Do They Really Believe It?

[sport historian]

Sometimes I wonder if all MSM types really believe everything they say and write. In 2001, the now deceased Mark Kram published a book titled "Ghosts of Manila" about the Ali-Frazier rivalry. Kram was the boxing writer for Sports Illustrated for about a dozen years until being fired by SI in 1977 for "gross misjudgments," according to Kram. I think he was fired for being too supportive of Don King's tournament.

In the "Ghosts of Manila" Kram describes Ali as a dimwitted hypocrite who cruelly betrayed Joe Frazier, who had given Ali money when he was out of boxing, and lobbied for Ali's right to fight. Ali repayed Frazier by calling him "white man's champion, gorilla, uncle tom, etc."

Kram wrote that Ali was a useful idiot for the Muslims and didn't know what his white liberal supporters were talking about. Ali, according to Kram was much less than he is supposed to be. "Instead of being mindlessly reviled, as he was in the 60's, he is now mindlessly revered," Kram said. Kram even compared Ali to Chauncey Gardner in the novel and film "Being There."

Kram wrote NONE of this when he covered Ali for Sports Illustrated and said in 2001 because Ali "was too important to SI's bottom line to be critical." He still said that he "liked" Ali.

A point I would make is that when Ali declared himself to be a black muslim, it was not popular among liberals in 1964. That was the year of the Civil Rights Act. White liberals were then for what was called integration and insisted that once the civil rights bills became law, blacks would eventually become the same as middle class white people.

Ali's embrace of black separatism went against this. A few years later, liberals would praise black militancy and begin the road to embracing "diversity" and all things nonwhite.

The "bottom line" at SI required Kram to not write certain things. Does every writer and announcer today believe everything they write or say?

 

[jaxvid]

Ali tested as near retarded on his military apptitude test. he was always a useful idiot for the Cultural Marxists. It's no surprise he has become a secular saint because that is the whole idea-raise to the level of worship someone wholly undeserving of the honor.

 

[Riddlewire]

Does every writer and announcer today believe everything they write or say?

I'm not going to answer in the affirmative with an absolute. However, I'd say that that they are much closer to this congruity today than they were 30 years ago. For one, the selection process that media entities use has become more advanced and more discriminating. They work very hard to pick out the "right kind" of liberal believers to hire. Furthermore, plenty of anecdotal evidence exists to confirm that the elevation process within media entities exclusively favors multi-culti liberal journalists. So, not only are the grunts in the media nearly all liberals, only the purest of ideologues of them can rise in the ranks to become featured writers or on-air personalities. This has the added benefit (from their point of view) that the "media profession" mostly appeals to leftist-minded youth. So, they obtain a further workforce synergy by preventing level headed conservatives from ever even considering the journalism career path in the first place.
So, to answer your question more succinctly, I'd say "Yes", nearly all of them believe what they write due to the multi-tiered process that puts them in power in the first place and the top level mandate that the left-wing position is the "correct" position to have on all issues.

 

[StarWars]

Exactly, Riddlewire. Couldn't of said it any better.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Ali tested as near retarded on his military apptitude test. he was always a useful idiot for the Cultural Marxists. It's no surprise he has become a secular saint because that is the whole idea-raise to the level of worship someone wholly undeserving of the honor.

And grossly overrated...he would have been thoroughly obliterated by the Klitchko brothers!

 

[Maple Leaf]

Does every writer and announcer today believe everything they write or say?

I'm not going to answer in the affirmative with an absolute. However, I'd say that that they are much closer to this congruity today than they were 30 years ago. For one, the selection process that media entities use has become more advanced and more discriminating. They work very hard to pick out the "right kind" of liberal believers to hire. Furthermore, plenty of anecdotal evidence exists to confirm that the elevation process within media entities exclusively favors multi-culti liberal journalists. So, not only are the grunts in the media nearly all liberals, only the purest of ideologues of them can rise in the ranks to become featured writers or on-air personalities. This has the added benefit (from their point of view) that the "media profession" mostly appeals to leftist-minded youth. So, they obtain a further workforce synergy by preventing level headed conservatives from ever even considering the journalism career path in the first place.
So, to answer your question more succinctly, I'd say "Yes", nearly all of them believe what they write due to the multi-tiered process that puts them in power in the first place and the top level mandate that the left-wing position is the "correct" position to have on all issues.

But there still is conservative, right-minded media that offers legitimate constructive criticism. I would also say that many high profile journalists repeat what seems to be the "correct" position in order to stay employed.

 

[sport historian]

Today, I was looking through my collection of sports magazines and found one I had forgotten about. It is the July 5 1976 issue of Sports Illustrated. There is an article by the above mentioned Mark Kram about the "fight" beyween Ali and the Japanese wrestler, Kanji Inoki. A lot of suckers wasted their money. A crowd of 32,897 showed up at New York's Shea Stadium to watch on closed-circuit television.

The Ali-Inoki affair was supposed to settle the old dispute over who would win a fight between a wrestler and a boxer. The Ali camp became somewhat worried and insisted on several rules. For example, Inoki could not use his hand or feet in karate fashion, and Ali could grap the ring rope and stop the action at any time. With these restrictions, Inoki stayed flat on his back and kicked Ali in the shins all night. The farce was declared a draw.

