Skip

A Crossways Arrow on the Political Spectrum
June 4, 2013 10:54 AM   Subscribe

Our American Pravda. A provocative essay on the flaws of the American media by the editor and publisher of the American Conservative, Ron Unz, containing:
allusions to conspiracy theories
condemnation of Soviet spies (and a kind word for Joe McCarthy),
criticism of the FBI,
approving quotations of Paul Krugman,
fresh questions about the moral character of John McCain and his fitness for office,
disapproving descriptions of the Obama administration as "Bush's thrid term,"
and a broadside against the selling of the Iraq war calling it the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history."
But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.
posted by Diablevert (46 comments total) 20 users marked this as a favorite

 


in before surprise at TAC's position relative to their name.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:04 AM on June 4, 2013


As is TAC's trademark, this is a thoughtful and well-laid out piece (if not a little directionless in areas), but I'm somewhat incredulous that the Murdoch news empire (ie. Fox) failed to get a single explicit mention.

TAC tells a narrative that runs against the grain of (and often completely outside of) the mainstream discourse. I'm surprised that they didn't seize the opportunity to take a shot at the organization who's largely become responsible for the news media's increasingly bland, lethargic, and formulaic nature.
posted by schmod at 11:19 AM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


But what has the rabid right learned from all this? I submit not very much; it's S.O.P. that even ironclad facts are summarily dismissed if they don't fit the narrative. This is the result of "teach the controversy" writ large.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:19 AM on June 4, 2013


It would be so nice if TAC, and not, say, National Review, were the dominant voice in American "conservativism". I'd still have spirited disagreement with conservatives, but at least I'd feel like we lived mostly in the same reality.
posted by gauche at 11:23 AM on June 4, 2013 [15 favorites]


The idea that Soviet spies were in some way influential in the US or highly-placed during the height of the cold war is also very much in character for TAC. The fact that Harry Dexter White, the sole person cited, was only involved in economic policy immediately post-WW2 and died in 1948 at the start of the cold war is makes him seem like an odd citation.
posted by mikeh at 11:26 AM on June 4, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is why I don't watch the news any more... I get tired of yelling at them when they lie to me.
posted by MikeWarot at 11:27 AM on June 4, 2013 [5 favorites]


His whole premise that there were as many spies as McCarthy said, is there ANYTHING to back that up? I can't even find anything to support Hiss's guilt on espionage, much less that his "primary loyalty was to the Soviet side." For somebody railing about the truth not being published he sure does sling a lot of horse shit!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:31 AM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


I get tired of yelling at them when they lie to me.

Not to mention the car accidents any time Mara Liarson opens her mouth.
posted by DU at 11:37 AM on June 4, 2013 [2 favorites]


Once again, all our media and regulatory organs had failed to anticipate this disaster.

Unz makes the effects of weakened press and government agencies sound like natural phenomena, Acts of God like the odd hurricane or snow storm, as opposed to the direct consequence of policies pushed through and enacted by conservatives like himself to weaken the press (Fairness Doctrine, illegal wiretapping, gutting whistleblower laws, etc.) and to dismantle or render impotent agencies like the EPA, FDA, NRC, OSHA and SEC.

Conservative America: What Unz is complaining about is exactly what you wanted and what you got.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:38 AM on June 4, 2013 [11 favorites]


The American Conservative's a great little publication.
posted by resurrexit at 11:39 AM on June 4, 2013


I can't even find anything to support Hiss's guilt on espionage,
Depends on how much credence you give to the VENONA messages.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:41 AM on June 4, 2013


Depends on how much credence you give to the VENONA messages.

More like the assumptions made by the CIA regarding the messages rather than the messages themselves.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:43 AM on June 4, 2013


The erratum is pretty funny.

