Complicity in _GR_

[---]

jbor:
> I'm inclined to think that the only ones to
> profit out of all the recent election filibustering and the vicious
> anti-Bush smear campaigns which ensued were the lawyers, publicists and p.r.
> people, opportunistic (and more venal) journalists, the media and the
> corporations who advertise in the media, and so on. The "victims" there were
> the mug punters who bothered voting, or cared. But it also exemplified
> something which has become more and more common in the U.S., and the
> subsequent IBM/Nazi hullabaloo seemed as if it was, or would become, yet
> another instance of such hypocrisy and sensationalist or "yellow"
> journalism.

Here in the U.S. the only yellow journalism was the persistent
undermining of Bill Clinton. Bush, in contrast, has gotten a soft ride,
and most media were calling for Gore's concession in the election, not
trying to invalidate Bush's obstructive efforts. The media here pretty
much collaborated in the selection of Bush (who lost by more than
500,000 votes nationally, and won the electoral college by getting the
U.S. Supreme Court to stop the vote counting).

Recent notable efforts of real reporting have been ridiculed (CIA's
connection with crack cocaine) or punished (exposé of Chiquita).

The IBM book has indeed been written about -- why shouldn't it be? 
Editorials, however, are not taking up the issue. The only place I've
seen it discussed is here. The history of the Bushes is completely
ignored by the larger (corporate) media. After all, it's been the
corporate media that has complained so long about a liberal bias in
their own profession that it is now accepted as fact, protecting the
media from any criticism that they are mere flacks for the ruling elite.
Newsreaders are millionaires! Sensationalist reporting is, I'm afraid,
only of the reactionary variety.

Yeurs,
Eric R