("the major press is under attack") NYT Journalist Talks Journalism

[truthpusher]

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/21/4219954bc022f

NYT Journalist Talks Journalism

By Amanda Erickson
Spectator Staff Writer
February 21, 2005

On the state of print journalism in America today, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said, “This is not a time when editors swear off alcohol.”

(snip)

Keller’s speech focused on the struggle of print journalism to maintain its relevance in the face of constant cable news updates, increased blogging, and failures in credibility.

(snip)

“At the moment,” he said, “the major press is under attack from ideologues on the right and left.”

Keller also sees “blogging,” or online writing that blurs news and commentary, as a mixed blessing. While he celebrated the blogger’s ability to uncover breaking news, he noted that a blog’s inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader. “A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole,” he said, noting that it can sometimes fall as low as being a “one man circle jerk.”

complete story:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/21/4219954bc022f

[lovuian]

1. Reality is Journalism is dead in America... there ratings

and credibility is dead and when no one reads them then their use as a newspaper is over...

[BrendaStarr]

16. That is why they are constantly attacking bloggers -- their competition

Like corporate news isn't a biased pinhole on life!

Geez, get over yourself Mr. Keller.

[BrendaStarr]

18. Oo Oo Mr. Keller!

BTW Danziger works for NY Times syndicate. Ergo the underwear comment.

[Blue to the bone]

31. You're right Mr. Keller!

Americans just can't handle all that information without you guys telling us what to think about it.

Fucking jerks, the whole damned bunch of 'em, from left to right.

[Gyre]

2. "he noted that a blog’s inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader."

Like the executive editor of the NYTs gives a rip about an author's 'inherent' bias. I guess he only gets bothered by other people's printed lies of commission. Whereas, the NYTs specializes in lies of omission.

Arrogant sack of crap!

Gyre

[Dr Fate]

10. "Objectivity" is SOOOO overrated these days. I WANT "bias."

"Objective" seems to be anything that does not assume Bush is a lying criminal. I don't see how ignoring facts makes one objective, but that seems to be todays definition of it...

Screw "objectivity"- Sometimes I want some Mark Twains & H.S. Thompsons to tell me exactly what they think is going on.

I'm a big boy- I know when I am reading something biased or not.

[Laurab]

29. I don't assume Bush is a lying criminal

I KNOW he is, and it's been proven over and over to me. But I think you're correct, that is the new definition of "objectivity". I'll take bias over the "new objectivity" ie: PROPAGANDA, anyday!

[BulletproofLandshark]

3. Not to beat a dead horse here, but

Bloggers would be unnecessary if these journalists didn't abandon their Fourth Estate responsibilities in the first place.

[calimary]

37. Nail. Head. Hit.

If the "mainstream" press was doing its job (a little more digging, a little less fawning and cowing), bloggers wouldn't have all that much to fuss about.

It's called People Feeling Compelled To Take Matters Into Their Own Hands. People Driven By Need. If I could get serious investigative or muckraking journalism from the NY Times, Washington Post (uh - excuse me, but they DO know how to do it. Anybody remember WATERGATE?), or the network newscasts or CNN or any of those - I wouldn't have to go searching Americablog or Daily Kos or Josh Marshall's work. And those people more or less do it for free (or next to nothing but donations, maybe), and no makeup and blow-dry services, either.

[msmcghee]

59. Please forward your comments . .

. . to Mr. Keller. They are right on.

[Supersedeas]

39. Absolutely - if journalist did more than info/commercial-tainment

[glitch]

41. They chose the infotainment/propaganda path - now do they regret

discarding investigative journalism? No, they just trash the people who have taken up the challenge.

Anybody who keeps Judith Miller on has no credibility. Period.

[Protagoras]

42. 100% Correct

We exist because they created a truth vacancy that someone had to worry about filling.

[patrice]

4. The "Media" is not Us,

unless you build your own sources.

Those people on TV are perfumed fops in the Boy King's court. They are far more disgusting than the stars who have spoken out honestly on the issues.

