It is obvious to all of us here, and as Glenn has so well documented in his blogs about John "JD" Roberts, and the inestimably obsequious John "I love you George" King, et al, that the MSM is a bought and paid for, cowed, pusillanimous band of doubleplusgood duckspeakers for the oligarchy. So my question is, as in my title, why does the Internet have so little influence on the popular discourse?

Most Americans have an internet connection, most Americans can still read, and the internet as we here know so well, is still a place where the facts, if not the Truth, can be found, and it's all just a Google away.

I read the NYT and WaPo the way to Russian people used to read Pravda (Truth). In Soviet Russia if Pravda talked about "record grain harvests" in the Ukraine, it was pretty certain that a lot of serfs were going to die of starvation. The cure though is quite obvious, read Glenn, goto Raw Story, Democratic Underground, Juan Cole's blog, and even Prison Planet and Rense, to get the other side of the story, the antidote for the lies, the spin and the "journalistically" enabled propaganda.

Yet, it seems that most Americans still get their "news" from FOX, and the rest of the swine that pass for reporters in the corporate press. You would think that after the lies told in the NYT by Miller and her ilk about the WMD in Iraq would be enough to drive more people to the internet, but this has not happened. Is this because there is some stigma, some distrust of those who like Glenn are "not real journalists"?

I really don't know. I get virtually all my information from the web, I can read the Scotsman, I can listen to CBC or Mike Malloy at Nova M, I can read Pravda, I can read a blog by a woman who actually lives in Baghdad, it is so much better here. Where are the people? What is the problem and how can we correct it?

Any thoughts?

Who would have known? LOL

Paxman "interviews" Blair. This is hilarious and powerful on so many levels. I cannot imagine any American journalist doing this to buhs or Cheney the undead. We'd find them down in the copse of trees with a slit wrist and and half-empty packets of the drug Coproxamol at his side, that very night, the victim of yet another "wet disposal", or mokrie dela as our friends at the KGB say.

"You have no idea, do you Prime Minister?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgrMtwhHsD0

She wanted to invade Israel...

What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

http://sandbox.blog-city.com/speaking_truth_to_power.htm

She also tried to disavow this utterance. Power was very close to Jesus, sorry Obama, and almost certainly would have been in his cabinet.

If the Scotsman hadn't taken her down, Mossad would have.

Have you heard of www.tinyurl.com?

By entering in a URL you can create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings and never expires.

Give it a try, works really well, I use it all the time.

Bill

Whoops, just started reading, newest first, I see you do. Nevermind...

You said that the Taleban "refused" to hand over Bin Laden. This is not true and is a rewriting of history on par with "Saddam kicked the inspectors out". The Taleban said that they would give you Bin Laden, but like any country, they wanted to see the evidence first. Since there was not any evidence, and still isn't Bush refused the offer.

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Sloppy fact checking like this puts your whole article in doubt.

I guess Farhad doesn't know, or perhaps care, that Hulu is not available outside of America. "All", would be everyone in the world.