Slashdot Mirror

Watch out for spy-ware, censor-ware and propaganda.

Not everything has to be a conspiracy. Aircraft do crash

Sure. But if you start with the premise that nothing is ever a conspiracy, then you're unlikely to ever uncover one, eh?

This is what Mark Crispin Miller had to say:

... I will say that the circumstances are so suspicious and so convenient for Rove and the White House that I think we're obliged to investigate this thing very, very thoroughly. And that means, first of all, taking a close look at some of the stories that were immediately circulated to account for what happened, that it was bad weather. That was the line they used when Wellstone's plane went down. There had been bad weather, but it had passed two hours before. And this comes from a woman at the airport information desk in Akron. We're told that his plane was running out of gas, which is a little bit odd for a highly experienced pilot like Connell, but apparently, when the plane went down, there was an explosion, a fireball that actually charred and pocked some of the house fronts in the neighborhood. People can go online and see the footage that news crews took. But beyond the, you know, dubiousness of the official story, we have to take a close look at--and a serious look at all the charges that Connell was set to make.

I'm not so sure bias is such a terrible thing. "Objective news" is somewhat of a recent phenomenon, historically speaking, and one I've been thinking is not such a great proposition. The simple fact of the matter is that *no one* is truly objective.

Well duh. The trouble, of course, is not advocacy -- one of my favorite news sources is the blatantly left-wing SF Bay Guardian, and the similarly left-wing Democracy Now -- but disguised advocacy, advocacy making a pretense of objectivity.

I'd much rather have clear, disclosed biases.

Yes, exactly. But then, wouldn't it also be nice to have some informations sources that you could trust to seperate out the editorializing from the news, and some neutral presentation of facts at least as well as a half-dozen volunteers messing around with a wikipedia page?

The kind of press we have now can't even be bothered to call bullshit when Bush tries to spin the Iraq was as the result of faulty intelligence, and skips over the fact that the UN weapon inspections were in-fact interrupted by the invasion that he now claims was intended to enable them...

Exactly. An overt war with Iran would be stupid. They have a lot more people than Iraq and a lot more weapons.

We're better off doing things we did to them in the past like Operation Ajax or bankrupting them through the manipulation in the price of oil.

Seymour Hersh reported in 2005 that we've had special ops inside Iran since 2004.
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/1/18/seymour_hersh_u_s_conducting_covert

There definitely seemed to be an agenda to go after Iran since 2004, but thankfully it hasn't happened yet.

Back in the United States, a new report shows college tuition is becoming increasingly unaffordable for most Americans. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education says college tuition and fees have increased by 439 percent since 1982. The cost of attending a four-year public university now amounts to 28 percent of the median family income, while a four-year private university would account for 76 percent. The Centerâ(TM)s president, Patrick Callan, said, âoeIf we go on this way for another twenty-five years, we wonâ(TM)t have an affordable system of higher education.â

Interestingly, the Bush admin is reported to be tracking American journalists' phonecalls, in an effort to catch leakers from his own team.

Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists

That was back in May '06. Fuck knows if this is technically legal, given all the executive orders and constitutionally dodgey laws this decade...

But the First Amendment seems to want to apply here.

"Aging constitutional amendment seeks job. Superpowers include: protecting freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion, occasionally acting as governmental grievance liaison."

"Work history: 1791-2001 United States, job title: First Amendment. Fired for insubordination, by leader of Republican party."

Last seen along I-495, holding sign: "Will work for freedom, liberty and democracy."

The point you were responding to (and perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you were disagreeing), said that sometimes the facts themselves can be biased. Your response, given that context, seemed to be "just give me all the facts, don't filter." If you were merely talking about editorializing, then it doesn't seem like you were engaging the previous poster.

Maybe we are looking at it at different ends. Just to be clear, I have no problem with the facts whether they are positive or negative. I think we can both agree that if someone stole money or something, that would be negative if not just for him/her. But what makes it editorializing is when the reporter says "Some evil person stole this money" instead of Someone stole this money. The evil part isn't the fact.

Yes, I can tell the difference. But news bias isn't just the result of irresponsible use of adjectives. Sometimes, the simple choice of which facts to report introduces bias. Awful example: I was watching Fox News' coverage of the election when Brit Hume explained Ted Stevens' legal troubles as "he was convicted of seven counts of failure to file proper disclosure forms." No mention of illegal gifts, no mention of the convictions being felonies. Yet the statement, as spoken, was completely factual, while still being shockingly biased.

Well, I see your point now but I also see where you were right, that was a bad example. The illegal gift were only illegal because they weren't reported making a sort of catch 22. The law that convicted him was the actualy reporting and disclosure pertaining to the federal ethics laws. But I disagree on the bias part. That is what Ted Stevens was charged and convicted on. He was on trial for federal charges (I don't think the feds have misdemeanor charges do they?) over the illegal gifts that would have been legal had he disclosed them properly. It wouldn't be biased to only report that he was convicted assuming that you knew what he was on trial for in the first place.

Sure, if you weren't paying attention and didn't know, you would have to look into the details, but not mentioning them wouldn't really be biased. It would just be reporting the outcome of the trial. I don't have cable so I didn't see the episode of Fox News and I can't comment on the context specifically though. It is possible that it could be misleading which would be biased if he was attempting to hide the details or correct someone else with accurate details. But if he just reported it, then nothing biased there- Not good reporting, but not biased because you either knew the details already or had to look them up.

