The Truth Comes Out
Special Report and Commentary by the Creative Youth News Team
December 16, 2007
On Thursday, December 13, 2007, the Des Moines Register held a debate without the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the war in Iraq and who has consistently voted against war with Iran. In addition to excluding Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Register also excluded Senator Mike Gravel, the only other genuine anti-war candidate for the Democratic nomiantion. In 2002, Dennis J. Kucinich knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the war was really about oil. However, the news media, not doing its job, had to apologize. Kucinich has long spoken against war with Iran while the newspapers bought into Bush's lies about the Iran's nuclear program. Recently, when the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report showed that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the news media learned it had fallen down another hole with Iran. Being right the first time, again, did not endear Kucinich to a news media that doesn't like politicians who know more about news than the editors of newspapers and the managers of news networks. When you get down to who was backing whom long before the debate, the appearance is that the debate was a sham to promote a particular candidate who voted for the war. It wouldn't help the newspaper's promotion of their already ordained nominee to allow genuine anti-war candidates to be seen in the paper's debate. Something might be said that might embarrass the person they were planning to endorse.
Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper group, owns 101 or more newspapers, one of which is the Des Moines Register. But for the lies that were repeated in the news, Congress might have listened to the American people who were opposed to war. The opposition to war was muted in the press in the hopes that it could be hidden. In the end, war opponents were discovered to be correct, and the news industry in the United States wound up looking, to the public, like a bunch of incompetent political hacks. It looked even more incompetent after the release of the NIE report showed, contrary to trumped up pro-war news stories, Iran is not a threat.
The chairman of Gannett's Board of Directors is Chris Dubow. He worked for a variety of news organizations that suppressed the truth that war critics tried to get out in 2002. Dubow's positions included general manager of Gannett's NBC affiliate in Atlanta, WXIA-TV and president and CEO of Gannett Broadcasting. Dubow's donations are normally filtered through a political action committee called NABPAC (National Association of Broadcasters Political Action Committee). It generally donates to Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The nominating committee of the Gannett's board of directors includes Charles B. Fruit, Arthur H. Harper, Donna E Shalala, and Neal Shapiro. A check of their donations before the debate reveals a strong Hillary Clinton slant.
Charles Fruit is a corporate vice president of the Coca Cola Corporation, which is known for its support of Republican causes. Fruit's money generally goes to COKEPAC (Coca Cola Company Nonpartisan Committee For Good Government). He has also donated to Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., PAC which has contributed $5000 to Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential Campaign.
Donna Shalala has a long history of financial support for Hillary Rotham Clinton's political ambitions. According to http://campaignmoney.com, Donna E. Shalala has contributed $4200 to Clinton's Presidential campaign this year and all prior to the exclusion of Kucinich and Gravel from the debate. Yes, the number is correct, according to campaignmoney.com
Neal Shapiro seems to have mostly donated to lesser candidates, not connected with the Presidential race.
Arthur H. Harper, on the other hand, has been a senior vice president of General Electric, a defense contractor that has profited heavily from the war. He might have a little trouble explaining to GE how anti-war candidates Kucinich and Gravel were allowed to put down the war in a public debate. Harper has contributed to Obama, who has voted more than 25 times to keep the war going. Obama is backed by General Dynamics's Crown family. General Dynamics is one of General Electric's competitors. Though Obama's record is almost identical to that of Clinton in terms of war, Obama has pretended to be anti-war. Harper may have been torn at endorsement time but not torn when it came to who to exclude from the debate. The debate was rigged so that no candidate who supported immediate withdraw or who opposed General Electric's funding was present. Harper is currently listing his directorships as including Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically-modified foods and of the herbicide glyphosite. Kucinich is one of the strongest proponents for regulating both the modified-food industry and herbicides, and he has taken up the cause of consumers who believe that genetically-modified and poisoned foods are unsafe.
It is no surprise that, after excluding all genuine anti-war candidates from the October 13, 2007 debate, the Des Moines Register continued to follow the overall positions and issues of Gannett's directors by endorsing the Democrat perceived as the strongest supporter of the war. It might have looked a little fairer, more honest and less pre-planned if the Register had not fixed the debates by excluding the genuine anti-war candidates just prior to its Democratic endorsement.
The Register's endorsement of Clinton for the Democratic nomination should be no surprise at all. As the money goes, so follow the endorsements. There are lesser issues involved in the endorsement. Eight of the nine members of the Des Moines Register Editorial Board are women. Clinton's base is largely from women, and her supporters would not want her vote for the war attacked in a debate. A lot of women are against the war and will not vote for a candidate who supported the war, even if the candidate is a woman. Some anti-war Democrats have put their views on hold to support a female. Some view this as the first chance to elect a woman to the Presidency and disregard their own positions on the issues. This factor does not seem as likely to affect the endorsement as the political positions of those owning the paper. The most common criticism of Americans working in the news industry is that they must cater to the political interests of those in charge of their paychecks or risk losing those paycheck.
The paper backed Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination, which is no surprise when you look at the political contributions of Gannett's vice president Christopher Baldwin. That's the subject for a different article.
The rigging of the debate might have looked a little less planned if the Register had waited to announce its endorsement of the candidate promoted by the Register in that debate. The endorsement would have looked less contrived if it had not followed a rigged debate that excluded candidates who stood with the American people against the positions of the Register's endorsed candidate. By trying to hide the truth from the public in the debate, the Register comes across as opposing the concept of an informed public. How does a newspaper that blatently hides the truth expect the public to believe that anything it reads in that paper?
