07-29-06 - 1

Charles's guide to the spectrum of modern journalism :

On the liberal end, you have things like The Nation & Mother Jones. These are slightly wacky-liberal. I think they believe there are crazy right wing conspiracies that don't really exist. Personally I don't think there is a "vast right wing conspiracy". Rather, the ring wingers just act on their own or in little groups to accomplish similar goals. It's more of a network of cells, with a few leaders; if you take out one leader, another will take his place; the cells can operate independently, but they all work for a common goal which they believe fanatically. The RNC is the "base" if you will.

The New York Times is the next step, sort of slightly right of center. If anything they're like "Clinton Democrats". They're pro-war, they generally support and don't question America's government, they're very pro free market, pro Wall Street, pro big business. If they're liberal on anything it's tiny issues like abortion, women's rights, gay rights, things like that. They pay lip service to the environment, but don't really advocate doing anything significant to help the Earth or bring it up very often, they don't favor anything that costs American business anything.

The Wall Street Journal is sort of like the ruling elite's rag for themselves, like a Pravda, a party-financed propaganda rag. Aside from trying to drill in the propaganda to push various initiatives, it contains news for the elite, such as where to get your Rolls Royce jewel encrusted, or how to save money by firing your employees and outsourcing, food recipes for condor eggs, things like that.

What's that? I forgot Fox News, you say? Oh my, really? I thought that was just a comedy channel, you know, like the Daily Show or something. You mean people take that seriously like it's real news? Oh my lord.

No comments:

old rants