Rome is burning because of the Internet? Hardly. In fact the Web probably offers our best hope of countering both the corporate consolidation of traditional media and the declining revenues which have them in such turmoil. These are indeed real problems.

It's true that most Internet-based operations (this one included, from what I can see) offer little if any original reporting and are engaged in rehashing facts from traditional news organizations for a community of people who already share a common viewpoint. But there are a growing number of excellent ones that not only aggregate information efficiently and impartially and offer a forum for debate, but also uncover new information. They build a community not of common beliefs or opinions, but of common interests _ consumer technology, civil aviation, international affairs, media, health, and on and on. They dig and they mine sources and they are critical, challenging the powers that be and the prevailing viewpoint. They attract people looking for credible information and relative objectivity, and these people have a real stake or very deep interest in the topic, often sliced pretty fine, whether it is politics in Peru or fly-fishing for trout. You certainly cannot call them intellectually impoverished or parasitical (although on that trout site you'd find, besides fine reporting on federal policy for road-building and logging on public lands, alot of good information on the spread of parasites in streams.)

These now tend to be pretty small shops with limited resources, but we can expect them to grow and, as they make money, to contract more editors and reporters even as they provide an open channel for experts to correct information that is wrong or incomplete.

We can also expect them to learn. Right now, their operators often lack journalistic expertise or sensibility and it's true that too often they let gossip substitute for fact. They don't have a decades-old institutional understanding of care and credibility. In many instance their owners and operators come from the business or sales side, and are driven by the need and desire to make money, and they're not making enough of it to put the pieces in place _ strong networks of reliable correspondents, a robust layer of fact-checking and editing. But given time, they are likely to move in that direction to gain credibility and thus a larger and more stable audience. Traditional newspaper publishers, as I recall, were not known for their largesse _ they funded big newsrooms because it paid off, not because they were generous by nature.

Let's face it: The idea of a public trust in print and TV journalism only lasted as long as the money was rolling in. Once cable moved in, the networks rolled up their expensive foreign bureaus and moved to cheap talk; now, with the Web draining away classified and other ads, most papers have done the equivalent.

I think we can also expect the new Web audience to be largely text-focused, not just interested in quick video hits. Maybe an older generation has trouble reading long articles, but not younger users. Yes, they like Youtube but they are hardly post-literate. Much of the time they spend on the Web _ and it can dwarf the 45 minutes of a New York Times reader _ is spent reading and writing. And from what I can see, they are interested in the larger world and have a strong sense of community, in their own way.

All this makes me somewhat optimistic. It may be a while before we see organizations with the kind of resources that allowed Chris Hedges do the terrific reporting he did from Bosnia and other places, and in fact we may never see foreign correspondents with the kind of rich expense accounts they once had. We may have to wade through some pretty ugly reporting _ or talk disguised as reporting _ while the new media arrangement sorts itself out. But let's remember the discussion we're having right here is a pretty good one, and one that wasn't possible before the Internet.

Consider that that contract between Clear Channel and Limbaugh is for the next *eight* years.

They're signaling they think it likely Obama will be elected. If a Democratic administration comes to power, Limbaugh will have plenty of fodder as an outsider railing against the establishment, rather than as a whiny apologist nagging on his own. So Clear Channel, rather shrewdly, wants to lock up the deal now.

That isn't necessarily an indication that his audience is on the rise at present, though it's possible it could go up several years into an Obama administration. That's just smart business for Clear Channel.

Scholar, you have to admit that the right's criticism of themselves, somehow, is not quite the same as criticism from the legitimate left.

You said, "But it's possible in the near future I'll have to amend my earlier observation that we print more conservative columnists than liberals."
The studies that I have seen so far don't validate that. If you have a link to a new study, please leave a link to it.

Also, you said, "Meanwhile, I wouldn't worry too much about conservative talk radio. The numbers suggest they've peaked. If they aren't gaining and converting new listeners, then it matters not at all what they say to each other."
I'm sure you have seen that ClearChannel Radio, with well over 1000 radio stations, has just finalized a new contract with Rush Limbaugh for $400 MILLION over the next eight years to keep doing what he's doing. That's nearly half a BILLION dollars for one person! To me, That doesn't indicate a contract for talent in a market that they think has peaked!

The newspapers are irrelevant in today's America. Public "opinion" is not informed by print media. Rather, mainstream "thinking" is "led" by glitzy fast moving images across a television or Internet screen.

Most people today are unable to recall references to things in print that they read only a week ago. But they will continue to buy designer jeans with a popular logo for many years after they saw that sexy ad with the slinky babe moving her hips oh so seductively while the designer logo was flashed a frame here and a frame there, subliminally programming the distracted viewer's mind.

Print media is about thinking, reasoning, analysis, critical review, the logical mind. Television programming is about...well, programming. Programming your distracted mind, that is, to believe whatever the marketing and propaganda scientists want you to go along with.

The point is this. This whole discussion about newspapers is irrelevant. Most Americans buy a political view the same way they buy designer jeans. They don't think about what they are buying. They are programmed to buy this or that, and not by print news, but buy scientific propaganda methods that can sell WMD in Iraq as easily as they can make you pay $60 bucks for used, remanufactured, faded, torn designer jeans worth about $5 at the local Salvation Army.

Dig?

MikeBinSC

I had a chat this morning with my op/ed page editor. He gave me some numbers indicating that in the last 6 weeks or so, we've run slightly more columns by left-leaning commentators -- Dionne, Dowd, Page -- than by right-leaning columnists -- Will, Thomas, Brooks, Parker, etc.

