..."news" organizations worth a hoot: Democracy Now, Bill Moyer's Journal, and The Real news. And, even with them, it is strongly advised to go outside of the U.S. media to get the real deal. One must still apply intelligence however; a lack therein is not an option, IMO. Oh, and I almost forgot my most important point: I haven't owned a TV since 1994, but, I also understand the importance of TV for the multitudes who don't have access to the I-net. Therein lies the very serious problem of getting the news to the general population. The government doesn't really want an informed citizenry because then they become a pain in the ass. It's really that simple, IMO. Yes, it's very serious. :-(
http://www.iauthorbooks.com

If you're reading this, chances are you are not one of the people that the networks speak to every evening. Long before The Tumor That Was Bush began gnawing at the American consciousness, news producers realized they were mostly speaking to a 200-million-strong bunch of mouth-breathing, self-involved Amerocentrics who couldn't care less about what was happening in Africa or Asia.

Things haven't changed...until now.

"Lord! What Fools these Mortals be!"

Not quite clear how you make the leap that this holds for Europe.

I spend my Christmas vacation in Germany and was quite pleased with the news program on the public channels (the private ones are of course dismal).

during the invasion worked. Without video of the fighting, the networks were left with talking heads far from the conflict. Not very compelling television by American news standards. If you can call what they have now "standards".

Matt Taibbi is rippin on the Friedman book - always a popular theme around here. Sort of the printed equivalent of the point of this thread i guess.
http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html
--
Hongpong.com