Dear Mr. Phipps,

Excuse me, but I have not witnessed any principles of objective journalism being followed by the press or by the broadcast media. There are a few radio broadcasts and a couple of television shows that present objective reporting, but they are in the minority for sure.

I wish that there was a "halo of impartiality" in existence.

The media is greatly slanted towards the support of the liberal views on issues. Whenever news of any conflict of interests, crimes of a sensational nature, or worldwide catastrophe occurs there is a rush of reporters (like lemmings running to the sea) to outdo one another in sensationalizing the event. The focus is on outdoing one another, not in presenting the story in the most judicious way possible. How many times has indiscriminate editing been done to the words of those who have been interviewed? There are never any retractions or apologies given afterwards.

It is very evident that there is a desire by the media to paint a picture of events which happens to be favorable to the views of those who own the networks and newspapers. It is unusual whenever an accurate accounting of both sides of an issue are presented.

There is a crying need for impartiality but, how and when that might be realized is a real mystery.

"Betsy" S.

There are many in the media that perpetuate the fictions, a story line, and work to garner our attention and for this they acquire great wealth, then there are the few that strive to discern and report the truth and it is they that bestow upon the world a great wealth.

"feel free to speculate away..." ???

no need for speculation. see or read NOAM CHOMSKY'S MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

Better yet, below is an excerpt from his "Chronicles of Dissent, 1992"
www.chomsky.info/books/dissent02.htm

"Democratic societies..can't control behavior by force. It can to some extent, but it's much more limited in its capacity to control by force. Therefore, it has to control what you think. And again, democratic theorists have understood this for 50 or 60 years and have been very articulate about it.

If the voice of the people is heard, you'd better control what that voice says, meaning you have to control what they think. The method Otero mentions there is one of the major methods.

One of the ways you control what people think is by creating the illusion that there's a debate going on, but making sure that that debate stays within very narrow margins.

Namely, you have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions, and those assumptions turn out to be the propaganda system.

As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, then you can have a debate."

I personally take the above statement as fact as based on your description of the media's "objectivity."

# 3, Brilliant comment !

Dear Jen-d,

Your posting No. 3 is "right on the money". We certainly are bombarded by propaganda in the so-called "land of the free and home of the brave".

As one example I would like to mention the ongoing efforts made by our government to establish a trilateral partnership with Mexico and Canada in order to better enable the establishment of a One World Government. There was recently a fourth summit meeting of these leaders in New Orleans. It was called the "North American Leaders' Conference", although it was actually a "Security and Prosperity Partnership" meeting. They are making a partnership to facilitate economic, legal and political integration in this new North American "framework". How much have you heard about this in the news?

Behind this there is a multi-national corporate agenda pushing for a world currency and for a low-cost labor force. The U.S. economy is already in trouble because so many companies have moved operations to countries where low cost labor exists.

The public is told mainly what they are allowed to know and most of the time the information given is not the whole story.

There is a good book called "The Late Great U.S.A." by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. that you might like to read.

"Betsy" S.

The news media report for one reason: ratings! Fox is very well known for its conservative tone, editing, and makes war with MSNBC due to its CEO and liberal tone in its broadcasting. I listened to Bill O'Reilly one evening explain why he despises MSNBC so much and it was rather interesting to consider the war between Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly not only for viewers and ratings but also because of personal biases and prejudices.

I actually like it when the news media does announce its biases and prejudices as that helps me to better understand the kind of programming that exists at each channel.

And with reference to the book about The Late USA by Jerome R. Corsi, I went to see his appearance on Youtube with Glenn Beck and found that he has made appearances with Lou Dobbs and others also on the same topic of the merger of the Mexican, American, Canada goals set by Vicente Fox, George Bush, et al.

Anyone who is interested in the discussions that the media has made regarding James Corsi can find them at Youtube.

The Amero is the name of the new coinage or currency if it becomes law, and I find that a very unlikely prospect at this time and date. But there is little doubt that some effort is being made to have a union amongst the big three American nations: Canada, USA, and Mexico.

As the media goes, Lou Dobbs is as famous for his stands about the broken border problem as Joe Arpaio is in his enforcing ongoing existing laws, but both Lou Dobbs and Joe Arpaio are also the targets of proMexican illegal immigration forces. I know that only because the local media known as ABC bothered to show the attitudes of the Mexicans who are using Joe Arpaio as target practice on pinatas for their young Mexican children to humiliate and to jab and destroy. A picture of Joe is on the top of a pinata and is a way to teach young Mexicans to hate his guts for enforcing the laws of the state of Arizona.

So like it or not, the media does its job...there is no doubt that there is a slant and a bias in each and every talk show, but that is part of the game. Like team sports, the media networks operate to win viewers and get high ratings. The ratings wars are the same as real life battles between nations. Just pick your favorite host or hostess and cheer them on.

I always love to watch Keith Olbermann's worst list: always Bill O'Reilly is top man on the worst list!

Amazing though to hear Bill's attitudes about NBC out of his own mouth when interviewed at Fox. I was totally stunned but understood his reasoning if his information is correct. He despises NBC because the CEO is supplying Iran with General Electric products while Iran is supposed to be supplying Iraq with soldiers and supplies which in turn kill American soldiers.

We all have the right to know! Thank heaven for freedom of the press!

God bless America!

Where else in the world does the media take such a blast?

#3 are we talking about something like this?

Statistics show people with a high IQ vote for Obama. Could we then argue those that vote who for the others do so because they have a low IQ? Since the smart thing to do is to vote for Obama?