I also glanced through several of them we did publish. The folks on the right have been tough on their side lately, so the right is not getting an easy ride at the moment by their syndicated shills.

I can't say this is a trend, not yet. But it's possible in the near future I'll have to amend my earlier observation that we print more conservative columnists than liberals.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't worry too much about conservative talk radio. The numbers suggest they've peaked. If they aren't gaining and converting new listeners, then it matters not at all what they say to each other.

Scholar, thanks for the reply. You answered some questions for me, but left me wondering about others. For instance, you acknowledged that national studies show that the op-ed pieces have been badly skewed to the right in most markets, and even more in the midwest. Opinion pieces are widely read and either reinforce or contradict values and views held by readers. In other words, they help mold the national psyche in the same manner as the overwhelming amount of conservative talk radio choking out the airwaves.

My question would be, if your giving the readers what you think they want, with over two thirds of the people, according to polls, against the war in Iraq for quite some time now, and polls showing over 80% of the people think America is on the wrong track, why do the papers still push the same tired conservative op-ed pieces by authors who have been proven wrong on their views for over 7 years?

Let's start at the beginning...
Is Civics, any kind of real Civics taught at all...
Do Journalist's have any sort of standards that can be used, established, re-estabished to weed out the crap over time...
Is Literacy and Numeracy a RIGHT and thus taught effectively in the schools...
are the schools respected for their place in society and funded appropriately...without GAWD FEERING in the mix...
are people willing to risk a quantum of beer+pretzels+pornography+starlets without underwear to stop watching/buying/believing crap...where WOULD they get THAT idea?...
Are there Community leaders, artists with balls to take civil disobediance (and civic celebration) to a new level in THE TIME OF THE TOAD...
Can programs like The Clemente program go further, get bigger, rescue human beings from themselves and Zeig-Heil, GAWD FEEERING neo-con Republicans (and similar everywhere else!)...
can we possibly save America's, and the world's, precious bodily fluids asks Harlan Ellison...does it matter...
can we use non-violence as Ghandi did, as Martin Luther King did, heck as Jesus (not Jay-whoo-zuss) did...
taken together, begrudging not the day of small beginnings, the impact would win out...fascists cannot live forever if the sun of citizenship (a quaint notion only if we want it to be)shines on their hidey holes.
Do we even know History can teach us, that history IS written down and WE, TODAY, CAN USE IT????? We today make History if we give a damn, then truth and human beings WILL win out...........

Doodledoo and MikeBin SC, you both ask good questions and make valid points.

First off, I can't say anything about TV beyond the fact that they do their best work when they read my paper into their cameras, and they do their worst work when they send their 25-year-old bimbos and mimbos out to try and actually report on their own.

At my first two jobs at very small papers, I was subjected to some limitations from the top. Mostly promoting pet projects and charities. I wasn't encouraged to go after anyone, but I never had a news story killed because it made someone important look bad. It was more along the lines of being told to take extra care to get it right if prominent people were involved.

In very small markets you ask about, word of mouth guarantees the truth comes out, so media can't stop it as such. In those cases, we try to separate truth from rumor, and if we're printing lies, at least it's the official lie and the liar's on the record. Kind of like a doctor telling a patient to lose eight and stop smoking. There are things we can do and things we can't do.

At my current berth at mid-size Midwestern daily, we've printed reams of stories about local big wigs doing wonderful things for the community with their $$$ and reams of stories about their business affairs floundering -- declining sales, lawsuits, layoffs, product recalls, etc. Advertisers advertise with us, not because they're kind-hearted, but because we deliver a market they need. No one gives us anything. It's called self interest, and they act accordingly. If they get in a snit over a story that's accurate, they get over it because they have to stay in business.

Recall the saying about politicians and lobbyists -- If you can't take their money, drink their whiskey and screw their women and then vote against them, you've got no business in this business. Jouralists have the same attitude toward our advertisers. It's so much more fun when we can take their money and stick it to them on the same day. Now, we do sweat out technical issues such as print quality and paper distribution. If the ads are poor quality or if the papers don't get delivered, THAT'S where we lose business and lose it for good.

We do pick op/ed pieces. National studies say that the so-called liberal media far and away print more syndicated pieces by conservatives than by liberals. Here in the Midwest, that's even more true than elsewhere. Why does the right wing lead? We perceive that's what the readership wants. But that's just op/ed pages.

All of us in the news media screwed up badly in the run up to the Iraq War. We all pulled a lot of punches and didn't ask enough questions, nationally or locally. BUT it wasn't because of pressure from elected officials, and it wasn't because of advertisers. It was because of readership. We all worried about being on the wrong side of public sentiment and losing too many readers too fast. Mind you, this was day-to-day and wasn't a calculated effort. Rather, looking back on it, we can see that's what happened.

If you need to find a conspiracy at work in the news business, that's the best I can come up with at the moment.

Scholar July 23rd, 2008 1:25 pm

Scholar, You said, "Sure, news is a for-profit business, but dollars don't affect editorial policy at all."

I find it hard to believe, especially in small to medium markets, that no story or investigation has ever been pulled, shelved, canned, trimmed or information ommitted, due to advertiser, management or sales department pressure.

But, that being said, we know from recent statements made by major television news anchors, that they were forced by management to alter their coverage. A couple examples are Jesica Yellin and Katie Couric.

