Read entire article
Showing posts with label Corporate Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate Media. Show all posts
Why Watching CNBC Can Be Hazardous To Your Wealth
Read entire article
The Death of Newspapers and the Failure of Paywalls
You have probably never even heard of Shirky, and until this interview I hadn’t either. When I ask him to define what he does, he laughs, and admits that often when he’s leaving a party someone will say to him, “What exactly is it you do?” His standard reply – “I work on the theory and practice of social media”– is not just wilfully opaque, but crushingly dreary, which is funny, because he is one of the most illuminating people I’ve ever met.
Read entire article
66% of Voters Are Angry At The Media
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 31% say they are not angry at the media, but that includes just nine percent (9%) who say they are not at all angry.
It’s important to note, however, that the question did not in any way define media or differentiate between media outlets such as CNN and Fox News.
But voters have consistently said in surveys that they believe the national media has a liberal bias and that most reporters try to help the candidates they want to win. Just before Election Day 2008, 51% said most reporters were trying to help Barack Obama win the presidency. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help John McCain, while 31% viewed their coverage as unbiased.
Full article here
Demonizing Iran: U.S. Media Continue Beating War Drums
Aside from the fact that there is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb or even to refine uranium to obtain nuclear-grade material, the paper ignored one crucial point: Israel cannot “go it alone” in any strike on Iran, since its key weapons–American fighter-bombers–are supplied to it, and kept flying, thanks to the equipment and spare parts provided by the United States. Indeed the entire Israeli military machine is largely financed and armed by the US.
No Israeli military effort can go forward without the full backing of the US, and to say otherwise is to simply perpetrate a fraud on the American public, implying that Israel is an independent actor on the world stage. It is not.
Read entire article
The Cover-Ups That Exploded
The worldwide web was transfixed on Monday when Wikileaks put up on YouTube a 38-minute video, along with a 17-minute edited version, taken from a U.S. Army Apache helicopter, one of two firing on a group of Iraqis in Baghdad at a street corner in July of 2007. Twelve civilians died, including a Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and a Reuters driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., Wikileaks said it had got the footage from whistle-blowers in the military and had been able to break the encryption code. The Pentagon has confirmed the video is genuine.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has finally admitted that Special Forces troops killed two pregnant Afghan women and a girl in a February, 2010, raid, in which two Afghan government officials were also killed. Brilliant reporting by Jerome Starkey of The Times of London has blown apart the U.S. military’s cover-up story that the women were killed by knife wounds administered several hours before the raid.
Read entire article
NBC, ABC, CBS Evening News Continue To Hemorrhage Viewers
Evening news broadcasts at major networks are suffering, too.
According to Bill Carter at the New York Times, ABC’s World News with Diane Sawyer had its worst quarter since 1987. CBS’ Evening News with Katie Couric hit a new low starting in January.
But Brian Williams’ Nightly News at NBC got a boost with its best first quarter in four years (thanks, Olympics).
Read entire article
CNN Loses Half Its Viewers In A Year
The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.
CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)
Full story here.
Corporate Media Fears Competition from Social Networking Sites
“The competition I’m really afraid of are social networking sites,” Jon Klein said at the Bloomberg BusinessWeek 2010 Media Summit. “That’s an alternative that threatens to pull people away from us.”
Klein laments the level of trust that Facebook and Twitter users seem to place in the people they follow.
“We want to be the most trusted name in news,” he said. “We don’t want the 1,000 people you follow in Twitter to be the most trusted sources for you.