Since we agree that reporters do have to exercise their own judgment about which facts are important, your solution to the bias problem is incomplete.

Well, I think the market will fix that given the opportunity. If the facts that are relevant are missing, people will go somewhere else for their news. If there are too many facts, more so then what is relevant, people will look elsewhere again. Where the real problem comes into play is when the reporter attempts to set the tone. Maybe in the Brit Hume/FoxNews situation mentioned above, he did attempt to set the tone by not giving greater detail. If that is how you saw it, then I would agree. However, I still don't think that not including every detail is in and of itself biased. It is just sloppy and poor reporting when enough detail is not present.

Are you insane?

Your website link claims that Obama is " Most Liberal Senator In 2007 " when he serves with Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, who openly declares himself to be a socialist ?

I appreciate that it seems like Barrack Obmaha's heart is in the right place. I dont see anything changing anytime soon since he has no interest in changing the system. We still have a corrupt financial system We have questions about the 9/11 attacks that are not being answered , We have the FISA bill that is most likley being used to spy on political dissidents, We have a 100 mile Constitution Free zone where you can be stopped and asked to prove your citizenship and have your belongings searched without due process, We have a debate that troops might be stationed in the US to be mobilized for planned civil unrest, If any of you are on the change movement my suggestion would be to press our government to address these issues. Lets see how far Obhama is really willing to go. so far he has supported the FISA bill and then some how suggested that he was always for it when he was against it in the beginning of his running. People need to stop playing the two party game and force independence in this country. Both Democrats and Republicans are part of the same coin and money rules this country instead of people.

http://www.democracynow.org/pages/election2008

Democracy Now! will be doing a special five-hour broadcast on November 4th from 07:00PM - 12:00AM ET to bring you the 2008 election results as they come in.
The program will include live coverage of the results as the polls close, on-the-ground reports from across the country, reactions from across the globe, and running in-depth analysis and commentary from a wide range of guests you won't get anywhere else.
On November 5th, the morning after, Democracy Now! expands to a two-hour broadcast from 08:00AM - 10:00AM ET to provide complete coverage of the election outcome.
Please contact your local radio or TV station for local listings. There will also be a live video and audio stream of the show on our homepage at democracynow.org.

It's not network, but Democracy Now will be doing live coverage. They do excellent reporting, so it may be worth tunning in, and it's always free.

From their website:

Democracy Now! will be doing a special five-hour broadcast on November 4th from 07:00PMâ"12:00AM ET to bring you the 2008 election results as they come in.

The program will include live coverage of the results as the polls close, on-the-ground reports from across the country, reactions from across the globe, and running in-depth analysis and commentary from a wide range of guests you wonâ(TM)t get anywhere else.

On November 5th, the morning after, Democracy Now! expands to a two-hour broadcast from 08:00AMâ"10:00AM ET to provide complete coverage of the election outcome.

Please contact your local radio or TV station for local listings. There will also be a live video and audio stream of the show on our homepage at democracynow.org.

But it was a just cause

Ooooh, I see, deposing an impotent dictator, destroying the infrastructure of a sovereign nation, and killing untold numbers of it's citizens for dubious reasons was *just*.

The evidence to Saddam's potency is his 100% (not 99%, a round 100%) "win" in the Iraqi elections — only five months before the US invasion, and the collapse of his statue at the hands of enthusiastic Iraqis.

But my sentence you quoted was, actually, talking about Roosevelt's — anti-Hitler — cause. Still, I'm glad, you understood, how it may as well be applied to Bush's anti-Saddam cause — whether Bush lied (like Roosevelt) or was completely honest.

Even Bush, who was accused — by the most hysterical of his enemies — of planning to cancel elections, only got, what 51% in the subsequent (not canceled) vote in 2004?..

Listening to the radio this morning I heard a long interview with Steve Coll, addressing exactly this question among others. You can hear or read the transcript here. He not only debunks this myth and explains how OBL did manage to equip his army in Afghanistan, he also addresses the so-called "phantom flight" of bin Ladens out of the country in the week after 9/11. Worth your attention if you're interested in actually looking into these questions.

Did Bill Ayers ever try to kill anyone? I thought all he did was help blow up a statue?

WordNet defines "terrorism" as (emphasis mine::

The noun terrorism has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts) 1. terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Belonging to a terrorist organization makes one a terrorist too, even if one is not (unlike Ayers) directly involved in any actual terrorism — take Hassan Nasrallah, for example.

Although per the definition above, simply threatening violence to attain certain goals is terrorism, Ayers' organization were planning to blow up an Army NCO club next. Fortunately for most concerned, they blew themselves up instead — the organization changed strategy to try to avoid casualties after this incident... But were also armed robberies (with fatalities) — a revolution always needs cash... (Interestingly, Joseph Stalin's first job in the Communist Party was to "rob the robbers" — what do the owners of "Democracy Now!" have in store for us?).

Just take Ayers' own words, spoken not during an interrogation, and not decades ago, but to the media this year: "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

Whether he actually killed anyone is not relevant to his being a terrorist — only to an additional charge of murder, which, according to his "memoir" he may also have committed, but nobody knows for sure: "''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''"

But his organization's ideology, as summarized by him back then was: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

Back to my original point — although the scumbag's guilt is undeniable (and, indeed, not denied), he avoided any punishment, because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them...

