Freedom of speech

[peaccenicked]

What! Sorry you can't report this
http://205.252.23.176/news/2001/12/13/1.html

[Hayduke]

damn man all you guys should read it.....the truth behin afghanistan

[peaccenicked]

More censorsip this time CNN
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/...1/cnn-n06.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/cnn-n06.shtml)

[kingbee]

talkin bout censorship- my connections refused trying to go to it-m trying to hide something netscape?

[Nateddi]

Yes sir thats what happens when you have huge networks ran by huge corporations trying to outdo each other. America is so great, the capitalist economy is falling, the unemployment rate is rising, and everyone is in love with Dubya. Makes me sick.

[revolutionary spirit]

great avater nateddi

[Imperial Power]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

You tell everyone their listening to biased right wing media and where do I find your gettin your "real" news?

THE WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE!

ha ha ha

[peaccenicked]

Are you trying to say that the article is inaccurate. where is your counter evidence.

[Moskitto]

You can never be sure of anything unless you were there yourself. I knew who broke the drainpipe in middle school, I was there, I was closest to it. And I broke it. The thing is everyone else knew, It was like one of those urban legends things.

[peaccenicked]

how can we know anything?
This is a philosophical question.
the very short answer is this from Hegel
"The speculative stage, or stage of positive reason, apprehends the unity of terms (propositions) in their opposition- the affirmative, which is involved in their disintegration and in their transition.
1) The result the dialectic is positive, because it has a definite content, or because its result is not empty or abstract nothing, but the negation of certain specific propositions which are contained within the result - for the reason it is resultant and not an immediate nothing" Hegel's logic p117

That might be difficult to comprehend . It takes a lot of thought to put Hegel into better english. I will give this a try later.

[peaccenicked]

more censorship this time at NYT
http://www.fair.org/activism/nyt-niazi-kala.html

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 7:25 pm on Jan. 20, 2002
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

You tell everyone their listening to biased right wing media and where do I find your gettin your "real" news?

THE WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE!

ha ha ha


@Imperialist Power
Great way of backing out of an argument. The fact remains that news isnt all fair, would they report something like this, I think not. They did not make this story up, that would be impossible. Anyway, the elite media does not report anything pro-socialistic because they are owned by major corporations.

@revolutionary spirit.
Thanks :)

[rebel with a cause]

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” - William Colby, former director of the CIA

"our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." - Thomas Jefferson

"nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." - Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." - Thomas Jefferson

For those that live in the US, (I live in LA) your fair and balnced media, the "servants of the people" is a giant crock of shit, the only thing you can probably trust 100% is the sports page.

Your media is composed of 10 conglamorates that more or less work together rather than compete, so that they may keep you ignorant, misinformed, and brain-washed, they are:

1. AOL/Time Warner
2. General Electric
3. Viacom, Inc.
4. Disney
5. Liberty Media Corporation (an oxymoron if u ask me)
6. AT&T Corporation
7. News Corporation
8. Bertelsmann
9. Vivendi Universal
10. Sony

here's a link to a fancy chart to see exactly what and how much they control: http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

As far as the Afghanistan coverage, the BBC did a hell of a job, far superior than that of the American media, (yet the BBC still failed to tell the whole story sometimes), after an attack the Taliban would claim 100 civilians were killed, the US would say no one was killed, in all reality about 50 people were killed, independent media is the way to go, it hasn't been filtered thru any government, so you'll actually learn stuff that is TRUE.

Good site for a variety of indy news is the Rage website.
www.ratm.com

click on news, then click on current events, BAM, a giant outlet of knowledge to choose from.

also check out indymedia.org and zmag.org

peace out

[peaccenicked]

more censorship news
YellowTimes.ORG) – A new report released by Professor Marc W. Herold of University of New Hampshire found that the Bush administration has overseen the killing of at least 3,767 civilians in Afghanistan between the dates of October 7, 2001 and December 6, 2001; an average of 62 civilians killed per day. On a population scale this number is equivalent to 38,000 dead U.S. civilians, or roughly eleven World Trade Center attacks. The failure of the Pentagon to admit to their actions, along with the frequent statements by mainstream U.S. news sources that civilian death reports could not "be independently verified,” inspired Mr. Herold to come up with an in-depth report on the number of dead civilians in Afghanistan using references from news reporters who visited the aftermath of U.S. bombing incidents, eyewitness and survivor accounts, distinguished non-governmental organizations, and news articles published in mainstream reputable national newspapers.

