Heh. Great minds think alike, I guess. Here's the text of a letter to the editor I sent to theTimes this morning:

On your editorial page today (May , Adam Cohen once again repeats the tired bloviations of the mainstream media community about bloggers and journalistic ethics.

A newspaper which unquestioningly published Judith
Miller's parroting of Ahmad Chalabi's claims regarding Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction has nothing to say about journalistic ethics. A newspaper that regularly published Jodi Wilgoren's cruelly snarky 2004 campaign ravings against John Kerry has nothing to say about journalistic ethics. A newspaper that still has not given even one inch of column space to the fact that a leaked British memo states unequivocally that George W. Bush ordered Iraq WMD intelligence tailored to fit a pre-existing policy,
DEFINITELY has nothing to say to bloggers about
journalistic ethics.

Physician, heal thyself.

Re #1

Oh yeah, and how about some ink on what started it all, such as questionable elections and, more recently, Professor Griffin's questions about 9/11?

Dare him to watch FOX for a day ,if he wants to "take shots" at the "high standards of those in the MSM".

This is what I sent to the NYT in response to their story;
re: Adam Cohen- Questions About Ethics
The NY Times is one of the few remaining MSM papers that actually do journalism these days. I have all but stopped watching TV news as they seem to think the "runaway bride" is more important a story than say- the end of democracy in America. I wonder what it will take for the MSM to wake up and smell the corruption. Why is it that the MSM has ignored the Clint Curtis story or the British secret memo story? How ethical is that? Or how about Jeff Gannon/Guckert? I don't hear Mr. Cohen complaining about that. The truth is that responsible bloggers like crooksandliars and bradblog are the only ones getting the info out and while they do make mistakes, they are the first to correct and apologize for it. Does Judith Miller do the same?

You know, if the irony wasn't so potentially enraging...this could almost be funny! :confused:

That was a cheap swat. The most they can do is to swat at a non confederated group of people; lumping them into a pile of blog and pointing disdainfully at them.

They can't even muster a moderately truthful refutation of a single point. They don't even try. Could they get more worthless?

We should have expected that though, the MSM had long ago proven who owns them. Almost to a person, they must have removed all the mirrors in their lives so they don't have to look at the face of a traitor. Don't expect them to listen even to constructive criticism.

Its not like bloggers answer to some freaky cult leader for direction ,like MOON, maybe thats the difference.
All bow to REV. BRAD the mighty.

I'm an atheist but I do believe in BLOG.

Maybe 6 or 7 people need to ask Adam Cohen where the MSM is on the smoking gun Blair memo (published 5/1/05 in the Sunday Times) that proves both Blair and Bush lied to get us into war in Iraq. Blair himself acknowledges the info of the meeting that he chaired. I verified this myself by 5/2 or 5/3. This kind of information doesn't take expensive investigative reporting, and they can't say they are verifying the information (because it's already verified). So what's the deal? There's no story in absolute proof the President lied us into war?

There is no excuse for that kind of (lack of) reporting. There's no excuse for this kind of President (who needs to resign now).

Adam Cohen, fuck off.

Bejammin075 #8
This kind of information doesn't take expensive investigative reporting, and they can't say they are verifying the information (because it's already verified). So what's the deal? There's no story in absolute proof the President lied us into war?

These people (Adam Cohen and the like) are not writing these stories for people who follow "blogs" ,its for their "readers" so when real information is presented via bloggers "hard work" they can discredit it .For instance "Clinton Curtis who........?

That is SO phoney-baloney. What did Cohen do, close his eyes and run his fingers through the phone book (so to speak)? If I purchased a newspaper (which I don't anymore), I would select one with standards and good writing, not grab at random at the supermarket checkout and then drone in condescention at the standard-less quality of the press. (I'd probably have far more right and reason to do so, but there it is.

As with everything else, quality rises to the top in blogworld and discriminating readers recognize both
clearness in thinking and commitment to truth. The man needs to pay a visit to Bradville and a few other sites we all could mention.

Great letter, Jill. I wonder whether they'll print it...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

— The Declaration of Independence

AN ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT

How to End the War

The President is a War Criminal

MSM grade pontification by Cohen is hypocritical to the utmost.

It is also form over substance. Cohen advocates for some academic niceties in form, but fails to realize that bloggers are more ethical in getting the real stories out there than the MSM is for covering up. Even tho the MSM may dot every i and cross every t in the process of not telling the big stories.

