digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

PBS breaks ‘media blackout’ of story on Pentagon propaganda

thinkprogress.org — "...The New York Times published an explosive report exposing the Pentagon ’s secret campaign to use analysts... TV news organizations have largely been silent on their role in the propaganda. Ari Melber notes that last night, PBS’s Newshour finally broke this blackout, but couldn’t convince the other networks to participate..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • motogoat, on 04/26/2008, -2/+303I wish PBS would do more to help get us out of this current bottomless hole we're in. They've done wonders in the past and granted it's a monumental task, but when the media is worthless, someone has to have the nuts to tell it like it is, do some legit investigative reporting and spill the beans. God knows that none of the other media outlets will touch the truth with a 10-foot pole.
    • shadus, on 04/26/2008, -6/+26Except for fox who has lost touch with reality completely most of the broadcasters will be forced to say *something* eventually one way or the other.
      • GregFD3S, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1*Faux
      • boner79, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Don't be so sure. It's been 1.5 weeks and not a single word about the Aliza Shvarts story on CNN despite lighting up the internet and even Fox News, however Fox News' coverage of it is IMO self serving to conflate Aliza Shvarts' ridiculous behavior with that of the pro-choice movement.
    • billyjack1958, on 04/26/2008, -23/+9PBS receives government funding as well as viewer support....don't expect too much from a media outlet that partially depends on government funding for its survival.
      • sweetholymosiah, on 04/26/2008, -5/+15The government has to fund PBS, no matter what they say, unless they want a political catastrophe on their hands. What? The government wants to cancel Big Bird??
        Private broadcasters can be denied 100% of their funding at any time for saying something that goes against any one of the major industries that pay for advertising (energy, military, whatever). This is why private broadcasters are so heavily biased toward certain issues. All the people who are convinced they are against the left, or think they are themselves right-wing must understand this simple contrast.
        • 919kwjc, on 04/26/2008, -14/+5Please try that thesis statement again, only use common sentence structure and complete thoughts. My brain hurts from trying to decipher your gibberish.
        • sovietninja, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9There was nothing wrong with his statement.
          • 919kwjc, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3Except that it was written by a 4th grader.
          • str1fe, on 04/27/2008, -2/+6The only two things he could have done to improve his grammar is put a set of quotation marks around the two questions and put a comma after right-wing. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least understand grammar rules. His comment was still perfectly legible.
          • 919kwjc, on 04/27/2008, -2/+2Buried for inaccuracy.
          • Caffeinate, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1And I'm burying your comments for stupidity, 919wjc. I love how you grasped at straws to invalidate a perfectly well reasoned argument, and then resorted to "buried for inaccuracy".
      • theseaman, on 04/26/2008, -2/+18Are you kidding me? PBS and NPR are some of the most reliable, unbiased, and diverse news sources in our country. They only have a responsibility to the American public, and almost none to corporate "interests." They get funding no matter what. If you have watched PDA news or listened to NPR, you would agree.
      • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2i agree. it's the same with think progress, they have more of an image of critical journalism to keep up but another mandate. the fact that they have stories on the Pentagon "suspending" disinformation campeigns (like that's going to happen) and war lords amping up fighting in Iraq, says this. these are intentionally misleading and bias stories that are completely besides the point of discussing what's really happening vs creating sides and inventing false impressions of something being done about it.
      • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1they didn't really 'break' the story either considering this has been discussed ad nauseam since 911 in alternative news and by anyone with a brain and interested in the topic.
      • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1 billyjack1958

        I don't like DEFENSE CONTRACTORS ---> don't expect too much from a company that partially depends on government funding for its survival
      • oldhick, on 04/27/2008, -1/+3Ahhh the irony... The government funded media is more honest than the corporate media.
      • robthom, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Interesting point, which gets you dugg down like a blasphemer in church. People are crazy.
        • songfire, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2No, there is a legitimate point to wanting state funded news as opposed to private corporate media. The UK has the BBC, and it is far better than anything we have here. Corporate, for profit, media have too many complex interests to support honest reporting. I think suspicion of government and Big Brother are often misplaced.
    • flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -9/+1And just what is the truth?
      • SpudgeBoy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13That Bush and his fascist Neo-Cons should be put on trial for war crimes. The problem is tha the MSM push for the war, so they won't say it's bad.
      • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3so should certain democrats for helping
        • stienster, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1the democrats and republicans (most of both anyway) are in bed with eachother and their parents are the mega rich blue blooded elites.
    • dobestpossible, on 04/26/2008, -11/+2 I enjoy The Savage Nation by Micheal Savage. He tells you whats up. Its on AM radio though which sucks. He should stream that sh-t online.
      • munen123, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9Micheal Savage is a douche bag
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1This is the truest statement ever.
      • fantasticFlan, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6"Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage, and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls?...I don't care about these bums; they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages."
        ---Michael Savage
        • illegalcortex, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4All the talk of sausages is funny, considering his name is actually Michael WEINER.
        • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1self hating jew, too
    • salinemist, on 04/26/2008, -16/+5Yes, they should expose the Global Warming/Climate Change hoax.
      • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11they should expose the bloody war hoax
        • salinemist, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2Hoax? So it's actually not going on? It's all being produced on a sound stage in Hollywood?

      • stienster, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3Hey salinemist, I don't know why you got dugg down, but I gave you thumbs up!
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2And then I gave you both a thumbs down. And then I ate ice cream.
    • SpudgeBoy, on 04/26/2008, -10/+2I said the same thing on the Twitter thread and got dugg down. Weird.
    • Tetraca, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1We've got at least two other networks that are trying to do that, but neither of them have the capabilities at this point, unlike PBS.
    • Micktion, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1There are no big conspiracies running round media organisations. It's simply not the case that thousands of journalists out there know the "truth" and simply don't have the balls to say it.

      This is not to say propaganda doesn't exist. The media are indeed useless. Why? Computers. Pa! You say "...this man is an idiot". But think about the role computers have had in the media.

      Like many industries computers have served to increase efficiency by reducing the number of people required to do the job. In the media industry this means, electronic news feeds, cut, copy and paste have replaced notepads, pencils, and voice recorders. Most journalists spend more time copying the news than actually writing it. Your average journalist is running round with tight deadlines, daily responsible for large sections of text. Most simply don't have the time to do real investigative journalism.

      What this means is that in the media industry computers have actually had the reverse effect most would expect, rather than liberating information, it has made it a lot easier to control. All you have to do is make the effort to supply content to the beast the media has become, it gets gobbled up and re-dispersed most of the time with next to no scrutiny.