[BrendaStarr]

17. Perfumed fops in the Boy King's court

That describes them perfectly.

Thanks for that image.

[napi21]

5. They should thank the bloggers!

I understand their point about biased views, but bloggers have given them a thousand reporters they don't have to pay! I don't think they should take everything in the blogs at face value, but it sure gives them a place to start looking into stories.

I still like my newspaper, but mainly for local news and information.

[calimary]

38. This is true. The bloggers are doing all their legwork for them.

Frankly, that shouldn't be the case. These people are well-paid by the time they get to "mainstream media" levels and venues. There's enough of a writing/research/editing staff. Certainly enough ad revenues coming in to add on a couple more bodies or install even a small investigative unit.

But they're afraid to lose their "access" and thus their "competitive edge" and they're afraid to alienate their White House sources. I don't know why they don't just go for broke, report what needs to be reported, and then, when the inevitable retaliation hits, start making THAT the story. And start generating some real heat, light, and noise about it. Believe me, there'd be plenty of sources from the other side who'd be more than willing to fill in the gaps they need for interview purposes.

I don't know how it works now, or how cutthroat it is among the TV people, but when I was in radio, all of us "competitors" never once hesitated to help each other out. If somebody was shut out of interviews because some studio got huffy about the questions they were asking, or was pissy for some other reason, the ostracized one could always pick up the phone and call any one of at least a half a dozen other reporters to get a copy of the tape, or the quotes needed. One of our guys at the AP ROUTINELY called his buddies at the National Enquirer to flesh out celebrity stories with juicy details he couldn't get, himself, from anywhere else (I finally figured that one out). And I can't tell you HOW many times I either witnessed, or participated in, helping out somebody else - YES, from a competing outlet - if they were late, their tape broke, their batteries ran out, somebody stole their mike, if they weren't allowed inside or otherwise were barred from the interview. Routinely, some of the studios attempted to shut out smaller outfits because it "just wasn't worth their time" - and any number of us from the bigger outlets always helped 'em out. It's just something you always did. Because the next time, YOU might be the one who needed help. And invariably, that WOULD indeed happen. Yes we were competitors. But we were also colleagues and friends, all working together at those press events and news conferences and crime scenes and whatnots.

[Straight Shooter]

6. "under attack from idealogues" -- I'm not an idealogue; I just want truth.

Is that so hard to understand, Mr. Keller? You made your damn bed, lie in it and quit whining, or get to work and fix it.

[Plaid Adder]

11. I *am* an ideologue, but I wasn't born that way.

I don't know about you all, but I am WAY more partisan now than I was in 2000. Must be because Bush is such a great uniter, and because the mainstream media is doing such a wonderful job of presenting all sides of every issue.

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

[librechik]

7. Keller is big Clinton hater who looked away

when he should have fact checked Judith Miller and others. He ought to be ashamed, or at least in favor of reform. Instead, he goes to the mattresses to protect Jusith's lying administration sources.

Fuck him!

[Nite Owl]

8. The media died a long time ago

we are just noticing it now. They ran with the Clinton stories and the NYT is most responsible for that. They started with the Whitewater stuff and got the whole thing wrong. They aren't being told to be more liberal, that isn't the point. Just be honest, just tell us all the news and stop covering up for this WH. More than what they do print it's what they leave out or bury inside, the things that aren't being talked about that puts democracy in danger.

[Dr Fate]

9. He uses the same excuse they all use "The Left AND Right attacks us"

"So we must be doing somthing right..." I get this from press types all the time.

Bullshit- sure the Left attacks you, as you do to the Left- but the Right looks over you fucking shoulder.

Maybe as a journalist, you need to stop looking at things from "right" and "left" and start reporting FACTS?

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. He's hoping we're blind, then we'll believe the NYT is pure unbiased news

What a crock. Maybe he has been swimming in lies so long that he can't even see them any more.