Mr. Herold found that the Pentagon frequently shrouded the truth and even directly lied to the American people.






According to the report, one example of mistruth spewed by the Pentagon was on October 31 when US bombers attacked a Red Crescent hospital in Kandahar.

The Taliban claimed that the Bush administration bombed the hospital killing 11 people inside. The Pentagon quickly stated that the strike missed both the hospital and another Red Crescent building nearby. The Pentagon said that the strike hit “a legitimate target, intentionally struck.”

But after journalists reached the site, they saw a large crater in the center of the clinic. A doctor at the hospital reported 15 dead; a number even higher than the Taliban’s claim. There is no reasonable explanation for why the Pentagon made this statement unless they were trying to deceive the American people and the rest of the world.

Another chilling example of the Pentagon deceiving the public is the destruction of the village Kama Ado on December 1st at 3 a.m. local time. YellowTimes.ORG reported this incident shortly after it occurred, but Mr. Herold’s report gives the specifics.

The reports states: “At 3 a.m., Saturday morning, as part of the intense bombing campaign of Tora Bora, U.S. B-52 bombers made four passes over Kama Ado dropping twenty-five 1,000 pound JDAM MK-83 bombs, each 10 feet long.”

The intended target of Tora Bora was a “ten-hour hike” away from the village of Kama Ado. Was this an accident?

In this town alone the Bush administration is responsible for killing about half of the people living there. Once the smoke cleared villagers only found about 40 of the 300 residents alive. Other witness reports say 156 of the 300 residents in Kama Ado were killed by the Pentagon.

One man in Kama Ado only survived because he went outside to urinate when a bomb struck his home. His family was not so lucky; 12 of them died inside the house. Another victim who survived the attack lost 38 of her 40 relatives, the report states.

When British journalist Richard Lloyd Parry visited Kamo Ado after the U.S. attack, he stated that the town had “ceased to exist.” Parry reported that many “of the homes here are just deep conical craters in the earth. The rest are cracked open, split like crushed cardboard boxes.”

When confronted with the evidence of what happened in Kamo Ado, the Pentagon spokesman stated the exact words of: “It just didn’t happen.”

The list of atrocities continued to grow longer and longer as the war raged on.

Mr. Herold’s report states how on October 11 two jets bombed the village of Karam. The Taliban claimed that 200 civilians were killed. When questioned about the attack, the Pentagon said that it hit a military base and civilians may have been killed, but the Taliban’s claim of 200 dead was exaggerated.

The Pentagon refused to name body counts saying that civilian deaths could not be “independently verified.”

But after reporters visited the carnage, they found that the Pentagon bombed and killed 100 to 160 civilians. This was confirmed by many news sources including The Guardian, The Independent, International Herald Tribune, The Scotsman, The Observer, and the BBC News.

In the village of Ishaq Sulaiman near Herat, 20 civilians were killed when between 8 and 9 cluster bombs fell on a mosque in the village. This was reported by Agence France Press, Reuters, and the International Herald Tribune. But according to the Pentagon, there was no air strike in that area.

Mr. Herold’s report further states how on October 18, the central market place in a district of Kandahar was bombed leaving 47 civilians dead.

Three days later on October 21, a cluster bomb destroyed a military hospital and mosque in Herat killing 100 Afghans.

Two days later, the Pentagon ordered AC-130 gunships to strafe the farming villages of Bori Choker and Chowkar-Karez. They did not stop shooting until 93 civilians were dead.

On November 10 the villages of Shah Aqa were bombed. At least 125 civilians were killed in this incident, but the actual number may be over 300.

Eight days later the Pentagon’s tactic of carpet-bombing with B-52’s killed at least 150 civilians in one incident.

The total amount of civilians killed from the first day of bombing up until December 6 came to at least 3,767 deaths.

This number is increasing steadily, especially due to the thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets littered all over Afghanistan. As YellowTimes.ORG warned in the early days of the conflict, each cluster bomblet has very destructive capabilities, operating as an effective landmine.

