Slashdot Mirror

Long, long ago (early 1910's to be exact) the US parcelled out its radio frequencies. They were/are supposed to be resources dedicated to the benefit of us all, like our national parks.

Of course that ideal has eroded considerably over the years. The commercial US media has proven time and time again that it can't be relied upon for substantial news or even decent entertainment content. To all my laissez faire friends, look no further than Clear Channel to see how this actually hurts the market...

After the FCC relaxed ownership regulations, the radio industry is actually smaller, less jobs are available, and musicians' barriers to radio play are higher than ever.

PBS and NPR are merely bones thrown out to the public, a meaningless gesture. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has no more interest in providing decent news than FOX or CNN-look no further than the 2000 Presidential debates, where Jim Lehrer supported the blocking of third-party candidates from the discussion for proof.

So what needs to happen? A lot of people have noted that the amount of spectrum available through digital 'modulation' makes it possible to broadcast an almost unlimited number of radio channels...and this technique could be applied to television as well, to a lesser extent. With limited spectrum a thing of the past, public and commercial interests can share the media, each supporting the other. Here's what I'd like to see happen:

1)Corporation for Public Broadcasting/PBS/NPR dismantled. Public funding allocated for those organizations should be used to build a strong public access infrastructure. This new public access project awards grants to budding television producers. This public access network could also serve as a 'farm league' for larger commercial interests. Successful public-access producers could be picked up by the larger networks-allowing risk-free, cost-free market research for Big Media. Everybody wins!

2)FCC laws limiting media ownership strengthened. Let's limit how many media outlets, and what kind of outlets each corporation can own. Media outlets should be required to report their owners, as well as what other media outlets are owned by their owners, on "public service announcements" several times per day. You'd be surprised at how many people don't know that AOL owns CNN, Time Magazine, many local cable companies, etc.

3)Classrooms teach semiotics/media literacy. Knowing how to dissect and critique popular media is very important for a free-thinking society. As (somebody? Gramsci?) said, "The power of ideology is that it presents itself as normal." People need to know that 'objective' news is impossible, and how to spot astroturfing, shilling, and other forms of deception.

So...that's my long-winded take on how to 'fix the media'. Appoint me as FCC chairman in 2004!

Counterspin is produced by the center for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. If you get your news from US media, you _need_ to listen to this weekly half-hour show. They have all their archives online back to 1996!

Counterspin is produced by the center for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. If you get your news from US media, you _need_ to listen to this weekly half-hour show. They have all their archives online back to 1996!

That sort of sums up my feelings on the subject... outright lies go unchallenged and the debate is restricted to how many supply wagons and troops should be sent into combat. That's hardly criticism of the administration. It's not that there's no debate - it's that the debate is about unimportant details, or about the severity of a course of action that is unquestioned. Individual facts are reported, and sometimes even on the front page, but they're not often used to challenge the status quo.

I understand the reasons for CNN being what it is (or at least think I do) but that's no reason to excuse them. Nobody to my knowledge has refuted Noam Chomsky's bread and butter book... if commercial US networks' coverage hasn't improved since Nicaragua I don't see why it's too likely to change now. The same style sells every year, and the penalties for pissing off your sources of prepackaged news remain the same. Hell, I wouldn't want to piss of the Bush adminsitration... they are incredibly adept at controlling and dispensing information. If you're not on their good list, you might not get invited.

Of course Al-Jazeera is just as biased. That was sort of my intent in my ranting post. One part CNN, one part The Guardian, one part the Hindu Times and a dash of Al-Jazeera, mix with the Page 16 article-hunters' reports and you might actually have a fair picture of what's going on.

I'm not overly trusting of our government, but I'll readily take their word over Saddam's.

"In a war, truth is it's first victim." Besides, I don't trust the media that much in general, and you shouldn't either.

From http://www.boortz.com/march20-03.htm

Interresting, but here is a question for you: Iraq is down on it's knees for year, it doesn't seem to have any WMD's (after all if he had it, why wouldn't he use it? It's not like he has anything to loose right now, does he?).

