AlterNet »
Special Coverage »
MediaCulture »
News Log »
News Log
Ad-vanced cultures
Perhaps you thought we were already saturated with advertising? You thought: what more can they do? Or maybe you didn't. Either way, here's a contest highlighting exactly what "they" may do next...
Some favorites:
Posted by Evan on April 21, 2005 @ 10:22AM.
How-to construct a fatuous connection to smear Democrats
Blogger, rightwing pundit, and Japanese internment apologist Michelle Malkin must do yoga before bending over backwards to smear Democrats. Apparently lacking any coherent policy differences or major ethics investigations aimed at Democrats she's resorted to slamming Illinois senator Dick Durbin for his deeply insensitive comments about the death of a great Republican. Abe Lincoln.
Yes, you read that correctly. She's indignant about "a prominent Democrat joking about a Republican president's assassination," and attempting to make it a partisan issue to boot -- despite the fact that Lincoln was about as Republican in today's terms, as Simon Bolivar.
But that's not the leap, that's just an unethical attempt to take advantage of the poor history training of those children already left behind. The leap -- and this is just a standard-issue smear from rightwingers -- comes when she finds tasteless anti-Bush paraphernalia (e.g."kill Bush" t-shirts) for sale on the web and concludes that "we shouldn't be surprised" that Democrats make these comments. Huh? Unless the Illinois Senator (or any senator for that matter) is patrolling, purchasing from, or even aware of the existence of these sites, how on Earth do they have anything to do with each other? They don't, it's just a pure partisan hackery.
If that's fair game however (which it isn't...this is merely an exercise to show the idiocy of such shameful and irresponsible comments), Republicans may want to be more careful with the internets. Courtesy of Digby, this absolutely appalling discussion thread is in progress at a popular rightwing discussion and news-sharing site discussing an article on the recent death of the endlessly kind and caring activist Marla Ruzicka. It is by no means unique:
- this is a 2 page article and it doesnt mention that she is code pink who was in bagdad with saddam before the war until the last 2 paragraphs. It instead makes this anti war b#$%# looks like a hero.
- wow. If anyone's looking for a good example of what irony is...
- You mess with the bull and you get the horn.
- Don't let the hood ornament hit you on the way out.
- Things like this just go to prove that God has a really ironic sense of humor, sometimes... and it's OK to laugh, that's why he did it.
Apart from one poster (ironically, a vet) who denounces the abhorrent conduct of the others, the comments only get worse. Since this is a conservative website filled with anti-Democrat pro-Republican rhetoric is this a part of the Republican platform?
Posted by Evan on April 20, 2005 @ 9:42AM.
Coulter pissed at Time?
Boy, you'd think the recent whitewash of an article in Time magazine would be a dream come true for a radical bonehead like Ann Coulter. But rather than thank her lucky stars that the writer was either too lazy or just plain disingenuous, she crows about the unflattering cover photo.
The trick to magic is deception -- to draw the eye away from the location of the deception. So if you're hiding a silver dollar with your left hand, you want everyone to look at the right. So it is with Ann Coulter and her fellow travelers.
The NY Post predictably picks up this Coulter quote from the Drudge report: "Why can't they just photograph conservatives straight?" The Post blurb goes on to quote another rabid anti-American wingnut, Lucianne Goldberg, who inadvertently undermines Coulter's point, and thus the whole blurb, when she complains that the photographer made her look like:
"an insect ...a daddy longlegs or a praying mantis...I think they were trying to be funny, but to a woman, it's not funny." Goldberg said the disfigurement was intentional because the cover was shot by Platon, the same photographer who made Bill Clinton look sinister in a pose for Esquire. "So they knew what they were doing," Goldberg said.
So if they did the same to Clinton, doesn't it undermine the shooting-conservatives-cockeyed theory? But that's not the point at all. The point is to get folks to look at the right hand of the photo non-issue while the left hand gets love-letter articles that mask the lies and radical statements of a Republican shill.
Is that the sound of subscriptions being cancelled?
Posted by Evan on April 19, 2005 @ 11:27AM.
Flash-y DeLay sites
If you're like me, you're having trouble keeping your Tom DeLay scandals in order. Who paid him off? When? What access did he trade for money and how much? It can be such a puzzle! Well, say goodbye to that cloud of confusion and ignorance as two sites shine a light on the House Majority Leader's sleazy antics.
