MediaWhoresOnline.com, Salon, Condoleeza Rice, and the Parental "Common Sense" Test for Teenage Behavior

A BUZZFLASH ANALYSIS

June 4, 2002

They did it again.

Salon, viewed as a member of the "liberal" online community, did another hit job on a progressive voice.

Here is what BuzzFlash.com had to say about Salon's ax-murdering review of David Brock's book in March:

In typical "liberal press" style, publications like "Salon" and the "Washington Post" have taken potshots at David Brock's new book, "Blinded by the Right," and questioned the motives of the author. It's all too typical of the flaccid, overwrought efforts of the allegedly "liberal media" to bend over backwards to eat their own.

The right-wing Republican media pundits march in lock step behind books that bolster their political goals. The average so-called "liberal press" book reviewers usually run around trying to eat their own tails in a misguided attempt to prove that they are being "fair."

What results, of course, is just the opposite. In the case of David Brock's new book, the criticisms from the so-called "liberal media" (with the exception of a few publications, such as the "New Yorker") are a grave injustice to the book and to Brock. (Seehttp://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html)

Now, in a June 3 article by Jennifer Liberto, Salon does a hatchet job on the pit bull conscience for the mainstream media, MediaWhoresOnline.com. As far as BuzzFlash is concerned, MediaWhoresOnline.com does God's work. The site is devoted to exposing the clear and obvious danger of a national media that largely serves as stenographers for the White House.

Before we get into Ms. Liberto's subtle and not-so-subtle assault on Media Whores, let's just give one example (out of untold Bush administration horrors of the last few weeks) of the kind of egregious misbehavior that the media has basically given Captain Boy George and his ship of fools a free pass on.

When Condoleezza Rice held a news conference to declare that the administration could not have prevented the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, she gave as an excuse that the President had only been warned of the strong likelihood of "traditional hijackings." Now let's set aside, for the moment, that the statement was itself a lie. So, did the White House press corps, national television news, and newspaper editorial boards, in general, take issue with this amateurish excuse? Not a chance.

Now wait a second, let's give Ms. Rice's excuse the BuzzFlash parental common sense test. Supposing you are a parent and you warn your teenager, a senior in high school, not to drink and drive because he could get in an accident with another car on the night of prom. Now supposing you get a call from the local police at 4 in the morning, telling you that your intoxicated teen is being held for driving his car into the plate glass window of the local bank. Now supposing you go down to the local jail to bail out your teen and gently remind him, in a voice that could break china, that you warned him not to drink and drive. Now supposing the response of your now hung over, bleary-eyed teen is, "But Dad, you told me if I drank and drove,.I could get into an accident with another car; you didn't warn me I might accidentally drive into a bank."

Of course, it is at this point that you are glad that you are driving, because otherwise you might want to "tap" the teen upside his head. After all, only a teen would come up with such a blatantly transparent, lamebrain and clumsy excuse to evade responsibility for his actions. Well, only a teen and the Bush administration.

What does this anecdote have to do with MediaWhoresOnline.com? Well, did the media point out that Ms. Rice's "traditional hijacking" statement was an excuse that any parent with an ounce of common sense wouldn't have accepted from a teenager? Not on your life. The media took its high-paid role as a pool of Royal Court stenographers and took Ms. Rice seriously.

Now BuzzFlash asks, would you stop a traditional plane hijacking any differently than you would halt plane hijackings that end up crashing into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? After all, in either case, you need to prevent the hijackers from getting on a plane that takes off, don't you? Would the action needed to prevent a "traditional hijacking" have been any different than one to prevent a "suicide hijacking"? In any case, was any action taken by the White House? Did Bush curtail his month-long vacation at taxpayer's expense? Of course not. Well, did the press besiege Ms. Rice with doubts about her clumsy effort at protecting the ineptitude of her boss and herself? Hardly a whimper could be heard from the docile stenographers.