Yet the only country in the region with Nuclear weapons (Israel) is defying over 30 UN resolutions on various topics, they bulldoze refugee camps, use heavy artillery, tanks and attack helicopters in civillian areas, yet the US does nothing, in fact the only thing they do is veto anything that is passed in the security council and giving aid, military and financially. Isn't that very hypocrytical? Who is doing more right now in the region to disturb the peace?

I can't speak for the U.S. government, but frankly I don't care about the world's opinion.

Why this arrogance? Why do you think you don't need to hear what the world has to say? Because they are "unimportant"?

I would like to see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. and tell them to take their headquarters out of New York.

I heard the same thing from quite a few people from the other side of the fence. They would agree with you, why deal with a rogue nation? Why treat them as equals?

I think they've shown themselves to be a bunch of talkers who do not back up their words with meaningful action.

The idea behind the security council always was to find a peaceful solution to conflicts, and yes that includes talking about the topics at hand.

It's ludicrous to me that countries that have long sat in the protection of the U.S. can then sit in judgement of how the U.S. provides that protection.

In a democracy, in a world where apparantly the US is supposed to be the good guys people should be able to question the US in every aspect. And yes, we should be able to decide how we want to be "protected" and we should also be able to decide when we need protection. Or how would you like it when you walk down the street and a police car pulls up and just throws you in the back to "protect" you from something you don't consider a threat? Wouldn't that infright of your rights? Wouldn't you complain?

. This discussion is not meant in any way to justify my opinion of the matter.

No? So you're just trolling?

If people who share my opinion do not speak out though, it would give the impression that the anti-war crowd is larger than it in fact is.

Now you are painting black and white again. Did it ever occure to you that a lot of the people who are now in the "anti-war" movement are so because there is no other way for them to go? That they in essence agree that Saddam isn't a nice guy but that they don't agree with the way this situation is handled?

Let's face it, the current US Administration has absolutly no clue about diplomacy, nor do they have a clue about how the world feels about them.

The "You're either with us or the Terrorist" speech that Bush gave after 9/11 sounded for a lot of people like: "You are either with us or against us.". And that is the problem, a lot of people are on neither side. I am not with the terrorists, but I am most definetly not with the US administration on their crusade either. Considering Bush's statement this automatically makes me one of the bad guys and as such I am against the US. And there lies the problem. By painting black and white the US has managed to alienate 90% of the world population, by not allowing a different opinion they are drifting towards what they claim to fight.

The US stands for "Freedom and Democracy"? No, for most people outside (and quite a few inside the US) the Flag stands for Hypocracy, and it doesn't seem to get any better.

Agreed, multiple *diverse* sources are ultra-necessary for any meaningful, valid understanding.

My reason for choosing those ones, though, is:

not 'sanitized' the way ALL North American mass-media 'news' is...

English journalism is cutting-enough as to be reasonably trustworthy...

The Guardian freely offers deeply dissident, oft non-Western or non-Anglo understandings...

Reuters is rather international ( but I still prefer non-N.A. sources .. I don't know how 'torqued' and dumbed-down the N.A. version of 'em is ), and

Radio Netherlands is a treasure: unlike the imperial assumptions of anglo-culture, they were trader-culture, and dependent, to great degree, on 'The Continent', and so have to keep levelly-aware, and the habit seems to have remained with 'em...

I remember when the America/Iraq propaganda/religion started developing, Radio Netherlands ran ( and critiqued ) a speech by .. who-was-it, the Iranian Prime Minister -grumble- President, then? Something like that, insightful, and .. totally non-reported here, because it wasn't a Conforming/Obedient Opinion Authorized by the Department of Reality[tm].

( is it just me, or does our world feel more like the movie Brazil, of late? )

The total non-reporting of the perspective they gave, though, among our 'free press'...

made me understand that .. automagically trusting those who maintain they are journalists, is

deeply dubious.

Belonging Conformity, then is one drug I don't want in my blood, at all.

*Ignoring what is* .. cannot grant one understanding, why isn't diversely-perceiving, then, an addiction?

Your comment about bias, though, yeah, that's why I stopped listening to the BBC..
not anywhere near as bad as N.A. 'news', but...
LOL
.. for some contrast, with the N.A. Officious And Authoritative Pablum, try Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting which systematically attacks all the biass among N.A. mass-media .. that offends them..
( warning, though, you will lose your belief in mass-media's Inherent Truth[tm], and will probably get that they slant -just as much- as the ones they attack...