The first, House of Scandal, features flash animation to entertain as you learn why an out of state energy corporation donated to the GOP-friendly redistricting of Texas or about how tax loony Grover Norquist teamed up with DeLay to lean on lobbying firms to hire Republicans...
Jack in the House follows DeLay bosom buddy Jack Abramoff and his exploits buying and selling congressmen trading on his close ties to DeLay.
Posted by Evan on April 18, 2005 @ 9:12AM.
Israel follows up on shooting of journalist
The Israeli government kept its promise to follow up on the fatal shooting of a journalist who was filming in Rafah. If, by "follow up," you mean making a mockery of justice and lying through your teeth that is.
You can't help but think that all the shootings of journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent series of exonerations -- or gentle wrist-slaps -- have contributed to this atmosphere where governments can simply pay lip service to families destroyed by "friendly fire."
Danny Schechter, who's been covering this better than just about anybody, quotes an anonymous soldier: "There is a decided opinion, among both the rank and file, and the command structure, that reporters are out to get troops...Look at the reactions to reportage of war crimes… the reporters are lambasted, the troops are said to have been reacting to circumstance."
This case in Israel is particularly egregious. A filmmaker, displaying a white flag, wearing a helmet with the letters "TV" on it, and vocally identifying himself as a journalist was walking back to his room when he was shot and killed. Claims that there was heavy fire were later disproved by AP footage. Even the Israeli military advocate general recommended "stiff" punishment for the soldier as he had fired "in clear breach of army rules of engagement."
Despite that recommendation the ruling appealed to bigotry and obfuscation, while severely challenging rational thought:
"[The Israeli Army] decided that under the conditions then - including 'frequent terrorist attacks; thick darkness and earlier that same day the soldiers were fired at by anti-tank missiles' - the shooting was 'reasonable.'"
The writing on the wall to journalists doing critical reporting in war zones is not subtle: We may not be targeting you but do not expect any rules to be followed; you may be killed at any time and we will not prosecute those responsible.
Posted by Evan on April 15, 2005 @ 9:04AM.
Fake news a no-no
After 40,000 Americans complained that that they didn't want to pay for propaganda, the Republican-led FCC has instructed all TV newscasters to disclose the origins of their fake news: "Listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them with the programming offered over broadcast stations and cable systems."
That ruling comes on the heels of the GAO's ruling that the Bush admin's "video news releases" constitute illegal "covert propaganda."
Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, who along with Center for Media and Democracy filed the fake news complaint, commented: "We welcome the FCC's statement and will continue to monitor local newscasts. Unless broadcasters take immediate action to cease or disclose their use of this material, we will pressure the government to take stronger action."
Posted by Evan on April 14, 2005 @ 10:08AM.
Sinclair whistleblower denied unemployment
Remember Jon Lieberman, the former Sinclair Broadcasting Washington bureau chief who blew the whistle on Sinclair's decree that its stations must pre-empt programming to air the anti-Kerry propaganda film "Stolen Honor" just before the election? Well, after calling that move "biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," he was fired.
Following his dismissal he collected around $1,000 in unemployment to help care for his family. Sinclair challenged the claim and now Lieberman has to repay the money.
This can't be a huge surprise given the clout the company wields in Maryland. The state's governor -- Bob Ehrlich -- is a good friend to Sinclair. As a Maryland congressman, Ehrlich had sent a letter urging the FCC to rule in favor of Sinclair's effort to purchase a dozen stations. Later, Sinclair gave Ehrlich "cut-rate" use of its helicopter during his 2002 campaign. A "perk" which Ehrlich neglected to disclose. Just an "oversight" he called it.
Lieberman was speaking out against what is clearly a violation of campaign laws; an explicitly partisan documentary was being aired without a counterbalance just two weeks before an election. The only thing preventing legal action from having been taken to prevent Sinclair from violating the law was that the FCC's head was the son of one of Bush's cabinet members. He refused to get involved.
So here's how it breaks down: Ehrlich's oversight becomes a "whoopsie, sorry" while Lieberman's courageous and selfless act not only earns him dismissal but also the little kick while he's down of denying him unemployment benefits. Ain't it grand?
Posted by Evan on April 13, 2005 @ 9:49AM.