      So this is why web sites like digg are becoming increasingly important, because they are collaboratively the only true entities in the media today scrutinizing media stories.
    • Shuukyoku, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1We're all tired of this administration tampering with the media, but we can't really do a whole hell of a lot to stop it. I mean, PBS does present a perspective, I just appreciate it because it happens to reflect more of my worldview than...say...FOX news. But its not really fair for Conservatives, since we all know that reality has a liberal bias.
  • shadus, on 04/26/2008, -8/+111Is this really any shock? This kind of propaganda has been the hallmark of governments seeking to manipulate its citizens for many years. See Germany, Russia, etc... Bush is such a nice little dictator. /sarcasm.
    • crichton101, on 04/26/2008, -3/+25Well Bush did say a dictatorship would be easier as long as he was the dictator. I guess this was just his way of making it happen.
      • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -0/+42This crap is a lot bigger than Bush, and a lot older too.
        • catbeller, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8Yeah. But the old men who lied us into Korea and Vietnam are dying, and Bush and his pack of oh-so-clever liars are still standing in front of us, laughing, and trying to kickstart an Iranian invasion.
          • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6And there’s another pack of oh-so-clever liars waiting to pick up where this pack will leave off. Left or right, nothing will change, at the national level they’re all taking orders from the same international powers.
    • Shananra, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11Yes, it is a shock that one of the media outlets grew a set and broke the code of silence. Good for them.
      • catbeller, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Considering the neocon watchdogs sitting on PBS right now, it's amazing the NYT got even this much attention on the Newshour. The cons want PBS sold off as parts so badly... even the whipped remnants of their news team are still dangerous to the cons.
    • CrazedLeper, on 04/26/2008, -1/+12No shock--to a thinking person. These people have devoted their lives to the deaths of others. Why would they not lie about it, too? "The Pentagon was "unable to supply a guest on short notice". Another lie.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/26/2008, -13/+3This kind of propaganda has been a hallmark of the democrat party. Loose evidence. Couldn't be proven in court. But they still Believe. Kinda like God really.
      • catbeller, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7"Loose" evidence like the Pentagon correspondence that details the propaganda campaign to sell the war? Reality -- it's so liberal.
      • LukasSmith, on 04/26/2008, -8/+3pentagon correspondence? pictures or it didn't happen.
      • wafla, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Sorry... there is no "Democrat" party. Back to school for you!
    • TinternAbbot, on 04/26/2008, -12/+4We did the same thing during Vietnam, the world wars, even the civil war. Propaganda in war is necessary to keep the war going. If the truth was told, people would never want war. Unfortunately, people sometimes need war even if they don't recognize it or agree. Also, Bush is hardly a dictator. Stop whining.
      • dlllb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up after reading "We did the same thing during Vietnam, the world wars, even the civil war. Propaganda in war is necessary to keep the war going."
        ...Then I read the rest of your comment and wanted to digg you down...
    • megamod, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1What shocks me is how much Rober Zelnich guy from the vid looks like Bush.
  • porterj44, on 04/26/2008, -8/+118Thank God or whatever for PBS. None of the other news outlets (except for MSNBC and Keith Obermann) appear to have the balls to call this administration on its' lies and misrepresentations!
    • Tess101, on 04/26/2008, -18/+4Actually Glen Beck tries to help, and inform, but unfortunately he also has to do what his masters will allow at CNN.
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -3/+15Actually Glen Beck tries to help, and inform, but unfortunately he's a raging retard.
      • munen123, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8Glen Beck is douche bag big time. he is lair too
    • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -18/+3We'll see what a hero Olberman is when the Democrats get the White House. I wonder if he will be so willing to call out Hillary or Obama. I have no love for partisan hacks.
      • vade79, on 04/26/2008, -1/+10I have no love for arbitrarily having to like things down the middle either, no matter what their actions are.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12He's already been calling Hilary out during her campaign.
      • chukd, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2His lips are already firmly attached to Obama's ass for him to speak out against him.
    • chicofaraby, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3PBS used the same Pentagon-owned liars to promote the illegal invasion that the other networks did. They are certainly no better than the others.
      • catbeller, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Better in the sense that they may come to admit it. Watch the pro-Pentagon professor: he will never, ever admit that his contacts screwed him.
        • brownsound00, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2True. I really wished one day that a major media group just would somehow air the lies. like some hero anchor just went on a tangent during a live broadcast, and the station got cut, but everyone would see it and finally wake up. it would most likely cost them their job... and maybe life. but they would be a hero.
    • OriginalReplica, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8PBS can tell the real news because they aren't beholden to advertisers to stay in business. The major networks are not trying to sell quality news reporting, they are trying to sell advertising time. Non-profit news sources are always going to offer higher quality, less biased news. The BBC offers a higher quality news for much the same reason. Now don't forget to donate to PBS and Huffington Post.
      • catbeller, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Sadly, the cons have forced PBS and member stations to admit advertisers. Even Prairie Home Companion comes to a crashing stop for Keillor to sell some stuff. Once they have that foot in the door, the whole business establishment will force its way in.
        • Tetraca, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Well, at least we still have LinkTV.
    • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2“Who is funding public radio and TV? Archer `Daniels Midland, ExxonMobil Corporation, Metropolitan Life, Salomon Smith Barney, and other Fortune 500 companies...
      These leading "donors" are major corporations that have a huge investment in the economy, and can use their economic power to leverage program content. Independent producers who approach PBS and NPR for airtime get a much warmer reception when they have an underwriting package in hand. Overwhelmingly, programs that will attract and please corporate underwriters and crucially, won't rock the ideological boat, get access to the airwaves.
      Here and there, programming that challenges conventional wisdom gets on PBS or NPR, such as Bill Moyers's "Surviving the Good Times," about two families in Milwaukee affected by plant closures during the highly celebrated U.S. "miracle economy" in the 1990s, or the occasional probing documentary on "P.O.V." But they are the exception and are increasingly infrequent.
      Corporate advertising poses one set of problems for public broadcasting. The ideological and political climate that informs the content of programs is yet another concern. A mandarin caste of milquetoasts at each station-only a handful of people, and sometimes just one individual-decides what gets on the air. They are acting as gatekeepers, deciding what we will see and hear.”
      Taken from: p36 “The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting” by David Barsamian
      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_pr ...
      This is a very interesting read, you will see that PBS and NPR are not as independent as they seem.
    • rz8472, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4I've been warming up to Dan Abrams as well; he called Karl Rove out on the whole Siegelman affair.
  • aajjcckk, on 04/26/2008, -50/+278I've kind of run out of patience (almost) with people in America. You just subbornly REFUSE TO SEE that ALL your mass media is under control of, basically, the military-industrial complex, as is your government. Why do you think Bush is so corrupt, and your senate so spineless?

    In a few short months, the military-industrial complex's candidates-of-choice will be installed as president (Hilary or McCain - they at least like to give the illusion of choice), war with Iran will have started, initiated by a nuclear strike (a false flag event staged by the US will make people believe Iran struck first - probably against Israel), and the installation of a fascist dictatorship in the US will almost be complete. By then, it'll be too late to do much, as dissenters get rounded up into camps, and the world is vastly more unstable as other nations decide to use nukes against each other.