Kram wrote in SI, "...Ali is currently walking a thin line between being a supreme talent, a magical figure with a pull and draw never before experienced, and being an impossible bore. He has been badly overexposed. His theatrics are stale; each line he speaks seems to come from a man with a key in his back."

This was as critical as Kram ever was in his SI articles concerning Ali. Or as critical as his bosses at SI would allow.

 

[Guest]

George Foreman in an interview given a few years ago said Ali probably had mental problems from an early age. He said back in the 60s when George was a sparring partner Ali could literally and would talk non-stop for hours at a time repeating the same things over and over. Not much love given for Ali from a man with more class.

 

[screamingeagle]

I am confused why they were afraif of Ali. Were they that afraid that if they wrote a balance article about him, that many people would would cancell their subscriptions. Why did they feel that way?

 

[sport historian]

I am confused why they were afraif of Ali. Were they that afraid that if they wrote a balance article about him, that many people would would cancell their subscriptions. Why did they feel that way?

According to Kram, Sports Illustrated considered Ali important to their bottom line.

 

[white is right]

Ali sold issues. He got people that barely cared for sports to buy issues. Also during his career he had a generational shift in writers. Picture J. Jonah Jamison to something akin to the Paper(the movie) with females, open gays and all other types working as print journalists.

 

[white is right]

The only Ali interviews I enjoyed were the ones where his motor skills were obviously slowing down and he was calm and seemed normal. That and the classic I'm more virile than you(Ali putting down Cosell). After Cosell seeming ultra serious compared Ali fighting Foreman to a prisoner walking to his death before a firing squad.

 

[Guest]

They are small self reenforcing cult that is never challenged.

 

[Tom Iron]

Gentlemen,

My take on this is that in the beginning, all these people believe what they write. However, over time, as with everybody, experience teaches many things and these people aren't completely stupid. Their views change on things. Those are the guys I really feel sorry for. I would even think that some of them visit this site and agree with what is said here. However, many of them are in a trap. They've put a certain amount of years into the sportswriting profession and they know that one false step will get them fired and blackballed from writing again. I would think that a guy like this might be one of the most rabid caste proponents. He would take this approach to mask his true feelings and direct suspicion away from himself. You've got to know that they're being watched constantly in every way, whether it be an innocent remark or even body language. I'm happy I don't have to live like that.

Tom Iron...

 

[Solomon Kane]

One would hope that those journalists who had already made their pile of money and were nearly retired would have the guts to saysomething negative about Ali and the black athlete and stand by it. Problem is that they still value the "respect" and "good" will of their colleagues too much, so they always eventually cave in so that they can remain a part of the club til they die.

 

[Don Wassall]

The U.S. corporate media is "totalitarian" in the sense that no deviation from certain ideological principles is ever allowed. This is no different in that respect than communism, fascism, etc.

To violate or deny the most sacrosanct positions of "multiculturalism," "diversity," blackphysical supremacy, etc.,is certain career suicide, in sports media and every other institution of power and control in USA, Inc.. Because there is no deviation allowed, the minds of the DWFs are effortlessly molded as they have never been exposed to anything different (except in ways that are routinely mocked, discreditedor smeared by the power structure). The masses parrot the (anti-white) opinions and attitudes they have been indoctrinated to have, and believe displaying them makes them hip. Edited by: Don Wassall

 

[Kaptain]

Media jobs are all pre-selected and promoted by idealogical principle not actual writing or reporting talent. In the local on-line newspaper in Minnesota, I've been pointing out how nearly every single opinion piece is written by a career zionist Jew. The writing is stale and there is absolutely no investigative reporting. Did the Scandinavians who make up most of the local population forget how to write? It amazes me that white Christain Minnesotans have basically been told how to think by a group of Jews from New York that were born in Israel and belong to radical Zionist movements. I've been pasting their hard to find radical biographies in the hopes that some people will wake up and realize what they are reading.

 

[sport historian]

I will restate what Mark Kram said upon the publication of his book in 2001. Kram didn't write criticially of Ali because his bosses at Sports Illustrated wouldn't allow it. Ali was supposedly too important to SI's bottom line.

Kram was fired by SI early in 1977. He wrote an article about Don King's U.S. Boxing Championship Tournament in which Kram lavishly praised King as the saviour of American boxing. The news broke shortly afterward that the tournament was filled with payoffs, false records, and rigged ratings. SI fired Kram for "poor judgment."

 

[screamingeagle]

I stopped reading SI when they started praising Ali as if he was the new messiah. I could tell even then he had low intelligence and talked like he was retarded. I felt the SI editors were being conned by Ali and they fell for it.
Auto racing at that time was much more interesting.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Sometimes I wonder if all MSM types really believe everything they say and write.

...