Hey Cohen ... have you not figured out why blogs are becoming the popular rage and MSM rags are the reason for the popular rage?

The MSM ethics bar is at the ankle level and you want us to go there?

Hell no we won't go that low.

Peggy #13, who honestly believes that the American military bases in Iraq will ever stop being attacked by the Iraqi resistance.

Does the American government truly believe the Iraqi resistance is going to simply disappear? It has not and I don't think it will simply disappear.

Eschaton has picked up on Cohen's hypocrytical condescension as well as the Koehler travesty. You're in the mainstream blogosphere, Brad - and the iron is HOT!

Scroll down - you'll find the discussions.

Darn - I hate when that happens: hitting "Submit" before proofing the post.

"hypocritical"

Nice to see Eschaton touch on the topic (Election 2004/Reform). I do believe it's the first time that they have done so. That said, it looks like it was not Atrios who did it, but rather Guest Blogger, Avedon.

Either way, glad Eschaton is finally giving some "ink" to the matter no matter who posted it!

Read up Adam Cohen, I may have found a real live ethical MSM journalist. The truth-telling type you fantasize about being, those moments before grabbing your pen: Home from Iraq. Yes, Molly Bingham, Journalist not Editor, walking the walk so your kind can trash and insult.

Crawl out from under your desk and set ethical examples Cohen! Or shut the hell up.

John Conyers is a beauty. He understands our fear and frustration, and has taken the time to listen to us and to reach out to us in our own environment, the blogosphere. In this day and age when our representatives seem so uninterested, distant, and fouled by moneyed interests, he has gone out of his way to listen and learn from us and to offer assistance and ask for suggestions and help. Not in a self serving political way, but as an equal who understands that he is an extension of us, our voice in Washington. Thank you Sir.

It's just sour grapes. They fear being rendered obsolete by the internet. The United State Postal Service has nothing good to say about e-mail, either.

People who are losing control will say just about anything in an attempt to remain in control.

Here is a short article about a real journalistic hero, Ernie Pyle, who gave his life pursuing the the truth about war as opposed to our modern version of corporate cowards.

Bit of an attack / disinfo? going down here at Carol Torwarnicky's expense!
What do others here make of this?

I also think that blogging will become a powerful political tool and Conyers is smart enough to see this. Internet savvy politicians might start holding an advantage. Getting the people to know you and support you is always a good move, and what better way than the blogosphere?

Insights into the world of crisis management, when somebody like Seymour Hersh drops a bombshell!

Still on the subject of CACI International, the company the DoD choose for outsourcing of torture at Abu Ghraib, Alberto Gonzales' style, read on!

Wayne Madsen
story!

Good links, Bushw@cker!

Bushw@acker #27 This is the fundamental essence of the white house "news" or press office.

Everything is geared to making sure that a certain movie is being depicted. The script must follow the plot, which is at this time, the neocon world view movie.

The US is the good guy and our invasions to grasp the last oil deposits on the planet are justified because we are the good guys and deserve it and they are the bad guys and don't deserve it.

We are the holy empire and they are the evil empire, says Pat Robertson et. al. and says God to Bu$h.

So the morph from mushroom clouds in the dots to WMD in the dots to bringing voting to the Iraqi needy is how the script has changed to fit the world view.

The body politic is tiring of this naked and obvious play pretend and the poll ratings of the neocons is tanking.

It remains to be seen how maniacally degenerate they are and how far they will go. Dragging the depraved, kicking, and screaming DeLay out of the spotlight may indicate that they are not prepared at this time to go over the top.

The '06 election is going to be the turning point. If the neocons take a hit and we return to moderate republicans and democrats in the majority and in the say, then sanity has regained some. If not, '07 and '08 may be shocker years.

Bushw@cker #29 The Madsen story you link to has a telling segment.

Note that many intelligence functions are being transferred from traditional intelligence centers to military bases at various locations.

The illustrates symbolically the neocon mistrust of thinking and their reliance instead on raw power in the form of brute force.

Kinda like a drunk in a bar when facing some sort of impediment to his/her world view at the moment.

Torqued #21
Thank you for that link to Molly Bingham's MOST EXCELLENT article. I'm going to copy/paste a bit of it into the letter I write to adam cohen.

