From: Danny Sleator 
To: Bob
Subject: Re: suppression of news 
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:47 -0500
Message-ID: <13941.1071932027@hyper.link.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: Daniel_Sleator@hyper.link.cs.cmu.edu

In addition to the raw suppression of news at the NYTimes
and other outlets, there are other very powerful ways in
which the mainstream media conveys their approval of what's
happening.

People watch Tim Russert and Ted Coppel and Dan Rather and
Jim Lehrer (not to mention Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity)
and from their very demeanor, infer the "correct",
"reasonable" attitude to take on these matters.

The correct position to take on this administration is total
outrage.  What should happen, for example, is that when
Rumsfield goes on Meet the Press, Russert should preface the
show with "Rumsfield, and all major figures in the Bush
adminstration have, over the past 3 years, made hundreds of
statements that have turned out to be false.  Some even say
they've been lying.  Please keep this in mind when listening
to the secretary's remarks."  Russert's questions should be
combative, skeptical, and relentless.  After Rumsfield
stomps off the show, Russert should say "I'm sorry, but
these people have spent billions of dollars and cost
thousands of lives.  They have to answer for what they've
done."

This is not what happens.  Instead, deference and respect
are shown.  The answers are taken seriously, even though
there's no basis to do this.  Vast blocks of TV time are
allocated to the presenting staged presidential events,
without comment.

What would an administration have to do in order for the
mainstream TV news to start to scoff at them?  Is there no
level of criminality or deceit that can cause this?  And
because of this, the administration is protected from any
substantial consequences of the crimes they're committing.

                           Danny

> Subject: suppression of news
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:06:12 -0500
> From: Bob
> 
> Here is an item from CBS News yesterday: the Chairman of the 9/11
> Commission says on TV that BushCo could and should have prevented the
> 9/11 attacks.  This is NOT REPORTED AT ALL in the NYTimes.  Why?
> 
> http://truthout.org/docs_03/121803A1.shtml
> 
> Here is another news item: John Asscrack, the grand inquisitor and
> arbiter of morality, was fined $30K for violating the Federal Election
> Campaign Act during his failed bid to defeat a dead man for the Senate.
> That's right, the Attorney General willfully violated the law and
> covered it up, but there is NO REPORTING on this in the NYTimes.  Why?
> 
> http://truthout.org/docs_03/121903E.shtml
> 
> The New York Times appears to be suppressing important news about
> important matters.  Why?
> 
> Bob

---

Daniel Sleator

Last modified: Wed Jan 28 16:19:49 EST 2004