Isn't arranged ignorance comforting+wonderful.

( BTW: being humanitarian means being non-imperial, non-institutionian, in determination ... one can have only one heart-determination, and if politics is it, or institutional importance, or position, or nationalism, or human-heart-worth, or living-soul-essence, whatever: just being honest in one's heart about the nature of one's religion, is a measure of peace...
Sun Tzu: A Supreme General doesn't excel in battle, because he removed all cause for it. Only non-supreme generals get/create battles.
As a means of creating a black/white biggest-bludgeon-rules world, though, devoid of UN-democracy, I'd say the action has already been proactively..
.. just a thought : /

Here's a nifty quote, from one of the pages I link-to:
"Unfortunately I'm not certain that politicians inside the US have any appreciation of the situation on the ground. I think they operate to a very large extent from prejudice and ideology, and as such, seeing as they've designated Iran a member of the axis of evil and c

As well as using google news, I also check out www.fair.org to get their spin on current news stories. FAIR stands for fair and accuracy in reporting.

fair.org

I'm going to assume the author of parrent was suggesting non-commercial media (you know, those that aren't influenced by multinational corporations). Here are some suggestions:
-Independent Media
-Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
-The Nation

> The talking heads are reporting that this may or may not have been a PsyOp

More likely the Bush Administration is disappointed that Saddam didn't give them the political cover that they so desperately need and want by carrying out the much predicted preemptive attack using weapons of mass destruction, and this is their way of telling him he's got one more chance to do that.

Somebody in Washington wants political cover for the invasion a heck of a lot more than they're letting on. They keeps saying "We don't need authorization from the {Congress,UN}", but they've been trying like heck to get it.

Traditionally when you want to fight an unjust war you arrange an "incident" to get your citizens' dander up, and I'm starting to think that's the strategy they've adopted. Don't be surprised at anything you hear on the news this week.

And don't be surprised at what you find out about this month's events several years from now, either. This might be a good time to recall the "Tonkin Gulf Incident".

Here, I found a website that questions FAIR:

...but that doesn't refute any of the claims Rush makes. That hardly counts as a cancellation in my book.

Rush's numbers speak to the level of trust that people place in him, validating his truthfulness.

The fact that many people trust somebody doesn't mean that person is truthful, it only means they trust that person.

The fact remains that people love Rush 'cause he is honest.

"Fact"? You have not demonstrated that Rush is honest. Perhaps he honestly believes that, for example, our output of CFCs can't possibly destroy the ozone layer, because the eruption of Mount Pinatubo put out 570 times the amount of chlorine as is in one year's worth of CFC emissions, but, if so, then he's honest but deeply confused.

Rush rebutted each of FAIR's false claims years ago in his first book.

It seems unlikely, unless Rush has a time machine, that he would have rebutted, in a book that came out in 1992 and was reprinted in 1993, claims made by FAIR in 1994 and later and claims made in a book that came out in 1995, unless you're referring to a later edition of "The Way Things Ought To Be".

Now, if you'd like to share with us a fact-based rebuttal of, say, these responses by FAIR of Rush's claims, please be my guest.

Rush rebutted each of FAIR's false claims years ago in his first book.

It seems unlikely, unless Rush has a time machine, that he would have rebutted, in a book that came out in 1992 and was reprinted in 1993, claims made by FAIR in 1994 and later and claims made in a book that came out in 1995, unless you're referring to a later edition of "The Way Things Ought To Be".

Now, if you'd like to share with us a fact-based rebuttal of, say, these responses by FAIR of Rush's claims, please be my guest.

How does Rush do it?

He does it by not trying to bullshit people into believing things that just aren't true.

You're right, Rush Limbaugh's never done anything like that.

...after the inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998.

Wasn't someone getting a BJ around then? FYI the inpectors were pulled out of Iraq by the US in 1998 b/c we were going to start bombing heavily for a few weeks. They were not kicked out. Read all about it.