So, yes, Ayers was a member of a terrorist and otherwise criminal organization, and a terrorist himself — committed to this day to terrorism...

I would've linked to the original stories, but it seems that the Democracy Now website is currently down.

The Democracy Now! site isn't down now; see, for example, the original story about the arrest.

I would've linked to the original stories, but it seems that the Democracy Now website is currently down.

The Democracy Now! site isn't down now; see, for example, the original story about the arrest.

Well, I've been having difficulty accessing http://www.democracynow.org./ I don't know if this is a Chrome problem, or due to Amy Goodman's being arrested and the site possibly being flooded? Love this browser though, and also miss some of my Firefox add-ons.

Democracy Now! reports that federal agencies were involved:

Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than a half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of preemptive raids before the Republican convention. The coordinated searches were led by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher but conducted in coordination with federal agencies.

This should hardly be surprising as federal Senator McCain, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney were all planned to appear for the RNC. It would be unusual if county and citywide police were doing this on their own without any input from any federal agency. As time passes I'm sure we'll learn more about the specific people involved at all levels.

Also, Amy Goodman, host of DN!, and two DN! producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, were illegally arrested and detained. Goodman was arrested while trying to free Kouddous and Salazar. From the article:

ST. PAUL, MN--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sherrif Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Today's DN! (video, audio) has more on these preemptive arrests and detainments including footage of the police action in progress.

Democracy Now! reports that federal agencies were involved:

Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than a half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of preemptive raids before the Republican convention. The coordinated searches were led by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher but conducted in coordination with federal agencies.

This should hardly be surprising as federal Senator McCain, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney were all planned to appear for the RNC. It would be unusual if county and citywide police were doing this on their own without any input from any federal agency. As time passes I'm sure we'll learn more about the specific people involved at all levels.

Also, Amy Goodman, host of DN!, and two DN! producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, were illegally arrested and detained. Goodman was arrested while trying to free Kouddous and Salazar. From the article:

ST. PAUL, MN--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sherrif Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Today's DN! (video, audio) has more on these preemptive arrests and detainments including footage of the police action in progress.

Mod parent up tis was an important case:

http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/02/Josh_Wolf.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/12/exclusive_imprisoned_journalist_josh_wolf_speaks

Unless the only "local stations" are run by Clear Channel. Then I wish you good luck in getting them to actually do anything other than pre-recorded content. An entire region loses power for a day? Nothing's going on if it's Clear Channel, just the top 100 pop crap countdown... Did a train carrying toxic chemicals derail, causing 1 death and over 100 injuries? Clear Channel doesn't air any warnings. The hits just keep coming...

If he had first-hand knowledge of the murder, and didn't report it, he's subject to accomplice charges. In some jurisdictions, being accomplice to a murder, or even near the scene, can get you charged with murder.

Case-in-point, Texas has one of the strictest accomplice laws on the books, known as the "law of parties." Kenneth Foster was charged with murder one and given the death sentence for unknowingly (according to his testimony) driving a man to a soon-to-become murder scene. The governor of Texas intervened and commutted his sentence to life in prison. Ridiculous case, if you ask me.

The media is actually reporting things right this time. It's just that people infer what they want to believe.

If they were reporting things right, they would address the inference and refute it.

But that's just me, I have high standards.

At least there was some coverage of last month's final report on the exaggerations and lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq. But NBC, ABC, and CBS actually ignored it, while MSNBC dedicated only 90 seconds to the story.

You'd think this would be big news.

But then, only a tiny handful of US news outlets reported on Colin Powell's use of a plagiarized and largely outdated 10-year-old term paper (written by a California college student) in his presentation of WMD "evidence" to the UN.

The US media likes wars and all this Nationalist fervor because not only does it sell papers, but the parent companies of our media outlets profit mightily as well. So, alas, truth-telling presents a major conflict of interest for the media here.

For the raw facts, there's really only a few sources left.

AMY GOODMAN: And the argument that they will just descend into civil war and that the sectarian violence will increase, and the U.S. went in and now has a responsibility not the leave a mess? NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, I mean, the Germans could have given the same argument in occupied Europe, the Russians in the satellites, the Japanese in Asia, and so on. Yeah, they could have all given the same argument: well, we went in, and now we have a responsibility to ensure that terrible things dont happen, and so on. And the argument had some validity. So, when the Germans were driven out of France, lets say, there were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people killed byâ"as collaborators, and in Asia, even more so. But is that an argument for them? No. Its none of their business. We dont know what will happen, and its not our decision to make. Its the decision of the victims to make, not our decision. Occupying armies have no right to make the decision. We could have an academic seminar about it, in which we could discuss the likely consequences. But the point is its not for us to say. Well, until that enters into the discussion, and the critical issues of the war, like what right do we have to invade in the first place, enter into the discussion, the media and the journalism and so on are simply part of the government propaganda system, as I say, like a high school newspaper or like Pravda during the Afghanistan war. -Noam Chomsky interviw with Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/3/noam_chomsky_on_iraq_troop_withdrawal

This headline assumes that the pro-war faction brought onto the corporate so-called "news" were analysts to begin with and didn't just gain the "analyst" label by the fact that they were featured on the corporate news. They were not impartial experts. They were merely pundits, sent to lie to drum up popular support for an illegal and immoral war. As Peter Hart from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting explained on today's Democracy Now! (transcript, video, high-quality audio, smaller size audio):

One of the most shocking things in the story is that in early 2003, these guys got a briefing about WMDs, and the government said, "We actually don't have hard evidence right now that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Did any of them go on the air and say that? No. The Pentagon, I think, had total control and total faith that these guys would deliver the message that they intended to deliver to the public, and that's exactly what they did, and the media did very little to counteract this overwhelming propaganda campaign from the Pentagon.