This is slightly o.t. but I just saw the movie Crash (excellent, powerful, btw, see it!) and there is a very interesting scene with Don Cheadle involving threats/bribery/coverup.
I'm fairly sure there must be quite a number of people out there, in the media & elsewhere, whose consciences are giving them trouble, and I think it's inevitable that more will come forward with bits of the truth.....
but speaking for myself, I'm not sure how brave I could be if my family had been seriously threatened.

"holds bloggers up to ethical standards which, he argues, ought to equal the high standards of those in the MSM."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Gee, I had hoped we could do better than that!

Two words for the Times...

Judith. Miller.

Torqued #21, Joan #33 -

I was just going to link to that speech by Molly Bingham! Especially poignant to me was her surprised recognition that she was afraid of her own country!

I think all of these comments are deflective.

Yes, it's true the MSM must hold themselves to a high(er) standard, but that is not the point of the article. The article states that Bloggers should hold themselves to an ethical standard, so that's really what should be debated. Instead, it's tossed off the plate by returning the attack onto the MSM, and while it's deserved, it's actually a really easy way of deflecting the point entirely.

The Right plays this all the time. I'd encourage the Left to find another way, and Brad especially.

To hell with concerns about the ethics of news reporters. We can't even control the ethics of our elected officials. In that vein, just wanted to let the readers know that the NY Newsday finally had an article regarding the British memo (on page 21).

The headline read

" Memo: Bush Manipulated Iraqi Intell"

I am not sure why something this big didn't make the front page. ut I will send letters to the entire staff at Newsday to complain.

I smell a rat...and it's name is George!!

Alan

The Honorable John Conyers will be doing a live chat session in case you haven't heard.

Bryan #37

The source of criticism must be above those being criticised. That is where this article fails.

They do not have the moral high ground when they are nothing more than conduits for the propaganda of the corporate empire and are paid by the administration in more ways than one.

The lethargic and pathetic "coverage" of this admin is grossly unethical and the MSM sucks big time. The scad clothing, their "coverage", is pornographic and everything shows in its reaking reality.

There is no deflection in saying that. This is straight up in their face eyeball to eyball nose to nose.

Those claiming to be the MSM pope must show their credentials in worthy news stories. Not self pandering verbal masterbation without any sense of what the authority of the press is.

That authority of the press comes from telling the people what the government is and is not doing.

Not the MSM's pat-yourself-on the-back you-rub-mine-and-I'll-rub-yours pontification that comes from the great foundation of a piece of paper from the state that says you are the press.

Dredd 39

Criticism can (and should) come from the most unlikely and seemingly inappropriate of sources. I disagree that those who criticise must be above criticism - nothing would ever get done.

The MSM is awful. Who is debating that?

The question really to ask is, "Does this idiot have a point?" I'd say yes. We're all so ready to lynch this administration, and with good reason, that a reminder of the principles that ought to be followed, especially by those with less integrity than this blog continually exercises, should be heeded.

Bloggers have to be perfect if they're going to continue to make the impact they ought to be making, and this reminder, even from a glass-housed stonethrower, should be considered. Can you really debate that there are irresponsible bloggers out there? Sensationalized stories? Even Brad pops up the satirical sirens and many commenters begin salivating when they see them.

Bryan, maybe the point is that if MSM did THEIR JOB in the first place "BLOGS" wouldn't be "in competition" with them and unlike the MSM when Brad posts a story its “out there” for ALL TO COMMENT AND CRITIQUE. As with any human endeavor some are better than others no matter how good their intensions.
Look at the Clinton Curtis story, the guy tries to bring information forward for no personal gain and a heap of personal risk (see Raymond Lemme) and where is the MSM, asleep at the wheel, again. So Curtis takes and passes a Polygraph verifying his claims and where is the MSM, asleep at the wheel, again.
The media WAS a watchdog to the actions of errant administrations of the past and if they want to sleep through the most turbulent times since WW2 with barely a comment contrary to the current administrations agenda so be it.
People like Brad give their time and energy freely and I think they do it because they see that it needs to be done because of the lack of critical reporting by the MSM and I suggest that the bulk of media magnates and politicians do nothing freely.

