A master of media manipulation once revealed that a giant lie is more believable than a little white lie. His name was Adolf.

The great lie working today is that the MSM is liberal. It is so great a lie, like Hitler said, that it works.

It's a damning commentary that NYT publishes one version for public consumption in the US and another, more reasonable version for readers outside the US. I guess they understand that people who aren't exposed to 24-hour Faux news are accustomed to a lot less bias and expect "fair and balanced" reporting. So NYT can't claim it doesn't know better - it simply doesn't dare do the right thing. Really scary...

Brad has asked me to repost an item I entered earlier this morning on a separate blog (from 3/8).

In today's Times article Jonathan Glater refers to Brad's investigations into accusations of rigged voting machines as "a contentious subject." Funny, but the New York Times never uses "contentious" to describe terrorism or the Iraq War. The clear implication is that Brad and those who contribute to bradblog.com are contentious people, i.e. tin foil hat wearers...unlike all those neo-cons in the Bush administration, who are dutiful public servants, and reporters from the Times, who write responsibly.

Glater never mentions Clint Curtis, Tom Feeney, Yang Enterprises, or Ray Lemme. But he refers to questions asked by bloggers about whether (a certain unnamed person, but surely Curtis) had taken a lie-detector test. Since Curtis wasn't identified and no context was provided, a casual reader might assume Brad is surrounded by people who can't be trusted.

Just a terrible piece of reporting...incomplete and misleading. I wrote a complaint letter to Daniel Okrent, the ombudsman at the Times, who I know will reply. He and I just competed together in the National Crossword Puzzle Tournament, and in my e-mail I threatened to construct a new puzzle titled "How the White House Spins the Times." I gave him a hint that the answer to 24-Across will be "ROVE."

Great post RLM...thanks for the repost.

Now, I'm going to go OT because I don't know where else to put this (the Open Thread below is moribund) and it's too important to miss. It concerns the utter ecological depredation/degradation resulting from the corporate minset of infinite "growth," and is a short examination of a fallacy I have been hammering at for most of my adult life. It's called "Look Deeper, Mr. Moyers" and it's a must-read-and-think-about.

"mindset"

Brad, is there any chance you could find out which version more closely represents the original copy?

Free Republic - oh so lame.

I posted exactly 1 post, about Gannon/Guckert, and my post was promptly erased and my posting privilages banned forever. It should be the Not-So-Free Republic. And it's one of the rare Right wing blogs that allows comments. I tend to be very suspicious of blogs that don't allow comments.

My post at FR on Gannon was simply some questions:
If Gannon puts naked pictures of himself on the internet while advertising himself as a gay male prostitute, and the pictures/ads are/were up until recently...itn't that his recent, professional & public life, not his past, personal & private life?

My question must have caused some FReeper heads to explode.

CV -

I must presume that the NYTimes version was the original, and that IHT was working from that. Specifically because there was more info in the NYTimes version (the quotes from all the wingnuts, etc.). It would have been unusual --- but perhaps I give too much credit? --- for them to have gone back and backward engineered to add *more* quotes from wingnuts. But I could be wrong. If I talk to Glater, I'll try to confirm.

I'm going to have to disagree with the previous posts. I thought it was a well-balanced, interesting piece. I am not into blogging, so was very glad to hear that there are progressives bloggers online who are making an effort to be heard by the mainstream media. And I enjoyed reading what the wingnuts think of the teleconference approach, because they are good at media manipulation, afterall.

Also, the article led me to your site, which I had never heard of before.

Brad, you misspelled. It's cwhoreporate media.

The Cwhoreporate Media is nothing new:

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your Honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse"....Mark Twain

LTM#3
I love this blog. I think it may be a big part of Bushco's downfall. My son is in the National Guard, so I have a huge desire to get the lying hypocrites out. Time matters.

I've read most of the Feeney/Yang scandle here. I think this NYT article is a big first step that will keep rolling. I do agree with you, LTM, but hey! the conservative bloggers did the investigation that gave the blog sphere legitamacy.

For number 7:

Yes, I had a similar experience regarding censorship and banishment after not being "pc" enough for the blog.

It was Democratic Underground.

As a life-long liberal (social) and a converted fiscal conservative (age induced ;

Heck, I wasn't even told what my "indescretion" was that led to my being tossed.

Anyway, all, a good read today is at (thanks to info provided at RigorousIntuition, which linked to) Tom Flocco:

http://tomflocco.com/mod...;amp;order=0&thold=0

We must not be divided, we must not ease up the pressure.