We know that management decides whose syndicated op-eds will be printed regularly, and we also know that favorable coverage grants those who print it more access, which pushes reporters toward the stenographers role.

Why would the editor of the WSJ leave after being promised that Murdock's take-over of that paper would have no effect on editorial decisions? As you said, consolidation means owners don't live there, but the papers still take direction from the owner/managers.

Who picks the stories from the national wire services to print in the smaller papers? Give us a little more insight into the newspapers inner-workings.

Scholar July 23rd, 2008 1:25 pm wrote:

"The idea that reporters can't function in an objective manner and are secretly pushing a hidden agenda is absurd."

Reporters can function in an objective manner provided they respect the limitations imposed upon them by their publisher. They also might be required to push their publisher's agenda, hidden or not, even if this conflicts with their own personal beliefs or agenda. Failure to do either of the above might result in the reporter pursuing a job hunting agenda.

I dunno, Chris. Whether the Net or the newspapers or multimedia presentations, we're still talking about editing. We're still talking about the owner of that blog or paper or video -- or whatever medium you choose -- presenting their point of view. The New York Times does not, and never did, present "all the news that's fit to print." The owners and editors print what they believe is important or else what they want you to believe for less laudable reasons, as the WMD scam illustrates. The Times will never lead you to overthrow a tyrannical establishment, because they are part of the establishment.

The problem of presenting ("selling?") one's point of view by cherry-picking those stories and images and sound clips that are a snap fit into your world view is ever constant, regardless of the medium of choice. You are spot on when you observe that in today's multimedia world "information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print." A highly skilled producer can convince the majority of citizens of almost anything -- witness Orson Welles' broadcast of The War of the Worlds over CBS Radio -- if only he shows you what supports his "reality" and pre-emptively omits or debunks anything that refutes it. Add in a convincing narration with authoritative tone -- al la Cronkite -- and appropriate background music and voile, the majority are with you. Now thread in some subliminals using NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) and 70% or more are convinced. Convinced? Or mesmerized into passive acceptance. We used to call this propaganda (see "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays for all the lurid details).

Anyway, I agree with you, Chris, that our Techno-Industrial civilization has a real problem. We no longer read; we plug in for a media massage. It's less work and more pleasurable. It's also deadly to a free society because it skirts the logical analysis and debate that only syntactical language can adequately support. Hence, we are now victim to every kind of ruthless demagoguery.

Yeah, the Internet is part of the problem. But television started it. And right now, Chris, the Internet is more part of the solution than television is.

The real problem, as you suggest, is that we have to somehow return to a literate society. Do I have any idea how to do this? No. But if we don't "unplug," Her Highness Technology will inexorably seduce us with Her iPods and videophones and multimedia pizzazz into Her Multimedia Matrix from which we will never extricate -- unless some Neo come rescue us.

Well...we could always evacuate Technopia, the Brave New World of the New World Order, and live off-the-grid somewhere in Idaho, I suppose. Perhaps if enough of us did that we might find that we have a power to resist the tyranny of The Matrix that we never realized even existed. Just my thoughts...
www.sillyConValley.net

I've been in the news business as a reporter and editor at small and mid-size daily newspapers for more than 20 years, so here's a few thoughts from the other side:

Sure, news is a for-profit business, but dollars don't affect editorial policy at all. What it does affect is how many reporters/editors are on the job and how many pages are in that day's paper.

What's changed in the last 50 years is most corporate owners don't live in the same town the newspaper publishes. Owners who live where the paper is published tend to be more civic minded. Concerned with profits, yes, but willing to make sacrifices for the good of the community.

Folks who say newspapers get things wrong almost invariably mean they don't like what appears, so they simply tag it as wrong. The internet makes it possible for people to pick and choose which facts they want to accept as true.

The idea that reporters can't function in an objective manner and are secretly pushing a hidden agenda is absurd. You might as well suggest that every straight male OB/GYN is a perv. Reporters have opinions, yes, and physicians have sexual preferences, but it's possible to set those aside to get the job done, and professionals get very good at it.

I spent a lot of years covering politics, and plenty of politicians sometimes liked and sometimes didn't like what I wrote. But if you put party chairman from opposing parties together and asked them to summarize my personal political beliefs, they would be unable to reach agreement on specifics. And if you asked them separately which side I really was on, I'm sure both would say, "Not mine."

Mr. Hedges writes insightfully like few others. Still,
while it is true that people go to internet sites that shadow their beliefs, there are people who bring a moral/ethical/intellectual filter to the internet. What's more, many of them went to college and didn't major in marketing, prefering instead to tease out their ability to think, analyse, and discriminate. Lock up in solitary with appropriate CIA certified senory depravation, innocents in south asia or the middle east, and they'll come out terrorists, or as good as dead. Lock up a Limbaugh or Savage or Colter, and they'll come out vowing they just said it for the money.

With all due respect to Chris Hedges, and I do have an enormous amount of respect for Chris and what he has been doing for democracy with his writing and activism. Everyone should read the text of his speech to the students and faculty of Furman University, here in South Carolina on 5/28/2008, who objected to George W. Bush giving the commencement address to their graduating class. Please read it here-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/31/9331/

The vast majority of the print media as well as radio and television, are wholely-owned, dues-paying members of the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex). We should all start using the new acronym, MIMIC, in place of the older MIC (Military-Industrial-Complex), as it is much more descriptive in both contexts.