Please forgive if this is OT --- But, does anyone know who Angie D'Urso is? She trashed David Ray Griffin after he wrote The New Pearl Harbor. He rebutted her & she wrote a last word rebuttal to him here:

David Ray Griffin Responds & so does Angie

This link is what started the communication between Griffin & Angie d'Urso:

The Creepy Sides of the 9/11 Truth Movement

I would like to know more about her background and validity, if anyone has researched her. Would appreciate any info since I'm trying to figure out whether she is part of the disinfo machine she claims to be against or not --- Thanks.

Hurray, MMIIXX and Dredd: Bryan, I think the blogs are doing an outstanding job and the MSM have failed miserably, both in performance and ethics.

As previously said, if the "professional" MSM refuse to do their jobs at all, or well, or uneithically, and the "amateurs" step in to try and fill the void, then the MSM should have a myriad of other more important things to do, rather than sit around criticizing those who criticize THEM for not doing their job.

The MSM, in general, is lazy, unintelligent and unethical. Thank God for the few one or two (or 6 or 7) true patriot journalists who still care about America and are doing their jobs well and ethically. And Thank God for people like Brad and others who care, and are doing a great job trying to wake up America and the MSM! The fact that the MSM is now "criticizing" the bloggers, at least means they are not quite comatose yet. Where there's life, there's hope(?)

Hi all,

Yeah... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! LOL

I have been folowing an interesting series called "The Media's true Colors" by The Left Coaster:

"This post is part of my continuing series exploring the real nature and behavior of the U.S. mainstream news media - in terms of news coverage. Part 1 of this series addresses issues of basic journalism, and I previously posted Part 1A on journalistic malpractice (in political coverage). This part, 1B, is about accountability for journalistic malpractice (against the Left)."

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

I'd be interested in what people think of this.

Who cares what Mr. Cohen has to say. At least with bloggers, America is now getting the truth. Long live the bloggers. God is Watching!!!!!

The fact is an illegal candidate is in office. Bush did not win the election, but bought it. The MSM refuses to do true journalism to bring the truth to light. The truth is in the blog!

Kira #42 - Okay, this is weird and I hope I can explain it coherentlyl! LOL! And I hope I do the links right. Here goes:

The other day I learned of Gate Keeper's website through a thread at DU which had a link to this Chart - "Foundations Fund Phony "Left"

As you can see, they're showing that most of the "left" media is owned and controlled by the same corporate powers that control the rest of the media.

********
From there I went to their homepage here which has links to other sites. At this point I'm assuming the links on GateKeepers site are who they consider valid or REAL Left media. There's also a link to articles, which led me to this one on David Griffin and his book The New Pearl Harbor (I had just seen him on CSpan so it caught my attention).

I must say it did change my view of what I thought of his speech after being so jazzed at seeing him on CSpan Sat.

**********
So now I google the name Angie D'Urso, and it leads me to this site here
which is one of the links listed on the Gate Keepers website - AND if you scroll down, there's the "Chart" from GateKeepers right above the links to her correspondence with David Griffin.

So my conclusion, (although I'm always anxious to hear other's views because I get confused sometimes! LOL!) is that these people ARE valid and in fact Angie IS NOT part of the disinfo machine but is in fact fighting it.

I was sort of happy to see your post here because since coming upon this GateKeepers site I've stumbled onto several other sites that have me kind of freaking out a little. I hate to think that no matter what we do or who we vote for it's not going to make a difference, but indeed, that's how it's looking the more I look into it.

One happy note - The night before I came on all this someone on CCN (Clark Community Network) said that General Clark was doing a fundraiser for Consortium News. I was thrilled when I saw one of the links on GateKeeper's site was to Consortium News!

Bryan #40

Anyone can criticize anyone at anytime for any reason or no reason. So what?

I am talking about valid criticism. Valid criticism flows from an entity that knows not only what it is talking about, but is above that criticism.

For instance it is not all that becoming for a bank robber to criticize a shop lifter.

You say "The MSM is awful. Who is debating that?" which I take to mean that neither you nor I are debating whether or not the MSM is awful. Fair enough.

What I said is that the MSM does not have the moral high ground.

They were the original fiduciaries of the american people's news. They have not held the sacred ground of government criticism but instead have sold it.

Sold it then lied about it then took the ill gotten gain and helped the enemy of the american people ... The un-truth.

Not only are they shameful beyond the pale, they now attack those who would step in and retake the sacred ground on behalf of the american people.

Retake it not on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of the trust. There is no paycheck here, no IRA's for retirement, just the struggle to let the american people know who raped them and their children.