What the Pentagon did is conspire with the media and over seventy-five retired military officers to spread lies about the invasion and occupation of Iraq; propaganda which continues to this day. The pundits weren't being manipulated, the public was. The pundits participated with their consent. Since one expects the Pentagon to get their story out (I don't excuse it, I merely expect it), one might wonder why the media didn't do their job and challenge those in power to justify their case for war? It would be far better to headline this story a failure of media to do their job as reporters. Again, Hart explains:

I think the extent of the briefings was somewhat shocking and the blase attitude from the networks. They didn't care what military contractors these guys were representing when they were out at the studio. They didn't care that the Pentagon was flying them on their own dime to Iraq. Just basic journalistic judgment was completely lacking here. So I think the story is really about a media failure, more than a Pentagon failure. The Pentagon did exactly what you would expect to do, taking advantage of this media bias in favor of having more and more generals on the air when the country is at war.

The New York Times didn't cover the media aspect of this problem probably because the Times was a willing participant in the lying. Apparently it still is.

Now, if you knew of some way to stop it......

The Winter Soldier II hearings ended yesterday. These hearings showcase soldiers telling their stories in their own words. They're riveting listening. The Mainstream media (MSM) wasn't present for them.

The MSM got the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq wrong and have yet to apologize. Reading their coverage it's a wonder anyone can understand how irrational it is to not hold war crime trials. The only Winter Soldier II coverage came from alternative news which uses the Internet extensively: Indymedia and Democracy Now!. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! reports that the MSM simply wasn't there. The Washington Post ran something small in their local section because the Winter Soldier hearings happened to occur near their offices. On today's DN! Seymour Hirsch briefly talked about how shameful the MSM war coverage was. He touched on both the run-up lies and Winter Soldier II non-coverage (they'll probably have their coverage, including Hirsch's rebuttal, online later today; check out The Internet Archive for copies of DN! as well).

...a baby killing, tax and spend, socialized medicine advocating, way out on the left wing commie liberal democrat

Don't worry, abortion is a nice wedge issue they can use to distract you from discussing the money issues that affect far more people far more profoundly (including distracting away from corporate crime). It's a good thing that the Republicans are so intent on keeping government small. Imagine how much egg they'd have on their face if they were responsible for creating the Department of Homeland Defense with almost $45B/year budget.

But two issues that really affect Americans in their everyday lives are war and health care. And when it comes to health care the Democrats are just as in favor of the corporatized health care delivery system the US has as the Republicans are. The Democrats of today are running as fast as they can from the universal health care Truman proposed 60 years ago, Americans just can't be allowed to have what Ralph Nader calls "a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention". HMOs give to candidates in both parties and that's the way those candidates like it despite that a majority of Americans in CBS and CNN polls say they'd prefer universal health care even if it means higher taxes to pay for it (an oddly supportive notion given that the US spends "twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita."). Kucinich/Conyers' health care plan (HR676) hasn't garnered a lot of cosponsors. I guess it will take a few more million Americans doing without health insurance (and thus making health care significantly more costly as well as making chronic care virtually unavailable until disaster strikes) to change that; over 45 million so far and this figure is going up.

When it comes to the continued occupation of Iraq the Democrats won't stop funding it out of a shared desire to "control [...] our major economic competitors in the world -- Europe and northeast Asia (China and Japan).". Sabre-rattling with Iran is also fodder for both major political parties. War crimes a plenty, according to AWARE (an Illinois-based anti-war group). All this for trillions Americans could have spent on domestic issues, chiefly those of the poor.

Really, the Democrats and Republicans aren't very far apart on these two major issues of the day (both money issues).

There's both audio and video podcasts that are now freely downloadable (used to be subscriber-only). They're on iTunes music store for both, and on Miro for the latter. Links here

Yes, alternative news sites like Democracy Now! and Alternet are clearly on the liberal side. But so what? I'm not suggesting that these should be your only source of news, but you'll discover things (important things) from them that you would never EVER hear from the mainstream media.

Do yourself a favor and check them out once in a while. I particularly like Alternet, as they are more of an aggregator of independent media.

When I first started writing news, for alternative newspapers, I thought it was easy. I knew who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were, and all I had to do was expose them. Just try it. If only it were that easy.

The most important lesson I learned as a real journalist, as distinct from a hippie journalist, is that whenever you attack the bastards, always call them up and give them a chance to respond. Let them defend themselves, and then show how they're lying. Just try it. Every real journalist (Molly Ivins, for one) will tell you all the times they thought they had the guy nailed, but when they called him up, it turned the story completely around.

