View without photos
View with photos

C-Span's Washington Journal Hangs Up on Caller Who Questions Official Lie About Events of 9-11
by Editor    Looking Glass News
Entered into the database on Friday, April 21st, 2006 @ 13:11:58 MST


Untitled Document

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 issue.

He continued:

" 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"

(The videocast 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.

While people 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 of financial 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 ....while scholars from around 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.

A study 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 Spectator."

"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 Journal.

The media 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" by Fred 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 Executive power."

"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 and propagandists.

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."