They all monger war for the giant corporate governance of America, now openly led by the industrial-military complex of conglomerates with interconnected interests and ownership control interlocked with the big six that own the TV channels and radio stations.
But the ancient good 'ol boy family that owns and operates the NY Times enjoys prestige by virtue of the sophisticated language and literary merit of the America's number one newspaper. This ostensibly elevates NY Times prostitution for big business above the rest of corporate owned media efforts. Time, Newsweek and US and World Report magazines run a modicum of competition for the Times preeminence with slick photo opts, which, when necessary have the power to either drive fear into the hearts of their readers or make Americans look wonderful and distract them from whatever current crimes against humanity business interests require the US be undertaking under false justifications.
The Times retains the highest academic standing and is respected for its 'cultured' methods of innuendo and half-truths in misrepresenting or clothing capitalist goals and intentions. Its stands far and above the tabloids boorish, blunt in the face, use of giant bold print screaming headlines calling US enemies 'Dirty Rats' as applied to 'Reds', 'Commies', 'Cong', and to internal enemies like 'Pinkos', 'Peaceniks', 'Traitors', 'Sympathizers' in order to slander US citizens demonstrating against US killing field foreign policies.
For a half-year, the Times had, surprisingly, been showing photos of Iraqi and Afghani children in the arms of their fathers dying from US air strikes. But in December it was suddenly back to support for the occupations, highlighting occupation success stories and statistics. Christmas day the Times front page featured a color photo of a US soldier dressed as Santa Claus "touching down in Iraq" as the caption read, from an attack helicopter. (Happy Jesus Birthday America! from the NY Times)
Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich is making himself a corporate governance troublemaker, having introduced bills of impeachment and speaking out unequivocally in favor of ending the wars of occupation.
Dec. 30, 2007, NY Times prints across the open pages 16 - 17 photos of Democratic and Republican candidates under the title: "After a Long Campaign, Issues Emerge and Presidential Candidates Shape Their Stances" Candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s name and photo is amazingly just plain missing, and not even a mention of his 'stances', though each and every other candidate is covered in detail!
Damn! Can one call the NY Times and complain? No, not since many years.
Well, how 'bout calling the Federal Elections Commission? No. In the US there is 'free press'. The Times is 'free' to eliminate from consideration anyone it pleases. The TV channels previously eliminated anti-Vietnam War Senator candidate Mike Gravel from the debates. On his last permitted debate Gravel said, "they died, and they are dying now, in vain!" The last time your author called the FEC to ask how the commission could have accepted Ralph Nader, a bonafide federal funds receiving candidate, being blocked from participation in TV debates, there was at least a nervous response, "Yes, we have some uneasiness about Nader's exclusion and we intend to look into this more." That was in back in 2000. America has since progressed in delimiting 'democratic' elections.
No! The NY Times says Kucinich is a non-reportable candidate, and that's that. As the sad saying goes, ‘That's all she wrote.’ - candidate Chris Dodd (who?), does appear on page 16, with photo and with his not so unique 'stance' on each of the listed issues. But then Chris Dodd has not been making waves.
One imagines that the mindless and amorphous monster, the NY Times prostitutes itself for, has heard just about enough of Kucinich's impeachment bills. The Times has religiously grossly under-reporting the swelling, impeachment movement around the nation. So much for ethical journalism regarding national and domestic affairs in America.
Further regarding the NY Times reporting according to its motto, "All the news that is fit to print", on page 8 we read yet another NY Times 'informative' reporting about the lack of complete democracy in Hong Kong.
As in previous articles it features US and British criticism of China. But how to hook American understanding to a preposterous British concern for its erstwhile colonial subjects, when during its hundred year imperial reign of part of China, Britain allowed a prominent sign at the entrance to Hong Kong Island Cathedral Park that read, "No Chinese or Dogs Allowed.")
The Times dutifully reports the present 'incomplete' democracy in Hong Kong elections without ever admitting that the half of the seats in the Legislative Council, which are not directly elected by Hong Kong citizens at large, are indeed elected by Hong Kong citizen members of the societal constituencies representing various sectors of the community. These Functional Constituencies are: Rural Assembly, Agriculture and fisheries, Insurance, Financial services, Transport, Accountancy, Finance, Education, Legal, Information Technology, Medical Health services, Architectural, surveying and planning, Real estate and construction, Social welfare, Real estate and construction, Tourism, Commercial (2 seats), Industrial (2), Import and export, Wholesale and retail, Textiles and garment, Sport, performing arts, culture and publication, Catering, District Council, Labor (3), Tourism.
One takes it for obvious that the powers that be are want to have the US public know about the existence of a electoral system which includes trade, business and occupational representation, wherein Western conglomerate international satellite media has less influence on local considerations that it presently has on the masses represented within enormous geographical constituencies of parliaments. In the US, it is the role of powerful and highly paid lobbyists to represent particular interests, and the more money the more lobbing power, influence and corruption prejudicial to the public's interest; and the Times leads no investigative crusade to protect the public interest.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