    It is quite simply AMAZING the gulf between belief in America (the government our our saviours! Our mass media are independent! Things will change even if we sit and do nothing! "Fascist dictatorship"!? - are you insane!? etc. etc.) and the reality (the things above really are going to come true if you don't make an effort to stop it.). You have had SO MANY warnings from various commentators. Really. You have no excuses.

    Obama will either be sidelined, have the election stolen (as has been proven the case with Gore and Kerry), or as a last ditch resort - assassinated.

    I'll bet you any money the German people before WW2 even in their worst nightmares didn't think Hitler and the Nazis would do a fraction of the things they did...
    • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -20/+74What makes you think Obama's not one of the military-industrial complex's candidates-of-choice? Or Kerry or Gore? Anyone who gets to that level in politics, anyone whom the media promotes is; there's too much at stake for the powers that be to have it any other way.
      • RetlawST, on 04/26/2008, -10/+41Uh, because it seems like he's the target of every pundit, ass-wipe, and general ***** in the media. Obama came out of general obscurity less than four years ago, and has lived a very public life since then. His roots are in social service, he wasn't a professional politician, he wasn't a preacher, he wasn't some douche whose goal was to push his beliefs on others. He worked for poor communities to help improve neighborhoods by increasing jobs and providing affordable housing. Does that sound like military-industrial complex to you?
        • senatorpjt, on 04/26/2008, -7/+25You don't come out of obscurity to win presidential primaries four years later without the approval of the media.
        • Lazydriver, on 04/26/2008, -4/+19Media wouldn't give a ***** about Obama if it weren't for grassroots support, and for the most part, the media still support Billary McCain
        • dralezero, on 04/26/2008, -1/+13Yes it sounds like the mafia "govt" picked him up out of his boring life and gave him cookies if he would be a good boy and listen to the elites evil manipulation. Come join our group Obama and we will make you famous and powerful.
        • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4dralezero

          mafia = brezinski , yes
        • BESTenemy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1How quickly we forget his voting record.
        • Raphae1, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Have you checked Obama's advisers? They are basically the same people Clinton would've had. Do you really think, that Obama will end the war in Iraq? I'm sorry, but I don't think, it's going to happen. He already said, that he wants to keep the green zone. How many troops will he need for its supply chain?
      • usgovterrorists, on 04/26/2008, -20/+14Hillary, Obama, and McCain are all neocons.
        War, terror, war, terror, war, terror
        Americans are clueless!
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3When in doubt, always choose "who".
        • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1This page may help you with your confusion:
          http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__Who_vs_Wh ...
          • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1How, exactly, does that page prove your usage correct? Explain it to me.

            I wasn't being a Grammar Nazi at all, just offering a helpful tip. NOW I'd like to slap the ***** out of you.
        • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1All right, I see it. The pronoun is the object of "promotes" and not a subject, so whom is correct.

          I don't trust random posts by bloggers.

          I trust this:
          http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/078.html

          For clarity, I would strike the word "whom" altogether. There's no use irritating people with a word that's unnecessary.
      • UnstableMind, on 04/26/2008, -2/+18Well, Obama's wife is a member of the CFR...
        • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+9and if anyone reads thir position papers about national sovereignty being "antiquated" they might think twice ... but people usually do not look into michelle's political ties ---> much like Hillary people don't look into Walmart...
        • dylio, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Thank you so much for bringing that up. I've felt crazy because no one else, other than me, seems to recognize this fact.
          PROOF:
          http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_b ...
      • Vodd9, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3I thought he didn't accept donations from lobbyists?
      • thscientist1, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1why havent you taken over the world yet?
    • sassip, on 04/26/2008, -3/+9At least there's a cintila of hope that he's not!
    • OverkillTASF, on 04/26/2008, -22/+9I was trying to figure out why such sensationalist doomsday propaganda was getting dugg up so much... then I realized it's because you made Obama out to be a savior. I see what you did there.
    • graelignites, on 04/26/2008, -4/+23I don't personally know anyone who thinks that our American media is unbiased and truthful. I think it is a large misconception that many foreign countries have that we, as Americans, don't know what is going on. It's easy to see when elections are rigged or stolen. As for the bias and corruption of the media, hell, we study it in my college courses. The problem with America isn't know theres a problem, its knowing what to do about it. We can hope that this election goes fairly. If it does not, I think (and hope) that we have gotten tired of and wise to what has happened in the past elections, and actually do something about it if it happens again.
      • truthmatters, on 04/26/2008, -2/+13I really wish I had your faith in the general publics ability to not sit back and be spoon fed MSM propaganda. It just doesn't make any sense to me after watching the MSM undermine Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign. Most Americans are too willing to believe whatever they see in the MSM, without realizing the corporate agenda behind the propaganda. We as Americans, were given the one candidate that voted against the Iraq war and it's continued funding, and the Patriot Act, which is a clear violation of our civil liberties, yet we allowed MSM to exclude Kucinich from "their" presidential debates. Kucinich had the foresight and courage to seek the impeachment of Cheney. Kucinich refused corporate donations, so he could be a candidate truly of the people. Yet the public bought into the corporate smear campaign against the one candidate who was the greatest defender of our Constitution! I know people from other countries who were in shock over the lack of support given to Kucinich. The American public has become apathetic in pursuing the truth, and dependent on the MSM for answers. Thank god for the Internet and PBS!
      • banmaster, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2graelignites, then ***** do something about it!!!!
        • hleapha, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Do something about it? Thats real ***** easy to say. Based on the 'passion' in your comment you should probably make a valid suggestion an individual can do to change an entire country.
      • thedragon4453, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7I'm sorry, but I also disagree. Look at what happen to Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich. Look at how complicit the public is with it. Listen to some people blindly repeat the rhetoric now being spewed by Clinton's campaign. I think that most Americans realize that we are going in the wrong direction, I just don't think they know how much. And I don't think that most have lost their trust in the MSM. If they had, the candidates mentioned might have gotten a fair shake at the presidency.
    • bethehammer, on 04/26/2008, -8/+14Your predictions are a little too doomsday=tomorrow like. This will happen however it will be of a much longer and painful time line - think decades instead of years. But seriously if McCain and Hillary are part of the NWO complex then why the hell do you think that Obama is separate? He is from the same breed of people who are here to help destroy the sovereignty of the United States and bring us closer in to a one world government one step at a time.
    • topgigmedia, on 04/26/2008, -5/+5while share you concern, I cannot say that I agree with you level of paranoia. I think there are multiple agenda's at play here that overly - not one unified one, Ainu g at global domination. I think the Clintons have their own endgame as dies McCain.

