Media Matters for America has been monitoring NBC's 'Meet the Press' for several weeks now, tracking the makeup of the show's supposedly "balanced" panels. Here's MMFA's report: On October 24, NBC's Meet the Press continued the pattern of skewing its media roundtable discussions to the right (noted by Media Matters for America here and here). Of the last twelve Meet the Press media panels*, seven were skewed to the right, pitting conservative columnists or pundits against nonpartisan journalists, with no progressive columnists or pundits; five were balanced and none skewed left." In short, only far righties and middle of the roaders make up their "balanced panels." That's like having a panel of very short and medium-height people and claiming that it represents tall people, too. But it's what we have come to expect of Pentagon-owned (via GE) NBC.

The headline of this A.merican P.ropaganda story says "Kerry: Bush Hides Bad Decisions." But when you read the article, you find that the Kerry quote is not presented until more than halfway through the article! This first half of the spin piece is a combined smear at Kerry and pump up of Bush - a typical tactic for AP and the networks these days. The opening line says "Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing Bush of hiding bad decisions, a criticism aimed at undermining voters' confidence in their chief executive" - note how HALF the sentence is devoted to attributing ulterior motives to Kerry. The next sentence is pure Bush campaign hype and has NOTHING to do with the supposed story at all: "Bush is inviting Democrats to cross over to his campaign as it begins its final week, arguing that their party is no longer led by men of strength and resolve." In essence, this is an anti-Kerry pro-Bush piece posing as a "news article" on Kerry. AP SUCKS!

"In June 2004, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced legislation calling on broadcasters to provide balance and diversity in their news coverage. H.R. 4710, or the MEDIA Act (Meaningful Expression of Democracy in America) would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that broadcasters 'afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.' We, the undersigned, support Representative Slaughter's efforts to restore balance to the media and call on Congress to pass this measure." Sign the petition.

In an effort to determine the extent of partisan political disparity that exists on American talk radio, Democracy Radio, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to ending the political imbalance on the nation's airwaves, conducted a two-part survey. Total weekly broadcast hours of local and national Conservative programs: 41,731. Total weekly broadcast hours of local and national Progressive programs: 3,042.

"A nationwide survey of talk radio indicates that nearly 90% of all political talk radio shows in America reflect conservative views, while only 10% of talk is progressive. Democracy Radio conducted the nationwide survey of local and syndicated talk shows and compiled data on the hundreds of programs, hosts and stations. The data concludes that in all of talk radio there is only 3,042 hours of airtime dedicated to progressive talk, compared to the 41,731 hours of conservative talk time per week. 'Despite the fact that a majority of all talk radio listeners are not conservative, talk radio programs that reflect conservative viewpoints continue to dominate the airwaves,' says Tom Athans. 'This means that only one political perspective is being broadcast on airwaves that are entirely owned by a very diverse American public. Democracy is undermined and Americans are wronged if only one political point of view is being expressed on the air. That simply needs to change.'"

Washington Post: "[C]able pay-per-view company iN Demand has pulled a three-hour election-eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore. 'The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special' was set to include a showing of his box office coup 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' as well as interviews with politically charged celebs, all for the low price of $9.95. A company spokesman told the Associated Press on Friday that the decision is based on 'legitimate business and legal concerns.' But Moore, who inked a contract with iN Demand in early September, said he is contemplating legal action because he feels the company succumbed to pressure from 'top Republican people. You can't tell Americans they can't watch this.' [The] documentary would reach about one-quarter of the nation's homes if aired on iN Demand." Time to boycott iN Demand! Tell your local cable provider you will never use iN Demand - an important cable revenue source - unless they air F911 before Election Day Nov 2. Make sure they pressure iN Demand now.

A persistent reason why "undecided" voters express reservations about supporting John Kerry is that they don't know what he'll do if elected. The New York Times report on Sen. Kerry's speech in Orlando shows why they don't have clue. The report quotes Kerry's criticisms of the Bush Administration's policies. It includes two paragraphs of rebuttal from the Bush campaign. It mentions that the Kerry campaign is running new ads. It describes the enthusiasm of the crowd. And that's all it tells us. If you relied solely on this report, you'd conclude that Kerry has nothing to offer. But if you go to http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_1002a.html and read the speech, the contrast is eye-opening. Kerry described his economic plan in some detail; he also provided details of his energy plan. The New York Times needs a reminder that they have a responsibility to live up to their own motto and report ALL the news: letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com.

Rightwingers want Dan Rather's head on a platter for being "duped" by the Killian memos - which have STILL not been proven to be frauds. But what about CNN's Bill Hemmer? He was duped by Edward Martos, a U. Miami College Republican who masquerades as an "undecided" voter. To discover this fraud, no knowledge of 1972 typewriters was required - just a simple Google search. Blogger J.C. Christian gets the credit for this expose. Call CNN at 404-827-1500 and tell them to FIRE BILL HEMMER!

This "article" in the Arizona Republic on the debate is textbook spin! The first line leads in with a backhanded slam of Kerry: "Sen. John Kerry, lagging in the polls, took the offensive Thursday against Bush over foreign policy and the war on terror...." The spin doctor (er, writer) then presents half a dozen direct quotes from Bush and only two partial "soundbytes" from Kerry. Then, completely ignoring the overwhelming public and pundit view that Kerry outdid Bush, the article plays Kerry's success down, drawing on "experts" from rightwing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, who said "It will give [Kerry] a little boost..." The article finishes off with a quote by chief Bush butt kisser John McCain: "Yes. I think [Bush]did very well. He proved he was steadfast and continues to lead the nation." LOL!!

Various sources: Pro-Bush pundits like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough conceded Kerry won the 1st debate. He wasn't the only gloomy GOPerative. MSNBC's Chris Matthews observed the Bush campaign officials including Ralph Reed and Ken Mehlman looked "grim." Their candidate put in a weak, wavering effort. The MSNBC panel saw the joy among Kerry supporters like Sen. Joe Biden and Gen. Wes Clark who corrected Bush's misstatements or lies on North Korea, Iraq, Iran and more. Newsweek's Howie Fineman noted that "Bush had 37 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate." That was generous. Bush was confused, contradictory, and unable to explain or justify his fatal mistakes. Bush admitted he would give our tax money to his wealthy friends rather than spend what we must to protect Americans from terror. Sen. Kerry said, "these are not my priorities." Bush failed in Iraq, and lied to the American people about it. Bush failed in this debate when he lied again. Let's see the media spin that.

USA Today: "Early polls indicated Americans felt Kerry had won the debate. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll said Kerry had won, compared to 37% for Bush. Kerry also was ahead in polls taken by CBS News and ABC News.... Kerry kept Bush on the defensive for the early part of the debate, saying Bush lost focus on the fight on terror in Afghanistan and failed to seize the opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden. 'The president relied on Afghan warlords, and he outsourced that job, too,' Kerry said. Later, he said going to war in Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks 'would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.' [Kerry added] 'I made a mistake in how I talked about the war. The president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?' [And] Kerry looked relaxed and hit the president with point after point, while Bush grimaced and found himself defending his positions." Now watch the media spin this as a Bush win!

The American Prospect: "In 2000, television agreed on the first night that Al Gore won the debate. Then the spin set in. Look out for a replay. In case you were wondering whether or not to pay attention to the presidential debates over the next three weeks, CNN's blowhard-in-residence Jack Cafferty delivered the verdict in advance on Monday morning. 'The presidential debates begin Thursday,' he said. 'It remains to be seen whether they're going to be worth watching. My sense is they probably won't be." What does this mean? "By preemptively declaring the debates to be meaningless political theater, the television news networks are giving themselves permission to cover them not as a battle of ideas but as a spectacle. Ditto in the print media." Watch out for another dishonest media rewrite trying to rob Kerry of his big debate victory.

Paul Krugman writes: "Let's face it: Whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news [AND networks, too, we might add] will proclaim Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation. But what will print media do? Let's hope it isn't what they did four years ago. But as Adam Clymer pointed out Monday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their 'body language.' After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Gore's sighs but nothing about Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces 'buried inside the newspaper' were, as Clymer delicately puts it, 'constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes' -- that is, Bush's lies -- 'against the other's minor errors.' "

The best we can say about Brendan Nyhan, Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer is that they are more sophisticated in their right-leaning spin than just about anyone going - including Capitol Hill Blue (a similar site). Aided by AP, they are getting a major promotion as a THE "nonpartisan" spin-sorting site. But look closely. Take today's typical page: the top, "featured story" is a slam of MoveOn.org. The wording of this story and other Kerry-critical stories is unequivocally negative, while the criticisms of Bush are mild and seem to be mere vehicles Bush's anti-Kerry propaganda (the health care story, exp.). Today's issue also includes what amounts to an apologia for Cheney's recent fearmongering statements, while (by contrast), three Democrats' comparison of the Bush regime to the early Third Reich is condemned unequivocally as 'outrageous rhetoric." In short - these folks ain't what they seem.

SFGate: "If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. For CBS, the admission that it cannot verify the authenticity of documents used in a story about Bush's Nat'l Guard service is a serious matter to be sure. But the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the attention being paid to the apology, [relative] to another recent case of grievous media error. 4 months ago, the NY Times issued its own mea culpa, acknowledging the repeated use of dubious information in its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War and [Bush's] repeated assertions that Iraq possessed WMDs." Yet which story got the most play in the corporate media? The one that led us into a bloody, life-and-resource-draining war? Or the one over something that happened 30 years ago?

For today's 'Propaganda highlight, " we have Google News. On Monday AM (9/20) around 9:30, Google's headlines blacked out the escalating violence & kidnappings in Iraq, but ran a Kerry-bashing editorial by William Saffire as a big headline. Google uses a slimey system in which negative stories about Bush and positive stories about Kerry are often "subscription required", thereby greatly decreasing their chance of being read. This AM, the Saffire slam was open subscription, while the story below it, "Kerry to Bush: Take immediate Steps for Peace in Iraq" is in tiny headlines and subscription only. Google also relies heavily on rightwing rags: Today there were SIX stories from the Bushie propaganda outlet Voice of America. Note how this "contact info" page gives readers no where to send complaints!

Cheryl Seal writes: "Here at Democrats.com we are clear about what we do: It is COMMENTARY, with links to news articles. We do not, like NBC, AP, or NPR, pretend to present 'objective' journalism while presenting outrageously biased commentary. We ARE outrageously biased commentators and proud of it! In fact, we identify ourselves up front for what we are: DEMOCRATS.COM - as opposed to our Republican counterparts who hide their real agenda beneath intentionally vague, patriotic-sounding titles like 'FreeRepublic,' or 'Citizens United.' We don't pretend to be anything but what we are. Here is a 'mini-course' in some of the propaganda techniques being used by the media and how to spot them."

Ever since the NeoCons undermined federal funding for public television, the content of PBS has been being forced into line with the NeoCon agenda by the ever-increasing reliance on funding by Archer Daniels Midland, ExxonMobil, and other NeoCon corporations. Jim Leher is but a shadow of his former journalistic self, while documentaries are heavily stacked with 'the world according to the Bush administration," (a recent program on Afghanistan comes to mind). Now, enraged that JUST ONE "liberal" (ie, non-NeoCon) political program is being aired - Bill Moyers - PBS has rolled over and begged to have its belly scratched by adding MORE NeoCon programming. Ie, :"unbiased" in NeoCon land means 1 liberal program "balanced" against 20 conservative shows.

"Weighing the credibility of evidence is an essential function of journalism. Experts have weighed in on both sides on the authenticity of CBS's so-called Killian memos (New York Times, 9/14/04; Washington Post, 9/14/04); efforts to establish the origin of those documents should continue. However, news outlets that focus on this tangent of the National Guard story to the exclusion of the unchallenged new evidence that has recently emerged are neglecting another essential journalistic task: holding powerful people and politicians accountable. In the wake of the stories scrutinizing Bush's stateside service during the Vietnam era, it's hard to imagine a better situation for the White House than to have the press corps ignore a range of evidence raising questions about Bush's fulfillment of his obligations while obsessing singularly on one set of documents from one story. "

Here's an example of political spin so flagrant that it is illogical! Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a NEWS REPORT - not Rush Limbaugh's latest column! "George W. Bush held his fire on Saturday to commemorate the September 11 attacks but Democrat John Kerry paused only briefly before assailing his rival on everything from the economy to Iraq." So when Bush stopped to honor 9/11 it's called "holding his fire," while when Kerry does the same thing on the same day, it's called "Pausing only briefly." And, Bush's exploitation of 9/11, and use of the occasion to compare himself to Kerry is called "commemoration," Kerry's up front challenge is called "assailing his rival on "everything"..."Looks like Reuters is outsourcing its reporting, too - to the White House! Btw - note where this story was found: Gulf News (the main rag of Bush's Saudi pals).

For the past six months, collectively hundreds of thousands of veterans have participated in rallies and campaigning for John Kerry. Has any of this been covered by the corporazi media? Nope. But now when Karl Rove, John O'Neill and the rest of the Bush smear machine manage to organize a crowd of 1,000 ALLEGED veterans (we hear some present were not even vets), AP and the rest of the shills can't wait to publicize the "epic event." Meanwhile, NBC, FOX, etc. have scrambled to try to discredit the evidence proving Bush blew off his Guard service. Yet for MONTHS, these same "news outlets" couldn't be bothered to check one credential of the Swift Boat frauds, even as they continued to report the story. And, while trumpeting Bush-friendly polls, all have blacked out the global poll of 35 nations showing 4 out of 5 want Bush GONE.

NY Daily News: "Scandal impresario Kitty Kelley is suggesting that CNN's Larry King won't let her on his show to promote her upcoming book, 'The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty,' because he's a toady of the Bush family. 'I realize how important the Bushes are to Larry...He does not want to lose their friendship or offend them in any way. And having me on his show would probably anger the family, because they made their feelings clear from the beginning ... when the former President Bush called my publisher [Doubleday] and said he did not want this book written and would not cooperate in any way. So I certainly understand Larry's refusal to book me." King couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Judy Woodruff has embarrassed serious journalists by acting like a teenage groupie drooling outside the dressing room of some tight-panted rock star. This exchange between REAL journalist Walter Robinson of the Boston Globe (who actually does his job by digging for facts) and Woodruff is pathetic. In response to Robinson's reiteration of the facts that Bush failed to fulfill his obligations in the National Guard, and only received an honoroable discharge due to string-pulling, Woodruff sputters an idiotic attempt to defend her idol Bush: "And, uh, so, but -- but some people would say well, if he didn't perform his -- if he didn't fulfill his obligation, then how did the service end up giving him an honorable discharge?" We answered that one. His Daddy pulled strings. The Beltway Sniper also got an honorable discharge despite punching a superior officer. Bottom line: the records prove Bush did NOT serve honorably. Period!

Here is a CLASSIC case of Bush-media collusion, this one from the Cincinnatti Post. "As Kerry tried to play offense, the Bush campaign tried to keep him on the defensive. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the Democrat had "made the transformation from a candidate on both sides of Iraq to a candidate who is completely incoherent on Iraq. John Kerry has given 12 major speeches on Iraq, and the American people still have no idea where he stands," Schmidt said." FIRST: Kerry has made his position on Iraq VERY clear - in fact he has given 20 times more detail than Bush. But the media continues to grab misrepresentative, misleading sound bytes like the "Kerry voted against the $87 billion" bill, while failing to report the truth OR the entire Iraq plan. So now, as Kerry tries to be heard, the media continues to print Bush propaganda about Kerry's position INSTEAD of what Kerry's position really IS.

Alternet: "[T]he media has applied an alarming double standard [as a] Washington Post article demonstrated ... 'Republicans draw a sharp contrast between what they portray as Bush's directness and what they call rival John F. Kerry's tendency to worry issues to death. [Bush] has also not hesitated to switch positions when necessary, such as when he first opposed, then backed, the creation of a Homeland Security Department.' The Post used Bush's own words to describe his opponent's character [but] presented Bush's decision-making far more charitably: 'Unlike the indecisive Kerry, Bush changes positions only when necessary.' The Post didn't explain why Bush's change in position ... was anything other than a classic 'flip-flop' [and the] Associated Press [bias] has been more overt. [D]espite the president's countless flip-flops on issues of highest importance, the media fails to focus on his changes in position...." Join Media Watch: http://democrats.com/media/

To hear the corporate polls churned out last week tell it, Bush is the darling of Americans now. But the artificially perpetuated gulf between media fabrication and reality is starting to anger Americans, as this barrage of letters to an Iowa newspaper shows . And it is just a SAMPLE of the mood across the nation. Des Moines Register: " A person watching the Republican convention would think there has been another political party formed, a moderate-to-liberal party at that. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger hardly represent the conservative, hard-line agenda of George Bush. Are we so ignorant that we believe it? This convention will long be remembered as one of the most deceiving shows in history."

Canadian columnist John Doyle writes: "A man in Michigan wrote to me last week and said, ''Please go to hell or stay in Canada, whichever you prefer.'' His suggestion arose because of remarks made here about John Kerry, The Daily Show and the general state of the American media. Now I have news for the man in Michigan. Recently, I succeeded in staying in Canada and simultaneously visiting hell. I have been watching coverage of the Republican Convention. There are many horrible ways of inflicting pain on oneself, but this has got to be one of the worst...Your stomach churns, you turn numb. You learn that Vice-President Dick Cheney is now America's granddad.The tactical point of this Republican convention is to show the allegedly "compassionate" side of the Republicans...What makes a viewer particularly nauseous is watching the television media roll over to have its tummy rubbed by Republicans."

Media Matters: "FOX News Channel aired only four minutes of Senator John Kerry's speech (delivered on September 3 at midnight ET), in which he responded to attacks leveled at him at the Republican National Convention. Instead, FOX News Channel replayed clips of President George W. Bush's convention speech and pre-speech video, as well as reported from the convention floor. MSNBC showed 25 minutes of Kerry's speech, and CNN showed 15 minutes. " CALL and tell these sellouts what you think!! FOX: 1-888- 369-4762 or, even better, find your local network affiliates and complain to ALL the media sellouts! : http://newslink.org/

Salon: "'I'm very ashamed' - The former Texas official who got George Bush into the National Guard apologizes for making sure that young men with important 'family names' did not have to fight in Vietnam." Also in Salon: "The Ben Barnes blackout - Even with new video of the Texas pol saying he's 'ashamed' of helping President Bush get his National Guard slot, the story gets little play from the media." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/30/barnes_update/print.html Demand the Media report this ignored story. Write / call / fax. Find contact info at the Media Watch Project - http://democrats.com/media

People like Tom Brokaw, Judy Woodruff, Brit Hume, Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, and all the rest of the pack of sell-out corporate journalists bear substantial responsibility for the deaths of the 83 courageous REAL journalists who lost their lives last year struggling to get the truth out. Getting the truth out: THAT is a journalist's job. Had these corporate sellouts - whose presence hoarde the airwaves, cyberspace and print media - been doing their job when it came to the run up to Iraq, there would have been no war - or at least a saner scenario. Most if not all of the journalists who died in Iraq would still be alive and speaking out. Instead, the REAL journalists are out there in the field risking all, unsupported by their cowardly counterparts who are hiding in newsrooms, studios, or hotels in Baghdad and Kabul. Thank God there are still writers out there who believe there is something more important than a paycheck and pleasing the powerful. We grieve for the 83 dead.

There is increasing evidence that the corporate media is not just spinning news now - they are blatantly suppressing information (blacking out material positive about Kerry and negative about Bush) and buying off pollsters to get grossly manipulated results that will support rigged results in November. This is OUR country and OUR press (or should be!). We will run this notice every day until election, with its link to the nation's news outlets. It is time for the media to hear us ROAR! Call, write, fax, or go in person, but send the message: WE WANT REAL NEWS! WE WANT FAIR NEWS! Also start contacting the major advertisers of news sources that engage in propaganda and let them know how you - the American "consumer" feels! For advertiser contact info go to http://www.hoovers.com/free/

Emerging Democratic Majority "[An] LA Times poll found Bush's support among registered voters rising from 46% in July to 49% on August 22-24th [but] three other ... major polling organizations found entirely different patterns. An August 23-25th Gallup poll of registered voters found Kerry with 48% to Bush's 47%, At the beginning of August, Gallup showed Kerry and Bush tied at 48%. An August 23-25th NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found a three point lead for Bush unchanged since July 22. A Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll found Kerry 46%, Bush 43% on Aug 24-26. Kerry was up 2% from July 20-22 and Bush down 1% [not a] pro-Bush swing [only 21%believed the major accusation against Kerry but 59% supported Kerry]. [T]he Bush surrogate groups now switch their attack to Kerry's anti-Vietnam war positions [but it's unclear how much these attacks] simply reinforce the views of voters [already supporting] Bush...." Join democrats.com/media/

ILCA Online: "On August 23, the Bush Administration's Department of Labor eliminated the right to time-and-a-half pay for overtime work for millions of Americans in what amounted to the biggest pay cut in American history. The facts that should have made that statement a headline in every paper in the country were easily obtainable. Reporters had had months in which to review the changes. Experts had written helpful analyses. The specific ways in which various categories of workers were being stripped of their rights would have been no secret to a sixth grader with internet access writing a report for school. And if our national media couldn't take the time to read the rule changes, the goals of the Department of Labor and other parties involved had been made abundantly clear. The DOL had published advice to employers on how to avoid paying overtime."

OregonLive: "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry ended a two-week cross-country campaign swing in Portland Friday, where he and celebrity supporters got a rousing welcome from the largest crowd to attend a political speech here in at least a decade Portland fire officials estimated the crowd at between 40,000 and 50,000 people on the Willamette River waterfront, on a day when Bush was campaigning just a few miles away."Kerry competed head-to-head for TV airtime with Bush, who spoke at an invitation-only town hall meeting of about 2,000 people in Beaverton." The network (as in NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX) affiliates refused to devote any coverage at all to Kerry until Bush was done speaking. The evidence of the disparity between reality out in the streets and what the media reports is growing daily! Kerry continally outdraws Bush in crowds, 10 or even 20 to one, yet we are still supposed to believe, re- media and media polls - it's a "tight race."

As many US papers start to scale back Bushie propaganda, it seems the White House is turning to UK papers for its spin. Take this article in the Guardian. The headline: "White House Race Gets Nasty" is dated two days after Bush's ad debuted smearing Kerry's war service - a move even Republicans condemn. But the article barely mentions this! Instead, Suzanne Goldberg hypes up Kerry's recent mention of Bush's "missing 7 minutes" on the am of 9/11, and makes the inuendo that somehow Kerry "stole" this bit from Michael Moore!: "Mr Kerry went to new lengths, borrowing Moore's best lines twice, without crediting the film-maker." HUH? Gee, we didn't know there was a copyright on the events of 9/11. We are saddened at this turn of tone in the Guardian.

Paul Krugman is a rarity in today's media, esp. among columnists. He is not only a kick-ass writer, he is his own man, one who writes ABOUT, not FOR the corporate machine. In a recent interview Krugman pointed out the elephant in America's living room: the media's role in the rightwing propaganda machine. It's time for a showdown, says Krugman:. "Can we break the machine that is imposing right-wing radicalism on the United States? The scariest part is that the media is part of that machine. There will have to be some kind of reckoning soon, a possible Watergate moment to come . . . Things aren't all the way unraveled yet . . . and alternative scenarios still exist. We need above all sunlight! We need to see what is actually going on. When are people going to wake up?And, we may add, when are more mediafolk like the Outfoxed people going to come forward and help let that light in by blowing the whistle?

Lou Dobbs is one oily character. While appearing to bash Bush on his Moneyline program on CNN, decrying outsourcing policies, in private, via his "confidential" Lou Dobbs Money Letter, he urges subscribers ("only" $199.00 per year!) to invest in the very companies doing the heaviest outsourcing. One day he agrees with Al Franken that there's no liberal media bias - then in his newsletter writes: "often misled by the chronically liberal media, [many] are making a huge mistake right now. They are underestimating the good that George Bush is doing for the economy�¦." All a gimmick to rake in suckers on both sides. Now in his latest columns, he is becoming a GOP propagandist, currently pushing their latest strategy: to convince voters there's really no difference between Kerry and Bush - under an intentionally deceptive headline about candidate "differences."(see www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/04/not.similar)

"The Democratic Party is revamping its lovey-dovey approach and telling campaign press secretaries to come down like a ton of bricks if you screw up.... 'When it comes to the media,' suggests Democratic strategist James Carville, 'intimidation works.' He offers a tactic: 'Send E-mails to the press. They do respond to pressure.' ... Hate a story? Either bully the reporter and cow the newsie into tossing you a bone, or hit hard and scare him into changing his tone and coverage. 'Challenge them,' encouraged David Brock of the new liberal Media Matters outfit, formed to police the press--especially the conservative media. A communications handbook from Democrats offers a softer approach. 'If the error is minor,' it says, 'don't make a big deal out of it and don't demand a correction. The reporter is only human and will probably feel bad and apologize and perhaps feel as though he or she owes you one.' " Join http://democrats.com/media -- to work with others to keep the Media in check!

Ruth Lopez writes: "Note to Brokaw, Jennings, et al. You didn't just misreport the insane drive to start an unnecessary war, you were part of the hyper patriotic, jingoistic drumbeat. And it isn't just that you didn't do enough to question it, it's that you didn't do anything. Your pathetic CSPAN mea culpa, seen by less than 1% of the country, is even less impressive when you go right back to your studio and keep carrying water for Bush. You know, Mr. Brokaw, you guys aren't kids any more. What are you afraid of? You've made your fortunes. Even if you got fired today, you'll never be out on the street starving. How about finding your courage, and speaking some cold, hard facts: This country was lied into war. The vice president is a war profiteer who is being investigated for taking bribes and doing illegal business with sanctioned countries. Try grabbing yourself by your manly parts and standing up for the truth. I bet you'd find an audience then. Hell, I'd watch every day."

We have appreciated many efforts by Editor and Publisher to try to address some tough news content issues. However, we were extremely disappointed by the supposed "exhaustive study" of whether or not any real "liberal bias" exists in the media. Most of the "study" is devoted to explaining why there are so many left-leaning writers and editors - conservatives are more likely to go to business school or some other route, etc. This is probably all true. Yet news content is undeniably skewed toward the right, as every concrete survey of coverage has shown, from the Columbia School of Journalism's review of Election 2000 to the recent MediaChannel survey of network news. Why? Because of memos and other directives to editors from "above" - i.e., from the largely right-leaning publishers, owners, and advertising "vice presidents". Nowhere does this E&P "study" mention the impact this daily pressuring has on news content - yet it is indeed what shapes the quality of our news.

In March, 2001, one of the nation's best newspapermen, Jay Harris, resigned from the Mercury News (Knight-Ridder) to protest the increasing impact of corporate interests on news quality. Harris said "in Knight Ridder, greater priority was increasingly given to the business aspects of the enterprise than was given to fulfilling the public trust." An ethics paper sums it up: "Newspaper companies' drive for profits have also resulted in the printing of cheaper, sensationalism reporting, the demoralization of the best editors and reporters and a deterioration of public trust. "Today's journalists are in danger of becoming entertainers, celebrities and spokespersons for the rich and powerful" ...Today's journalists find little motivation in "[reporting on] social conscience, disclos[ing] injustice, uncovering wrongdoing or giving voice to the voiceless." Instead, they do little actual reporting, which helps decrease costs and raise profits."

As evidence of just how poorly our nation's newspapers now reflect their readers: the Baltimore Sun is SUPPOSED to represent a city in which 9 in 10 residents are Democrats, and 6 in 10 are black. Yet reading the paper on a regular basis, you'd rarely guess that. Case in point: This week, when the city's own mayor, Martin O'Malley spoke at the Boston Convention - the only mayor in the US asked to speak! - it didn't even make the paper's top headline (online), and the first half of the article was devoted to petty criticisms of acoustics. (not to mention all Convention articles were restricted to subscription only). Meanwhile, anytime Maryland's Repug gov. Bob Ehrlich (who has consistently undermined Baltimore's goverment) so much as belches it's a gushing, top-billed story. Yet this paper still calls itself "The Baltimore Sun" - as if to thumb its nose at the city's people. But then, the US media in general continues to thumb its nose at America.

How can Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Katie Couric, Dan Rather and the rest of the cast that makes up America's big name newspeople (we use that term with a wince, a wink, and a snicker) keep dishing up pro-Bushie propaganda week after week? How do they sleep nights? How can they look at themselves in the mirror or - worse - look their kids in the eye? Easy....M.O.N.E.Y. Keeping Bush in office benefits THEM directly. They are in that elite top 1% of Americans who benefits the most by Bush's tax cuts - which, if he is reelected, he plans to make permanent. Buzzflash presents a sampling of salaries: Brokaw: $7 million; Couric, $12 million, Rather, $7 milllion......Kinda makes it painfully clear, eh?

