I canceled any subscriptions I had to Newsweek, Time, etc. years ago when a study revealed that news entities would either downplay or withhold entirely any news that reflected poorly on one of their sponsors/advertisers. That simply puts them into the complicit column and renders them biased and compromised.

Better to uncover truths among unconnected sources, even ones with axes to grind since there can be found surprising information. It takes a knack to dell inspiron 600m battery,dell latitude d400 battery discern the truth from the overblown or fabulists, but it’s light years better than trusting a corporate-dependent shill network or “news corp.”

****************************************************

If people in the media would at least be honest with us about their biases instead of pretending that they doesn’t exist — turning them into the metaphorical five-ton elephant in the room which everyone knows is there but which no one wants to acknowledge — I think that would at least be a marginal improvement over what we have now in which the majority of mainstream media outlets are in the hands of a very small number of parent companies and in which some stories which should be investigated are not because they’re critical of certain corporate or government interests.

Of course, I’m sure that you’re well aware the Europeans are well known for being more “up” on current events than americans. When I watch overseas news broadcasts, I am struck by how much better the announcers are. Of course, there’s the BBC. But I also use the internet for practice in some European languages. What really gets me is that my local announcers (both here and in some other places I’ve lived), can’t seem to conjugate a verb correctly.

While the European annonuncers, speaking a foreign language, still manage to correctly pronounce the place names of the locations that they are covering – even when the place names’ phonics are totally foreign to their language.

Meanwhile, we’re at war / occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan (and looking to Iran). I can’t decide if it is contempt, smugness, or inattention that makes it that we can’t pronounce Iraq or Iran even though the sounds are easily pronounced by the amerian palate.

Today: Murdoch, Faux News, Mudoch buys Wall St. Jrnl, CNN seems to be tilting, Sensationalism and celebrity reports carry the day.

Why would anyone in their right mind NOT trust the news ?

And Check out Naomi Wolf’s articles and videos on Ten Steps to Fasism http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS255US256&q=naomi+wolf+10+steps
America Take off the rose colored glasses!
If YOU CHOOSE not to check these sites out…than YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH REALITY!
And YOU WILL be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk!

Wikipedia is an odd thing. It is made up of a so-called “volunteer system.” Several years ago, a team of quackbusters infiltrated various levels of the Wikipedia operation, and are now entrenched in the middle, and lower, level volunteer management system. If you try and put any positive information about advanced medicine, or the problems of US health care, on Wikipedia, or change false or misleading information the quackbusters have installed, you will fail. You will be blocked from further “editing” and the pages of Wikipedia will now carry information about what a “terrible person you are.” The only way to have ANY influence over what Wikipedia says about subject is to approach them with a legal threat letter at the highest levels. Nothing else works. Even that has problems, for Wikipedia management operates on a financial shoestring, and apparently has no ability to police its own encyclopedia. Unfortunately, people use the encyclopedia – and they get very bad information about health care.

Below is a paragraph from the editor’s section of Wikipedia. The editor, here, is discussing the problem of the quackbuster slime, acting to control the information flow on Wikipedia – and what to do about it. so you understand

http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article070.htm

I don’t even know where to start. The trad press broke Watergate, but now trad reporters are just lazy lackeys of power? I’m looking at yesterday’s New York Times at the moment, and on the front page there’s a great story about the Shakespearean pressure Obama is feeling to fight Clinton’s mud-slinging with slinging of his own; there is a fascinating story about cyber-rebels in Cuba; there is a story about Bush’s failure to negotiate with OPEC. That’s page 1, if you don’t include the ground-breaking (and probably Pulitzer-winning) stuff the paper has been doing about blood thinner contaminants in China. (It has also published ground-breaking stuff about pollution in China, stuff that is changing the law in China, for God’s sake.) I happen to be in Toronto today, and the national establishment paper up here, the Globe and Mail, is similarly plastered with stories taking direct aim at Stephen Harper, their prime minister, about everything from his stand on the environment to influence peddling. Of course it’s not all political stuff: a couple of weeks ago it ran a huge four page spread on the paparazzi who cover Britney–and what dogs they are, and how emblematic they are at a time when so many of us expose our private selves on Facebook. I’m not a big celebrity gossip fan, but it was the most insightful thing I’ve read on the subject of celebrity since…I dunno, Tina Brown’s book about Diana, which was excellent. And that was in the weekend paper! Smart, beautifullyl and comprehensively reported, beautifully written, and absolutely ferocious about criticizing its own kind. And that’s just two days in two papers in two cities.

I find the problem isn’t that there isn’t any decent journalism, but the opposite–there’s too much to read, to much good stuff to take in, with the result that I get tired of it all, and thus retreat to the web and TV, where I don’t have to be challenged as much, because its easier to find stuff that agrees with my prejudices (or avoids thinking altogether). Then, feeling guilty, I blame the press for pushing me there.