      That said... I hope we donor find either in the White House.
      • Gutterpunk, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"I think the Clintons have their own endgame as dies McCain."? The Clintons want to kill McCain and you call the other guy paranoiac?
      • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1apostrophes for possessives and contractions only, please
    • baatezu, on 04/26/2008, -3/+35For the sake of argument lets assume a couple of things:
      1. Certain individuals in influential positions determined the outcome of the presidential elections.
      2. These same people, in cooperation with the media, blur the reality of the millions of people glued to their TVs, in an effort to sway public opinion regarding important issues (reasons to go to war with Iraq, etc)
      3. due to an overwhelming suspicion of dirty tricks, Americans investigate and uncover the dirty deeds of these people.
      4. Again and again irrefutable facts prove illegal activities by both our political leaders and by the media.

      So then what happens? nothing. The people in power will still be in power. They will continue to manipulate the populace, creating even more transparent trickery. It has happened throughout history and it will happen again.

      Imagine living in Soviet Russia. The media is completely controlled by the government. Every single newscast is just a reflection of the ruling party's talking points. The entire political and legal systems are corrupt. Stolen elections, lying, manipulation, misdirection, etc. The Russian citizens aren't stupid. they know that its all a sham, but what do they do? nothing. How can they. They are just ordinary people against a ruling military. They can hold demonstrations, protests, etc. but that all still means nothing. those in power are still in power.

      Knowing that anyone in a powerful, influential, corrupt position will most likely use all his power/influence/corruption to stay in that position, the only way for true change is through revolution. Which means many, many lives lost and probably the destruction of the society's infrastructure.

      Same thing is happening in America (for sake of argument). Do you really think that the American people in this day and age would rise up physically against our government? No way would that ever happen. The administration tested the waters. A little lie here, a little scandal there, and wait. nothing happens. so they step it up. more lying, more corruption, more manipulation. Still no blow-back. So why stop? If Bush can do anything (including lying about information that starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people) and not have to fear any reprisals (even Pelosi said impeachment was completely off the table). Then why stop?

      The corruption will continue, the lies will continue, the manipulation will continue. and it wont matter if 99% of the people mistrust those in charge. What are they going to do? vote them out? they are the ones counting the votes......

      The ONLY solution I have come to is that people have to look at the local level. the establishment cartel can not reach its tentacles into every local election. And the local political positions are the sleeping elephant in this equation. Already we are seeing stories of local dissent. states refusing to accept the Real ID, California allowing prescription marijuana, etc. I do not see federal shock troops marching into smalltown USA and forcing federal laws on the local population. there simply aren't enough shock troops.

      SO - my message to anyone reading this, is find the issues that you truly care about, and find a local politician that is willing to stand up to the federal government on those issues. If you cant find one, then run for a position yourself. City council positions are a lot easier to get than you think.
      • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -5/+3Are you a first year college student that just discovered Marx / Engels and has yet to tire of them? Look at sub-sahara africa if you want to see the results of "revolution."
        Wouldn't it be more constructive to use the infrastructure now (still) in place to perhaps expose corruption to more and more daylight until most fence sitters could have no doubt as to its level?
        Also, as soon as federalized / millitarilaized cops (and contractors - Blackwater patrolled in Katrina, remember?) see you shoot one of their friends you become an object and no longer a human being. Just like we run the bill of rights into the ground to "save" the USA, soldiers will gladly shoot "the bad guys" as long as they think they're all Timothy McVeigh types.
      • stienster, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3"Do you really think that the American people in this day and age would rise up physically against our government? No way would that ever happen. The administration tested the waters. A little lie here, a little scandal there, and wait. nothing happens. so they step it up. more lying, more corruption, more manipulation. Still no blow-back. So why stop? If Bush can do anything (including lying about information that starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people) and not have to fear any reprisals (even Pelosi said impeachment was completely off the table). Then why stop?" Wow, I actually had the same revelation today... and aside from that, prayer is the only way out of this.
        • BeavisMcSleavis, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6Prayer huh?
          Good luck with that and all. /sarcasm
        • gmiley, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4I'm sorry but God is not going to just come down and fix this for us... Now maybe the FSM, on the other hand, might.
    • paulsutter, on 04/26/2008, -13/+4I guess you could say I'm part of what you are calling the religious right. I'm a follower of the teachings and model of Jesus and on social and economic issues like the right to private property and government sponsored social services I tend toward libertarianism and I believe that the press tends toward the left on social/economic issues (though it's a free country and alternative press thrives and the Internet allows for even more freedom of the press than normal). I have friends who are newspaper, Internet and television journalists (in the U.S. and England) and they are far from censored by their governments and are mostly center-left politically.
      I don't see censorship in this breaking story, i see "spin" and a government who definitely stepped over the line when using public funds to try and market its poor and unethical choices as acceptable, but it didn't arrest or shut down the voice of dissenters like the gov't of Venezuela did recently.
      Why do you think you are so enlightened and yet all of America "just stubbornly REFUSE(s) TO SEE that ALL your mass media is under control of, basically, the military-industrial complex, as is your government". Are you a sophomore in a university?
      • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2but of course your last comment was spot on and I am so in the clouds today!
      • banmaster, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5You're a deluded ***** tool then! Go back to your invisible friend and start victimising gays and blacks and liberal politicians like you aways have.
        Just like Jesus would have done, right?
      • rand0mm0nkey, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Jesus was for property rights?
    • Gutterpunk, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3Nice.. Godwined!
      • Qeveren, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Do you even know what Godwin's Law is?
    • jessehadden, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7What do you mean, we refuse? What can we do? Vote? Please don't tell me you're that naive. You're criticizing us for believing the horse crap that we already recognize as horse crap, yet if you think we have power over our government, you're swallowing some of it too.
      • banmaster, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4That attitude is exactly why the world now utterly hates America!
        • rex84, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7The world utterly hates America because ever since WWII, the CIA has been starting revolutions and then supplying both sides.
    • OriginalReplica, on 04/26/2008, -3/+26You say you are losing patience with people in America... What exactly do you think we should be doing? I've signed Robert Wexler's petition to impeach Cheney, I've protested from inside "first amendment zones", I voted for Ron Paul.
      If I or anyone else really tried to organize a coup to overthrow our current plutocracy, do you think anything would happen other than a trip to Gitmo for me and my new friends, and an Evening News story about a "SWAT team arresting an anarchist terrorist cell."
    • 1longtime, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3I lost patience with that post. Digg doesn't pay by the word, you know.
    • justice7, on 04/26/2008, -7/+8holy ***** you make too many assumptions
    • jdaniel284, on 04/26/2008, -13/+12Basically, you just insinuated that Americans are mindless sheep for following Bush, Hillary, or McCain and that only the independent wisest among us follow Gore, Kerry, or Obama.

      Here's one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
    • diggingaround, on 04/26/2008, -4/+9meh....*turning on American Idol*
      /serious sarcasm
    • banmaster, on 04/26/2008, -7/+8"you just insinuated that Americans are mindless sheep for following Bush, Hillary, or McCain"

      Well arent they??
      • jdaniel284, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6No more than those that goose-step to the drum of Gore, Kerry, or Obama.