This danger was seen on November 25, when a farmer was killed after accidentally stepping on one of the unexploded CBU-87 bomblets. Two days later, a 12 year-old boy also encountered an unexploded bomblet. He was one of the lucky ones; only his arm was blown to pieces.

Despite pleas from the international community to halt the use of cluster bombs, by November 20 the Bush administration oversaw the deployment of about 600 CBU-87 cluster bombs on Afghanistan. After calculating in the dud rate of the bomb, Herold’s report states that about 14,500 unexploded bomblets are waiting in Afghanistan for unsuspecting victims across the countryside and villages.

Why the American people and the Western world have not castigated the Bush administration for killing thousands of Afghan civilians lies in the fear and self-censorship committed by U.S. media agencies.

As the British newspaper The Guardian pointed out, "It's nightmarish to see that the U.S is slowly desensitizing the public to the level of destruction taking place in Afghanistan. They have progressed from medium-sized missiles to Tomahawk and cruise missiles, to bunker-busting 2,000 lb bombs, then to [B-52] carpet-bombing using cluster bombs, and now the devastating daisy cutter bombs that annihilate everything in a 600-meter radius."

When Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based media agency, began showing footage of the Pentagon’s bombs killing innocent civilians, a guided bomb destroyed the Kabul office of the news agency; a sign that the Bush administration does not necessarily believe in freedom of speech outside the U.S. borders.

Witness reports in Afghanistan speak for themselves:

"The bombs started falling from the sky," one witness stated. "My husband ran outside to find our son and then he screamed. I ran to the door. He and my son were lying dead. The rest of us left when the fighting had stopped. We just wanted to get away from the bombs and the killing."

Another Afghan civilian believed that the United States must have been intentionally targeting innocent people due to the amount of destruction witnessed. "They're bombing anything that moves,” she said. “It's not true that they bomb civilians by accident. They're targeting the innocent people instead of Osama bin Laden."

Another villager explained how in one attack the survivors pulled a “baby out, the others were buried in the rubble. Children were decapitated. There were bodies with no legs. We could do nothing. We just fled.”

The only explanation that the Bush administration has uttered regarding casualties is that the Taliban has set up bases and bunkers in urban areas to prevent foreign nations from striking them. Mr. Herold states in the report that this is a falsity.

The report explains how many of the Taliban’s military garrisons and facilities are old buildings built by the Soviet-backed government in the previous war. They were built in urban areas for protection against the rural mujahedin. All future governments and rulers of Afghanistan used these same installations. This explains why many Taliban emplacements are located near civilian areas.

But when looking at the magnitude of bombs dropped on Afghanistan, even these claims by the Bush administration and Pentagon are hard to believe.

It is unfortunate that the American people continue to give support to the Bush administration despite them killing nearly 4,000 innocent civilians, using strong-arm tactics to stifle opposition voices seen in the destruction of the Al Jazeera media office, using irresponsible weapons that have left thousands of landmines around civilian areas, and lying and misleading the American people.

In the words of Mr. Herold, “It is simply unacceptable for civilians to be slaughtered as a side-effect of an intentional strike against a specified target. There is no difference between the attacks upon the World Trade Center whose primary goal was the destruction of a symbol, and the U.S-U.K revenge coalition bombing of military targets located in populated urban areas. Both are criminal. Slaughter is slaughter. Killing civilians even if unintentional is criminal.”

[Capitalist]

I agree with Imperial Power.

The News Media is full of left-wing reporters

CNN = Communist News Network.

[rebel with a cause]

Capitalist, what the fuck are you talkin' about?

[Imperial Power]

Bernard Goldberg’s book will debut at an impressive #13 this Sunday on the New York Times best-seller list, the New York Daily News reported on Tuesday.

While Goldberg’s television interviews have been confined to FNC and now two daytime CNN shows, with a blackout so far by the broadcast network morning shows and MSNBC (though MSNBC had him on in June), last week his book earned positive reviews from not only the Wall Street Journal but even the New York Times.

An excerpt from the December 18 New York Daily News story by Paul Colford, headlined: "Book That Blasts Media, Blasts the Charts." It was highlighted by Jim Romenesko’s MediaNews (http://www.poynter.org/medianews/). The excerpt:

A new book that accuses CBS News of liberal bias has become an instant best-seller.

Written by former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" will debut Sunday to No. 13 on The New York Times best-seller list.