MediaChannel.org reports that since Kerry won his party's informal nod in March, his share of media coverage has declined while Bush's has steadily increased. If you think this is just because Bush, as president, would naturally net more, think again. In June 2000, candidate Bush received a 49.9% of candidate coverage to VP Gore's 50.1%. In June 2004., Kerry received just 15% compared to Bush's 83%, leaving voters to honestly claim "We don't know enough about him." "During an average evening newscast in June, the networks were nearly 4 times as likely to mention Bush as the Democratic presidential candidate. ABC World News Tonight was the most unfair to Kerry. And only 24% of Bush's coverage was negative - despite crises that would have had them calling for Clinton to be shot. But the networks are paying - the number of people deserting them for the Internet where they can get real coverage is skyrocketing.

Media Matters for America reports, "Newsweek chief political correspondent and NBC News analyst Howard Fineman, writing in an MSNBC.com news article, repeated the erroneous myth that the late Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was forbidden to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he opposed abortion rights. After quoting Casey's son, Fineman added, 'His late father and namesake was so anti-abortion that he was denied the opportunity to speak at a Democratic convention.' [In reality] Casey was denied the bully pulpit because he refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore presidential ticket." Demanding unbiased reporting from Fineman, NBC, MSNBS and Newsweek: MSNBC - Phone: (201) 583-5000 | Fax: (201) 583-5453 Email: world @ msnbc.com - NBC - Phone: 212-664-4444 | Fax: 212-664-4426 Washington Bureau Phone: 202-885-4200 | Fax: 202-362-2009 - Newsweek - Phone: 212-445-4000 | Fax: 212-445-5068 - letters @ newsweek.com - Join the Media Watch project - http://democrats.com/media.

Media Bias MeetUp Day - http://mediabias.meetup.com/ Fight Big Media MeetUp Day - http://fightbigmedia.meetup.com/ WHAT MeetUp with other local people to discuss and oppose big media bias. WHO Hundreds of people across the country - and growing. We need many more to expose and oppose right wing media bias! WHEN Media Bias 8:00PM the 1st Tuesday of every month. Fight Big Media 7:00PM the 2nd Wednesday of every month. WHERE more than 600 cities and towns - attend or start one near you. Join, vote for a venue and RSVP Today! Also join the Democrats.com Media Watch Project: http://democrats.com/media

Never have we ever seen a more spiteful, shameless, and pointless (at least in terms of benefiting the cause of journalism or the American public) display than Leslie Stahl's "interview" of John Kerry and John Edwards on 60 Minutes (the segment with just the two plus her). Stahl bullied, interrupted, talked over, skewed, slanted, and prodded with leading, Catch-22 questions asked with Harpyish aggression. In between attacks, she ran Bush anti-Kerry ads (bet she got a personal thankyou note from Karl Rove for that freebie). NOT ONE POSITIVE COMMENT did Stahl allow pass through her bright red phony lips. Why? Because Stahl, like all her pals in the Kalorama Kocktail Klub (the new KKK), presided over by Dick and Lynne Cheney, wants to protect her nice big tax cut on her six-digit-plus salary. Forget honesty, forget fairness, forget America, says Stahl: Gimme the cash. Btw - this transcript does NOT convey the actual slam job by a longshot

Don't Just Complain About Media Bias - Help Us Confront It! We have a few dozen Media Watch groups set up to help stand up against bias in the mass media. A few hundred people have already joined, but we still need your help. Join up and work with us emailing, faxing and calling to protest media malpractice. Report media bias and draft "Action Items." We also need help "moderating" the groups. You can look over the policies for that here: http://tinyurl.com/2byhw. Don't be overwhelmed about the database provisions. We're still working up to that. Read those policies and if you're interested in moderating, email mediawatch@mikehersh.com with "Media Watch" in the subject line and tell me about your available time, your experience, and why you want to help moderate.

If you look at the most reliable national polls (Zogby, chief among them) and state by state polls (which seem less open to manipulation), Kerry has steadily been holding his ground or inching ahead while Bush has steadily lost ground. But not AP - This right-leaning monster monopoly on American news continually finds Bush ahead, and now, in its latest poll, contradicts what ALL other polls show - that even with Edwards named VP, Bush has inexplicably jumped AHEAD. What is going on? Could it be that AP is trying to make sure that a Bush win in November despite his abysmal approval ratings doesn't look quite so suspicious? After all, the two dominant electronic voting machine companies in the US are owned by rightwingers who support Bush. So rig the polls to show Bush ahead, then rig the vote. NOTHING would surprise us out of this crime cartel and its minions. Contact the AP 212-621-1500 Fax: 212-621-7523

Mike Hersh writes, "Evidence of rightwing mass media bias abounds. Most in the corporate media support the current Bush Administration - as they supported his father's, Reagan's and Nixon's. The media almost universally endorsed Bush's rush to war by echoing lies to rally public support - and demonizing or ignoring opponents. The corporate media suppress dissent to help manufacture consent for pro-corporate policies. This is why we need websites like MikeHersh.com and BushOccupation.com, and movies like Fahrenheit 911. Otherwise most Americans would never know anything about the most important political and economic issues. Want to understand media bias? Follow the money. Media moguls identify with their peers and share their profound pro-Republican biases. Of course they do. They know where their money comes from, and it's not from liberal interest groups, unions, or the working poor. Want to do something about it? Join the Media Watch project - http://democrats.com/media"

Why is the network news saturated with aging chicken hawk "journalists" who like to play soldier? The worst, of course, being Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather. Rather is in Iraq, dressed (like Brokaw) in "sorta millitary" get up, riding around with the First Cavalry (or, as Rather puts it, the "First Cav"). In a 6/29 segment, they are on night patrol in Sadr City in a way cool "Bradley fighting vehicle" (Dan made sure to mention that - probably because its made by the Carlyle Group's spinoff United Defense Industries). While on patrol, we get to witness the power of the super-neato infrared night scope, from inside the tank. Even cooler still, we get to watch an Iraqi guy run across the field of vision like a video game character and get to see him blown away by the tank's gunners. Dan could hardly contain his vicarious thrill.

Daily Howler writes, "Kakutani has trashed all books involving Al Gore or the Clintons. She reached her low point in December 1999, when she did a lengthy piece reviewing the books of that year's White House hopefuls. How did she handle Gore's Earth in the Balance? Naomi Wolf had no connection to the book, nor had she dealt with the issues the book concerned. But so what? The ludicrous flap about Wolf-and-the-earth-tones has recently entered our political discourse, and vacuous scribes-scribes like Kakutani-were able to speak of little else. In the course of her Times review, Kakutani devoted about 800 words to Gore's book-and she mentioned Wolf or 'earth tones' three separate times! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/2/99.) She never explained what the book was about-but she couldn't stop pimping Naomi... She has always known the Clinton-Gore scripts. So, of course, has the Times, which invented quite a few of these scripts-Whitewater, Love Story, Love Canal, to name three."

MediaMatters.org reports, "CBS is apparently set to run a new TV advertisement attacking former President Bill Clinton that appears to violate the network's stated prohibition on 'advocacy' ads that deal with 'controversial issues of public importance.' Citizens United (led by David N. Bossie) announced on its website the new ad is to air during Clinton's June 20 appearance on CBS's news program 60 Minutes. The self-described 'advocacy' group explained, 'Amidst the hype surrounding the release of former President Clinton's new book, 'My Life', CU sets the record straight by exposing the real legacy President Bill Clinton left for America.' The CU ad claims that Clinton is 'responsible' for 'leaving us vulnerable to terrorists.' CBS's airing of the CU ad would be noteworthy because the network refused to run ads from MoveOn.org and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) during this year's Super Bowl. At the time, CBS explained that it does not run 'advocacy advertising.'"

Rory O'Connor writes, "Given his flippant, embarrassingly callow demeanor, reactionary (one might even say radical) views, one might reasonably wonder why Tucker Carlson was chosen to host a weekly public affairs program on America's only publicly-owned network. Carlson does. 'The whole thing is confusing to me,' he recently told Newsday. 'I'm still confused by how the whole works - the stations, PBS, the Congress.' Maybe his father can explain things to him. After all, Richard Carlson used to head the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which partially funds PBS, and also contributes to the production of - you guessed it - 'Tucker Carlson Unfiltered! Before that, Richard headed the United States Information Agency, which presumably explains the propaganda gene so prevalent in much of young Tuck's prior shouting ...er, 'reporting.' Or maybe Tucker could read Ken Auletta's recent New Yorker dissection of public broadcasting's latest conservative swerve."

BuzzFlash opines, "Forced mea culpas are no longer sufficient from the NYT. What the New York Times needs is regime change. It needs a publisher and news editor whose first duties are to the democratic process in America -- and to political coverage based on truth, policies and competence, not on caricature and administration spin. It needs regime change that will re-institute the tradition of investigative reporting that uncovers the wrongs done by political figures who violate the public trust. It needs regime change to meet White House pronouncements with skepticism, instead of plastering them on the front page with several column headlines. It needs regime change to send reporters to the White House who can challenge WH babble that doesn't pass the smell test, instead of passing on the horse manure as news to the American public... Judith Miller should go, but so should all the individuals responsible for a 'corporate culture' at the New York Times that has failed democracy. "

The Jesus Factor was rerun on PBS on 5/20, no doubt to help rally Bush's core constituency of religious rightwingnuts. This program is to Fahrenheit 9/11 what a moldy marshmallow is to a 10-course dinner. At the least, JF is a boring and amateurish one-hour infomercial for Bush. At the worst, it is the sorriest excuse for "journalism" ever foisted off on the public by Frontline. The totally non-probing "balanced views" of Bush's religious life consists of several rightwing pro-Bush evangelical spokespeople "balanced" against one not-so-rightwing editor of the religious magazine "Sojourner." Only one useful - and completely unquantified fact is presented: of the over $1 billion Bush has lavished on religious charities through his compassionate choice program, almost none has gone to Jewish and other non-Christian groups. Remember the good old days when PBS meant REAL journalism?

"According to polls, Bush's popularity has been dwindling since the Iraq war heated up again last month, but has it really come to this? The Post-Crescent of Appleton WI in a novel twist, has resorted to asking readers to send in pro-Bush letters to the editor to balance out the many critical of Bush... In a letter responding to that editorial published Tuesday, Ellen Kunz of Neenah wrote: 'Could it be that you are ignoring the current temperature of the Valley? If you are getting more letters critical of Mr. Bush, it is likely because the Valley is more critical of him. And for good reason ... On Tuesday, the newspaper clarified its position, stating that hindsight being 20/20, the editorial's intent was not to make the Post-Crescent appear pro-Bush." ROTFL!

"New York Post business writer... Christopher Byron is standing tough behind his new book 'Testosterone Inc.: Tales Of CEOs Gone Wild' -- despite a serious threat of legal action by one of the world's top mediapower players! In 'Testosterone', Byron.. jumps on the third rail with an investigation of General Electric chairman and chief executive Jack Welch. 'Welch is doing a damn good job of trying to squelch the book,' a top source close to Byron tells the Drudge Report... Despite every effort to stop its publication, 'Testosterone' hit the streets last week. In the book, Byron claims Welch, who for 15 years held the title of chairman of NBC, tried to shape the news time and again -- to his own personal and financial advantage. One allegation: Welch ordered the President of NBC News, Lawrence Grossman, to stop reporting stories that would negatively impact GE's stock price." Jack Welch is a well-known rightwinger and Bush supporter. What was that about the 'Liberal' Media?

"With more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, Mr. Brock will start a new Internet site that he says will monitor the conservative media and correct erroneous assertions in real time. The site, called Media Matters, was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly... Mr. Brock said he hoped his new project could be as influential as the Media Research Center, a conservative media monitoring group run by L. Brent Bozell III that frequently calls attention to what it calls examples of liberal bias in the news media. Its findings often become subjects for conservative radio and cable talk shows. 'The right wing in this country has dominated the debate over liberal bias,' Mr. Brock said. 'By dominating that debate, my belief is they've moved the media itself to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right.'"

FAIR reports, "On Sunday, April 25, hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Washington, D.C. to demonstrate for women's reproductive rights. Crowd estimates ranged from 500,000 to 1.15 million, but it was clear that the March for Women's Lives was one of the largest demonstrations in the capital's history-- and perhaps the largest ever. One might have expected, then, to see extensive coverage on national television-- but a look at both network and cable news during the days surrounding the march turned up remarkably few reports. " In comparison, the misogynist Promise Keepers march in 1997 got 3 times as much coverage. Let the networks know that you were disappointed by the scant coverage given to the historic March for Women's Lives by e-mailing PeterJennings@abcnews.com, evening@cbsnews.com, nightly@nbc.com

"The Center for American Progress reports: Fox anchor Brit Hume charged 'Jamie Gorelick should be a witness before this commission. She should not be on this commission...this is a howling conflict of interest.' Sean Hannity echoed 'just a ridiculous conflict of interest' ... 'She should not be there. She should be sworn in and start answering questions as to why she put forward this directive. ' Dick Morris fumed: 'Of all of the public officials in the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, the one who is most directly, in my judgment, responsible for 9/11 happening is Jamie Gorelick.' Republican Commission chairman Thomas Kean said the attacks against Gorelick were 'unfounded.' "Write, call and fax FOX News. Demand they stop engaging in smear tactics which obstruct the 9/11 Commission and undermine efforts to prevent another terrorist attack: comments@foxnews.com Phone: (212) 301-3000 Fax: (212) 301-4229 - see: http://democrats.com/media

Since Bob Woodward's 60 Minute interview, the US media has, once again, failed the American public miserably. Woodward basically HANDED the media a pile of stories, complete with exhaustive fact checking by himself and the 60 minutes staff. All that any honest journalist then had to do was just a little more digging to carry the probe forward for the good of the American public. But no. Instead, we have been treated to an endless stream of stories based on some dimwit asking the probing question: "Is it true that..." And, of course, as a result we now have a collection of stories entitled "Powell Denies..." "Bush Denies..." "Rumsfeld Denies...." and now, to complete the set, "Prince Bandar Denies..."

MediaWatch is focused like a laser-beam on one task: leading "rapid response" efforts exposing and opposing media bias against Democrats. We have immediate and significant impact holding the media accountable through actions, not discussions. We maintain high standards for quality and accuracy as we: (1) expose and document specific examples of media bias (2) take direct, immediate action opposing bias (3) maintain pressure to end anti-Democratic bias Join the Media Watch Main organizational group and the group(s) monitoring your primary news source(s), the ones you know best. Sign up, introduce yourself and explain why you want to participate. Participate at the Media Bias MeetUp - http://mediabias.meetup.com/. Join the fight against media bias.

When it comes to bad taste, Howard Stern can't hold a candle to Boston Globe reporter Glen Johnson! Johnson crashed the Easter communion service at Kerry's Catholic church to write a self-serving, voyeuristic article that amounts to a colossal invasion of privacy of the entire congregation. The first half of Johnson's article gleefully boasts details, from how often parishioners knelt to whether Heinz Kerry put cash or a check in the offering basket. The second half of the article is a thinly veiled diatribe disguised as "reporting" that suggests Kerry had no right to take communion in the first place.

All you need to do to "sniff the prevailing wind" in the Bush administration is watch a few minutes of the Tim Russert Kiss-ass Hour (euphemistically known as "Meet the Press"). On 4/11 first we have John McCain, echoing many Bush Clingons in a mindless 'my pResident no matter how wrong" stance. Next up we get Lisa "Mockingbird" Myers, proclaiming that the August 6 memo was no big deal - just, as Condi says, a sort of "historical document." In the roundtable with Myers and two other conservative pundits, never is the entire text of the memo shown or discussed. Russert revealed ONLY the last two, and most vague, paragraphs of the 11-paragraph document. Smacking strongly of intermedia collusion, several networks have used the same two paragraphs as representing the memo.Here's the WHOLE memo.

"Media baron Rupert Murdoch today backed George Bush to win a second term...The News Corporation chairman said today the coalition of the willing had largely been successful and Australia needed to maintain its presence... Mr Murdoch said the continuing violence in Iraq was isolated and had been misrepresented. 'I think it's been misrepresented. (There has been) tremendous progress in Iraq - all the kids are back at school, 10 per cent more than when Saddam Hussein was there,' Mr Murdoch said. 'There's 100 per cent more fresh water. Most of Iraq is doing extremely well...He also said George W Bush would win a second term at the US presidential election in November because the American people strongly supported the president's efforts in Iraq and the resurging US economy. 'They're with him on that, completely. He's going to walk it (the election) in,' he said." Hey Rupert, what color is the sky in your world?

"Anna Perez, who recently directed communications at the National Security Council, will become chief communications executive for NBC, the network announced yesterday. Ms. Perez will take up the post of executive vice president for communications, but her duties will expand when NBC becomes NBC-Universal after the expected completion of the network's merger with entertainment units of Vivendi Universal. The deal is expected to be approved by June. Ms. Perez will start at NBC on May 1. She left the White House in December, where her titles included counselor for communications to Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." Will NBC (and MSNBC) become a 24x7 anti-Kerry attack machine for Karl Rove? We have NOT forgotten that NBC was the second network - after FOX - to erroneously call Florida for Bush at 2 a.m. on election night, when it was much too close to call. That declaration by FOX and NBC made it impossible for Al Gore to get a fair recount.

When William Safire lied to NY Times readers about the "smoking gun" proving a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda (via Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the always-misrepresented Ansar Al-Islam), David Corn challenged him - and "public editor" Dan Okren - to correct his lie. Okrent replied by defining an absurd standard for NY Times columnists. "If Safire asserts there is a 'smoking gun' linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, then even David Corn's best shots (which include many citations from Times news stories) aren't going to prove it isn't so." In other words, columnists can lie with impunity. Share your thoughts with Okrent: public@nytimes.com

When we saw this story first on March 28, it proclaimed only "Clarke Doubted", with the only evidence of this being a poll from an undisclosed source. The polls showing Bush nosediving, by contrast are from respected, identified poll services like Zogby. The AP poll claims 2/3 of voters say Clarke's testimony doesn't change their opinion of Bush. But as an MSNBC poll running on March 28 that got over 300,000 hits shows that 2/3 of voters say they will vote against Bush in November, they must be the same 2/3 AP refers to whose opinion of Bush remains unchanged - they STILL don't like him! Now on the 29th, to keep from appearing too ridiculous, AP added a sort of "disclaimer" to the first story: "Clarke Doubted; Bush Support Ebbs." What's next? "Clarke Doubted: Only 75% Believe His Story." Or How about: "Kerry Slumps in Polls to 60%" or "Bush Surges to a 45% Approval Rating?" "

This letter to the "Tennessean" is undoubtedly representative of what is happening all across the US: the public is starting to see the truth about the corporate media. Whenever any news coverage fails to rally round Bush 100%, it is "liberal bias." As a result, Americans have been robbed of the truth concerning some of the nation's most critical issues: Iraq, Medicare, 9/11. How sick the media has become to call telling the truth about these things "bias?" Where is the conscience of those journalists, news editors, publishers and news producers who lost friends and family on 9/11, or who know someone who lost a child, brother, wife, husband, or father in Iraq? We should not be asking them where is their "bias," but instead: "Where is your SOUL?"

"At one point, a college reporter asked Sulzberger a pointed question about one of his newspaper's star writers, Judith Miller, who has been widely criticized for misleading coverage of alleged WMD's in Iraq last year. The publisher defended Miller, saying he had known her 'for decades,' adding that she 'has fabulous sources.' Then he added: 'Were her sources wrong? Absolutely. Her sources were wrong. And you know something? The administration was wrong. And when you're covering it from the inside like that you're going to get things wrong sometimes. So I don't blame Judy Miller for the lack of finding WMD's.' This produced a few laughs from audience members. 'I blame the administration for believing its own story line,' he continued, 'to such a point that they weren't prepared to question the authenticity of what they were told.'" Isn't it the job of the NY Times to question the authenticity of what THEY were told by the biggest bunch of crooks and liars in history?

The next "Media Bias" MeetUp will be held Tuesday, Apr 6 @ 8PM. The exact location(s) remain open for a vote. Vote for your venue now. http://mediabias.meetup.com/ If there are fewer than the 5 Media Bias people required for a MeetUp to happen, you can still help. Sign up and RSVP. Join our own Media Watch project: http://www.democrats.com/media/

On 2/16, Kerry outlined his strategy for fighting terrorism. It was a detailed, comprehensive plan that included funding plans. The ONLY coverage we have found of this important statement is from AP (All Propaganda). It is a short, pointless article that cuts out 9/10 of Kerry's statement (all of the most important parts) and instead inserts quotes from the GOP's Racicot bashing Kerry. The scheme here, of course, is to withhold the meat of Kerry's statements, then have Bush accuse Kerry of having nothing but "vague plans" - with the public never the wiser! Don't let the corporazi media get away with it! Call AP and demand fair coverage. An investigation of corporate media political intrigue should be undertaken, and soon. Here's the REAL statement by Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0315.html

Go to Google or Ask Jeeves (the two most popular news search engines) and put in John Kerry. What you will come up with shock you. The results look as if they were formulated by the Free Republic. Every article in the search done at 12: 55 pm 2/16 in Google was negative. In fact, the first-listed article was from "The Intellectual Conservative," with other articles coming from Townhall.com (ultrarightwing). Ask.com was only slightly better - they used regular newspapers, but apparently are using an algorithm that stacks the results negatively. http://news.ask.com/news?q=%22John+Kerry%22&qsrc=1&news=1&o=0 This is not only a disgrace to America's principles, it is a form of fraud. WRITE GOOGLE and tell them what you think of their abuse of the American public! news-feedback@google.com. For Ask Jeeves, write askjeeves@ask.com

Bush not only has a huge corporate war chest to spend on PR, he also has the full use of the corporate media for free. And they are delivering their services plentifully and aggressively. Here's the latest example: This week, AP debuted its bogus "Fact Checker" feature that purports to be a reality check on campaign claims for both candidates. But it is in fact a thinly disguised Kerry basher. This week's bash implies that Kerry is deceptive and phony in his claims. The SAME DAY NBC Nighly news with Brokaw ran clips from Nixon tapes in which Nixon calls Kerry a phony. Meanwhile, AP, NBC, et al conveniently FAILED to report on the detailed anti-terrorism scheme proposed by Kerry the same day - a major statement.

The corporate media has pushed the Bushie stance that lawsuits are awful things that should not be allowed, especially lawsuits by employees against employers. But, as Columbia Journalism Review reveals, Newsweek's righteously indignant anti-lawsuit articles "failed to mention that since 1999 Newsweek and its sibling, Post-Newsweek Stations, have been the target of such discrimination lawsuits at least three times. The December 15th Newsweek cover story, 'Lawsuit Hell,' extensively quotes Philip K. Howard, a senior attorney at the law firm that represents Newsweek -- Covington & Burling -- but does not disclose that the firm specializes in defending employers against discrimination lawsuits." Newsweek is, we are sure, hardly alone - never forget that in the term "corporate media," the operative word is CORPORATE.

This AP poll shows an astounding disparity between how the rest of the world perceives Bush's role on the global stage and how Americans see that role. While a whopping 60% to 90% of people in several countries see Bush as having a negative role in world affairs, 57% of Americans say they think Bush has a positive role. Why do they think that? Because the US media WANTS them to think that and withholds reality from the public on a daily basis, thanks to the corporate monopoly that now exists over news content in mainstream TV, newspaper, and radio. For example, after Howard Stern criticized Bush, he was removed from the airways in several markets. Meanwhile the rest of the world has greater access to the truth.

Why is the US media fixated on Roman Catholic child abuse cases? A 2002 Christian Science Monitor report says, "Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers. "The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers," says James Cobble of Christian Ministry Resources. Dozens of church-related child sex abuse cases are reported each week in the US - most crimes are perpetrated by VOLUNTEERS... the same group (as in Charitable Choice) that Bush has based so much of his social "scheme" on. Could this be why the media is focusing only on the Catholic case?

Challenge Republican Media Bias at Democrats.com MediaWatch - a working group holding the media accountable for anti-Democratic bias. We're focused like a laser-beam on one subject and one subject only: media malpractice. We lead "rapid response" efforts exposing and opposing media bias against Democrats. We have immediate and significant impact because we focus on specific ACTIONS, not wide-ranging discussions. Our moderators maintain our credibility and usefulness as we:

(1) document specific examples of media bias
(2) take direct, immediate action challenging bias
(3) maintain pressure to END anti-Democratic bias

Go to the site, join the organizational group and the group(s) monitoring your PRIMARY news source(s), the one to three you know best. After you sign up, you will be asked to introduce yourself and explain why you want to participate. Then, you can help combat media bias.

AOL member Belle writes, "AOL only has one message board specifically set up for Democrats and it is in the FREE FOR ALL section. This is a dark and sometimes ugly place. It's par for the course for one's political opinions to be attacked. But, it becomes another matter when AOL turns a blind eye to the personal attacks and information used against posters to persuade them to go away. Here's the real glitch. The following political boards are currently monitored - which means these personal attacks are not allowable and can be more readily removed: Republican Party and Issues, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Socialist Issues. IF you take the extra step of writing to the AOL Supervisors to ask WHY the Democrats are not getting fair treatment, you will get a 'generic reply' back (see example). If you are an AOL user, please ask for the bias against Democrats to STOP!"

William Greider writes, "In forty years of observing presidential contests, I cannot remember another major candidate brutalized so intensely by the media, with the possible exception of George Wallace. Howard Dean contributed some fatal errors of his own, to be sure, but he also brought fresh air and new ideas, a crisp call to revitalize the Democratic Party and at least the outlines of deeper political and economic reforms. The reporters, as surrogate agents for Washington's insider sensibilities, blew him off. Dean's big mistake was in not recognizing, up front, that the media are very much part of the existing order and were bound to be hostile to his provocative kind of politics... The Meet-Ups are a rough start. MoveOn.org is an impressive organizing engine. We may be witnessing the early stages of small-d democratic, in which people impose new technologies and new social realities on tired old institutions... the doctor may yet be remembered as the herald of something new."

"CBS has stopped running the Bush administration's publicly funded advertisement for the new Medicare prescription drug law, pending a review of its content by congressional investigators. The 30-second ad, titled 'Same Medicare. More Benefits,' has prompted strong criticism from Democratic lawmakers and a range of interest groups who say it is a barely disguised commercial for President Bush's reelection campaign. Democrats asked the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, to examine whether the administration should be using taxpayer money to air the commercial."

"In the run-up to the Super Bowl, CBS refused to run MoveOn Voter Fund's 'Child's Pay' ad. CBS executives claimed they had a blanket policy against all so-called 'issue' ads. Yesterday, we learned that the network plans to broadcast an ad promoting the Bush Medicare prescription drug law. This is part of a $13 million taxpayer-financed TV campaign to take the heat off the White House for pushing through a drug plan that benefits drug companies and insurance companies more than Medicare recipients. If that isn't a controversial issue ad, we don't know what is. But since CBS appears to be changing its policy, we've submitted our own Medicare ad which exposes the facts behind this spin campaign to run on CBS. Please give CBS a call today at (212) 975-4321 to let them know that they need to either pull the White House ads or run ours."

This article in Newsday is a classic example of what to expect in coming weeks as Kerry gains momentum. The article, complete with highly slanted headline ("Comments Catch Up to Kerry") goes to convoluted lengths to cast suspicions on Kerry's honesty. Funny, the SAME media used the SAME tactic on Al Gore in 2000. But the media manipulation is even worse now. For example, the article leads with a paragraph on Kerry's one-time questioning of affirmative action. Right next to this section is an ad that pictures a black man with the caption "I Got the Job Because..." This tactic, along with manipulative placement of stories is popping up like toadstools in the media. Help us highlight the B.S.! Join our Media Watch (http://democrats.com/media) to fight against anti-Dem bias.

Media Bias threatens our freedom in America. Please join and/or moderate one or two Media Watch groups. Go to this site: http://www.democrats.com/media for more information. We could use some public awareness and if we can get some support from Common Cause, that would help a lot! FEBRUARY 11 is Common Cause MeetUp Day - sign up for updates, attend this month and push our Media Watch project. You can vote for a venue and RSVP for your MeetUp at http://commoncause.meetup.com. This month, MeetUps will focus on the FCC and how partisan politics threaten the independence of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Common Cause web site: http://www.commoncause.org/meetup. Contact Common Cause at meetings@commoncause.org to get your questions answered.

