Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Michael Hipp wrote:
You won't see much of this in the legacy media but it makes a very
interesting read.
By legacy media, i can only assume you mean non-ultra-conservative media.
If you're in a hurry skip toward the bottom to the sections entitled
'Responsibilities Unfulfilled' and 'Failed Execution of the Plan'.
Michael
------------------------------------------
Why New Orleans Flooded
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2005
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/12/210912.shtml
errr, wow they suck. two pop-ups just going to the front page (one of
them a huge ad titled "the hidden truth about Hillary" (Clinton). If
there was any doubt about their bias, it was quickly eliminated. Then on
the actual page there are a slew of ads for guns, miracle cures, gold
coins with Jesus on them, and 'bet on Iraq'.
At least The New Republic has some class and attempts to be journalistic
in their presentation.
Try reading the article in the Wall Street Journal. You get rid of the
overt bias and advertising of the web site, and you get to see the facts
as presented, not someone else's interpretation of what they think is
important.
Or is the WSJ off limits because people like Dennis Kozlowski, Bernard
Ebbers and Kenneth Lay read it? Yes it tends to be more conservative.
Yes it tends to support people who want to make money. That still has
little to do with fact reporting, where they do a pretty good job.
Or is the real problem that it no longer looks like Bush can be blamed
if you are aware of these facts?
-- Alma
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