“So I’m far more worried about the 500 million people on Facebook than I am about 2 million people watching Fox.” Fox is a unit of News Corp., which also owns MarketWatch
Read entire article
Neo-Con Media: Oh What a Lovely War
It is particularly interesting to follow the pieces written by the many opinion shapers in the print media. Many were cheerleaders for Iraq, became doubters when the war went sour, climbed on the bandwagon of the surge, and now are accomplices in Washington’s attempt to subdue Afghanistan. The most subtle of the pundits are those like Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times who appear to be reasonable but are nevertheless agents of the consensus politics crafted by the Washington elite from both parties, hardly ever advocating what might actually be good for the American people. David Ignatius of the Washington Post is another example and particularly appealing as he exudes calmness and “let us reason together” in his articles and op-eds, unlike his more strident opinion page colleague Charles Krauthammer. Ignatius is, nevertheless, no disinterested observer. He is a classic Washington “insider,” an embedded media source with the US commands in Iraq and Afghanistan and his unique access to information is the prize he gets for saying the right things. One of his more recent offerings, “Buying the Vote: Iran is backing candidates — In Iraq” (Feb 25), is a replay of the enemy is Iran theme that has proven popular in the mainstream media, so popular indeed that a large majority of Americans now think incorrectly that Iran already has a nuclear weapon and have concluded that it is a threat that has to be dealt with by force of arms.
Read entire article
“Liberated” Iraq Imposes Draconian Media Censorship
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Battling what it says are broadcasts that incite sectarian violence, Iraq wants to impose new restrictions on the media that critics say could bring back draconian censorship last seen under Saddam Hussein. The new rules from the Communications and Media Commission are being enforced ahead of a March 7 parliamentary election, in which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will be seeking re-election.
Among the elements in the regulations that concern critics are stipulations that all media and journalists seek permission to operate in Iraq from the CMC, submit lists of all staff and equipment, and pledge not to incite sectarianism or violence.
“CPJ’s conclusion is that the regulations represent a clear and transparent effort to control the media, undermine its independence, and allow the government to assert control over the information agenda,” Joel Simon of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said in an email.
The Iraqi constitution guarantees free speech and a free press, and CMC officials say the new regulations are only intended to bring a measure of order to a chaotic industry.
But their implications worry free speech advocates and international media organizations.
After Three Months, Only 35 Subscriptions for Newsday’s Web Site
In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site, newsday.com, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect? So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?
The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.
A sign of empire pathology: More US soldiers commit suicide than killed in action
Here is a shocking statistic that you won’t hear in most western news media: over the past nine years, more US military personnel have taken their own lives than have died in action in either the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. These are official figures from the US Department of Defence, yet somehow they have not been deemed newsworthy to report. Last year alone, more than 330 serving members of the US armed forces committed suicide – more than the 320 killed in Afghanistan and the 150 who fell in Iraq (see wsws.org). Since 2001, when Washington launched its so-called war on terror, there has been a dramatic year-on-year increase in US military suicides, particularly in the army, which has borne the brunt of fighting abroad. Last year saw the highest total number since such records began in 1980. Prior to 2001, the suicide rate in the US military was lower than that for the general US population; now, it is nearly double the national average.A growing number of these victims have been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. What these figures should tell us is that there is something fundamentally deranged about Washington’s “war on terror” – which is probably why western news media prefer to ignore the issue. How damning is it about such military campaigns that the number of US soldiers who take their own lives outnumber those killed by enemy combatants.
What is even more disturbing is that the official figures only count victims of suicide among serving personnel. Not included are the many more veterans – officially classed a civilians – who take their own lives.
Most likely, these deaths are reported in some small-town newspaper in “a brief” news item with no context or background as to what drove these individuals to take their own lives. It is estimated that the suicide rate among veterans demobbed from fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is as high as four times the national average. The US Department of Veteran Affairs calculates that over 6,000 former service personnel commit suicide every year.
Many of these men have come home to a country they have fought for only to find no jobs, their homes repossessed by banks that have enjoyed trillion-dollar bailouts and broken relationships.
Meanwhile, President Obama – the erstwhile peace candidate – has taken on the role of Commander in Chief with gusto, telling his countrymen and women that they are fighting a “just war” to “defend American lives”. Only a year ago, he was campaigning for the presidency on a ticket to end such wars. Now, more than his predecessor, George W Bush, Obama is committing to wars without end. How soul-destroying is that for a grunt holed up in a bunker, with his young family back home probably telling him that they have just signed up for food stamps? In their guts, these US soldiers must know – as many other ordinary people around the world do – that these wars are nothing but a desperate, pathological bid by a dying power to salvage its crumbling empire – an empire that enriches a tiny elite and impoverishes the majority. Is it any wonder that many of them simply lose the will to live?
