Home | About | Donate

Charges Dropped Against Amy Goodman–No Thanks to Corporate Media


#1

Charges Dropped Against Amy Goodman–No Thanks to Corporate Media

Jim Naureckas

North Dakota District Judge John Grinsteiner stood up for the First Amendment by dismissing “riot” charges against Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!, 10/17/16). That’s more than you can say for most of Goodman’s corporate media colleagues.


#2

Only a few journalists came to the defense of Amy Goodman because only a few legitimate journalists are left standing. The others sold out.


#3

Don't count on the Washington Post to take Jim up on his admonition for them to cover Schlosberg's case...the Washington Post is too busy working on getting Clinton into the White House and printing her press releases once she is there.


#4

"Let's be clear on one thing, the corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. ...Their agenda is to elect crooked Hillary Clinton at any costs, at any price, no matter how many lives they destroy. For them, it’s a war. And for them, nothing at all is out of bounds. This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. Believe me. And this will be our last chance to save it."

But, isn't Trump right? At least up until the part about this being our last chance. The wikileaks releases have shown what everyone believed, that major portions of the press are involved in a coordinated campaign to elect Clinton. That her crimes are given a pass, hidden, historically amnesia-ized. We didn't need Trump to realize violence against the press. In popular protests around the world, e.g. Ferguson, the press is rightfully seen as the enemy, there to present people with righteous grievances in the worst possible light.


#5

Thanks Naureckas for pointing out the case of a Deia Schlosberg, a single other person faced with Draconian charges for attempting to document the Dakota Access repression. My understanding is that there are many others being persecuted by the ND authorities.

Unsurprisingly, Goodman is off the hook. But if the intention was to intimidate others from trying to report on the DAP protests, the result is probably success. As usual, Naureckas' pleas to the contrary, the bigger news outlets will report on what their owners and customers tell them to report on. Small outlets and individuals hoping to document the protests and repression will feel that they do not have the resources to fight charges like these and will stay home or seek out stories elsewhere that won't land them in jail.


#6

No thanks to corporate media.

To paraphrase Orwell: IN A TIME OF CORPORATE MEDIA DECEIT AND SILENCE, FILMING AND SPEAKING THE TRUTH GETS YOU AN ARREST WARRANT!


#7

The corporate oligarchy government cabal( lol sounds crazy but I find it to be an accurate description ) needs to have the press completely under its control and frightened out of its wits. We all know this. And it is working quite well. Goodman has no spouse or kids and few family. She was clearly the wrong one to mess with. She comes from money and has little to lose by fighting back. (I do not know this other reporter and her situation. )
Next time they will pick the man or woman journo with a gaggle of kids, a chronically ill spouse, elderly ill parents they are assisting or a large mortgage. That's who won't fight back ...
This is a truly terrifying development in an era of terrifying developments...


#8

Charges Dropped Against Amy Goodman–No Thanks to Corporate Media

"Good evening. My name is Lester Holt. I am not a journalist, but I play one on T.V."

next question.


#9

I just wrote a long, sarcastic comment and then realized that it would never be read the way I wrote it, so just let me say this:

The only infringement on constitutional rights that will ever get the population of this sick nation aroused is the slightest restriction on our right to own private arsenals. The first amendment is not something that can be used to kill tyrants, so it is not worth defending, especially since it allows others to have opinions different from our own and publish them, therefore possibly influencing others.

For millions, there is no constitution beyond "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To the contrary, silencing the voices of those who oppose them is of paramount concern, and they are certainly not going defend any foolish law that insists those voices have a right to be heard. Why, it's downright unpatriotic!

And so we get no coverage of the prosecution and attempted prosecution of legitimate award winning journalists, but we have reporters interviewing gun store owners who are banking on the election of Hillary Clinton to make them rich by exploiting the fears of white supremacists that they may lose the "right" to overthrow the government by force, a right stated so clearly in the "constitution."

I shudder when I think that I brought children into this world. I'll be gone in a few years, but they will have to live on. Heaven help them.