There was a story on This American Life http://www.thislife.org/ about a kid who was in Europe, and talked his way into a press conference with George H.W. Bush (the father, not the stupid one). Good work so far. Then he got a chance to ask the President of the United States a question on the environment. Bush said that he supported nuclear power because it would do, overall, less harm to the environment. He actually made some good points.

The kid hadn't done his homework. He didn't know how to frame a good question that would pin the bastard down, and he didn't know how to follow it up. He didn't know shit about the environment. Bush had probably answered the same question a dozen times before, knew more about the environment than the kid did, and knew how to give a good answer. TAL played a tape of the press conference, and it was painful for me to listen, because I'd been in that same situation so many times before. (If you want to become a citizen journalist, you can practice getting prepared by looking up that story on the TAL web site. This will give you an idea of how hard it is to do research.)

Look at what I think is one of the best news sources in English: Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/ Take a look at this: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/the_democrats_suharto_bill_clinton_richard There is no way that any citizen journalist is going to be able to question Richard Holbrooke or Bill Clinton about human rights the way Alan Nairn and Amy Goodman did. Or this http://www.democracynow.org/features They know their facts thorougly.

Who do you want grilling your so-called elected leaders -- Amy Goodman, or some well-intentioned "activist" who doesn't know his facts (like those ringers they have in the audience during the presidential debates)?

I'm not defending the White House press corps either. Sure, the average stoned activist could do a better job than Judy Miller, but that's a pretty low bar.

There is one case where citizen journalists can do a good job, and that's as first-hand eyewitnesses. I remember going to an anti-war demonstration during the '60s, and having the New York City police viciously attack non-violent demonstrators (including me), some of whom had brought their children, and put some of them in the hospital with permanent injuries, for no reason that I could see (or that the City's lawyers could come up with in subsequent lawsuits). Running for safety, I came across a bunch of guys with press badges, huddled safely away from the scene where they couldn't witness the police brutality. On WBAI-FM radio, we heard first-hand accounts of what happened on the scene, which was consistent with what I saw.

Next morning, I picked up the New York Times, and saw a complete propaganda job, quoting only the police and City officials, claiming that the demonstrators had started it, it was the demonstrators' fault, and the cops had behaved with proper restraint. The Times didn'

When I first started writing news, for alternative newspapers, I thought it was easy. I knew who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were, and all I had to do was expose them. Just try it. If only it were that easy.

The most important lesson I learned as a real journalist, as distinct from a hippie journalist, is that whenever you attack the bastards, always call them up and give them a chance to respond. Let them defend themselves, and then show how they're lying. Just try it. Every real journalist (Molly Ivins, for one) will tell you all the times they thought they had the guy nailed, but when they called him up, it turned the story completely around.

There was a story on This American Life http://www.thislife.org/ about a kid who was in Europe, and talked his way into a press conference with George H.W. Bush (the father, not the stupid one). Good work so far. Then he got a chance to ask the President of the United States a question on the environment. Bush said that he supported nuclear power because it would do, overall, less harm to the environment. He actually made some good points.

The kid hadn't done his homework. He didn't know how to frame a good question that would pin the bastard down, and he didn't know how to follow it up. He didn't know shit about the environment. Bush had probably answered the same question a dozen times before, knew more about the environment than the kid did, and knew how to give a good answer. TAL played a tape of the press conference, and it was painful for me to listen, because I'd been in that same situation so many times before. (If you want to become a citizen journalist, you can practice getting prepared by looking up that story on the TAL web site. This will give you an idea of how hard it is to do research.)

Look at what I think is one of the best news sources in English: Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/ Take a look at this: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/the_democrats_suharto_bill_clinton_richard There is no way that any citizen journalist is going to be able to question Richard Holbrooke or Bill Clinton about human rights the way Alan Nairn and Amy Goodman did. Or this http://www.democracynow.org/features They know their facts thorougly.

Who do you want grilling your so-called elected leaders -- Amy Goodman, or some well-intentioned "activist" who doesn't know his facts (like those ringers they have in the audience during the presidential debates)?

I'm not defending the White House press corps either. Sure, the average stoned activist could do a better job than Judy Miller, but that's a pretty low bar.

There is one case where citizen journalists can do a good job, and that's as first-hand eyewitnesses. I remember going to an anti-war demonstration during the '60s, and having the New York City police viciously attack non-violent demonstrators (including me), some of whom had brought their children, and put some of them in the hospital with permanent injuries, for no reason that I could see (or that the City's lawyers could come up with in subsequent lawsuits). Running for safety, I came across a bunch of guys with press badges, huddled safely away from the scene where they couldn't witness the police brutality. On WBAI-FM radio, we heard first-hand accounts of what happened on the scene, which was consistent with what I saw.

Next morning, I picked up the New York Times, and saw a complete propaganda job, quoting only the police and City officials, claiming that the demonstrators had started it, it was the demonstrators' fault, and the cops had behaved with proper restraint. The Times didn'

When I first started writing news, for alternative newspapers, I thought it was easy. I knew who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were, and all I had to do was expose them. Just try it. If only it were that easy.

The most important lesson I learned as a real journalist, as distinct from a hippie journalist, is that whenever you attack the bastards, always call them up and give them a chance to respond. Let them defend themselves, and then show how they're lying. Just try it. Every real journalist (Molly Ivins, for one) will tell you all the times they thought they had the guy nailed, but when they called him up, it turned the story completely around.

