A month or two ago, I posted a comment with an annotated list of Time's advertisers from the issue with Joe Klein's egregious column.

I'll try to find it, and maybe do the same thing with the current issue.

The sound of money disappearing is the only thing that Corps like Time can hear anymore, but that probably does not include the whispers of canceled subscriptions.

I think one has to write to the advertisers, and convince others to do the same. That technique has had results.

Dear Glenn, after watching Secretary Paulson yesterday on FOX respond to questions about the impact of the credit problem on ordinary Americans with nothing but references to the high quality of American Markets, ad nauseam, it was abundantly clear to me (again) that the Administration and their supporters (read "Power Elite") do not care about ordinary people and look upon them as part of their "capital." Like cattle they but contribute to their wealth; and the pain and suffering of individual persons is only of importance when it reaches a level sufficient to impact their comfort. They have no sympathy and no understanding as to compassion and the manner in which one's own actions come back to one.

So, I believe that our Administration and it's supporters (which includes the corporate media to which you refer in this article) no longer see themselves as participating in this Republic as a whole, but rather have effectively isolated themselves into an elite class. All their efforts, all their discussion, caters to the viewpoint and need of this elite class. I believe that this has even been encoded in our laws and policy through the doctrines of the Patriot Act, Executive out-sourcing of government operations, and the executive branch power-centralization, as evidenced by its business-friendly policies towards environmentalism and drug, food and water safety, its strange behavior through the FCC by permitting virtual monopolies, and the fact that the Constitutional government has now been subverted to the Unitary Executive.

I don't know if journalists such as you mention in this and other articles, or individuals like Secretary Paulson are aware consciously that they adhere to this elite class and are therefore swathed in its narrow viewpoint. Sometimes, it seems as though they are merely so surrounded and engulfed by it that they are aware of nothing else. Surely, many politicians, because of wealth and influence, are not entirely capable of appreciating the conditions which impact those who are not wealthy and connected. But are they truly conscious of this? Maybe intellectually some are aware of it, but because it doesn't directly impact most of them, it receives no effective attention. I suspect the same applies to many journalists, and I've no doubt that the current corporate media environment at some level purposely cultivates this kind of aloofness and neglect of fundamental principle.

Long ago, when Time fused with Warner, I cancelled my subscription. I just didn't trust an entertainment company to do good journalism. But I must admit that while I did expect Time to confuse news and money, I never in my worst dreams thought it would be to worship at the altar of authority. The exception being its Middle East blog and general Middle East coverage, one of the very few MSM sources of unbiased information on that part of the world outside of McClatchy.

What this disparity in journalistic standards within the same magazine shows, is that it's all about turf and who controls it. What would be interesting would be to find ways to target not Time (or any other non-Murdoch MSM) as a whole, but only those parts of the chaotic structure that publish this sort of tripe. But I frankly don't know how it could be done. I did send an email to Tony Karon (now senior editor at Time) about this, at his private email address.

Dear Mr Karon,

This may be the wrong venue, but obviously writing to Time Magazine isn't the right one either. I write to you as the one senior editor I am aware of who sticks to journalistic standards.

You are probably aware that the blogosphere has been up in arms about some of Joe Klein's questionable reporting. Today a new Time article written by Massimo Calabres titled 'Do Americans Care about Big Brother' went even further than Mr Klein in stating as facts the exact opposite of the (verifiable) truth, namely that the general public doesn't care a fig about its fundamental liberties, and that the Bush Administration in any case has not abused its extraordinary powers. Glenn Greenwald at salon.com convincingly destroys the arguments in the article one by one.

Is there any way Time readers and the public in general can protest this kind of sloppy, authority-worshipping 'reporting' without simultaneously punishing the worthwhile parts of Time, such as the Middle East blog?

Sincerely, etc."

Times' attitude and the figures posted for the amount of coverage of various stories serve to point up yet again something I have maintained for a long time:

Media moguls will claim at every opportunity that the media can't control what people think. That's likely true - but they do have considerable control over what people think about. If an issue isn't covered, it ceases to exist.

So is is true that more people can define the term "Client #9" than the term "PAA?" Probably, because they've surely heard about it a lot more. And then the media will claim that "proves" the public is more interested in the former than the latter when all it really proves is that the media are more interested in the former than the latter.

.... before the U.S. implodes.

Cheers,

I think it's the lutefisk but I promise I won't tell anyone.

Perhaps, but real Norwegians don't eat lutefisk; they are gracious and save that for the guests (click my sig for the grisly details).

Actually, as I keep trying to tell her, I think we need some place to escape once (or better yet, before

Cheers,

I am a proud obscurantsist.