Heck, if you are going to list Military, Industrial and Media, throw in Health care. America spends $2 TRILLION on health care each year. That is $10,000 per adult and all we get is malpractice and over priced drugs.

You can keep your analog TV, you just have to have a digital to analog converter box. There are discounts for those not able to afford them. Digital allows more programs using less radio frequency space due to compression. It is a good move and if handled properly could go very smoothly.

RichM - would I be correct in thinking, that there has never been a documentary, showing the part which the CIA and MI5 played in the overthrow of the Mossadeq government? I have never seen anything on UK TV, or read any in depth articles in the press.
I would also add that we didn't see any news about the crippled US citizen who was arrested in a shopping mall, for wearing an anti war t shirt. Did this make the mainstream press in the US?
Over the last few days, there have been short articles (a couple of lines) hidden away in newspapers, which suggest that the British sailors, captured by the Iranians, may have been in Iranian waters after all. Apparently, both the US and UK, have drawn up their own version of what international waters are in the Persian Gulf, and disregard what other countries say.
Did Benjamin Netanyahu's comments about 9/11 make the mainstream press, when he said that event was a good thing for Israel? I read about this in Haaretz last week, but could find no trace in the UK press or TV.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

Today it's more like a Military Industrial Media Intelligence Corporate Cartel Security (mimiccs) beast, working together to create a Globalized Prison Planet where humans have not much more value than to feed the beast.

Orwell, not his real name, which was Eric Blair (any relation to Tony?), died 1 year after publishing 1984, at the age of 46. He was thought to be a Communist, and some believe he was an MI5 intelligence agent at one point, even though he was being tracked by British intelligence at the time of his death. Those creators of Communism are behind the Globalization movement. Our elite frequently throw out some trial balloons, to see what kind of response they get, to gage reaction, and see if they missed something.

Some call Orwell a prophet. More likely, he was just turning one of the plans he knew about into a story, perhaps at their request.

You should also read Protocols of the Elders of Zion, published in 1903, same year Orwell was born. It is considered a fraud. It reads as a jewish conspiracy created by the Czar so as to fuel anti-semitism in Russia, and since it had plagarized some previous work in 1864, it is written off. But read it anyways, fraud or not, it was written by somebody, you can assume it was illuminati or some other elite secret society having nothing to do with religion, but much of it seems to have come true. This suggests the conspiracy has been in the works for many generations, passed down for very wealthy and powerful fathers to sons.

After being written in Russian in 1903, someone apparently took pains to translate it and get it distributed in the US around WW I, when the KKK resurfaced, focusing on blacks, jews and catholics. Some people, including Henry Ford, took it seriously. They have all been labelled as anti-semites today. I do not believe it is a Jewish conspiracy. I believe it is a conspiracy of the elite secret societies, who used anti-semitism as a divide a rule tool, getting Christian and Jews fighting, which got Hitler lumping Jews and Communists as one enemy, which led him to attack the Soviets while at the same time cracking down and killing Communists and Jews at home and in the occupied territories.

Today of course, this is a politically incorrect subject, so they are able to hide their conspiracy behind it.

We are also being duped into another battle, Christians and Jews against Muslims, and Shias fight Sunni, and Protestant are tought to be suspicous of Catholics. Our elite sit back and watch, quite pleased and entertained with their creation, made possible by their money, power and intelligence.

I'm interested about this whole "Turn in your analogue TV" thing. So next month I'm supposed to give up my old TV and go digital. And I'm wondering who owns the digital airwaves? Well I suppose it's the company that owns the satellites. In the interest of time I'll just assume that that means GE, rather then list out all of the sub corporate species conglonmerates. For the sake of avoiding the logo brainwash, we can safely say GE owns owns the digital satellite airwaves. So what's going to happen to the public airwaves? You know the old analogue ones that WE supposably own? Will the public no longer own the new digital airwaves because we don't own the satellites?

I think I might hang on to my old TV so I can tune into the future pirate tele vision transmissions. I bet it's going to be more interesting than what Murdoch has to say on doomsday.

