- "Fact that is fact every day is not news; it's truth.
We report news, not truth. " --Linda Ellerbee
- The elite media in this country hates the internet.
- How could they not? As web-log pioneer Dave Winer once
said, "Internet publishing can be more powerful than print journalism,
given its immediacy and lack of corporate or governmental filters. "
The big news organizations would have you believe that such "filters"
either don't exist, or have no influence on their reporting, but this is
a proven lie. Remember a few years back, when a Fox affiliate in Florida
(KTVI) spiked a story on bovine growth hormone, due to pressure from Monsanto?
- Driven first and foremost by an insatiable desire for
large advertising revenue, secondarily by various political biases, and
thirdly by contempt for the intelligence of the common man, the news media
in this country has no devotion to reporting truth. None. Zilch. Zero.
This is not to say that journalists are rampantly fabricating stories and
telling outright lies (Jayson Blair and the CBS docudrama aside). There
is no need for such overt and easily exposed dishonesty. They lie to us
every day by presenting homogenized, inane, irrelevant, and distorted "news,"
while deliberately omitting information that poses a threat to their respective
agendas. The proof of this is so overwhelming, it is laughable. If the
news media is devoted to "informing" the public, why have they
made the Scott Peterson murder trial an item of "national interest,"
while deliberately ignoring a legitimate news story like the recent $350
million RICO lawsuit against the makers of aspartame? (Story: http://www.newswithviews.com/BreakingNews/breaking25.htm)
- The answer to this is obvious: the Peterson trial poses
no threat to advertising revenue; the truth about aspartame does.
- Is network news engineered, maniuplated, and "filtered"
by big corporations and big government? Of course it is. More Americans
are waking up to this fact, and the elite media is very, very pissed off.
- The internet is under attack from mainstream news organizations
who can't stand to see their monopolies threatened by a medium that is
uncensored, unfiltered, and not dependent on big corporate sponsorship.
One website to recently come under assault is the excellent news service,
Rumor Mill News (www.rumormillnews.com). RMN is host to a very popular
forum that allows the average person to post information, news items, and
opinions that generally cannot be found in mainstream news sources. Of
course, without the wonderful "filters" that make mainstream
news so "reliable," a healthy dose of BS is likely to seep through
the cracks (hence the name "Rumor Mill"), but everyone with a
shred of intelligence is prepared for this.
- A number of RMN forum members have posted comments on
the recent Florida hurricanes, calling into question the official "body
counts" that have been offered by government officials. The Florida
Sun-Herald's Brian Gleason wrote the following comments on RMN's coverage
of Hurricane Charley, from
- "While only four deaths in Charlotte County were
attributed to Hurricane Charley, that number grows by a factor of 10 or
100 depending on which Internet site you rely on for 'information.'
- "Take that paragon of credibility, RumorMillNews.com,
on which the following was excerpted from 'an RMN Exclusive:' 'Our estimate
is that there were at least 20-30 body bags already on BOTH sides (of Burnt
Store Road), waiting to be put into trucks. I really don't care what CNN
or ANY biased and controlled media group wants to 'estimate' or purportedly
'report' ? about this disaster. The world is NOT being told the truth of
what happened here and how many died. Why would they want to cover up a
body count or death toll that we have already seen for ourselves?'"
- Gleason concludes, "I can't wait for the next issue
of the checkout counter tabloid Weekly World News. I can just see the headline
now: 'Space Alien Charley's Oldest Victim.'"
- One wonders why Gleason is so upset that people have
the freedom to post uncensored personal accounts on websites like RMN.
Since he begins his sarcastic commentary by regurgiating the "official"
Hurricane Charley body count, he seems to simply take the position that
the government would never lie about anything, and anyone who thinks otherwise
is a moron. This is generally the stance of all "mainstream"
journalists who use the term "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative.
But how does Gleason "know" that we have been told the truth
about Charley? The fact is, he doesn't. He's formed an a priori assumption
based on his contempt for internet news services, and his apparent unequivocal
faith in the truthfulness of government.
- It is my opinion that there is almost certainly no "cover-up"
around Charley or any other hurricane, and I won't be convinced otherwise
without some very compelling evidence. But I still respect the efforts
of the RMN staff to allow an OPEN FORUM where people have the freedom to
voice unconventional opinions on a huge variety of topics.
- "Mainstream" media folks also continually warn
us that internet news is not only not credible, but may actually pose a
threat to public health by inciting "panic" and "hysteria."
For instance, a number of mainstream news services have recently run stories
about the internet buzz around the asteroid Toutatis. From an AFP story
on September 26th: "...in contrast to the warnings of a handful of
doomsayers, scientists say the peril from (Toutatis) is beyond negligible.
- "Six months ago, panicky rumours spread on the Internet
that there was little point to booking next year's summer holidays -- that
NASA had got it wrong or lied, and we were all heading for The Big One.
- "Websites run by Christian zealots and individuals
in contact with aliens predicted the Second Coming of Jesus or a secret
US nuclear missile strike to neutralise the asteroid." (Full story:
- The author of this piece has blown it on numerous points.
I think I know, since I am apparently one of the "doomsayers"
to whom he refers. First of all, I submitted my articles on Toutatis to
two websites: Rense.com, and SurfingTheApocalypse.com, neither of which
is "run by Christian zealots," or "individuals in contact
with aliens." Second, I never "predicted" anything in regard
to Toutatis, much less "the second coming of Jesus." And third
and most important, there is not a shred of evidence that a single person
has experienced a moment of "panic" over Toutatis' impending
approach. Believe it or not, the public actually seems to have shown enough
discernment to make up their own minds about a controversial matter.
- I question the sincerity of big media journalists who
express "concern" aboout the reliability of internet news services.
If they truly care about keeping the public "informed," why do
they relentlessly bombard us with inane, irrelevant, and sensational "news"
items? Why is that every time I turn on my televsion or open a "mainstream"
newspaper, I see headlines like "Britney Spears' Wedding Was A Hoax!"
or "Scott Peterson Had Second Mistress!" or "Wacko Jacko
Paid Off His Victims!" or "Resident Evil Rules at Box-Office!"
"Mainstream" reporters may express "concern" about
the credibility of the internet, but rest assured, the only thing they
are "concerned" with is maintaining a monopoly on the news, and
fattening their wallets.