This is the usual corporate media propaganda line that only they are a reliable source for the truth. If he believes that, he's a witless fool. If he doesn't, he's lying to cover his ass and try to shore up the credibility of his newspaper, which has fallen far these years past from "the paper of record" to just another partisan rag. Guess which one is more likely?

One more stupid assumption in what he says: he's implying that blog readers cannot perceive and comprehend bias when they see it and only form their opinions from a very limiited source of information. That's false. Unlike newspapers and TV, where users often have no other major source of information, users of the internet CHOOSE from a huge range of national and foreign news & editorial sources and form their own opinions. It isn't force-fed pap like what he is trying to sell.

[calimary]

40. Unfortunately, a guy like this has to be confronted with concrete examples

to explain.

For example - and his OWN paper finally did this - WHY, after months and months and months of beating the tom-toms for war did the NYTimes FINALLY do a mea culpa - on one of the back pages, about how it finally realized its coverage might have been a LEEEETLE bit biased toward the White House. Even it had to cite such examples as - the White House says blah-blah-blah straight up at the top of the story on Page One above the fold, but any conflicting views even from VERY qualified and credible sources, wind up at the bottom of the story, in the last few paragraphs hidden away on maybe page A-23.

Or maybe they get all the White House people and Congressional republi-CON apologists to talk up a blue streak all in lockstep, and then they have a single person "representing the other side" who's quoted, or more likely only paraphrased, and THAT, TOO, is buried down in the depths of the writethru.

Or maybe they report something, and do a once-over-lightly - say they report what the White House said or did. Then in an "effort" to flesh out and "get more perspective" on the story, they'll do the quickest, easiest, no-muss, no-fuss job to simply get the story out there quickly, without spending too much time on it. There'll be the White House part. Then they'll have a republi-CON or some conservative voice on it (maybe both - a republi-CON Senator or Congressperson or a lower-level cabinet official - but not made clear this is still FROM THE ONE SIDE), and then they'll call up somebody from the Democrats or liberals to get a quote. They'll do the lazy thing that doesn't take much time by just getting the opposing view to state that it's against such-n-such, but they won't bother to collect many details to explain the objection. It's enough merely to have the other side "represented" - ie: this person is in favor "quote quote quote" but others oppose, like that person, "quote quote quote." And if you actually stopped to count up how many sources were being quoted, you might have - as in the example above - as many as three voices lined up alongside the White House (which, technically, would make it FOUR) and ONE, or MAYBE two lined up on the other side. Balanced? You tell me. But they crank it out like that. Boom. There. We've covered both sides. Fine. NEXT?

I've even had supervisors who, when leaning over my shoulder or breathing down my neck via email or phone call, tell me straight out - "Look, don't spend too much time on it (mainly because there was invariably a WHOLE LOT of other stuff to cover in one short day - a common and, unfortunately, legitimate excuse for most of these people), just get a coupla quotes and be done with it."

And it was the NYTimes that got the angry letter, CC'ed to the Washington Post and a reporters' organization and a few others by a reader who'd attended a peace rally during the run-up to war, and was disgusted by the way the Times had lowballed the crowd size (she'd been there, and she knew the truth). It was only her complaints, written and spread around so publicly (so the competition could see how the Times was being dressed down) that forced the paper to print a correction. Even so, the correction was buried in a little box in some out-of-the-way corner. But the paper wouldn't even have bothered to go that far if this woman hadn't complained.

I see this all the time on TV where they'll have a panel discussing something and maybe there are three people on that panel. I've actually witnessed where they have a republi-CON from Congress or the Senate, then they have a pundit - who slants conservative (or an "objective" reporter who tends to go balls-out on the Monica business and but hasn't touched anything adverse about bush), and then they'll also have a think-tank person - who will inevitably come from either the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or the Cato Institute, or some other wolf in sheep's clothing like maybe an innocuous-sounding "Citizens for Tax Justice," or "Concerned Women for America" - which is just another nice, tidy, cleaned-up name for YET ANOTHER conservative outfit. So there you have the three panelists. ANYBODY THERE FROM THE OTHER SIDE? ANYBODY AT ALL? OR, they'll have a panel of four, and the fourth person will be some pathetic, milquetoast, mealy-mouth "liberal" like Donna Brazile, who could be outshouted by an angry sea cucumber. Three against one. And they'll call that balanced. SOMETIMES they'll have a panel of three where two are obviously or subtly conservative versus one "liberal." Or maybe it won't even be a "liberal." Sometimes they'll have a moderate on, and just presume they're covering the liberal or opposing view.