It's easy to point a finger at Fox News and forget that the New York Times barely less enthusiastic about pounding the war drums after 9/11.
posted by Slothrup at 11:50 AM on June 4, 2013 [7 favorites]


Media is business and will look out for its own interests. In the case of Iraq, I remember feeling the media faceplant was, on some level, a mass calculated hedge against being wrong on WMD and against blowback from a not insignificant portion of the country still angry and agitated over 9/11. In retrospect, it's easy to see—through a lens of self interest—how the media justified rolling over at the time. If everybody's wrong, as everybody was, then who's left to hold anyone accountable?
posted by echocollate at 11:51 AM on June 4, 2013


I can't even find anything to support Hiss's guilt on espionage, much less that his "primary loyalty was to the Soviet side."

You can't find Alger Hiss' Wikipedia page? There's about 3,000 words on the subject there --- a secret NSA/CIA project was made public in 1998 which provided considerable evidence that Hiss was a spy. There appears to be one or two scholars who still dispute the point, but the consensus seems solidly on the "was a spy" side.

Of course, that's my take after merely glancing at the stuff, possibly a fuller investigation would prove more nuanced.

Oh, and mikeh --- if White was a spy and was the American rep at Bretton Woods he could have had a brain annuerysum the day he got back from the conference and still stand as evidence that Soviet loyalists had influence over American policy; Bretton words framed the foundation of the world's economic systems for the next 30 years, at least.
posted by Diablevert at 11:53 AM on June 4, 2013


The McCain POW story linked in the the orginal article is pretty interesting too, even if it's conspiracy nonsense. I would be curious to know more about the tech used in the PAVE SPIKE program:

Alfond stated, without any challenge or contradiction by the committee, that in 1974, a year after the supposedly complete return of prisoners, the gathered data showed that a person or people had manually entered into the sensors—as U.S. pilots had been trained to do—no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 U.S. POWs who were lost in Laos.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 11:58 AM on June 4, 2013


It's easy to point a finger at Fox News and forget that the New York Times barely less enthusiastic about pounding the war drums after 9/11.

The documentary Page One offers NYT's half-hearted apology for Judith Miller without really addressing what lead their editors to go with her bullshit stories, fed to her by conservative sources in the Bush administration.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:59 AM on June 4, 2013


It's easy to point a finger at Fox News and forget that the New York Times barely less enthusiastic about pounding the war drums after 9/11.

It's super easy to point a finger (preferably the middle one) at Fox News. It's true that the New York Times was overly enthusiastic about the war, but I don't ever remember the paper setting war footage to music or playing Wagner over station identification bumpers containing footage of American flags superimposed over fighterjets taking off from aircraft carriers.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:01 PM on June 4, 2013


You can't find Alger Hiss' Wikipedia page? There's about 3,000 words on the subject there

You're right and apparently you didn't read them, because the Wikepedia page is full of exhonoration and questions about the "evidence".

I've read the declassified VENONA documents, they don't mention Hiss by name only who is assumed to be Hiss after the fact. He was never convicted of espionage and anyone who ever fingered him has been discredited, so where's this concensus?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:08 PM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


I should also add that even if he was guilty of espionage, it doesn't mean that his primary loyalty was to the Soviets as claimed by the author.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:15 PM on June 4, 2013


His whole premise that there were as many spies as McCarthy said, is there ANYTHING to back that up?

Did you read the article? His point was that there really were Soviet spies running around, but that McCarthy's "often unsubstantiated charges tended to damage the credibility of his position". People mistakenly conflate the well-deserved discrediting of Joseph McCarthy with the idea that there were no significant Soviet spies.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:16 PM on June 4, 2013 [3 favorites]


and a kind word for Joe McCarthy

Well...

from article: “... Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose often unsubstantiated charges tended to damage the credibility of his position.”

Not that kind a word, to be fair.
posted by koeselitz at 12:24 PM on June 4, 2013


Bretton Woods set up the IMF and the World Bank, plus a system of tying currencies to the dollar. The system helped provide a stable framework for recovery and prosperity in the West. If that was Soviet influence, then the Soviets had a very strange idea of using their influence.
posted by zompist at 12:30 PM on June 4, 2013 [3 favorites]


I should also add that even if he was guilty of espionage, it doesn't mean that his primary loyalty was to the Soviets as claimed by the author.