Screw the MSM scum. The polls show that all their treachery and treason has not worked. The people know an Enron when they see one, know a lie when they hear one, and their ears and eyes are returning. The fog is thinning.

We are the BLOG and we aren't getting paid in corporate profit, we are getting paid in soul.

The Creepy side of Angie D'Urso?

KIRA, At first blush, I'm a little weary of someone who dismisses "Peak Oil" straight up as a scam!
I'd also love to know what Angie really believes about 9/11, and who she believes was responsible for it!
I Reckon she's a fog machine!

Thank you Jen #47 and Bushw@cker #49.

It is so damn hard to find the unvarnished truth. I stay confused.

I had spent a little time reading through the Gatekeepers (in Jen's post) last week, but didn't catch the David Griffin link. Thanks for including them here.

I'm still reading the D'Urso links. Just like you, Bushw@cker, red flags went up for me when she called Peak Oil a scam and there were other things she accused Griffin of that he denied as well as her problem with his view of religion. As I said, I'm still studying it.

Who is Angie D'Urso, anyway? Most of my Googled hits picked up her name as transcriptionist for Noam Chomsky lectures. (I'll try Alta Vista next; Google searches are becoming as fluffy as the msm.)

george w.bush the one million to one president

Hey MMIIXX
Imagine if I managed to put a couple of grand on GWB prior to the rigging, sorry running of the 2004 election at odds of 1,000,000 to 1?
You'd be referring to me as BU$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$HW@CKER!
...formerly known as BUSHW@CKER Hehe

re #50 Who is Noam Chomsky, anyway?

hehehe

#53 - surely there's a joke in here, WP, but I'm too serious today to catch it.

Noam Chomsky is one of America's most prominent political dissidents. A renowned professor of linguistics at MIT, he has authored over 30 political books dissecting such issues as U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media.

But WHO IS Angela D'Urso?

Kira #50, searchalot.com has a list of most of the search engines you can use. I use it when I'm dissatisfied with my google search. Not a big difference, but sometimes every little bit counts.

KIRA #50
Like you, I'll keep digging for more background on Ms Angie D'Urso.
The Angie D'Urso [selective] Guilt By Association Model, when applied to herself would go something like this:
Angie D'Urso's writings heavily quote or link to Brian Salter's website, which in turn links to the LYNDON LaROUCHE's WEBSITE (Say No MORE!!!)
=================================
.......therefore I say, she's a witch, and we should BURN HER!!!!!
=================================
Sorry, don't know what came over me!
.......THEREFORE, you should be highly suspicious of everything she writes!
Isn't that so Angie?

BUSHW@CKER
Did you read the story that reckon bombing Iraq with money would be cheaper than dropping bombs and nobody has to die.
If they used either of our currency you could even get some kills (for the bloodthristy) ,$1 and $2 coins from 35000 feet ,thats gotta hurt!

25 million Iraq's * $1,000,000 (each) to sign allegiance to gwb .......what a deal.

as a comedian over here asked the other day ........
"how did our oil get under their sand anyway?

I totally agree with you Bushw@cker - I was just reading Brian Salter's debunking pages. I hadn't found the links to LaRouche's pages --- but, as you say, by her own Guilt By Association Model - she must be a witch.

=======================
Does she float?
=======================

There's a legal secretary in Manhattan named Angie D'Urso and Angela D'Urso is an activist from NYC. That's all I've managed to find yet.

Thanks Horkus #56. I'll try searchalot.

Brilliant MMIIXX !!!!
I reckon you've unearthed Paul D.
Wolfowitz's secret plan's for bombing Iran and Nth Korea now that he's head of the World Bank!
The bastards will probably try to do it on the cheap by dropping Italian Lira!

==========================
Throw her into the pond!
==========================

I did some reasearch into LaRouche at Rep. Conyers blog a while back. There are several links to info about his group.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000059.htm
Posts # 9 & 10

Mmixx -

Too bad we Yankees don't use $1 or $2 coins. We might be able to inflict some damage (ALWAYS the main objective) if we did. I doubt that worthless green, cocaine-polluted bills would wreak the havoc this administration has in mind.

Right on bradmeister! Keep on bloggin'.

NYT: "But over the past two years its credibility has been undermined by its reporting of the run-up to the Iraq war, for which it later published an apology, and the Jayson Blair scandal, in which a young reporter plagiarised and fabricated quotes over six months without being detected. The latter scandal led to the two top editors resigning in 2003."