They ALL fall back on that shabby excuse - "well, gee, if the left AND the right are both sending me angry letters, I must be doing something right!" Well, HAH! Worded in such a way, THAT'S certainly true. That's just a lazy-ass excuse. VERY easy to fall back on. By now, if you had a talking reporter doll, that would be one of the lines that would play when you pulled the string. It's complete bullshit. Especially if you were to stop a moment and do a reality check: HOW MANY complaints from each side are there? Are you getting a STORM of protest from the "right" - from astroturf? From partisans all reading off the same talking points? And how many of them, versus how many from the left? And what's being said, specifically? And who's the angriest and most foul-mouthed? And who's making the death threats? It's awfully easy to say - well, gee whiz, we're getting it from both sides, when maybe they've received five or six letters or phone calls or emails from earnest liberals or progressives, and maybe 15-hundred from the dittoheads or freepers who rush limbaugh stirred up and deployed. TECHNICALLY, yes, you are getting it from both sides. But all this has to be measured and considered objectively. And in a case like this one - if the response is five or six to 15-hundred, WHOSE SIDE is it that will wind up getting the most satisfactory coverage, then?

It just sucks.

on edit - sorry this is so long.

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. Your outrage is surely justified. Did you see this other thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3146465
Title: Confessions of "an editor who ran Bush propaganda"

All of us should read this - you may have seen it because it was put on the home page and had over 50 "Greatest" votes. One of the points made is that reader pressure really does make a difference, and that is something we need to act on. The other side is well-organized in their heavy response to articles that are insufficiently biased in favor of their favored verson of "reality." We need to become more organized in our response as well.

[SoCalDem]

13. It always tickles me when journalists whine about how THEY are seen

and how "news" is covered or not covered.. Hellooooooo.. The TV people are the ones with cameras trained on them, and the print people are the ones with empty space awaiting THEIR words..

The Blog-o-mania that's happening is a REACTION to the slacker-media that is NOT reporting what's happening.


When my boys were small and I was teaching them to read the papers and how to watch commercials , I would "assign" them this:

1. pick out the "hot" words and the "empty" words
2. ask WHY the story is being written...who benefits..who loses

The rank and file public is tired of hearing "NEWSPEOPLE" say "I haven't heard about..(fill in the blanks)"

If you choose NEWS as your occupation, then at least make SOME effort to enlighten yourself, or let someone else do the job.

"reporters" who feign ignorance of important topics because they are afraid to "go on the record" are USELESS.

Bloggers have the guts to challenge what is reported and HOW it's reported.

Too bad that networks are too scared to use them as the next "reality" programming.. It would be fun to see an hour a week that gave time to bloggers, and allowed THEM to report on the news of the week:)

[maxsolomon]

14. name ONE leftist "ideologue"

we just want you to do your fucking job.

[despairing optimist]

15. Keller: "A blog's inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader."

What nonsense. He's green with envy and delusional. What he means is, bloggers are such effective journalists and reach such persuasive conclusions that mainstream news outlets like the NYT may be outflanked and lose influence.

I wonder what he calls an editor's decision to run a story on a particular page and section, to include certain facts and arrange them a certain way. Isn't that "inherent bias"? How do editors become editors? Who makes that decision, and isn't that bias too? Ask any reporter whose career has been sidetracked because he or she rubbed an editor the wrong way to answer that one. You can't ask Gary Webb, though; he killed himself after being too good a journalist and telling more truth than editors of the mainstream media cared to hear, let alone print or broadcast.