Snow Chaos: And They Still Claim It’s Global Warming
AS one of the worst winters in 100 years grips the country, climate experts are still trying to claim the world is growing warmer.With millions of Britons battling through snow and ice to get to work today, scientists claim that the cold conditions should not be used as evidence against man-made climate change.
Blizzards, ice and sub-zero temperatures that have gripped the UK for almost a month in a record deep freeze are not “robust” indicators of global weather patterns, they say.
Their claims come despite the fact that the rest of the northern hemisphere, from America to Europe and Asia, is suffering some of the worst winters in living memory.
Huge snowfalls are being witnessed from China and South Korea, across eastern, central and western Europe and to America where even Florida is struggling to record temperatures above freezing.
Last night critics of the global warming lobby said the public were no longer prepared to be conned into believing that man-made emissions were adding to the problem.
Long-term forecaster and trends analyst Piers Corbyn, of WeatherAction, said: “Global warming is a failed science built on falsified data. It is a sham to say that man has caused it.”
Body Scanners Increase Privacy, Says Corporate Media
Having a fat TSA thug in a back room ogle your naked daughter “enhances privacy,” according to Mark Salter – down is the new up, the sky is green and the grass is blue
With the resistance to naked body scanners in airports building, the corporate media is now claiming that technology which allows fat TSA thugs sitting in back rooms to ogle your naked daughter actually “enhances privacy”.
In our Orwellian brave new world where down is the new up, University of Ottawa professor Mark Salter gushes over the virtual strip searches with a gusto that makes you wonder whether he’s on the same payroll as people like Michael Chertoff, who have been aggressively promoting the scanners they are invested in as a solution to the underwear bomber threat, no matter that such scanners would not even have stopped Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding Flight 253.
In his Globe and Mail article, Salter doesn’t try to deny that the scanner produces a crisp image of your naked body, indeed, he ends his piece by asking, “Will Canadians be willing to fly naked?”
“Let me be controversial by saying the millimetre-wave scanner actually enhances privacy,” Salter ludicrously claims, arguing that everything is kosher because the government has promised to keep the strip search anonymous and not store the details in a database – and you can really trust them – after all, governments never keep illegal databases of our information do they? They haven’t been caught doing exactly that on almost every front since 9/11.
Salter isn’t really concerned about how a man with no passport who was on a terror watchlist and who was aided by a sharp-dressed man after his own father had warned U.S. intelligence that he was a threat was allowed to board a plane. No, that pales into insignificance, what’s really important is that brow-beaten Americans and Canadians, who are already treated like criminals and ordered around like prisoners by airport gestapo, are forced to undergo yet more humiliation by being routinely strip-searched, just as the Nazis did to the populations that they conquered during world war two.
Salter is also unperturbed by the fact that the body scanners fire ionizing radiation at the body which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and unzips DNA, increasing the risk of cancer and other life-threatening illnesses.
He is similarly unflustered at the fact that the body scanners violate laws against child pornography because they produce indecent images of children, meaning airports will become the primary peddlers of child porn.
Salter couldn’t care less that top civil liberties groups in Canada have publicly attacked the scanners as a violation of human dignity.
Salter thinks that thugs in uniforms who have made getting into America a worse experience than entering East Berlin sitting alone in back rooms enjoying naked images of your children is a good thing, because apparently being alone in a private room while staring at people’s genitals all day is sure to encourage nothing but the utmost professionalism, I’m sure.
Since Salter’s enthusiasm to see the invasion of the body scanners become a reality is so effusively boundless, he’ll doubtless also welcome the next wave of tyranny being prepared for travelers – mandatory taser bracelets that allow officials to electric shock passengers on a whim, passive brain scanners that pick up brain waves in order to sense the behavior of travelers, as well as surveillance cameras on every seat providing a big brother babysitter for every potentially disobedient slave.
People like Salter and others in the establishment press who are pushing naked body scanners certainly know which side their bread is buttered on. Since the corporate media is owned by the very military-industrial complex making a windfall from the orders for thousands of scanners now being made, as well as the shot in the arm for the fraudulent war on terror helpfully provided by the underwear bomber, it’s unsurprising that we’re seeing such ceaseless propaganda in favor of the scanners.