Let Canon refresh your memory
"Please, I don't want to arrest you, please put the camera away." As I roamed last year's Republican Convention in Manhattan a number of curiosities emerged; among them, the nearly universal warning from police against taking photos and video of them...doing just about anything. Looks like the authorities' demands were prescient.
The NY Times reports that among the nearly 2000 arrests from the convention, several have been dropped as videos contradicting the testimony of officers comes to light.
And I'm not talking: "aha! you said it was your right hand but it was actually your left" nitpicking. We're talking officers testifying that: "We picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed...I had one of his legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own," versus the truth, revealed by a stray video camera, that he was: "plainly walking under his own power down the library steps."
Not to mention the fact that the testifying cop is nowhere to be seen. How many of the arrests -- many of which I witnessed, many of which appeared to be violations of the right to peaceably protest -- would be overturned were video available?
The Pentagon learned to strictly manage the media after Vietnam brought too gruesome images into living rooms too quickly. Facts could no longer be managed and public sentiment was swayed. Look for similar measures to be taken "for the public's safety" during future protests and events.
And don't be surprised if a citizen video camera or two is mistaken for a gun...
Posted by Evan on April 12, 2005 @ 9:03AM.
It's official: Corporate greed is the only reason to reject community broadband
An major debate sure to effect your life and community is underway but chances are you've heard little about it. Thumbnail sketch: community advocates want America's towns and cities to be wireless hotspots run by the community (also known as "municipal broadband"). They believe internet access ought to be universal and affordable to all. (Read about a related case being argued before the Supreme Court here)
The gulf between the haves and the have-nots is as great as ever, they argue. Now imagine if the tools of the past like the telephone were unavailable to some; try getting a job, an apartment, going to school, making important professional connections, finding a baby sitter, fixing your credit etc. That's the disadvantage facing those in many communities who won't be able to afford the internet.
Verizon, Comcast and others argue that municipalities are incapable of maintaining the networks, fostering economic growth and keeping costs down.
Three new studies released today reveal the corporate argument for the fraud that it is. The municipal broadband "failures" cited by cable corps are not simply "not that bad," they are in fact very successful at fostering economic growth in the communities and at keeping access quite affordable.
Here's a money-quote for the free-marketeers:
"Independently, the Florida Municipal Electric Association released a study by economist George Ford comparing similarly situated cities in Florida. The paper demonstrates that in cities where municipalities have offered communications services, there is a significant increase in economic development."
So let's see: having corporations control your internet access doesn't keep costs down, foster economic development or ensure better service. So why give them that monopoly then? Don't ask me, ask your representative.
Posted by Evan on April 11, 2005 @ 9:30AM.
Gannon at the Press Club (updated)
Watch the video of this panel after reading the original post: Ironic. The National Press Club's panel on journalism vs. blogging (which included fake newsman and GOP activist Jeff Gannon) may have unintentionally hit upon one difference between the two.
The controversial panel, including bloggers Wonkette and Matthew Yglesias, at first purported to be about journalism and blogging but morphed into a panel about the Jeff Gannon phenomenon after significant blogger-inspired criticism. Namely, that Gannon doesn't qualify as either, so why was he invited?
When it became about Gannon himself, critics requested that one of the bloggers who broke the story be included on the panel. The NPC settled on Matthew Yglesias who, if not one of the bloggers who broke the story was at least a fairly progressive voice.
Well, the panel, which finally occurred today (and which will air on C-SPAN2 this evening at 8pm) featured something that will seem unfamiliar at first: probing and relentless questioning of Jeff Gannon -- something the mainstream media has been curiously unexcited to do. Could this be the long-sought-after difference between bloggers and journalists?
All the coverage that's fit to blog is at AmericaBlog (you may have to scroll down as there are several posts on the panel...).
Posted by Evan on April 8, 2005 @ 11:08AM.
Fake news: not just for governments anymore
"Will fake news survive?" asks Bob Burton of PR Watch. The answer seems to be a resounding yes. While producers, broadcasters and those who commission fake news play the blame game, the fact remains that viewers are watching the lines between news and propaganda blur.