The merging and consolidation of all the media, has been continuing at break-neck speed for several decades now, and with the exception of the Internet, they, the MIMIC, damn near have it all now. For many of us, like Chris, who know the truth, the time has come to form a more effective, responsive and relevant alternative.

It is very important that we retain voices of dissent, such as Chris's and Olbermann's in the mainstream as it continues its descent toward mere stenographers and message amplifiers for the government/corporate oligarchy, as this is the only dissenting opinion that many of the sheeple will ever see.

Those in the print media who have experienced limited success should help to organize and lead the way to the next generation of non-corporate-controlled/sponsored news gathering and publication, both on the Internet and magazine/newspaper print media. I'm talking about those like "The Nation Magazine", "Mother Jones Magazine", "The Lowdown", and a host of others.

A meeting of the minds is in order, along the lines of the "FreePress" national convention on media reform, held in St. Paul earlier this year, to plan and organize the future course of independent media, if there is one. We must determine a way to fund real news and real investigative reporting.

You can not have a properly functioning democracy with an uninformed/misinformed electorate, period.

The real death of the newspaper (and some TV news sites) occurred during the run-up to the "First Persian Gulf War" in the early '90's. (Where is April Glaspie?)
Chris H. is right on the mark.
His solutions can be read into his critique. Return to news that is reality based and fed by "boots on the ground" locally and all over the nation and the world.
Sadly, corporations (as Chris alluded) now control our "information flow."
The internet does give the variety that we used to have up to a point...the true facts take time and effort to absorb...but they are there.
We are an, "instantaneous consumer society" and we will pay dearly for that.
Keep up the great work Chris...
I've watched you on FSTV, LINK TV........

The Newspaper's are declining because news has become a commodity on the corporate market. The people who are running these enterprises are out for the all mighty dollar. They aren't interested in what the truth is just what entertains the public. They are only interested in their profits. Most American's usually wise up when they are being spoon-fed propaganda. The newspapers have become like the media. Another arm of the 'far right' Republican party. They seem to imagine everyone in this country is a rabid Republican and likes hearing some pundit rant on about some imagined Democratic infraction. People like myself are being left to search the Internet and book stores to get a clear picture of what our government is doing. The media in this country has become a vast wasteland. It's really sad what passes for news these days. No wonder we have a country full of ignorant people who aren't any brighter than to vote for George W Bush!

"The decline of newspapers is about the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and public responsibility on the part of much of our entrepreneurial class and the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print."

I'm watching the decline of my local newspaper, the Washington Post, even as we speak. During an online chat, the Post's Congressional reporter got really snippy and dismissive when asked about doing stories on parties besides the Democrats and Republicans. He told us that there were cutbacks in the newsroom, and they couldn't afford to cover third parties. I would find that more believable if the Post wasn't running a 12 part series on the Chandra Levy case.

Polam: THANK YOU; ANYONE WHO DID NOT ACCESS THE LINKTO POLAM'S 3:10 POST-IT IS GREAT!

Polam, I read the threads to 'get smarter, this is a clear-cut example of why and how, thank you!'

Signed, A Lesser of Two Evilist. AKA A Relativist. AKA A Marxist.

I bought a Mac Plus and a 20mb eternal harddrive I paid beaucoup bucks for a RAM upgrade. Then I bought a 2400 baud modem, Pagemaker 1.0, a Bernoulli drive, etc. I have all of it.

The LSD I took was called Owlsley in 1965 on a sugar cube. If I remember correctly it was discovered in the 40's. In reality it was first ingested probably when grains became a major source of food. If my memory serves me it comes from a fungus that grows on rye. There have been papers written that attributes this to the witch hunts. I think it was the witches who may have eaten it without knowing. Hard to tell though.

At any rate, with that 2400 baud modem I researched quite a bit without the benefits of an online newspaper. I think this was 1984. I continued to read a local newspaper of right wing sensibilities and a larger urban paper for the "real" news. I still do now and then, but not every, single day with a couple of cups of coffee and a joint.
Now, I lament over the demise of that greatest of participations on a daily morning habit. The discussions with friends are no longer, due to their mortality or their removal for a job and the grinding of the years.
The accumulation of printer's ink on your fingers while you read a great urban newspaper is like the coffee stains on your cup from incomplete washings.
You don't notice it until you start doing the pasteup of a newspaper or you see the keys on your keyboard turning black from your fingers.
This is my 4th Mac. An iMac with a 20 in. LCD etc. I still have and use my Power PC with my copies of Painter, Illustrator, Quark, etc. Ialso still have and use a 1250mhz AMD based compatible that I used for 5 years before I bought this.
My MacPlus is in my closet, complete with the inside of the case signed by those who built it.
I think I will go buy a newspaper tomorrow morning.

Capitalism, entrepreneurism, corporations, CEO's, MBA's, golf clubs, the chamber of commerce, etc. etc. all contribute to the culture of mendacity that we live in. We have become so jaded to, and removed from, the truth that we seem to actually prefer lies and prevarication's.

We are so constantly bombarded with the pornography of propaganda, half-truths, hyperbole, and just plain stinking bullshit that we feel like we're having withdrawals when we hear the truth. It makes us nervous and shaky, kind of like being followed on a dark night in wrong end of town.

Maybe "free speech" never did exist as it all costs time and energy (money) but as the media's monopolized, speech becomes more and more expensive until a 1950 millionaire could loss his whole wad on a 2008 thirty second superbowl commercial.