What's more disgusting is that not only did Ms. Rice come up with a transparently invalid excuse. She also lied on behalf of the errant prince for whom she serves as a servant of the Court. Only two months before September 11th, special precautions had been taken to protect Bush and other world leaders at an economic summit in Genoa, specifically from the threat of Al-Qaeda using planes in suicide crashes into the gathering. Furthermore, as BuzzFlash has repeatedly pointed out, there have been warnings since the mid-1990's that terrorists might use planes as suicide weapons to reap mass destruction. So, Miss Rice not only gave an excuse as limp and illogical as one given by a teenager with a hangover, she lied to boot.

Did the American press bring this to the public's attention? Not on your life (with some minor exceptions).

How could the Bush administration get away with this (as one among an unrelenting barrage of daily evasions and lies that wouldn't go unpunished by any American parent with "Heartland" values of honesty and responsibility)? Well, that exactly is the question that MediaWhoresOnline.com asks on a daily basis. They begin with the premise that the national press corps has undergone a frontal lobotomy -- and that regardless of their impaired ability to think independently, the media should nonetheless should be held accountable -- because the future of democracy and our country is at stake.

So what is Salon's take on MediaWhoresOnline in its June 3rd article? That the creators of MediaWhoresOnline.com aren't credible because they won't come forward and be harassed by the right wing. Salon proclaims:"Of course, it's hard to take MWO seriously as a media watchdog, when it remains completely free of any accountability."

Excuse us, Salon, but it's hard to take the mainstream media seriously when they imperil the future of our country by letting blatant deceptions and lies by the Bush administration go unchallenged. We all have an interest in being protected from terrorists. When the "paid" media allows the Bush administration to get by with its botched, bumbling efforts at protecting our nation pre-and post-September 11th, that's the real, life-threatening issue of accountability for our nation.

Of course, Salon is also the online "liberal" site that has given a home to that right wing whack job David Horowitz , who is Rush Limbaugh with a faux "intellectual" veneer. (Horowitz's most recent article on Salon is: "Why Bush is innocent and the Democrats are guilty. President Bush was given only vague warnings before 9/11. But the Clinton White House knew of specific terrorism threats for years while Democrats continually sabotaged security efforts. [05/17/02]")

By the way, you won't be able to read Jennifer Liberto's article unless you ante up the $35.00 subscription to access Salon's "premium" section. They are struggling financially and are now charging for their "best" material. Excuse us?

Save your money. MediaWhoresOnline.com is free.

* * *

Additional BuzzFlash Note:

Two BuzzFlash readers forwarded this e-mail that was sent out by the writer of the Salon article on MediaWhoresOnline.com. It ingratiatingly sought input into the June 3rd piece from contributors to MediaWhoresOnline.com. (It is posted unedited.):

Hey there,

Apologies for the mass email. I'm writing you all to gather information for my article looking at what is mediawhoresonline.com, exactly.

I pulled your names from bylined pieces featured on the MWO website, after looking at the last year or two of issues. (Let me apologize ahead of time, if I've pulled wrong email addresses and you have no idea what I'm talking about.)

I'm looking at how mediawhoresonline.com has taken civic activism to it's next step. I mean, here's a successful website getting noticed by many big names and faces, mostly in Washington. However, the problem is, I don't think these people get it. I'm hearing all these funny stories, about these big Washington names accusingly cornering their friends and cronies, speculating on which of themselves is behind the website.

After an intense examination, it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, that most of the website's content is generated by contributors like yourselves. Educated yet politically savvy individuals, including some fabulous writers, who, by writing a piece, have decided to step up to the role of watchdog, because nobody else is.

I'm hoping that y'all will email me or call me back individually, (and I'd appreciate it if some could provide phone numbers so I could interview you over the phone) about your thoughts on how the website grew into what it is today. Is it serving a necessary purpose? And does it bother you that's there is no one person stepping up to claim responsibility for some pretty strong content? That seems awfully unusual for such an opinionated webisite, (I mean even Bartcop, however shy, is sort of 'out') and sets the site up for criticism.

I've got an online interview coming with the folks behind the MWO email address, but I wanted to get opinions from people who probably regularly read the website, and who, at least, have contributed to it..

Many thanks, in advance for any and all help.

Best,

Jennifer

Jennifer Liberto
Freelance writer
Salon.com

A BUZZFLASH ANALYSIS

* * *