"Clear Channel's dominance in the radio market also makes it harder for local musicians and artists to get their music played on local stations. The conglomerate controls radio stations and owns concert promotion companies (as well as concert venues) and serves as a virtual gatekeeper controlling the two gates artists must pass through 'to have a career in this industry,' says Ray Hair, president of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada local in Dallas. Clear Channel's political connections and actions also are troubling. The report cites more than $50,000 in contributions from Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays to George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaign in 1998 and more than $1 million in contributions by Clear Channel to Republican candidates between 2000 and 2002. At the same time, media watchdog groups say some Clear Channel stations have refused to air ads paid for by the Democratic National Committee."

Democrats.com MediaWatch (http://democrats.com/media) is a brand-new campaign to challenge pro-Republican media bias. Media Watch has 3 goals: (1) document specific examples of anti-Democratic media bias (2) take direct, immediate action to challenge anti-Democratic bias (3) keep up the pressure to END anti-Democratic bias. Our goal is to have an immediate and significant impact. Therefore we focus on specific ACTIONS, not wide-ranging discussions. We need Media Watchdog volunteers to report media abuses, and we need experienced moderators to help keep the groups running smoothly. Please volunteer now!

In the LA Times, Alexander Stille writes, "Diane Sawyer's interview with Howard Dean and his wife last week was a textbook case of everything that is wrong with television coverage of politics. It reduced his campaign to the banal level of mere personality and perceived missteps, replacing issues with image - it was a frame-up. Out of the 96 questions that Sawyer asked, 90 were about personality and temperament and only six were even vaguely about issues; virtually all 96 were hostile and negative. Thirty-six were about Dean's supposedly out-of-control Iowa concession speech, his alleged bad temper and the loss of momentum of his campaign. ('So did you lose your temper at [your son's] hockey game?') The 10-second yell in his Iowa concession speech was replayed three times during the interview, along with riffs by David Letterman and Jay Leno. ('How does it feel, to be the object of all these jokes?')"

"MWO has learned from highly informed Washington sources that Howard 'Mistah' Kurtz faces numerous dangerous charges of conflict-of-interest and influence peddling in his media column at the Washington Post...The charges stem from documented instances of Kurtz's involvement in what appears to be insider trading of information aimed at enriching his wife, GOP right-wing media consultant Sheri Annis...'No one has used the word 'fired' yet,' one source close to the investigation told MWO, 'but Kurtz better be watching his back.'...Developing"

Does the NY Times endorse Big Lies that produce criminal wars and countless deaths? The answer is YES - or they would not give Richard Perle prized op ed space. Perle, of course, is a key architect of the massive campaign of lies (non-existent WMD's and Al Qaeda ties) that brainwashed Americans to go along with Bush's illegal and costly invasion of Iraq. This is just the latest act in a career devoted to putting war over peace, including sabotaging President Clinton's Mideast peacemaking efforts, leading to three years of bloody violence (search .compass for Richard Perle). Now Perle is on a search-and-destroy mission against the next Democratic nominee, whoever he is. Perle's attack on the Democrats is a moral, intellectual, and political atrocity. Demand an apology - and equal time for all remaining Democratic candidates - from Executive Editor Bill Keller keller@nytimes.com and Public Editor Dan Okrent public@nytimes.com

Political and media analyst Paul Waldman describes a fundamental difference between liberal and rightwing journalists: liberals tend to at least pursue objectivity, while rightwingers rarely bother. George W. Bush has benefited from this imbalance, because the people who echo his lies so greatly outnumber the people who at least try to report the real facts. Waldman says he's not trying to bash the press, but they need to do a better job of questioning authority and stop giving Bush "the path to lie."

"A majority of nightly network newscast evaluations of Democratic Presidential frontrunner Howard Dean were negative during the 2003 'preseason,' while three-quarters of the coverage given to the other eight candidates was favorable, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds network airtime devoted to the campaign is down 62 percent from the year before the 1996 election, the last race involving an incumbent president... Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of former Vermont governor in 2003 were positive while the rest of the democratic field collectively received 78 percent favorable coverage... Nearly two out of every three on-air descriptions of the Democratic candidates were positive on ABC (64% positive) and CBS (63% positive), while NBC painted a more negative picture of the candidates in 2003 (46% positive assessments)."

"Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday. More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found."

Maureen Dowd's resume includes 30 years in journalism and a Pulitzer Prize. It does NOT, however, include a marriage or children. (She is reported to have dated Michael Douglas in 1998 and Aaron Sorkin in 2003). So where does MoDo get off giving marriage advice to Drs. Howard Dean and Judith Steinberg? Especially since it's such stupid advice! "What will she tell their grandkids?" wondered one political reporter here. "Yeah, Grandpa was once a front-runner for president with crowds all over America cheering him but I was too busy to go see it?" Dear Goddess, how we miss Anna Quindlen! E-mail dowd@nytimes.com

CNNFOX's Paula Zahn wanted to attack Howard Dean for asking why Bush adamantly refuses to tell the truth about 9-11. So Zahn tried to put campaign manager Joe Trippi on the spot by reading only PART of Dean's quote, while refusing to read the FULL quote. Happily, Trippi challenged Zahn right to her face, accusing her of "trading on rumors," refuting Zahn's distortion, and demanding that she read the rest of the quote. Read the exchange and click on the "comment" link below it. Is Paula Zahn just a media whore? Some readers believe that comparison is an insult to sex workers.

When Michael Jackson was sought by police late last year, the mainstream media could have cared less whether he had actually been charged with a crime yet - they had a field day anyway. But check out this accidentally leaked 'kill order" from AP on a story about Rush Limbaugh! "Please kill the story Limbaugh-Painkillers, V9991. Rush Limbaugh has not been charged with doctor shopping. A kill is MANDATORY. Make sure the story is not used." Also, notice how Limbaugh, who took up to a thousand illegally-obtained narcotic pills per month, is always described as "taking painkillers" - he is never referred to by the mainstream media as what he is: a JUNKIE or NARCOTICS ADDICT. "AP" stands for American Propaganda.

Geov Parrish writes, "Enter 2004 with our annual list of the past year's most overhyped and underreported - and misreported - stories. Remember, they told us they'd lie to us. They were telling the truth." Here's Parrish's excellent list: The Bush tax cuts have flopped. Corporate corruption continues to run amok. Health care in America is in crisis. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. The Taliban is making a comeback. The peace movement was right - and still is - about Iraq. The catastrophe that has been the U.S. administration of Iraq. Privatization and corporate looting of Iraq. Israel's apartheid wall. Africa, Africa, Africa. The collapse of the "Washington consensus." Bush v. Constitution. The U.S. remains the biggest terrorist nation in the world."

W. David Jenkins III writes: "I swear, if I hear one more idiot blaring at top volume and foaming at the mouth over the 'liberal media' I'm gonna shoot my television. I both pity and loathe those who have irresponsibly succumbed to the misfortune of believing what they are told through that miserable squawk-box and the idiots with the blown-dry hair who act as nothing more than an empty extension of that device. As luck (?) would have it, this little rant was interrupted by Bush coming out live to talk tough about Libya giving up and wanting to do whatever Bush wanted them to do. Exactly what the hell is going on? What? Did James Baker take a little detour during his Strong-arming the Allies tour? Where did this come from? What? Did Saddam's arrest already run out of steam?"

From TVNewsLies.org: "We come to bury 2003 -- not to praise it. For this was the year of distraction, not news. It was the year of diversion, not information. It was the year in which TV 'news' became a political tool to promote a war and protect the secrets of a furtive administration. It was a year which gave new meaning to the phrase, 'No news is good news.' And it was the year whose passing we will not mourn." Some of the Top Buried Stories of 2003: Dick Cheney's Secret Energy Meetings; The Voting Machine Scandal; The Project for a New American Century; The 9/11 Investigation; The Protest Against the War; The Lies that Led to War; The Civilian Casualties of 'Shock and Awe' and its Aftermath; Ahmed Chalabi -- the Real Story; Staging the Saddam Statue Drama; Halliburton and Friends; The Wilson Leak.

The episode of "Threat Matrix" titled "Alpha 126" (originally aired 10/30/03) was rerun 12-22-03. The show was a thinly-veiled piece of Bush administration propaganda, a kangaroo court which tried the question of torture of prisoners (in violation of international law and the Geneva convention) with a predetermined outcome: "Torture of a prisoner to death is justified if it is intended to prevent a tragedy like 9/11". Of course, in real life, government agencies under the Bush administration have not performed as brilliantly as the crack intelligence team depicted on this show. The last scene of this episode showed the chief torturer (played by Kelly Rutherford) returning to headquarters with applause from her admiring colleagues. Hitler would have loved to have this kind of propaganda support for his concentration camps. Complain to netaudr@abc.com

This BBC report is typical of the spin being fed to the public in the US and UK in the past two days. Immediately following Saddam's capture, Bush climbed about 3% in the polls - barely a blip, considering the magnitude of the event. And that was before it became clear that conditions in Iraq were unchanged by the capture. Instead of describing a two-day increase of 3% as a "transient boost," the BBC here describes it as "a setback for the Democrats"! So how would they describe a five-day increase of 4% - a "Democratic rout?" This is the kind of spin to expect in 2004!

American Journalism Review: "One of the [media] activists' main claims is that the more giant conglomerates come to control the media, the more they stifle viewpoints at odds with their interests. Their failure to cover the FCC story seemed like Exhibit A. To try to measure how much of a media blackout there really was, AJR reviewed the coverage of a number of news outlets. Television fared the worst in our survey. For the first five months of this year, leading up to June 2, when the FCC formally voted to relax the ownership rules, we found virtually no coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox and CNN. While some newspapers produced a respectable flurry of stories in the weeks prior to the FCC's action, the major networks--where most people get their news--acknowledged the issue only after protests in Washington had grown impossible to ignore."

Earlier this week, Putin suggested he might renege on the Kyoto Protocol. Now there's a public outcry against Putin's systematic suppression of news unfavorable to him and his government. Sound familiar? - Must be a "soul mate" thing. "Leaders of Russia's main opposition parties unleashed a torrent of invective yesterday against [Putin]... complaining that the Kremlin was cramming the airwaves with 'distortion and lies' in the run-up to Sunday's elections to the Duma, the lower house. The outbursts came from the Communists as well as the Union of Right Forces (SPS), the chief proponent of free-market economics, on the right, with the moderate reformist Yabloko Party chiming in timidly from the sidelines. The leader of the Russian Communist Party said the elections already had no chance of being 'either free or fair'. This was broadcast yesterday on a single television channel in some of the party's allocated campaign airtime."

Kevin Drum writes, "BURIED....I noted in passing this morning while reading the LA Times that the story about the theft of Democratic computer files was limited to a Reuters dispatch on page 14. The Washington Post ran a few paragraphs on page 23. And the New York Times also limited itself to wire service copy. I now confidently await howls of outrage from the usual suspects about the mainstream media ignoring this story."... Atrios: "As Kevin Drum notes, the theft of private files from Democrats is being universally ignored by the SCLM [so-called liberal media]. Of course, literally all of their files could have been compromised by Republican operatives, but this only merits a yawn. Look! Al Gore grew a beard!"

BBC News: "A report commissioned by the BBC has found that reporters 'embedded' with military units during the war in Iraq gave a sanitised picture of events. Closeness to the units did not make reporters less objective, the study by the Cardiff School of Journalism says. However, it concludes that British broadcasting culture made it impossible to show the full horror of war... The authors said that embedded reporters actually provided a more balanced account than some studio-based journalists, who were sometimes 'inadvertently tilted towards certain pro-war assumptions'... However, the team were concerned that, for 'entirely laudable' reasons, it was impossible to show particularly violent or graphic images on British television. Journalists were aware of this and fashioned their coverage accordingly, with the result that people felt they were watching a 'made for TV' version of war that was sanitised and almost fictional."

"Sign the petition to Boycott CBS through November sweeps unless they stop giving in to the hysterical right, and broadcast their miniseries about the Reagans as originally conceived!" And contact CBS directly: Mr. Leslie Moonves, CBS Chairman and CEO, (212) 975-3247, audsvcs@cbs.com

As of 11-6-03, 381 brave young American soldiers have DIED in Iraq, and thousands have been physically or psychologically scarred for life. Why? Because Bush LIED. Has the NY Times written a single editorial condemning Bush for lying - not just about Iraq, but about EVERYTHING? Absolutely not! But the moment Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean said something that was merely stupid - not a LIE resulting in WAR - the Times immediately went on the attack. "Dr. Dean is going to have to demonstrate that his Confederate flag moment was a one-shot, recoverable gaffe and not a symptom of something more haunting, like a pattern of misspeaking or a hardheaded combativeness that makes it impossible to give way with grace." We've said it before - until the Times admits that Al Gore WON Florida, and apologizes to its readers for LYING about the media recount in 2001 - they have absolutely no right to "advise" Democrats on campaign strategy. Cancel your subscription and write letters@nytimes.com

Rebecca Traister writes, "Pundits on the right have been stirring up the faithful ever since reports of the script broke in the Oct. 21 New York Times. That night, Fox's 'Hannity & Colmes' featured conservative talk show host - and famous adopted son - Michael Reagan who, after being egged on by host Sean Hannity ('You know, Michael, I love your dad, you know that'), blasted the movie, saying it 'just proves the point that Hollywood has always hated Ronald Reagan.' The same night, over on MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough darkly postulated that 'CBS could never bring down Ronald Reagan when he was president. So now they're getting their revenge on one of our greatest presidents in his final days.'... The success of the Fox-led crusade against CBS underlines the growing power of Rupert Murdoch's 'fair and balanced' network." (Salon Premium)

David Podvin writes, "The Washington Post has devolved from being the vaunted citadel of American investigative journalism to little more than a gelding cheerleader for the current occupant of the White House. The moral collapse at the Post has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with greed. When the Washington Post Company announced its earnings on October 31, [it said]: 'Revenue rose 10% to $706.1 million from $640.3 million, helped by 40% revenue growth at Kaplan division. Newspaper-publishing revenue grew 4.4% to $211.4 million, but revenue declined in both the TV and magazine-publishing divisions.' ... The explosive growth at Kaplan was due to the largesse of George Bush, the politician whom the company's flagship newspaper treats with tender loving care. It is the Bush program mandating the testing of schoolchildren across America -- tests for which Kaplan supplies materials - that makes the federal government a lucrative source of revenue for the Post's cash cow."

Led by front-page stories by Judith Miller in the fall of 2002, the NY Times beat the drums for war in Iraq as loud as FOX News and the Pentagon Post. When thousands and then millions of people took to the streets to protest the war, the Times blacked them out. When Democrats like Sen. Robert Byrd and Rep. Dennis Kucinich condemned the war, the Times pretended they didn't exist. When Bush started the war in violation of U.S. law and the U.N. Charter, the Times was utterly silent. When Bush was exposed time and again as LYING about Iraq's WMD's and its ties to Al Qaeda and 9-11, the Times barely mumbled. But now that Democrats are criticizing Bush's Iraq debacle, the Times is OUTRAGED - at the DEMOCRATS! Cancel your NY Times subscription and send your comments to letters@nytimes.com

Right-wing talk radio was crucial to Arnold's victory - but so was mainstream TV. Peter Dreier writes, "The 'celebrity' nature of the campaign was compounded when Oprah Winfrey invited Arnold and Maria Shriver on her show to help Schwarzenegger combat the growing exposes of his long-standing crude behavior toward women. Oprah's audience is primarily composed of women. Arnold and Maria told Oprah about their blissful marriage and wonderful family. He also appeared on the 'Larry King' TV show and responded to King's softball questions. Shockingly, neither Leno nor Winfrey felt compelled to invite other candidates to appear on their shows for 'equal time' balance. Since Reagan, the FCC no longer has such an 'equal time' provision; moreover, the Leno and Winfrey shows are not considered 'news,' but 'entertainment' - more evidence of the increasingly blurry lines between politics and show biz." Bush's 2000 kiss on Oprah won him thousands of crucial votes. We demand Equal Time!

Bill Moyers writes: "Such indignation from the grass roots caused even the United States Senate to say 'Whoa, something's going on -- people really care about this.' And the Senate stopped the FCC in its tracks. There are enough votes to do the same in the House. But then... General Electric, owner of NBC; News Corp, owner of Fox; Viacom, owner of CBS; and Walt Disney, owner of ABC, brought on the hired guns -- the lobbyists -- to wage a Trojan War on Congress. A passel of former insiders moved through the revolving door, Rolodexs in hand, trading their influence for cash -- top aides of the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Whip and of John Ashcroft himself. Now the most powerful Republican in Congress -- Tom Delay, the House Majority Leader -- won't allow a vote to happen. The effort to reverse the FCC is dead in the water -- taking democracy with it."

"Some say the Washington press corps is biased toward the left or right. David Corn agrees there is bias but believes it is a 'bias towards officialdom. ... It includes the White House, Congress and people in the cabinets.' D.C. reporters, he says, are simply not comfortable doing 'anything that could be seen as challenging the agenda or anything that could be seen too much as crusading.'... Corn views this press bias towards 'officialdom' and a 'pack' mentality in the Washington press corps as reasons why it took major news outlets until September to report a story he broke in July, just two days after Novak's column originally appeared. Washington reporters say, 'Get it first, but first get it second,' Corn said. 'Every reporter wants a scoop, but it's hard to see outside the pack.'"

Murdoch's Mole at the NY Times - a.k.a. David Brooks, who still writes for Murdoch's Weekly Standard - was part of Right Wing Propaganda Machine that relentlessly manufactured lies against Bill Clinton to drive him from office. But now that Murdoch's Mole in the White House - George W. Bush - is under serious fire from researchers who have exposed Bush's never-ending lies, Brooks declares it's time to stop attacking Presidents. In fact, Brooks thinks our expression of political anger - the very heart and soul of democracy and the First Amendment - makes US the enemies of democracy, not those who steal elections. Brooks concludes, "The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." We're not going to take this sitting down! Tell the NY Times to fire Murdoch's Mole - letters@nytimes.com

"For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration implied that... Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks... An oft-cited [WashPost] poll... revealed that 69% of Americans continue to believe it likely that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11... So when... Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was 'no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th' attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings... Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14. The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all."

"CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN 'was intimidated' by the Bush administration and Fox News, which 'put a climate of fear and self-censorship.' As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administration line in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.... Said Amanpour: 'I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.'"

The NY Times has found something to get deeply outraged about. No, not Bush's Iraq lies. No, not Bush's horrific exploitation of the tragedy of 9-11. No, not the total corruption of the US government by Bush. No, the Times is outraged that NOW - the National Organization for WOMEN - and the National WOMEN's POLITICAL CAUCUS have endorsed Carol Moseley Braun for President. Anyone who was watched the debates knows Braun is as articulate and knowledgable as the rest of the field. So does the Times believe Braun is unqualified because she's a woman - or black - or both? In other words, is the Times sexist - or racist - or both? E-mail letters@nytimes.com

"Like most of the US, American Muslims spent the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in remembrance. They participated in peace walks, offered support for counter-terrorism efforts, and held memorial events.... But the most visible mention of Muslim 9/11 events focused on the UK-based extremist group al-Muhajiroun.... 'For me, these 19 people were magnificent people,' said al-Muhajiroun member Abu Zahid. Some variation of this quote can be found in a hundred different news articles published on 9/11, despite the fact that the group [does] not control even one of Britain's estimated 1,000 mosques.... Why would a group as small and inconsequential as this one get so much media attention? Perhaps it's because they provide such a focal point for the anger that still exists over the attacks, or maybe the sensationalism of covering 9/11 sympathizers is too much to pass up. Regardless, it just shows that the actions of a few can indeed be made to outweigh the actions of thousands."

Norman Solomon writes, "As the summer of 2003 nears its end, most newspaper editorials are decidedly less complacent about the occupation of Iraq. Some lambast the Bush administration for deceptive spin, poor planning and go-it-alone arrogance. A big worry is that the U.S. government now faces a quagmire. During the late 1960s, that kind of concern grew at powerful media institutions.... But here's a revealing fact: In early 1968, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of 39 major U.S. daily newspapers and found that not a single one had editorialized in favor of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. While millions of Americans were demanding an immediate pullout, such a concept was still viewed as extremely unrealistic by the editorial boards of big daily papers - including the liberal New York Times and Washington Post. Yes, some editorials fretted about a quagmire. But the emphasis was on developing a winnable strategy - not ending the war. Pull out the U.S. troops? The idea was unthinkable."

"For weeks, the US media provided intense coverage of demonstrations that they acknowledged amounted to no more than 'hundreds' of people, and, one suspects, often considerably less. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and the rest carried items 24 hours a day on the small band of fundamentalists in Alabama's state capital marching, praying and shouting outside the court building.... Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments display has rallied religious zealots from across the US. The media has treated their small protests as though they reflected the thoughts and feelings of the American 'heartland.' The largest pro-Moore rally yet attracted 1,500 to 2,500 people. The daily protests of hundreds of deluded individuals have been meticulously reported upon, whereas US and worldwide demonstrations of MILLIONS against the Bush administration's war plans last February - the largest protests in world history - were barely covered by the American media and the story quickly buried."

"I sat down to write. Nothing. So I got on my knees and prayed for guidance. 'How, God, can I best do Your work through this book? Who, dear Lord, is the audience for a book like this? And what's a good title?' God answered, 'YOU KNOW THOSE (expletive) BOOKS BY ANN COULTER AND BERNIE GOLDBERG?' 'The best-sellers that claim there's a liberal bias in the media?' I asked. 'TOTAL (expletive),' God said. 'START BY ATTACKING THEM. HE'S CLEARLY A DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEE, AND SHE JUST LIES. BY THE WAY, THERE'S SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH HER.' 'That's pretty obvious.' 'SO GO AFTER THEM, THE WHOLE LIBERAL BIAS MYTH, AND THEN GO AFTER THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA. ESPECIALLY FOX.' 'Okay, God, I'm writing this down.' 'THEN USE THEM AS A JUMPING-OFF POINT TO GO AFTER BUSH. YOU KNOW, BIG TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, SURGING UNEMPLOYMENT, IGNORING EVERYONE BUT HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES, SCREWING THE ENVIRONMENT, PISSING OFF THE REST OF THE WORLD. THAT STUFF. AND THAT'S YOUR BOOK.'"

"After a month and a half in which Palestinians were being killed several times a week and receiving relatively little mention, the Washington Post and New York Times both put the bombings on their August 13 front pages, each declaring the violence a break from weeks of 'relative calm,' and each including a front-page photo of the victims' relatives in mourning. USA Today also put grieving relatives on the front page, along with the headline, 'Two Suicide Attacks End a Six-Week Lull in Conflict.' One can empathize with the losses of those survivors while recognizing that the families of the Palestinians who died during the 'lull' were virtually invisible. ... In order to convey the Mideast crisis in all its complexity, journalists need to take seriously the violence suffered by all communities. References to 'relative calm' while Palestinians are being routinely killed only serve to trivialize human life and obscure the cycle of violence that afflicts the region."

The Pentagon Post is now officially schizophrenic. On the VERY SAME DAY it published a NEWS story proving the Busheviks deliberately manufactured lies about Iraq's nuclear program to bamboozle America into war, it ran an EDITORIAL denouncing the view that "we were all somehow bamboozled into war." Why is the editorial department attacking the news department? Because the news department's report supports the argument of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats. This outrageous screed shows Editorial page Editor Fred Hiatt HATES Al Gore and HATES Democrats - and he will attack anyone - including his own News department - who presents facts supporting Democrats. Write Hiatt at hiattf@washpost.com, Ombudsman Michael Getler at ombudsman@washpost.com, and media analyst Howie Kurtz KurtzH@washpost.com and demand an END to attacks on Al Gore and the Democrats for telling the truth - and a START to simple declarations that BUSH LIED and SOLDIERS DIE.

A Bushwatch.com summary of a Howard Kurtz article: "A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages [of the Wall Street Journal And the Washington Times] are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages [of the New York Times and the Washington Post] are to take on a Democratic administration. [The study] examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable.... The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time. The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time. One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time."

As with past speeches by Al Gore, the cable news networks censored Gore AGAIN. CNN ran teasers in advance, then didn't show the speech at all, cutting to Colin Powell instead; MSNBC and FOX covered a couple of minutes, then cut away as fast as they could. MSNBC added insult to injury by letting Republican hatchetman Rich Galen attack Gore WHILE HE WAS SPEAKING. C-Span re-ran some old programs, and waited many hours to show the speech. Express your outrage! Call/e-mail CNN 404-827-1500 cnn@cnn.com, FOX 212-301-3000 comments@foxnews.com, and MSNBC 201-583-5000 TheNews@msnbc.com, and viewer@c-span.org and call during talk shows: Democrats (202) 585-3881, Others (202) 585-3882. We invite you to share copies of your letters with the members of Democrats.community (membership required).

NY Times reports, "Seeking to mend the damage to the credibility and staff morale of The New York Times following a reporter's extensive fabrications, the newspaper's new executive editor today accepted the major recommendations of an internal committee, including the appointment of a 'public editor' to serve as a representative for readers." Does that mean the Times will become ACCOUNTABLE for its lies? Question #1: How could the NY Times conclude on 11-12-01 that the Media Consortium's "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote" - when that study concluded Al Gore won under 6 of 9 scenarios? Question #2: Will the Times admit that it manufactured the Whitewater scandal based on discredited leaks from the Bush I administration? Question #3: Will the Times apologize for Judith Miller's fictional reporting on 'WMDs' -- and then fire her? That's just for starters...

AP reports: "The Justice Department is investigating Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio owner, amid complaints about consolidation and the use of coercive tactics. R. Hewitt Pate, assistant attorney general for antitrust, told a House subcommittee on Thursday that there was an investigation into Clear Channel, which is based in San Antonio. Officials would not disclose any details about the inquiry." Given the cozy financial and personal relationships between Bush and Clear Channel execs (as well as that Clear Channel is a main propaganda organ for the RNC) -- we can expect this investigation to be a whitewash.

MediaReform.net reports: "[On Tuesday], advocates of rolling back the FCC rules won a huge victory. Why and how it was a victory is a complicated and remarkable story. Here's how it happened. After weeks of high-pressure backlash from public voices from across the political spectrum, the normally disciplined House Republicans first cracked last week. In the full committee mark-up of the CJS appropriations bill (which allocates funding for the FCC), 11 Republicans joined all 29 Democrats on the committee to successfully adopt an amendment offered by ranking Democrat Mr. David Obey. This amendment would block funding for the implementation of the new rule that would extend the national TV ownership cap from 35% to 45%. Against pressure from Republican leaders and a veto threat from White House advisors, the passage of this amendment was highly significant."

"The Roman Catholic archbishop of Birmingham has criticised an 'unholy alliance' between politicians and the media,' reports the BBC. This unholy alliance said Vincent Nichols, cynically manipulated public opinion Nichols told his congregation in a sermon this weekend, 'It distresses me deeply to think that there are people in positions of eminent public responsibility who know the answer to the questions Dr Kelly was being asked. Yet they remain silent...' Nichols added that when public life and the media are so 'devoid of compassion', and become 'cavalier with the truth', they become a distortion of their true purpose. 'It is time for us to recover some of our finer qualities and enshrine them again in our public and civic life.'" Amen!

"The largest ten media firms own all US TV networks, most TV stations, all major film studios, all major music companies, nearly all cable TV channels, much of the book and magazine publishing [industry], and much, much more. Expensive investigative journalism -- especially that which goes after national security or powerful corporate interests -- is discouraged. Largely irrelevant human interest/tragedy stories get extensive coverage. A few weeks after the war began in Afghanistan, CNN president Isaacson authorized CNN to provide two different versions of the war: a more critical one for the global audience and a sugarcoated one for Americans It is nearly impossible to conceive of a better world without some changes in the media status quo. We have no time to waste." Robert McChesney, from 'Into the Buzzsaw.'

Cheryl Seal writes, "There is no such beast as the Liberal Media. It was created and perpetuated by the right-wingers, born of post-World War II paranoia and gaining great steam during the McCarthy era. By late 2000, of the 25 most prominent political columnists, only six could be described as liberal, while 15 were classed as conservative and the rest moderates. While the conservative columnists shared over 3,000 regular clients between them (newspapers, radio stations, etc.), liberals shared only 850, and moderates even less. Of the dozen or so most popular radio talk show hosts, all but two were conservatives, most on the extreme right.... As of 2003, this situation has improved very little, with only two or three new liberal pundits, including James Carville, getting any real air time. In any case, no matter how you tweak and tug it, this hardly adds up to a 'liberal media.'"