        A Republican is elected president, ***** up the country a little more, and everyone trumpets the Democrats. A Democrat is elected president and ***** up the country a little more, and everyone trumpets the Republicans. To say that those that vote Republican are mindless sheep while those that vote Democrat are evolved and enlightened is just asinine. There is very little difference between the these two political parties.

        • 533n, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3BUSH WAS VOTED IN TWICE. He's a f*cking moron, yes America is filled with mindless sheep.
        • Viral, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
          • jdaniel284, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1How embarrassing. That chart shows a history of budget deficits but is labeled incorrectly in a big bold font at the top "NATIONAL DEBT". Whoever made that chart doesn't even understand what they are looking at. Pathetic.
    • 533n, on 04/26/2008, -6/+7Half of America is fat, lazy and stupid. Digg me down all you want. But it is a FACT that America is one of the most Obese nations. It is a FACT that Bush has less than 30% approval and nobody is doing anything to stop him. It is a FACT that Bush was voted into office TWICE.
      • jdaniel284, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2"It is a FACT that Bush was voted into office TWICE."

        If I had to vote between a sledgehammer to the ribcage or a icepick into the eyeball, I would probably vote for the sledgehammer. Even after the ordeal, offer me a similar choice and I would probably choose the sledgehammer once again.

        That doesn't necessarily mean that I am ignorant of the issue at hand, it just means I am trying to mitigate damages.

        The problem here is the "two"-party system, along with the media cohorts, that locks out any "third" party with interesting new ideas.
      • swicepick, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4Wow, that is a great correlation you made. Fat = stupid. Also, because Americans are fat, we voted Bush into office.

        Listen, I don't like the fact that he was voted into office either, but he's there. But you know what else? He's going to be out of office in about 8 and a half months.

        It's also a FACT that the congress voted for the war. Bush is a moron, and probably one of the worst presidents of all time, but he's not the only one to blame here.
        • 533n, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I said fat and stupid. Not fat because they are stupid. It is Bush's fault. he had the facts, he lied, he is the leader. Had it been Gore or someone else they could have shown the facts and not lied to congress about WMDs for YEARS
    • faskippy, on 04/27/2008, -1/+4And I'VE kind of run out of patience with people who lump all of Americans together. There is a larger slice of the population trying to do something about this treasonous ***** than you ***** judgemental bastards want to admit. And while we're at it, the kind of ***** that's going on isn't being committed solely by America. I'll leave it up to you to kick your own leaders' asses for their role in this 'global agenda". Don't try to shrug it off, because every european leader is in on this ***** also, and more than likely giving lessons, you *****. So while you're sitting there with your head up your ass, and your tongue wagging, why not try to join in and be a part of the solution, instead of giving us all the benefit of your rare, highly enlightened, globaly educated insight, you twit.
      • rand0mm0nkey, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3That was a lot of insults just to call someone judgemental.
    • daxter241, on 04/27/2008, -3/+1this man speaks the truth especially when he says
      "Obama will either be sidelined, have the election stolen (as has been proven the case with Gore and Kerry), or as a last ditch resort - assassinated."
      this is exactly what im afraid might happen......if obama doesn't win, America will continue to sink and a downward spiral =/....
      • chukd, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4I hate to break this to you Obama'ites but he is the same as the rest of them. This is the man that hates that Clinton does negative campaigning but he does it back to her. He says that people take short statements out of a long speech and take them out of context. He does this to McCain speeches. He claims he is going to end the war in Iraq, pull out the troops. However, he is going to have a select number of troops in Iraq to do strategic strikes. This is not ending the war. He is for decreasing the deficit but has big programs that cost money. This will increase the deficit. Obama, Clinton, and McCain are the same person just different sexes and colors. This country needs a third party but will never happen while the two major parties exclude them from all major debates.
    • sandbags, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1dude, you are totally clairavoiant. Except you got one bit wrong. The false flag will happen in Iraq. Wait for it, they will be bringing the troops home (can't wipe out the army, going need them later) and then just as it's all going swimmingly !BAM! and we're in Iran. I swear to god man, think about it.
  • pseudononymist, on 04/26/2008, -11/+77Ironic that it's the publicly funded (ie government funded) news network that's breaking this story.
    • RetlawST, on 04/26/2008, -2/+26I dugg you up, but it's not ironic. It would be irony if reporting the truth wasn't the purpose of a news broadcast. Poetic justice, perhaps, that the one organization keeping to its journalistic routes is the one that happens to be funded by the government the other reporters are folding to.
      • notoneofus, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Poetic is right, as the Bush administration moved to cut PBS and NPR how many times?
      • pseudononymist, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I think it would be ironic if it actually were mostly funded by the government because one would presume (in a capitalist society) that private media ought to be better at being free media that can report the truth without blinking. That said, other commenters are right--it's largely funded by donations from the public, who, though donators may by and large be on the left, and not from government-collected funds, so I really should have been dugg down more.
    • ScienceDoc, on 04/26/2008, -1/+37PBS only gets a very small amount of money from the government. They are viewer supported.
    • johnpaul191, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Newshour is a national show, so I don't know how the budget pie splits up between government funding and money direct from viewers. That pledge money would probably go to the local station, and they actually "buy" the program feed from PBS. At least the local stations are nonprofits and have to disclose all that stuff.
      There is the national PBS, and smaller local TV/radio stations that also go after the funding. I know that a local PBS or NPR affiliate will have to buy certain national shows from the station that produces them. I assume it's far more common on the radio side since the production costs are far lower. Anyway, the local station does fundraising, especially during those popular shows, to support their budget. That caused some issues with the whole NPR podcasting thing. If I were to only listen to This American Life or Car Talk via podcast, i may never listen to my local NPR affiliate and "forget" to send them pledge-drive money. Those shows are produced in independent stations, and then relayed everywhere.
    • StandupShowcase, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5it isn't a surprise, check out the BBC--they do better journalism than any of our corporate outlets
    • faskippy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Supported from viewer donations.
    • sandbags, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1It's the same here in Australia. If it wasn't for the ABC and SBS we would be living in a total black hole. This goes to show that some things (media being the one I think most important) are services provided for the public and should be run by the public through the apparatus of government. Isn't that the reason that democratic government was set up in the first place?
  • bsdboy, on 04/26/2008, -3/+89Thank you PBS.
    • moocow1452, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Thank you, bsdboy.
    • MasterGrief, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5This important coverage has been made possible by

      Viewers like you.