The debate doesn't really matter because there isn't one because creativity and common sense is part of intelligence and somewhat harder to measure. What is important is the effect resulting from the illusionary debate, the installment of a meme. Each individual assuming themselves to be intelligent (ego works in divine favor here) would vote for the new consciousness president, Obama, for the simple fact that this is what the intelligent of us do? If we were to vote for another we would be indicting ourselves as ignorant and who would want to do that?

of course this has reverse intentions, something good for the many. In many cases this technique would be used for the good of the few to the detriment of the many.

We need a smart IQ guy in the Whitehouse with the correct intentions. One that can see through fictions people try to feed him. It’s unfortunate that President Bush couldn’t see through the fictions that his circle of influence was feeding him. They ruined his chance of going down in history as the President that saved the world. If I were him I would be upset.

Of course Obama has demonstrated what he does with a misaligned member of his circle of influence, he drops them. Which is important because when we elect a president, wwe elect their circle of influence, take McCain and Clinton who is in their circle of influence? According to Obama his number one circle of influence is going to be the people and the next circle of influence is going to new choice select circle of influence to assist in his presidential endeavor.

I hear people claiming he doesn’t have experience, well the president isn’t supposed to have all the experience he is supposed to be smart enough to find those with the necessary experience to assist him. He has to be the guy that puts it all together and can see the big picture. This also requires a good judge of character.

You know if an interest controls the people around a president they can but him off and brain wash him.

They did that with Hitler, if you check his medical records he was given LSD for his migraines, which makes it hard for people to discern reality from illusion. It certainly resulted in an ego driven nightmare.

It is time to wake from this one.

This might be a waste of time but it seems that Bush was setup to be the fall guy, to take all the blame. Maybe he agreed to do this, maybe he was duped.

Of course the high IQ bunch knows congress wields the ultimate power because they represent we the people, we are the ones that give them the authority and power to do so. Congress holds the ultimate responsibility for the state of affairs not the president, don't let them use him as a scapegoat for their failings.

Most of congress except for Obama, and Kucinich couldn't see through the fictions regarding the war, Obama did, we need someone that can discern the truth and help others to do so.

Proof again that he is the guy that can see through the fictions of the world.

Kucinich would make a great vice president by the way.

It would be nice to see some objective people in the media make these points.

Obama did NOT fall for that GAS TAX HOLIDAY idea, to the throw the servitude a small token rather than fixing the problem. He didn’t try to buy his way into the Whitehouse with fiction and instant gratification.

Obama realizes that the GAS TAX HOLIDAY would cause the citizens to have more money borrowed on their behalf under the "government" label and pay interest on it for years.

Since this would make the bankers very happy (interest is their profit) Obama has demonstrated he is not subservient to them.

Clinton on the other hand? Not that she like everyone doesn't have some excellent traits and positive points. She simply can't see through the fictions as well as Obama can which is okay.

Obama also realizes that we need to pay off the principle on our debt as fast as possible so that we are not doing the sub-prime fiasco thing paying all interest and not paying off the principle creating a perpetual growing debt for children not even born.

i am not a US citizen or resident, i am currently in south east asia living in a country once colonized by America, and where low cost labor is readily available and IS utilized to the hilt by First World Corporations.

tnx! BetsyS. I havent read the "The Late Great U.S.A." yet. I have heard of plans of uniting US Canada & Mexico mentioned by Lou Dobbs in CNN. I dont know if other news orgs have mentioned it too.

my parents and family are in the US though thus my concern for the "crap" (read "corporate news") they - and other people - are subjected to there.

Richard Thomas, i just find it odd that a "democratic" nation as America get to choose only two people. EITHER one OR the other. At first I thought it was for efficiency's sake since here in the Philippines, voters get to choose from more than five Presidential candidates. it's tedious but i thought it was "democracy's" fault.

but,what if someone doesnt want to vote for neither? then choice becomes no-choice?

tnx too Igor.

This topic changed from bashing the media to political choices it appears. But I appreciated jen-d's comments about two political parties meaning no choice rather than choice. On that I cannot agree more. I deplore the fact that at this time in our history we are still stuck in the two party system, a system so archaic that it should have been dismantled years ago. We need freeagents in politicians as the movie colony years ago discarded company stores. Today's movie stars are more freeagents than mere tools of some major studio, and it seems to me that in politics we need good governmental leaders who are independent, free in thought, and not owned or chained to a party system.

I recently registered independent but had to make a choice of party when it came to the state primary vote. That was most discouraging, as I do not like parties that end up becoming similar to chain gangs.

But in order to vote for a particular candidate I did change my registration to vote for an individual whose opinion I wanted to support.

In the end, both parties are owned by the same major financial groups. This has been proved time and time again, so it never really matters which party is in power, as it is all game time. Each just belong to two different club sets, one supposedly management, and the other labor. Neither is that simple either as both parties are ruled by the same interests, usually self-promotion and nothing more.

The Democratic party is probably the more generous and sensible of the two parties, but the Republican members protect the rights of the individual and small business better than the Democrats. What choice that is for anyone is anybody's guess. It is just kiss each other's tailbone all the way to the top and who can do it faster than the other. That is the way to make it to the top.

The media's job is to make the public aware of which candidate is most likely to screw you faster than the other candidate can do it, but in the end, either one will do it, like it or not.

That is the name of the game! Buyer beware.

It will be finally Barack Obama versus John McCain, young black kid versus old white guy!

Guess who will win? Nobody can be sure yet, as it is a matter of inexperience versus way too much experience!

]