Greenville News reports: "A former Upstate radio personality says she was fired for opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a lawsuit filed Monday. Roxanne Cordonier, who went by the name Roxanne Walker on the air at WMYI-FM/MY 102.5 in Greenville, alleges she was belittled, reprimanded and ultimately fired on April 17 for disagreeing with her co-hosts on the 'Love and Hudson' show. WMYI, its parent company Clear Channel Communications, Bill McMartin, the company's regional vice president and general manager and Greg McKinney, station program director, are all named as defendants in the suit... Cordonier alleges in the suit that some of the Clear Channel officers and directors have financial ties and are loyal to President [sic] Bush and his policies. It alleges that Cordonier was forced to participate in a pro-war rally. The suit cites a state law that declares a person cannot be fired because of political opinions."

"But on June 2, by a 3-to-2 vote, the FCC raised the limit to 45%, giving big media firms the chance to gobble up many more local TV stations. In fact, a single giant corporation will be able to control up to three of the television stations in America's nine largest cities. The FCC also opened the door to local TV-newspaper mergers in many places, so you'll be getting your news and information from the same company regardless of whether you're turning on the TV or opening the newspaper. Why is this bad? Because more monolithic control over local media will reduce the diversity of information, opinion and entertainment people get. Interesting local coverage will be supplanted by lowest-common-denominator mass-market mush."

"Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows. But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence... The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story. If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story, please see FAIR's Media Contact list." Please see the bottom of the linked article for the contact list.

WashPost reports: "News Corp.'s purchase of a controlling interest in the DirecTV home satellite service should be blocked because it will mean higher prices and could lead to collusion between News Corp. and cable companies, DirecTV's biggest competitor said yesterday. In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, EchoStar Communications Corp. -- whose bid for DirecTV was blocked by federal regulators -- said News Corp.'s acquisition of DirecTV and its 12 million customers 'does not serve the public interest and raises competitive concerns for a number of reasons.'"

"The Senate Commerce Committee voted Thursday to overturn parts of a Federal Communications Commission decision freeing media companies from decades-old ownership limits and allowing them to buy more outlets and merge in new ways... The bill, sponsored by Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., would roll back the national ownership limit so a company can own TV stations reaching only 35 percent of U.S. households instead of 45 percent. The bill passed by a voice vote. The proposed legislation also would reinstate a ban on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. However, it would allow state regulators to recommend to the FCC exemptions for small communities where a merger may be needed to support media outlets in financial trouble... An amendment narrowly approved 12-11 would expand new, stricter radio ownership rules so they apply to existing and future deals. " Thanks to everyone who contacted their Senators in opposition to the FCC ruling! Let's keep up the fight!

A Democrats.com member writes, "Assistance is needed with sending e-mails to C-SPAN's Washington Journal to complain about nearly 3 months of no major Democrats appearing on Washington Journal between the hours of 6 and 8 A.M CENTRAL TIME. C-SPAN also refuses to have union leaders to appear to counter the misinformation stemming from Homeland Security as well as environmental leaders to present real facts to the American people about our environment. 6-8 A.M. CENTRAL TIME is crucial to the Central and Eastern time zone in countering the right wing agenda. Brian Lamb has thus far not agreed that there is a problem and showed arrogance on the show when another called in and complained. Apparently guest control may have been removed from him and is now under control of Comcast. We need an email each day that a major Democrat does not appear between 6 and 8 CENTRAL TIME." E-mail Journal@C-SPAN.org

From Moveon.org: "On June 2nd, the FCC let giant media companies get even bigger, despite overwhelming opposition from the American public. But June 2nd ignited a movement to take that power back, and June 19 is the next big day in the fight, as legislation reversing several FCC rules will come before the Senate Commerce Committee. The legislation up for a vote in Committee is S.1046, and it would overturn some of the most egregious parts of the FCC rule change. This bipartisan bill would keep a single company from owning broadcast outlets that reach more than 35% of American households (as opposed to 45% post-rule-change). A crucial amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and Snowe would keep newspapers and TV stations from merging. Two minutes of your time will make the difference: Please take action now."

"Asked about the front page since Mr. Raines' departure, and whether it heralded a new regime at The Times, [Arthur Sulzberger Jr.] bristled. 'Now we're going to parse the Bible?' he said incredulously." The NY Times is to be compared to the Bible? "'It was never Jayson Blair,' he continued. 'Jayson Blair as an issue went away. It was not a tipping point. It was more what one would call a cultural issue'... 'One of the reasons [Howell Raines] became editorial page editor,' Ms. Tifft said, 'was that Arthur wanted someone who could get noticed. He recognized lyrical writing and felt comfortable in [Mr. Raines'] ability to engage the big moral question of the day.' And he did. Mr. Raines attacked Bill Clinton... and received Mr. Sulzberger's support. But there were still problems." The NY Times brass also greenlighted, if not encouraged, the distorted reporting of Jeff Gerth on Whitewater and Chinagate, Maureen Dowd's smears of the Clintons and Gores -- and Judith Miller's WMD fiction.

"Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, told a panel of mostly critical U.S. senators that the old regulations could not withstand legal scrutiny. The new rules stood a better chance of being upheld, he said... After strong denunciations earlier this week, many senators critical of the ruling tempered their remarks. Still, lawmakers in both parties called for the agency to reconsider its new rules and some called for the Congress to override the FCC. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., issued the sharpest reproach, saying the agency acted more like a 'lapdog' for big media companies instead of a 'watchdog' for the public interest. 'I hope to overturn what you did,' she said. The two Democrats on the FCC commission seconded that idea. 'We really need your help,' said Jonathan Adelstein. 'The public interest, if not dead, is mortally wounded' Michael Copps... called Powell's handling of the issue 'grossly violative' of the spirit of the agency process."

"I dissent to this decision. I dissent on grounds of substance. I dissent on grounds of process. I dissent because today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America's New Media Elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the media on which our society and our democracy so heavily depend."

"This is a sad day for me, and I think for the Country. I'm afraid a dark storm cloud is now looming over the future of the American Media. This is the most sweeping and destructive rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of American broadcasting."

From Sen. Fritz Holling's website: "Reacting to the Federal Communications Commission's decision today to relax many of the nation's broadcast ownership rules, U.S. Senators Fritz Hollings, Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Trent Lott (R-MS) told reporters today that the decision will not be the final word in the matter. Citing both his pending legislation and potential appropriations language to prevent the FCC's rule changes, Sen. Hollings made clear that the fight to preserve the current broadcast ownership rules is far from over. 'This is such a disastrous proceeding and finding and rule by the commission itself this morning that I'm convinced that we've got to weigh-in in the Congress,' said Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. 'The people, they want to be heard. This concentration is absolutely in opposition to the interests of the public itself. And there's no ground for it. There's no reason for it other than greed.'"

Mike Hersh exposes more bias in the media. Bush's partisans whine when one of their usually loyal supporters steps out of line to question 'the glorious leader.' Here, the Daily News attacks Maureen Dowd of the NY Times claiming she 'famously dislikes' Bush and even 'calls him names and says mean things about him.' Is this the professional media or a play school? And why pick on Dowd after all the praise she's given Bush?

Molly Ivins writes: "This is a gross scandal. The Center for Public Integrity has a stunning study out on the concentration of ownership in telecommunications. The even more stunning news is that the Federal Communications Commission, which theoretically represents you and me, [has just made] all of it even worse. And behind this betrayal of the public trust is nothing but rotten, old-fashioned corruption. It's the old free-trip-to-Vegas ploy, on a grand scale. The Public Integrity people examined the travel records of FCC employees and found that they have accepted 2,500 trips, costing nearly $2.8 million over the past eight years, paid for by the telecommunications and broadcast industries, which are, theoretically, 'regulated' by the FCC. The industry-paid travel is on top of about $2 million a year in official travel paid for by taxpayers."

Cheryl Seal Pop Quiz: 1. What should the US do about a place that swears they have no weapons of mass destruction lying around - swears they are "clean," only to have 2,000 tons of the stuff surface much later? ( A) Declare triumphantly you finally have the proof you always KNEW was there, (B). Bomb them into the dark ages, (B) Cut off their supply lines and starve them to death, (C) Replace all their leaders with Bush administration appointees, (D) Send Billy Graham, Jr. and Pat Robertson in to convert them (F) Send Halliburton and Bechtel in to rebuild. Answer: none of the above. Why? Because the "place" we are talking about is Ft. Detrick Maryland. However, if you had been talking about Iraq, the answer is "all of the above."

W. David Jenkins III writes: "Iraq is a bloody mess and Al Qaeda has begun making a comeback. Afghanistan is still a bloody mess after over a year since their liberation and Bush is hiding over 800 pages of information concerning his abysmal performance concerning 9/11. Private Lynch's 'rescue' was a fabrication but she has 'amnesia' now so nobody's asking what really happened. The Total Awareness gang is heading back to Capitol Hill to plead that they're really not going to do anything wrong or underhanded - even though it's being headed by a criminal. We can't find any WMD's in Iraq (Because they were never there to begin with) and the Taliban seems to be doing fine and getting new recruits near the border of Pakistan. Then, of course, we have Tom DeLay abusing the authority of the Office of Homeland Defense to round up Texas Democrats who dared to stand up to his blatant and obscene power grab concerning redistricting. But where is the press?"

From Working Families E-Activist Network: "The federal agency that oversees television, radio and other media is considering sweeping changes in the rules for ownership of TV and radio stations. These changes would allow big corporations to dominate the news sources in a given city or town. Please take one minute right now to send a fax on this issue to U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). As chair of the committee responsible for overseeing TV and radio, he can act to stop media monopolies. Ask him to act today."

"NOW [with Bill Moyers] has been reporting on the topic of media ownership for over a year. Now the June 2, 2003 deadline for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) judgment on potential revision of the ownership limits approaches. Groups as disparate as the National Rifle Association, the Family Research Council, and Morality in the Media have joined the call for more time for discussion. At the same time, groups of Senators have sent letters to FCC Chairman Powell both asking for further study, and requesting he render the decision on the June 2 deadline. Today, The Center for Public Integrity released a new study on the workings of the FCC called 'Well Connected.'"

The UK Guardian reports: "Veteran media mogul and legendary deal-maker Rupert Murdoch prompted laughter from senators in Washington yesterday when he said that he did not plan to take advantage of the upcoming relaxation in America media ownership laws. The 72-year-old News Corp chief was seeking to reassure a senate committee that his deal to take control of satellite network DirecTV would not harm competition."

"We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually." -Matt Labash from the Weekly Standard

"...On June 2,... the FCC is scheduled to vote on a revision of media ownership rules. Around the country, grassroots activists have been challenging the move to further loosen regulations. But clearly the interests of huge media conglomerates are getting a big boost from the FCC chair, Michael Powell... 'Most people in this country have no idea what's about to happen to them,' says dissenting FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, 'even though their very democracy is at stake.'... Appearing on Bill Moyers' program 'Now' on PBS in early May, FCC commissioner Michael Copps warned: 'This is not just some little mechanical thing about numbers or a little decision about numbers of stations. This is something that has very widespread and profound implications'... Yes, in theory, the airwaves belong to you and me. But one political action after another in Washington has been stealing those airwaves from us. And the Republican majority on the FCC is about to pull off another massive heist."

From Moveon.org: "On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission intends to lift restrictions on media ownership that could allow your local newspaper, cable provider, radio stations, and TV channels all to be owned by one company. The result could be the disappearance of the checks and balances provided by a competitive media marketplace -- and huge cutbacks in local news and reporting. Good, balanced information is the basis for our democracy. That's why we're asking that: Please join us below. We'll send your comments to your Representative and your Senators. If you choose, they'll also be posted to the FCC's public comments website. And we'll keep you posted about what more you can do to support this campaign. This petition is an initiative of MoveOn.org, Media Alliance, CodePink, United for Peace and Justice, and Global Exchange." Sign the Petition!

"The New York Times has unleashed journalist John Tierney on the Democratic candidates for president. Tierney is a strongly ideological advocate, adored by the libertarian right and despised by environmentalists, with whom he has long feuded over recycling and other issues. In January, Tierney revisited the Monkey Business with Gary Hart. Yesterday on the front page he sank his teeth into Senator Kerry's wife. Assigning Tierney to write news stories about the Democratic contenders like asking Frank Perdue to report on vegetarians, or Bill Bennett to cover compulsive gambling. Perhaps in the interest of being 'fair and balanced,' The NY Times should assign Bob Herbert or Paul Krugman to file features on the Bush-Cheney campaign."

"Totalitarian regimes don't tolerate any distinction between journalism and propaganda, but in most democracies it is unprecedented for the free press to abandon Joseph Pulitzer for the methods of Joseph Goebbels. How did a born-again, family-values administration get in bed with a purveyor of misogyny and mayhem, trash and titillation? The common thread... has to be the late Lee Atwater, who was friend, mentor and role model to George W., Karl Rove and Roger Ailes, the head hound in the Fox pound of junkyard attack-dog journalism. This undemocratic confluence of politics and propaganda has long been in the making as corporate media have been incrementally empowered while public influence, input and 'interest' have been eliminated... But the hammer is about to drop on the Internet too. The head of the FCC, Michael Powell, wants to give away what's left of the store to the broadband cable and satellite providers and make them gatekeepers or tollbooths on the information highway."

"As the five members of the Federal Communications Commission consider a series of rule changes that would open the door to more consolidation, commercialism, corporatism and corruption, Keith, Marsalis, Smith, Joel, Diamond, Stipe, Henley, Parks, Pearl Jam and the Indigo Girls have joined two dozen other prominent artists to sign a letter that asks the FCC to halt the rush to enact six major rules changes by early June. The musicians are urging FCC chair Michael Powell to provide Congress and citizens a full opportunity to review proposed changes of media ownership rules before they are enacted... they make the case that basic rules to control against monopolies, hyper-commercialism and the loss of local content are both needed and broadly supported by Americans... the letter declares. 'We also believe the FCC has been negligent in listening to important stakeholder groups, like musicians, recording artists and radio professionals, to ensure their testimony is on the record.'"

Cheryl Seal writes: "The network propaganda teams are already starting their pre-election campaigns to undermine any Democratic challenge to the Reich. They're now focusing not just on national contenders - their local affiliates are being sicced on state and local politicians seen as threatening while shamelessly puffing up those seen as Bush-friendly. For ex., Baltimore's charismatic mayor Martin O'Malley is young, hip, outspoken - the sort of guy with which the rightwing anally retentives cannot compete. So local network affliates have made sure that every single problem or negative story relating to O'Malley gets mucho play while positive coverage is all but ZIP. On the rightwing side of the coin- Bush buddy, MD. Gov.Bob Ehrlich is being endlessly lauded by the networks, who try to make it a positive & newsworthy event every time the scowling prison-warden-faced new governor so much as farts."

"Let me see if I've got this straight. Right-wing homophobic talk-show host Michael Savage, in his 'book,' The Savage Nation, jokes that MSNBC stands for 'More Snotty Nonsense By Creeps,' and refers to MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield as 'the mind-slut with a big pair of glasses that they sent to Afghanistan.' So how did MSNBC executives respond? Why, they hired him, of course. And when he called Banfield a 'slut' on the air for daring to interview loyalists to Saddam Hussein, his bosses reacted with silence. Now Banfield has chosen to speak out, criticizing the networks -- not just her own -- for portraying the war as a glorious romp for democracy rather than the more complex and bloody conflict that it was... A rational response might be to cheer Banfield for stating some obvious truths that few mainstream-media people want to say. But, noooo. Instead, NBC News released a statement. '...We are deeply disappointed and troubled by her remarks, and will review her comments with her.'"

"Ted Turner... called rival media baron Rupert Murdoch a warmonger for what he said was Murdoch's promotion of the U.S. war in Iraq... 'He's a warmonger,' Turner said in an evening speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco of Murdoch, whose News Corp. Ltd. owns the fast-growing Fox News Channel. 'He promoted it.'... Turner, who has pledged to give $1 billion to the United Nations and is a vocal proponent of population control and nuclear-arms elimination, criticized the concentration of ownership of the vast majority of U.S. television networks, radio and TV stations and newspapers in a few corporations ('There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy.')... Asked whether he would again try to launch a new network, Turner, who is the vice chairman of AOL Time Warner and has been critical of the merger of AOL and TimeWarner, said: 'No. I think the space is filled with the people already there."

Merissa Marr writes for Reuters: "U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media, the head of the BBC said on Thursday. BBC Director General Greg Dyke singled out for criticism the fast growing News Corp. Ltd.'s Fox News Channel, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest operator of radio stations in the United States, with over 1,200 stations, for special criticism... In terms of plans for investments in the U.K., Clear Channel said it has no investments in U.K. radio stations and has no immediate plans to change that. 'The company is not currently in talks with anyone to purchase U.K. radio assets,' it said in a statement. Dyke said, 'For the health of our democracy, it's vital we don't follow the path of many American networks.'"

"The role of propaganda and propagandists figured prominently at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, convened to render judgment on the Nazi leaders following World War II. The tribunal was an institution organized by the victorious Allied governments, serving in the final analysis the ruling classes of those countries. Nonetheless, in their arguments US prosecutors set forth a democratic legal principle derived from the international experience of a half-century of carnage: that planning and launching an aggressive war constituted a criminal act and that those who helped prepare such a war through their propaganda efforts were as culpable as those who drew up the battle plans or manufactured the munitions." We demand the indictment of the chiefs of mainstream American media as war criminals, along with their White House partners, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Vicki Clarke and Ari Flesicher!

Annie Lawson writes for the UK Guardian: "Rupert Murdoch's Fox network is among the US media giants accused of tailoring its war coverage to curry favour with Michael Powell, the George Bush-appointed chairman of America's media regulator who is facing mounting pressure to scrap media ownership rules. Mr Powell, the son of US secretary of state Colin Powell, is under intense lobbying pressure from the US broadcasting industry to abolish safeguards that restrict limits on the number of TV and radio stations a company can own in a market. Fox, together with network heavyweights CBS and NBC, is pressing the US federal communications commission to dump rules that prevent a TV broadcaster from owning another network or a radio station and newspaper in the same market."

The top dog at the hatemongering Clear Channel, which brings you the most vicious of the rightwing talk shows, is L. Lowry Mays, a Texan and Bush pal who has poured big bucks into the GOP. Mays has ties to the oil industry, while the vice chairman of Clear Channel's board of directors, Tom Hicks, helped Bush make millions of dollars while he was governor of Texas. Bush rewarded Hicks by getting him named to the U. of Texas Board of Regents, then created a shady management co. with Hicks as its chief. Bush granted Hicks unprecedented powers to help himself to the university's $13 billion endowment fund for private investment and financial speculation.

Since the Academy Award Show, "Bowling for Columbine" attendance rose 110% across the nation, while Stupid White Men" went BACK to number one on the NY Times bestseller list, after being bumped very temporarily by rabid rightwinger Michael Savage's book. Savage's brief stint at number one was courtesy "book sale magic" (the counterpart to the "editing magic" used in newsrooms to make standing ovations look like booing). In this scam, the rightwing corporate front groups backing a puppet author will buy up thousands of copies of a book, either themselves (they probably use them as doorstops back at the Heritage Foundation or wherever) or via one of the many media giants they are in cahoots with. Because newly released book rankings are based on advance sales, using "book sale magic," a book can, theoretically, shoot to number one without a single real reader ever seeing it. By contrast, Michael Moore's book's position in the top 10 for nearly a year now was earned fairly and squarely.

"This month's action came together quickly," reports TV Boycott. "It is a reaction to the one sided coverage of the war and the censored coverage of the protests leading up to the war. If the networks had covered the protests fairly the movement would have been much bigger and the war might have been prevented. Is this just sour grapes because the peace movement didn't get to appear on television? No. Fair coverage would have presented the issues behind the movement. A few examples could have been: Will this war make us safer? Can we afford a war and Healthcare and Education? Will we guarantee democracy for the people of Iraq? Did we falsify evidence presented to the U.N. to justify war?" Take a stand! Tell these sponsors what you think of their patronage of America's worst ripoff - its news media!

Tom Kelm writes, "The Washington Post's coverage of the Global Vigils for Peace in today's paper was pathetic. The only article was in the Metro section, and the only vigil mentioned was the one on the Mall. There were thousands of vigils in over 140 countries. Yet, the Post only mentioned one of them. Their coverage in general has favored pro-war voices over those who favor peace. This behavior undermines the credibility of the publication which is supposed to report the news, not act as a propaganda arm of the GOP. Let the Washington Post know that this pro-war, conservative, and pro-Republican bias is unacceptable. Demand that pro-peace voices get equal space in their coverage and that pro-peace voices get just as prominent coverage as pro-war voices. Here is some contact information from www.washpost.com, the publication's business web site. The current Post Ombudsman is Michael Getler. You can reach him by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com or by phone at 202-334-7582."

GLAAD reports, "As of March 12, all six national advertisers on 'Savage Nation's' March 8 debut -- including Dell, Casual Male, Idea Village, The Sharper Image and Procter & Gamble -- have announced they have withdrawn their ads, and two others (Kraft Foods and General Mills) have stated they will not sponsor the program." Hooray!!

Molly Ivins writes, "After every military engagement, the Pentagon conducts a review to discover what they did right, what they did wrong, what worked and what didn't. It is an admirable tradition and one that needs to be copied by the profession of journalism. According to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS, 42% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein of Iraq was personally responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center, something that has never even been claimed by the Bush administration. According to a poll conducted by ABC, 55% believe Saddam Hussein gives direct support to Al Qaeda, a claim that has been made by the administration but for which no evidence has ever been presented. President Bush has lately modified the claim to 'Al Qaeda-type' organizations. This is how well journalism has done its job in the months leading up to this war. A disgraceful performance." Worse - it's a scandal, and editorial heads should roll!

Jon Rappoport writes, "CNN has just canceled its daily TalkBack Live show after nine years. It's making way for an additional hour of Live From, a global news round-up program. TalkBack Live is too dangerous right now. Since it airs audience and viewer statements on both sides of issues, this could lead to a few people actually coming out against the war AFTER the planes start their Shock and Awe bombing runs... Cable is closing all loopholes and setting up info-gun emplacements on its turrets. Look forward to pundits saying things like, 'However we may have felt when diplomacy was still an option, the resident has made his choice and now we must stand behind him and behind our boys in the battlefield.'" Boycott ALL corporate media!

On 3-2-02, the Observer reported that Bush was wiretapping the UN Security Council. Norman Solomon writes, "From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States. Several days after the 'embarrassing disclosure,' not a word about it had appeared in America's supposed paper of record. The New York Times -- the single most influential media outlet in the United States -- still had not printed anything about the story. How could that be? 'Well, it's not that we haven't been interested,' New York Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale said Wednesday night, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. 'We could get no confirmation or comment' on the memo from U.S. officials. The Times opted not to relay the Observer's account, Smale told me. 'We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting.' She added: 'We are still definitely looking into it. It's not that we're not.'" That's just pathetic.

"It's time for Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter to defend their books, Bias and Slander, which supposedly prove an old saw -- that liberals dominate the news media. After the books were published, the press lavished attention on both authors -- much of it uncritical, if not fawning. Ironically, such a reception should have provided primary evidence against their allegation (if a random survey of TV pundits or Washington Post editorials wasn't proof enough). Now comes Eric Alterman's new book, What Liberal Media? It shreds the 'liberal media' myth, and with it Bias and Slander. Alterman shows that both books rely on unfounded assertions strung together with low invective... So TomPaine.com has a challenge: We're inviting the three authors to debate at the National Press Club, with a neutral moderator and a live audience. We'll invite C-SPAN. Alterman has accepted. Will Coulter and Goldberg? Or will they hide behind their publicists and speaking fees?" C'mon out you cowards!

We recently renamed the Washington Post as the Pentagon Post (PentaPost for short) for its one-sided support for the Pentagon Axis of War: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle. Now Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman have compiled the data. "Over the six-month period from September through February, the leading newspaper in the nation's capital has editorialized 26 times in favor of war. It has sometimes been critical of the Bush administration, it has sometimes commented on developments in the drive to war without offering an opinion on the case for war itself, but it has never offered a peep against military action in Iraq. Does this shockingly one-sided treatment on the Post editorial pages of the major issue of the day matter? It matters a lot." If you subscribe to the PentaPost, cancel your subscription and say No War in Iraq!

Jim Cullen of Progressive Populist writes, "After the National Guard killed four antiwar demonstrators at Kent State University in Ohio in 1970, radio stations across the country helped to make 'Ohio' by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young not only an anti-war anthem but also a hit. Now, with playlists dictated by Corporate Central, Brent Staples wrote in the New York Times Feb. 20, 'A comparable song about George W. Bush's rush to war in Iraq would have no chance at all today.' There are still plenty of people upset by Bush's plans for war, as the Feb. 15 rallies showed across the country, but independent radio stations that could serve as their sounding board have all but vanished as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed media corporations to buy hundreds of radio stations. The new rules were supposed to increase diversity but they have had the opposite effect. Radio was the test case and the 'free market' has flunked."

Rick Ellis writes, "Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel. That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming... The harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as 'a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.' The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a 'difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives.' The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes 'a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.'" Boycott MSNBC!

Elizabeth Croad writes: "The threat of war in Iraq is driving increasing numbers of Americans to British and international news web sites in search of the broader picture. According to the internet audience management and analysis company, Nielsen NetRatings, traffic to the UK's biggest news sites, BBC News Online and Guardian Unlimited, has increased dramatically over the past year. Many of these new users are from the US...The American public is apparently turning away from the mostly US-centric American media in search of unbiased reporting and other points of views. Much of the US media's reaction to France and Germany's intransigence on the Iraqi war issue has verged on the xenophobic, even in the so-called 'respectable' press. Some reporting has verged on the hysterical - one US news web site, NewsMax.com, recently captioned a photograph of young German anti-war protesters as 'Hitler's children'."

Jesse Jackson writes: "Across Europe, opposition to the war keeps growing...These events are covered in the best U.S. newspapers, and discussed in foreign policy journals. But most Americans get their news from television. And the reality of the Persian Gulf divisions, the depth of the global opposition, even the breadth of the opposition here at home is underreported on our TV screens. Instead, much of talk television has turned into cheerleading--lining up 'experts' and pundits to applaud the administration. This is a profound disservice to this country. When the news media turn into a propaganda arm of the administration--as Fox News has shamelessly become--it makes it hard for democracy to work...By echoing rather than challenging the administration's distortions, by failing to report what is going on in the region, by failing to let Americans understand why much of the world opposes the war on Iraq, the media are compounding the resident's error."

The NY Times knows that Saddam has tried to respond to every demand of the UN weapons inspectors. Remember how we were going to start W-ar unless inspectors were allowed into Presidential palaces? Open sesame! Then it was W-ar unless Iraq delivered every WMD-related document. Ooops - we didn't mean the invoices from US and European suppliers! Then it was W-ar unless we had lists of all WMD scientists ... "unminded" interviews ... U2 overflights ... Every single time, Iraq complied. But NONE of that counts for the Times, which declares "Baghdad has offered no meaningful cooperation" - a statement which is directly refuted by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. The Times wants W-ar, not inspections. And since the Pentagon is ready to go nuclear, we hereby christen the "Newkular Times."

The Washington Post is dead. It has simply become the propaganda arm of the Pentagon. Even though Hans Blix said this week Iraq is "cooperating on substance," the PentaPost declares its support for Bush's W-ar resolution that says Iraq has failed "at any time ... to cooperate fully." The PentaPost turns reality on its head when it declares Bush's resolution is NOT a "unilateral diktat from the Bush administration." It smears France and Russia by declaring their "priority is not disarming rogue states, or strengthening world government, or even preventing war per se. It is, rather, to neutralize what the French call the American 'hyperpower.'" And it concludes by urging Bush to declare unilateral W-ar: "When its security is threatened [HOW???], there is no reason for the United States to accept such paralysis -- especially when it has the unambiguous terms of U.N. resolutions on its side."

The corporate media has done everything in its power to keep Americans ignorant of the truth about Bush's W-ar in Iraq, and of the powerful grassroots movement opposing W-ar. But now the media is going one step further - actually organizing pro-War rallies! And the slogans are full of contempt for the patriotic, peace-loving majority: "America - love it or leave it" and "In Bush we trust". Our response is simple: if you believe so strongly in W-ar, then enlist today and demand assignment to the front lines.

Pundit Charlie Cook says he is "one of the most astute impartial analysts of the Washington political scene and is one of the nation's leading authorities on U.S. elections" - and he is taken seriously by Democrats in Washington. But Cook is just another right-wing zealot, calling Democratic primary voters (like all of us) "wackos" [he quotes "highly respected" Republican pollster Bill McInturff - e-mail bill@pos.org] with "bizarre" attitudes. Why? Because we oppose Bush's W-ar! Funny, we think everyone who supports the murder of countless innocent civilians in order to "get" one man - who was supported and armed by the father of the current resident - is a "bizarre wacko" - and an un-American accessory to the Nuremberg war crime of "aggressive war." Tell Cook what YOU think: http://www.cookpolitical.com/contact.cfm?section=contact

TakeBackTheMedia writes, "How in the world do you trust a 'news' organization like CNN, when they offer what purports to be a full transcript of Hans Blix' address to the UN Security Council but they leave out nearly 800 words - and those words just happen to be the ones where Blix refutes Colin Powell's 'smoking gun' presentation from earlier this week?" NOTE: Since the original publication of this article, CNN has added the missing text to their web page.

