The Media&Government Conspiracy:

Now, I do think that this guy is rather ....liberal (more so than the general media), and I am rudely, a conservative, but this article does need to be discussed:

I know he gets into the war on terrorism in Iraq quite a lot, but I'm more concerned with his viwes on the relationship between the media in general, and their "local" (as not the whole world, like USA, Cannada, Iraq, China) government .
The following was things that stood out to me:

There is a structural relationship between media and state power. They are closely linked. Who are the media? Not just in the United States, but around the world, they're a handful of corporations that dominate what people see, hear, and read.

Looking at what all he points out, this should be fairly easy to verify, lol.

There are instances we know of where the Pentagon generated video news reports and then gave them to various TV stations. This is spoon-fed propaganda coming straight from the Pentagon and being broadcast as news.

This caught me off guard, considering how Anti-Bush the liberal media is...Just who is against Republican Presidents? The Pentagon or the Media?

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the way power works. Look, if you're a powerful person and I'm a journalist, wouldn't you want me to write flattering things about you—

this is common sense. If you can find a way to control the media, then do so, if you have the power. He goes on to point out practical ways that it is done to the media, at this point in time.

OK: What about telecommunications reform in 96-97?

DB: The Clinton Telecommunications Reform of 1996 unleashed a tsunami of mergers and takeovers. It has produced the greatest concentration of media in the history of the world. That's when clear channel went from a few dozen stations, out of its base in San Antonio, to today where it's over 1200 radio stations. It's become /the/ dominant radio monopoly. And that was under the liberal Clinton, Gore—and I remember very specifically, the liberal New York Times editorialized at the time, when the legislation was enacted, that this legislation would produce a bonanza for the American public. They'll get more variety, they'll get more diversity. They're the real winners.

Bruce Springsteen had that song about ten or fifteen years ago, "57 Channels and Nothing on." And now, if he were rerecording that, he'd have to put a zero at the end. Now there are 570 channels and nothing on. There is so little information of value that is available to American consumers of commercial TV.

The sad part is that I'd have to agree, lol...there has GOT to be more real news out there than what is being put in air time, in newspapers, even on the interent. For God's sake, there are some 6 billion plus people in the world.

Then comes some PBS and NPR bashing....with this thought:

Any kid with a basic education can figure this out. If you watch the programs, or listen to the programs, or you read Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, and the other newspapers and magazines, and whose name appears? How often does it appear? How are the pundits that are on talk shows on Sunday morning? Who gets on "Meet the Press"? "Face the Nation"? It's not complicated.

Most of us have been aware of it for quite some time. There is no variety. Those who should be brought up in front of the world are NEVER heard. electroniciraq.net...

Somtimes I wonder if we ever take ourselves seriously. ATS is one of several wonderul opertunities to make sure that more information gets out, and I can't even say that I'm doing my part. It's simply just not enough, and probably never will be.

(Slightly off subject: The reason this nut was interviewed was because he wasn't a republican...and the liberal media just wanted to prove that they aren't liberal enough???? :lol