There was a story on This American Life http://www.thislife.org/ about a kid who was in Europe, and talked his way into a press conference with George H.W. Bush (the father, not the stupid one). Good work so far. Then he got a chance to ask the President of the United States a question on the environment. Bush said that he supported nuclear power because it would do, overall, less harm to the environment. He actually made some good points.

The kid hadn't done his homework. He didn't know how to frame a good question that would pin the bastard down, and he didn't know how to follow it up. He didn't know shit about the environment. Bush had probably answered the same question a dozen times before, knew more about the environment than the kid did, and knew how to give a good answer. TAL played a tape of the press conference, and it was painful for me to listen, because I'd been in that same situation so many times before. (If you want to become a citizen journalist, you can practice getting prepared by looking up that story on the TAL web site. This will give you an idea of how hard it is to do research.)

Look at what I think is one of the best news sources in English: Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/ Take a look at this: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/the_democrats_suharto_bill_clinton_richard There is no way that any citizen journalist is going to be able to question Richard Holbrooke or Bill Clinton about human rights the way Alan Nairn and Amy Goodman did. Or this http://www.democracynow.org/features They know their facts thorougly.

Who do you want grilling your so-called elected leaders -- Amy Goodman, or some well-intentioned "activist" who doesn't know his facts (like those ringers they have in the audience during the presidential debates)?

I'm not defending the White House press corps either. Sure, the average stoned activist could do a better job than Judy Miller, but that's a pretty low bar.

There is one case where citizen journalists can do a good job, and that's as first-hand eyewitnesses. I remember going to an anti-war demonstration during the '60s, and having the New York City police viciously attack non-violent demonstrators (including me), some of whom had brought their children, and put some of them in the hospital with permanent injuries, for no reason that I could see (or that the City's lawyers could come up with in subsequent lawsuits). Running for safety, I came across a bunch of guys with press badges, huddled safely away from the scene where they couldn't witness the police brutality. On WBAI-FM radio, we heard first-hand accounts of what happened on the scene, which was consistent with what I saw.

Next morning, I picked up the New York Times, and saw a complete propaganda job, quoting only the police and City officials, claiming that the demonstrators had started it, it was the demonstrators' fault, and the cops had behaved with proper restraint. The Times didn'

[I also posted this under the GOP thread, but since this article covers both parties I'm posting twice. Hopefully you read it and see why. The most surprising thing for me was learning that Brzezinski is an adviser to Obama, since I had been considering Obama if "The Doctor" dropped out.]

Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

[Most likely DemocracyNow can handle plenty of hits, but you never know... so here is the full transcript]

AMY GOODMAN: Presidential candidates are scrambling to win last-minute support in Iowa ahead of tonight's caucus. Thousands of reporters have also descended on Iowa this week, covering everything from Mike Huckabee's haircut to John Edwards's rally with singer John Mellencamp.

But little attention has been paid to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar.

Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton's administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama's list includes President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.

Rudolph Giuliani's advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain's list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney's top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.

As for Mike Huckabee, it's not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has "spoken or will continue to speak," but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.

To talk more about the advisers behind the presidential campaigns, I'm joined by two guests. Kelley Vlahos is a freelance journalist in Washington. Her article on presidential advisers called "War Whisperers" appeared in The American Conservative in October. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn joins us here in the firehouse studio. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

I want to begin by going to Washington, D.C., to our guest there, to the author of "War Whisperers." Talk about why you focused, Kelley, on the advisers of the presidential candidates.

KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, it was becoming clear to me and to others here in Washington in certain circles that the advisers that were emerging for the campaigns, whether it be Democratic or Republican, were part of some seriously pro-establishment cliques. And I say "cliques," because there is really no other way to describe it. But these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.

But what became clear is that the candidates weren't reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters. And we th

Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

[Most likely DemocracyNow can handle plenty of hits, but you never know... so here is the full transcript]

AMY GOODMAN: Presidential candidates are scrambling to win last-minute support in Iowa ahead of tonight's caucus. Thousands of reporters have also descended on Iowa this week, covering everything from Mike Huckabee's haircut to John Edwards's rally with singer John Mellencamp.

But little attention has been paid to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar.

Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton's administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama's list includes President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.

Rudolph Giuliani's advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain's list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney's top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.

As for Mike Huckabee, it's not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has "spoken or will continue to speak," but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.

To talk more about the advisers behind the presidential campaigns, I'm joined by two guests. Kelley Vlahos is a freelance journalist in Washington. Her article on presidential advisers called "War Whisperers" appeared in The American Conservative in October. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn joins us here in the firehouse studio. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

I want to begin by going to Washington, D.C., to our guest there, to the author of "War Whisperers." Talk about why you focused, Kelley, on the advisers of the presidential candidates.

KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, it was becoming clear to me and to others here in Washington in certain circles that the advisers that were emerging for the campaigns, whether it be Democratic or Republican, were part of some seriously pro-establishment cliques. And I say "cliques," because there is really no other way to describe it. But these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.