There were over 600 anti-war protests around the world (300 in the U.S.), engaging 10 million people (2 million in the U.S.) - yet C-Span didn't cover a single one! What's their excuse for blacking out the largest peace protest in world history? E-mail viewer@c-span.org and call during talk shows: Democrats (202) 585-3881, Republicans (202) 585-3880, Others (202) 585-3882

Brian Balta writes for the Hoosier Review: "What is remarkable to consider is the fact that the news media, the people who play as much of a role in shaping public opinion as anyone else, have been turned entirely over to following the first point of view, that the inspectors are there to find a reason for war. The second idea, that inspections could bring about peace and save lives, is not even given consideration."

The media is supposed to report on the concerns and actions of its readers/viewers. But "former newspaper editor Bill Kovach, who heads the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism, said the lack of media coverage [of anti-war protests] is a cause for legitimate concern. 'The most troubling examples I know firsthand are here in Washington,' said Kovach, who is also a former curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. 'The first antiwar demonstration in Washington last October was abysmally under-covered. The New York Times missed it entirely the first day and had to play catch-up with a story that wasn't good. It was the same with the Washington Post. The coverage was not even pro forma; it was dismissive... 'I can't really figure out why,' Kovach said. 'Editors with whom I spoke said they'd made a mistake the first time but that they'd catch up. They didn't do that, according to my judgment.'"

WashPost's Michael Dobbs writes, "The sound and fury on the streets and op-ed pages reflect deep divisions within the foreign policy establishment over the Bush administration's choice of Iraq as the next target of its war on terrorism. So far, however, there is little sign that the protests will coalesce into a cohesive antiwar movement with sufficient political power to force the administration to reverse or even seriously rethink its Iraq strategy... 'There is no single political figure around whom the antiwar movement can rally,' said Gary Schmitt, secretary of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a pro-war lobbying group." Why the !@#%^ do we need a "single figure" to rally around, when we have HUNDREDS of prominent war opponents and MILLIONS of Americans marching in the streets, signing petitions, publishing ads and letters, and calling talk shows? Why does the corporate media dismiss all of this passionate opposition? E-mail dobbsm@washpost.com, ombudsman@washpost.com

"Comcast cable...company rejected ads that an anti-war group wanted to air during Bush 's State of the Union speech, saying they included unsubstantiated claims. Peace Action Education Fund had spent $5,000 to have six 30-second ads aired on CNN by Philadelphia-based Comcast beginning Tuesday night... in the Washington, D.C., area. But Comcast's legal department notified the group Tuesday morning that the ads would not air... Comcast spokesman Mitchell Schmale said. 'We must decline to run any spot that fails to substantiate certain claims or charges.' The statement did not specify what Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, objected to. The ads show citizens expressing opposition to war with Iraq... Rev. Robert Moore, executive director of the 2,000-member peace group [said] 'This is an outrageous infringement on our First Amendment rights, in the center of our democracy, Washington, D.C.,' he said." The public OWNS the airwaves! Comments: http://online.comcast.net/contactus/

"But more than a nation of patriots - or - a nation of pirates, the United States has been behaving for the past two years like a nation of enablers. At times, it seems that the U.S. political system is dedicated to treating George W. Bush like he's some addicted adolescent in a family that won't confront the youngster's behavioral problems and 'enables' the problem to get worse. Virtually no one in the major news media will admit that Bush's personal behavior has been downright strange, from raging at enemies in ways that complicate already tricky diplomacy to treating those under his authority with disdain to viewing his own powers as beyond challenge or question."

In this column, Tom Friedman reveals himself not only calamitously clueless, but dangerously delusional. "The real prize here is a new Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and strategically justifiable reason to support this war. The Bush team dare not invade Iraq simply to install a more friendly dictator to pump us oil. And it dare not simply disarm Iraq and then walk away from the nation-building task." It "dare not"? Of course it dares! Who's going to stop Bush from creating the biggest geopolitical mess the world has ever seen - columnist Tom Friedman???

From Tom Paine.com: "[Roger] Ailes wanted to make his news channel conservative while at the same time calling it 'fair and balanced.' But Fox could only be balanced if there existed a competitor as liberal as Fox would be conservative. CNN was a sitting duck. Though it wasn't particularly liberal, founder Ted Turner certainly was [Update: Turner just announced his resignation from AOL/Time Warner, parent company of CNN]. Moreover, CNN was a little somnolent in the pre-Fox era, a little complacent. Ailes' genius was to establish CNN as a straw man and then beat it about the head and face, using the rivalry to energize a base of conservative viewers. The unfortunate part of this story is that, along with the print media, CNN's managers and producers have made the mistake of accepting Ailes' narrative about them, competing on Fox's terms rather than touting their own network as being a cut above Fox's biased infotainment."

Puh-litzer Prize winner Tom Friedman of the NY Times is so utterly clueless one doesn't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. Everyone knows that Bush has two goals for the Arab world: to impose U.S. military domination and steal their oil. But Friedman seriously thinks Bush's plans are: "to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible media that won't blame all their ills on others." How could Bush support these goals abroad - when he militantly OPPOSES them at home? He "created better governance" by stealing the Presidency and shredding the Constitution. He " built more open and productive economies" by creating massive deficits and shredding 1.7 million jobs. He "empowered women" by declaring war on women. And he "developed responsible media that won't blame all their ills on others " by embracing "blame everyone in the world" FOX and personally blaming Clinton at every turn. Tom, you're beyond hopeless.

Robert Wiener was CNN's executive producer in Baghdad when the Gulf War erupted. He writes, "After 9/11, the tenor of news coverage has changed so drastically that I often no longer recognize the coverage on the network where I worked for two decades. Some editors and reporters in American media now see themselves as 'patriot police,' engaging in jingoism and self-censorship... There is nothing to suggest the Pentagon will change its policy or permit the kind of unfettered reportage we witnessed in Vietnam. Thousands of civilians, not to mention those in uniform (on both sides), may die in a new Persian Gulf war, and responsible reporters should be there. Any time American men and women are put in harm's way, it is paramount that the U.S. press be witness... The American public should not only insist on it but also remember 'Hearts and Minds' and never again be hoodwinked by propaganda, innuendo or outright lies told or perpetuated by its elected officials."

NY Times political correspondent Adam Nagourney writes, "Bush is riding high as he prepares for his re-election campaign. He is a popular Republican president in an increasingly Republican country." This is an utter, bald-faced LIE. Bush is not "riding high," he spent the weekend hiding from hundreds of thousands of protesters by going to Camp David. He is not "popular," because he is only 1% above his LOWEST popularity level, and only 1% above the LOWEST rating Bill Clinton had in his second term, immediately after the Monica Lewinsky story broke. (We didn't hear anyone call Clinton "popular" that week!) This is not "an increasingly Republican country," since Al Gore beat Bush by 540,000 votes while getting the second largest number of votes in American history. Tell Nagourney to stop lying about Bush and the Republicans! E-mail adamnag@nytimes.com

"The Quiet American is a must-see movie--too bad U.S. audiences will have an impossible time finding a theater that's showing it. The movie is based on a 1955 Graham Greene novel about the early years of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The film was completed shortly before September 11, when Miramax co-chair Harvey Weinstein pulled the plug on the film [at the urging of CIA PR guy Chase Brandon?], calling it 'unpatriotic.' The Quiet American only saw the light of day after Michael Caine, who plays the lead in the movie, objected and persuaded Miramax to do a limited run in order to qualify for the Academy Awards. So The Quiet American appeared for two weeks in December in a few cities. The result is that people in the U.S. are denied an opportunity to see a great movie. It's set in Vietnam in 1952. French power is waning as Communist forces are winning efforts to liberate Vietnam... The movie exposes the U.S. role in Vietnam, showing how the CIA has supported despots there for years."

NY Times reports, "As the military buildup continues in the Persian Gulf, another conflict is brewing at home, among MSNBC, CNN and the Fox News Channel. The battle is putting an especially high premium on showmanship and drama. Recalling how CNN made its name during the gulf war, each channel is trying to distinguish itself and outdo its rivals. And because cable news success often seems to rest as much on the presentation of the programs as the journalism itself, executives are looking for different production twists to enhance their war, and prewar, coverage. As a result, the reports are taking on a hypercharged tone as the cable networks try to persuade viewers ahead of time that they are the ones to watch should war break out." Promoting W-ar for ratings - what could be more utterly immoral? Boycott the corporate media!

While Pacifica radio devoted the entire day to coverage of the antiwar protests in DC and SF, "listener-supported" NPR spent all of 5 minutes of its evening news coverage on perfunctory coverage of the story. Not a single protester was interviewed, and only two brief soundbites of the many outstanding speeches were played. What did they cover instead? 9 minutes of in-depth analysis of the turnover of staffers and lobbyists accompanying the new governor of Maryland (duh!), and 4 minutes of idle transatlantic chitchat with a British journalist about the Queen's shocking public appearance in slacks following knee surgery. Send your complaints to ombudsman@npr.org, and tell them you'll remember at pitch time.

Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon write, "In the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips and cattle prods used against Southern blacks who sought the right to vote or to eat at a public lunch counter. But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation's fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without 'human rights' -- including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow. Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white, King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for 'radical changes in the structure of our society' to redistribute wealth and power."

Al Giordano of Narco News writes, "The NY Times' Venezuela problem continued to snowball yesterday as its Caracas correspondent Francisco Toro resigned. Toro acknowledged, in a letter to Times editor Patrick J. Lyons, 'conflicts of interest concerns' regarding his participation in protest marches and his 'lifestyle bound up with opposition activism.' Toro's obsessive anti-Chavez position in Venezuela was publicly known after last April's coup when he began sending emails to Narco News and other journalists... attacking Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. That the Times hired him in the first place was a violation of the Times' own claims to objective and disinterested reporting. But regarding Venezuela, it was not the first. Toro's resignation - the text of his letter sent to the Times management last night appears below - is the latest in a long series of missteps and misdeeds by the NY Times and its reporters regarding the NY newspaper's one-sided and inaccurate Venezuela coverage."

Jeannette Walls writes, "Did ABC censor a crowd's disapproval of George H. Bush? The former president - and father of the current president - delivered a taped message at the American Music Awards on Monday night, and sources who were there tell The Scoop that the crowd booed him. WHEN THE BAND Alabama received the Award of Merit, the elder Bush's face appeared on screen. 'I'm very proud to be part of tonight's tribute honoring one of the most highly successful bands country music has ever known,' said the former president, but his image was met with a loud chorus of boos... The boos from the crowd, however, were not audible in the broadcast, leading some to believe that they were deleted by censors. 'To be honest, I can't tell you,' a spokesman for ABC told The Scoop, who referred the question to a spokesman for the production company. 'I don't know and I can't tell you,' said a spokesman for the production company, who referred questions back to ABC."

Matthew Engel, writes, "Only one White House reporter, Dana Milbank of the Post, regularly employs scepticism and irreverence in his coverage of the Bush administration... Only the tiniest handful of liberal commentators ever manage to irritate anyone in the government: there is Paul Krugman in the NY Times, Molly Ivins down in Texas and, after that, you have to scratch your head... Journalists have felt obliged to tone down criticisms because of the sense of shared national purpose after September 11. Even that cannot explain how the papers cravenly ignored the Trent Lott story... The Times and Post both failed to mention it... kept alive only by a handful of bloggers. If there is a Watergate scandal lurking in this administration, it is unlikely to be Woodward or his colleagues who will tell us about it. If it emerges, it will probably come out on the web. That is a devastating indictment of the state of American newspapers."

Joel S. writes, "Multimillionaire trial lawyer. One cannot read an article or watch a news clip of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards without these words being used to introduce him... Looking at Mr. Bush's past, how would he have fared if 'failed businessman' preceded his name? Or perhaps 'multimillionaire failed businessman'? 'Multimillionaire sweetheart deal-maker' has a nice ring to it... The media is in dire need of a shakeup. The exhibited bias is not even subtle anymore. For Mr. Edwards, the 'multimillionaire trial lawyer' tag may be enough to prove damaging to his campaign -- even before he has had ample opportunity to establish his view on the issues. I remember another candidate, not so long ago, who had a difficult time distancing himself from the words 'stiff,' 'untrustworthy,' and 'reinventing himself.' Oh yeah... and 'Inventor of the Internet.'"

"TV stations in New York, Detroit and Los Angeles are refusing to air ads that link driving sport utility vehicles with supporting terrorism, producers of the ads said yesterday. The two ads were produced for The Detroit Project, a media campaign organized by author and columnist Arianna Huffington and Hollywood movie producer Lawrence Bender, among others. Both ads were modeled on hard-hitting anti-drug public service announcements produced by the Bush administration that equate drug use with support for violence and terrorism. In one ad, a man pumps gas into his SUV while a voice says that every time he fills up he makes money for oil companies who buy oil from countries that support terrorists... 'What kind of mileage does your SUV get? Oil money supports some terrible things,' the ad says"... WABC said the station has a policy against running any 'controversial' ads - but there's nothing "controversial" about killing innocent Iraqis to steal their oil. Boycott the media!

"Responding to a FAIR activism campaign, HBO recently added a message to the end of its movie 'Live From Baghdad,' clarifying the scenes that seemingly endorsed the fraudulent stories about Iraqi soldiers removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators. The film, a fictionalized account of CNN's coverage of the Persian Gulf War, leaves viewers with the impression that these events actually happened. (See FAIR Action Alert, 12/4/02.) HBO's message, which appears after the end of the credits, reads: 'While the allegations of Iraqi soldiers taking babies from incubators were widely circulated during the run-up to the Gulf War (the time frame of the drama of our film), these allegations were never substantiated.' Since most TV viewers don't watch the entire end credits, it is doubtful that many people will ever see the clarification. And... it would be more accurate to note that attempts to confirm the story after the Gulf War uncovered evidence that it was a fabrication." E-mail general@hbo.com

This is about as blatant an example of Republican media bias as you will ever see. "CBS originally scheduled its movie about the Enron corporate scandal for broadcast two days before the November elections, and the movie's director is questioning whether politics was behind a last-minute decision to move the air date to" 1-5-02. "''The Crooked E: The Unshredded Truth About Enron' had been on CBS's schedule for Sunday, Nov. 3, just ahead of the Nov. 5 midterm elections. Director Penelope Spheeris said today that she was surprised and unhappy when she received a call two weeks ahead of the broadcast informing her that the movie had been postponed... People close to the project said they learned that CBS President Leslie Moonves and Entertainment President Nancy Tellem got cold feet as the November air date neared, growing uncomfortable at the prospect of appearing to criticize the Republican administration." Btw, the film flashed an out-of-context photo of Martha Stewart with Clinton.

Robert Parry writes: "On one hand, the Right's long-held conviction that the media is the enemy helps explain the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of many conservatives, plus their motivation for investing billions of dollars to build a dedicated conservative media. That well-oiled media machine now stretches from TV networks to talk radio to newspapers to magazines to books to the Internet - and helps set the U.S. political agenda. On the other hand, the endless repetition of the 'liberal media' myth has sedated liberals who have avoided a commitment to develop a comparable media infrastructure, apparently out of a hope that one is not needed. Indeed, if an honest history of this era is ever written, one of the most puzzling mysteries may be why the American liberal community - with all its wealth and expertise in communications - sat back while conservatives turned media into a potent weapon for dominating U.S. politics."

Robert Fisk writes: "What in the hell is going on here? I will tell you. Journalists are being attacked for telling the truth, for trying to tell it how it is. American journalists especially. I urge them to read a remarkable new book published by the New York University Press and edited by John Collins and Ross Glover. It's called Collateral Language and is, in its own words, intended to expose 'the tyranny of political rhetoric'. Its chapter titles - 'Anthrax', 'Cowardice', 'Evil', 'Freedom', Fundamentalism', 'Justice', 'Terrorism', Vital Interests' and - my favorite - 'The War on...' (fill in the missing country) tell it all. Meanwhile, rest assured, the journalists are getting onside, to tell you the story the government wants you to hear."

In a week of bad news it's good to get a good belly laugh. And here's one for you. Washington post columnist Michael Kelly devoted a whole column to "proving" that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. Trouble is, Kelly's chief source for this effort was the outrageously rightwing Center for Media and Public Affairs. This outfit, like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, is a rightwing-funded corporate front outfit dedicated to shameless propaganda. For Kelly to use the Center for his source is like writing a paper proving Enron execs did nothing wrong and using Ken Lay as your main source. What will Kelly's next piece be? A column proving blacks are inferior, using the KKK as his primary source?

Prof. Joshua Meyrowitz of UNH says U.S. journalists are not only in bed with the government - they are exploiting the average American's belief that they will uphold free speech. Meyrowitz, whose uncle was murdered by the Nazis while American journalists failed to report what was really going on in Germany, says today's media has become a cross between the weak pre-WWII U.S. media and the aggressively subversive propagandists of Iron Curtain nations. Meyrowtiz points to the recent altering by the New Republic of a photograph of Saddam Hussein to make him look like Hitler. He also cites the false claims of babies being ripped from incubators during Gulf War I that were plastered all over the U.S. media. Yet the Media failed to report the theft of oil from Iraq by Kuwait through slant drilling, or the deaths of 1 in 10 Iraqi babies since 1991 due to the U.S.'s handling of the Gulf War and its aftermath.

If we were to overlay a transparency graph showing Gore's popularity through the past month or two onto a graph showing the media's negative commentary on Gore for the same time period, you would find that the two are tighly correlated! Gore's popularity goes up, so does negative media spin. This article in the Washington Post is a veritable bash fest of Gore. Mary Landrieu's stunning victory is then WAY downplayed. By contrast, the article ends up with a super upbeat add-on about Repug Barbor - even putting a positive spin on his past losses ("He lost...but went on to the Reagan White House..."). But this time, the media's efforts - played to an increasingly media-skeptical audience - will backfire big time.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary Definition of "drudge": "One who is obliged to do menial work." At least Matt Drudge has one honest thing about him: his name. As a hack writer of negligible talent, he is OBLIGED to do menial work....as in "appropriate to a servant:HUMBLE; SERVILE...b. lacking in dignity." So we have a servile hack obliged, through lack of talent and integrity, to humbly serve his "betters" in the Bush administration. Here's the Humble Hack's latest menial job for the Bush folks: yet another baseless smear job of Al Gore. We bet HH's real gripe with Gore is that Gore is a first rate journalist...that's GORE, as in derived from the ancient Greek word for shepherd's staff (a symbol of leadership) and the Old English word for spear (a symbol of courage).

On CNN's Crossfire 11-27-02, Paul Begala declared: "There were exactly 704 stories in the campaign about this flap of Gore inventing the Internet. There were only 13 stories about Bush failing to show up for his National Guard duty for a year. There were well over 1,000 stories -- Nexus stopped at 1,000 -- about Gore and the Buddhist temple. Only 12 about Bush being accused of insider trading at Harken Energy. There were 347 about Al Gore wearing earth tones, but only 10 about the fact that Dick Cheney did business with Iran and Iraq and Libya." You go, Paul!

CNN and the 1950's style rightwing outfit the Horatio Alger Association have collaborated to "help young people" through their production, "Only In America." This program is pure corporate propaganda, designed to replace traditional America goals - integrity, sacrifice, making a difference for the greater good of mankind - with a new goal: Become a CEO!! The show is hosted by rightwing adman Ed McMahon. What's next? Preteen shows on how to lend your pals money at 18% interest, compounded quarterly?

Shortly after Buzzflash posted a link to an article covering anti-W-ar protesters outside of CNN, the link was scrubbed from the CNN site -- and the Google site. The article read: "More than 80 demonstrators picketed outside CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta Sunday afternoon, saying the network lacks anti-war perspectives in its coverage of the U.S. confrontation with Iraq. Demonstrators carried signs reading 'Corporate Nonsense Network' and 'For Sale: Free Press,' among others and changed 'Half the story, all the time' and 'Not In Our Name.'" Buzz commented on CNN's scrubbing, showing its lack of journalistic integrity: "We don't know why, but we guess they're above criticism." Fortunately, DaBuzz had the professional foresight to plan ahead, which in this case, means you can view the original CNN article. (Requires Adobe Reader). See also: http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/11/27_CNN.html

Pennsylvania State House Minority Leader Rep. H. William DeWeese has filed a lawsuit against the Herald-Standard, which, for weeks ran a defamatory caricature of the Representative on its editorial page. The cartoon was obviously intended to imply that DeWeese was dishonest. The newspaper claims the cartoon was simply an effort to inspire accountability in elected officials. If so, why was the cartoon pulled the SAME DAY DeWeese was renominated, by a 3-to-1 margin, in the Democratic primary? The newspaper apparently pulled out the stops to smear DeWeese, then, having failed to derail his nomination, yanked the cartoon. We say 'Go get 'em, Bill!" It's about time someone hit these media GOP toadies the only place they notice anything - in their wallets!

The mainstream media, having failed to convince the public that weather caused Paul Wellstone's plane to crash, is now pushing pilot fatigue as the cause. The night before the crash, pilot Richard Conry worked a worked a four-hour nursing shift which ended by 10:00 pm, then several hours later made a 6.5 hour flight from St. Paul to Bismarck ND. Conry may have been tired, but he also had a copilot. Also, the media fails to note that the FAA permits pilots to be on duty for up to 16 hours in a 24-hour period, with up to 8 hours at a time spent at the controls. Even adding the nursing shift, Conry had only worked at total of 11 hours, with just 6.5 hours at the controls when he left St. Paul. (More background: http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/05/20/fin_pilots_say_rest.html)

When Repugs are even mildly attacked on the mainstream media, they squeal like stuck pigs and demand blood. When Tom Daschle spoke out about Rush (speaking of stuck pigs) Limbaugh's vicious attacks - which have actually provoked bodily threats from Limbaugh's troglodyte followers - you'd think Daschle had smacked the pope upside the head. Like all bullies, Limbaugh is a coward at heart, who can dish it from the safety of his little booth, but can't take it. In fact, he needs his rightwing media gang to "protect him." The most laughable defense of Limbaugh came from Howard "Who am I this Week?" Kurtz, who actually accused Daschle of demonizing Limbaugh, the king of the scapegoaters.

GOP Mayor of NYC is condemning the release of a series of trading cards that depict portraits of those who died or responded to the 9/11 tragedy. Each portrait has a 300-word biography memorializing the subject. So, just why is this commemoration an "outrage," when not one GOP voice spoke out against the Topps Co. 'Enduring Freedom' cards released just SIX WEEKS after 9/11? (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,603727,00.html) Those cards were blatantly political, and included the famous 'Bush on Air Force One' shot, along with portraits of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the other warmongers. We'd personally rather see the REAL heroes of 9/11 memorialized and found "Enduring Freedom" - released so quickly they almost seemed preplanned, extremely offensive!

Here's one of the rightwing propaganda machine's more inventive efforts: a site called "Spinsanity" purporting to be an anti-spin watchdog. Their logo says "countering rhetoric with reason" - about as Orwellian as Fox News' "We Report, You Decide." But it doesn't take more than three minutes to notice that the site is devoted to disseminating the worse anti-Democrat rhetoric thinly disguised as "spin alerts." Read through the site and you'll see statement after statement bashing liberals....and, because of the clever manipulation of presentation, almost no negative statements on Republicans. The shrinks have a description for this type of slippery, cowardly tactic: Passive aggressive. We have an even better word: Fraud.

Check out this headline and ask yourself: "What Planet is the FT editor from?" ANTIWAR MOVEMENT FINDS FEW FOLLOWERS. Little surprise that no one wanted to take credit for this masterpiece of fiction - the byline states merely "FT Reporters"...in the plural. Guess they figure there's safety in numbers!

Here is a MUST SEE program that reveals the ugly truth: America has no free press. In "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom", journalists from The New York Times, NBC, PBS and other respected news organizations reveal how they have been censored, squelched or fired for aggressively reporting on the wealthy and the powerful. After seeing the hidden wreckage of spiked stories, damaged careers and firings unearthed in this expose', the notion of freedom of the press takes on a whole new meaning. As former New York Times reporter Frances Cerra tells viewers, "I came to understand that freedom of the press is only guaranteed when you own the press. This is something I learned from The New York Times."

Jon Prestage writes: "There is plenty of evidence to show that broadcast journalists are willing co-conspirators in spinning the news. Describing how Sunday talk shows pander to the administration and 'fabricate' the news, John Tierney of the New York Times blithely described the weekly ritual recently as 'a cross between Sunday morning church and American football....History has shown that the Whitewater investigations were a sham all along and the leaks were simply disinformation. We were not warned then or now that these leaks might be part of calculated strategies to shape and spin the news, and, in the case of Starr, to impeach a popularly elected president, though the Times and Post must have known this was so. They simply allowed themselves to be used....most news outlets no longer independently verify information provided to competing news outlets by unnamed sources...There is no time for independent verification, and this allows spinners to run amuck."

Norman Solomon has written an engaging, thought-provoking, action-directed article for Moveon.org on media concentration. He writes: "Overall, the main problems with media are profoundly structural. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the public, but they've been hijacked by huge companies. With the government assisting the monopolization process, all the major forms of media -- such as broadcasting, cable, newspapers, magazines, books, movies, the music industry and, increasingly, the Web -- are now dominated by the interests of capital, devoted to maximizing private profit. Some investors benefit; the public gets shafted. Any successful movement for basic progressive change will need to push big money off the windpipe of the First Amendment. For democratic discourse to thrive, freedom to speak must be accompanied by freedom to be heard." The article includes an array of useful media links, too!

William Rivers Pitt writes, "Democrats must beg, borrow, build or steal a media machine that will deliver the Democratic message untrammeled to the people... For more than a year, what statements or policies offered by the Democratic leadership have been perverted or ignored by the mainstream news media... This must change. Since the GOP now controls Congress, there is no hope of reinvesting power into the Fairness Doctrine... Another way must be found to create a media forum more friendly to moderate and liberal ideologies... The Democrats must know some deep pockets somewhere. It is time for them to pony up. Stop wasting money on Senate races that cannot be won because the message is not delivered, and start building a way to deliver the message with clarity. The media is the high ground, and it is currently controlled by major corporations that would like to see much of the Democratic Party in hell with its back broken. If this high ground cannot be taken, the rest is fruitless."

TheDailyBrew.com writes: "Many Americans believe that the deficits projected by the government are unrelated to the tax cuts signed into law by Bush, although both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have concluded that the tax cuts will greatly exacerbate the problem. As we learned last Tuesday, these and other misconceptions harbored by the public shape our elected leadership, which, in turn, shapes our domestic and foreign policy. Given that the public suffers from a profound ignorance concerning the basic problems that confront the Nation, and that the Republican party has gained control of the entire federal government as a direct result of this ignorance, there is little hope that the Republican leadership will endeavor to educate the public."

Jeff Koopersmith writes: "This morning, November 6th 2002, had better be a wake up call to all moderate and liberal thinkers in the United States in the wake of the rout of the Democratic Party for the tout of the neo-Fascist Republican National Committee -- a political party whose near-entire thrust rests on greed, lack of compassion, and lack of attention to the real problems facing America. And those problems are truly small when one takes a moment to glance around the globe at less fortunate peoples still grappling with providing babies with enough milk to grow...The day before Election Day, the United States -- for the first time in public memory -- paraded pictures of the assassination of an Al Qaeda leader by our CIA.... send(ing) the message that we are now in the business of murder for hire -- openly and against hundreds of years of stated principle, principle of law.... you had better take stock of what's happening in this nation... what is happening in mass media..."

According to the old adage, "A person is known not just by their friends, but by their enemies." If so, then being attacked by Nicholas Kristof is high praise indeed. Kristof, who used ELECTION DAY to viciously skewer leftwingers, singling out a group dedicated to demanding honest elections, has a long history of using his column to promote the Bush agenda while purporting not to be a right-winger. When the Bush DUI story broke, the primary spinmeister protecting the Bush image was Kristof (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec23.htm). Now here in this column we find him extolled by "Christianity Today" for his enthusiastic writings on Christian right involvement in international politics....in the same column praising an Archbishop for refusing communion to gays. Yep, we'd be worried if Kristof was ON our side!