That's no small feat considering that four photo collections tied to the Sept. 11 terror attacks have taken root on the list, making it harder for new nonfiction to break through.

At the same time, the success of "Bias," like the strong sales of opinionated books by commentators Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, reflects the appetite among many readers for criticism of how the media operate.

"For a book to become a New York Times best-seller based on a first week of sales, when it reached only about 15% to 20% distribution, just shows there was a huge demand," said Regnery Publishing president Alfred Regnery....

A prominent report on Goldberg's allegations ran in The Washington Post on Dec. 3. The author later spent an hour Limbaugh's radio show and earned a respectful review last Thursday in The Times (Goldberg "asks questions that are worth asking").

"Bias" was unavailable at several Manhattan bookstores over the weekend. It ranked No. 8 in sales yesterday at the online retailer Amazon.com.

Regnery, a Washington publisher that specializes in conservative titles, started with 80,000 copies, but now has about 200,000 in print....

END of Excerpt

For the entire story, go to:
http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-12-18/News...ss/a-135537.asp (http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-12-18/News_and_Views/Media_and_Business/a-135537.asp)

An excerpt from the December 13 review in the Wall Street Journal by Russ Smith, editor-in-chief of the New York Press:

....This insider's account of Mr. Goldberg's career at CBS is filled with so many stories of repulsive elitism and prejudice on the part of his peers that it elevates "Bias" to must-read status for any aspiring journalist. His case is airtight.

On the network news, Robert Bork is the "conservative" judge; Laurence Tribe, merely a Harvard professor. Mr. Goldberg notes that the major networks, in a fit of political correctness, reported during the 1980s that AIDS was a menace to everyone -- even heterosexuals who engaged in no-risk sex -- despite facts that proved otherwise. Of another favorite social-activist cause, Mr. Goldberg comments dryly: "I could be wrong, but I think homelessness ended the day Bill Clinton was sworn in as president. Which is one of those incredible coincidences, since it pretty much began the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president."...

Mr. Goldberg can be charitable, allowing that his well-paid colleagues are probably so insulated in their cultural bubble -- socializing and working with people who share their prejudices -- that they don't even recognize the bias they display. Mr. Rather told Mr. Goldberg that he considers the New York Times's editorial page to be "middle of the road."

But mostly Mr. Goldberg is disgusted by the men and women he once considered friends. He notes: "They love affirmative action, as long as their own kids get into Ivy League schools. They love handing out jobs based on racial preferences, as long as they get to keep theirs. It's a great deal: it's always somebody else who has to make the sacrifice -- sometimes Asian-American kids, sometimes other white students who don't get into places like Harvard and Yale and Princeton -- while the white liberal elites get to claim credit for being so decent, the saviors of black people in America."...

END of Excerpt

For the review in full, go to:
http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/re...88857688400.djm (http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1008210088857688400.djm)

The same day the New York Times featured a review by Janet Maslin. A brief excerpt:

....Mr. Goldberg has written "Bias," a book larded with specific examples to support his point of view. Although he refers to "the two or three conservative friends I have," he may pick up a lot more of them on the strength of this assault. He examines television's coverage of such issues as race, AIDS and homelessness to eyebrow-raising effect. All this, he says, supports the idea that most of those who shape these stories tilt to the left.

Even among those who reject that premise, or some of the ad hominem bitterness on display here, "Bias" should be taken seriously. Unlike Bill O'Reilly, whose best-sellers (like "The No-Spin Zone") trumpet a bullying brand of conservatism as they recycle transcripts of television interviews, Mr. Goldberg has done real homework and has written a real book. Whatever his conclusions, however shaky his suppositions, he asks questions that are worth asking.

"Whenever you hear an anchorman or reporter use the word ‘controversial,' it is usually a signal that the idea that follows is one the media elites do not agree with," he maintains. And whenever you hear the word "conservative" on one end of the political spectrum, he adds, you won't often hear "liberal" on the other. That, he says, is because network heavyweights regard their own opinions as middle-of-the-road and simply assume that the wider world agrees with them....

[peaccenicked]

Whats the difference between the liberals and the Repulicans, pro war,pro capitalist anti communist, anti working class. Yeh that is media bias.

[Renegade]

The media are full of left wing reporters?

Tell me capitalist can you count to 10?

Spell your own name?

Remember your home phone number?