But what became clear is that the candidates weren't reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters. And we thought--me and the editors thought it might be a good idea to explore a little bit under the surface about where these of advisers were coming from, in hopes of maybe deciphering where foreign policy might be going in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's begin with Hillary Clinton, Kelley Vla

Please forgive me for posting like this, but this is a dead-serious issue, so please, please,
please read on. This is a story that *has* to be told. So, I beg you: read this out before you hit the del button. If you do, Slashdot will be on CNN tonight and Bush will be out of the White House.
So please, give me the benefit of the doubt and read this trough before you hit delete.
--

Slashdot readers are smart people that can add one and one together. So, when they read why Second Life's supposed economy isn't a whole lot more than a typical pyramid scheme because the Linden company can print Linden dollars out of thin air at any rate they like, and can therefore buy and sell as much dollars at the exchange market as they like, so they can pretty much manipulate the whole SL economy as they please, they will also be able to figure out that the real US banking and monetary system can be manipulated at exactly the same way, because the Federal Reserve has enjoyed the absolute power to do literally anything it wants, which is probably why Henry Ford said he believed there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning if "the people of the nation" would "understand our banking and monetary system".

If they also read how the US corporations, owned by the same people that own the FED, systematically and consciously rape the poorest people of the world by using the trick of putting whole nations into debt to make them dependent and controllable by raising inflation tax, just as has been described in protocol number 6 of the so-called Zion protocols and continue reading that protcols, they would also understand why Henry Ford was a known anti-semite, as well as Winston Churchill, who wrote about a world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality that "has been steadily growing".

If you believe, like Ford and Churchill, in the existence of such a conspiracy, Slashdot readers would not just take for granted that it was "the Jews", but look at the most logical place for the conspiritors, which would be at the top of the pyramid, for who wars are very profitable as well, as is also described in said protocols. So, When Slashdot reades also learn that following Hitler's money leads al but directly to the White House and that Al Qaida in a way can be more or less considered to be the last remaining and still active Waffen-SS Division, because there are pretty direct links to the Waffen-SS Muslim Devision hardly anybody knew existed, they will also be able to understand Multatuli's extremely inconvenient truth laying this all out in detail.

Then they will also realise that 911 was an inside job after all and never be able to trust anyone on the memberlist of the order of Skull and Bones. Since Ron Paul was on the video Multatuli watched to get insight into the workings of the Fed, he gave him the benefit of the doub

Why Slashdot will be on CNN tonight and Ron Paul will probably be the next US president.

and Ron Paul will probably be the next president of the United States.

Slashdot readers are smart people that can add one and one together. So, when they read why Second Life's supposed economy isn't a whole lot more than a typical pyramid scheme because the Linden company can print Linden dollars out of thin air at any rate they like, and can therefore buy and sell as much dollars at the exchange market as they like, so they can pretty much manipulate the whole SL economy as they please, they will also be able to figure out that the real US banking and monetary system can be manipulated at exactly the same way, because the Federal Reserve has enjoyed the absolute power to do literally anything it wants, which is probably why Henry Ford said he believed there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning if "the people of the nation" would "understand our banking and monetary system".

If they also read how the US corporations, owned by the same people that own the FED, systematically and consciously rape the poorest people of the world by using the trick of putting whole nations into debt to make them dependent and controllable by raising inflation tax, just as has been described in protocol number 6 of the so-called Zion protocols and continue reading that protcols, they would also understand why Henry Ford was a known anti-semite, as well as Winston Churchill, who wrote about a world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality that "has been steadily growing".

If you believe, like Ford and Churchill, in the existence of such a conspiracy, Slashdot readers would not just take for granted that it was "the Jews", but look at the most logical place for the conspiritors, which would be at the top of the pyramid, for who wars are very profitable as well, as is also described in said protocols. So, When Slashdot reades also learn that following Hitler's money leads al but directly to the White House and that Al Qaida in a way can be more or less considered to be the last remaining and still active Waffen-SS Division, because there are pretty direct links to the Waffen-SS Muslim Devision hardly anybody knew existed, they will also be able to understand Multatuli's extremely inconvenient truth laying this all out in detail.

Then they will also realise that 911 was an inside job after all and never be able to trust anyone on the memberlist of the order of Skull and Bones. Since Ron Paul was on the video Multatuli watched to get insight into the workings of the Fed, he gave him the benefit of the doubt and linked to his site from his article.

Given the importance of this message, the chance that this will end up on the front page of Slashdot equals more then 99%, *IF* enough readers read this message. Since it will

and Ron Paul will probably be the next president of the United States.

Slashdot readers are smart people that can add one and one together. So, when they read why Second Life's supposed economy isn't a whole lot more than a typical pyramid scheme because the Linden company can print Linden dollars out of thin air at any rate they like, and can therefore buy and sell as much dollars at the exchange market as they like, so they can pretty much manipulate the whole SL economy as they please, they will also be able to figure out that the real US banking and monetary system can be manipulated at exactly the same way, because the Federal Reserve has enjoyed the absolute power to do literally anything it wants, which is probably why Henry Ford said he believed there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning if "the people of the nation" would "understand our banking and monetary system".

If they also read how the US corporations, owned by the same people that own the FED, systematically and consciously rape the poorest people of the world by using the trick of putting whole nations into debt to make them dependent and controllable by raising inflation tax, just as has been described in protocol number 6 of the so-called Zion protocols and continue reading that protcols, they would also understand why Henry Ford was a known anti-semite, as well as Winston Churchill, who wrote about a world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality that "has been steadily growing".