I'm sure that kings and emperors derided men courageous enough to print their own views and threaten their existing power structures, much as today's bloggers threaten the Kellers of our own. As the Gandhi quote goes, First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they get angry at you. And then you win.

Great work, guys. Keep it up. You're doing what many in the mainstream media only dream of doing, what they went to J-school to do and somehow lost along the way.

[leQ]

19. "one man circle jerk" eh? is there something wrong with that? -eom

.

[Lorien]

49. Pretty much sums up the MSM

they speak with one voice; Karl Rove's!

Personally,I don't want conservative or liberal media; I want unbiased truth!

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. I don't remember a single MSM "journalist" rationally discussing

the fact that Powell's UN address was woven with entirely discredited
"facts". I have seen no evidence that any of them are interested in a follow up as to why it was so easy to fabricate "facts" and sell a bogus war. The MSM is too worried about offending their commercial sponsors to do even a cursory job or digging under the surface of the lies and duplicity cast out by chimp & co.

[Pithy Cherub]

21. the msm feels "under attack"? They want "victim status" with

style points for their propoganda now too? :eyes:

How ironic, the potted plant press has issues because bloggers stood up while they were lying and laying down on the job.

[rasputin1952]

22. Perhaps if the MSM and Print especially, did their jobs and reported

on things other than 'Celebrity News Corner" 24/7, they would get the respect they should be earning.

All the public wants are facts...we are overwhelmed with bloviating
"opinionists" and Journalists have gone under cover. Thinking that most of these people would actually EARN their pay by doing their jobs, seems to have escaped Mr. Kelly's introspection.

The NYT, Wash Post, and a myriad of other print medioums have rolled over in bed w/bush, and they do not wish to awaken the sleeping Karl Rove. No wonder they get no respect, they have neither courage nor character....x(

[daleo]

23. The corporate right wing media is living off past intellectual capital.

You see this in many areas of modern life.

At one time the mainstream media was relatively objective and credible (these are admittedly difficult notions to pin down, and the media was never perfect but there was some effort in this direction), but over the last decade or two they have abandoned most of this effort. There was a lag between the time that they changed and when the public began to notice the change - this was the time of maximum right wing influence of the mainstream media over the masses.

But people are catching on and tuning out. One response has been to turn to forums like DU and to the bloggers. The corporate media has nobody to blame but themselves.

[dbt]

24. If EVER a country's "major press" needed attacking, it's ours!

[0007]

25. Do I walk or squawk at this load of crap?

[NVMojo]

26. they have grown to complacent and comfortable, walking the corporate

news line. They helped fuck a great nation. To hell with their sob stories.

[Zerex71]

27. Maybe the major media should get off the Gov's payroll

and back into a little thing call fact-based, objective journalism. Just a polite suggestion.

[The Zanti Regent]

28. Keller is a lying Republican Presstitute

This is the liar who started Whitewater, this is the liar that fabricated lie after lie about Bill and Hillary. He deserves to be tried for treason.

[mahina]

30. The major press is under attack? What you going to do?

Act Up! Fight Back!

:) The day we finally get those guys yelling in the streets will be a great day.

[AliceWonderland]

32. Oooh, I've been waiting for the perfect moment to use this emoticon...

...and at last, the day has arrived:

:nopity:

[Ouabache]

33. Funny how he has only noticed it with the rise of Left Blogs, eh?

Stunned is he? Suddenly he is under attack. Right wing blogs and news orgs rise, feed him and his lackeys 'news' which they often parrot out verbatim... so he can't do that now with any of the left blogs? Who told him he couldn't. Somebody probably had to tell him he was 'under attack' as well. Clueless fuck or paid shill, whichever he is, same difference in the end.

[MADem]

34. That's it--BINGO!

I guess sitting in your underwear is a liberal trait--the GOP wear pajamas!

No one said crap about this until the left started fighting back and claiming a market share. Well, cry me a river!

The competition will either make them get back to work, or it will destroy them. It's their choice--they should stop whining and put their overfed shoulders to the damn wheel!

