Humint Events Online: Mainstream Newspapers a Net Negative for Society

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Mainstream Newspapers a Net Negative for Society

Some good points here:
In other words, any exacting assessment of the actual performance of newspapers rated against the twaddle about the role of the Fourth Estate spouted by publishers and editors at their annual conventions would issue a negative verdict in every era. Of course there have been moments when a newspaper or a reporter could make fair claims to have done a decent job, inevitably eradicated by a panicky proprietor, a change in ownership, advertiser pressure, eviction of some protective editor or summary firing of the enterprising reporter. By and large, down the decades, the mainstream newspapers have— often rabidly— obstructed and sabotaged efforts to improve our social and political condition.
(snip)
Will the broadsheets and tabloids vanish entirely? Not in the foreseeable future, any more than trains disappeared at the end of the railway age. A mature industry will yield income and attract investors interested in money or power long after its glory days are over. But it’s a world in decline, and a propaganda system in decline.

AP has pointed out that this piece is from Alexander Cockburn, an intel shill who denies the 9/11 conspiracy-- so that fact should be taken into account when reading Cockburn talk about newspapers producing propaganda and obstructing justice.

Of course, the overriding issue here is that the corporate media is a corrupt, criminal enterprise, pure and simple.

That being said, I enjoy reading my local newspaper once in a while, and would miss it, at least a little bit, if it disappeared.

1 Comments:

Blogger engineer said...

The NYT times is the best example of fake/fantasy as it possesses credibility.

Some of the columnists act dead serious, but pull up way short.

For example, an article professes to be very critical of the Pentagon and the networks and their analysts, who are mostly retired military personnel, point being of course, that the info delivered by the networks is rigged in favor of the Pentagon, and the “analysts” most always have tight connections to members of the military complex.

Behind TV Analysts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=4&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1208693401-y6y8U1U7S17Fxjf/TY8mIg&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Author:

“all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.”

So author gets on the good side, against the war on terror, or....

Author:

“By early 2002, detailed planning for a possible Iraq invasion was under way, yet an obstacle loomed. Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Not uneasy enough. And this author did not help to clarify the matter.

Later in the article, the author:

“The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda (hyperlink); an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.””

The hyperlink is to the New York Times and starts with the following:

“Al Qaeda is a terrorist network of Islamic extremists created by Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.”

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org

The truth, and the Pentagon is done. But that is too easy. Some of these NYT writers know better, known as prostitution, but they like the job and all that fame. But they are solidly in control and that is not likely to change. Go with the money, fame, ego. After all, this is a material world, and it ain't easy to keep up.

4:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger