Why Glenn Greenwald’s new media venture is a big deal

[dkf]

@chrislhayes: This is extremely astute http://t.co/IpHTYfTffu

Why Glenn Greenwald’s new media venture is a big deal
By Henry Farrell, Published: OCTOBER 17, 11:34 AM ET

Glenn Greenwald, who has published many of the most important scoops from the Edward Snowden leaks, is leaving The Guardian and setting up a new media venture with long-time journalist Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill from The Nation. The venture is being funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, who has suggested that he’s prepared to invest more than $250 million in the new venture.

This is big news for journalism. It’s also big news for people interested in the relationship between information technology and politics. Martha Finnemore and I drafted a paper a couple of years ago about how Wikileaks-type organizations were changing the relationship between knowledge, politics and hypocrisy. Our ideas about hypocrisy led to an article on the true consequences of the Snowden leaks, which is coming out in the next issue of Foreign Affairs. Our ideas about knowledge and politics maybe tell us something about the consequences of the new venture (but bear with me -- our argument is a little complicated).

Fundamentally, we think that much of the commentary about Wikileaks and Snowden’s revelations are wrong. Most people think that Wikileaks, Snowden etc. are politically important because they reveal secret information that was hitherto unknown. Many of Wikileaks’ defenders, including, initially, Julian Assange himself, thought that the organization would change politics and bring down corrupt regimes by revealing information that the government wanted to hide. The critics of Snowden and Wikileaks actually agree -- they argue that they have hurt America (and perhaps the world) by revealing information that should have stayed secret.

Neither are right. Neither Wikileaks or Snowden has revealed any truly surprising and damaging information. European and South American governments already knew that the U.S. was spying on them. China was certainly aware that U.S. agencies were trying to hack into its systems. On the other hand, Assange’s initial hope that he could change the world through publishing damaging information turned out to be completely unfounded. Wikileaks had a very frustrating time trying to get anyone except bloggers to pay attention to their early revelations. No one seemed to care.

The reason why is important. There’s too much information out there for most people to pay attention to, let alone figure out whether they believe it or not. Hence, most people rely on other institutions such as media organizations to tell them which information is worth caring about. Not only do people not pay much attention to information until it gets the stamp of approval from some authoritative institution, but this information is transformed, because everybody knows that everybody else is paying attention to it. It stops being mere information, and becomes knowledge -- generally accepted facts that people use to build their understanding of what everybody knows about politics.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/17/why-glenn-greenwalds-new-media-venture-is-a-big-deal/

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. So this is going to be a venture...

To tell people how f'd up they are? In a nutshell....Believe everything Glenn Greenwald reports because everyone else is doing this for profit and not out of the goodness of their tiny little heart like Glenn Greenwald...He would never lie or withhold information from you for money.......oh wait.....

[ReRe]

4. What is this vendetta that you have against Glenn Greenwald?

True, you have the right to hate anyone you damned well choose. Methinks you protestith a wee bit much.

[villager]

5. Or even just... a bit much.

Or a whole damn lot, really.

Some, I guess, like being on the side of the military/industrial complex's spy networks...

[ReRe]

6. Like "anti-Snowden", anti-whistleblower....

...anti-truthish, anti-alternative media.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. anti-truth? You better stop listening to Greenwald right away!

He claims to know so much against this govt..YET for some reason he is saving it until he can profit from it....YET you all have nooooo problem with that...


very Telling!

[Luminous Animal]

19. What is he saving? He's been publishing regularly all over the world...

Currently he is working with Spanish and French journalists.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. and that means what exactly?

still waiting for him to burst out of a phone booth in green tights and a cape wth GG on his chest!

[Luminous Animal]

30. What is he saving? The question is clear.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Uh no...

he is saving his checking account....

[Luminous Animal]

40. You made the claim that he is holding back. So, cough it up. What is he holding back?

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. I have no frigging idea...HE is the one saying that....

How the Hades would I know what he knows?

[Luminous Animal]

57. Interesting. You have no idea but you assert it anyway.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. because he says so.....can you understand the words coming out of my keyboard?

[Luminous Animal]

59. He's never claimed he is "saving" anything.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. All the anticipation is that Glenn Greenwald has more tasty tidbits to share....

and many are on baited breath waiting...

[Luminous Animal]

61. What? He has stated many times over

That he is carefully reviewing the docs and has enlisted the help of security experts in order to report the stories correctly. He has been publishing regularly in the Brazilian press and he is now working with Spanish and French media. As a result of his Brazil articles, that country's government is taking steps to create a secure internet system to block NSA spying.

Poitras continues to publish in Germany.

It's not all about the UK and the US.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. Does HE or Doesn't HE have more on NSA in the US or not?

that IS what I am talking about. HE IS still an American isn't he? I get it...you really DON'T understand the English that is coming out of my keyboard...

[ReRe]

49. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist.

... Journalism is a career. If you have a professional career, you earn a wage. World over. He just resigned from BBC, not exactly tabloidish on the world stage. What, exactly, do you have against capitalism? That's the system we have, the one he was raised in. Also, he is degreed in Constitutional Law.

Do, please, tell us why you begrudge Glenn Greenwald earning a living?

[QC]

50. It reminds me of the standard right wing attack on Michael Moore

for having money.

For some reason, conservatives believe that people who criticize the establishment are hypocrites unless they live in refrigerator boxes beneath the overpass. Along with quite a few other right wing ways of thinking, that one has shown up here on DU lately.

As for why a few posters here so bitterly resent Greenwald, that's easy--he criticized You Know Who. That's all it takes.

[ReRe]

51. It is SOP for wingers

I've heard it all my life. They demonize someone for using their education and experience to earn a living. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me, but there must be an audience who is persuaded by the argument, as the ploy never seems to outlive it's usefulness. I just think DU is not fertile ground to broadcast the flawed seed.

[Marr]

78. You've railed against everything he's written on the topic, and now you're complaint is

that he hasn't written more?

Ooookay.

[sabrina 1]

79. Lol, he's been giving it away since he began his blog in 2005. Maybe when you make declarations

with such certainty try to make sure you got the facts right. You can lose a whole lot of credibility when you don't check your facts.

I am thrilled that Greenwald is going to be working with Jeremy Scahill, one of the very best investigative reporters in the country today.

As for the OP's article, if they think Wikileaks didn't make a huge difference, they need to contact Iceland's crooked bankers and politicians, some of them now in jail, where OURS ought to be and ask them how the world would have been for THEM, had there been no Wikileaks. The people of Iceland too, who managed to save their economy despite all the dire predictions, thank mainly to Wikileaks.

[treestar]

70. What is this odd hero worship to the point where his

next venture is "a big deal." Why would he be a bigger deal than any other journalist?

Sounds like it will be very biased, also.

[ReRe]

72. You lost me...

... since I don't also have a vendetta, then I'm a hero worshiper? I don't worship anybody.

[treestar]

73. You replied to Vanilla Rhapsody with

a statement taking personal offense on behalf of GG. You want to make it about our feelings towards him.

The OP wants us to think he's superspecial though. Above and beyond all other journalists.

GG fans generally, when we defend Obama from GG accusations, call us hero worshippers. This is ironic, and they believe whatever GG says.

[PSPS]

2. LOL. A #1 / #12 opinion piece that still reliably pulls good old reliable #5 replies. Amazing!

Worshiper/Apologist Hit Parade:

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. Not calling him a hack...calling him a hypocrite!

in case you cannot understand English.

[7wo7rees]

3. and this is from the venerable "Washington Post",

I just can't wait to hear what all our other papers from across the nation have to report on their miserable state.

[deurbano]

7. Thank you for posting this. Very interesting insight...

[Blue_Tires]

8. As I've mentioned in other threads

this "venture" will be general news (Omidyar has said this repeatedly), so anyone thinking this will be some goldmine of hardcore investigative news is in for a shock...

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. I know right?

GG needs a cape and tights!

[Blue_Tires]

14. Not only that, it's just that the writer's premise is flat wrong

I know they're nowhere near dominant as they used to be, but it's not like Salon or Slate vanished off the face of the earth (or even Drudge for that matter -- Remember in the early days he was a legit, reliable source for Beltway leakers and inside info until he started inventing shit to remain relevant)...They were doing a decade ago what the writer *hopes* Omidyar/Greenwald might accomplish in the future...

[randome]

13. I'm sure the Powerpoint slides will be colorful, though.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

16. Yes. You keep saying that while completely ignoring statements

from all interested parties saying otherwise.

Omidyar believes that if independent, ferocious, investigative journalism isn’t brought to the attention of general audiences it can never have the effect that actually creates a check on power. Therefore the new entity — they have a name but they’re not releasing it, so I will just call it NewCo — will have to serve the interest of all kinds of news consumers. It cannot be a niche product. It will have to cover sports, business, entertainment, technology: everything that users demand

[Blue_Tires]

20. It's the last sentence that contradicts everything before it

"independent, ferocious, investigative journalism" IS a niche, underserved product and they should have been looking to exploit it, especially with Greenwald's name attached to the project...That paragraph makes so little sense (fwiw it is poorly written), I re-read it multiple times yesterday to make sure I didn't miss something.

ANY resources, manpower or whatever spent on general sports, business, entertainment, and technology is that much less available for investigative journalism...Not to mention it's just suicidal as a business model -- Case in point:

Will their sports writing even be in the same universe as SI, ESPN, Fox, or any of a hundred other high-profile sites?? (This idea of including sports is by far the worst because that market is way overstuffed and consumers are typically unforgiving of bad, lackluster writing)

Will their tech writing touch established institutes like Wired and all the rest?

Will their business writing touch Forbes, WSJ, etc. etc.?

Aside from the trump card of unreleased NSA data, what will they have on politics that Salon, Slate and the rest don't?

Will their entertainment reporting touch Variety, TMZ, etc.? Do they realize that consumers of entertainment media are completely different animals, and if they're successful on this front they'll get 10x the amount of entertainment page hits than all the future NSA stories combined??

What about organizational structure? Is Greenwald really going to manage three desks (NY/DC/SF) from Rio de Janeiro? Do they not see the inefficiency here?

There are only three ways to challenge the content of established outlets in their own niche:

1. Do it on the cheap like HuffPo and use a bunch of interns or free contributors in a "quantity over quality" strategy...Although if successful, the contributors will want a piece of the pizza upfront because everyone remembers how HuffPo completely fucked their writers...

2. Try to find and hire the best unknown writers/bloggers for each niche; which will be almost like trying to hit the lottery seven times in a row...

3. Try to steal the best writers in each niche by hiring them from the competition, which will get expensive fast...Not to mention big names = big egos, and I wouldn't expect them to live harmoniously under one roof...

[Luminous Animal]

24. It makes perfect sense...

You draw in readers by hooking them with other interests. For instance, I only pick up one of our local papers because they publish the daily NY Times crossword puzzles from the previous month. When I am finished with the puzzle, I read the rest of the paper.


As for your questions, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? You seem hell bent on making affirmative judgments without any evidence.

But...
It appears that Omidyar is willing to put up $250 mil for the venture. Far for more than HuffPo started out with.

It appears that they want to build investigative reporting teams, not just gather a bunch of talented writers/bloggers.

There is a lot of extra-ordinary talent out there that does not work for the competition. I wouldn't be surprised if Marcy Wheeler isn't offered a job or Alexa O'Brien... both remarkable independent researchers and reporters.

[Blue_Tires]

41. "...making affirmative judgments without any evidence..."

Forgive me...I'm just well versed in media, marketing and strategy so I'm just chiming in with my professional opinion on what has a good chance of being successful and what doesn't...And $250 million in funding doesn't automatically make a shitty idea a great one...Yeah, I know to wait and see the final product, but I'm not bullish on the details I've read so far...

Even if they're building "investigative reporting teams" for sports/business/entertainment/etc., my earlier questions still stand...And proper investigative reporting requires longform writing, which is a lost art in this age of blogs and tweets...At the bare minimum please eliminate sports, because there's nothing more they can bring to the market that others don't...

Ironically, given how much Greenwald loves to call out "cowardly" reporters, why not make it a media criticism or watchdog site? That seems to be right down his alley...

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. Very cogent assessment

[ljm2002]

52. Seriously?

His first hires are: Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill.

These are not "general news" journalists.

Here's an Omidyar quote for you, does this sound like a "general news" site?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/18/pierre-omidyar-investigative-journalism-s-new-patron-saint.html

Omidyar added that his joint venture with Greenwald, a fellow Twitter enthusiast he didn’t meet face to face until two weeks ago, dovetails with his “interest in supporting independent journalists in a way that leverages their work to the greatest extent possible, all in support of the public interest. And, I want to find ways to convert mainstream readers into engaged citizens. I think there’s more that can be done in this space, and I’m eager to explore the possibilities.” Like Greenwald’s, Omidyar’s Twitter feed reflects a deep alarm over the National Security Agency’s unchecked collection and storage of personal data belonging to innocent citizens of the United States and other countries.

Here's another excerpt from the Columbia Journalism Review:

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_extraordinary_promise_of_t.php

Omidyar believes that if independent, ferocious, investigative journalism isn’t brought to the attention of general audiences it can never have the effect that actually creates a check on power. Therefore the new entity — they have a name but they’re not releasing it, so I will just call it NewCo — will have to serve the interest of all kinds of news consumers. It cannot be a niche product. It will have to cover sports, business, entertainment, technology: everything that users demand.

This seems to imply that the general news aspects of the new venture will be in service of the more serious investigative journalism aspect.

[Blue_Tires]

63. so which big name sportswriters do the plan to hire?

Please enlighten me...

[ljm2002]

64. Regarding the point in question...

...(i.e. whether this will be primarily an investigative journalism outlet), it is of little consequence who they hire as sportswriters. The point I was making referred to your assertion that this will be primarily a general news outlet. I pointed out that the first 3 hires are all well known investigative journalists, and then I cited a couple of articles showing clearly that the intent is to promote investigative journalism even if the outlet will also have a more general slant in order to attract more readers.

Sorry that's so hard for you to grasp.

[Blue_Tires]

67. You keep missing my point

IF they're dumping $250 million into the show, they don't NEED the GODDAMNED FLUFF...Just make it a strictly investigative journalism site as the gods intended...It's like using the state fair to draw attendees to Disneyland...It makes no sense whatsoever, and I'd take it more seriously as a legit venture if they believed they could draw traffic and stand on the value of their work alone, without the gimmicks...(To say nothing of the fact that Greenwald of all people is not the best choice to run it...If for the sake of argument Snowden chose someone else to break the story, Greenwald probably wouldn't be in the top 10 of probable candidates to run this)

But hey; what the hell do I know about the industry?? We'll take a look at how this business plan fares three years from inception and let's see who's closer to being right...

[ljm2002]

71. I'm not missing your point, just disagreeing with it...

...the vision that Omidyar has laid out is one of encouraging more participation and civic engagement by more people. He believes he needs to get the attention of a wider audience. He knows there is already a core interested audience; but that is not the primary target of the new venture as I read it.

Therefore, he does not regard the general news aspects of the venture as fluff.

Now he could be totally off base in believing this makes any sense and can succeed. I acknowledge your experience in this area, and my own lack of same. However, Omidyar already has one very successful venture under his belt, so I wouldn't count him out just yet. I find it an interesting take on the media landscape. It's like we need to reintroduce people back to the old newsroom model, which presented news, weather, sports, entertainment news, and hard hitting investigative reports, all in one package, while updating it for the realities of today's maturing Internet environment.

Also, I did read somewhere today that Greenwald has said he will not be managing the thing but will continue to be a journalist. That is probably good news, since he has already demonstrated his considerable skill in that department (regardless of whether one likes his style or not -- and I can see how he rubs people wrong sometimes -- it's just that since I mostly agree with him, I tend to enjoy it rather than be put off by it).

[MineralMan]

12. Huffington Post Redux.

Let's see what they come up with. Many ventures begin. Few survive to thrive.