Well, it's clear to me that I don't know enough about this topic to debate it with you, not do I have the afternoon free to scope the primary sources and form my own opinion, so I withdraw from the field.

In re the TAC article that's the topic of the post, I will say merely that there was enough in it that I instinctively rebelled against combined with enough I found compelling to make me judge it overall an interesting read and worth posting about.
posted by Diablevert at 12:34 PM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


Did you read the article?

I did, apparently you missed the first 3/4 of the sentence you allude to though:

Over the last 20 years, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and other scholars have conclusively established that many dozens or even hundreds of Soviet agents once honeycombed the key policy staffs and nuclear research facilities of our federal government, constituting a total presence perhaps approaching the scale suggested by Sen. Joseph McCarthy...
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:36 PM on June 4, 2013


many dozens? Thats it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:38 PM on June 4, 2013


I just want to cite the complete sentence again just to underline out how full of shit the author is:

Over the last 20 years, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and other scholars have conclusively established that many dozens or even hundreds of Soviet agents once honeycombed the key policy staffs and nuclear research facilities of our federal government, constituting a total presence perhaps approaching the scale suggested by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose often unsubstantiated charges tended to damage the credibility of his position.

Apparently the irony of saying that McCarthy was discredited by his own unsubstantiated claims in the same sentence as making an the same unsubstatiated claim is lost on the author.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:42 PM on June 4, 2013


Haynes and Klehr's work is generally regarded to be very good scholarship, fyi.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:47 PM on June 4, 2013


Well, certainly if you're familiar with the general history of Cold War espionage -- example in point, the Farewell affair -- there can be little doubt that both sides had many spies, perhaps on the Soviet side many, many spies (due to the greater freedom afforded by the West). The problem becomes when this is used as justification for McCarthy's witch-hunts, which were motivated by a desire to destroy those he viewed as personal and policy enemies in Washington. It's certainly been recognized since that silent counterespionage is a lot more effective than kangaroo hearings. But to this day, some are motivated to whitewash McCarthy just because, well, spying is something that's real and sometimes successful.
posted by dhartung at 1:08 PM on June 4, 2013 [3 favorites]


Apparently the irony of saying that McCarthy was discredited by his own unsubstantiated claims in the same sentence as making an the same unsubstatiated claim is lost on the author.

You are mistaken in your parsing of that sentence. The scale of Russian infiltration was, indeed, "perhaps" on the level of what McCarthy had claimed. It is undisputed that both sides in the Cold War did their best to infiltrate the other side, and that there were many spies running around. This does not conflict with the fact that McCarthy's accusations were largely unsubstantiated, and that the manner in which he went about pursuing these accusations was unethical and inappropriate.

Put another way: there are about 35 to 50 active serial killers in the US at any given time. Let's say I accuse 60 people of being serial killers. My accusations are unsubstantiated and my process is corrupt. Eventually, I am exposed as a fanatic. After I'm discredited, people mistakenly believe that there were never any serial killers in the US, or that perhaps there were only ever 2. In reality, I was not so far off in the number of serial killers that were there. I just wasn't any good at identifying them.

...

The problem becomes when this is used as justification for McCarthy's witch-hunts, which were motivated by a desire to destroy those he viewed as personal and policy enemies in Washington. It's certainly been recognized since that silent counterespionage is a lot more effective than kangaroo hearings. But to this day, some are motivated to whitewash McCarthy just because, well, spying is something that's real and sometimes successful.

Yes, and there are some people who try to whitewash McCarthy, but this article does not do that. Instead, it shows how the specter of McCarthy hangs over our understanding of the intelligence game between the US and the USSR. All people remember about Soviet infiltration in the US government is McCarthyism, which was just one part of a bigger story.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:39 PM on June 4, 2013 [11 favorites]


The scale of Russian infiltration

Durf, I meant Soviet infiltration.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:49 PM on June 4, 2013


Moving on from the topic of McCarthy, this was a great article. We're aware that the media is deeply problematic, but we don't even always know what we're missing out on, or what's being flagrantly misinterpreted or misconstrued. Our national conversations are thirdhand accounts, sometimes steered by people on high, and other times just bouncing along on chaotic rivers of ignorance and ideology. When the conversation is not being directly controlled, it's also being pushed along by our general desire neat narratives that align with our preexisting opinions.

shit sux
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:57 PM on June 4, 2013 [4 favorites]


But what has the rabid right learned from all this? I submit not very much; it's S.O.P. that even ironclad facts are summarily dismissed if they don't fit the narrative. This is the result of "teach the controversy" writ large.