The "bottom line" at SI required Kram to not write certain things. Does every writer and announcer today believe everything they write or say?

as a former sports reporter, i have some personal experience and insight into the situation. it didn't take long for my personal feelings to make the rounds, so to speak, among the other reporters and some editors in the area. and as a result, i was often involved in conversations about race and sports.

while not all my peers vehemently opposed my position, they were all very skeptical. even going so far as to deliberately (in my opinion) not put pertinent facts together that refuted their case (and supported mine). for example, we might be covering a game with a super talented, very productivewhite kid playing for a team going up against a team with a much less physically gifted black player. the black player would be getting college recruiting buzz, and the white one invariably wouldn't. i would point out that fact, and the look of complete shock on their face when i asked "Why is that, if it's not because of skin color?" would speak volumes.

despite these obvious points of fact, the "reporters" couldn't or wouldn't put the pieces together. they refused to let themselves draw the obvious conclusion. this,despite the supposed job requirement of a reporter beingto gather facts and put them together in a story.

draw your own conclusions when it comes to these individuals.

now when it comes tothe more widespreadmedia policy, there is an official position. and that is that non-whites WILL be portrayed in as positive a light as possible. conversely,White people will have aslittle positive exposure as possible.you can find that double standard described in detail on the Diversity Guidelines mandated by the Society of Professional Journalists.

another important mandate that is enforced in the media is "thefive Maynard Institute for Journalism Education fault lines." those being race (and ethnicity), class, gender, generation, and geography. what is this Maynard Institute? see for yourself.

also, Robert C. Maynard, the negro founder of the aforementioned institute, is almost religiously referred to as having changed the face of journalism andas being "charismatic." seriously, a charismatic journalist?

although he certainly did change the face of journalism. you can see his room-brightening smile here. these, along with the ADL are among the most influential watchdogs of what "journalists" present on tv, the radio, or in print media.

so, for all intents and purposes, it is irrelevant whether an individual believes the storieshe or shepresents. they have to work from an approved script, or they won't keep their jobs. andeven ifa media person doesn't believe what he writes, the moronic readers who make up the population will.

the damage is done either way.

 

[The Hock]

Good points Jimmy C. Reading your story reminded me of a time long ago and a place far away when I was a journalism major for a year. I learned a few things while I was there, mainly that I didn't want to be a journalist. Just didn't have the personality (or the social skills at the time) for it. Even the vernacular annoyed me. Working your "beat". "Cub" reporter. Getting the "scoop". Just whimpy sounding.

And a lot of the other students struck me as dickless wonders. The kind of twerps that get melvins at camp when they're kids. But some of them thought they were so cool. They'd been there and done that. Real jaded at twenty. Give me a break. I was glad to change majors.

It's been a while but one thing that sticks out in my memory is the doctrine of New Journalism. This was idea that objective reporting, just recording the facts of whatever you were covering, was no longer the goal of the journalist. It was okay, even morally required, to inject your own opinions and politics into your reporting, in order to help bring about social change and fight injustice and so on.

I think over the years this idea has worked its way through the journalism schools and into the practices of their graduates to varying degrees and effects. So true believers (who are a minority but tend to dominate the the more wishy washy) feel justified in whatever spinnings and ommissions they and their minions indulge in.

So that explains at least some of what I see in the MSM these days. So do they really believe what they're putting out there? Only they know. But from what I saw, I'd say a lot of journalist types believe one thing. They believe they'll have another drink. Bought with the check they depend upon the true believers to cut for them every payday.Edited by: The Hock

 

[foreverfree]

Even the vernacular annoyed me. Working your "beat". "Cub" reporter. Getting the "scoop". Just whimpy sounding.

Wimpy sounding? That's news to me, but then again, that's just me (and you, Hock). Although part of me thinks that rookie scribes need a better term than "cub".

John

 

[The Hock]

That's just my perspective. Like I said, the field just wasn't for me.
I didn't mean to say that all journalism types were jerks. I met some good people too. It's just that wasting a year leaves a bad taste, but that's on me in the end.

The question was do the MSM believe everything they write and say? Who knows. I suspect, though, that on the other end of that question too many people out there believe everything they read and hear.





Edited by: The Hock

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

i have to agree with Hock that "most" journalist types are conceited a-holes, at least those who report on sports at any rate.
i've often pondered why this is, considering they get paid to do what the rest of us do for free: talk about sports. my working hypothesis is that the vast majority of them were never able to achieve anything of note on the athletic fields, and as such harbor resentment toward those white athletes who do. (most journalists are white men, after all.) this, combined with their fascination with the sports world combines to make them INCREDIBLY bitter people. and since blacks are off limits to criticize, the targets of choice are their fellow white males who are doing what they themselves never could.

seriously, out of all my years in the media i can count on one hand the number of guys who were actually fun to be around. the rest were the most bitter, angry (and often out of shape)people i've ever known.

 

[sport historian]

Most sportswriters are liberals of one kind or another. I know this from reading them for 50 years (since I was 8 years old). They deal with black athletes all the time and are expected to praise them even if they don't like them individually. Sportswriters have never gotten over the fact that baseball didn't allow blacks to play for a long time. A typical sports columnist will write a hand-wringing piece on the subject once a year. Muhammad Ali's 3 years away from boxing due to draft evasion is considered a great crime for which we must bear permanent guilt. This accounts for the attitudes you see with sports media types.