But this has all been reported on to one degree or another. What hasn't, to the nervous delight of Medialink CEO Larry Moscowitz, fake news producer, is this:
"'Let's remember this debate, from everyting I've seen, read, heard, and talked to, is purely the government,' Moskowitz counseled his fellow VNR ("video news releases" aka fake news) producers, adding, 'I would hate to see it broaden.'" Doug Simon of D S Simon Productions suggested that greater transparency may have relatively little impact on the industry if it were limited to government VNRs, without 'crossover into the private sector.'"
Posted by Evan on April 7, 2005 @ 10:44AM.
Blog-pourri
Too much insanity to zero in on just one thing. Let's see, there's Wal-Mart's effort to wine and dine the media to soften its image (and reality) problem -- looks like it backfired.
For the first time ever, a story broken online won a Pulitzer -- Willamette Week scooped The Oregonian on a statewide scandal and scooped up the prize.
Fox is constantly touting its ratings success, particularly in relation to CNN -- Thing is, it's partly smoke and mirrors, CNN has more viewers.
"Psyops" (that's the menacing abbreviation for the US military's psychological operations or propaganda wing) is collaborating on a comic book designed to win the hearts of Middle Eastern youth using time-honored marketing and advertising techniques.
Posted by Evan on April 6, 2005 @ 10:12AM.
A f***ing crime
Rep. Sensenbrenner III (R-WI) told cable and telecommunications executives that he wants to make broadcast "indecency" a crime, punishing just the individual responsible: "Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach that gets the good actors."
The current process of fining the licensee (that'd be the network or station) "casts too wide a net," he said.
You might expect executives at this meeting to react with shock and/or awe at the possibility of criminalizing indecency (a scary thought itself). But why should they? Sounds to me like all they have to do is find some sad sack second tier producer and pin it on them.
That way everyone wins, right?
Industry doesn't pay huge fines, avoids reputation problems by purging "bad apples" (see Ghraib, Abu), and the FCC and Moral Guardian-type politicians get to grandstand without damaging the money tree. Bellissimo.
Posted by Evan on April 5, 2005 @ 9:10AM.
Follow-up to Holocaust story
In this obsessed-today forgotten-tomorrow media age (Giuliana Sgrena anyone?), it's refreshing to see some, any, follow-up to an unresolved story.
Last week AlterNet ran a story by World War 4 Report's Bill Weinberg called "Holocaust Denial, C-SPAN, and Ward Churchill" largely focusing on the controversy over C-SPAN's plan to "balance" an author whose book details the growing Holocaust revisionist movement with a Holocaust denier mentioned in the book.
C-SPAN's initial plan was to air back to back speeches from each but Deborah Lipstadt, who won a libel suit against Holocaust denier David Irving, refused to allow her speech to be recorded because it would've violated her policy of engaging in debate with Holocaust deniers.
After thousands of emails and a letter signed by 500 historians C-SPAN decided on two short video clips of Irving's speech, four of Lipstadt's, and a lengthy interview with a reporter who covered the libel trial between the two.
Lipstadt was disappointed and told the NY Sun that "the network was engaged in some historical revisionism of its own."
Posted by Evan on April 4, 2005 @ 10:21AM.
Tom DeLay ad blitz
A new TV spot from Campaign for America's Future charges that the Republican from Sugarland, Texas is hopelessly corrupt and that congress must send him walking.
The ad features a Rolex-wristed and cuff-linked man furiously scrubbing his hands in a dirty basement sink. The message: those hands won't come clean but congress's sure can. Watch it here:
Bonus non sequitur in the Washington Post article: Perhaps reporter Mike Allen felt he was too favorable to the group, or maybe the article was edited poorly, or who knows what, but this line opens a paragraph on whether CFAF has direct ties to the Democratic Party: "The Campaign for America's Future has a list of advisers that includes feminist Betty Friedan."
Er, what? The list of advisors contains dozens of names, many of which, like Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Robert Reich, Jim Hightower, and Barbara Ehrenreich, require no description. Why pick Betty Friedan out of the hat, and how does it have anything to do with the allegation that they're tied to Nancy Pelosi. Unless, wait, CFAF has a feminist as an adviser and Pelosi's a woman. Hmm...
Posted by Evan on April 1, 2005 @ 8:57AM.
Buy stock in Ritalin®
Okay, you don't buy stock in a drug, but "buy stock in Ciba-Geigy" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? A new study, subtitled Duh, shows that the 8.5 hours/day of media exposure that 8-18 year-olds are subject to is destroying their ability to concentrate.
