Regarding Internet media vs. establishment
media:
The establishment media -- by which I mean
the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, CNN,
ABC, CBS, etc. -- are boringly predictable: they all spout the same
line. It's easy to figure out anything of significance they,
collectively, have to say every day in under 15 minutes. Their
algorithm for filtering the news is amazingly simple.
All the interesting news action is on the
Internet, where the really important stories that the establishment media have
censored appear in their full glory.
Jeff Rense, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch,
What Really Happened and mailing lists like cia-drugs are where the action is
these days. Old media journalists and pundits are dishonest propaganda
mouthpieces for the state. None of them are capable of independent
research and thinking. They are embarrassing.
The most significant news is the news that
the establishment media are trying to suppress -- like all the valid
questions about every aspect of 911.
The center of gravity in the news world is
turning away from the traditional media and towards the
Internet.
Btw, Drudge Report is NOT an example of
the new Internet news media. Drudge is an officially-sanctioned mouthpiece
of the old media, in Internet guise. He has never broken a significant
story outside the bounds of the establishment agenda. Monicagate was an
establishment diversion from much more serious establishment
crimes.
Rense vs. Drudge/New York Times --
new truthful open media vs. old lying censoring media.
Where misinformation does arise in the new
media, it is easy to handle through open, rational and factual debate of the
kind that is totally alien to the old media.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:46
AM
Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] question on aliens
or bush article I posted
"In a way the message becomes separated from the source on
the Internet,"
said John Pavlik, a Columbia University journalism professor
and executive
director of the Conference for New Media. "You go online and
you don't see
the people making the Web site, all you see is the site, and
if it's at all
well done, it can seem credible."
(from http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/conspiracy020417.html)
Hi
all,
Exactly what does seeing the "people making the Web
site" have to do
with the legitimacy of a news story? How many newspaper
makers are seen by
the readers of a newspaper? For that matter, how many tv
news show makers
are seen by the viewers? This is pathetic reasoning in my
own humble
opinion. I'm finding the numerous stories denigrating critical
thought
recently as compared to the absolutely sparse mainstream reporting
or
editorial writing actually addressing the serious and legitimate
questions
raised about the Sept. 11 events to be at the least extremely
insulting,
even suspicious. (Uh-oh, I'm treading into the conspiracy
zone.)
Peace,
Preston
Peet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let us stay on
topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home
Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
;) |
|
|
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
| 