Television is the worst as it invites those very "solicitations" that are bared at our apartment/condo entrances signs ("no solicitors"), into the very core of our domestic soul (living-rooms) and once there we are lied to nonstop as long as that colored light flickers on. If we have been brought up on television (and radio to a lesser degree) we have probably absorbed millions of lying advertisements throughout our unsheltered lives. We have become not just the compliant absorbers of cheap plastic foods and toxic medications (that usually make us sicker so we can take another more expensive med), but of the low brow dumbed down ideas and beliefs that our feudal masters diem worthy to keep us all passively opiated on the plantation.

Maybe that's why LSD was invented (or at least popularized) in the late 60' .... to give us dormant truth seekers a mental kick in the psychic ass.

Stop the presses?

How much environmental damage is there with each computer built?

Newspaper can be reprinted on recycled paper.

I enjoy the printed word, don't want to drop a newspaper into my bath though, much less a computer.

And really, when has our news really provided a useful function other than to the advertising dollar; the drama of non-important events (another murder is Oshkosh); and minimal news guaranteed not to upset the status quo.

I don't share the sense of a great loss to mankind if mainstream media goes.

You cannot have a corrupted government without a corrupted news media.

Even Common Dreams follows the corporate candidates more than I would prefer.

And I am still voting third party, thanks in part to mainstream media that incessantly implored me to vote for a corporate candidate and mostly ignore the tragedy of wars, famine, and injustice.

Vote Third Party.

Impeach.

I can only offer my opinion about Lee Enterprise's St. Louis Post Dispatch. It is a very biased newspaper that fails to cover the necessary stories needed for good citizenship. It deserves to perish.

"hear"

Here, that is.

"I do not know if any of you heard about the HILARIOUS news. The New York Times REJECTED John McCain's essay!"

I think it's HILARIOUS that the NYT circulation has been tanking. Given what you have stated hear, is there any wonder why?

Why would it matter how long a story is as far as its readability on the computer screen is concerned?

Chris Hedges, you need to inform yourself about how much energy and how many trees it takes to produce paper.

You should stop printing things that can just as well be read on the computer screen.

I see little journalism coming out of the US. They all sell the consensus reality, which is nothing more than propaganda. Many of the articles written on blogs simply pick and choose from the menu of the consensus.

Good journalism challenges the consensus, presents all sides of an issue, and asks tough questions. It is a rare commodity.

Mark Twain once said, an uninformed person is one who does not read a newspaper. A misinformed person is one who does.

I scan the headlines on the newspaper webs sites just to see what crap they are feeding their readers, and where there is a consensus between left and right. The consensus is always a lie. Where they differ, this is a diversion or a divide and rule tactic. The only decent reporting is in the sports pages. The only newspaper articles I read now are those that are linked in a blog. The only decent articles I read seem to be coming from London papers.

Newspapers are a wonderful medium and tool for learning. In order for even the most balanced and investigative reporting to make much of a dent the readers need to have learned to absorb information and glean the gist of the articles. In my government/civic classes we read three and four newspapers each day for current events to be discussed at the end of each week. There were debates and you had to be pretty well aware of what was going on to take part. It was a good lesson in learning to assimilate information and be able to relate to the topics in discussions. I don't read newspapers at all any more as I find that I am more interested in what is really going on and the internet provides me with all aspects of the news. However, being well informed takes a lot of time which most persons do not have, so they are content with 'sound bites' of information which most of the time is poor reporting, as well as misinformation. The latest cover of the New Yorker is a good example of misinformation, those who missed the first round of bad reporting were the ones who missed the satire.

A "Renaissance in Journalism" has already happened on the WWW-it is just NOT corporate controlled, but FREELY given to WAKE UP AMERICA and "A democracy survives when its citizens have access to trustworthy and impartial sources of information, when it can discern lies from truth. Take this away and a democracy dies."

A MAJOR story corporate media has totally ignored is the FREEDOM OF SPEECH trial of the whistle blower of Israel's WMD Program, but one citizen journalist has filled that vacuum-without orders or censorships from editors, or a paycheck from a conglomerate.

FREELY STREAMING on WAWA under VANUNU ARCHIVES

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

The Vanunu Saga 2008 and Uncensored Video

"13 Minutes with Vanunu" taped 2008
"30 minutes with Vanunu" taped 2006
Vanunu's message to Bush where he can actually find WMD's in the Mid East, taped 2005

"We are cleverly entertained during our descent".

Isn't that the truth? The idiots just stick to their soaps, and trash TV, and movies, and sports events and don't even notice their country is dying.

Another thing, though, my own personal view is that all those newspapers mentioned engaged in LYING like all the others to mislead and manipulate the people. Their death is karmic. Hmmm....maybe our own country's death is karmic, too.... brought upon by a blind citizenry who closed their eyes and shut their ears to the attrocities their own government and their own tax dollars brought about in other smaller countries with leaders as dark or darker than bush and cheney. For many many years. And now the crow has come home to caw in our ears that the carcass he's after is our decaying democracy.

To me, it seems like what is really needed to start a Renaissance in Journalism -one that would affect both Internet and Newsprint output formats- is money. Just plain ol' investment capital.

What is a little disturbing is that though the success of a Netpaper -with integration of video and sound in some limited way, an Honest and Comprehensive National and International focus, employing already-well-known journalists like Mr. Hedges or Greg Palast or Amy Goodman, and featuring analysis and opinion from already-well-known people like Professor Chomsky or Scott Ritter for example- seems quite well-assured, there appears to be little or NO movement to invest in or otherwise finance one.