They are already starting to do it to Christie in preparation for 2016.

And yes, Sticherbeast is exactly right. McCarthy was a nut on a witchhunt. That doesn't mean there weren't Soviet agents around trying to learn things and plant seeds in people's minds. It's kind of naive to think that just because the Big Strong Americans couldn't ferret the spies out that there weren't any.

As far as Bretton Woods goes, the fundamental flaw was sticking to a fixed currency exchange rate, and the concerns about trade imbalance. If a state had a trade imbalance, that meant that they were pumping gold or dollars out of their system. This led to lots of misery and protectionism, which is what the commies would tell you capitalism would end up creating. (Since the individuals were thinking they were making good decisions whose downsides were externalized by the back door balance of payments issue. Free markets and the trade that results from them are supposed to make both sides richer- Bretton Woods created a scenario that almost demanded some states would end up poorer.) It also foretold the economic crisis of the 1970s, since a plan like that couldn't work forever. So while it did some good things, it also had some unintended (or intended if you believe the conspiracy) side effects.
posted by gjc at 3:30 PM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


Conservative America: What Unz is complaining about is exactly what you wanted and what you got.

I don't believe that this is being completely fair to Unz and a lot of other conservatives who don't support such policies, such that they are even aware of them. Just like progressives, conservatives are a diverse bunch, and this article is good proof of that. After all, conservatives could similarly turn around and blame progressives for supporting excessive curbs on the press through guilt-by-association with the current administration.

I'll add my voice to the others in this thread who praise this article. It's such a shame that this kind of clear-headed thinking is so fringe within American conservatism today. I sense that Unz is the kind of guy who you could have an actual dialog with. Favorable quotation of Krugman by a conservative? Is that actually possible? I'm just glad that the universe didn't annihilate itself.
posted by Edgewise at 5:41 PM on June 4, 2013 [2 favorites]


Conservative America: What Unz is complaining about is exactly what you wanted and what you got.

Now is as good a time as any to note that The American Conservative was founded in opposition to the Iraq War. It was an act of protest from the start. A large part of its focus is criticism of neoconservatism and other contemporary forms of conservatism. It's not so savvy to say that the ills you describe had been pushed through by conservatives "like himself". You might as well call the Blue Dog Democrats a bunch of commie pinkos.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2013 [2 favorites]


but this article does not do that

Well, I wasn't saying it did (at the time of that post, I had skimmed it). On a fuller reading, though, I'm left with a feeling that something's missing in terms of a close. I mean, I do find it sufficiently non-ideological compared to, say, a WSJ piece on bike shares where the story/video with vitriol ostensibly aimed at Bloomberg seems like a hidden attack on the Obama administration. Just as an example. At the same time, though, some of his examples seem to be of the form "and then the media lost interest" rather than "the media deliberately closed ranks around a story that should embarrass/ruin $SOMEBODY". It's an irresponsibility, but it's not the same thing. There's also the non-exoneration of Bruce Ivins, which reporting later than 2008 seems to have had strong circumstantial incriminating evidence. And sure, in a way Bush got a pass for nominating a crook like Kerik, but then he had so many other things that ranked higher (in immediate terms) as concerns ... and he was a lame duck, so for the most part there was little point in fixating on a story like that.

