The more I see stories like this ...

... the more I'm convinced that Pay TV (either through satelite or cable, or online) is just not worth watching ...

 

 

Comcast Station Goes All Out To Push Laptop Security Software

Clients: Trend Micro Software

Release Date: September 2006

Aired By: 1 station

Disclosed By: No stations

From the Department of Unintended Irony: A cable newscast devotes 86 seconds to a report about identity theft while stealing the identity of the segment's true authors.

On September 28, 2006, CN8—the Comcast Network—warned viewers that laptops were becoming a increasingly big target for criminals, not for the resale value but for the sensitive personal information often found on the hard drive. Fortunately, said CN8 consumer reporter Janet Zappala, "there are ways to keep your laptop away from the bad guys."

...

Update: In April 2009, former CN8 reporter Janet Zappala contacted the Center for Media and Democracy to state that: "I am an award-winning journalist who has always taken the utmost pride in my work. ... [At CN8] at the time all of this transpired, we had a very limited staff with very limited resources and were trying to do the best with what little we had. ... We were not set up at the time with our own station website; therefore the only way we could help our viewers find more information on a given topic was to give the only website available. I never endorsed any products or companies."

...

Maybe it's just me, but video news releases (VNRs) and audio news releases (ANRs) appear to be nothing more than propaganda created by public relations firms at the behest of corporations in order to sell products.

In other words, they are not news. And if this is any indicator, perhaps the American public is finally catching on.

People in the corporate media who continually say moronic things.

"WILL'S GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT"

No, he's not getting punished at all. That he's still published after what is a career of lying about just about anything, is testament to that.

Recall his last article about global warming. There's was a lot of outcry over the inaccuracies in it. But what consequence of that did Mr. Will receive?

He publishes this article.

There's a very good reason for it. Controversy, even if self-induced, generates copy.

The Washington Post knows this.

The larger question for me becomes ->

How does one motivated in implementing real and positive change - on issues like this and others - function in a dynamic where the debate is largely muddied by this kind of chatter?

Should I simply ignore what people like Mr. Will and the corporate media say? Should I encourage others to do the same? After all, these people and their Right-wing/Conservative movement isn't in power. After all, if they keep repeating the same lies about the same issues over and over again, what is the point of having places like Media Matters repeatedly correct, us on the Left continually upset of the distortions in the media being dropped on the public?

Or, must people like me continually come up to post our responses to such distortions as a way to clean up debate? My problem with this is that the Left still doesn't have an effective voice in debates over issues like Global Warming, Iraq, Afghanistan, Economic issues, Gun Control, etc. Our voices aren't very loud in the larger medium of the public debate - those voices are muted by the larger corporate media. And even when they are heard, they are often demonized (Krugman called shrill).

My thinking is we should be concentrating our attention towards those in power, and working to ensure that the right solutions to the problems we all face are implemented. Obama has been elected, and the Democratic Party has control over Congress, but what is the point of having power if one doesn't use it for good?

Politics, religion and discrimination .... who cares?

(Okay, I put that title in to weed out the flakes and morons who care nothing about what actually goes on in society)

 

What if I told you that there was a segment of the population that was being discriminated against in society or looked down upon, and that this group comprised ~ 15% of the country ...

 

... and ...

 

... has been largely because of their religious beliefs?

 

Shocking, isn't it?

 

I would speculate if it were some Judeo-Christian group like Mormons of some other group like Scientologists there's be outrage, riots in the streets, a special on the Today Show or Entertainment Tonight. Or even better, some politician or entertainer or lobbyist would take to the press by storm decrying the treatment and bloviating on and on about freedom of religion.

 

Or if were Islam, some right-wing or neoconservative diatribe would launch into a tirade about how irrelevant that would be because it's all about fighting terrorism (as if those sorts of things aren't conducted by red-blooded Americans, no).

 

 

 

 

But not this group. No - not this group ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/

More Americans say they have no religion

Study finds percentage of Christians in the nation has declined

 

Some interesting snippets -

• 
  
  "Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey."
  
  
• 
  
  " ... study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state. No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said."
  
  
• 
  
  "The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral."

(Yes I'm having fun with bolding.)

 

 

Apart from this news entry, there was scant little else or follow-up in the media. It was reported then quietly swept away and ignored. Why?

 

Why is it apparently bad to not subscribe to any religion or a belief in deity?

 

Some have suggested that all agnostics, atheists and the sort should just band together and form their own church. The thing is, in this country, we're talking about a right that is supposed to apply to individuals, as much as groups. If I as such a person, need to gather a bunch of people in order to exercise a right collectively, the individual right ceases to exist.

 

Why would people object to atheists? Evidently many in the US do. I would think that as not subscribing to any religion, someone who's an atheist can would make for an effective politician, as such a person could objectively enforce that freedom and ensure a strong separation of church and state.

 

Perhaps that's the issue?

 

I have this theory that many in this country see this right differently. That is, they see it as a freedom of their religion, and no one else's.