Is Nicholas Kristof suffering from amnesia? This week, he waxes indignant against leftwingers who dare to ask whether Paul Wellstone was assassinated and to call for a serious criminal investigation of the case. Yet not long ago, Kristof used his column to accuse a private citizen of one of the century's most outrageous crimes, the fall 2001 anthrax attacks that killed 5 Americans. Thanks in large part to Kristof, Steven Hatfill became the focus of a witchhunt by the Bush administration, thereby taking the focus away from the reality - that the investigation was being stymied, perhaps intentionally.

Bob Fertik writes, "Dear Nicholas: I read with interest your attack on the 'intelligent left.' I note that when reporting on Saudi Arabia, you take the time and trouble to actually visit Saudi Arabia and talk with a few of its citizens. But when you report on the 'intelligent left', you exert no more effort than grabbing a few titillating headlines for rhetorical effect. Exactly how is that different from what you accuse us of doing? If you're interested in actually interviewing a member of the 'intelligent left,' I'd be delighted to oblige. Here's what you'll learn - there are millions of Americans who will never 'get over' the stolen election of 2000. If this happened in another country, I am confident you would be on the side of pro-democracy activists. But in your own country, you side with those who stole the election, and dismiss pro-democracy activists with rhetorical contempt. I have a simple question: why?"

Nicholas Kristof writes, "The intelligent left is dumbing down and showing signs of slipping into a similar cesspool of outraged incoherence. It's debasing and marginalizing itself by marshaling epithets rather than arguments. Bush is criticized not just for catastrophically frittering away our budget surplus or for rushing us into a mess in Iraq. Rather, Citizens for Legitimate Government put it this way in its e-mail newsletter: 'We have an Idiot Usurping Lying Weasel for a President.' [Gee, those are incontrovertible facts!] The latest leftist silliness is the suggestion that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated. Liberal Web sites are suggesting such a conspiracy." Hey Nick - are we not allowed to even ASK the question? Nick, when will you - or the Times - admit that Bush stole Florida by persuading the Republican Supreme Court to throw out 175,000 votes? When will you report on the Felon Purge of 91,000 legal voters? We're waiting! Send your thoughts to nicholas@nytimes.com

AOL/Time-Warner, just like the NY Times and NPR has been blatantly abusing its power by suppressing facts (Time Magazine, for example, was recently reported as killing huge chunks of investigative reports that were unfavorable to big advertisers) and by using its ubiquitous presence on people's AOL server homepages to plug the Bush agenda and GOP candidates - not just the homepage national news, but also their homepage local news. To keep their operation afloat, AOL has exploited unpaid workers. Then, when the workers complained, guess who stepped in to "protect" AOL, not the workers? You guessed it - the Bush Administration. Guess all those free GOP "infomercials disguised as news" are just part of the little "thankyou" package.

Journalists and editors are finally breaking their silence to come forward and admit that the corporate barons and their pals in the White House do indeed call the shots for the American media. Pharmaceutical companies release infomercials which then run on NBC et al. as "medical news," while Condi Rice routinely tells editors what to write on national and international issues. But, here at Democrats.com, we have been shouting the warning since Bush took office. Here is a disturbing and comprehensive overview of just how the corporate media works, written by regular Dems.com contributor Cheryl Seal and first posted at Dems.com nearly one year ago - back when no mainstreamers dared tell the truth.

A recent panel discussion by representatives of some of the nation's biggest publications, including "Time" magazine, "The New York Times," and "Washington Post" sponsored by the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO's Newspaper Guild (composed of newspaper writers and editors) revealed what we already knew: the mainstream news is dictated by corporate interests. Said one editor, "Newspapers are on the verge of doom. There are enormous pressures to replace civic values with commercial values." Local papers are no better, alas, with many of them being transformed into display cases for local businesses. TV? Forget it! Pharmaceutical infomercials are now run as "news spots." Worst of all, Condi Rice now thinks she's the nation's news consultant. Editors complain that she calls news outlets regularly to tell them what and what not to print on national issues.

Chicago Media Watch writes, "Since the September 11 tragedy, the laws we have identified as defining our democracy have been trampled upon. Instead of upholding these laws, the administration has pushed for wars, a bigger military budget and a suspension of civil liberties. Thanks to the mainstream press, the hidden political and economic reasons for these radical changes never reach the public. Now Chicago Media Watch is organizing an urgent city-wide conference on propaganda. Please join us to explore this issue with some of the nation's most authoritative experts on Nov. 2, 2002." Speakers include Bill Ayers, Leon Stein, Nancy Snow, Jennifer Van Bergen, Matthew Rothschild, David Schippers, John McMurtry, and Sally Jhally.

Story number one, which appeared in the UK Independent on Oct. 19, describes an angry Australia, one that has turned on its Prime Minister as having failed to protect its people. See:
( http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/story.jsp?story=343961 )
The basis for the story? Letters that real people had written into the editors of their newspapers - an outpouring that came within days of the Bali disaster. Now, just four days letter (what an AMAZING coincidence!), the Financial Times (a real bastion of non-corporate reporting, right?) issues a story based on - you guessed it!! - an instantly materialized poll that finds that the Aussies ADORE their Prime Minister and that the blast has made him a veritable hero in the nation's eyes.

"The Retro Poll...(questions): does the public opinion reported in the usual major media polls reflect the true values and beliefs of those Americans polled, or not? Results of the pilot poll...support concerns that they do not. Thanks to the mainstream media, the public has been stuffed with misinformation or blocked from access to accurate information....a large precentage believed Al-Qeda and Iraq had proven links....when people (had) access to the facts, their opinions...dramatically changed...despite Bushpolling, 80.4% of the respondents rejected...outlawed techniques such as torture against detainees. 82.7% supported the idea that the U.S. should have to prove its accusations against nations before attacking them. 71% rejected indeterminate detention of arrestees (citizens and non-citizens) without charges, proofs, or trials. 89.2% supported the position that the U.S. should support international attempts to prosecute war crimes." Not the truth according to Tom Brokaw, eh?

Those of us who have accused the U.S. media of slanting stories, suppressing information, and concocting outright lies in their neverending quest to support, protect, and promote the objectives of the Bush regime have been dismissed as "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists." But here is undeniable proof, folks, that our assertions are, indeed, true. To trump up a reason to invade Iraq, Bush has claimed that Saddam kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Mainstream media has 100% supported his claim. But four years ago, they told the truth. Check out the big fat gap in honesty between 1998 and 2002!! How can Brokaw, Couric, Rather, et al look their kids in the eyes without shame?

Reports the New York Times: "Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, today blamed [Shrub] for a 'very disappointing Congress' and said the nation was in worse shape than when Mr. Bush took office. 'You've got an economy that is in shambles as a result of decisions made by this administration...You have virtually no attention to domestic issues...You have an administration that is looked upon around the world in the most dubious of ways.'" Of course, the headline was "Daschle Takes Parting Shot as Congress Breaks," and the article indicated that any concern about the economy or things left undone was merely campaign-season rhetoric. We all know that talking about things like rising unemployment, falling stock markets, pension protection and the lack of prescription drug coverage is just a political ploy, right? Nobody could honestly be concerned about any of THAT, could they? Nah. Memo to the NY Times - quit slanting your stories against Democrats and progressive activists alike!

William Rivers Pitt writes: "There is a gulf between the reporting of economic realities and the truth felt by the American people. There is also a gulf between the stridently patriotic war talk proffered by the television news, and the feelings within the citizenry regarding this impending conflict....The media may report otherwise, but the American people know something has gone terribly wrong. An economy that had been so robust only two short years ago has become a wasteland. A war is about to begin in Iraq that will set a precedent for pre-emptive violence and destabilize the planet, that will enflame the Middle East and guarantee retaliatory terrorism at home, that will kill tens of thousands of civilians along with many American soldiers. The potentially dire ramifications of these two looming disasters can not be quantified. This does not appear on the nightly news, but it is there, huge and raw and terrifying, all the same."

In the face of the controversial decision by the PBS network to refuse to transmit the investigative report, the nation's top PBS stations will independently broadcast COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY. Directed by Emmy-award winner Danny Schechter, the 57-minute documentary follows BBC television reporter Greg Palast as he discovers how Katherine Harris removed up to 57,000 legal voters from registries - mostly black - five months before the 2000 election. While the public broadcast network chiefs refused to schedule this important report, dozens of local stations are insisting on showing the expose before the mid-term elections. 10-24 9 PM KNME ALBUQUERQUE- SANTA FE, NM; 10-24 10 PM WPTD DAYTON, OH; 10-24 10 PM WPTO CINCINNATI, OH; 10-27 12 PM WGCU FORT MYERS- NAPLES, FL; 10-30 9 PM KBDI DENVER, CO; 10-31 10 PM KLCS LOS ANGELES, CA; 11-4 Midnight WNET NEW YORK, NY; 11-5 10 PM KCET LOS ANGELES, CA; 11-6 8 AM WHUT WASHINGTON, DC.

The mainstream networks have, for some years, avoided the 1960s like a plague - you'll see plenty of "Happy Days" reruns and "That 70s Show" - but no 60s. Why? "Even with today's greatly revised guidelines on language and subject matter, the networks and cable don't quite know how to make the basically anti-materialistic counterculture of the psychedelic decade work in a highly commercial media," says Lawrence MacNamee. "That Thomas Chong does appear on That '70s Show, as what appears to be a burned-out refugee from a decade earlier, shouldn't surprise anyone...when you see the 60s portrayed on television, the tendency is to see the exaggerated, grotesque, and campy aspects of that time period." We suspect there's a deeper reason the media "Bush dogs" zealously skip over the 60s: Can't have any examples of anti-war activism being presented now, can we?

Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias writes, "The White House insists it isn't 'wagging the dog' to divert attention from domestic issues, an accusation that Fleischer and VP Dick Cheney have both pooh-poohed as 'reprehensible.' After all, it's a lot sexier than discussing how 41 million Americans have no health insurance. The media dog has not only been wagged, it's rolled over at Bush's feet. You'd be hard pressed to know that U.S. protests are getting bigger and more frequent by watching TV. When CNN shows a march, it's always overseas and always slugged as an 'anti-American demonstration.' And what about the human cost of war? The media don't - or won't - even bother grappling with the death toll for the U.S. military with the bad luck to end up fighting in the streets of Baghdad. As Arianna Huffington noted last week, 'Not a single reporter has stood up ... and asked, 'Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?''" They're too busy slobbering on Bush's feet.

On Oct. 9, talk show fixture Oprah Winfrey used her show to promote the Bush W-ar. The show was billed as a discussion of the war against Iraq and a search for "moral clarity." But the show turned out to be a propaganda fest, focusing on horror stories (she had a former Iraqi talk at length about being imprisoned by Saddam and a litany of unsubstantiatable horrors, along the lines of babies being thrown out of incubators or gassed dogs). One middle-aged woman, who appeared to be reading a line stood up in the audience and declared, "These gentlemen have changed my mind in 15 minutes! Now I think we should go, and go fast!" When dissenters tried to question the propaganda, Oprah pounced on them. But this is just a continuation of Oprah's pattern of misusing her forum - a forum geared for insulated white suburban women, whose fears Bush - and now Oprah - exploit. Apparently, Bush's poisonous kiss in 2000 turned a Queen into a toad.

As if the mainstream media weren't controlled enough by outside political and corporate interests - now the results of a conference last summer show that the biggest sellouts (AOL/Time-Warner, Washington Post, NY Times, Hearst Corp, etc) recommend tying news even MORE to business interests under the euphemistic heading of "consolidating support for journalistic values." A "board", that would include corporate interests, would decide what constitutes "journalistic excellence". The press release describes this incestuous relationship in typical corporate doublespeak terms: "Specifically noted was a need to 'lace people together' from both corporate and journalism sides in a single organization to address issues collectively and build mutual trust." Looks like the final steps toward creating a massive propaganda organ for the "corporate state."

The practice of "preposting" news, says Ken Layne, "shows just how useless most 'news' really is. Speech articles are generally written in advance - it's a game of fakery played by politicians and press. White House reporters are given copies of the speech hours beforehand. You write it up as if it happened and it goes on the wires... Before the wires and newspapers were on the Internet, this was all secret... but times have changed! You can see this same practice in, say, stories on Fed rate changes. The reporters type one story with the accepted idea of what the change will be, if any, and prepare a few alternate paragraphs just in case." Thank God for the alternative press! Democrats.com will never treat its readers with such disrespect - back off, Karl!

"George W. Bush's doctrine of 'preemptive war' - the elimination of foreign governments he deems a threat to U.S. security interests - is quickly developing a domestic corollary. Any politician who questions Bush's strategy can expect to be confronted by a rapid-deployment force of pro-Bush operatives who counterattack using weapons of ridicule and distortion.... This army swung onto the offensive immediately after Al Gore on Sept. 23 delivered a comprehensive critique of Bush's radical departure from decades of American support for international law. Rather than welcome a vigorous debate on the merits and shortcomings of the so-called 'Bush Doctrine,' conservative commentators treated Gore and others raising questions as dishonest, unpatriotic and even unhinged."

NY Times reports, "Those old enough to know said that [Sunday's] Central Park rally to protest a US invasion of Iraq drew a larger crowd than similar gatherings in the early 1960's by those who did not want the US to get further involved in Vietnam. 'If this is an indication of how the American people feel, a large amount of them don't want our sons to be killed,' said Frank Phillips, 89, of Long Island, who described himself as a peace activist for 60 years. Several [make that 50!] thousand people filled the park's East Meadow [Sunday] afternoon, taking in the sun that bathed the slight slope facing a stage where speaker after speaker - from activist actors to relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to high school students - strode to the microphone. Their messages were as diverse as those on the signs and T-shirts and leaflets in the crowd." Amazingly, the Times thinks this diversity is bad, and makes fun of it. Send your complaints to letters@nytimes.com

We are getting a major kick out of watching the rightwing pundits spin out of control in their efforts to defend their indefensible position on... well, on just about everything! After all, this is the group that has been the primary incubator and facilitator for corporate criminals... Wants to shed American blood for oil without offering any concrete evidence that even a moderate threat to America is involved, and .... Owns and controls every mainstream media outlet, which they use to cyncially manipulate reality in the way that best pads their own pockets. Yet here they are, sniping from behind Big Media Mamma's skirts at anyone who gives enough of a real damn about America to speak on her behalf. Right now the object of their ire is Gore. I'd say its David against Goliath. But these pundits are more like the slinking, sniveling Gollum than any Goliath - and Gore is like Aragorn, the displaced rightful King.

This letter to the editor of the Decatur, Illinois "Herald & Review" on Oct 2 reveals that the Bush propaganda machine is leaving no stone unturned in its quest to gag dissenters and manipulate news coverage. The letter by a local citizen (second one down the page, entitled H&R Iraq Coverage Shows Bias Toward Iraq) complains because this community newspaper actually used its editorial section to criticize a columnist who dared queston Bush. And, apparently, when the paper was blasted by readers for its bias, its response was to print a small (obviously content-gutted) article on Al Gore's speech on the LAST PAGE of the paper. All we can say is, Thank God for Democrats.com and other sites like us who don't answer to Goebbel's Central.

The desperation of the mainstream media to keep the continuously expanding number of Big Lies from the Bush administration afloat is showing - and painfully. Some of the nightly news offerings of late are so obviously propaganda that it's like a Saturday Night Live parody - Tom Brokaw made us laugh out loud the other night. But no network has tried more pitifully to torque up spin than FOX. Now they have hired Newt Gingrich as a news commentator! More hysterical still, Newt will provide us with "fair and balanced" coverage on election night 2002! What's next? Will NBC hire Ken Lay as their "energy issues" expert? Or maybe CBS will hire Tom DeLay to do a special report on campaign fundraising fraud!

"Well, fellow supporters of a free and honest press, as of this weekend, we are officially going it alone, without any pretense of help from the mainstream (not that it has shown more than the rare flicker for months). Mark Sept. 29 as the day that American Media Died. What little life it had left was choked from it by order of the Bush Reich, which was aggressively seeking to protect itself, like a cancer from the immune system, from the threat of dissent. There is not even any semblance of balanced reporting reflecting the reality of the American scene right now. It is all Bush spin, all the time, with sports and Chandra Levy thrown in for added diversions. " So writes Cheryl Seal, who presents summaries of the NYT, Post, MSNBC, CBS, AOL, and FOX slants for the weekend.

The takeover of the American media by the Bush Reich was completed this weekend as the Reich geared up for war and tried to roll over dissent like a Panzer tank. Check out the online page one edition of Washington Post - as of about 1:00 pm Sept. 29, it's headlining stories were the Ryder Cup, Chandra Levy, rosy outlooks for the war ("Blair Says UN Support for War will Come") and a total playdown of the anti-Bush protests that erupted across the nation this weekend ("Second Day of Protests Quiet"). In their story on the protests, the numbers were minimized, and the wording of even the headline was so slanted that even Rush Limbaugh might call it too obvious: "Protestors Momentum Weakens as Crowds Thin." This is scary stuff, folks - our free press by and for the people is DEAD.

Whatever shred of journalistic integrity the NYT had left is gone like yesterday's news. Sat. afternoon's online paper was a propaganda fest of rightwing Biblical proportions. The half-million-protestor demonstration in London? Not even a sub-headline under "International." (though a story on Nancy Reagan was front and center). Bush's obvious railroading of Iraq - demanding, for ex., a complete accounting of all weaponry injust a month? Not a line - the article on the resolution, in fact is remarkable for its failure to mention just what the resolution was. The coverage of the D.C. anti-globalisation protests? Flippant (referring to the IMF as the target of protestors' "discontent"), demeaning ("carnival atmosphere") intentionally inflammatory (they mention an American flag was burned in the first paragraph). Meanwhile, the headlines make it seem as if war is progressing forward nicely - on Bush's schedule. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/international/middleeast/29NATI.html

An AOL member writes, "I am registered to the Democratic political party. I am a patriotic American. I love my country and I proudly wave the American Flag. I sometimes voice my opinion about politics on the AOL political message boards. Yet, day after day I see Democrats that are attacked on these message boards. Why? Simply because we believe in and fight for Democracy in our great nation? The word Democrat is often replaced with 'Liberal' which is used rather loosely by the Right Wing in an attempt to demean or harass us. It's not a surprise to find on any AOL political message board a theatrical display where Liberals are falsely accused of being anti-Americans, terrorist lovers, flag burners, draft dodgers and responsible for promoting and teaching gay lifestyles... In my opinion, that is un-American!" If you have had similar problems at AOL, share your experiences here.

"To Tim Russert: Last Sunday on your 'Meet The Press,' you allowed Tom Davis R-VA, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee to lie through his teeth without so much as a hint of rebuttal, correction or factual follow up. Davis said privatizing Social Security was '...not the Republican position.' Lie. It was specifically worded in the 2000 Republican Party Platform. He said, 'President Clinton embraced it at one point as you recall. Lie. You know the truth about this. He said '205 Democrats voted to praise it (privatizing)...Lie. You know it. He specifically MIS-QUOTED several Democrats as supporting privatization. If you don't have the factual statements from those Democrats, I'll be happy to refer you to the public documents Mr. Davis was lying about..." So writes Steven Warren.

The Washington Post set a brand-new standard for media prostitution by officially getting down on its knees to perform fellatio on Commander-in-Thief George W. Bush. Watch this official WashPost video (edited by Nicole Hider) and see if you can find ANY journalistic merit it in. To us, it is nothing but Leni Riefenstahl-style propaganda modeled after her Hitler-worshiping "Triumph of the Will," a declaration of war against journalism as a profession and a corporate "f***-you" to the 51 million Americans who believe Bush is STILL an illegitimate Resident. Share your outrage with Ombudsman Michael Getler 202-334-7582 ombudsman@washpost.com and Howard Kurtz KurtzH@washpost.com and demand EQUAL TIME for the millions of Americans who believe Bush is an out-of-control Dictator who is determined to bring fiscal, legal, environmental, and moral disaster to the US and the World.

On Wednesday (1 ET / 10 PT) Meria will be interviewing John Kelly, who wrote 'Crimes and Silence: The CIA's Criminal Acts and the Media's Silence' for "Into The Buzzsaw", the recent Media expose'. They will be discussing that and his book "Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals of the FBI Crime Lab". Both scathing exposes' of our "intelligence community" and why they failed us way before 9/11. Not to be missed. Also, check out Meria's archives for recent shows with J. Michael Springman on the connection between the CIA and illegal VISAS; Victoria Collier on the classic expose' "Votescam", and also renowned scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott, author of "The New Nuclear Danger, George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex."

Alan Hale writes, "Mr. Bush made a stop in Las Cruces, New Mexico, this past Saturday, primarily to raise campaign funds for Republican ... candidates. I approached the Las Cruces Sun-News editors a week ago and reminded them that I'd been cooperative with them all the times they've interviewed me in the past... I informed them I wanted to write a critical op-ed of Mr. Bush specifically to run at the time of his visit, and they told me that if I got it to them in time there 'is a high probability' they would run it. I hand-delivered it to them last Wednesday. Needless to say, they did not run it. Needless to say, they did not have the courtesy or decency to inform me of this. Needless to say, they ran a gushing, fawning editorial praising Mr. Bush at the time of his visit... The censored op-ed piece is attached. I give blanket permission to post and distribute it, and this accompanying commentary, as you see fit." E-mail editor James Rosenthal, jrosenthal@lcsun-news.com

"That al Qaeda puppy video dug up by CNN was nothing compared to what I found on the Internet last night...A network of organizations WITHIN THE USA has been killing over 12 MILLION dogs and cats EVERY YEAR. Yes, right here in America! I've ordered that all 9-11 Intelligence inquiries be re-targeted to this massive puppy slaughter. We need to know how this could have been taking place for so long without the CIA, FBI, NSA or CNN taking any notice." Interesting that this story came out just as the New York Times broke the REAL NEWS about Reagan-Bush aiding Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Iranian soldiers. As for the CNN Doggie story -- How stupid do they think we are? This is shades of the fake "Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti premie babies out of incubators and leaving them to die" story that was shoved through the Media in the build up to Gulf War I. It came out that the story was bogus, created by the PR firm Hill and Knowlton, that had been hired by the Kuwaiti government.

"Freedom? Democracy? Civil rights? Or cute, safe, happy little doggies?"

Writes Julie Tomlin for the Press Gazette: "US news organisations 'censored' their coverage of the US campaign in Afghanistan in order to be in step with public opinion in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a CNN senior executive has claimed. Coverage of the war in Afghanistan was shaped by the level of public support that existed for US action, Rena Golden, the executive vice-president and general manager of CNN International claimed. Speaking at Newsworld Asia, a conference for news executives in Singapore, Golden said: 'Anyone who claims the US media didn't censor itself is kidding you. It wasn't a matter of government pressure but a reluctance to criticise anything in a war that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the people. 'And this isn't just a CNN issue -every journalist who was in any way involved in 9/11 is partly responsible.'"

Gene Lyons writes: "The real dilemma facing Democrats...in 2004 isn't the over-hyped popularity of George W. Bush...the single biggest obstacle facing Democratic hopefuls isn't Al Gore vs. Joe Lieberman, or Populism vs. Progressivism…Rather, it's the adolescent groupthink and malignant dishonesty of the Washington press clique itself. All it took to bring out the worst in the vapid crowd of 'Heathers' that treats our national political discourse as a high school popularity contest was a New York Times op-ed by Gore pointing out that much of what he'd warned us about during the 2000 presidential campaign has come to pass--growing budget deficits and Enron-style accounting, raiding the Social Security trust fund 'to finance massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the very rich,' little hope of a genuine Medicare prescription drug benefit, the abandonment of sane environmental policies, and unrestrained greed that has 'put at risk...nothing less than the future of democratic capitalism.'"

When Congressman Bill Thomas put forth the usual crap that everything bad today is Clinton's fault, LA Times sportswriter Brian Robin sent him an email taking him to task. The result, Brian is now on the unemployment line, fired by the LA Times, and it doesn't matter that he was telling the truth. How many reporters raked Gore, Clinton and their families and still do and were never fired. Where is that 'liberal media' Rush keeps telling his 20 million ditto-heads about?

Right wing mother-daughter-dater John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes, "Talk radio has faded as a political force since 1994, when the Republicans took Congress. But at the local level talk radio remains powerful. Regular listeners, 15% to 20% of the population, vote and discuss politics with their friends more often than most people do. So when hosts spotlight issues of government abuse, corruption or unmet needs, they force the politicians to tune in to the problem." Unfortunately, corporate America - led by ABC/Disney - exercises dictatorial control over the public airwaves and only allows rightwing hosts. We must take back the public airwaves from the corporate right!

Norman Solomon, author of "Unreliable Sources" about media bias, writes: "With huge financial scandals causing turmoil in the United States, this year has seen some vigorous reporting about high-level misdeeds and corporate manipulation. But many news stories just take the lead from top officials. In the months ahead, we'll find out how deep American media outlets are willing to go. Big scandals always generate plenty of headlines and lots of excitement. Important information can emerge. But frequently, key facts remain buried and crucial questions go unasked. If it's true that reporters produce a first draft of history, they often serve as conformist 'jiffy historians' who do little more than recycle the day's conventional wisdom." What are the top six signs of an official scandal? First, 'The scandal comes to light much later than it could have to prevent serious harm.' Yup."

Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) writes in Commondreams.org: "One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions." Rep. Sanders recently held a Symposium on Corporate Control of the Media with US Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Robert McChesney, author of " Rich Media, Poor Democracy," John Nichols, co-author of "It's the Media, Stupid" and The Nation magazine's Washington correspondent and Linda Foley, president of the Newspaper Guild. Thanks to Congressman Sanders you can hear an audio tape of the symposium here on Common Dreams. It's 1 hour and 27 minutes long (5.5 MB) and Real Player is required to listen.

Eric Alterman writes, "Speaking on NPR recently, Cokie Roberts, the soon-to-retire co-host of ABC's This Week, falsely informed her listeners that [Bush] 'was exonerated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.' In fact, even though his daddy was the President of the United States during the incident in question, after a remarkably relaxed investigation the SEC informed Bush's lawyer that its decision 'must in no way be construed as indicating that [George W Bush] has been exonerated'... As a pundit, she was a windup Conventional Wisdom doll. The problem with Bill Clinton, for instance, was that he was the wrong sort for Cokie and her kind. [All this is relevant] because Cokie's inadvertent honesty helps us understand how George W Bush ever made it to the White House in the first place. Why are we hearing about Harken Oil only today? Why did the press ignore the evidence of Bush's personal and professional dishonesty back in 2000, when it still mattered?"

stirling s newberry writes, "Those of us on the outside must now hold ourselves to a higher standard - the standard of truth that was once expected of CBS News or The New York Times. That is not to say that bringing forward as yet unexplained facts is to cease - far from it, these unexplained facts will often prove to be the telling detail that unravels the carefully constructed fictions that are passed off as news. But the example I would give is the work by writers like the late Mr. Hatfield, who put every rumor on the table, and yet, were able to distinguish those which were speculation and hearsay, versus those which were credible and substantive... This is not a case of reminding good people who have gone astray, but replacing people who are irrevocably compromised. The urgent necessity we must place upon our own burden, is to rise to the occasion, and become the press that we once took for granted. Because if we do not become that press, no one else will do it."

"Back in 1994, Stephen Pizzo wrote in Mother Jones, 'While the national media--and specifically the New York Times--has focused its high-caliber lens on the Clintons, they apparently have forgiven and forgotten the Bushes' banking practices. Consider the remarkably kind November 30 (1993) Times front-page profile of Bush boys George Jr. and Jeb... Had Dowd done her background work she would have found... a 1987 front-page article in the Wall Street Journal chronicling how Jeb helped a Cuban con man bilk Medicare out of millions of dollars; MoJo's Sept./Oct. 1992 cover story ('My Three Sons') on the Bush sons' long list of dubious business transactions (including George Jr.'s alleged violation of security laws governing insider stock sales when he sold his shares of Harken Oil on the eve of the Gulf War)... Dowd wouldn't defend her story, saying, 'Look, I'm not an investigative reporter, and clearly I wish now that I'd written a different piece.'" It's never too late to make amends!

TheDailyBrew writes, "If you are like me, and would consider a paid subscription to Salon if only they would fire the wing nuts like [David] Horowitz, I urge you to forward this to Kerry Lauerman at klauerman@salon.com and let him know. He wants to hear from you. Don't believe me? Read our email exchange." Not only is Horowitz a professional scapegoater and a dissembling propagandist, but he was caught in a bald-faced lie in an attempt to discredit David Brock, author of 'Blinded by the Right'. (For more info, enter 'brock' in the Democrats.com search engine).

