Comments on: Beacon Editors Remain Silent

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:29:46 +0000

To you now, the media exists to make profit. That is there reason for being.

And you also agree the media is doing what "we the people" want. I don't buy that one either.

I never speak for what "most people would rather read"

Finally, do you no longer believe the media has an obligation to the American people?

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:11:39 +0000

I don't think it's that insidious. The media leans decidedly left, but they are also in the entertainment and sales industries. If the daily newspapers were repeating the congressional debates verbatim every day, you and I might like it, but it wouldn't do much to increase circulation or profit. If it would, then they certainly would do it. All businesses like profit. Let's face it, most people would rather read about the Browns or Britney than Congress.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:18:24 +0000

The Times and WaPo buried the story in the 20 plus pages.

Now we're faced with an appendage of the corrupt Washington establishment, the major media, working against the people because of huge conflicts of interest of the monied kind.

By: frank

frank — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:21:21 +0000

Rev,
I would guess that the Beacon did not cover it because there was no wire services coverage. Perhaps the assaults on civil liberties and corruption of government/business has become so ubiquitous as to be mundane and no longer worthy of coverage.

By: Da King

Da King — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:46:23 +0000

This is bigger than the Beacon Journal. Our media seldom if ever carries any substance about congressional debates. The most we ever get is a sound byte or two. I expect the Beacon didn't carry it because there wasn't a result. Harry Reid tabled the discussion.