I think you're overlooking the fact that the labelling the media uses depends, to a large degree, on how a person or organization describes itself. This tendency is, at least in part, a function of wanting to at least mantain the appearance of neutrality -- if the subject applies the label to herself, then clearly it is OK, whereas it may appear to be editorializing to apply the term to someone who avoids using it in self-descriptions. Conservatives, at least those in public life, seem much more interested in describing themselves as "conservative", whereas those of whom the label "liberal" or "left-wing" might be an accurate description aren't so inclined. Hell, I don't even recall Nader using either label in 2000 [ results of a google search for 'liberal' on nader.org ] . AAMOF, "liberal" is one of the words that Newt Gingrich/GOPAC put on a list of epithets to hurl at opponents.

As for "humanist/atheist," how often is someone in public life publicly "out" as an atheist?

Here's a good start. Including a whole separate page devoted to that fat fuck O'Reilly.

Science reporter Gina Kolata has been widely accused of poor reporting, bias and using industry shills in her "objective" reports. See more information here (down at the bottom) and start googling further from there.

And here's an extremely sobering collection of reports on NYT problematic journalism.

Science reporter Gina Kolata has been widely accused of poor reporting, bias and using industry shills in her "objective" reports. See more information here (down at the bottom) and start googling further from there.

And here's an extremely sobering collection of reports on NYT problematic journalism.

I always love the people who blame US sanctions for poverty, starvation and death.

I wish we could say the same for you.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that these countries existed thousands of years before the US

You mean when the population was a tiny fraction of what it is now? I expect that a large number of people died back then as well.

The difference is that today, such loss of life is easily preventable. It would be as if you were ill and I withheld modern medicine from you. What's the harm? If you had lived thousands of years ago, you would have died from the disease!

In Iraq's case after the war, all that was needed was to allow food and medicine into the country. The United States didn't need to provide the food or medicine, they just needed to ease up at the U.N. and let other countries deliver the aid.

It's not as if we hadn't done enough damage to Iraq already.

And it's not as if the sanctions ever stood a chance in hell of effecting regime change.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

That interview took place in 1996. Like I said before, the estimate is upwards of one-and-a-half million dead... today it's probably more like two million.

I'd agree with Kline on one hand that Sturgeon's Law is being enforced - 90 percent of everything is crap.

However, the notion that publishers are filtering with my best interests in mind is also part of that 90 percent.Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

And beyond that even, I'd have to say that one man's treasure is another man's garbage.

Don't forget that CNN and NPR have allowed US military "psy-ops" officers to be "interns" in their news offices.

If you're going to make a point like this, I suspect I'm not alone in asking that you just pick a relatively reputable source and link to that instead of linking to a Google search. Especially when the Google search turns up a large number of sites your average person has never heard of and there will mistrust. Perhaps offer the Google link as a follow up.

Also, don't make the link text the same as the link. Give a useful label, like "Google search on 'CNN Army Psyops'" It's much more useful and likely to draw people to click on it. (Of course, if the link said something like "FAIR's coverage of psy-ops working at CNN" and linked to the FAIR coverage, I think it would have gotten even more.)

That said, I found your contention alarming, so I took a quick look. After skimming over a number of small sites I've never heard, I found one a group I'm actually familiar with: FAIR. While often disagree with FAIR, I'm familiar with them and understand where their prejudices lie. I trust them (or at least trust their slant). So, seeing FAIR's coverage of Psy-Ops at CNN, I feel I got a reasonable summary of the issue and relaxed.

If you can grasp the notion that an internet is not the Internet, it means exactly what he said it means.

The bullshit started with the origional Wired article, then Racist Majoraty Leader Trent Lott got it rolling by mockingly saying that he had "taken the intiative in creating the paper clip." "Inventing" was then substituted for "creating" by the cocksucking media, and an urban legend was born.

This article does a nice job debunking the "invented the internet" myth. Go read it. After that go ahead and keep making jokes about Gore and the internet, its all funny haha, but know that you are spreading a baldface lie.

What really pisses me off is that the media had a grand old time eviscerating Gore for a plethora of false statments that he never actually made, while ignoring then Govenor Bush's ATTEMPT TO TAKE CREDIT FOR A BILL HE FUCKING VETOED!!!. During the 2000 debates Bush said "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." The shitsack VETOED that bill, and then only let it pass into law without his signature because the Texas legislature passed it again with veto proof margins!