[Luminous Animal]

18. If you are waiting to see, then why did you mindlessly call it HuffPo Redux?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. He says wait and see if it survives. As I predicted earlier....

HuffPo was the powerful new liberal media outlet that one-upped Drudge. GOP responded with Politico. Tea Part crazies responded with Glenn Beck's The Blaze.

Now it is the Libertarian/Antigovernment wing's turn.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Does Obama and Clinton know that Omidyar is a libertarian?

Because Omidyar has donated/worked with both on initiatives...

Does Pelosi, Clinton, or Reid know that Omidyar is a libertarian? Because he's donated to their political campaigns.

[MineralMan]

29. Because that is my opinion. See my signature line.

[Luminous Animal]

35. So which opinion is valid? That it will be HuffPo Redux or that you will wait and see.

[Blue_Tires]

48. If I had to guess, I'd say it will be closer to Salon Redux

[msanthrope]

25. That is exactly what came to my mind when reading the description provided.

Itvsounds like the HuffPo..a news aggregator.

[MineralMan]

34. Well, if they're pulling in Greenwald,

it will also have the blogging focus. We'll see who else comes into the project.

Sounds like a libertarian sort of alternative, given Greenwald. Next, will we hear that Assange is going to be affiliated in some way?

[msanthrope]

38. He certainly brought the site clicks to the Guardian, so Omidyar is smart

to use him. I suspect Greenwald will be writing less, not more.

[MineralMan]

39. I'm not predicting anything. When it exists, I'll look at it.

Frankly, I don't see it as a significant development at this time. Until something is actually viewable, I'm ignoring it.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Really. So building investigative reporting teams

with strong research and editing departments = a news aggregator?

[KoKo]

15. Interesting Read! K&R!

[phleshdef]

17. I bet it will be about half as successful as Current TV.

[Shampoyeto]

21. you bet? or you want that to happen?

Rhetorical question.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. This media enterprise has high probability of failure

And I find it hilarious that this WaPo opinion writer imagines a brand new onli e venture can quickly become a new trusted source which provides a stamp of approval transforming information to knowledge. Slate, The Daily Beast and other online journals have hired well known and talented people, but they aren't viewed with the same gravitas as NYT, WaPo, CBS news, etc. it takes years--decades, even..to build that credibility. Considering the hyperventilating style of journalism Greenwald engages in, I can imagine how his media venture will look and what the various reactions on DU will be as he pumps out RT-like stories for the masses.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. still waiting to find out why it's a "big deal"

the owner of Ebay....seriously? Anything for a buck right?

Obiwan Greenwald...save us...you are our only hope!

[Whisp]

42. the owners of Walmart offer thousands jobs.

I think the way the OP is written is like the ebay guy is building this whole thing around GG and personally got on bended knee to take him away from the Guardian. That is the tone I get, but then I can't believe much of anything at face value related to Greenwald.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. agreed.....

[polichick]

32. Can't wait to see what happens with this.

[woo me with science]

37. The corporate propaganda smear attempts will be THICK in threads like this.

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Greenwald is considered very, very dangerous to the PTB.

[Blue_Tires]

44. So dangerous that he just got a blank check with complete autonomy?

We should all make so much trouble for the establishment

Time will tell, but I still maintain that this is going to be Omidyar's plaything at the end of the day and not Greenwald's...Because let's be honest: If this thing get to be as big as projected, Greenwald will not want the long-term headaches of day-to-day operation...Greenwald's job is to give the startup street cred (unquestioned success so far, given how many people are talking), and get the structure organized and running smoothly...

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. oooooh be afraid...be very afraid...GG is sooooooooo dangerous!

still waiting for him to pop out that phone booth in his undies!

[Whisp]

46. Hey, I didn't know I was a Power That Be...

I've done some pretty impressive GG smearing...where's my paycheque?

[ljm2002]

53. No sh*t on the smear attempts...

...it's remarkable how many naysayers there are on this thread alone. Basically they all sound pissed off that Greenwald has landed a plum position in a very interesting and well-funded journalism startup. IOW, sour grapes.

[reddread]

54. yeah, but will he be certified by DiFi?