As for accessibility: "The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being," the committee's 16-page report said. It also noted that the paper printed 3,200 corrections last year.

Not so, BradBlog. Thank you Brad, a responsible human being!!!

Good points (#66), Brad. Their weakness in reporting the real news/truth has cost us all, dearly, and has, basically, changed your career!

This looks interesting ,Conyers must be on speed or something ,does this guy ever stop,he's trying to do the work of a whole party on his own :-

On October 10, 2004, the Washington Post reported that then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was giving campaign-oriented speeches in presidential battleground states. The article stated that "[t]he frequency and location of her speeches differ[ed] sharply from those before this election year - and appear[ed] to break with the long-standing precedent that the national security adviser try to avoid overt involvement in the presidential campaign."

http://www.dailykos.com/...ory/2005/4/13/175339/272

What Brad #66 said.

What I would add about the right wing blogs is that they are the MSM's internet division.

The DNA of the MSM is coverup by either ignoring a newsworthy story or trivializing it by specialized focus in a way that hides the heart of the story. The right wing blogosphere does that so they are essentially the neocon element in the MSM's internet division.

It isn't just about ownership of corporate property alone, its also about ownership of their ideas.

The republican party is also infected with the neocon element in its non-internet division because they believe the same ideas as the neocon blogs and represent stories just as badly.

Rush L is attacking republicans now (link here) and making serious threats. These necons are making a showdown issue and are threatening to campaign against the moderates.

The neocon element advocates the status quo of: 1) the MSM press (being happy to falsely call it "liberal"); 2) Iraq (pretending it is about bringing voting to the needy); 3) PEAK OIL (saying it is an environmentalist myth); and 4) Patriot Act (saying that act is essential to fight terrorism - while they increase terrorism by making nations hate us, etc).

The real difference is method of advocacy. One MSM division is ink (newspapers, mags, books) while the other is pixels (neocon blogs).

I didn't put the smiley in #70 ... it was a "close paren"

Bob Bilse makes an excellent point. The mainstream media don't like bloggers, period. They resent them for stealing their thunder, they look down at them for not being graduates of journalism schools, and they resent our independence.

A reporter can spend long hours on a story, only to have his editor kill it...not because the story isn't accurate, not because it isn't well written, simply because the paper is afraid of people reading it. The more corporate that media become, the more this happens...because the New York Times Company, the Tribune Company (Chicago), NBC (owned by General Electric), and ABC (Disney) are corporate animals, beholden to stockholders and advertisers they don't want to piss off.

They resent us for not having to kowtow to their corporate bosses. Talk about double-checking sources is just that...talk. The resentment goes much deeper, and manifests itself through familiar put-downs like "conspiracy theorists."

We've got to be doing something right!

Bravo all! And RLM 72, you might have added that they're terrified of becoming, in the harsh words directed at the UN by him who must never be named, "irrelevant" - and therefore out of work. And a word of caution to those coincidence theorists out there: many conspiracies have occurred in the history of our sorry race, and some of them have been uncovered. It's utterly preposterous to claim that all the various "conspiracy theories" put forth so far over the last half century have been without any merit at all. In fact, I have personally observed that when people "protest too much" it's usually for a good reason. Thank God that She gave us Brad and all the rest of us Bradvillers as a check and balance against the small-minded, greedy, frankly base likes of those who yearn to rape the sweet Earth and all her inhabitant/dependents so they can go to an endless BBQ in the sky and revel with God, duhbaya, and all their friends like Pat Robertson and Tom DeLay - I'm not gonna get started with a list here - nuff said! Let us all make a glorious noise and force the msm to get on the stick, do its job - they should know that we'll stick up for them if they will just stand and be counted with us. The whole thing could come unraveled in a minute, I believe... Thank you, Brad, happy trails

Sure! The it would be nice if the blogger was bound to some 'ethical' standard.

But even without that we do know that there is no financial reward for expressing ones views in a blog. A possible exception might be the 'troll' whose contributions have the odor of ingenuity.

If the Mess media--the MSM--had not abandoned, long ago, its responsibilty to preserve the Freedom of the Press by refusing to be a corpotate bought functionary of the government then the Blogs would have remained quiet little rumor bitch sessions.