Statements like that don't give me confidence.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Capitalist on 11:54 pm on Jan. 21, 2002
I agree with Imperial Power.

The News Media is full of left-wing reporters

CNN = Communist News Network.


good one man
Its funny how everyone who seems to know enough to argue for capitalism is a right-wing conservative. If you read the second article, you would know that it is very pro american, they are forced into those views by competition by other conservative networks (Fox News)

[peaccenicked]

Flippancy and censorship.
Bring Out Your Dead
Bill Berkowitz, WorkingForChange.com
January 23, 2002

As the seasons changed and the leaves started falling, Marc Herold gave up the outdoors and hunkered down with his computer. Since late October, Herold has been spending close to 12 hours a day methodically monitoring a number of Internet websites, tracking reports of civilian casualties caused by the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.


Herold, a professor of economics and women's studies at the University of New Hampshire, told WorkingForChange that he was disturbed by the U.S. media's lack of interest in and its quick dismissal of reports of large number of civilian casualties. Herold also said "friends convinced me that since I have been putting together databases for more than thirty years, that I was the right person for the job,"


If the U.S. government refuses to count them, the mainstream media won't investigate or report on them, and if Americans aren't told or just don't care, does it mean that the thoU$Ands of civilian casualties caused by the bombing of Afghanistan haven't happened?


Herold's study, which systematically tracks civilian deaths in Afghanistan caused by U.S. bombing raids, is remarkable as an undertaking by one dedicated individual. That none of America's huge media organizations have bothered to take on this work is disgraceful.


Unveiled in early December, and updated regularly since then, Herold's study has been well-received by alternative media organizations, groups concerned about Bush's war on terrorism, a number of mainstream international media outlets in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and by thoU$Ands of Internet users around the world. The media of denial -- the U.S. media -- largely ignored the study at first.


Now that the report is garnering some attention, it has been criticized or labeled "controversial" in mainstream media reports. (Instead of completely trashing someone's work, you can cast a shadow over its veracity by calling it "controversial.") A mid-January San Francisco Chronicle editorial went one step beyond "controversial" -- calling Herold's report severely flawed because it "relied heavily on hearsay and second-hand reports from unreliable sources such as the Afghan Islamic Press, which is essentially a propaganda outlet for the Taliban, as well as pro-Taliban Pakistani newspapers."


No news is good news


The U.S. government has avoided the question of civilian casualties. It's a messy subject -- a diversion and a waste of time and energy. General Tommy Franks, the "architect" of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan has said: "We decided early on that if we were to take each of the speculations that comes out and spend our time trying to describe the error of each speculation, we'd have little time to do anything else. And so all of us have opted to not do that."


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld prefers to put a positive spin on the U.S.'s conduct in the war: "There probably has never in the history of the world been a conflict that has been done as carefully, and with such measure, and care, and with such minimal collateral damage to buildings and infrastructure, and with such small numbers of unintended civilian casualties."


Two questions are worth asking: Is the study an accurate accounting of civilian casualties? Does anyone in the U.S. care?


Tracking the data


Herold's "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting," is a meticulous compilation of reports from dozens of sources. In his conclusion to the study he speaks directly to the accuracy question: "Naturally, some might seek to dismiss parts or all of the report by attacking the sources employed. But, to do so would mean having to accuse news agencies from many countries, reporters from many countries, and newspapers from many countries of lying. We have sought to cite whenever possible multiple sources. The specific, detailed stories provided by victims, on-lookers, and refugees lend credibility."


Among the sources Herold scours regularly are British, Canadian, Australian and Indian newspapers, including The Times of India; three Pakistani dailies; the Singapore News; Afghan Islamic Press; Agence France Press; Pakistan News Service; Reuters; BBC News Online; Al Jazeera; and a variety of other sources, including the United Nations and other relief agencies.


Herold reported that 3,767 civilians were killed from October 7 to December 6; the updated numbers now stand at 4,000 to 4,100 deaths. (For the full report, see " An Average Day: 65 Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S. Bombs on December 20th" -- and for a complete accounting of civilian casualties, see " Appendix 4: Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed in U.S. Bombing Attacks, October 7 Until Present Day.")


"I think this [the numbers] really flies in the face of the message directed to the American public, which was that we had these precision-guided munitions and there would be some collateral damage, but we shouldn't worry too much about it because we have these precision-guided weapons," Herold has said.