      Thank you.
    • swicepick, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Don't forget the New York Times; they're the ones that did the investigation.
  • TJ11240, on 04/26/2008, -2/+151iTunes thumbnail?
  • brainboy77, on 04/26/2008, -11/+47pbs is the only non-partial news station out there. think about it.
    • 919kwjc, on 04/26/2008, -44/+7PBS is so far left it takes an hour to get back. Give me a break.
      • RetlawST, on 04/26/2008, -6/+30What the hell does that even mean? What would you prefer they do? Report about how awesome the people of Iraq love us? Report about how the White House is made of rainbows and lollipops? The truth is not left or right, but I guess some people don't understand that. If you were to physically see Bush skull ***** a sick, dying, Darfurian, orphan on the national mall, would you criticize your eyes for being liberal hippies and gouge them out?
        • 919kwjc, on 04/26/2008, -24/+3Dude, you need to stay on your meds.
        • flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -18/+3No. The White House will be made of rainbows and lollipops as soon as Obama gets there to fart it into existence.
      • chicofaraby, on 04/26/2008, -11/+3How is PBS "left" exactly? They promoted the Pentagon's liars the same as every other corporate media outlet.
      • chevyorange, on 04/26/2008, -1/+21So, since you're "right wing" brainwashed, anything you don't agree with or like gets slapped with "liberal" or "left wing". Right.
      • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7hahah reality has a libtard slant, right?
        next thing you know they'll let niggers have the vote!
      • metaliq, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Liberal and left wing things are wrong!

        Wait. What the hell do liberals and left wing people support or believe in?

        "Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value. ..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal)


        !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! evil1!1!!!!!
    • sensor, on 04/26/2008, -4/+13BBC.
      • aDFP, on 04/26/2008, -0/+9And who holds the BBC's purse strings?
        There are 2 reasons why the Licence fee, however immoral, will not be abandoned. First, the Beeb's own study showed that subscription fees would mean the loss of 75% of their revenue.
        Second, and more relevant to this issue, the treasury would lose the biggest UK media carrot/stick combo they have.
        The BBC is better than most of the US media, but they're not perfect, and they're not beyond government influence.
      • SSUK, on 04/26/2008, -7/+4***** the BBC. They colluded with the government to keep Prince Harry's trip into Afghanistan under wraps. What else have they colluded with the government to keep quiet?
        They're bias towards friendly countries to the UK, sometimes unjustly bias against 'enemy' countries. There's a clash between Israel and Palestine? It's the Palestinians' fault for antagonising the situation. The BBC is run by middle-class prigs, so when there's a political issue to comment on. Who do they get in? The Conservatives, without fail. This 10p tax band abolishment... They knew about this change in taxes for 14 months when it was announced in the LAST budget. Analysts had foreseen this tax screwing over poorer families, yet no-one raised their voices until it was all too late and it came into effect. The BBC are just as corrupt and bias as any other news outlet, to think otherwise is stupid.
    • Tetraca, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1LinkTV?
  • usgovterrorists, on 04/26/2008, -32/+16After the 1000 lie with Iraq, known lies starting being made against Iran.
    When are the Americans going to realize that their government are terrorists, and horrific liars?
    What would an American stand up for?
    Neocon lies about Iran are flowing, but what did you do about it?

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
    • flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -7/+4Hello there troofer.
      • argusbargus, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Looks like the digg sheep dogs, aka the bury brigade, have arrived to steer the opinion of the masses. No useful discussion can occur when these bitches are nipping at your heels. Let the burying begin!
    • dobestpossible, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2 I like to imagine my government is just a powerful one that once was run by intelligent and strong leaders but has since been overtaken by the richest of idiots. Capital gain is the name of the game.
    • chevyorange, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2Sorry. I'm an American and know we're far from perfect. And the current administration is SO bad but even they are far from the despots you make them out to be. Yes, they're miserable liars and money grubbing. But your complete list of kook comments, complete with repeating one of the "talking points" twice - just - don't make me read that again ok?
  • Dr.Finger, on 04/26/2008, -37/+8How can it be a 'media blackout' when I've seen this non-story on every other news outlet out there?
    • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -16/+3Because ThinkProgress says it is! Don't you read Digg?
    • kingofinternet, on 04/26/2008, -4/+8i want to ***** in both of your mouths
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3Before you lapse off into fecalphilia fantasies, why don't you consider the facts and perhaps reassess your position?
        • dlllb, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Dude, the king of the internet wants to ***** in your mouth... If you wish to remain welcome here you better close your eyes and open wide...
  • TexMurphy, on 04/26/2008, -7/+22thank you pbs.
    • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1OMG I thought your capt america shield was boobage -- too much colbert?
  • coffee200am, on 04/26/2008, -20/+2Most TV stations have been infiltrated by Hilary Agents too! They say bad things about Obama. Some new people just moved in downstairs....They look like Hilary stooges.....I won't talk to them...OMG......Hilary works for the Government! OMG...omg...
    • chevyorange, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3This kind of joking is what makes things that you seem to think impossible or "wacky" possible. To dismiss because it seems so far out there (which believe me, its not crazy just think of all the lies we've been told that we KNOW about) is awfully short sighted.
      • coffee200am, on 04/26/2008, -7/+1OMG!!!! But she is! How many people work for the government? How many ride around in cars and watch us? News helicopters? BAH! Government helicopters with infrared to watch us and shoot cosmicbrainradiation beams at us.
  • VacaN, on 04/26/2008, -3/+50"Couldn’t convince the other networks to participate..."
    Obviously, that's like asking a criminal to confess to a crime that made him rich.

    Last time I watched one of these corporate own News channels was in 2004. Turn it off America!
    • catbeller, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Stopped watching in 2000, myself. Saw it coming when the President of CNN went on bended knee to one of the con congressmen, begging to know what to do to make cons happy. He was kept waiting for a few hours before they deigned to let him beg. CNN collapsed into con-hood after that.
    • byrdgang, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I stopped watching Fox and CNN's Headline News. Fox is too sensationalist and Headline News doesn't cover headlines - it is almost all public interest stories.
  • truthhurts28, on 04/26/2008, -6/+20wasnt pbs the station that you always ended up watching when you were young and could never figure out why? Reading Rainbow??
    • Brad324, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5Butterfly in the sky, I can go twice as high
      Take a look, it's in a book - Reading Rainbow.
      I can go anywhere!
      Friends to know and ways to grow - Reading Rainbow.
      I can be anything!
      Take a look, it's in a book - Reading Rainbow.
      Reading Rainbow, Reading Rainbow, Reading Rainbow, Reading Rainbow!
      • tillerman00, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"Hi, everyone. I'm the black guy from Star Trek with the thing over his eyes, how ya doin? My career ended shortly afterward. But you don't have to take my word for it."
    • tillerman00, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Take a look, it's in a book.
  • FREETHINKER2008, on 04/26/2008, -1/+58Of course the corporate networks are not going to touch this story, these are the same networks that thought we needed two weeks of Anna Nicole Smith's death coverage.
    • DalamarArgent, on 04/26/2008, -1/+14--- BREAKING NEWS - ANNA NICOLE SMITH IS STILL DEAD. More coverage later, only on the most trusted name in news - CNN ---
  • coffee200am, on 04/26/2008, -19/+5Hugo Chavez would not be proud of PBS.
  • hawkeye17, on 04/26/2008, -3/+44Goebbels would be proud of this Pentagon program.
    • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Can you imagine what Goebbels would have done if he had of had Fox news.

