Left media bias re 911 and other "sensitive" topics, exposed
One of the papers linked to at this website, Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model, by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, gets into the question of the bias shown by the left "alternative media", with a view of considering any observed bias from the point of view of the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model. Unfortunately, after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10), the 'investigation' of the details of this bias gets all of about 1 page of woefully skimpy quotes from members and observers of the left media, starting on p.11. Furthermore, the conclusion consists of a single, 3 sentence paragraph. :
The 1st sentence is certainly not contested by me, but is of little interest, since I consider main stream media all but hopeless*, and the the points listed obvious. The second sentence is interesting, but basically restates the question! That's what this paper hopefully would have elucidated.
It's the last sentence that makes this paper worth pointing to, together with the very fact that the right questions are being asked.
The table on page 10 displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related. Out of these 20, 911-related grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists', and only 2 more had a plain 'Yes' in them. (Other possible ratings were:
No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage
)
I doubt that even the 'Yes' ratings imply any sort of original, gumshoe type research. E.g., we know that Mohammed Atta was not invisible. Nor were his associates. Is the reporting of Hopsicker correct, in that some of his associates were non-Arab, white European types, involved in international drug smuggling, or isn't it? Independent investigative reporting by any of the left "alternative media" venues would involve knocking on doors, not just calling up people who have an opinion, or unverified research of their own.
* Justice cries out for it to be replaced, rather than reformed. Significant reform is impossible, since it serves it's elite masters so well. By 'replaced', I mean that the public has to deliberately turn away from it, not that legislation must put it to an end.
One of the papers linked to at this website, Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model, by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, gets into the question of the bias shown by the left "alternative media", with a view of considering any observed bias from the point of view of the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model. Unfortunately, after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10), the 'investigation' of the details of this bias gets all of about 1 page of woefully skimpy quotes from members and observers of the left media, starting on p.11. Furthermore, the conclusion consists of a single, 3 sentence paragraph. :
The 1st sentence is certainly not contested by me, but is of little interest, since I consider main stream media all but hopeless*, and the the points listed obvious. The second sentence is interesting, but basically restates the question! That's what this paper hopefully would have elucidated.
It's the last sentence that makes this paper worth pointing to, together with the very fact that the right questions are being asked.
The table on page 10 displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related. Out of these 20, 911-related grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists', and only 2 more had a plain 'Yes' in them. (Other possible ratings were:
No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage
)
I doubt that even the 'Yes' ratings imply any sort of original, gumshoe type research. E.g., we know that Mohammed Atta was not invisible. Nor were his associates. Is the reporting of Hopsicker correct, in that some of his associates were non-Arab, white European types, involved in international drug smuggling, or isn't it? Independent investigative reporting by any of the left "alternative media" venues would involve knocking on doors, not just calling up people who have an opinion, or unverified research of their own.
* Justice cries out for it to be replaced, rather than reformed. Significant reform is impossible, since it serves it's elite masters so well. By 'replaced', I mean that the public has to deliberately turn away from it, not that legislation must put it to an end.