"ONCE UPON A TIME, in a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest," writes Edward Monks. According to the Fairness Doctrine, adopted by the FCC in 1949, all broadcasters must not only address issues important to the public interest, but must air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. "However, by 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was gone - repealed by the FCC, to which President Reagan had appointed the majority of commissioners. In recent years almost all nationally syndicated political talk radio hosts on commercial stations have openly identified themselves as conservative, Republican, or both...The spectrum of opinion on these shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing - there is virtually nothing else." Yet we are still supposed to buy the myth of the liberal media?!!

"The Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune [a subsidiary of the NY Times] recently ran a 4,400-word, 2 1/2-page spread on Republican congressional candidate Katherine Harris. And when one reader complained that Democratic candidates were getting short shrift, Managing Editor Rosemary Armao responded with a remarkably candid e-mail - one that wound up costing her her job. 'Katherine Harris is an international figure, like her or not...She's going to be the next congresswoman from this area, like it or not...I have no intentions of covering each of the Democratic candidates to the same extent.'" When Armao's boss told Armao she would be fired, Armao quit. Like Katherine Harris, Armao couldn't care less about counting the votes. Armao says she is "worried whether I'll ever have another job in journalism." With a "what's the use" attitude like that, we're even more worried that she might get a job as an election supervisor!

"Like 'The Blob,' a monster from the lame 1950s horror movie of the same name, the giant media corporations keep rolling across the landscape, gobbling up everything in their path. Every independent operation they consume then becomes an indistinguishable part of the oozing, faceless mass of goo. All of the parts are just different names for the same whole - thus, for example, Viacom is also Paramount movies, which is also CBS, which is also Simon & Schuster, which is also Blockbuster, which is also MTV and Nickelodeon, which is also Infinity Broadcasting (radio). Fabricating a 'national trend' is just a matter of a few strategically placed memos and a little help from the Bush administration..." So writes Cheryl Seal.

FAIR writes, "Bush's June 14 commencement address at Ohio State University was a sign of a 'revived' presidency, according to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank. 'Bush basked in the adulation of 55,000 people who treated him to waves of standing ovations in Ohio Stadium as he received an honorary doctorate,' according to the paper (6/15/02). 'If there was a protest in the stadium, it was not visible to reporters.'... [But] 'Immediately before class members filed into the giant football stadium, an announcer instructed the crowd that all the university's speakers deserve to be treated with respect and that anyone demonstrating or heckling would be subject to expulsion and arrest. The announcer urged that Bush be greeted with a 'thunderous' ovation.' And some observers did, in fact, notice protests during the ceremony. Complain to Michael Getler, Ombudsman ombudsman@washpost.com (202) 334-7582"

Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) writes, "One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the US. Whether it is TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions... Without exception, every major [TV] network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has enormous conflicts of interest... Corporate radio is just plain overt in its right-wing bias... There are dozens of right-wing talk show programs. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, Howie Carr, Oliver North, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger - these are only a few of the voices that day after day pound a right-wing drumbeat into the heartland of this country."

"To illustrate [media bias] let's take a specific day, May 31, 2002, and see what so-called news organizations provided American citizens. On that date, the news had broken that Bush and his cohorts were using their incompetence as an excuse to make further incursions against our constitutional rights. And the world was watching to see what would happen in the India-Pakistan war. What were Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the network 'news' programs feeding us? How these attacks on our civil liberties were necessary to make it easier for the F.B.I. to do its job. As filler, they were still running emotion-provoking stories about Chandra Levy and somber warnings about the India-Pakistan conflict. Why weren't they informing us about: how the new powers given the F.B.I. were enlarged threats to our civil liberties? How Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, issuing a scathing statement in response to new Justice Department guidelines on terrorism investigations?" etc!

Writes Reba Shimansky: "I just finished reading David Brock's book 'Blinded by the Right' which I highly recommend. It is a real eye opener. I will never forgive the Democrats for approving Ted Olson as Solicitor General - who was very active in trying to bring down Clinton. Brock says that Hillary was right - that there was a rightwing conspiracy to destroy the Clintons. However I believe that it was broader than that. There was a media conspiracy to destroy the Clintons."

"A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican. More than one in four sources were politicians-- George W. Bush alone made up 9 percent of all sources-- versus a mere 3 percent for all non-governmental advocacy groups, the sources most likely to present an alternative view to the government's. Big business, too, was overrepresented. In a year in which the country lost 2.4 million jobs, corporate representatives appeared about 35 times more frequently than did union representatives, accounting for 7 percent of sources versus labor's 0.2 percent." Now when are they gonna show that the same group is used in rigged "Bush approval" polls?

Howard Kurtz writes: "In a single day, the capital's media climate has been transformed." From cowed and deferring, the press is suddenly changed to "skeptical and indignant." Kurtz suggests the "media is finally waking up." (Does this include him, too?). We think the media have - like Dan Rather now admits - always been aware that something was rotten in the state of D.C. and kept quiet to protect their own sorry butts, rather than doing their job, which is to get at the truth for the American people. That they are suddenly "skeptical and indignant" is too little and too late for the victims of 9/11 - who might still be alive today if the same cowardly, money-driven pack of journalists that are "now waking up" hadn't greased Bush's way into the White House in the first place.

Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge are proof that "we live in stupid times", according to the Daily Howler. Drudge, in his slobbering glee to promote the blonde neo-fascist's new book, lauds Coulter for exposing the NY Times' supposedly "liberal" bias. How does Coulter do this? In perhaps the dumbest display of faulty logic yet seen by a right-wing pundit, she counts the number of times the NYT used the phrases "far right wing" vs. "far left wing". The Howler did their own research and found that Coulter herself disproportionately used the "far right wing" phrase in her Moonie rag, the Washington Times! We can't argue with the Howler that Coulter and Drudge truly are tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber. The only issue up for debate is: which one's dumb, and which one's dumb-ER?

"What happens when the press and the government function as two arms of the same creature? The same thing that was feared in the classic case of the police state: the voice of the press becomes corrupted. It assumes the tinny, inauthentic hysterical tone that we associate with the Pravda of the bad old days. The press no longer guards the public interest, but becomes an instrument of privilege and power. It blurs issues and spews propaganda. Its voice becomes shrill as it praises its master, insisting on its own rightness and glory. That is the American press of 2002 - all lies, all the time." So writes Richard Mynick in the Online Journal. Send this well-written article to Faux News, the NY Times, and the Washington Post to let them know we're sick of their pro-Bush propaganda!

"Caroline Kennedy must have felt like she'd wandered into a seedy bar when she appeared on 'Meet the Press' with Tim Russert and Bob Woodward on May 12. That she would agree to go onto the same stage with Tim Russert shows incredible optimism... or a strong stomach... or amazing stamina... or perhaps all of the above. What a contrast! The classy, self-possessed and unpretentious Caroline on one hand, the pontificating, outrageously self-important and belligerent Russert on the other. Russert, whose face seems to balloon more each week, while his beetley brow grows more beetley, acted like some old barfly trying to bait the other, less soused patrons of the joint into an argument or reduce them to tears..." So writes Cheryl Seal.

"The following essay was originally written as a response to an editorial by John Stanton and Wayne Madsen, 'US Media Interests: Champions of Propaganda, Profit and Puffery' at Counterpunch.com, concerning the demise of American media in light of the activities of the current administration. This response has been rewritten in part for presentation by 'Democrats.com' and details that such a demise is merely a symptom of ever greater problems plaguing American society; problems that threaten to tear this nation asunder along with all that decent, honorable people believe in." So writes Steve Naidamast.

The network news has become a joke, at best - 17 nightly minutes of actual "news," once you subtract commercials and repeating "teasers." It is, says the New Republic's Rob Walker, a sorry excuse for news. "So what did I learn in three weeks of watching the evening news? Basically that the network news, which defends itself against detractors by invoking the earnest sobriety of its broadcasts, contains as much hype and fake populism as any of its cable competitors.The evening news... treats its viewers like angry, gullible ignoramuses. And that's particularly frustrating when you consider that the network news divisions are not threadbare operations: They employ packs of extremely highly paid journalists." Read Kristina Borjesson's hair-raising "Into the Buzzsaw" for case histories on network journalists who were fired for trying to report the truth.

NY Times columnist Tom Friedman starts his column with a valid complaint by a Muslim woman against Bill O'Reilly's uniformed, obnoxious bigotry and FOX's spin. He then goes on to say that the only reason there is unrest in Indonesia and elsewhere is because it is being fomented by people who get their information from the Internet. What nonsense! If the Internet is causing unrest, it is because it presents people with the upsetting realities that are suppressed by mainstream idiots like O'Reilly and Friedman - realities like stolen elections, systematic corporate exploitation of developing nations, CIA-engineered coups, etc.

FAIR reveals that FAUX pundit Bill O'Reilly routinely uses his program to disseminate false information to the public. Some examples: LIE: 58% of all single moms receive public assistance (TRUTH: 14% of single mothers receive assistance). LIE: 37% of college students in FLA are black (TRUTH: 18% are black). LIE: U.S. gives more tax dollars to foreign countries than all other nations (TRUTH: U.S. gives LESS tax dollars in foreign aid than all other nations). LIE (with assistance from John Stossel and the Heritage Foundation): $40,000 in tax dollars spent on each poor family annually (TRUTH: $40,000 is spent on each U.S. family, poor & nonpoor for ALL programs, including educational grants and school lunch programs). Assorted lies: "I've never heard a rightwing person on NPR anywhere," "All casual drug users are terrorist supporters," "Palestinians rejected an offer from Barak to return 90% of all Israeli-settler occupied." Sign our FOX debate petition at http://democrats.com/fox

In an effort to counter the growing realization by the public that the "liberal media" not only does not exist - but never did - the rightwingers have launched a new front site: "Lying in Ponds." The heading claims the site is dedicated to exposing "the absurdity of partisanship" in pundits (which is absurd in itself because pundits ARE about partisanship!). But a glance at the site shows that the pundits that top their hit list are the few who regularly criticize the Bush Reich - while rightwing pundits are given just a few mildly critical comments. Just a might bit telling, doncha think, that out of a field where rightwing pundits like Limbaugh et al outnumber liberals by about 20 to 1, that the liberals top their list? A closer look and you discover that the front man for the site, in true rightwing poser fashion, has NO credentials whatsoever in journalism, politics, or media criticism: he is a meteorologist! Like the rightwing's "global warming experts" who have MBAs!

Stephanie Salter writes in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Bernard Goldberg's specter of a powerful, liberal 'media elite' reminds me of the old notion that women sleep their way to the top: If such a ploy actually worked, wouldn't there be a lot more women in high places? A liberal-biased national news media? Instinctively skewing TV, radio and print stories toward their leftist agenda? In my dreams, baby, in my dreams... From where I sit -- a grouchy member of mainstream journalism for 30 years - - it looks like a dozen giant, for-profit conglomerates now own most major print and electronic news outlets. The day that their agenda is to pander to welfare moms, labor unions, peace and affirmative action advocates, environmentalists and enemies of unbridled capitalism -- well, that's the day I'll be the happiest damned liberal in the whole global village." You said it, Stephanie!

Independent journalist William Thomas writes, "I speak of complicity, not conspiracy. Of shared mindsets among editors who 'spike' important stories for reasons having more to do with politics and advertisers than vital news content. I'm also talking about the kind of self-censorship that makes reporters and editors back away from stories they know will not be published - but could cost them their jobs… In August 1996, the SJM ran a thoroughly-researched series that linked the CIA with selling South American cocaine in order to purchase arms for the Nicaraguan Contras… Today, no US news organization wants to tackle the real issues behind the Gulf War Illness. Even Rolling Stone and Mo Jo refused to touch my fully-documented, history of the Gulf War. The potential pitfalls for publishers could be worse than the chemical-biological fallout from that war… Too many people already know…of the gulf that separates appearance from reality in the tales we are told."

Charles Utwater writes in Online Journal, "They lie to us. We know they're lying. They know we know. We know they know we know. So what is the problem with the American media? More specifically, what's the problem with The Washington Post? [One example is Gary Webb] whose 1996 series on cocaine trafficking by CIA contractors made sense of the mechanics of Iran-Contra... One central thesis of Webb's work has been officially confirmed by CIA Inspector Frederick Hitz. CIA contractors did import large amounts of cocaine into the United States. It was sold in African-American communities. Senior officials condoned the operation... But rather than investigate questions like that, the Post (and The NY Times and LA Times) focused on destroying Webb. Webb remarks that 'Never before had the three biggest papers devoted such energy to kicking the hell out a story by another newspaper. It just wasn't done.' But in this case, it was. Why?" Because the media protects the CIA - and the GOP.

AOL Time Warner may just have a bad cold. Despite the current collapse of its stock value, maybe everything for the media behemoth is going to be just fine. Then again, perhaps AOL Time Warner and the other media conglomerates built on broadcast licenses are really dead men walking. What if their business model – derived from 18th century publishing and 20th century licensing of scarce broadcast spectrum – just will not work in a 21st century world driven by Moore's law, connectivity, abundant capacity, and pervasive computing? The wealth and power of AOL Time Warner are built on scarcity and a role for government that manages this scarcity. Without scarcity there could be no colossal aggregation of audiences so that most everyone is watching a handful of pretty much identical programs. But the right question to be asking today is "what is the channel capacity of spectrum?"

When you have a total of 30 different protests planned for a weekend, all involving different groups, and just ONE large protest of the bunch accounts for 50,000 people (the Free Palestine event sponsored by ANSWER), you know the total head count for the weekend will be well over 200,000 all tallied, in coming and going. It was definitely larger than the pro-Israeli event last week because the D.C. police said it was the FIRST time they had required the full deployment of their new crowd management resources. So how did the networks respond (using online coverage as a gauge)? Same as always - they put their wagons in a circle and covered up the REAL story here, and that is that the common theme uniting all these people was outrage at the Bush administration's policies on everything from his support of Sharon to his stand on the environment.

One quarter of a million people from every corner of the nation and from dozens of other nations have converged on Washington, D.C. in an incredibly united show of protest against Bush Administration policies. Dozens of separate events have one common theme: Anger at the Bush administration's policies, from its support of Sharon's aggression to its trashing of civil rights. But what is coming out of the mainstream corporate media? NOTHING. Or worse - a systematic distortion designed to portray protestors as "potential terrorists." Since where are union leaders, leaders from the orthdox Jewish community, coalitions of pastors, NYC hospital workers, and reps. from the Physicians for Social Responsibility "terrorists"? Take a look a view of the protests being released from the mainstream outlets.

The right wing, heavily-bankrolled (by Richard Mellon Scaife, the Coors, Amway's DeVoses and Van Andels) Heritage Foundation has for years tried to mold public opinion into its own image using the media as its potter's wheel. They have "on call experts" ready at all times to "explain" current issues to journalists. In fact, they even have "advisors" available to tell journalists in search of a story what the "hot topics" are (at least according the right wing agenda)! Now an emboldened HF has set up a hands-on training camp for mainstream journalists they call "Database 101." They claim it's strictly nonpartisan. But take a look at the guy who's running it: Mark Tapscott, former top Reagan spin doctor, former [Rev. Moon's] Washington Times editor, and now a columnist for the GOP front group "Townhall.com." HF to Database 101 students: "Pay no attention to that right winger behind the curtain!"

They call it "Database 101" and claim it's merely a way to train mainstream journalists in the art of "fact-finding." But, as your mamma told you (and if she didn't, she should have!), "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is." And, take it from us - any program set up by the ultraconservative Heritage Foundation that says it's aimed at "objectively" training journalists, is not only too good to be true - it's much, much worse. It is clearly a scam designed to indoctrinate journalists into the "right" way of thinking. The HF already spends vast sums to salt newsrooms with its "press releases" spinning every topic on the rightwing agenda.

In Salon, Eric Boehlert writes, "Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., sent a joint letter to the heads of the three news outlets, complaining about the lack of Democratic coverage on Capitol Hill, as well as the endless stream of live feeds coming from the White House, or wherever the president is appearing that day. The two Democrats wrote, "Beginning January 1, 2002, according to one of the enclosed studies, CNN carried a total of 157 events live featuring Administration officials. Over the same time, the network carried a total of only seven events featuring elected leaders of the Democratic Party. Anecdotal evidence indicates that Fox News and MSNBC coverage follows the same pattern"... A Salon analysis of CNN coverage since Bush's inauguration reveals that Bush was being given an unprecedented amount of live coverage on cable TV even before Sept. 11." We demand Equal Time for Democrats!

Kristina Borjesson, an Emmy and Murrow Award-winning investigative reporter and veteran of CBS and CNN, has written a must-read book for Americans who want to know what happened to investigative journalism - and the truth. "Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press" contains urgent essays by 18 mainstream reporters who tried to investigate major stories like TWA Flight 800 (Borjesson), CIA involvement in the drug trade (Michael Levine and Gary Webb), the No Gun Ri massacre in Korea (Robert Port), and Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (Jane Akre). Pursuing stories that challenged corporate and government power led these journalists "into the buzzsaw," and they were lucky to come out alive. To read about the death of investigative journalism - and truth in America - buy this important book.

Once one of the last bastions of honest reporting, the NY Times has become just another mouthpiece for the corporate right wing and a loyal guard dog defending Bush policy, no matter how destructive. Thus, as the NYT perpetuates discredited smears against Clinton, it is also using a despicable form of slant to perpetuate a one-sided view of the Middle East conflict - a conflict Clinton made great efforts to defuse, but which Bush has used to his advantage in his quest to demonize all (non-Saudi) Arabs.

While the nation was fixated on the Oscars, MakeThemAccountable.com's David Podvin announced the winners of "The Crappys: America's Most Coveted Awards For Achievement In Corporate Reporting And Political Punditry." The "I take my coffee black, like my men" award went to Rush Limbaugh, who declared "If you take away the black vote, Bush won in a landslide." The "I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, and I'm happy, Doctor, I finally won out over it" award went to Peter Jennings, who declared "I'm always struck by the fact that there are not enough conservative voices in mainstream broadcasting." Plus many more!

Bernard Goldberg's allegation of liberal bias in the media is just plain wrong, as Stanford's Geoff Nunberg has proven in his rigorous and methodical analysis of the alleged phenomenon. In Nunberg's commentary for NPR's Fresh Air this week he demolishes Goldberg's mythologizing with actual empirical fact.

Bill Press is the co-host of CNN's Crossfire and the author of the newly published book 'Spin This.' Press examines the hypothesis offered by Bernard Goldberg, formerly of CBS News, whose book alleges that the press is biased against conservatives. As Press shows, the allegation of media bias against conservatives is an ancient artifact. It may have been true during the era of the Vietnam War but no longer has any grounding in fact.

The massive Larsen B iceshelf in Antarctica, which is larger than the state of Rhode Island, has shattered into the sea in a matter of several days, a catastrophic event that fulfills predictions of many climatologists formerly labeled "alarmists." So how does FOX' TV's national news report present the event on 3/19? It does not even MENTION the ice shelf. Instead, it runs a 3-second view of an iceberg and says there is a "new iceberg" off Antarctica. just one of about 40 icebergs, no big deal. AP's report (which FOX used on their website) was also spun. It opened with a statement, "Scientists stopped short of blaming the collapse on global warming caused by human activity." But note how it doesn't mention WHAT scientists! Maybe they mean Steve Milloy of (FOX's corporate front enviro-bashing) junkscience.com? Read this report from the UK, http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/story/0,7369,670456,00.html then read the AP version and get a free lesson in spin.

Or, so stated, Washington Post executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr, in an online chat Tuesday: "After hearing complaints from readers, the editor of the Post book section discovered that the reviewer of David Brock's book had failed to disclose to her, as he was supposed to, that he had previously worked as a film critic for the American Spectator. As Marie Arana, will explain in next Sunday's Book World, she would have assigned the book to another reviewer if she had known this." That's all very credible Leonard... ( NOT! ) Now perhaps you could explain, why the Post assigned an American Spectator goon to write a similar hit piece on the Lyons and Conason book "The Hunting of the President" in 2000?

"Where a newly-released book falls on the New York Times bestseller list is determined entirely by how many copies are ordered. If a publishing house wants to create an 'instant bestseller,' it is really quite a simple trick. And, now that the publishing industry is in bed with the rightwing politicos, it is shaping its lists to meet their 'co-conspirators' political needs (pumping 'Bias' while trying hard to bury 'Stupid White Men', for ex.). Rightwing groups with money (and let's face it, they largely represent big business, so they have gobs of the stuff) now help the publishers push 'created best sellers' by buying up these titles ahead by the thousands. In this way, they skew the sales figures in the same way that freepers have been trained to skew polls." So writes Cheryl Seal in Unknown News.

This is the Post-Post era in Washington - The Washington Post is still here, but in the post-Carl Bernstein era (his not-so-great partner Woodward is still with the Post), it is not even a shadow of its former self -- it is unrecognizable. On 3-17-02, the Post ran a savage review of David Brock's "Blinded by the Right." But they failed to clue their readers into the salient fact that the reviewer, Bruce Bawer, was himself a former writer for the discredited right-wing rag American Spectator, for which Brock also used to write. Even worse, Bawer is mentioned in Brock's book - which should have disqualified him as a reviewer right there. Bawer is also a prominent member of the right-wing Independent Gay Forum, alongside Andrew Sullivan. As MediaWhoresOnline so aptly puts it: American Spectator is a "Scaife-funded scandal rag specializing in digging up dirt on the Clintons, with no regard for the truth or the credibility of sources." Thus the Post sinks even further in the Post-Post era.

The headline in the print edition was splashed across the top of the editorial page: NUCLEAR ALARMISTS. The article was set off by a box and a graphic of an eagle carrying nuclear warheads. The only thing missing was big arrows pointing to it. In the piece, the authors use the same technique corporations routinely use to discredit proponents of policies they doesn't like - label critics "extremists," "alarmists," or "leftwingers." Thus, we're supposed to believe the increased threat of nuclear war is no big whoop - Bush is doing it in our best interests. But ask yourself this: would the Post run a headline proclaiming that parents upset by a decision to introduce carcinogens into their children's food are "alarmist?" Afterall, a carcinogen, like the proliferation of nukes, may or may not kill you. But does that make it an acceptable risk? Don't know about you, but we value our children's lives a bit more than that.

To hear the American media tell it, Israel is enthusiastically and solidly behind Sharon and his hard line policy. But this is just as manufactured as the sky-high approval ratings the media has trumped up for Bush. In short, American propagandists are now propping up both Bush and his chief conspirator in global destabilization. Israel's most widely-read newspaper Yediot Aharonot (published in Hebrew only) describes Sharon's standing very differently. "A government that promised at its inception a year ago to put an end to terror - but only increased it - should resign". It added, "A government that promised a year ago to stop the recession, and only deepened it, should resign. A government that promised a year ago to bring peace closer, and only distanced it for generations, should resign. Judging by results, this government gets a grade of zero". The most recent Yediot Aharonot poll showed Sharon's approval rating tanking at barely 43%.

Does this make sense to you? 70% of Americans describe themselves as liberal,. moderate, or somewhat conservative. Only about 20% describe themselves as rightwing. Yet even as we speak, CNN and MSNBC have been scrambling to imitate rightwing-tilting FOX News in the mistaken belief that such aping will snag them more viewers! From what pool of Americans, pray tell? We personally believe that FOX owes more to its initial novelty (the first network beyond the "Big Three" to come on the scene) than to its political leanings for its ratings. People are simply "brand loyal." But for CNN and MSNBC to go for a rightwing slant will be suicide - the viewers just aren't there. Sallim Muwakkil, senior editor of "In These Times" offers this advice to the two wanna be copycats: Go left!

As the Enron scandal exploded in January, Republicans moved quickly to shift the blame AWAY from Bush and the Republicans. On Jan. 11, Matt Drudge posted a Big Lie, in which he blamed - you guessed it! - Bill Clinton. "[Ken] Lay also played golf with President Bill Clinton and slept in the Clinton White House." From Drudge, this Lie then made its way throughout the Corporate Media - Chicago Tribune, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Newhouse News Service, Times of London, ABC's This Week, Greta van Susteren's Fox News. Finally, the Big Lie was exposed by Gene Lyons, Salon.com, DailyHowler.com and Mediawhoresonline.com. This episode proves once again that the Corporate Media routinely lies for the Republicans, and the Internet is the only weapon we citizens have to insist on the Truth.

As Aaron Sorkin points out, Bush did not go to sleep as a schmuck on Sept. 11 and on Sept. 12 "wake up as Teddy Roosevelt." But that's what the media would have us believe. Take a look at NBC's look at a day in the life of the Presidency: "The White House pumped up the President's schedule to show him being much busier and more engaged than he is," says Sorkin, "and Tom Brokaw let it happen—the show was a valentine to Bush. That illusion may be what we need right now, but the truth is we're simply pretending to believe that Bush exhibited unspeakable courage at the World Series by throwing out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium, or that he, by God, showed those terrorists by going to Salt Lake City and jumbling the first line of the Olympic opening ceremony. The media is waving pom-poms, and the entire country is being polite." Do Americans buy it? We bet the results of Election 2002 will, like 2001's nationwide local elections, be a wake up call to the media and G.W.'s "handlers."

"Each weekday at around 12:30 you can find Ari on TV. Likewise, around 1:00 each weekday you can find Donald Rumsfeld or a member of the Pentagon on each channel... However, when there is a press briefing/conference scheduled by a Democratic politician, we are lucky if it is covered at all, by any of the news outlets that religiously report on the most picayune White House messages. On a slow news day, MSNBC/FOX/CNN will announce a Democratic press conference at a specific time, and all my fellow DU media watchers will congregate to hear what they may have to say. It has been a disturbing revelation to see how rare such an occurrence actually is, and how often the Democratic message is distorted or discarded by the news media... It is important that the population understand the manner in which our news, our information, and our knowledge is being "scrubbed" for us each day. The implications are frightening." So writes Roxanne Jekot of DemocraticUnderground.com

"I had never realized just how important having access to information was. It's something I think that we seem to take for granted sometimes. The Internet has taken over the position cable television used to hold as a primary source of information for many of us. Web sites like Democrats.com and others offer a wealth of information and editorial content which help to remind us that we are not alone. To be without it is not a good feeling. Kind of like being constantly lied to. Don't believe me? Go ahead and turn your computer off for a week. Let the media feed you what they feel you need to know. Go ahead. I dare you." So writes W. David Jenkins III.

In December 1999, NY Times reporter Katherine Seelye misreported a statement by Al Gore about Love Canal. Seelye had her mind made up that Al Gore routinely bragged and exaggerated, and twisted Gore's uncontroversial words about holding the first Congressional hearings on Love Canal into an allegation that Gore claimed he "discovered" Love Canal. After the Times declared it had a rule against "falsification," Democrats.com member Joseph Comstock debated Timesman Bill Borders on why Seelye was never fired.

Since Walter Isaacson took the reins at CNN, the network has been desperately lurching to the right. Last summer, Isaacson kissed Tom DeLay's ring; a week later, he was wooing Rush Limbaugh. He hired Paula Zahn away from FOX and turned CNN's morning show into a right-wing toxic wasteland. Now he has hired right-wing zealot William Bennett for "balance" (!!!), cancelled Jeff Greenfield's even-handed (but hardly liberal) "Greenfield at Large," and added ANOTHER show for Zahn. Tell Isaacson that CNN has lost its credibility, and you will therefore boycott CNN - isaacson@aol.com

The decision by a federal judge this week to allow a single corporation to own more than 35% of the television programming available to viewers isn't really going to change much for Americans. They will still be treated to an endless smorgasbord of corporate programming that panders to the GOP (which of course is committed to keeping corporate execs well-fed). After all, what isn't directly controlled by Viacom, GE, Disney, and FOX is controlled by the FCC, which is controlled by the Bush administration via their man Michael Powell. Powell, the FCC chief, is Colin Powell's son. Just as his Daddy's pals wanted, Mikey has been pushing to repeal the airwave ownership limits. The case made it to court via a suit filed by Viacom (CBS and UPN), General Electric (NBC) and News Corps. (FOX) - the three greediest piggies at the media trough. But, yep, we're supposed to buy the "liberal media" story!

In 2002, there is not ONE real liberal who appears regularly on corporate TV, except the 10 minutes Bill Press gets on Crossfire. Meanwhile, the networks are saturated with conservatives like George Will and Laura Ingraham. Howard K. Smith was one of the last liberals, a man from Louisiana who hated the Klan, and then saw the Nazi rise to power. Smith was expected to inherit Edward R. Murrow's mantle as the champion of truth on TV, but William Paley was outraged by Smith's denunciations of the Klan. Smith then moved to ABC and took on Richard Nixon in 1962, and lost his job as a result.