Anyway, at least Manufacturing Consent built a thesis. This, I'm not so sure about.
posted by dhartung at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2013




Conor Friedersdorf replies: Why Does the American Media Get Big Stories Wrong?
At its best, "Our American Pravda" is a vital reminder that many things we're told are wrong; that we aren't told many things of vital importance; and that the U.S. media is rife with flaws, many of them easily identifiable. Unz does a service by highlighting these shortcomings powerfully and compellingly. What explains them? Below I offer several theories and observations, noting concurrences and several disagreements with Unz's analysis as needed. Unless otherwise noted, references to "the media" in this article are meant to encompass major newspapers, well-known web and print magazines, and national TV and radio news outlets.
1) Excessive deference to government officials
...
2) Because of business imperatives and dubious professional norms, lots of relatively well-paid journalists duplicate one another's work.
...
3) Lots of Americans get their news from television, a terrible medium for obtaining good information.
...
4) American society undervalues watchdog journalism.

Etc.

Unz continues: American Pravda: “Liberal Bias”
Many will certainly ignore the issue, or else try to force the discussion into the meaningless convention of ideologically partisan Left/Right debates. For example, Peter Sterne of The New York Observer noted the Atlantic piece in his Tuesday column, but summarized my original article as arguing that “liberal bias” was the root of our media problems. Just consider that one of my central examples had been the case of New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner Sydney Schanberg, whose shocking charges against the Nixon Administration have for decades been totally ignored by the American media. Does Sterne really believe that Schanberg is a rightwing talking-head on FoxNews and Richard Nixon a great hero of the liberal-left? Far more likely is that he had never bothered to actually read my article before ridiculing my analysis. In either case, I would suggest that he fully exemplifies the media problems I describe.

By contrast, consider the response of a small leftist website called Metafilter, one of whose pseudonymous participants initiated the discussion of my article ... So we have the case of a paid journalist at The New York Observer who sharply criticizes an article he obviously has not read, while anonymous leftist bloggers discuss and analyze that article, despite collecting no paychecks. Isn’t this a major part of the exact point I was making? Tens of thousands of unpaid and anonymous Internet participants are increasingly doing the job that our established media will not.
Emphasis mine.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:38 AM on June 5, 2013 [6 favorites]


Wait, is that a compliment or an insult?

See, both of those do address what I felt was missing from the original article.
posted by dhartung at 7:32 PM on June 5, 2013


Wait, is that a compliment or an insult?

A neutral descriptor. MetaFilter does not market itself as having any particular viewpoint, but this is an overwhelmingly left-leaning website, especially by American standards. Individual posters' views may vary, but let's get real.

...

Of the two paragraphs quoted upthread, I feel like the first paragraph's point had been in the article itself, although it could have been more clear.

Media critics are too quick to blame a problematic media on concrete, discrete, easily explained causes, such as "liberal bias", "if it bleeds it leads", the general thesis behind Manufacturing Consent, or a "stronger" version of the latter's thesis, in which it is supposed that there is a great deal of willful, active, concerted collusion between monied interests and the media.

The problem is that the issues with the media are multifarious. Different issues arise for different reasons. Manufacturing Consent is a great book, and it should be required reading in high schools, but it does not explain everything. Not in the least.

There is this unspoken attitude among the general public that journalism itself can be this pure act, and that, after journalism is performed at a certain professional level, biases are something that you can simply "eat around". Read enough journalism, and you'll get the whole story. What Unz accurately points out is that this isn't true. He had thought he could simply "cancel out" various media biases by drawing from a variety of sources. It didn't work.

Journalism itself has serious problems as a fact-finding endeavor, especially if you're trying to hear about what's going on right now. There are limitations to the whole enterprise, even outside of other ideological concerns which people point out. It is a big deal that huge stores are either dropped prematurely, or not revisited when they really ought to be. We also have gigantic stories that land with a giant thud, not resonating with the public at all. Since they don't resonate, the media moves on, like a bored and hungry ghost.

Considering that Unz actually publishes The American Conservative, he seems like both a savvy media consumer and someone who respects journalism a great deal. He must believe in the enterprise, to devote so much time and effort towards getting TAC out there, even if it is only a "commentary" magazine. You don't publish TAC unless you think that you can win hearts and minds.