It was this failing that 'forced' the Blog to do the hard work of probing into the dark and devious that the MSM reporters should have been salivating to do.

A MSM reporter (?) shouting for ethical standards is equivalent to AWOL-deserters and assorted draft dodgers cheering for War and patriotism.

Bryan - As I pointed out in my article, I generally agreed with Cohen's thesis. In fact, most of his bloviating seemed to be (appropriately) directed at the Right Wing Blogs and their phoney-baloney "stories" that succeeded in taking down Dan Rather and Eason Jordan.

Those blog attacks were indeed of the unethical sort which Cohen derides. I share his derision towards them.

Nonetheless, the Times has now backed themselves into a corner from which they cannot get out unless they do a few things like a) Fire Judith Miller b) Apologize profusely for not having done so earlier c) Begin reporting NEWS again d) Do so accurately and with the same ETHICS that Cohen condescends to lecture the blogosphere with and e) Institute a policy to allow for real correction/criticism of their own.

I don't disagree with his statements in general. I just have NO INTEREST in hearing it from them. Not after what their failure to do their job in even the slightest responsible way has cost me personally, and much more importantly, both the country and the WORLD.

Amen, Brad.

Just quickly going back to my #42 & Jen's #47 & Bushw@cker's #49 (and others I might have missed) --

I'm concerned when any group or individual attempts to disrupt a group of non-republicans who are trying to shine light on any of the bu$hco corruptions or scandals. I think we should take a very close look at The Left Gatekeepers just in case their real purpose is to cause in-fighting within the Left. We need simplicity, not a huge dung pile to deal with.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Henry David Thoreau

Oops --- I should have included the Republicans who are not part of the radical, conservative, fundaMENTAList, neoCON bu$co bunch who call themselves "Republicans."

WP #77 You just love the controversy don't you?

I look on Noam as a macro dissident rather than a micro dissident. He has his sights on the larger-in-scope, broader-in-impact, dynamics and energies rather than on the singularities.

His is the mulitnational corporate watcher and the Matrix I viewpoint.

When he doesn't care about who killed Kennedy he is saying it did not greatly increase nor greatly decrease the growth, plans, or policies of the neocon military industrial corporate complex.

In his vision it was not a major event in the flow of that stream of ideas and events.

In that view neither was 9/11 evidently. In other words he gives the behind-the-scenes stories (that do not make the big news) more significance than some of the visual video intensive events that play well on TV and similar media.

I can't say that I agree with his strategy, because it leaves out the emotional element of the picture. His view is contained in highly intellectual structures, which as we all know, make "boring" movies.

Hi Kira --- I've been away all day so this is late but better late than never ... let's play connect-the-dots with posts #50 #53 #55 and #75 ... I wasn't really joking when I asked "who is noam chomsky anyway?"... and that's the joke! it's not funny and I think it's on us ... but who is noam chomsky REALLY? and how does it happen that 'one of America's leading dissidents' can be happy at a university that is tied so tightly to the military? Have you ever wondered about that? I have.

All this LeftGatekeepers talk recently has been interesting, hasn't it? But it doesn't surprise me. I used to subscribe to some lefty magazines but I gave them all up because they struck me as worthless. Now, twenty or more years later people are finally finding out why. Ouch!

I can't give you the links (you probably know them anyway) but I have been reading recently about Daniel Ellsberg's connection to the CIA and Bob Woodward's connection to ONI and how just maybe the events which we perceived as Watergate unfolding were actually a palace coup to get rid of Nixon, and on and on and on... I'm not believing everything I read but the more I read the more I believe that nothing is quite what it seems!

Back to chomsky --- I find his opinions on events I consider crucial have been very soft to say the least ... is this a strange state of affairs or is it just me? Am I the only one wondering Who selects 'America's leading dissidents' and How?

Anyway if you go to the link you provided in #75 and click on "Articles" (or else click here) you will find a number of articles mentioning mr. chomsky and they are none too flattering. I didn't know about this site before you posted your link BTW. So Thanks!

I stopped reading Chomsky a long time ago, after many failed swearings-off, the last straw being the shallowness of his analysis of 9/11. But I've been reading him again tonight [thanks to your link] and I am still trying to get my mind around the following statement (from this article).

In January of 2002, Noam Chomsky was asked the following question by an audience member at a speaking engagement for FAIR in New York: "Is there credible evidence that some part of the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?" His answer: "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."