When is Boston going to have its Tea Party?

I find the most interesting aspect of the editorial to be the comparison with the former Soviet Union, which all Good Amerricuns are supposed to believe was defeated by Truth, Justice, and the Amerricun Way, not to mention Superman, as played by Ronald Reagan.

Forgive the digression.

The editorial said that the methods of our own government bore comparison with the methods of the government of former Communist Russia. "Putin's Russia" was the designation.

Laughably, the editorial still managed to claim some sort of superiority for the U.S. We were better than "Putin's Russia" because our methods are more covert.

In such a manner do our molders of public opinion reflexively draw back from the conclusion that stares us all in the face, that there's not a whole lot of difference between the Eastasian Empire and the Euramerican Empire. Just like George Orwell told us in 1984.

Does anyone remember how Orwell predicted anthrax bombs beng used? Oh, there are lots of predictions he made that came true, and it's not very illuminating to recount them one at a time. The major idea was, that there wasn't much to choose between the brutal clique running each of the three world empires, which kept their populations under control by conducting never-ending low-level warfare against one another.

Particularly perceptive was the prediction, and you can judge for yourself how true this one turned out to be, that truth would be what the government said it was, and anyone who thought differently was guilty of a crime.

We have adopted the methods of the Communists, while flattering ourselves that we defeated them.

nobody

Other names for the US political system are:
friendly fascism
plutocratic republic
oligarchical thassalocratic empire
timocracy
corporate-dominated formal democracy
garrison state
pentagon capitalism
elite democracy (vs. participatory democracy)
corporate state
democratic corporate state

Bla bla bla.

Democracy is something that needs constant attention.
We were too busy with American Idol (which idiot would watch that anyway?)

The correct name for government aligned with the corporations is NOT democracy, it is fascism. Just read up on it. Italy, the 1930's.

Oh, and the USA, now.

Fix it? How? Another Revolution? Who are you kidding.

angst

we don't regulate as consumers. The huge media conglomerates can organize and spend billions of dollars as compared to the paltry buying power of the average consumer.

Thus the commercial media is "regulated" by the vastly greater buying and investment power of huge media holding companies.

Last, economics is never separated from politics; earlier, there was no study of economics or political science. Instead, you studied and applied theories developed from political economics.

The artificial analytical division between politics and economics is one that is convenient for the corporate market/consumer ideology that corporate media outlets, and subordinate educational institutions distribute to the average ideological consumer.

The underlying fallacy of the consumerist ideology is "The Costumer is King."

The burning question now is can America's democracy be saved ......... most likely not.

Hypocrites ?

I'm not sure but I do not remember seeing any coverage in this paper about the 'terror interrogation definition' meetings or Bush' support thereof.

Karl Libeknecht was right -- "The enemy is at home."

we are supposed to rationally and democratically regulate the "public" airwaves.

- we regulate through the power of our earned dollars.

angst

we aren't consumers; we are citizens.

we are supposed to rationally and democratically regulate the "public" airwaves.
However, the corporate-sponsered government gave this public treasure to the private corporations who paid for their elections.

Now we live under a corporate dictatorship that devalues us as citizens and values us consumers (if we have the dough).

Anyway, there has never been a free-market.
Its a propaganda concept derived from the secular religion of free-market fundamentalism.

As Otto von Bismarck once stated, "The free market is the economic weapon of the economically powerful." In other words, freedom between the economically weak and the economically powerful is slavery for the economically weak.

Individual consumers are constantly studied so as to be profitably manipulated by huge, global corporations. Who do you think hires the most psychologists, market researchers, etc.. They know how to press buttons.

Anyway, the basis of consumerism is possessive individualism: "I am what I own."
The contradiction emerges when one realizes that almost all products are mass-produced.
Thus, if you define yourself through the mass-produced commodities you can afford to own, you are purchasing a mass-produced self...not very individualistic.

Last, a real problem with mass-production of cultural products or goods and services is that when quantity goes up, quality goes down.