      Rove is an amateur compared to him.
    • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Actually, the ad industry and revised US gov't public relations in many was was modeled after what US universities learned from the nazis in Operation Paperclip

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
    • cpunk, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0I, too, am glad to see PENTAGON being busy at work for trying *really hard* to protect us from the flood of information.....

  • kevro, on 04/26/2008, -3/+94and in other news, next years funding for PBS gets cut by 60%.
    • johnpaul191, on 04/26/2008, -0/+24He tried to cut it all at one point. Seriously.
    • Gutterpunk, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12Seeing as PBS is mostly supported by donations, the only way that this would happen is if 60% of their viewers die.
      Oh *****...
      I'd like to state publicly for any CIA officials out there that I never watched or donated to PBS. Thank you.
    • SuperMoses, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6Ya, politicians can easily make a case for cutting PBS' funds by throwing out the "leave it to the free market" argument .. .all the libertarians would get instant hard ons while complaining that the media doesn't cover Ron Paul enough.
      • econojon, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1If there was a REAL free market, we actually would get quality programming. The reason we don't is because we have an oligopoly and incredible deregulation and government corruption.
    • banmaster, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Exactly the same thing happened in Australia to the publically funded ABC (nothing to do with the US ABC).
      They had several programs that made things difficult/embarassing to the government, and funding was cut.
    • khyberkitsune, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6Buried because PBS is 90% DONATIONS.

      Which reminds me, my next $120 donation is coming up in a week.
  • pissinguparope, on 04/26/2008, -6/+8What do you expect from from this Bush administration that has lied on a constant basis since it came to power. Americans voted for and are living a lie and their creditability has be so tarnished that no one believes anything that is put out in press releases from the White House or even American press for that matter if it concerns the Bush administration.
    • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I agree with most of what you say except; 'no one believes anything that is put out in press '. Look at some of the posts on this site.
      Makes you shake your head in wonder.
    • GoneFishing, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2No one outside of America believes, but inside ... I'm not so sure.
  • senatorpjt, on 04/26/2008, -3/+18private media is a free market - the truth can be bought and sold.
    • bphicke, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3And the government is buying it.
    • zbor, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1The MSM (I'm talking mostly ABC, NBC, and CBS, but they obviously set the tone for the cable stations) exists because of government, not because of the free market. The government decides which stations will be allowed on the spectrum, despite the fact that the spectrum is pretty much infinitely divisible. Furthermore, since the government has so much power and so many news stories are based on government sources, the government has the power to decide who gets the scoops. Access is everything in journalism.
  • BannedTwice, on 04/26/2008, -68/+7***** buried. libtard fag *****.
    • HencheMann, on 04/26/2008, -2/+27Neo ***** Cum Guzzler.
    • DalamarArgent, on 04/26/2008, -0/+23Going for the hat-trick BannedTwice?
    • chevyorange, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13Both of these comments stink yet I dugg down BannedTwice and dugg up HencheMann. Mostly because I'm sick of anything that is anti-war, pro-peace, pro-smarts, anti-Bush is at once called Liberal, which leads to "libtard" etc.

      If only they realized that it is just American to want to do things RIGHT. All good people American, Libtard, Neo *****, really at the end of the day want to know the truth and tell the truth. Anyone that name calls anyone trying to get to the bottom of the truth and to stop a war that is costing us in every imaginable way and not doing one thing to make us stronger or safer, is painfully obviously the last 16% that can still support George W. Bush.
    • rand0mm0nkey, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4Anyone ever notice that people that call others "fag" are usually overweight and undereducated? They must always PROVE they aren't homosexual by calling other people homosexual, then look around and make sure a bunch of people heard them. Grow some self esteem and quit insulting people. Live your own damn life and let others live theirs.
  • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -16/+7Broke the blackout? NPR talked about this story a few days ago and concluded it was overblown.
    • ph1sh55, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tv ...
      I'm assuming this is the segment? If so I don't see any conclusion anywhere that it was "overblown".
      One guy was saying that "The flow was illegal government propaganda, recruiting these people, and inserting them into the news, and then hiring a company to measure and quantify how good a job they did of selling the war and managing press and public opinion. This is Goebbels-like."

      The other dude, Zelnick was saying this is completely normal. (The military connections and information aspect I agree with, but he also didn't broach the possibility that they were given specific talking points which may not have had factual basis, and then monitored- Those last two items are pretty important to consider). Anyway I didn't see any conclusion from PBS on the matter one way or another.
      • ph1sh55, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Curse you 3 letter acronyms...for some reason I thought NPR and PBS were the same beast
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2Note: I'm addressing Digg users in general here. I'm not necessarily saying you (ph2sh55) believe all of this.

        There was a caller during the NPR segment who said (I think) two military analysts were threatened with losing contracts if they spoke against the policy, but I didn't catch where he had read or heard that. I am not aware of any publication quoting specific analysts or citing specific incidents where contracts were threatened. Your transcript doesn't seem to mention any specifics either. If there were such incidents, then there would be a problem.

        Simply saying the government COULD have pressured them because they worked for military contractors means nothing. The government COULD have pressured them over all sorts of things. They could have threatened to reveal that they're homosexual, for example. Or that they cheat on their wives. Or they committed crimes. Or the government could have threatened them with IRS audits. The government can threaten people with all sorts of things.

        If you're going to argue that this was propaganda because the analysts had defense contracts, then you are in effect saying that every military analyst who's ever attended a DoD briefing was/is engaged in propaganda. INCLUDING the analysts who say things with which you agree.

        Ask yourself honestly: How do you know the anti-war analysts are telling the truth? Maybe they're part of a secret misinformation program. Maybe it's psychological warfare! Maybe it's all just a smokescreen so the Bush Administration can bomb Iran. You see? When you engage in this "skepticism" (conspiratorial thinking), there's never any end to it.

        What Digg users are in effect saying is: "Everything is a lie--therefore only my beliefs can be true."

        Because you've essentially kneecapped logic, shot down the tools with which we might determine truth, you're left with only non-rational means, like "gut feeling" and "morality", to determine what we should or should not believe; and because you are such well-meaning, left-leaning, anti-government people, the only conclusion can be that this was propaganda to promote Bush Administration policies, which are inherently evil.
    • Malacandra95, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3NPR can speak? It has lips and a larynx? Who knew?
      It may be that a commentator on NPR may have made a statement like that... but that doesn't necessarily mean that it represents the editorial judgment of the entire organization.
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1Oh, haha. What a clever semantic nitpick! I guess you showed me!

        No, NPR did not conclude the segment with an editorial statement. Yes, the undeniable impression conveyed by the segment was that the story is overblown.
    • deconsecrator, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Fine, but what is YOUR conclusion? Why not simply say that you are resigned to accept such propaganda and leave it at that?
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/26/2008, -7/+1a) Because the topic of this thread is "PBS breaks 'media blackout'" and that is demonstrably false, as explained in my comment.

        b) Because it was not propaganda.