It seems to me a very strong sign that the Wealthy Classes have gone as "transnational" in their morals and identities as they have in their coporations and trade schemes.

Was this what was so "crazy" and "wacko" about H. Ross Perot?

That he would reject NAFTA purely because of what it would do to the U.S. and USAns, forgetting that he was now supposed to be one of the "Global Elite", that both Protectionism and Internationalism , both Tariffs and the U.N., were now to be replaced by the "G8" and "global trade and finance" agreements?

I think that it is VITALLY IMPORTANT to restore true Journalism and Objective Fact, in either a Newspaper of Netnews format, or face the end of even our pseudo-democracy, just as Mr. Hedges writes.

But I think the capital for this might have to come from the People themselves, perhaps in the form of a Non-Profit Foundation set up to generate millions of small donations.

Perhaps such a Foundation could be dedicated to funding a People's Wire Service as well as multiple competing News outlets?

Or perhaps it should focus on funding many Papers, of many different editorial foci, in many different cities?

Or perhaps there should be more than one Foundation and they should together accomplish all of these goals?

Or maybe this whole approach is off and a different funding scheme would be better?

Whatever the answers, I would again state that really all that is needed is money.

And though this need has two obstacles -1. The General Floating Currency and Debt Finance system is faltering and 2. Most of the Individuals and most of the Institutions that control most of the capital and "capital" have "jumped-ship" out of the State and formed a new team: the Global Elite- its does make the problem fairly simple (to state, not to solve)

The People either convince the major capital holders, through democratic means, to fund such journalistic endeavors, or the People start some capital pools of their own and fund them, or face Bad Shit.

If I knew what the hell I was doing and wasn't such a lazy bum I'd start on this immediately myself?

Does anyone know of a group or groups who are more capable and more energized than me that they could refer us to?

Or am I going to have to get off my ass and get to work?

And I know about all the alternative netnews groups like indymedia etc. -I mean some one specifically working on the "Finance" or Capital end of the problem.

Because wouldn't it be so cool -and be a big moneymaker- if there was a major newsgroup that was ALWAYS at the World Social Forum with multiple perspectives and opinions AND at the Libertarian Party National Convention with objective analysis and background AND was based in the United States AND not owned by a for-profit Corporation or Individual?

I think so.

And don't give me the old "Americans are fascist morons who would never back anything cool or intelligent" song-and-dance, you grumpy Internets Sourpusses!

Have Fun.

-matti.

Exactly. There is no point in reading the papers if they don't print accurate and relevant new.

I watch FSTV and Democracy Now. I know nothing of Britney Spears, but I feel informed about other, more important things.

'Open Journalism' been tried yet? Open Source works well for software and sometimes generates a little income.

Moderated by respected reporters and writers of course.

I quit watching dumb-box "news" a decade ago and now only skim a few on-line newspapers in the US to see what is the current propaganda slant on the various wars, attrocities, economic mayhem and the rest. That's what all "mainstream" media has become: a river full of sludge and deceit.

"I think criticizing Hedges (or anyone else) for "not providing solutions" is crap."

That's funny... I thought the greatest potential for an open internet was the facilitation of like-minded people to converge and create dialog to address common interests... including problems.

I have been working with computers for around four decades... pushing access, easy interface, communication and social networks to help reach the online point we find ourselves today. We have the opportunity to move to a much greater level of participatory democracy than ever before.

That means that we not only have the responsibility to identify problems, but to offer discussion on how to approach possible solutions. If you really believe what you profess, why are you even here? Isn't enough to just hear yourself cry? Do you need to subject it to us as well? Certainly you have more to offer than that?... especially with the toolset that you have at your fingertips.

When I asked Chris: "How about taking us to the next level with an ongoing discussion based upon possibilities?", what I was suggesting was that instead of repeating what has been often posted about the state of newsprint, he also had the opportunity to lead us all in the next obvious step... something which has been lacking to date. Why not discuss solutions?

I don't buy your complete defeatist history lesson... but you are welcome to it. I'm sure corporate shills would parrot your observation wholeheartedly... it's broken, but don't fix it.

The problems of communication and news in an environment with ever increasing population, "economic" and inequality growth, are built in and combined with every other problem we face. The collapse of the unsustainable civilization is inevitable. What comes next could be up to you.

Hey you all who want "solutions":

Did it ever occur to you that there might not be any? The great empires of the past fell. Nobody "solved" those problems. Rome, Spain, Britain, all gone. There was no fix.

I think criticizing Hedges (or anyone else) for "not providing solutions" is crap. The guys with the guns and the money don't want solutions. They want power and wealth, and they are not going to give it away just because some guy says "you have to do this or democracy will die." They don't care about that. They will fight to the (your) death for their power and wealth.

This is war. "Solutions" won't cut it. When the time comes, blood will be shed.

toast - I agree the Huffington Post appears to be on the right track; I would certainly hope that they would be major backers of a "peoples' news service", but the HCR362 debacle shows that we nonetheless have a major reporting problem. (Btw, the HufPost has stayed right on top of that story since it reached them!) If we missed that story, when every member of Congress and probably thousands of other people knew about it, how many other stories are we missing?