If you believe, like Ford and Churchill, in the existence of such a conspiracy, Slashdot readers would not just take for granted that it was "the Jews", but look at the most logical place for the conspiritors, which would be at the top of the pyramid, for who wars are very profitable as well, as is also described in said protocols. So, When Slashdot reades also learn that following Hitler's money leads al but directly to the White House and that Al Qaida in a way can be more or less considered to be the last remaining and still active Waffen-SS Division, because there are pretty direct links to the Waffen-SS Muslim Devision hardly anybody knew existed, they will also be able to understand Multatuli's extremely inconvenient truth laying this all out in detail.

Then they will also realise that 911 was an inside job after all and never be able to trust anyone on the memberlist of the order of Skull and Bones. Since Ron Paul was on the video Multatuli watched to get insight into the workings of the Fed, he gave him the benefit of the doubt and linked to his site from his article.

Given the importance of this message, the chance that this will end up on the front page of Slashdot equals more then 99%, *IF* enough readers read this message. Since it will be extremely cool, as a side-effect of sending the world's biggest war-criminals to justice, to

you might want to read on, anyway. Last week, I realised that Second Life's economy isn't the only economy that's a pyramid scheme benefitting above all the Guys at the top of the pyramid. I combined that with John Perkins story about how the super rich manage to rape the poorest people on the world, so I got a little worried, and decided to follow the money. Then, in a hunch, I decided to follow Hitler's money and also discovered a clear and credible link between the Nazi's and Al-Qaida. A few more steps and reality makes your worst nightmares look like a walk in the park. -- Multatuli --

If you realise that Second Life's economy isn't the only economy that's a pyramid scheme benefitting above all the Guys at the top of the pyramid, and combine that with John Perkins story about how the super rich manage to rape the poorest people on the world, you get a little worried, so you begin to follow the money.

Then, in a hunch, you decide to follow Hitler's money and discover a clear and credible link between the Nazi's and Al-Qaida. A few more steps and reality makes your worst nightmares look like a walk in the park.

-- Multatuli --

Please provide specifics instead of pointing me to something vague like a "research class in college". After all, how do you know I won't pick a class where Democracy Now! is used as a source of good journalism? While you're at it, please point me to specific instances of some of these "neutral", "reliable" sources which don't "reek of political bias".

See http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us/ for examples of lack of accountability.

No, that's not why TV news is soundbites. When you reduce the amount of time in which someone is allowed to make their point, you reduce what they can say. When one has little time to speak, one can only make the same old points we've heard a dozen times before. Reframing the issue to talk about new ways of thinking takes time. Explaining more significant points that help the audience understand larger patterns takes time. The corporations that own so many TV channels all benefit from keeping tight control over the ends of allowable debate. For instance, when there's war analysis the corporate news will invite a military official (current or former) and someone else who is pro-war, so at best the debate is sure to never bring up any of the lies that were repeated by the corporate media. Instead, as so many news clips show, you get a weapons hardware show (complete with 3-D graphics of tanks, missiles, etc.). Very rarely will someone with an anti-war perspective get on-air, according to FAIR in a study of news shortly after the US invaded Iraq:

Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.

When a network is owned by a military contractor (like NBC which is owned by contractor General Electric), it's all too clear who benefits from the status quo and why this is the way it is.

Democracy Now! is a daily TV news hour that gives people a chance to speak (audio and video archives on archive.org in a variety of formats, transcripts of a lot of their segments are on their website gratis). They cover important stories, not the fluff (celebrity goings-on, daily weather reports, sports, and traffic reports) and they cover many stories the corporate news won't touch or won't discuss from a perspective not favored by corporate lobbyists (independent and lesser-known candidates in big elections, "third rail" issues like the death penalty, Israel/Palestine conflict, Texaco/Chevron/Coca-Cola killings around the world, corporate media control, universal health care).

I hadn't heard about that spill until now. But here are the stats: "The chemical leak in Minot, North Dakota ended up killing one person. Approximately 330 were treated for immediate health problems and more than 1,000 people needed medical care for recurring illnesses in the next month."

Three mile island: "Although 25,000 people lived within five miles (8 km) of the site at the time of the accident,[2] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that 'the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident... is approximately one.'"

So, we've got 1 person dead in both cases. Many more people injured in Minot, clearly. BUT: We got lucky with 3 mile island. Just because no permanent health damage has been confirmed (legally, anyway), does not mean that we can draw conclusions about all nuclear reactors in the country being safe. And even if we could somehow make such a claim (which we can't), nuclear plants will always present targets for bombing. Now that's reassuring....

Naomi Wolf was recently on Democracy Now! talking about "The End of America" (transcript, low-bandwidth audio, high-bandwidth audio, low-bandwidth video, high-bandwidth video).

Naomi Wolf was recently on Democracy Now! talking about "The End of America" (transcript, low-bandwidth audio, high-bandwidth audio, low-bandwidth video, high-bandwidth video).

Thread was here. There is some decent coverage to read/watch at DN & infowars.

I don't know - but Iraq doesn't exactly seem like a bank holiday Superbowl:

Parents of a U.S. Marine Who Committed Suicide After Returning Home from Iraq File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Veterans Affairs

PTSD reports up 20,000 in a year

Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years