Is that right? Wow!! Actual 'leading dissidents' [like Jim Marrs for instance] knew on the day of the event what it was, and what it was about, and where it was coming from, and where it was leading.

For those who had spent every spare minute of their time for months studying the issue of 9/11 prior knowledge and discovering the utter absurdity of the official narrative, Chomsky was obviously out to lunch. But, you can't fault him for not being consistent. His attitude, post-9/11, is in many ways a repeat of an episode a decade ago, when he and a handful of other "leftist" figures signed onto a savage establishment media attack on Oliver Stone and his film JFK, which brought an interpretation of the JFK assassination conspiracy to the public. In addition to defending the Warren Commission report's "lone gunman" findings, these anticonspiratorialists made a peculiar far-fetched hedge, claiming that the assassination did not result in any significant changes to US policy or the political power structure, and hence need not concern Left political analysis in the slightest!

Yikes! No significant changes? It shouldn't concern us in the slightest? Could this be an exaggeration? Did chomsky really say that?

Another article on the same site contains an exchange of e-mails between chomsky and Ronald Bleier in which chomsky says this [of the assassination of JFK]:

My only interest in the assassination is whether it was a high-level conspiracy that had policy implications. The evidence is overwhelming that it is not. Whether it was Oswald, the Mafia, jealous husbands, or something else is not a topic that interests me particularly, and I've never written or said anything about it. On RFK I don't recall a word. I am not much enamoured of Great Men, and if they are assassinated in a manner that has no policy significance, I don't see why it is more important than the latest murder in the black sections of downtown Boston.

Yikes! Did chomsky really say that too? Is he not only a faux dissident but a racist faux dissident at that? I don't know... I'm just asking. And thinking. And all my thoughts keep coming around to the same questions:

Who selects 'America's leading dissidents' and How?

I, for one, am not overly crazy for 'micro' or 'macro'--put it on the scale and see which side drops and measure the rate of drop--dynamic. If Chomsky did not, at the time of the Kennedy assassination, measure an increase or decrease of neocon activity it would be understandable. That was a time of awe and dispair.

If Chomsky says that even in retrospect from these days he still does not see a change in neocon activities then he forgets the election a year after the death of Kennedy and the election of Johnson as the antiwar antiGoldwater choice. And that was the beginning of the escalation in Nam and the first of the lying for war presidents of our time.

And I thought our past candidate was so pompous that he would not believe what he saw so clearly in his rerospectiscope.

Cole #79

It is a hazardous business to try to find an effective way to put dissident activity on some list and decide who is best and who is worst.

It damages the attempt to take raw power from the military industrial corporate complex.

Fight each other in the name of ... what?

The "retrospectiscope" seems to have a "tree" mode and a "forest" mode.

That seems to me to be a defect because we never want to avoid the forest because of the trees ...

We need all the dissent we can muster these days. There is a concerted attack going on (link here) and we do not need to turn on ourselves.

Winter Patriot #77

My internetssss has been down for a couple of days. I think it has something to do with the Linksys hookup we installed for the wireless --- we're still working on it.

Anyway --- I haven't been able to do further research on Chomsky & D'Urso, but I can see that you have looked into Chomsky & the Left Gatekeepers.

I think we all are aware that it is a group of Ruling Class Elites that are in control in every country of the world, and the rest of us (imho) are their slaves. One of the of the major problems we face now is that it is extremely difficult for the "common man" to own anything, therefore we are now feeling the oppression "every which way we turn."

I have always known that this country of ours was built on the graves of the Native Americans and those of many other peoples around the world. The unbelievable "Man's Inhumanity to Man" (a paper I wrote back when I was an innocent junior in HS and an energetic idealist.)

I also believe in the yin-yang of things. The positive/negative balance. In that respect (looking at the Universe and looking within to the atomic level) I see a "plan" for polarity. It is the "Great Mystery." I believe in science and it goes hand-in-hand with religion from ancient days.

However --- my part in this great plan is to be anti-corruption. I still want to know who Angie D'Urso is because she has received attention as somewhat an authority on what to do and who to trust/distrust on matters regarding 9/11 and other political matters. Can we trust anybody?

Dredd said (#80):
We need all the dissent we can muster these days. There is a concerted attack going on and we do not need to turn on ourselves.

I totally agree with this statement.