Samson - you bring up a good point about mostly-local working-peoples' newspapers that used to exist, and the importance of the local commercial newspaper as often the sole source of local news. Perhaps our "peoples' news service" could help initiate a new wave of local journals, electronic and/or paper, both supplying them with news and drawing on them for news, and charging them for subscriptions once they are on their feet. As the corporate local dailies fold, perhaps these local papers could also, without compromising themselves, develop some significant advertising revenue by meeting the needs of local merchants.

Another possible source of revenue: labor unions. Two of the 13 "silenced stories" I've tracked were about unions, one about McDonalds reaching an agreement with a farmworkers organization in Florida - a major breakthrough - and the other a huge story: the United Steelworkers Union signing a merger agreement with the largest labor organization in Britain and Ireland to create the world's first global union, to be called "Workers Uniting". At the local level hundreds or thousands of other stories are ignored every year. Perhaps unions could be induced to pay a subscription to the Peoples News Service in return for strong assurances that it would meet their needs.

The rags in Appleton, Green Bay, and Oshkosh Wisconsin are all Gannet. They are completely right wingnut. They even have that pathetic Mallard Filmore strip in the Appleton rag. The newspapers died a long time ago with a few rare exceptions. Big corporations are buying up and destroying the newspapers as they have already done to television and radio. Local content and unpopular and unfamiliar information are only available if they serve the corporate masters.

Circulation is down for Eastern Wisconsin newspapers because even caged birds refuse to be redundant and shit on them.

"Here's the problem: Just about ALL original reporting is done by print journalists."

sg, yes I agree, and I didn't miss the point. There are some online resources that are building full time reporting staff and "citizen reporters" as well (I assume as a means of identifying reliable future paid staff).

I know there's a real financial disparity between the capital resources of corporate ownership and those online startups, that can't be overlooked. However, I don't take the position that it CAN'T be done... just that we are near the start of a growth cycle for online. Self-fulling prophecy is dangerous for those who want change, and most often employed through propaganda by those who want to retain control.

Furthermore, I don't rule out the possibility of established newsprint from learning how to fully integrate online into their system of reporting (and revenue generation). Most cities have been reduced to one print source and are losing readership by substantial numbers. I live in a city that still has two competing newspapers and both have made substantial integration efforts. While stats show most papers declining, both the papers in Seattle have shown increases in revenue.

It's my opinion that the loss of competition is one of the most critical components that lead to decline... especially if the paper is corporate owned. It may turn out that online competition is good for traditional print media. That has yet to be determined. In the meantime, keep an eye on those newmedia resources that are "borrowing" from the experience of print and applying the best of the tradition.

Although I don't believe HuffPo is the gold standard (especially due to a penchant for censorship), I think they've done a pretty good job of grasping the potential and applying the foundation for what is to come:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/p/huffington-post.html

They offer "...syndicated columnists, blogs and news stories with moderated comments". In addition to their own reporting staff, they maintain links to their news sources, blogs, and columnists. It's a good start in the direction that online will go to replace print as the dominant source for factual, up-to-date, verifiable news coverage that is vital to an open democracy... something that most print sources have not offered for quite some time.

If you've noticed, I haven't even referred to the joke referred to as network "news".

It is more than disturbing that decades ago the corporate oligarchy discovered that flood speech (endless repetition through innumerable media outlets to overwhelm any competing messages) works even better than legal prohibitions against speech (as in the Soviet Union and other repressive regimes) in controlling the prevailing opinions in the population. After years of legal prohibitions many in the population begin to value "free speech" and any dissent that such speech expresses. With flood speech, virtually all speech comes to be seen as having little value, particularly that which contradicts the "truths" that have been hammered into the population's brains over the years. And though the Internet may make it easier for dissenting voices to increase their volume and reach, the gains appear limited because the corporate media will repeatedly lump all dissenting voices together, throwing Chomsky in with Lyndon LaRouche or those predicting the rapture or describing alien runways or speculating about Roswell, New Mexico.

"IF the papers actually started to write the truth about life in america they would become relevant i think very quickly…maybe they should write more about the death of democracy - maybe they should write about the fed, maybe they should write about the imperial project, maybe they should write about lobbyists"

You have to look at the issue as it is. How do the papers stay in business? Advertising revenue. Who gives them the advertising revenue? Large corporations and economic elites. There are exceptions, but that is largely who does this. There are now high entry costs to create a new paper and to come up with distribution costs, who but economic elites are going to cover the costs?

There seems to be an illusion that the media in this country just recently started to be controlled by elites, which is naïve. They've always been controlled by elites, it is just that in the past the costs of running papers weren't as high, papers didn't have to rely so much on capital to function, so papers created for and by the working class were more numerous. They had pretty low circulation overall, but they existed and were usually pretty locally based.

The MAJOR papers have NEVER been anything other than controlled by the interests who own them. That is always the case and always be the case. Asking them to go after entrenched interest is like asking KFC to go after chicken growers, or asking oil companies to campaign against using oil. Corporations are created to further their interests and it isn't in the interest of the papers to go after who gives them their advertising revenue or undermines the interests of the owners. They might disagree but they do so mainly superficially.

This is why the entrenched powers are going after the internet. It is open to all, if it can be made to rely on capital and basically be privatized it too can be largely controlled.

Not only are we moving to a post-literate society, I believe we are moving to post-enlightenment society where the ideas of Rosseau, Locke or Jefferson - or for that matter, Ghandi or King, have been rendered "quaint".