So, in this article, he gets the word out, across the ideological spectrum. He goes backwards to identify some huge stories that were ignored, stories which would have been ignored even if you had indeed devoured an enormous feast of information every morning. He does not present a tight thesis, because there is no tight answer. Some of these stories represent either Chomsky's thesis or the "stronger" version, such as the build-up to the Iraq War. Other missed stories, such the POW/MIA story, fall by the wayside because they're seen as being about the past.

Other missed stories no doubt have multiple causes, such as the general public's conflation of McCarthy's well-deserved downfall with the idea that there never had been significant numbers of Soviet agents in the US government. Is this also a history issue? Yes, but it's also a journalism issue, as well as an issue with how the general public perceives the history of journalism.

It's a messy topic, which is why this particular article may have struck a chord: we all know that there isn't just one issue with mass media, but this is the first article to my knowledge that's really dealt with that.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:18 AM on June 6, 2013 [1 favorite]


Other missed stories no doubt have multiple causes, such as the general public's conflation of McCarthy's well-deserved downfall with the idea that there never had been significant numbers of Soviet agents in the US government. Is this also a history issue? Yes, but it's also a journalism issue, as well as an issue with how the general public perceives the history of journalism.

But see here's the problem with that assessment. If McCarthy's numbers were false, then he was jusdged by history and thereby journalism correctly. If they were close to the truth, as Unz contends, then he has a point. Until you close the initial historical debate (which I'm sorry I derailed the thread quite a bit over) you can't use it to condemn the "media". Personally, I still have questions about the volume of agents and the veracity of the accusations that were thrown around during the red scares so I'm just not ready to just buy his premise at face value. Call me a leftist, but I prefer to consider myself rooted in fact over conjecture. Perhaps if he used an example that wasn't quite as questionable I'd be more willing to take up the banner with him.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:24 PM on June 6, 2013


Oh, and if Unz is still reading the thread: Welcome! Please stick around and contribute, I'd love to have more reasonable discussions around here involving more perspectives!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:53 PM on June 6, 2013


Personally, I still have questions about the volume of agents and the veracity of the accusations that were thrown around during the red scares so I'm just not ready to just buy his premise at face value. Call me a leftist, but I prefer to consider myself rooted in fact over conjecture. Perhaps if he used an example that wasn't quite as questionable I'd be more willing to take up the banner with him.

Basic research of the topic vindicates Unz's claim, that there had been many dozes of Soviet spies in the US. Wikipedia has a brief article on the History of Soviet and Russian Espionage in the United States, but more interesting are the handy-dandy List of Soviet Agents in the United States and List of Americans in the Venona Papers, both of which are linked and cited. You could also look into the work of Haynes and Klehr, who were cited in the article and by people in this thread: their book on Venona and their book more generally on the KGB in the US. Also check out The Haunted Wood, by Vassilev and Weinstein.

Haynes himself also happens to have a frighteningly detailed website of his own. Heaven help the poor soul who attempts to read everything there, but it is quite thorough and responsive to criticism.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:03 PM on June 6, 2013


Or take the remarkable case of Bernie Madoff. His colossal investment swindle had been growing unchecked for over three decades under the very noses of our leading financial journalists and regulators in New York City, ultimately reaching the sum of $65 billion in mostly fictional assets. His claimed returns had been implausibly steady and consistent year after year, market crashes or not. None of his supposed trading actually occurred. His only auditing was by a tiny storefront firm. Angry competitors had spent years warning the SEC and journalists that his alleged investment strategy was mathematically impossible and that he was obviously running a Ponzi scheme. Yet despite all these indicators, officials did nothing and refused to close down such a transparent swindle, while the media almost entirely failed to report these suspicions.
Matt Taibbi: Why Didn't the SEC Catch Madoff? It Might Have Been Policy Not To
posted by homunculus at 1:57 PM on June 7, 2013


Lorraine Adams on The Truth Behind the Headlines
Why do huge stories sometimes go unreported? Our news media are good at promulgating conventional wisdom but find it much more difficult to deal with evidence that contradicts it, says the former Washington Post reporter
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:23 PM on June 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older "I detest audiences....I think they're a force of...   |   "There was never a call for... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post