Reply #31: Nope.

[HuckleB]

You are pulling out a viewpoint that might have been viable 20 years ago, but no longer resembles reality. Basically, what you've just admitted, is that we might as well give up, that the so-called "mainstream" sources aren't going to offer an accurate picture, and that no one would ever believe a well-sourced and documented piece by a small publication, because they're so entrenched in the Brave New World's propaganda that they can't think for themselves. All while trying to say that you aren't underestimating the intelligence of those on the fence. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore reality: Americans don't trust the known news sources. On the other hand, many continue to trust Internet E-mail rumors. Somewhere in between are small publications with well-documented pieces that actually do change minds. Quite often, in my experience. I choose not to underestimate the intelligence of others, while admitting the slant of the publication in question, regardless of the publication in question. And, amazingly, I have incredibly constructive conversations with folks on all sides, as we share a variety of sources, while discussing the validity of those sources. And, more and more, validity comes from being open and honest about documentation, something the mainstream press does less and less.

Oh, by the way, you might want to go back and read my first post on this issue. You have misjudged my stance on In These Times to suit your needs.