        Have you stopped beating your wife?
        • dlllb, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Wow i've been reading all your comments for this post and you are full of *****. Die already.
          • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Consider yourself marked for elimination, on the off chance that we should ever meet.
  • HencheMann, on 04/26/2008, -6/+14HELL YEAH! Sesame Street telling it straight up, dawg! BIG BIRD! WOOT!
  • coffee200am, on 04/26/2008, -18/+4We need government control of all news organizations....like the BBC or China.
  • MrWhite7, on 04/26/2008, -5/+9The CIA owns anyone of influence in broadcast and print media...
    • SSUK, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4If that was true, how did this news report surface in the first place?
      • MrWhite7, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Because it doesn't take influence to leak a story?
  • sparkleyflowers, on 04/26/2008, -2/+16Anyone who is paying attention already knew this, but having confirmation is nice.
    It's a sad, sad thing that we live in a country where we must fear our government rather than the other way around.
  • DalamarArgent, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1At first glance I thought the tab at the top read "Wank Room." In hindsight I would have been happier with that link than the one it turned out to be.
  • yosserhughes, on 04/26/2008, -2/+40You know what? its depressing; even when the American people have been shown that they were lied to, manipulated and generally led by the nose into the Iraq war, there are STILL people, many on this site, dozens in fact, who want another war, this time with Iran
    How the ***** do you get through to these people? Are they really that stupid, I mean, are we doomed forever to be surrounded by idiots?

    • MrESaulved, on 04/26/2008, -0/+10As you now know, paid agents populate these boards to promote propaganda...on all sides! Keep using that thing between your ears and strike up conversations with people, and ask them about current events...you might be surprised just how savvy and aware the general public really is. They are just too busy trying to live their lives, and don't know how to stop corruption at the very top of the pyramid.
    • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Speak truth and your advertising budget goes away and shareholders are not that happy
      • dlllb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1@ Yosser.
        These people aren't ignorant/dumb for the sake of it... Its by design that they act this way, try not to be angry/hate them for it...
    • jeff303, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Money (your taxes will go up to pay for this war) or personal safety/convenience (you or your relative may have to go serve).
    • Pg5of16, on 04/27/2008, -1/+0Yes. I'm hating every minute with you guys.
  • felixleighton, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3I think it funny that they note how all the other news stations didn't want to follow them. "Oh, well that obviously is because they're in on the secret."
    I dunno. If I was gonna break a news story that the Government had been infiltrated by martians, I'm pretty sure the rest of the news agencies wouldn't want to join me in releasing the news.
  • Pg5of16, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9Uhh...This was on The Daily Show 4 days ago. Just look on thedailyshow.com for "Message Force Multipliers"
  • bicyclethief, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8A government of the people, for the people, by the people, to delude the people.
  • munen123, on 04/26/2008, -3/+17bushtards are not happy about this story breaking!

    this administration is full of lies
    • econojon, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2wasn't this the evidence that Helen Thomas was talking about regarding condoning torture?
    • normlsparky, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1the truth can be horribly painful for them. most of them have probably openly shown support for this administration and its policies. they are busy waving flags, putting "support our troops" stickers on their cars and just eating it up in general. to admit this is true would be to admit that so many other things could be true, and those stickers are hard to get off your car.
  • flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -23/+6Ahhh, Think Progress speaks and the digg sheep lap it up. Go on little sheep drink it, yeeesss I know it's purple and it's goooood for you.
    • fuzzyfuzz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+12Care to explain how anyone here is a sheep? Any evidence or anything?
    • gambl3r, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Thanks fuzz. Flip, could you elaborate on your comment? Try not to categorize people with opens minds as one thinks of self. Ignorance is bliss. Douche.
    • felixleighton, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1They're called 'diggtards' for a reason gambl3r. I bet you two are the same people who'd vote for articles that have "Don't let $cientologists bury this !!" in the title.
    • nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Why do I have a feeling that women will have nothing to do with you?
      • flip2trip, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Not that it's any of your business, but I'm married. Maybe when you grow up you'll find a woman who will have pity on you.
  • slifty, on 04/26/2008, -2/+10I don't care about where you fall in the political spectrum: this is an outrage. Thank goodness there are still some journalists who are still watchdogs. The news networks had better explain themselves.
  • dafpoo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7this **** makes me sick
  • BluesFan, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4It's time for the people to take matters into there own hands and treat this like the Russian mob would.If you can't get the guys at the top then take out there ......

    • dlllb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4OMFG CIA AGENTS SHOT HIM BEFORE HE COULD FINISH HIS SENTENCE!!!!!!!1111oneone11!!!1
  • bethehammer, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8I love the double-speak from Bob Zelnick - the pentagon insiders were just giving us up to date information about the war and they were not giving us propaganda from the pentagon to fight in a money making war. Geez we really are a stupid species to be fooled by this crap.
  • kingcam, on 04/26/2008, -2/+16This isn't even the worst of it, if you really want to know how ***** up American Media is go read Manufacturing Consent, I cant recommend it enough; one of Noam Chomsky's better books.
  • Bamshackle, on 04/26/2008, -3/+9Until Americans as a whole, not just on the internet, stand up and ask for the truth we will have a media run nation.
  • scm21st, on 04/26/2008, -0/+12What was I watching there? They weren't interrupting each other! Strange.
  • gaziddlybop, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5GOOGLE: PDD 51
  • MacintoshSauce, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6God bless PBS... I have been watching them a lot lately - I trust their news casts more than the mainstream media.
  • MacintoshSauce, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7Wanted to add something else... I really like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. He is one of the last true TV journalists left in this country.
    • JointVenture, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1Journalist my ass, he sucks Obamas virtual ***** everyday.
  • SuperJay, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5SCARY
  • jimmiss, on 04/26/2008, -0/+10This makes me want to pledge some money:-)
  • AzMegladon, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4I blame the buchtards and mactards, they are dumb enough to believe the ***** propaganda.
  • dildoolielly, on 04/26/2008, -0/+55THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE:

    "All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction."

    "The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out." ~ Adolph Hitler
  • hobophobe, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Even the most corrupt and biased news organizations still disclaim their relationship when covering a story involving their parent corporation. These analysts should have done exactly that.

    "I'm owned and operated by the Pentagon," is all they had to say to avoid scandal.

    Instead you have a situation where the Pentagon is competing with private individuals for jobs in the media consultant industry. Their people have an unfair competitive advantage as well as a 50-megaton conflict of interest. Sounds suspiciously like how some of the Pentagon's contracts (Blackwater, KBR, et al.) went down too.
  • 2Bnor2B, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2I guess Rush Limbaugh's "Drive by media" uses Pentagon supplied chauffeurs.
  • spaceman77, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7And guess what!?
    It is not a conspiracy theory.

    • kemp34, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Yes, people need to realize there are conspiracy FACTS.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.