Dan Rather Article About US Press

[Mark Heide]

Here it is for everyone to read. An example to prove that I'm still sane!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ve/2029634.stm

Thanks Brad

Mark

[brad]

you can listen to alex jones over the internet (or download it) with no commercials.

much better than tv.

waiting for your post on patriot act part 2 which hasnt been passed yet but has been leaked (i believe bill moyers on pbs was the one it was leaked to). heh

[Jimbo]

Mark, quoting Dan rather falls far short of proving your sanity.

[Mark Heide]

Jimbo,

I know what to do! I'll go outside and march down the street waving my American flag. That should prove I'm sane.

Mark

[Jimbo]

Mark,

I never meant to impune your sanity, just suggesting that quoting Dan Rather was heading in the wrong direction. I have no doubt that you are patriotic but believe you may be risking your life marching down the wrong street. Heh, I thought you were one of the 55 Americans on their way to Iraq by way of Turkey then Syria to become a human shield. What happened to that trip?

[Mark Heide]

Jimbo,

I missed the boat. Here's a link for you:

http://www.uruklink.net/jumhuriya/

If you send an email to this publication, let's see if you get a visit from the CIA.

Good Luck

Mark

[hudini36]

They have no need to visit. once you get there, however, you will rightfully be under constant surveillance. It's interesting that the radical right wing labels anyone that questions the first strike policy anti-American, even though it equates to the foreign policy of Tojo Japan.

[MMMMMM]

I suppose the fact that a parallel article could never have appeared in Pravda didn't figure into your thinking.

Doesn't the degree of state-censorship--or even self-censorship--mean anything to you when you make your comparisons? Or do you think that 100% censorship (USSR government) is the same as say 10% censorship (self-censorship and US-government-pressure combined) because, after all, they're both censorship?

[Mark Heide]

M,

The degree of censorship is only relative to your ideology. In a democratic and capitalist system you, as a US citizen, could view the former Pravda from the cold war era as 100% censorship. The citizens of a socialist society do not view it that way. Their press reflects the views of a collective society working together. The Russians did not grow up in a society built on materialism and getting rich, so their society is going to easily see US citizens as materialistic and greedy.

The only other analogy I can give you is from a religious point of view. There was a story recently in the news about a muslim woman in Africa that was sentanced to death by stoning. Well, this country consists of two religious groups which are the muslims and christians. Of course the christians rebelled against the muslims. But, for the muslims it is written in holy law that this women must be stoned to death for her crime(which was having a baby without being married). I seriously doubt that you could convince any of these muslims to spare her life, because if they did, they would be the ones defying holy law.

So degrees of censorship or even self-censorship can only be measured by your ideology.

Mark

[adios]

I don't even know how to respond to a post like this. Censorship involves overt acts to suppress information that the censors find objectionable or harmful that people would like to otherwise have. It isn't about what information people want to have in lieu of something else.

"But, for the muslims it is written in holy law that this women must be stoned to death for her crime(which was having a baby without being married). I seriously doubt that you could convince any of these muslims to spare her life, because if they did, they would be the ones defying holy law."

I can't be certain of this but if you posed this question to those practicing Islam in this country, at least 75% would have condemmed this incident.