(np) big O, say it isn't so...

[Joseph Tracy]

But can you really expect to be seen as an independent "objective" evaluator of the quality of journalism , when you attack certain news organizations, not on the basis of evidence or  reasoned generalizations but by name calling  and acting as though journalists and social critics are supposed to independently bring political change. The core of everything political you write, as far as I can see,  is not a set of political or social goals and values but an extreme defensiveness of Obama that undermines your attempt to assume the role of moderate objectiveness. 

Also I can recall at least one example of news later established as factual which was reported by NPR moths after DN. That was the story of Dick Cheney's "Office of Special Plans".  I don't have time to wrack my memory or do research, but one can also look at the NYT Judy Miller propaganda as something challenged and investigated by DN and others but not brought into serious examination until the damage was done. Now  as regards objectivity, you can note that I have not supported Obama since his election. I voted for him with modest but genuine hope, but am clearly on the record in my sometimes extreme criticism and mockery. But my displeasure with Obama is based on the exact same political, moral and  ecological objections I had to Bush and the Republicans. 

I understand the fears concerning the likes of Gingrich Santorum and Romney, but to me they are far outweighed by the threat of a continued duopoly controlled by corporate killers. The lesser of evils approach is pure self-deception, a band aid on a bomb victim.


On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Henry M wrote:

> Beg to differ.  Between NPR, NYT, MSNBC, and other centrist heavyweights, most of those stories were covered at the same time, or immediately following, the boutique outlets.  I know, because I'd read of something in friends message that was from a source that I wouldn't do even a good a job fact-checking and double-checking their reporters' pieces as the mainstream press, and I'd find the same news, often with deeper, less partisan background, in the mainstream press.
>  
> The mainstream press is castigated by the left AND the right.  That doesn't sound very censored to me.
> 
> AsB4,
> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
> Henry Mu
> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The mainstream American press isn't exactly uncritical of Obama and the
> > wars.  What is the current explanation (that does not hammer Occam's Razor
> > into paranoid oblivion) for why they don't have this story?
> >
> 
> these guys are really cool:
> http://www.projectcensored.org/
> 
> they put out a book every year full of stories overlooked by the media
> -- really juicy stuff, well-documented, good reportage...
> 
> as to why, well, c'mon Henry --
> I'd be the last to hate on the mainstream press, I love my papers
> 
> but a) they can't cover everything
> b) they can't alienate their advertisers
> c) their ownership tends to be conservative and hooked in to a certain
> worldview which informs their editorial policy
> d) malefactors increasingly have legal departments, and courts judge
> in their favor all too often
> (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/)
> 
> 
> they didn't cover the 2000 election theft, Greg Palast had to go to
> England to report the systematic fraud in fake "felons", which would
> have been plenty to save the day
> 
> they banded up against Mark Webb to gainsay his CIA-cocaine connection
> story which CIA FOIA gleanings tend to bear out
> 
> they lined up behind Bush's Iraq lies
> 
> and so forth
>