Love to see that discussed.

[Blue_Tires]

68. That's what I don't understand....

I DO get why blind sycophantic obedience in defending Obama, the NSA, etc. etc. is a bad thing and deservedly derided here, but WHY does Greenwald get the same "can't ever do wrong" sycophantic defense without the same level of ridicule??

You realize blind obedience to one is just as bad as blind obedience to the other, right?? You realize it is possible to see the NSA story as valid, legit and newsworthy and *still* point out Greenwald's long history of self-serving hypocrisy, right??

[ljm2002]

69. It's fine with me if people criticize Greenwald...

...but those who do so here, generally start by either name calling (i.e. he's a self serving, hypocritical hack -- almost always without citing a single supporting fact to back up the opinion), or making unsupported accusations (i.e. that he conspired with Snowden to help him get the documents, things like that).

I will admit that in general, I find Greenwald credible and admire his bulldog tenacity as well as his ability to think on his feet when the establishment types come at him, such as in the David Gregory interview, where Greenwald's response was a thing of beauty. That does not make me a sycophantic supporter, yet I'm sure many here will read those words and laugh loud and long. Because, you know, anyone who generally supports Greenwald BY DEFINITION is a sycophant in their eyes. (Yes, I am aware there are some who act in that same fashion towards Obama supporters -- but I am not one of them)

The strong reactions to Greenwald occurred mainly after the NSA scandal put him in a big spotlight. A lot of folks here have very strong feelings about that, believing that Snowden is nothing more than a thief and possibly a treasonous one at that; and believing that Greenwald's full-throated complaints about the Obama administration are politically motivated rather than principled. These beliefs tend to translate into knee-jerk contempt for anyone who supports either Snowden or Greenwald, regardless of the issue at hand.

BTW I have not seen anyone lay out a "long history of self-serving hypocrisy" by Greenwald. Feel free to cite particulars. I'm sure he has some areas of weakness and flaws, and it is perfectly legitimate to point them out. But it is not perfectly legitimate to simply assert such things without backing them up.

[Blue_Tires]

76. I'm on a cell phone, so i'll just list a cpl quick examples

1. Pimping the oath keepers back on 9-11
2. Saying that Obama created the embassy terror alert to distract the country from the nsa story....he can't just pull that out of his ass without proof

I can go on...

[ljm2002]

77. Fair enough...

...those are two good examples, and again, I have no objection to anyone pointing things like that out. I don't remember the Oath Keepers thing, but I do remember the embassy thing. Greenwald was not the only one saying it, but I did not agree with it either.

[reddread]

47. death knell for corporate mind raping nonsense

an amazing turn of events, guaranteed to pop up more conservative weasels around here than Michael Moore ever did.
my ignore list hungers.

[tillikum]

65. should rename the ignore list the

sycophant list. hehehe

[reddread]

66. stinkophants

The air really cleared around here for me when I pushed the magic button next to Sid Dithers.
what a nice feature.

[Uncle Joe]

55. Kicked and recommended, I hope they're successful with their venture.

Thanks for the thread, dkf.

[bobduca]

74. Kick

Kick & Rec for pissing of the usual assholes.

[Robb]

75. It's an interesting premise, a news organization "unbound" by politics.

The problem becomes, to what is it "bound"?

I believe, unfortunately, the answer lies in the much-ballyhooed $250 million investment. If the entirety of the "authoritativeness" is going to be paid for, it will have to be bought; and if it's going to be bought, the organization will ultimately find itself beholden to its stakeholders.

[reddread]

81. any worthwhile website can generate income

what they have is a massive bankroll.
They arent going to buy news, they just arent going to be forced to sell a perspective.
They can invert the perverted paradigm.
EVERYTHING out there RIGHT NOW is advertising.
No principles. No public interest obligations.
deregulated, politicized propaganda.
It would take an international figure with massive resources to do anything different than what
our print, broadcast and cable access has devolved into.
a little deregulation goes a long ways.

[WillyT]

80. K & R !!!

[Cali_Democrat]

82. Buh Bye, dkf

[Rex]

83. BBI!

nt.