When Bob Dole was campaigning against Bill Clinton in 1996 - with conservatives hollering about Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones at every turn - the Washington Post learned that Bob Dole had an affair 28 years earlier. (Remarkably, Viagra had not yet been invented!) Bob Woodward argued for publication, saying "The Post has taken an aggressive position on Clinton and his sex life" and could be accused of a "double standard... Withholding the story breaks the contract with the reader." Contract, shmontract - Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. scrubbed the story, backed by David Broder. Why? Because Dole is a REPUBLICAN, stupid! The true story was eventually published by the National Enquirer, which is now the most credible corporate media outlet in America.

"Nothing has changed to erode the truth of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration in the ownership of American corporations, including the news business, the remark is more pertinent than ever. Just reeling off the names of some major owners of America's press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation, Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation, and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these liberal? Even the New York Times, often regarded as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a multi-billion dollar enterprise. The Times always defends the establishment." So writes John Chuckman for the Yellow Times.

"In his book Bias, former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg rails against liberal bias in the media. It is a runaway best seller…Bush was photographed holding a copy on his way to Portland, Maine. Bush should thank his lucky stars for the media he has got. In reality, the media contain all kinds of biases -- liberal included. But one could make a much stronger case that over the past decade the media have been the very opposite of what Goldberg claims. If Goldberg thinks the media were easy on Al Gore and Bill and Hillary Clinton, he needs to see a doctor…Bias is very selective when citing examples of how the media treat politicians. Allow me to give more: A study by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence and Pew Research Center found that 76 percent of campaign coverage of Gore in early 2000 was negative. Bush received almost three times as much positive coverage at that time. Bush was more likely to be portrayed as 'moderate' and 'compassionate conservative,' and Gore 'a liar.'" So writes David Kaplan.

Chris Matthews is already a top contender for our soon-to-be-announced "Monica" awards. But Matthews set a new low for commentary by comparing GWB to JFK. Democrats.com subscriber Don Fuller suggests we send Matthews our own comparisons, like this: "Now let me tell you what I really think! Comparing George W. Bush to John F. Kennedy is absurd. Were it not for this terrible terrorism, Americans would open their eyes and see what George W. Bush has done to our country and our economy in one short year. You certainly cannot compare him to Harry Truman ('The Buck Stops Here'). How about comparing him to Ronald Reagan, the 'Teflon President' - since nothing sticks to him." Write cmatthews@sfchronicle.com

Frank Luntz rose to fame as the GOP pollster who poll-tested every word in Gingrich's 1994 Contract On America to conceal its true purpose - to trick Americans into thinking Gingrich's agenda was centrist, rather than a figleaf to cover Gingrich's plan to rape, plunder, and pillage America on behalf of the corporate elite and the radical right. Since Gingrich's scandalous collapse (much like Enron's), Luntz has tried to "reinvent" himself as nonpartisan. He was even hired by MSNBC as a "nonpartisan" pollster. Unfortunately for Luntz, he got caught writing the pre-Christmas "Daschle Democrats" memo, which was set new standards for partisan vitriol. Once exposed, MSNBC was forced to fire him. But the question remains: given Luntz's notorious past, why did MSNBC hire him in the first place as a 'nonpartisan' pollster?

"Norman Solomon executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and author of FAIR's Media Beat is the guest of Meria Heller at www.Meria.net (archived). Meria and Norman discuss his latest book (which is excellent):The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media. Norman has true vision on seeing reality and reporting reality in the news. Many topics were discussed in today's show such as: how to tell the difference between spin and news (reading between the lines); The press responsibility in the Election 2000 fiasco; The reinvention of John Ashcroft from bigot to 'saint'; The travesty of comparing George Bush to Roosevelt (Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave); Al Gore; Why Americans think the U.S. is the center of the Universe; how to get people more informed and more responsible as citizens of the WORLD; the U.S. dollars that go for foreign political campaigns; how we could have avoided becoming involved in Vietnam; The Enron mess and how the press is covering it." Plus much more!

"In 2000, when Karl Rove called General Electric Chairman Jack Welch to guarantee that a Bush Administration would be extremely generous to media conglomerates that were sympathetic to the Texas governor's presidential campaign, it was a notable moment in history. If only this once, Rove wasn't lying. Since taking office, George W. Bush has lavished spectacular taxpayer funded largesse on the corporate media that made excuses for his inadequacies, overlooked his corruption, shielded him from scandal, and escorted him into the White House. It has been a squalid quid pro quo that has gone largely unexamined, because those whose job it is to report on such corruption are too busy benefiting from it." So writes David Podvin in his continuing series in MakeThemAccountable.com on the media's thoroughly corrupt role in the Stolen Election.

"This morning I saw a tabloid that drove home the point that the idea of the media being 'liberal' is so ludicrous that only a moron -- a moron who is not paying attention to boot -- could still believe it. The headline read: 'Clinton hires three-breasted intern.' And there she was, with three breasts sticking out, standing next to the last duly elected president. As I stood there laughing, I started to look around. There's another one about Bill getting his own talk show, with a picture of him with a surprised look, holding a microphone. And there's another. With a story about Hillary being gay or some other ridiculous nonsense. Can you imagine seeing stories like this, anywhere, about Bush? I can't." So writes S. McNabb.

"After the nation emerged from the nasty pit that was the McCarthy era, the news media was the nation's most effective guardian angel/watchdog, making sure that the other so-called guardian angels/watchdogs - the government, military and police - did not slide too far into corruption. The bad guys, like cockroaches, quivered at the idea of having 'The News' put a spotlight on them. Nixon, with all his multi-tentacled power, was no match for Woodward and Bernstein. The corporate 'Masters of War' (big defense contractors and oil companies with vested interests in the Asian region), seeking to keep one of their most lucrative enterprises ever going - the Vietnam war - were no match for the work of folks like Bruce Morton and Walter Cronkite... Alas, the spotlight is no longer as motivating a threat, because now the bad guys control the spotlight." So writes Cheryl Seal.

"The fact is, until the freedom of the press is wrested away from the clutches of corporate interests, the true majority -- liberals and moderates -- will face a disproportionately uphill battle. I believe a push should be made by the Democrats now on Capitol Hill to create legislation that will insure the separation of press and corporate interests as surely as the Constitution has insured separation of church and state. As it stands now, thanks to the lack of separation between the former, there may soon be a lack of separation between the latter." So writes Cheryl Seal in Unknown News.

Nearly a week late, the NY Times saw fit to print that Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson was a partner at King & Spalding, which should disqualify him to lead the investigation of Enrongate. Without naming names, the Times wrote, "Some Democratic groups argue that Mr. Thompson, too, has ties to Enron." Last we checked, Democrats.com was the ONLY Democratic group addressing this issue. As the LARGEST organization of Democratic activists in the country - with over 30,000 e-mail subscribers and 3 million hits monthly - you'd think the Times might be able to mention our name. After all, they have no trouble mentioning - and featuring the views of - infinitesimal groups like the Democratic Leadership Council and the "Independent" Women's Forum. So what are we, a potted palm? Tell the Times (letters@nytimes.com) that you're a proud member of Democrats.com, and it's time for our views to be heard!

"Wars always have their propaganda, but it is often not very subtle. In the first world war, the Germans bayoneted babies, and nearly a century later, in a rework of the same false story, the Iraqis tore babies from respirators. But if you want to study the techniques of effective propaganda, you could hardly do better than the War on Terror. For many, the word propaganda raises an image of ham-fisted Soviet commissars insisting that black is white. But effective propaganda is far more subtle than that. And who should understand better the dark art of planting suggestions than the most practiced people on the planet at advertising and marketing? The most effective propaganda theme during the Afghan phase of War on Terror was the status of women under the Taliban." So writes John Chuckman for the Yellow Times.

"Against the daily combination of those corporate tendencies--conflict of interest, endless cutbacks, endless trivial pursuits, class bias, deference to the king and all his men--the public interest doesn't stand a chance. Despite the stubborn fiction of their 'liberal' prejudice, the corporate media have helped deliver a stupendous one-two punch to this democracy... Last year, they helped subvert the presidential race, first by prematurely calling it for Bush, regardless of the vote--a move begun by Fox, then seconded by NBC, at the personal insistence of Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric. Since the coup, the corporate media have hidden or misrepresented the true story of the theft of that election." So writes Mark Crispin Miller in The Nation.

The NY Times adamantly refuses to publish the truth about Election 2000 - that Gore won Florida, and Bush stole the Presidency. So how DARE they attack the Democratic Party for anything - let alone the party's rules for the 2004 Presidential primaries. Send your complaints to letters@nytimes.com

To understand more about Regnery Publishing, check out the below article plus this excerpt from Russ Bellant's 'Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party' [South End Press, 1991; p. 31] "William Regnery, [was] an incorporator and early leader of the [America First] Committee with [General] Robert Wood…an organization committed to opposing all efforts to aid Allies besieged by Nazi Germany. As national chairman, Wood made no effort to keep out openly pro-Nazi groups known to have been supported by Germany, such as the German-American Bund. Radio priest Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitic and pro-Axis followers were also permitted by Wood to work within America First." In a 1980 interview, Henry Regnery (William's son and successor) said, "I was very much opposed to our getting into the war; and I published this book, which was highly critical of Roosevelt and of the whole realm of American politics involving World War II. Very gladly, I must say."

Writes Bartcop: "CBS's Bernard Goldberg has written an expose on the liberal media entitled 'Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News' This is a good example of smart writing and even better marketing. If Goldberg had written the truth, that the media is nothing but right-wing pimps working for Bush, it would sell about as many copies as Fortunate Son and be withdrawn from book stores right away. But since he's selling the LIE that left-wingers control the media, something very different will happen to Mr. Goldberg and his book." Predictably, Goldberg's book is published by Regnery Press, that cranks out rightwing propaganda by the likes of Ann Coulter, Gary Aldrich and Moonie Times hacks such as Bill Sammon and Bill Gertz. Click below to see exactly how difficult in will be for Mr. Goldberg to promote his book in the 'liberal media.'

I'm a news freak. I drive people crazy because the news is on my television even if I'm not watching. My 2-½ year old son can identify "Wolf" and "Cokie" just as easy as he knows who "Elmo" is. I just bought a new stereo and it's barely been broken in. I have CDs that I bought a year ago but I haven't heard them yet. It's because I have more important things to hear. I haven't heard those things yet, but they must be coming soon. I'm positive. I grew up on Walter Cronkite and I'm waiting for those immortal words, "...and that's the way it is." I just know it'll happen soon so don't anybody touch that dial! Somebody please tell me the way it is!

"A journalism think tank suggests that network morning shows are as efficient in promoting the products of their parent corporations as they are in providing news. [Columbia's] Project for Excellence in Journalism, in a report studying the content of the ABC, CBS and NBC morning shows, said all of them had become, partly, 'a kind of sophisticated infomercial.' Take away the local news inserts and commercials, and one-third of the content on morning shows is essentially selling something: a book, a compact disc, a movie or another television program, the group said...The corporations that benefit most from the promotion are the ones that own the shows, according to the study...Since the companies are so large, some of this synergy is to be expected, said Amy Mitchell, associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. But the shows should do more to tell viewers about corporate ties...she said."

The truth about Gore's monstrously terrible press coverage during the campaign is beginning to come out, thanks to Eric Boehlert of Rolling Stone. A sample: "Recalls one network-television correspondent who spent lots of time on the presidential campaign, 'There just developed among a certain group of people covering Gore, particularly the print people, a real disdain for him. Everything was negative. They had a grudge against [Gore]. I don't know how else to put it.' The hostility was evident throughout the campaign as the press, in a series of questionable endeavors, worked overtime to portray Gore as a fake."

"In response, the White House seems to have taken three steps. First, keep critics off the air...Second, bring the press on board...Third, get the West Coast studios to jump in. On the day this column was written, media moguls and movie studio heads strategized with White House aide Karl Rove on how they can do even more than they already have to boost the war effort. [Scientologist] Tom Cruise, star of Mission: Impossible, and a sequel in the works, is just one star who has met with the CIA and according to MSNBC.com, "He was emphatic about presenting the CIA in as positive a light as possible." The military is quietly infiltrating Hollywood as well. The little-known Institute for Creative Studies at the University of Southern California brings top Hollywood talent into secret contact with top military officials. The think tank received funding of $45 million from the U.S. Army in 1999." So writes Danny Schechter at Media Channel.

"And yet this is a war without a frontline upon which to station reporters. Unlike the Gulf War, when Peter Arnett of CNN was stationed in Baghdad, and the Kosovo crisis, when [the BBC's John] Simpson was in Belgrade, the Western media have no independent sources inside the battle zone. 'This will be a particularly difficult war for us to cover,' says the BBC's defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan, now in Pakistan. 'Most of the action will be invisible and there are no independent reporters able to challenge the official version of events'... The result is an increasingly difficult relationship between the US and British governments on one side and Western journalists, who are not used to being brought to heel, on the other... The irony is that the US media have already proved willing to comply with military orders when it matters. Seventeen news organisations knew three days before that the bombing of Afghanistan was to start on Sunday, and said nothing." So reports the UK Observer.

"Surfing for news, I found the same headlines, the same voices, even the same logos -- a sameness that exposes the serious extent to which media in this country have become monopolized by very few interests... As the White House and Congress prepare to make what might be a series of irrevocable decisions regarding the President's authority to wage 'war' against 'terrorism,' the American public has never been more in need of alternative views, independent analysis, and an open forum for public discussion. Constrained by advertiser pressures and administrative oversight of their many pending deals, commercial broadcasters aren't likely to challenge the official line. We should, however, expect more from public broadcasters. Unfortunately, we are not likely to get that from our public broadcasting service, which, three decades after its founding in 1967, is seriously compromised." So writes Jerold Starr at TomPaine.com.

"To ABC and Sponsors Past and Present of Politically Incorrect: We the undersigned wish to express our support for Bill Maher and his ABC late night program, Politically Incorrect. There are blatant attempts to silence Mr. Maher by individuals with their own agendas and we do not agree with this. We consider such censorship to be blatantly un-American and will not support any such attempts by sponsors or ABC." Sign the petition!

"To: 'Politically Incorrect' Sponsors: The popular TV opinion forum, 'Politically Incorrect' hosted by Bill Maher has been a place for all political sides to freely air their views for the past 8 years. One week after the tragic deaths of so many Americans at the hands of terrorists, while passions and patriotism run high, one comment by the host was misconstrued. Now this open political forum is in danger of being cancelled because many sponsors have cancelled their advertising slots due to complaints. I submit to you, ABC, and to the current and past sponsors of 'Politically Incorrect' that this is exactly what the terrorists want. Let us not be afraid to freely and openly express ourselves." Sign the petition!

"We are faced with a media that gives us bread, circuses and people being forced to confront their darkest fears -- while shying away from issues of vital importance out of fear of scaring viewers away," writes our favorite Republican pundit Arianna Huffington, "Better to bury their talking heads in the sand. That's the real Fear Factor media critics should be writing about. No one can deny that the threat of international terrorism is a complex onion to peel. But, after this week, is anyone doubting that it is a critical story worth explaining with all the skill and seductive power that we know news professionals can muster? Hindsight is always 20/20. But we'll forever wonder: Would the World Trade Center still be standing today if the Hart-Rudman report had been spotlighted instead of swept under the Gary Condit rug?" Right on.

If there was any doubt that the corporate media is COMPLETELY Republican, the Washington Post has proved REPUBLICAN MEDIA BIAS beyond a shadow of a doubt. When a "source unfriendly to" Maryland's Democratic Governor Paris Glendening told the Post that Glendening "often visited" the town house of his 34-year-old chief of staff, the Post spent ONE MONTH spying on her. While NO CREDIBLE SOURCE ever said their relationship was sexual, the Post nevertheless declared that they are "involved in a relationship." Now compare that with the coverage of Jeb Bush's relationship with Cynthia Henderson, for which Democrats.com was widely denounced. What's the difference? Only one - Bush is a REPUBLICAN, and Glendening is a DEMOCRAT. Send your letters of outrage to ombudsman@washpost.com and KurtzH@washpost.com - and if you're a Post subscriber, cancel now. It's time for all 51 million Democrats to declare a corporate media boycott!

The lead sentence in the Knight-Ridder report on Bush's forced raid on Social Security reads as if Ari Fleischer himself dictated it: "The federal government will need to take $9 billion out of Social Security surpluses this year to help pay for other programs, breaking a vow by BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS not to tap the retirement program's funds, the NONPARTISAN Congressional budget office reported Monday." Makes it sound like the GOP and Dems were in cozy agreement about this move, doesn't it? The piece describes Dem complaints as "seizing on" the announcement (implying opportunism, not justifiable outrage!) and devotes most of the article to softening the impact for the GOP. Of course, Knight-Kidder is the same outfit that not long ago decided that journalists and their pesky news stories were getting in the way of advertising space.

Nina Totenberg invited Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz on NPR's "The Connection" to critique Richard Posner's absurd defense of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore. But when Dershowitz tried to present his views, Totenberg cut him off (19:52 to 21:30). If you think Totenberg was wrong to censor Dershowitz, e-mail ombudsman@npr.org.

Back in April, we alerted our readers to the fact that GoTo.com was guilty of prioritizing their search results according to price: the highest bidder got top billing, even if it was a corporate front site (anti-environmental sites coming up for environmental info, etc.). Since we complained, GoTo has cleaned up their act. Now Ralph Nader's advocacy group, Commercial Alert, has filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint against several other Internet search engines which are also engaging in the "highest bidder-highest slot" scam. Among the offenders: MSN, Netscape, AltaVista, HotBot, Direct Hit, iWon, LookSmart and Lycos. Guess we did GoTo a favor by catching them in the act early - they weren't on the list!

In the early weeks of the Palestinian uprising last fall, Israeli officials expressed dismay that the media was reporting things they wanted themn to. When the UN Security Council condemned Israel for its use of excessive force, Nachman Shai, the Israeli spokesman during the Gulf War, hastily organized a special media unit. "We assumed that the U.S. media would be on our side," Shai complained. Israeli government officials were, at that time, having big problems getting the U.S. media - still under the Clinton administration (and thus not yet Goebbelized) to spin things the way they wanted them to. So much so, says Shai that Israel actually tried to get CNN to can two Palestinian reporters. "we are putting real pressure on the heads of CNN to have them replaced with more objective, pro-Israeli reporters," Shai went on record as saying at that time. Now, with the media presenting uniformly pro-Israel spin of the conflict, the conflict has grown steadily worse, proving that irresponsible journalism can be just as deadly as a car bomb.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to know if NBC's boss, Jack Welch, manipulated Election Night coverage for Bush. Tim Russert, in the company of Welch, allegedly wore a Bush button to the Al Smith dinner in New York, the nation's most important Catholic political event. Welch and Russert will make a rare public appearance on September 20 at the Smithsonian in DC, so buy your $25 ticket get your questions ready!

Although CNN's audience is larger than FOX's and still growing, CNN is feeling threatened big-time by FOX. If CNN really wanted to win the ratings war, it would become the Democratic counterpart to FOX's right-wing Republican shows. After all, Americans prefer Democrats over Republicans by 51%-37% (see http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_2.htm). But CNN's new boss, Walter Isaacson, has decided to capitulate to the far right by climbing into bed with Tom DeLay. No wonder CNN spent the whole month of July conducting a witchhunt against Gary Condit, but has yet to report the mysterious death of Joe Scarborough's aide Lori Klausutis. E-mail Isaacson at isaacson@aol.com and tell him you're outraged by CNN's right-wing bias!

They say there is no more sincere form of flattery than imitation. So we're quite flattered that Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is now blatantly (not to mention badly) mimicking the snappy, satiric style of Democrats.com. Unfortunately, rightwingers like Taranto will always fall flat because they don't know the difference between barbed wit and sheer pettiness. For example, Taranto taunts Jimmy Carter for criticizing Bush - making a lame and embarrassingly sleazy reference to "killer rabbits." He also slams our friends at Buzzflash for using the same sort of leading question in a poll that the GOP is famous for, and trashes John Zogby for trying to be more comprehensive. Yep, about the only part of Democrats.com Taranto managed to capture the spirit of were the letters r-a-t.

"Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD [aka The CIA's 'Mighty Wurlitzer'] ...At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA's testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975... The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism: Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)...In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, [Graham] stated: 'We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.' This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post's headlines."

"Roll Call's" Ed Henry, editor of the regular feature "Heard on the Hill," ran a disgusting slam of Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) that may even be criminally liable. The slam suggests that because Traficant made an appeal in the House during a debate over a Justice appropriations bill that Congress should not forget the problems of prison overcrowding and rape, it was somehow a reference to the fact that he is being investigated and there's a remote chance he could go to prision - thus he is "watching his own back." Get it? Ha...Ha. Not only sick, but a really bad joke. As we in the non-trogdolyte world know, prison rape is a very serious problem - esp. in Bush's Texas - and is currently a focus of intensive human rights investigations. But such lofty matters don't concern Ed - his thoughts are apparently riveted in rapt fascination on, er, lower areas. Tell him what you think! edhenry@rollcall.com

BBC has given a forum, and thus credence, to corporate "scientists" and their long-since-discredited lines of bull against global warming. This stuff doesn't represent an honest alternative science view; it is corporate propaganda. Every single point made in this article is a stock bit from outfits like the coal industry-funded Greening Earth Society and "scientists" like Richard Lindzen, Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, who all take home six digit "fees" from the fossil fuel industry (big oil and coal) for acting as global warming "experts." We think the BBC is providing cover for Tony Blair's. As he schmoozes with Bush, Blair is essentially, selling out his country and the EU to Bush's spoiled-brat posturing.

BBC describes G8 summit protestors as anarchists, while the NBC nightly news Thursday called them communists and anarchists. BBC implies that violence has been the rule rather than the exception, while American news shows do closeups of sinister looking knots of protestors all in black (NBC tonight implied that Bush was in "imminent danger"). In sharp contrast, the Genoan newspaper - the folks who live and work in the town where all this is happening - describe the protestors as protestors (contestatori), and describe a major event in which there have been pockets of trouble - not an orgy of out of control violence. French President Jacques Chirac says people should listen to the voices in the street: "A hundred thousand people don't take to the streets unless something has seized their hearts and minds." We find it disturbing that the British and US presses find it necessary to dismiss a mass of people large enough to populate a small city as "anarchists" and ignore their voices.

We have decided that editors of supposedly objective news outlets who are creative enough to brush off truth and instead "artistically slant" the facts to fit a corporate sponsor/owner's agenda should get public recognition. Our first "emmy" for oily slant, the "Slippery Slope" award, goes to AOL for its treatment on 7/10 of the Chandra Levy case. Even though no one knows yet for sure if Levy is even dead, AOL plopped the story on its main page as "True Crime." Though the D.C. police have FIRMLY stated that Gary Condit is NOT a suspect, AOL's main screen blurb says Condit's admission of an affair with Levy is a possible "break in the case." Worse yet, readers are invited to join in the mud slinging on a chat site. Why the slant? Well, Time-Warner/AOL are major GOP supporters - exec. Richard Parsons is co-Chair on Bush's Social Security Commission. During the Pres. campaign, AOL blocked Ralph Nader's informational e-mails to their subscribers. Nothing like using your media power as a sabotage/rumor machine. We can't link to AOL (you who have AOL have already seen the True Crime bit on the mainscreen today). But here's Nader's complaint.

The AP (All Pap) news wire is again carrying its usual assortment of Bush puff pieces and press releases. These include everything you could possible not want to know about his fishing outing in Maine, what kind of post-sermon chat occurred after church in Kennebunkport, and how he and Ashcroft are wowing the faith-based initiative groupies in Iowa. There's even a special bit on the Bush family tree. Of course, in AP you will not find much if anything about Bush's push for more nuclear testing, the current severe unrest among White House staffers, or the growing political crisis (for him, anyway) posed by stem cell research. But you probably could find out what color pants he wore playing golf last week!

A new study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) reveals what we knew all along: FOX news is blatantly tilted to the right, while hypocritically touting how balanced its views are. Out of 56 partisan guests interviewed on Brit Hume's daily news show over a 5-month period, for example, only 6 were Democrats. In Asia, where FOX doesn't even have to pretend to be balanced, the news and commentary is so outrageously slanted (says one Jakarta-based American researcher we know) that it is stomach-turning. But it's all the same tired rightwing strategy: Bush says he's a "uniter" and this is supposed to make us believe he is, despite anything he does. FOX says "Fair and balanced" and, despite any slant, we're supposed to believe they really are.

When ABC approached some CA parents for consent to interview their children for a program on environmental issues, they agreed. But when they discovered that John Stossel would be the interviewer, they were dubious at best, because of his known anti-environmental stance and admitted fraudulent manipulation of facts in the past. Two months ago, Democrats.com exposed the unethical modus operandi used to produce the program, titled "Scared Green." In response, the network delayed its debut, then this week tried to sneak it onto the airwaves under a new title "Tampering with Nature." Caught in the act, the station was blasted by CA parents and the kids' comments were removed. ABC claims the questions put to youngsters were straightforward, not leading. But even if they had been (which eyewitnesses to the interview would hotly dispute), the kids were still recruited under a false pretext and their answers taken intentionally out of context and slanted to further Stossel's agenda.

In most businesses in the U.S., any employee caught red-handed lying, cheating, and intentionally seeking to cause serious damage to others to further a personal agenda would be terminated on the spot and most likely prosecuted. Not so in mass media land. Instead, liars and cheats are rewarded - in fact, the more vicious and flagrant they are in their disregard for public welfare, the more job security they have. John Stossel is a prime case in point. In 2000, he attempted to inflict irreparable harm on the organic food industry by presenting phony "study results." Despite the public outcry, Stossel was given a mild reprimand by ABC and made to apologize. But that was all for show. Less than a year later, ABC allowed - in fact facilitated - Stossel's continued campaign of deceit and manipulation in the new anti-environmental special "Tampering with Nature." See http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2648

With Shrub abroad, international newspeople got to see what really happened as events unfolded - then observe first hand how blatantly the U.S. media spins reality. As an Aussie reporter dryly observed: "The United States media travelling with President George Bush on his first visit to Europe perhaps saw too many Swedish bottoms, too many sneering French headlines, and too many cartoons portraying him as an ignorant cowboy." So how did our corporate media report Shrub's disastrous European debut? Chuckles the Aussie: "They declared he had exceeded all expectations during his five-day, six-nation European sojourn." Yep, he sure did - but certainly not in the way the Tinkerbelles of the American press describe in their "wishes in print." Now if we all clap our hands, Shrub will turn into the "charming, well-respected leader" the media wants us to believe he is. Well...maybe with a SILO full of pixie dust!

"Newspapers attack the truth tellers on the record. You are the proof that America no longer exists, because what you do is not citizenship, but willful anarchy whose goal is to smother democracy in its crib. You care nothing about the disenfranchisement... A nation without faith in its means of voting is a nation falling apart and not unlike what would happen if faith in our currency were destroyed. Voting IS the currency of a democratic nation. And this currency is now counterfeit. No one should be defending the counterfeiters. In business, we fire these people on the spot. In politics, we coronate them and surrender our freedom to think to them." So writes Bevin Gilmore in a Democrats.commentary.

At least one newspaper - the tiny Amarillo Globe-News - has the integrity to admit that its reports about the trashing of the White House were bogus. "The stories about the Clinton administration staff members who reportedly trashed the White House apparently were the work of a well-orchestrated public relations campaign. Sadly, many media outlets glommed onto the story and spewed righteous indignation about what we believed to be true." How about some more apologies from the right-wing media? We're waiting...

NY Times "reporter" Frank Bruni may be singly responsible for brainwashing the media and the country into believing Karl Rove's campaign propaganda that Bush is a "moderate," rather than a neo-fascist with a smirk. Unfortunately for Bruni, the American people - and the media - now see Bush for the corporate slave that he really is. Rove's latest message to Bruni is that Bush will go on another "charm offensive" towards Senate Democrats and environmentalists. Sorry Frank, we're not buying Karl's lies - and you can tell Karl yourself.

During the campaign and the first 100 days of the Bush administration, reporters swallowed whatever lies Karl Rove fed them. But when Bush unveiled his energy plan, reporters finally began challenging the propaganda - thanks to loud complaints from Democrats and environmentalists. Will this skepticism last - or will Rove pressure media conglomerates to fire offending reporters? Time will tell...

The Washington Post has decided honest journalism just doesn't pay - at least well enough to keep the top dogs happy. Short of renaming themselves "Washington Times II", the Post shows all signs of becoming a GOP mouthpiece. For example: just as Shrub gears up to push for drilling in ANWR, what story does the Post plaster on page one? An "expose" of the mapmaker who posted details of ANWR on the web and was fired. Hmm...what a STRANGE coincidence. This story, of course, ran in place of ANY coverage of the huge voter rights march held in D.C. just a few blocks from the Post's office. We guess the "reporters" were too busy reading the latest GOP and corporate memos to notice! Also, note the side links with the story - all on Bush energy issues. Gotta plug the party line!