You are here

Media

Media Icon

CBS almost reported Reagan was mentally unfit in 1986

    \r\n
  • "I now believe [Reagan aides and his wife Nancy] covered up his condition, and many continued to as they wrote their memoirs. But then, the public knew something wasn't right. There were all sorts of signs. We all looked the other way," Leslie Stahl concluded in her book.
  • \r\n

  • Mission Accomplished: The Reagan Occupation and the Destruction of the American Middle Class
  • \r\n

  • How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
  • \r\n

\r\n

David Edwards, Raw Story

\r\n

Submitted by Evergreene Digest Contributing Editor Thomas Sklarski

\r\n

Submitted by Evergreene Digest Contributing Editor Thomas SklarskiTwo sons of former President Ronald Reagan have been engaged in a public disagreement over whether their father exhibited early signs of Alzheimer's disease while still in the White House.

\r\n

Veteran CBS reporter Leslie Stahl, who saw Reagan have mental lapses in 1986, could possibly play a role in settling that feud -- or cause it to become even bigger than it already was.

\r\n

In his new book, titled "My Father at 100," Ron Reagan, who's identified himself as a liberal and an atheist, wrote that in 1984, he began to "experience the nausea of a bad dream coming true" with regards to his father's mental condition.

\r\n

The younger Reagan added that as early as 1986, his father had become alarmed at his growing lack of certain memories. "[He] had been alarmed to discover, while flying over the familiar canyons north of Los Angeles, that he could no longer summon their names," Reagan wrote.

\r\n

More...
Related:

\r\n

Mission Accomplished: The Reagan Occupation and the Destruction of the American Middle Class, David Michael Green, Buzzflash
The middle class is on its knees and shrinking fast.  Unions have been broken into irrelevance.  Government, supposedly an agent of the public interest, has become a complete tool of those it is meant to monitor.  Both political parties are fully owned by the oligarchy.  The public has been brainwashed into seeing its allies as enemies and its enemies as allies.  We have been drained of hope that any actor on the horizon can come to our rescue.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan, Will Bunch, Salon.com
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

Section(s): 

The World's Crisis in War Reporting

At this complex and dangerous moment in history, we must recognize that journalists around the world are failing in their duty as watchdogs of the people and that – combined with economic stresses – the traditional role of journalism is diminishing.

Don North, Middle East Online

iStockphoto/Salon

\r\n

As journalists are laid off and newspapers cut back or shut down, whole sectors of our civic life disappear from public view and go dark. Much of local and state governments, whole federal departments, and the world itself are neglected.

Politicians are working increasingly without independent scrutiny and without public accountability. Perhaps most alarmingly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism abroad go underreported despite the billions of dollars spent and the tens of thousands of lives lost.

More...

Section(s): 

Media Unwittingly Plays Republicans' Deficit Game ... Again

    \r\n
  • Why were journalists and commentators so blind? I suspect it had to do with their desire to seem neutral. In order to show how even-handed and open-minded they were, journalists felt that they had to find Republican fiscal heroes. Reporting that the whole deficit debate was a political ploy, lacking any substance, would have sounded shrill.
  • \r\n

  • Molly Ivins on fair and balanced news
  • \r\n

\r\n

Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co./Truthout

\r\n

John A. Boehner, the Republican leader, presented the party's new agenda last year in Virginia. (Photo: Drew Angerer/New York Times)

\r\n

Who could have seen this coming?

\r\n

The Washington Post editorial board was shocked (shocked!) to discover in early January that incoming congressional Republicans aren’t serious about deficit reduction.

\r\n

“You could listen to their rhetoric — or you could read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the new Congress,” they wrote in a Jan. 2 editorial. “The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The latter suggests that the new G.O.P. majority is determined to continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting.”

\r\n

More...

\r\n

Related:

\r\n

Molly Ivins on fair and balanced news, Entersection

\r\n

Balanced seesaw
Image credit: Pop + Politics

\r\n

The very notion that on any given story all you have to do is report what both sides say and you’ve done a fine job of objective journalism debilitates the press. There is no such thing as objectivity, and the truth, that slippery little bugger, has the oddest habit of being way to hell off on one side or the other: it seldom nestles neatly halfway between any two opposing points of view. The smug complacency of much of the press—I have heard many an editor say, “Well, we’re being attacked by both sides so we must be right”—stems from the curious notion that if you get a quote from someone on both sides, preferably in an official position, you’ve done the job. In the first place, most stories aren’t two-sided, they’re 17-sided at least. In the second place, it’s of no help to either the readers or the truth to quote one side saying, “Cat,” and the other side saying “Dog,” while the truth is there’s an elephant crashing around out there in the bushes. Getting up off your duff and going to find out for yourself is still the most useful thing a reporter can do.

Section(s): 

Comcastrophe: Obama's FCC Approves Enormous Corporate Media Merger for Comcast/NBC

\r\n

    \r\n
  • Culmination of the deal, combined with the FCC's recent, loophole-ridden "Net Neutrality" rules, sets the table for Comcast to turn the Internet into cable television, where it has the ability to speed up its content, slow down or block its competitors such as Netflix, and hike the rates for its programming and services. We'll all end up paying more -- whether you're a Comcast subscriber or not.
    The new Comcast will control an obscene number of media outlets, from TV and radio to movie studios and a network of millions who subscribe to cable and internet.
    Free Press Denounces FCC Approval of Comcast-NBC Merger
    Let Washington know there are consequences to blessing this bad deal.

  • \r\n

\r\n

Josh Silver, Free Press/AlterNet

On Tuesday (Jan 18), the Federal Communications Commission blessed the merger of Comcast, the nation's largest cable and residential Internet provider, with NBC-Universal. The Justice Department immediately followed suit, removing the last obstacle to the unprecedented consolidation of media and Internet power in the hands of one company.

\r\n

You should be afraid and mad as hell.

\r\n

The new Comcast will control an obscene number of media outlets, including the NBC broadcast network, numerous cable channels, two dozen local NBC and Telemundo stations, movie studios, online video portals, and the physical network that distributes that media content to millions of Americans through Internet and cable connections.

\r\n

More...

\r\n

Related:

\r\n

Free Press Denounces FCC Approval of Comcast-NBC Merger, Free Press
According to press reports on Tuesday (Jan 18), the Federal Communications Commission announced its decision, by a vote of 4-1, to approve the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal, one of the largest media mergers in history.

Comcastrophe, Free Press
Let Washington know there are consequences to blessing this bad deal.

Section(s): 

The Media in America: Selling Views, Calling it News

America's journalists are not "newshounds." They are nothing more than salesclerks, hocking the products their employers want to sell. The pretty faces that now function as most television news anchors are no different than the pretty models used to sell other products. The American "free" press is comprised of nothing more than a number of retail outlets which sell stories slanted to please their target audiences. As such, they exist merely to sell snake oil.

John Kozy, Centre for Research on Globalization

Sometime in the 1960s, I took part in a university symposium along with three other faculty members—a political scientist, a historian, and a journalism professor. The topic was Freedom of the Press—Good or Bad.

\r\n

During the sixties, the Cold War was being fought mightily. The Soviet Union's news agencies, TASS and Pravda, were continually attacked by the American "free press" as untrustworthy. A common claim was that a controlled press could never be trusted while a free press could, and my three colleagues on the panel supported that view. I did too, but only partially.

\r\n

A controlled press, I argued, most certainly could not be trusted when reporting on governmental actions or policies, but I pointed out that much news is not affected by government, and I saw no reason to be suspicious of a controlled press' reporting on such matters. But I also argued that there was good reason to distrust the so called free press no matter what was being reported.

More...

Section(s): 

Pages