As a result, if you buy into possessive individualism, the every increasing quantity of each commodity produced (that you buy) equals the ever decreasing quality of the self.

So, for example, the market must produce cognitively simple, emotionally underdeveloped and ego-affirming cultural products in order to sell it to the widest mass of narrowly (or commercially) educated consumers. Where is the individualism in that?

The FCC should be abolished and anyone smart enough to build a radio/TV transmitter in their garage should be allowed to do so. It's not that hard or expensive. What we have now is the worst of both worlds: a government that regulates the airwaves in the name of the people (snort!) but really guarantees the business interests of large corporations.

"angst…….obviously you're young

first, the fairness doxctrine HAS NOTHING to do with what is heard…………only that equal time is given to other views. is that a problem??"

- yes, to me this IS a problem. What you're essentially asking to have happen is for privately owned broadcasters to conform to government programming - in other words, the government decides how much time and who will be allowed to broadcast.

read again - privately owned broadadcasters. I don't know about you, but ive had it up to here with the FCC restricting music for content and what a DJ can say on open air - you really want yet another level of government monitoring and enforcement? I don't.

Again, these are private broadcasters who are yes, beholden to ad dollars - but therein lies your problem, advertisers and moreover, the listening (consuming audience). You can have all the dialogue you want, but you have to convince the listeners/viewers that something is amiss, and frankly, nobody sees it.

Regulation works in some instances, but you walk a very fine line when you get into regulating speech. Yes, I know you're going to berate me with promises of equal time, but I don't see the point. This is America - you want your voice heard, go and get a radio network and push your wares. At the end of the day, an FD restricts speech - call it or spin it as regulation and 'fairness' but its censorship.

Unless the government is going to sieze all broadcast outlets (cough Chavez) and dictate the programming, the FD will always be agaisnt the interests of the American consumer and the First Amendment.

I am not a real big fan of so-called USA propaganda. The reason is because there are not enough elements of truth in American propaganda for it to be credible by the majority of the masses.

Litmus test for effective propaganda in a given society: Do the majority in the society buy it, as it were? If not, then the propaganda is not as influential as it should be. Propaganda can actually be good for a society if used for building a more just society, worded in a believable way for the masses, and if there is some verifiable evidence that corresponds to the validity in the message that the propaganda is trying to convey. Propaganda is an indispensible tool to promote a sense of cohesion and indeed pride in a society and that in and of itself is not a negative thing.

The approval ratings of various branches of the USA Government, is sufficient justification for the opinion that the propaganda in the USA, quite frankly, sucks. Today in the USA, those Americans who still believe ANYTHING that comes from the Government must lack awareness of what is really happening throughout the world; and their blind obedience to people who neither deserve it nor earned it is symbolic of how ignorant and unaware Bush cabal supporters are.

andersdl : "Eisenhower was only 66.6% correct in calling it the "military industrial complex". It is actually the military industrial media complex."

My understanding was that he originally wanted to name it the military-industrial-congress complex but, for whatever reason, was dicouraged from doing so. Whatever, that's what it is; the media is now simply a money-making industry anyway.

FrankFrank wrote: Is this corporate entity, the Boston Globe, and other MSM the answer or the problem?

It is a lame editorial for the Boston Globe, a paper that I used to read with great admiration 20 years ago. However, there is one line that approaches good editorialship:

In the end, the government's disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy.

I would replace one word and restate as:

In the end, the government's disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than by any foreign enemy.

angst.......obviously you're young

first, the fairness doxctrine HAS NOTHING to do with what is heard............only that equal time is given to other views. is that a problem??

second, what part of the constitution's "regulate commerce" don't you understand. our founders knew that regulation was necessary........it's the "invisible hand" that has led to the onslaught of misinformation, disinformation, the growing deficit, the growth of the military-industrial complex, the savings and loan debacle, the accounting scandals, the most recent housing crisis......need i go on.

