In response to permalink who noted a plea bargin in the Al-Arian case rather than an aquittal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian

"For its part, the government acknowledged that Al-Arian's activities were non-violent and that there were no victims to the charge in the plea agreement. Later that day, supporters of Al-Arian stated that the agreement was reached in part to end the suffering of the family and to reunite them in freedom."

The bottom line doesn't change, the press has not reported on this case, the press has released White House made for TV news on the case. If they create media news pieces for consumption in Iraq, should there be any surprise to see Bush and company doing the same thing here?

Every day on Democracy Now, the War and Peace Report with Amy Goodman, I watch the real news.

http://democracynow.org/

It's quite shocking to hear the volumes of stuff the mainstream news leaves out. Democracy Now, an award winning show, is the only real news program left. Even NPR and the Jim Lehrer Report are watered down these days. If you think it's an extremist show you'd be wrong. They cover what the news media doesn't so of course it is not your Republican's lapdog, but the coverage strives to be accurate, unlike a certain Fox News program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!

I just read Jon Steele's letter of May 6th under the heading "Lapdogs" and felt the strong need to reply.

Mr. Steele, the whole time I read your book, "War Junkie", I was totally floored. Can't imagine how you or any other "journo" could ever survive such a tour of duty. Some books are pure escapism, but I just wanted to escape from the images that you so hauntingly conveyed.

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us. I so wish that you had not had to go through the horror of those years (even though you seemed to live on the adrenaline rush). More to the point, I wish none of us on Earth would ever have to suffer what you witnessed for those few years (how many years?) and what others, tragically, live through day after day.

But that's the peace-loving idealist in me. If only, if only.

May I ask what you are up to these days? Still writing? Working a camera? Trying to make a difference -- and in the end, do you think your brave efforts mattered? Are you retired? (Wondering why you live in Jerusalem.)

The world has not heard enough from Jon Steele. If there are those among you who still have not read "War Junkie" -- well, what are you waiting for? The movie? (If only, if only.)

Amie D'Antan

Freelance Journalist and Peace Activist

Why is investigative reporting, formerly a pride of the journalist profession, being confined to books and movies?

Why do we have to seek non-american news reporting to learn the NEWS?

Why does the media assume Americans cannot think for themselves and have to be presented with "pundit"-digested spin?

Why do we have to search pages 25-30 to find anything informative in such formerly credible papers as the New York Times?

Why do the Times' editors display their conscience only on their editorial pages? (and who reads that...?)

Are the media cowardly and timid, as some in Boehlert's book suggest optimistically, or simply negligent?

Do we need media like that? I would say - we don't. I tune in to the "old fashioned" NEWS of BBC. It also respects my time.

While the Vatican excoriated homosexual priests and remained silent on our pre-emptive war, US media reported (practically verbatim) the White House spin. An outstanding tribute to moral leadership and objective reporting...shame on us all.

Who's the reporter at Slate? Christopher Hitchens, who was for the war before he voted against the war, since he's at war with himself.

I agree that it's past time to call the press to account for its flacking of Bush's war. So why not tell us the name of the Slate reporter who now regrets taking a pro-war stance? Why should he or she be the only one whose quote is reported anonymously?

If only the rest of America would exercise their brains and get involved with the idea of critical thinking.

It appears until we stop, think, ask questions, think about the answers and ask more questions, nothing will change for the better.

It seems simple enough, but American's don't like to think that deeply. Wacky you explained it quite nicely.

The press is simply reflecting the sentiment of American minds, lite beer, lite entertainment, lite news.

I heartily agree that the press has been sleeping on the job for some time now. To imply that it had it's beginnings regarding the War in Iraq is to limit it's naptime considerably. The press has had the longest siesta on record, beginning with the first election of President Bush.

I would like to turn a little of the attention away from the media however and ask the question: If the American public were more adamant about getting to the truth or at least the heart of the matter, would the press more eagerly comply?

As someone who wants to know what is happening in America, in our government, and with our relationship with the rest of the world, I am shocked and saddened by the complete lack of concern by so many of my fellow countrymen.

It appears to me the press is simply a reflection of that lack of concern. People don't want to be inconvenienced by being told about the true problems of the world. For example, let's just look at what is happening to gasoline prices in America today.

I don't see the oil "shortage" as being anything but staged by big business for the sake of the top dogs profit margin. We do have a problem with greenhouse emissions and global warming as a result of the use of oil, but that doesn't seem to enter into the picture. The fact that the earth will run out of oil in the future doesn't seem to enter into things either.

Just about everyone I know is feeling the price increases in a very serious way, but they seem to think they have no power over the problem. In reality, they are so inundated with the job, getting ahead, staying ahead, family, home and all the other seemingly overwhelming issues of daily living they appear unable or unwilling to tackle issues of national consequence.

And so it goes with the press. Everyone including the people reporting the news are subject to the same conditions. Traveling long distances back and forth to work (we were sold a lie when we were told the suburbs were a safe place to raise a family). The elimination of reliable public transportation around the country (the much talked about conspiracy between oil, auto manufacturers and the government sitting idly by while it happened) causing those who fell for the prior story to be at the mercy of the later industries.

The interest in alternative energy sources (it's been discovered that most homes can run independently using solar panels which, would eliminate a way for the government to collect additional tax dollars and tremendously reduce our dependence on big energy, thus eliminating their hold on us), has been quelled by the very companies who know their days are numbered.

Yet, try to engage another American in conversation about this single serious issue and what do you get? You get ignored or told, 'I don't want to talk about it, 'cause I can't do anything to change it anyway', or 'it's too depressing', or 'too deep'. If you can't get them to talk about what's happening here, why expect them to consider what's happening elsewhere. And this seems to have translated itself into the way the press handles issues.

In order to keep their profit margins up, (isn't that the American Way) they pander to their audience, and although there are some of us out there that know their is power in the pen and also in numbers (protesting has changed the face of America many times) it seems the current mentality is, give them what they want, light entertainment. The public doesn't want to hear the real news or the truth, that would be too much reality, and worse yet, they might have to do something about it.