How big media shortchange the public

[Richard Chonak]

Dave Faneuf wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> "Not exactly an objective article.  But then did we really expect anything 
> other that left-wing babble from the Phoenix"?
> 
> 
> I fail to see how developing a story about how media....all media...has ignored or short changed stories is "left-wing babble"...however in all honesty is it the reaction I expected ;-)
> dave


Whether these stories have received the press attention they deserved is 
a matter of opinion.  I've seen some coverage or heard discussions about 
most of them:


   * environmental complaints
   * effects of depleted-uranium weaponry
   * voting machines and the companies that make them
   * the Federalist Society (oooh, a scary bugbear of the Left)
   * wealth and income inequality

That last one came up from time to time in political speeches -- 
remember some guy named Edwards?  Whatever happened to him?

Anyway, these topics turn up in call-in shows, on C-SPAN and NPR, and 
occasionally in ordinary news reports.  They're not the absolute top 
stories, but they're not censored.   They're not the obsessions of the 
Nation, unless you mean the left-wing magazine of that name.

Here's the list of participants in "Project Censored":
   http://www.sfbg.com/38/49/cover_censored_judges.html

And the list really does seem one-sided.  It includes "progressives" 
such as Richard Barnet and Julianne Malveaux, and even such dim bulbs as 
Dan "Tom Tomorrow" Perkins and ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney.   For proper 
editorial balance surely they should have included a few folks from 
newsmax.com and some FReepers to balance them out, but alas, they didn't.

With such an unbalanced crew (in more ways than one), no wonder the list 
of supposedly neglected stories is just a roster of left-wingers' 
causes.   If the organizers had put a bunch of hard-right folks on the 
panel, they'd be telling us that the media had failed to sufficiently 
investigate George Soros' money, Mr. Kerry's sealed military records, 
and the insidious links between 527s and the Dems.

Well, there were a couple of stories on the list that I hadn't heard 
covered:

   * widow accuses Bush of knowing about 9/11 in advance and letting it
     happen for political gain

But then I find it hard to take such kook material, such 
conspiracy-talk, seriously.

Dave wrote:
 > I fail to see how developing a story about how media....all
 > media...has ignored or short changed stories is "left-wing
 > babble"

If you say you fail to see it, I'll take you at your word.

--RC