 

Obama's SOTU Address - what stands out about the reaction ...

It’s a simple way of saying the American right-wing has lost finally control of the overall national debate. 25+ years over the last 40 has finally opened up a lot of eyes and ears across the country to a central point – these conservatives and right-wingers simply cannot govern the United States effectively for its people. And as a direct result of the economic problems of the last two years - they are no longer able to control the overall message. And no amount of help from the corporate media is helping, because people now are seeing them too as fundamentally dishonest. One need only go online and simply search for the media outlet or personality to see the lack of objective journalism, integrity or honestly.

 

The 2008 elections are direct proof of this. The reaction to Obama’s economic stimulus plan is direct proof of this. Governor Jindal’s SOTU response last night is proof that apparently the Republican Party doesn’t get it. And with each type or response like this, the American right-wing are only making themselves less and less relevant in this country.

Darwin's Birthday and American's belief in evolution.

On this day 200 years ago, Charles Darwin was born. (Also, Abraham Lincoln was born on this day in 1809.)
 
On that note, here's a Gallup survey released recently on Darwin's theory of evolution - now the basis for modern biology:
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
 
I find it both disburbing and troubling that only 39% of those polled actually believe in evolution. 
 
In a day and age where education in sciences, engineering, and biology will be keys to enduring in the 21th Century, this country better start working to improve those numbers. I think its economic future depends on people being properly educated with facts, not indoctrinated by religion.

Why the Republican Party is losing the debate on the economic stimlus.

Here's a really bright statement from a Republican Congressman from Ohio (h/t to Steve Benen).

 

""When Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression.... He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history." "

 

Wow.

 

I wonder how his constituents feel about him getting basic history wrong? To have elected someone who would say something completely at odds with history, reality and fact.

 

I believe recent polls taken show the majority of Americans support the Obama stimlus package.

 

The Republicans have no choice but to act this way and fight Obama on every point.

 

If they agree, they will be seen as 'moderate' or 'centrist', almost Democrats to the right-wing, and will probably be villified. Voters who have a choice between a pretend-Democrat and a real one in the next election will likely choose the real thing. This is because they know that if it passes, it will likely be successful, and voters will reward him and the Democrats, not them.

 

(On a side note, it's quite a turn around from 6-7 years ago, when it seemed as though voters had a choice between Democrats who acted like pretend-Republicans and the real thing. Voters saw it as a sham and voted for the latter, despite all the obvious evidence that it was contrary to their interests).

 

To fight as they are is playing right into (what I suspect is) Obama's real motivation behind his 'bipartisan approach'. That is, to make voters in Republican congressional districts see just how incompetant and useless they really are.

 

Either way, it's a win for Obama, and eventually voters.

An open letter to Charles Gibson of ABC ...

Mr. Gibson,

 

During the 2008 US Presidential Election Campaign, I along with many in the United States tuned into your employer's network to view one of the Presidential Candidate debates.

 

Like many, I was appalled and dismayed by the quality of questions being asked.  Indeed, I wasn't the only one who thought so. Evidently some of your peers in the media drew the same conclusion.

 

With the country in the midst of several gripping financial issues, voters in the election chose to reject the policies of the last 8 years that got us into these messes. They elected someone to come up with plans to clean up these messes.

 

Now, no one is asking you to give the new President preferential treatment. After all, the opposite seems to be the pattern when Democratic Presidential Candidates assume office now, isn't it?

 

And of course, you work for ABC, where it's clear, two of your colleagues, cannot even get the most basic information correct - here and here.

 

 

But after watching how the media has handled coverage of the proposed economic stimulus package - and how the media have largely allowed the Republican Party to dominate the airwaves with their diatribes I've come to one specific conclusion -

 

I've had enough of your broadcasts.

 

So, please do everyone a favor and stop.

 

Retire. Quit. Or just walk off the set and don't come back. Take your pick.

 

 

Someone on your Wikipedia entry claimed you to be 'very affable', but frankly I have never bought into that. Indeed, you never ever seem to be happy at all.

 

I'm sick of your smug arrogance, and your inability to get over the fact that the Republican Party lost the 2008 elections, and that for whatever reason, ABC won't let you leave.

 

Watching you and your network allow yourself and corporate media outlets to get even the most basic issues about the proposed Obama economic stimulus wrong is bad enough. But even after being repeatedly corrected, you still spout falsehoods on your broadcast.

 

No, it goes beyond that, as it this irresponsible behavior on the part of the corporate media is business as usual.

 

I have found you to be completely insufferable - you and your program are neither informative, or entertaining.

 

Honestly the only good thing about your broadcasts, is the pleasure in turning the television off knowing -

 

• it's time to eat dinner
  
• that you are able once again unable to hide your absolute contempt for the new Obama Government or promote honest, objective journalism
  
• that anyone who decides to continue to tune into you will continue to be misinformed about the events that shape our lives
  
• and that I can get more reliable, objective news elsewhere.