"The problem intensifies after third grade, when harder course work requires children to concentrate, adds Susan Ratteree, who supervises other public-school psychologists in suburban New Orleans. Diagnoses of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 'have gone through the roof,' she says."
Could it be that what we call ADHD is just another way of saying: American Kid? Scary, sure; but medicating every kid that presents the symptoms of cultural shifts sure sounds scary too.
Fortunately, some scientists are taking the long view. They're speculating that perhaps what's going on can be better described as a miraculous display of the elasticity of our brains adjusting for evolving challenges. In other words:
"some evidence suggests that children's brains might be changing so they can juggle and concentrate better than their elders. Scores on intelligence tests have been steadily rising since the 1940s, says University of Utah neuropsychologist Sam Goldstein. The tests measure a child's ability to shift and divide attention, but they also cover problem-solving and comprehension skills. 'They're smarter,' Goldstein says."
Then Goldstein tells us point blank why we don't know more about the effects of media saturation on children: "Our society isn't driven by finding out what we don't know; it's driven by the dollar. If it sells and doesn't kill anybody the first week, nobody takes a closer look."
Posted by Evan on March 31, 2005 @ 2:00PM.
Terri Schiavo's body has died
It's an important point. There is no reputable neurologist who believes that the person known as Terri Schiavo has existed for quite some time. If you don't know that, it's likely because the media coverage has been par for the course -- which is to say duplicitous and cowed.
Here's the ABC report of her body's passing and here's the New Yorker account, which is the most human and level-headed available...
In the ABC version, note that one would walk away with the impression that the "reportedly" dark and stormy marriage led to the eating disorder, while the truth is that the disorder preceded the marriage...
ABC also writes: "Michael Schiavo sought to have the tube removed, but her parents repeatedly fought to continue treatment." How often is life-support called "treatment"? The word implies that a course of action is being taken for the purpose of recovery. There was no hope of recovery. Even "life-support" is somewhat inaccurate. "Body-maintenance" might be closer to the truth. (If this all sounds cynical, it pales in comparison to Schiavo's parents' sale of their donor list to right wing causes.)
Of course this isn't the most pernicious example of media bias and distortion -- hardly. But the next time you scratch your head and wonder why your dinner guests are so misinformed on the issues of the day, no need to yell Fox, it's all over your airwaves and network news...
Posted by Evan on March 31, 2005 @ 8:44AM.
The lunatic fringe media project
Grover Norquist's membership card in the union of lunatics remains valid as he pushes ahead with the Media Freedom Project, "advocating free market solutions to media, technology and telecommunications policy issues."
Norquist's other group, Americans for Tax Reform, seeks to end all taxes in America. You know, those things that protect you when you're unemployed, fund all public safety from police to the military, maintain parks, build and maintain roads, provide social security when you're old and so on...
You may know them as your patriotic duty as an American.
Norquist most recently made headlines when, on NPR's Fresh Air, he compared the morality of the holocaust to the thinking that it's fair to tax the wealthiest among us. This man is not well.
Anyway, Norquist is exercising his Orwellian muscles by forming the Media Freedom Project...by which he means the freedom from serving the American people.
The alarmist homepage informs us that liberals want to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" to do away with conservative talk radio. Let's leave the easy jokes be ("fairness" would destroy conservative radio!), and look at some of the inanity of this site whose organizers (assuming they warrant the plural) will no doubt be marched in and out of the FCC as a legitimate public interest group arguing on behalf of further consolidation and prevention of any, well, fairness.
Nowhere on the site am I able to find even one reference to the starting point for all discussion of media and fairness: that the owners of the airwaves are the American people -- you. One of the greatest obstacles to a serious debate right now is that you can walk into a restaurant in almost any American city and ask the 85 diners who owns the airwaves and you'd be lucky to find 2 who know the correct answer. Pssst, trivia geeks, listen up and spread it around...they're public airwaves.
But Norquist's Freedom Project is not, emphatically not, about people. It's a project designed by and for free market fundamentalists:
"A consumer’s power to choose among competing products and technologies has a far more compelling and healthy effect on business decisions than legislation or regulations."