Fox news? I wouldn't trust anything coming from Rupert Murdoch and his overly biased organization.

Heck, you see it even if they keep all the old hands around! Here's a good case in point, concerning weapons inspectors and Iraq. And like the archaeologists, most people take what is said for truth. Even super-reputable magazines like the Economist are parroting this lie from the State Department. Nobody's rocking the boat.

The irony is that this is sourced from a web-site. Heh.

Mainstream American media outlets are no more liberal than the megacorps that own them. Is AOL/Time-Warner or Disney caling for the workers to take over the means of production? I don't think so. And journalists are, on average, more conservative on economic issues than most Americans.

The myth of the "liberal media" is a successful marketing ploy of the right wing, matched only by their ability to convince average Americans that they are rich (in one poll, 19% of American voters surveyed believed that they fell into the top 1% income bracket) and thus should support their plutocratic policies.

Inasmuch -- actually, I'm a lawyer, so I'm quite familiar with the word. :)

It's hard to see the Supreme Court decision as a "moot point" because Bush would have won anyway. If the National Guard had taken over Florida and declared Bush the winner, that wouldn't be irrelevant even though the outcome was the same. The process counts as much as the result, and the Supreme Court made a terrible mistake by forcing Florida to stop the recounts on the theory that although Gore was right in principle there was not enough time left, neglecting that its own stay and candidate Bush's ruthless strategy had run out the clock. Perhaps he "stole" (I use the term with tongue in cheek) an election that was already his, but it was still improper.

Oddly I don't care who got the brass ring because it was so close. I do care how President Bush won, and by any reckoning the election and legal squabbling were a horrible mess that we should not put behind us. We can't stop "moaning" about the election because what happened procedurally was a travesty and can not recur. I'm critical of anyone happy or unhappy with the outcome who does not agree. Ironically, President Bush just quietly signed off on a federal bill to fund updating the election procedure.

As for who would have won (or did win), the hypothetical outcomes I cited were from the same NYT/WP/CNN etc. study. Again the method chosen is critical, and I reject any method that not place the intent of the voter as paramount. Intent-of-the-voter standards tended to favor Gore. Whatever the standard, I'm surprised you would imply a "tiny, tiny" victory is somehow not a victory.

The irregularities in the Florida election were objectively concrete, not speculative, and thus are not a conspiracy theory. As it happens, this year Florida lost (and later found) 100,000 votes in one region, though (whew) it could not have affected the outcome. As we know, it some elections it would. This issue is not going away.

I should explain that I focused on voting rights in school and am more interested in fair elections than horse-race politics. The mechanics of electoral theory and its underlying irrationality are fascinating, for the right person. ;-) I'm still curious whether Kennedy legitimately defeated Nixon, and that's not political sour grapes. Anyway, I explain this at length in the hope you and others take another look at the election, not President Bush, and see what is there that's not right. After all, you wouldn't accept a computer that couldn't count right, would you?

read this.

I realise that FAIR has what a lot of people would call a 'liberal bias,' but their facts in this case are sound. Worth a look. :)

Triv

It's not utter BS. Your reaction is way overblown, and naively optimistic.

Where a story orginates, has nothing to do with the fact that editorial boards are not free to publish whatever they choose (it can't offend the editors, executives, shareholders, ad sponsors, owners, etc.). This is a good example.

Obviously it is in the interests of huge conglomerates with many different types of divisons; for one division (ex: news) to supress a story that conflicts with the interests of another division (ex: media).

Many, if not most people (in the US at least) get their news from television, and therefore the major television news channels (which are all gigantic corporate conglomerates) have TREMENDOUS effect on whether a story ends up getting out to the mainstream public. Yes, there are the local TV news stations, but they aren't going to cover a complex issue such as this in one of their allotted 5 seconds sound bytes.

People don't have time to browse 300 different internet news sites a day. Porn maybe, but not news.

Actually, here's a better site on America's Fair and Balanced(tm) TV news: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

As much as I think it's unlikely that low power non-ionizing EM radiation is harmful, I wouldn't ask anyone to take Fox's word for it. The article provides enough information to do some digging and maybe come up with a journal article, but I wouldn't trust Fox's reporting on anything besides sports results.