On Thursday, December 13, 2007, the Des Moines Register held a debate without the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the war in Iraq and who has consistently voted against war with Iran. In addition to excluding Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Register also excluded Senator Mike Gravel, the only other genuine anti-war candidate for the Democratic nomiantion. In 2002, Dennis J. Kucinich knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the war was really about oil. However, the news media, not doing its job, had to apologize. Kucinich has long spoken against war with Iran while the newspapers bought into Bush's lies about the Iran's nuclear program. Recently, when the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report showed that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the news media learned it had fallen down another hole with Iran. Being right the first time, again, did not endear Kucinich to a news media that doesn't like politicians who know more about news than the editors of newspapers and the managers of news networks. When you get down to who was backing whom long before the debate, the appearance is that the debate was a sham to promote a particular candidate who voted for the war. It wouldn't help the newspaper's promotion of their already ordained nominee to allow genuine anti-war candidates to be seen in the paper's debate. Something might be said that might embarrass the person they were planning to endorse.
Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper group, owns 101 or more newspapers, one of which is the Des Moines Register. But for the lies that were repeated in the news, Congress might have listened to the American people who were opposed to war. The opposition to war was muted in the press in the hopes that it could be hidden. In the end, war opponents were discovered to be correct, and the news industry in the United States wound up looking, to the public, like a bunch of incompetent political hacks. It looked even more incompetent after the release of the NIE report showed, contrary to trumped up pro-war news stories, Iran is not a threat.
The chairman of Gannett's Board of Directors is Chris Dubow. He worked for a variety of news organizations that suppressed the truth that war critics tried to get out in 2002. Dubow's positions included general manager of Gannett's NBC affiliate in Atlanta, WXIA-TV and president and CEO of Gannett Broadcasting. Dubow's donations are normally filtered through a political action committee called NABPAC (National Association of Broadcasters Political Action Committee). It generally donates to Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The nominating committee of the Gannett's board of directors includes Charles B. Fruit, Arthur H. Harper, Donna E Shalala, and Neal Shapiro. A check of their donations before the debate reveals a strong Hillary Clinton slant.
Charles Fruit is a corporate vice president of the Coca Cola Corporation, which is known for its support of Republican causes. Fruit's money generally goes to COKEPAC (Coca Cola Company Nonpartisan Committee For Good Government). He has also donated to Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., PAC which has contributed $5000 to Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential Campaign.
Donna Shalala has a long history of financial support for Hillary Rotham Clinton's political ambitions. According to http://campaignmoney.com, Donna E. Shalala has contributed $4200 to Clinton's Presidential campaign this year and all prior to the exclusion of Kucinich and Gravel from the debate. Yes, the number is correct, according to campaignmoney.com
Neal Shapiro seems to have mostly donated to lesser candidates, not connected with the Presidential race.
Arthur H. Harper, on the other hand, has been a senior vice president of General Electric, a defense contractor that has profited heavily from the war. He might have a little trouble explaining to GE how anti-war candidates Kucinich and Gravel were allowed to put down the war in a public debate. Harper has contributed to Obama, who has voted more than 25 times to keep the war going. Obama is backed by General Dynamics's Crown family. General Dynamics is one of General Electric's competitors. Though Obama's record is almost identical to that of Clinton in terms of war, Obama has pretended to be anti-war. Harper may have been torn at endorsement time but not torn when it came to who to exclude from the debate. The debate was rigged so that no candidate who supported immediate withdraw or who opposed General Electric's funding was present. Harper is currently listing his directorships as including Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically-modified foods and of the herbicide glyphosite. Kucinich is one of the strongest proponents for regulating both the modified-food industry and herbicides, and he has taken up the cause of consumers who believe that genetically-modified and poisoned foods are unsafe.
It is no surprise that, after excluding all genuine anti-war candidates from the October 13, 2007 debate, the Des Moines Register continued to follow the overall positions and issues of Gannett's directors by endorsing the Democrat perceived as the strongest supporter of the war. It might have looked a little fairer, more honest and less pre-planned if the Register had not fixed the debates by excluding the genuine anti-war candidates just prior to its Democratic endorsement.
The Register's endorsement of Clinton for the Democratic nomination should be no surprise at all. As the money goes, so follow the endorsements. There are lesser issues involved in the endorsement. Eight of the nine members of the Des Moines Register Editorial Board are women. Clinton's base is largely from women, and her supporters would not want her vote for the war attacked in a debate. A lot of women are against the war and will not vote for a candidate who supported the war, even if the candidate is a woman. Some anti-war Democrats have put their views on hold to support a female. Some view this as the first chance to elect a woman to the Presidency and disregard their own positions on the issues. This factor does not seem as likely to affect the endorsement as the political positions of those owning the paper. The most common criticism of Americans working in the news industry is that they must cater to the political interests of those in charge of their paychecks or risk losing those paycheck.
The paper backed Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination, which is no surprise when you look at the political contributions of Gannett's vice president Christopher Baldwin. That's the subject for a different article.
The rigging of the debate might have looked a little less planned if the Register had waited to announce its endorsement of the candidate promoted by the Register in that debate. The endorsement would have looked less contrived if it had not followed a rigged debate that excluded candidates who stood with the American people against the positions of the Register's endorsed candidate. By trying to hide the truth from the public in the debate, the Register comes across as opposing the concept of an informed public. How does a newspaper that blatently hides the truth expect the public to believe that anything it reads in that paper?