Except, it's not strictly a business. And that's the battle. When Fox is challenged about its distorted information they claim: "let the market decide." And Norquist's group is created to further that fallacy. It's not meant to be a strictly market driven commodity. It's information transmitted over publicly-owned airwaves and it's meant to be truthful, accurate and fair. The kind of truthful, accurate and fair that doesn't require a "™" after it.
Think of it this way: Norquist has set up a little storefront operation that advocates for taking your public park, giving corporations plots of land all over the grounds, allowing them to sell you all kinds of goods (while paying you nothing for the park owned by your municipality -- you) and then railing against your ability to ensure that what's sold in the park are honest, healthy goods.
Posted by Evan on March 30, 2005 @ 8:32AM.
'Fox blocker' doesn't block death threats
A little metal doohickey that screws into the back of your TV is rankling a few of Fox's diehards. Sam Kimery, a former Republican activist, invented the "Fox Blocker" not, according to the AP story, because he objects to Fox's views, but because "the channel is not news at all":
"Kimery now contends Fox News' top-level management dictates a conservative journalistic bias, that inaccuracies are never retracted, and what winds up on the air is more opinion than news. 'I might as well be reading tabloids out of the grocery store,' he says. 'Anything to get a rise out of the viewer and to reinforce certain retrograde notions.'"
For this little device he's received death threats -- something about which we should not be surprised
according to Paul Krugman's assessment of where we, as a nation, are heading. Granted, he was talking of religious extremism, but it's a short stroll from American religious extremism to Fox... just watch John "bomb thrower" Gibson
suggest that troops be sent in to "save Terri":
"Just to burnish my reputation as a bomb thrower, I think Jeb Bush should give serious thought to storming the Bastille. By that I mean he should think about telling his cops to go over to Terri Schiavo's hospice, go inside, put her on a gurney and load her into an ambulance. They could take her to a hospital, revive her, and reattach her feeding tube
...
"But the point is, the temple of the law is [not] so sacrosanct that an occasional chief executive cannot flaunt it once in a while, sort of drop his drawers on the courthouse steps and moon the judges, as a way to protest the complete disregard courts and judges have shown here, in this case, for facts outside the law
...
"Oh John, you're not saying judges aren't real people, are you? Well, judging by what happened here, I'd say yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. So Jeb, call out the troops, storm the Bastille and tell 'em I sent you.
"That's My Word."
Fox Blocker anyone?
Posted by Evan on March 29, 2005 @ 8:58AM.
DeLay probe triggers GOP echo chamber
Newsflash: A node in the right wing echo chamber posted a misleading article. Fine, it's not news -- it happens all the time. But although this particular mistake has been corrected, the echo -- the point -- travels on.
It begins with DeLay, as many things seem to these days. Citizen's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) participated in a press conference calling for DeLay's resignation as Majority Leader a couple of weeks ago.
Immediately following that, the RNC began to target CREW, distributing talking points about their ties to Democrats. A DC insider paper, The Hill, published a story cribbing from those talking points -- including the implication that right wing bugaboo George Soros was a major funder. CREW wrote a response to that article -- refuting the connection -- but The Hill would not publish it.
The Drudge Report picked up the Hill story and from there we come to the final resting place for this little nugget of falsehood -- often called a lie by those who don't worship at the altar of ad revenue: Newsmax.com.
See how it works?
After sufficient negative attention and allegations of spreading lies, Newsmax corrected the error, sort of. But the damage is done. By the time the talking points trickle from the RNC to the papers to the blogs to all the splintered sites on the web, the echo is out there and CREW is tarred as a Soros group with a grudge.
To call them biased would be to miss the point. More "max" than "news" (whatever "max" means here they are more of it...), they exist to transmit half-truth and innuendo and to keep the sources clean. Think of them as information-launderers. If money launderers remove the "fingerprints" of the source of money to avoid guilt, the GOP works their propaganda by releasing information to its rumor mill (talk radio and online "news outlets" like Newsmax, Free Republic, Men's News Daily and others) and then sitting back claiming innocence as others do their dirty work.
Except of course when your tax dollars go directly to paying pundits to pump up presidential policies or fake news VNRs ("video news releases"). But that's a whole different propaganda animal.
Posted by Evan on March 28, 2005 @ 8:05AM.
« Home
« News Log
« MediaCulture
« Special Coverage
« AlterNet