"In fact the figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate," he told a radio interviewer. "I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000. You know for Afghanistan, 3,700 to 5,000 is a really substantial number." Herold told WorkingForChange that if anything, he errs on the side of being conservative about his estimates of the number killed.


Negligent and derelict


According to the Sydney Morning Herald, "Dr. Herold's report received extensive coverage in the European media but almost no mention in the American press, which has struggled with defining a role in this conflict that is patriotic but still objective. Recently, serious media have begun to look at the suffering of Afghan civilians, but the issue is so emotional that many media outlets have chosen silence."


If letters to the editor are any reflection of public opinion, it is clear that many people prefer not to think about civilian casualties in Afghanistan. And those pundits who do comment are often caught up in "war is hell" clichés. Michael Barone, longtime conservative commentator, columnist and Fox News pundit expressed this most clearly: "Civilian casualties are not news. The fact is that they accompany wars."


Why aren't Americans interested in hearing about civilian casualties? "I think that when the disaster happened there was shock, fear, confusion and anger," Herold said. "I think that there was an incredible confusion and fear and the administration played to those feelings very well in terms of galvanizing support for a revenge action. Revenge ends when the government perceives they have eliminated al Qaeda. And this will be a very long time."


What will it take for the American people to care about the number of Afghan civilian casualties? "If at some point the International Red Cross or the United Nations starts raising a fuss over the numbers of dead civilians, then things might change," Herold said. "A half-a-dozen more incidents might cause the administration trouble."


Herold says he will continue collecting and disseminating the data until the bombing of civilians ends: "I will keep adding to the site on a regular basis, and I hope that it does become a major story. There are such gross cases of the violation of the rules of war -- little villages are getting destroyed, wiped off the face of the earth. The U.S. is bombing places over and over again that might at one time have had al Qaeda camps, but are now completely destroyed.


"It is an extermination campaign aimed at eliminating al Qaeda and the Taliban. Unfortunately, it looks like the U.S. will be moving this war on to Sudan and Somalia."


And as the war on terrorism shifts to other countries, you can count on there being more civilian casualties. *

[peaccenicked]

double post

(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:22 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

http://www.theprogressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html
Macarthyism Watch


(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:23 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Mark Twain wrote King Leopold's Soliloquy soon after Edmund Dene Morel of the English Congo Reform Association visited him in New York in October of 1904 to ask for his help in mobilizing support for an American branch of the organization. The essay was completed by February of 1905 and submitted to Harper & Brothers for publication. Twain probably intended it to appear in the North American Review, the prestigious journal where he had published "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," "To My Missionary Critics," "A Defence of General Funston," and "The Czar's Soliloquy," but Harper & Brothers rejected King Leopold's Soliloquy. A month before, it had rejected another of Twain's anti-imperialist writings: "The War Prayer." Because Twain had an exclusive contract with Harper & Brothers, he had to obtain their permission to allow the American Congo Reform Association to publish King Leopold's Soliloquy in pamphlet form. Miscommunication about the Association's address delayed release of the manuscript until summer, and the pamphlet was not published until September. Twain's experiences with his publisher in 1905 led him to believe that his anti-imperialist writings were being censored. "In America -- as elsewhere -- free speech is confined to the dead," he wrote in his private notebook.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Capitalist on 11:54 pm on Jan. 21, 2002
I agree with Imperial Power.

The News Media is full of left-wing reporters

CNN = Communist News Network.





I doubt that any "Communist Network" would show fake videos of people cheering to promote hate crimes and a War On Terrorism. CNN is the most Right-Wing news network in the world.

- Drake Dracoli

[Nateddi]

If you think CNN is right wing, try Fox News. Those snide bastards deserve to die for their complete right-wing spin on everything, while at the same time calling themselves "fair and balanced"

[peaccenicked]

"Following the same course that virtually every other major industry has in the last two decades, a relentless series of mergers and corporate takeovers has consolidated control of the media into the hands of a few corporate behemoths.

"The result has been that an increasingly authoritarian agenda has been sold to the American people by a massive, multi-tentacled media machine that has become, for all intents and purposes, a propaganda organ of the state."

— David McGowan
from the introduction to Derailing Democracy