REGULATE.........that's what we did after the disatrous market crash 75 years ago. we required transparency and disclosure from the banking industry. EVERY deregulated market has cost the consumer AND THE TAXPAYER.

read the constitution rather than listening to the "hate and berate", "call them a name and say they're to blame", right wing blow horns (who haven't been right about anything - iraq, tax cuts, deregulation, etc.)

government can work, has worked, and will work once you get the current idiocy out of power. remember "the new deal", "the gi bill", "public schools" (once the best in the world), and many other public institutions were the envy of the world until the reaganesque ideal of "government never works" took hold. when you hire idiots and corporate "leaders" to NOT PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS, (i.e. don't enforce borders, don't plan for hurricanes, don't enforce environmental law, you get the self-fulfilling prophecy that government doesn't work.

"TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts' business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints."

The problem isn't really these "paid analysts"... it's the TV News networks themselves. Hopelessly corrupted by corporate ownership.

"This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin's Russia."

kloro: I also agree that CommonDreams is a little quick on the draw when it comes to censorship... not exactly a free discussion of ideas is it.

What a shameless, pointless burn against Putin. AS if the Russians have cornered the market on propaganda... The Americans are just as adept at bullshitting their public as the Russians ever were. In fact, the US method is a little more insidious because it's packaged as truth. At least, in the former Eastern Block countries, they knew the government was lying.

"The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned top Pentagon officials to a closed-door session on Capitol Hill on Friday to explain a reported secret military campaign in Iraq to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media."

Did you know all branches of the military, and the CIA and the FBI all have "liaison" offices in Hollywood to ensure positive propaganda across all platforms?

Jerrys -

Im not a member of the right or left but I do get very very concerned when anyone tries to put a government body in charge of anything related to the regulation of the radio or television - I think the FCC is a crock....but at the same time, a fairness doctrine dictates what a station can and cannot broadcast - worse than censorship, it can and will be used for government propaganda in a way that will make you wish for the days where Rush was relevant.

You speak to me of competition and in the same breath invoke the fairness doctrine? and you DARE to call me the fool? Better a fool than a hypocrite, I guess.

This was old news five years ago. Who believed any of those old Jack-in-the-boxes wearing fruit salad on their coats? Amy Goodman and many others said we looked like a banana republic with all those generals on TV, jabbering propaganda.

angst.......

you call that choice? they speak from the same corporate text..........it's called propoganda.

when you live in a small community with but 1 local station and you can't get time or temp or a "live" voice, the local content part of the license is unfulfilled (that's right, licensees have PUBLIC obligations).........when only right wing hate mongers fill the air. again, i'm talking ONLY public airwaves........let hannity, limbaugh, o'reilly, etc use your trusted satellite but not MY PUBLIC AIRWAVES without balance from the other side.

the invisible hand of the market is a ruse for fools like you to quote.........it doesn't work when competition isn't allowed.

The editorial writers at the Boston Globe are idiots!

They are "shocked, shocked" that the executive of the U.S. government covertly manipulates the media. And that members of this executive gang have ulterior motives that benefits their wallets.

Is this corporate entity, the Boston Globe, and other MSM the answer or the problem?

Hey, if you want unfiltered radio, there is always satellite.

RichM is correct. There are more than two viewpoints on any given issue. The mainstream media has always determined which two constitute "fair and balanced." This inevitably leaves out the genuine left, which is not, and has never been, represented, except in isolated incidences. When the likes of Hillary Clinton is characterized as "liberal" or "left" there is no fairness or balance. It is a sham.

On the other hand, a fairness doctrine which truly demands that all sides be heard (regardless of advertisers or media owners opinions) will be in the service of democracy. Not until.

Thanks for saying it like it is AngstOfThePeople "Air America was the reason liberal radio doesnt work - its uninteresting and unappealing to the advertiser." If you believe that money should determine who is heard is the public debate, then I know a few tin-pan dictatorships who would happily accept you as an immigrant.

