School at Mizzou, that newspapers shouldn't have editorial pages because makes people question the credibility of the news stories.

    At the same time, a newspaper editor (again my memory fails on the name) said that if you want a crime spree, I'll give you a crime spree. Obviously, he indicates the ability of the news media to create or destroy stories.

    Conservatives complain about the liberal bias of the media. Fine. Don't get upset when liberals complain about the conservative bias of Fox News Channel, or the Washington Post, or the National Review, or the Wall Street Journal, or the Denver Post, or the New York Post, or Bloomberg News Service, 97.1 radio in St. Louis, etc.

    Conservatives never complain about the influence of David Brooks, George Will, Charles Kruthammer, to name a few.

    Of course, conservatives don't want you to know that there is an extreme bias in the Rebublican National Committee controlled media.

    Scott - this bias thing works both ways. And please don't complain about influence of the liberal leaning media. If the liberal media has so much influence over the public, then how come only 9 of the last 30 years have had a Democrat in the White House? That doesn't seem so "state run" as you make it out to be.

    I applaud your post to point out the problems with our news organizations. However, I do not applaud your "red herring" of the main issue.

  3. A couple of comments:

    I will agree that Fox is definitely much more right leaning than any of the other news organizations. However, when you compare a slightly left of center news organization with radical fringe left, state-controlled "news" organizations, the former will seem positively conservative!

    Here is a link to a Pew research study that documented the percentage of stories and their slant toward the respective candidate during the 2008 election.

    Note that while Fox ran roughly the same percentage of negative stories about Obama, they did run a slightly higher percent of positive stories about him than McCain, while by contrast, MSNBC was so hard core in support of Obama it would be a difficult task to differentiate between MSNBC reporting and Obama campaign stump speeches.

    That being said, perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough up front...

    What I call the "state run media" claims to be an unbiased news source. This includes CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Headline news, NYT, LATimes, Politico, Washington Post, etc. However, I have shown that they are not an unbiased news source, they are almost entirely opinion masquerading as news. A recent Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans were all of a sudden now in support of the "public option". However, what they failed to mention was that they sampled 16% more Democrats than Republicans. Well, if I go out and ask a bunch of people in downtown Chicago do they support public health care, I'm going to get the result I want. Similarly, WAPO did the same thing.

    The difference between Fox and the others is that Fox has some hard news and some shows that come straight out and tell you "We're Opinion".

    Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Greta...these are obviously opinion shows and they say so up front. They don't pretend to be a strictly news show. The Fox Report and Fox News Sunday with Brit Hume are examples of hard news that cover all the stories, many of which are totally ignored by the SRM simply because omitting those stories benefits Obama.

    BTW, 97.1 is a talk radio station. Again, they come right out and say "We are opinion with our interpretation of the news". That's the difference.

  4. As far as the history of journalism, all I can say is what I have seen. I know from listening to Limbaugh that the attacks on Reagan were far worse than anything Bush (or Obama for that matter) had to endure. I also remember some serious animous from 200 years ago. As far as politics goes, I think that is just world history. My complaint is that the recent trend in journalism has been to not worry whatsoever about being "right". Dan Rather still claims his stories about Bush being AWOL are true, even though he acknowledges his phony papers were complete frauds.

    When Journalists no longer even try to get the truth and just carry the water for the Administration, journalism is dead. That's what I'm saying.