[Skittles]

35. Ouabache NAILS it

it's the dissent from the left that is bothering them more than anything

[soup]

36. Power of FAUX News or time for new glasses

When I read:
'Keller’s speech focused on the struggle of print journalism to maintain its relevance in the face of constant cable news updates, increased blogging, and failures in credibility.'

I saw:
'Keller’s speech focused on the struggle of print journalism to maintain its relevance in the farce of constant cable news updates, increased blogging, and failures in credibility.'

Gonna be a long day.

[lovuian]

43. They are state propoganda machines wanting us to pay them

Sorry for that Bush needs to pay you guys for selling your souls!!!
Unfortunately in a capitalist economy the consumer calls the shots!!!

[rocktivity]

44. The major press can maintain its relevance by telling THE TRUTH

Completely, accurately, and most important, OBJECTIVELY--no matter who it hurts. You're under attack because you're not doing that anymore.

End of story--if you'll pardon the expression.

:headbang:
rocknation

[peacetalksforall]

45. Praise be! Bloggers and diggers are recognized. And

MSM admits to a struggle "to maintain its relevance in the face of constant cable news updates, increased blogging, AND FAILURES IN CREDIBILITY".

Truth through concern and a good fight is winning. Maybe we can save the country for all of us.

[peacetalksforall]

46. Fight stupidity. They think we are stupid.

[jmcgowanjm]

47. $51.20/bbl Crude, CA told to expect AC blackouts this Summer

Top Story of the Day:

Last Friday:

Exxon Mobil Corp. more than replaced production last year
with added reserves as projects advanced in Qatar, West
Africa, Europe and the Caspian
region.

Proved reserves of oil and natural gas rose the equivalent of
1.8 billion barrels of oil to 22.2 billion barrels at year's end,
Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil
said.

Oil Sands Reserves Downgrade Lowers Exxon's Year-End Reserves

Oil Daily (Tuesday, February 22, 2005)
Exxon Mobil has fallen in line with a Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) reserves reporting
guideline, announcing Friday a dip in year-end
reserves additions as a result of the single-day, year-end
pricing calculation guideline.

http://www.energyintel.com/home.asp

What could reveal that atmosphere of inertia and panic,
of authoritarianism and of anarchy more than this Iraq war?
What was the rush? Panicked by looming peak oil, the
Bush administration jettisoned the Constitution and
international law in a grab for the Middle East bonanza.
They thought to control the region, but that is quite impossible.
In massive denial, we still rattle on about WMDs, al Qaeda,
who was to blame and other irrelevancies. No one can even
give a plausible real motive for the war because it might
reveal too much that we want to hide
from.

So we have to choose between these two ostriches. Things
have reached such a pitch that I would find some comfort in
the thought that the imperial counselors had a plan for
the United States. But they have long ago lost their way. Let's
just note in passing that Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
Laden, and Manuel Noriega were American clients. Our wars
are against our own stooges. Now, to use the
commentator's crummy cant, "what message does that
send?" After advertising such a bad deal, where are our
new stooges to come from? Obviously, from the ranks
of powerless cronies willing to take something rather
than nothing and harboring the delusional hope that they
can discern just how the big guy wants them to dance. Lots
of luck, bozos.

http://www.swans.com/library/art10/mdolin03.html

[jswordy]

48. URGING ALL HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE, since...

...the edited version above is rather -- uh -- creative in its liberties.

If you read the whole thing, you will find stuff like...

“There is a pressure to feel well informed without ever confronting an opinion that confronts your prejudices,” he said of blog readers.

Oh how very true!

Interesting piece, taken all in context.

[nolabels]

53. Another bunch of weak excuses

I read the link but is there a longer article somewhere?

Freaking apologist writing more B.S. is all I see in it. The corporations that own a lot of the media outlets don't like that some of the general public don't eat their swill anymore. The problem of actually finding and giving real news scares the hell out of the corporate media.