I TRULY believe we have these folks scared (msm, politocos and corporations), and that means they are DEADLY.

Take care, folks. I don't mean to frighten anyone, but do not I believe I am being overly cautious to state that.

I recall listening to a program on NPR's "On the Media" a few weeks ago. They were interviewing an Atlantic Monthly reporter (sorry, I forget who) when the host, most inappropriately, asked a leading question. She asked, "I've long since given up the illusion of the possibility of objectivity in reporting, don't you find that true?" and the Atlantic reporter chimed in, "Oh yes, now it's all about balance and fairness."
God forbid that they report a story that is favorable to liberals (even if true) without adding "balance" by slanting the story from a right-wing point of view.
I'm convinced that's why the vote fraud stories didn't make the mainstream media and networks --there's no way to make it look good for the Bushies.
With the demise of the ideal of objectivity, and the new focus on balance whatever the truth, if Woodward and Bernstein were investigating Watergate today, they'd still be interns at the Post.

that is , RLM #3

Colleen said:

the conservative bloggers did the investigation that gave the blog sphere legitamacy.

Which investigation was that, Colleen?

(And by the way, I am glad they covered the story, don't get me wrong. Any press, as they say, is good press. Yet the object lesson is still there.)

She must mean the TANG documents, Brad. But that wasn't so much an investigation as a mis-information and sandbag operation. A Trojan Horse.

#13

Not sure what to make of your claims. I don't believe you were banned from DU unless they suspected you of being a troll, i.e. planting mis-information which can be used to discredit, like in the case of the questionable TANG documents. If you try to conflate Johnny Gosch with James Guckert/Gannon, doing so does make you "contentious". There is no "there" there. They are not the same person. Gannon/Guckert was born in 1957. Do the math.

Cyteria (comment #14) nails it! Frightened into forgetting that their duty is to uncover truth, Establishment journalists fleeing a storm of rebuke seek shelter in "balance" --- a false balance which, in our contacts with them, we could parody as follows: "Right you are, Mr. Channel Two reporter! Two minutes of air time for the Jews, two for the Nazis!".

--- Danny in France

Brad,

Your content and mission are excellent. But your website is too hard to read. It gives me a headache.

I spend 1-2 hours reading web news every day and can't wade through yellow type on black. It's really bad form.

So, good bye and good luck.

Kelley

CZAragorn beat me to the punch, but it's worth punching again --- it is telling to see the NYT print one version larded with commentary from rightwing bloggers for the domestic audience, and one without said hot air for the IHT. And it's not just the NYT. Ever notice how many articles on Air America contain opinions, criticisms, and misinformation on AA from rightwing talk show hosts or associates?

Kelley, I'm not fond of the yellow-on-black color scheme either, but there are a number of free and easy-to-install goodies out there that will convert Web pages to a standard white-on-black display. You might try one of those.

I agree with Kelley (Comment #21). Bile yellow on puke green makes for hard reading, esp. for weak eyes. Consider a more conventional format, please. Following your stories and comments requires a lot of reading. So far, it's been worth the effort, but, please, make it easier for us.

It is time to face the fact that the fourth estate has been perverted to the fifth column of the repugnican party.

The internet is now the only razor thin edge between USA liberty and USA tyranny.

The USA founding fathers assumed that USA citizens would make at least a ten-year-old child's attempt to understand to understand USA policy.

They were wrong- At this time, the majority of USA citizens are only capable of understanding USA policy at a 6 year old child's level.

Exactly why the repugnicans refuse to fund education- They know that only ignorant morons will vote for repugnicans, so they are committed to ensuring that no school system in the USA will produce people educated enough to see through the anti-American smoke and mirrors that defines the repugnicans.

The USA was once a nation of laws- But the USA is >NOW

Kelley #21 and Cyteria #23

I totally, completely, infinitely disagree. I think the color scheme is perfect.

Kelley and Cyteria,
Mine shows up as yellow on green and I find it very easy to read.

Kelly #21

Your website identifies you as an artist. What's really bad form, is for someone who is supposed to live by the credo of freedom of expression, to tell someone else that the colors they use are in really bad form.

Good bye, and good luck.

FWIW, to those who've requested it, I've been hoping to create an alternative Dark on Light color-scheme for some time.

Unfortunately, the entire newsroom staff is also the entire IT staff So, until I am able to get to it, there's only one choice of color at BRAD BLOG.

I'd love to believe a day or two will show up when I have nothing to do but work on providing the alternate color scheme. For the moment, I'm not optimistic that it will be terribly soon.