Even though the media and the pentagon have their stable of corrupt ex-generals to press their propaganda, there are others like General Odom who has been speaking truthfully for years, including in front of Congress. http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/OdomTestimony080402a.pdf
His words are more important then ever, and it's a black mark against any congress critter who doesn't listen.

Eisenhower was only 66.6% correct in calling it the "military industrial complex". It is actually the military industrial media complex.

It's common on websites like this to hear liberals moaning wistfully about the Fairness Doctrine (F.D.). This moaning is naive & completely misplaced. The Fairness Doctrine was never anything more than a toothless Band-Aid. It was finally done away with in 1987, which means that even while it was still in force, the US media succeeded in such massive deceptions as creating in the public mind the entire mentality behind the Cold War; fighting the Contra War in Nicaragua; supporting the official Warren Commission view of the JFK assassination; & leaving relatively unchallenged the "Gulf of Tonkin" lie that formed the basis for escalation in Vietnam.

It would be easy to think of many more such items to further establish the same point. But these alone demonstrate that even with the F.D. in place, the US media worked arm-in-arm with the US government in conveying to the public a completely false impression, not just of specific events, but of major aspects of international relations. While it's true that getting rid of the F.D. didn't make things any better, one must recognize that having it in place did virtually nothing to prevent the US media from functioning as government propaganda.

Consider the Iranian hostage situation of 1979. In the countless hours of intense "coverage" of that event, no US media source ever mentioned the "minor detail" that the CIA had led a successful coup against the elected democratic govt of Iran in 1953. The US media suppressed that extremely relevant piece of history, simply to create the false impression that the Iranians had "no right" to feel deep anger towards the US government.

Clearly, the forces corrupting the US media have roots far deeper than those addressed by the F.D.

yeah my answer IS no. I want the content to be interesting and I beleive in a free market approach to the airwaves determined by the advertisers and their consumers - not idealogues and their hopes and dreams. Air America was the reason liberal radio doesnt work - its uninteresting and unappealing to the advertiser.

"before the fairness doctrine, their was no rush…no hannity….no o'reilly…..no ingraham…"

- in other words no choice but what was approved government content. If you want this, then my friend, I think you need to re-read the first amendment.

angstofthepeople.........do you understand what PUBLIC AIRWAVES are?

they belong to us........and as long as you are a willing partner to corporate propoganda on these airwaves, you will get what you deserve......

should not there be, at least minimally, some sort of "public" oversight to assure real fair and balanced content? if your answer is no......then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

and anyone who actually believes the media is liberal - watches way too much fox.

before the fairness doctrine, their was no rush...no hannity....no o'reilly.....no ingraham....back to back to back on local radio stations. it couldn't happen.

bring back the fairness doctrine

One commentor proclaims that a fraction of the radio stations represent a conservative bent.

He is correct; and that fraction is ninety-five/ one-hundreths.

I would say the US corporate media is far worse than the media in Russia, which does not belong to Putin despite the efforts of the Boston Globe to propagandize--in essence doing the very same thing it's deploring in its editorial. It would be amazing if such behavior wasn't so commonplace in US media.

It's not the Pentagon that is manipulating the media. The media is a willing partner. They are both part of the same empire and will continue to work together to further the ambition of our Emperor.
Hoa binh

a fairness doctrine? Oh god, why? The Fairness Doctrine is little more than an attempt at injecting affirmative action into talk radio and TV and while I don't think of it as outright censorship it is on its face a form of censorship because it implies that certain speech must be balanced when indeed it already IS balanced. Whereas most major television news outlets are in fact reporting with a liberal swing, a fraction of radio stations represent the conservative bent - balance and therefore fairness has been achieved.

I worry that the phrase "military-industrial complex" is not malevolent sounding enough. I suggest the mangled-burnt-human-flesh industry as a replacement.

once again.........bring back the fairness doctrine to broadcast telelvision (public airwaves).

don't let the naysayers (corporate media) characterize it as censorship........the fairness doctrine is quite opposite of censorship.

the propoganda machines that our public airwaves have become are a direct result of deregulatory efforts in media.........BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!