The blogers and the rest of us will find out what's going on regardless. If they really want the business maybe they should start doing their effing job. When I fix trucks I don't repair them so they end crashing or breaking down on the road. Most people that do substandard work don't get hired to do more of it, why should they, the corporate media be any different?

By the way what are they really trying to say here

(snip)
He also discussed the struggle of reporting on the current President. While he said it was difficult to report on the tight-lipped Bush White House, he hastened to add that these struggles were not much different than those faced under other administrations.

Additionally, he noted that Bush provides reporters with constant material. “Whether George W. Bush is good for the world, I leave to the opinion page,” he said, “But he sure makes good news.” Keller pointed to Bush’s efforts abroad and a domestic policy seeking to “renegotiate the social contract.”
(snip)

[John_H]

55. Of course, on balance you'd agree that Keller's utter

irony-blindness is remarkable, wouldn't you?

[jmcgowanjm]

61. without ever confronting an opinion that confronts your prejudices

“The story didn’t stand up,”

New York Times Killed "Bush Bulge" Story

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/bush-bulge.html

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Editorial&storyid=108798

If I want to confront my prejudices all I
have to do is turn on MSM.

Drive big cars!
We are justified in our Manifest Destiny!
Bush and Europe are on the same page!
You are making $ on your 401K!
Interest rates are going up!
We have plenty of gasoline and distillates,
it's just cold!

There. I've confronted my prejudices,
no wait! Being gay is a good thing, that's why those
GayMarriage Bans will be so successful.
If you keep it underground, it will grow
ever faster and be better for it!

[jmcgowanjm]

64. "The New York Times assigned three editors to this story

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/bush-bulge.html

And how's that Anthrax story coming along?

You know, the one that Woolsey tried to pin on Saddam
and then the spores were traced to Ft Detrick and then,
wait for it, Hatfield?

The Case of Dr. Hatfill: Suspect Or Pawn"

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/17.htm

Who is stonewalling the US anthrax investigation?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/anth-j20.shtml

http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/gov_anthrax.html

How many coincidences before
one starts looking for collusion?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. There never has been a free press in America...it's all propaganda....

....convenient for use by the powers-that-be. And that goes back to the pre-Revolutionary War days.

[primavera]

52. "The story didn't stand up"?

So the shrub being fed answers through a radio headset during a debate doesn't "stand up"? What the hell does it take for a story to "stand up"? If the shrub raped a child, would that "stand up"? Or would that too fail their lofty standards for newsworthiness?

[John_H]

54. But hiring Cheny-Calabi operatives, Jason blairs, and professional

ass kissers like Frank Bruni is prima facia evidence of a healthy fouth estate. LOL! Keller is always saying funny things like this.

[Peace Patriot]

56. “'A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole,' he said."

That beats a view of the world through a pinHEAD!

Monopolistic, war profiteering LAPDOG!

[Peace Patriot]

58. Read a REAL newspaper, The Lone Star Iconoclast! Best newspaper

...in the country...right out of guess who's home town of Crawford, Texas?!

Iconoclast-texas.com

And get a subscription, keep 'em going, cuz they're taking crap for what they print!

Real journalism. Right in the face of the Beast. I love this paper!

[Amonester]

57. Does that mean they're afraid to go bankrupt?

Wow! Yay.

Let's just dream about it: the day they'll all go bankrupt, how many trees will have gained the right to live?

Also: our Grandchildren will still have something left to breathe on out there!

I say: major yay!

[Disturbed]

60. Lamestream Press.

Do your jobs! Investigate and report. Stop trying so hard to entertain the masses. Stop being complicit with the Oligarchy and their servants-the Fascist Govt.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Network news died when TV ratings became relevant

and TV news shows became entertainment shows.

Print journalism died when newspapers were absorbed by large media conglomerates. Local newspapers went the way of local banks!

We have no one to blame but ourselves!

[ElectroPrincess]

63. Once in awhile it's nice to read "left of center" journalism

Since our Corporate USA Media is AFRAID to print most anything that deviates from the Executive Branch's positions.