Too bad sites can't be moderated as -1 troll... :-)

Ah, but that brings us to the agendas of both organizations like the Washington Times and of FAIR.

Actually, if you have to resort to the ad hominem dodge right off the bat, you've already lost.

FAIR is not high on my list of "objective" organizations. Now maybe the Washington Times isn't either.

You certainly weren't offering any such provisos when you quoted them to support your position.

...well, I'll take a conservative editorial slant and exercise my judgement with it over the liberal slant from nearly every other news organization and groups like FAIR.

Except, of course, that the myth that most of the media have a liberal slant has itself been thoroughly debunked. [You will, no doubt, dismiss all this evidence out of hand as coming from "liberal" sources, a neatly circular argument. Exercising judgment, indeed.]

Published on April 23, 2002, The Washington Times
Biologists' roles in lynx-hair fraud under review

Sorry, already been debunked. Try again.

Luckily we have a free press to keep an eye out for and condemn anti-democratic coups.

They don't tell you on the website, but the FreedomForum and the Newseum were founded by Gannett, the corporation that has done the most to destroy local newspaper ownership. There are many, much smarter than me, who belive a media that daily tells us our freedoms are not important does a lot to undermine democracy.

Having grown up in Camden, I thought the idea of covering the city in black blobs was a distinct improvement.

Now if this were New York City, the goverment would have immediately cut off funding to the city's museums. But this being Camden, it would require finding government officials who weren't currently in jail.

Ideally, demand by consumers kickstarts the process. Based upon demonstrations of the technology, people *voluntarily* buy the dual-tuner televisions, just like they did with DVD players, CDs, and the game console of the week.

And when it comes right down to it, many of the companies manufacturing televisions are also producing content. Which, in the context of this article, adversely affects my sanity. More lobbying, by entertainment groups, for forced acceptance of their product. Brilliance.

Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim: Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage

When Dubya gave the commencement speech (shouldn't they at least get someone literate for that?) at Ohio State, the audience was warned that anyone turning their back would be arrested and expelled. Not for interrupting the speech, mind you, merely for failing to worship the Resident.

Dubya is king. A President would not only have been elected but would keep their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Apply this to all similar ads: Let them know you're going to switch to their competitor's products, and why you're switching. This tactic is used by those who would prevent the broadcast of programming they find objectionable; there's no reason the technique can't work for other protests.

I wanted to play on the idea that the masses usually don't know or care which way they're supposed to go by demonstrating that there is already an industry that is booming off of this situation and pointing out that this is probably the reason businesses are adopting massively irritating policies or operating procedures. But yeah, I don't want to assign any scientific credence to his statement -- just point out that in a broader sense it seems right on the money.

Is there something outside the marketability of political orientation that is a factor in this difference in success? Does political orientation give a business an advantage in a Capitalistic society? Or is it that Republicans are just looser with their wallets?

Capitalism is the economic system of choice in the world's richest nation. What should we do with that wealth? Whatever we want! That's why it's called a free society.

It's not a Free Society for everyone in this country. Many American Blacks and Asians face major economic inequity. In West Oakland, CA, the percentage of people who can't pay their mortgage is up around 60%. The amount of children who live under the poverty line in Alameda County CA is staggering - around 40%!

Again, I would have to disagree with this. A major cause of hunger, is, as you've said, a lack of productive economies in hungry nations. But rather than pursue fair trade with producers in other nations, the small minority of people in the United States who control our trade policies (who I would call "Rich people in the USA") insist on subsidizing US farm crops (and dumping them all over the world) while forcing developing nations to export luxury crops to the US (like coffee - 1% of the world's arable land is used for coffee). The WTO and the World Bank, major tools of developed industrial nations, heavily favor the interests of the United States and Europe. The United States especially poor when it comes to pursuing sustainable development... Do you actually believe that wealthy interests in the US have a positive effect on world hunger? Exporting cheap food to poor countries destroys local economies (outcompeting local farmers!), the same way that a Wal-Mart comming to your town destroys local businesses...

In fact, they provide a lot of help to the world's hungry, both in terms of increasing awareness and generating funding.

You must be speaking about these people, otherwise, I think the wealthy in the US need to learn a lot about fundraising for the impoverished...