I mean, look: 80 percent of the stuff produced by any industry or profession is average, even mediocre: talent and excellence are rare. Given that fact, I’d say the media on both sides of the political divide put out a lot of good stuff–certainly enough to make partially-informed stands, which is probably the best anyone can hope for.

And at least we are actually HAVING THIS ARGUMENT: as Tom Stoppard once said, in one of his plays, the fact that you can read the bare-faced rhetorical lies of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page AS WELL AS the water-assed dream-pap that sometimes appears in, say…Slate…means no one as yet controls the press. That’s the important thing, and–frankly–the reason why Americans are freaking nuts NOT to trust it. Because fakery and manipulation is way easier on TV and on the internet, without question.

He should have been investigating that turd blossom, not celebrating him.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS255US256&q=naomi+wolf+10+steps

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Seems to me the media could do just fine by just admitting its biases. Professional wrestling admitted is was phony, and it’s as popular as ever.

…

Comment by Mac the Blogger — March 7, 2008 @ 9:15 am

You couldn’t be more wrong, as if spending a day in a newsroom or studio gives you any idea of who runs the actual news. hint: it’s not the reporters. Your figures are pulled stright from 8your ass, as any objective ovserver can see. The media is wholly-owned and operated by the conservative far-right singnut faction of American greedmongers. Otherwise, such vile liars as the seiftboaters would have gotten no traction whatsoever. Your opinion is based on wishful thinking, not facts. All you’ve proven is that if, indeed, you are a reporter, then you are a prime example of the incompetence of the media, with your distortions of fact and outright lies. A simple perusal of any major newspaper or news show disproves your statements, immediately and totally.

How does this manifiest itself? There are four ways a reporter’s or editor’s biases can be used, and objectivity can be abused:

COVERAGE/PLACEMENT – A story that goes against your political/social agenda can simply not be covered; it can be placed late in the broadcast or deep in the paper. Simply put, stories you don’t like can be avoided.

REPORTER AS CELEBRITY – My very first assignment in my very first journalism class in 1975 was to read “All the President’s Men.” While the reporting work itself was excellent, the book & subsequent movie spawned generations of reporters who chase the spotlight to advance their careers. As a result, the bland truth is often overshadowed by exciting guesses.

ABJECT LAZINESS – Investigative reporting, for the most part, has become a matter of clicking on various web sites. A vast majority of reporters have become tragically lazy, and do precious little if any fact-checking. The exceptions are those who are chasing celebrity, and even they tend to follow a herd mentality. The difference is that the stardom-chasers are more willing to inject hyperbole into their stories.

AGENDA-DRIVEN REPORTING – The most obvious and pervasive method. Rather than starting from scratch and keeping an open mind, today’s “reporters” are far more likely to begin with a premise (typically leftist) and work backwards. All a reporter has to do to keep their desired result intact is to ignore and/or avoid contrary evidence. Easy as pie.

Yes, I know, I’ll get denials from people who haven’t spent a day in a newsroom or a studio. And the few who have been in the media will issue the standard “I’m objective” denials. I get it.

Seems to me the media could do just fine by just admitting its biases. Professional wrestling admitted is was phony, and it’s as popular as ever.

…

I notice from the table that it’s the “objective” news sources that are trusted the least — television and newspapers. Radio and internet media tend to be mostly commentary, openly slanted one way or the other. People find content slanted the way they want, and naturally they will tend to trust a message they want to hear.

However, hard news media have taken a beating in the trust department, and it’s no wonder. Once upon a time, they could be counted on to deliver news derived from actual investigative journalism, with sources checked and rechecked. Nowadays, they spoonfeed us pap that comes from press releases without question. Because of this, we have been fed lies that have led to the invasion of Iraq, we have been misled into thinking that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, we have believed that Iran has nukes, etc. etc. etc. These lies have originated from our leaders, but have been aided and abetted by the messengers.

Part of the problem may be that we have a glut of news outlets (particularly broadcast news) like never before. Competition for ratings is pretty tough, and unchecked sensationalism is the way most survive. That, and the fact that big business owners with a political agenda influence the content more than they ever have.

I’m actually surprised that this many people DO still trust the press.

Comment by esoteric227 — March 7, 2008 @ 3:15 am

No they’re not. There are bots out there that swipe content from blogs and use them to misdirect traffic FROM legitimate blog sites to XXX HOT LOLITA MORTGAGE RATE ACTION PUMP UP YOUR PRICK sites. I’ve googled my own content and found my words “repurposed” like this plenty of times. It doesn’t mean I’m “manipulating google search results.”

This is why Keith Olbermann is on the air;he makes them money.

The GOP has simply been more organized in getting
their message out for years.

Comment by good_golly — March 6, 2008 @ 10:30 pm

Good idea!

Democracy Now doesn’t seem to have listener stats. But according to Wikipedia, Michael Savage gets 8-10 million weekly listeners, Rush Limbaugh gets 13.5 million weekly listeners.

On NPR, Morning Edition gets 26.5 million weekly listeners and All Things Considered gets 11.5 million weekly listeners.

Not bad.