But an outraged hardcore of Americans, Canadians and people from around the world are standing up and saying enough is enough – with boycotts, lawsuits and mass protests in the pipeline as part of a growing resistance against the latest manifestation of the prison planet.Dr. Len Horowitz: Mass Mind Control
While the rest of the world was out shopping and being happy mindless consumers, We Are Change Colorado and Dr. Len Horowitz and his team held a Vaccine awareness and protest rally at Denver Capital. While we were waiting for others to arrive Dr. Horowitz decided to let a little insight into what he feels about the Cosmos. Very Very interesting conversation for sure!
5 Reasons that Corporate Media Coverage is Pro-War
Note: McClatchy and several other large news sources are exceptions which have reported well on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. There are five reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.
1. Self-Censorship by Journalists
Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:
There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions…. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.What we are talking about here – whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not – is a form of self-censorship.
Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:
You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble …. You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our …. system.
As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:
Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .
There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.
If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.
I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter – whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.
2. Censorship by Higher-Ups
If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.
The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:
“All of the institutions we thought would protect us — particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress — they have failed. The courts . . . the jury’s not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn’t. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that’s the most glaring….Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?
[Long pause] You’d have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You’d actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn’t think you could control. And they’re not going to do that.”
In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. See this announcement and this talk.
And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).
There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.
One is money.
The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power. Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”
In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade.
Dan Rather has slammed media consolidation:
Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.
This is documented by the following must-see charts prepared by:
And check out this list of interlocking directorates of big media companies from Fairness and Accuracy in Media, and this resource from the Columbia Journalism Review to research a particular company.
This image gives a sense of the decline in diversity in media ownership over the last couple of decades:
The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government’s goodies.
3. Drumming Up Support for War
In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.
It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government’s claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government’s war agenda.
Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:
“the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked.”
And as NBC News’ David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said:
“I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up [in the run-up to the war] and say ‘this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this,’ that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role”
But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.
For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War.
And an official summary of America’s overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950’s states, “In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq.” (page x)
The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (Bob Stineet) argues that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .
And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says, “viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.”)
As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes:
There is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news.
The article in the Independent discusses the use of “black propaganda” by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged a letter from al Zarqawi to the “inner circle” of al-Qa’ida’s leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized without question by the media..
So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?
One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC – which is being sold to Comcast – was owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world — which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).
Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government’s imperial war agenda.
And the media support isn’t just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary proves:
There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.”
See also this book.
Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
4. Access
Politico reveals:
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors…
The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.
That may be one reason that the mainstream news commentators hate bloggers so much. The more people who get their news from blogs instead of mainstream news sources, the smaller their audience, and the less the MSM can charge for the kind of “nonconfrontational access” which leads to puff pieces for the big boys.
5. Censorship by the Government
Finally, as if the media’s own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they’ve been too critical. The media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.
For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, “What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states”.
Tom Brokaw said “all wars are based on propaganda.
And the head of CNN said:
Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who “sat on the NSA spying story for over a year” when they “could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome.”
“There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,’” he told us.
* * *
“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?’” contends Ellsberg. “The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .‘”
Of course, if the stick approach doesn’t work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation.
Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup.
Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government’s actions or policies in any meaningful way is that the American government and mainstream media been somewhat blended together.
Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?
We cannot just leave governance to our “leaders”, as “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media. We need to “be the media” ourselves.
“To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.”
- Abraham Lincoln
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Powerlessness and silence go together. We…should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world’s reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used.”
– Margaret Atwood
“There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress.”
- Howard Zinn (historian)
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”
- Thomas Jefferson
Fox News Promotes U.S. Military’s Civilian Recruitment Drive
Advertisement
Fox News helps the U.S. military promote its recruitment drive for civilian employees. The military is looking for “crime scene investigators” to join its ranks. Perhaps FEMA camp guards too? Fox also promotes mental evaluation tests for children run by the military that will “reduce depression”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Money Making Programs