If ICANN were left to its own devices to fund 'projects' like Google, such 'projects' (Google is very much a profit-making business, not a 'project') would likely never come into existence.

Hunh? How did any of the following come about: Apache, Linux Kernel, GNU utilities, PHP, Perl, The Gimp, GNOME, KDE, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Debian, etc, etc, etc...

there just isn't the same level of competition out there in the np space.

Again, what about: GNOME vs. KDE, Apache vs. Anything, Mozilla vs. Konqeror vs. everything else, Linux vs. BSD vs. etc. etc. etc...

If you look at the distribution of wealth throughout the world, it is easy to say that economic inequity is the cause of hunger. But in fact the cause of hunger is the simple lack of productive economies in hunger-stricken regions. Why isn't Afghanistan competing with India and China in the tech sector?

A "computer" economy will not feed the people of a developing nation. Who will grow the food? Will those people be a perpetual underclass?

The source of the economic inequity between nations is largely a result of the laws that govern patents and trade, which are themselves a product of the nation's culture.

Wrong. The laws that govern patents and trade are dictated not by culture, but by the threat of force and sanctions by more powerful countries. Do you actually think that people in Jamaica, the Phillipines, or China want to be used as cheap labor for European and American tastes? What about Cuba? Do you think that the culture of Cuba dictates their economic situation? Or was if force from the United States?

It is what makes this discussion possible at both the idiological and the technological level.

People in non-western countries also talk freely about politics, technology, and other issues... I myself am Persian, and persians love to talk politics... It seems like you have been watching too much Fox News Network... In the United States, there is no guarantee of free discussion about political issues, as the squelching of public dissent in the face of ridiculous media conglomeration. Our current Federal Legislature and Presidential Administration is not exactly

For more information check out: the EFF, and FAIR...

the overwhelming majority of reporters identify themselves as liberals, and they tend to hire people who agree with them. In their limited world of Georgetown cocktail parties and Manhattan soirees, they see their views not as `left of center' (which they are by any comparison with the US population as a whole), but as `reasonable'...

I'm afraid you've got your facts mixed up. Those Washington journalists of whom you speak - employed by megacorps, and having incomes well over the American median - are in fact farther to the right (i.e., more conservative on economic issues) than the average American.

As for the bestseller status of Mr. Goldberg's work, it suggests that his thesis has struck a chord with the general public

Well, there's the in depth, well researched, answer and then there's the racey, slap one's head and say "Of course!" answer to your question, take your pick.

There's an active campaign to change that, but it's arguable all it will do is, together with the long time attacks by freepers on percieved left wing bias, simply batter journalists into a sort of don't-offend-anyone submission. Still, arguably, that's what we have right now: Especially if the right is right and most journalists position themselves left of center, they're definitely not writing as if they're left of center.

Not that I believe they are, or at least, not to the same extent as conservatives believe they are. FAIR did a survey in which they polled journalist's positions on various issues and compared them to the national average. They found that while journalists leant to the left/center in terms of the causes they supported - Medicare, Social Security, Taxes, etc, they were generally to the right of what studies generally showed were the American public's positions on the same issues. This probably goes some way towards explaining why even some of the more intelligent right wingers are convinced of a left wing bias to the press - it's to the left of them.

Why is this relevent? Well, right now criticising government means, by definition, being critical of and willing to question right wing Republican policies. And, except for a burst for the last month or so, there's been very, very, little criticism of the government. Even before 9/11, CNN was devoting something in the order of 50% of its TV coverage (evidence from memory) of a scandal involving a Democratic congressman where he lied to police during a murder investigation, and there simply was no news on that score - he lied, that was it. Nothing came in, but the same story was repeated and excuses were found to repeat it, over and over again. And Condit (for it is he) isn't exactly an important figure.

The press, at the moment, is in the hands of people who do not want powerful forces challenged. Right now, those powerful forces are those in government. Until and unless there's a change of hands, and journalists feel they can breath and be more free, there will not be another Woodward and Bernstein.

Unless it favors the Big Six media, that is.

"Their Man in Washington: Big media have an ally in new FCC chair Michael Powell.

The Media Borg's Man in Washington

Their Man in Washington

Check this out: FAIR Special Report: The Most Biased Name in News. Fox has a history of misrepresenting the facts.

Triv