Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 22:11 UTC
In the News "Apparently, executives at CBS learned that the Hopper would win 'Best of Show' prior to the announcement. Before the winner was unveiled, CBS Interactive News senior-vice president and General Manager Mark Larkin informed CNET's staff that the Hopper could not take the top award. The Hopper would have to be removed from consideration, and the editorial team had to re-vote and pick a new winner from the remaining choices. Sources say that Larkin was distraught while delivering the news - at one point in tears - as he told the team that he had fought CBS executives who had made the decision." And this is why media owned by larger media conglomerates (or by large companies in general) should always be treated with a certain amount of scepticism. This may be an open and shut case, but more subtle interference can be felt every single day as you read the media.
Thread beginning with comment 548996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Correction
by bassbeast on Wed 16th Jan 2013 13:02 UTC in reply to "Correction"
Member since:

A better sentence would probably be "And this is why ALL of the MSM owned by "the big seven" should be looked at as lying corporate shills".

Since this is a pretty international site for those that don't know I'll explain: In the USA we have what is known as "the big seven" which is what I would call a cabal, or in the 1800s would have probably been called a trust, its seven media giants that control just about everything John and Jane Average see, hear, and read in the USA.

Now I'm sure that some will say "Surely they compete against each other?"...uhhh...not really. Sure they may bid against each other for the occasional property but anything pro corporate, pro military industrial complex (because they own parts of all the big defense companies) and anything pro government is gonna get the same bandwagon hopping across the board. For an example see Assange, if you only watched the MSM you would know practically nothing that had been released to Wikileaks, ALL you would have heard is how Assange was a rapist terrorist who should be drug to the USA and dropped in a hole. This corporate line was universal across the networks. this applies to our elections as well, watch "Jon Stewart Ron Paul" where he compiled the MSM "coverage" of Ron Paul who had become "he who shall NOT be named" with networks going so far as to name the first, second, and FOURTH place finisher without ever ONCE uttering the name of third place OTA.

So I'd say a heck of a lot more than being skeptical is required, the knowledge that the big seven are pretty much the USA equivalent to Pravda would be a pretty description. The only real difference is they speak the corporate lies instead of the government lies but at the end of the day they make sure their agenda is all the public is gonna hear. As I have said in other places if Watergate happened today the press wouldn't report it and Woodward and Bernstein would be made out in the MSM to be terrorist scum, can't be biting the hand when corporate and government are in bed together ya know.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Correction
by zima on Fri 18th Jan 2013 14:04 in reply to "RE: Correction"
zima Member since:

the big seven are pretty much the USA equivalent to Pravda would be a pretty description. The only real difference is they speak the corporate lies instead of the government lies

And is that really much of a difference?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Correction
by bassbeast on Sat 19th Jan 2013 06:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
bassbeast Member since:

Well...yes actually. One is fascism and the other is a corporate oligarchy so while to the outside observer it may APPEAR similar in actual function they are quite different.

For example if the USA were fascist it wouldn't be giving huge tax breaks to those that offshore and helping corps hide their money from the state with loopholes but since as Jefferson wrote: "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." so when the government is run by multinational megacorps they have NO problem passing laws that will damage and weaken the country as long as they profit from it.

So there really is a difference, one has everyone bow to the whims of the state and results in the state getting ever more powerful and in the other all that matters is the corps and if the country lives or dies makes no matter, so long as the corps get enough warning they can take their ill gotten gains and bail before the boat sinks. In a way it reminds me of Vietnam or Cuba, where everything was built around what the corps wanted and the leaders were nothing more than corporate mouthpieces.

Reply Parent Score: 2