I think the reason we here gravitate to the Internet is that we don't trust the corporate MSM. True, we tend to go to sites that reinforce our beliefs. But if our beliefs are mostly correct then what's the problem? If they're not, it's their problem if they want to wallow in ignorance. Most of us don't.

Sorry you are losing your jobs working for some editor. But what makes an editor a better judge of the truth than ourselves? Many if not most editors have to toe the line with the agenda of their publisher. That's why we get Bill Crystol on the NYT instead of Noam Chomsky and Thomas Friedman instead of Arundhati Roy. That's why there are no critics of Israel on the NYT for example.

You still have the choice of posting your articles on CD. It may not make you money, but you would be helping to save the planet like most liberal posters here are trying to do for free. If that means you'll have to turn to teaching or writing books as a profession because newspapers are becoming obsolete, at least you'll know you are still contributing.

Nice if lawyers, politicians, economists and businesspeople became obsolete. Dentists would be my choice. We either adapt or perish.

"The rise of our corporate state has done the most, however, to decimate traditional news-gathering. Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., General Electric and Viacom control nearly everything we read, watch, hear and ultimately think."

They don't control the Internet though. At least, not yet.

Am I the only one that refers to the MSM as CO-CONSPIRATORS ? Call them what they are.

"Perhaps we could develop an independent wire service? If every alternative media subscribed and held an extra annual fundraiser for it, how much could be raised?"

I am an advocate for an "Associated Bloggers" or perhaps "United Bloggers International". The one major difference remaining between the tradition of print news and that of emerging net news, is the code that has been established over time to provide print with a basis for ethical behavior when reporting facts.

An association of newmedia reporters would have to address that deficiency with an aim to replace the best aspects of print reporting.

It comes down to this: If reporters want credentials, they should consistently earn them. Any kind of association stamp of approval should be based upon the ability and willingness of individual members to maintain a high degree of what the print industry used to call professionalism and ethics.

Readership trust is not automatic. Insuring trustworthiness is not an easy task. There should soon be enough unemployed newsprint pros to lend their expertise in this respect.

ChrisHorton ... have you checked out Free Speech TV? They seem to be doing a lot of what you ask for. www.freespeech.org

Toast, I think you're missing something important. You wrote: "I personally do not buy into your pessimism that the online world can not replace print and concurrently provide a much richer and more democratic experience."

Here's the problem: Just about ALL original reporting is done by print journalists. Let's say they all disappear. Bloggers and commentators can't pick up the slack because reporting is a hugely time-consuming and costly endeavor. How many internet sites have a full-time reporting staff? Reporting is not something you can just do "on the side," in between a "real job." Reporting is a "real job." In fact, most reporters put in anywhere from 50 to 70 hours a week, I would guess, speaking as a longtime newspaperman myself.

It's a resource issue. Who/what is going to pay for the legions of on-the-ground, full-time reporters needed to cover all the various aspects of U.S life?

I'm not saying print reporters are the salvation of the world but it's waaaay off base to think "the alternative" or "independent" media is even in the same ball park, in terms of resources to cover the avalanche of print stories published every day.

John McCain,

Try submitting your essay to the National Enquirer. They might publish it.

Well the New York Times did flex a little muscle. I do not know if any of you heard about the HILARIOUS news. The New York Times REJECTED John McCain's essay! The editor said it offered nothing new. LOL!!!!

Personally, I think the form of the media, 'internet' or 'print' has little to do with this.

Newspapers have voluntarily abandoned their role of being a trustworthy source of information. As such, the newspapers lost their relevance. Why read a newspaper if you can't trust the 'news' it delivers?

This is most important on local news. And there the single-source papers we have in most cities are most unbalanced. They present the chamber-of-commerce point of view relentlessly, with little or no alternative. They fail to inform in advance of events where a citizen can participate, and then they simply report on the victories of the chamber-of-commerce types after the fact. There's a new road coming through your neighborhood. Your library has been closed.

The newspapers tried to answer this with more 'cute' news. More sports, more entertainment, more gossip. How's that working out?

I do disagree with Mr. Hedges when he complains websites are too idealogical. Actually, so were newspapers in their hey-dey. Most cities had more than one newspaper, and they had very different idealogical points of view.

The phenomena of today where you have one newspaper that somehow claims to be 'balanced' or 'neutral is a relatively recent occurence. And one that has failed. Mainly because its impossible to achieve. Before, the multitude of newspapers and voices reached a simalcrum of balance by presenting multiple viewpoints and opinions. The corporate monopoly 'balanced' newspapers fail to do this, instead presenting a bland version of corporate-approved 'news' that's presented as 'balanced'. Even though it obviously isn't.

Its no wonder people have stopped reading newspapers in droves. They've stopped doing what they used to do to present value to their customers. They covered this with bs, which has lasted for a generation or so, but now which is collapsing of its own weight.

A crucially important agency of the government I've been proposing is devoted to information gathering, evaluation, and dissemination. News is to society as vision is to the individual; it's how we learn what is happening. That's too important to be left to private enterprise.

Good insight Chris, but we've been over this point long enough that we should now move on to address a range of possible solutions... something which is lacking in your post.

The news industry (not just papers), can be likened to emphysema patients who continue to smoke three packs per day. They (and their tobacco advertisers) are almost entirely to blame for their condition, yet they would direct our attention to the internet as the most likely root cause of the theft of the subscription base and their downfall.

Newsprint was once our primary democratic watchdog... a resource that almost always advertised responsible social behavior through the content of their reporting and editorial advocacy. Corporate control, and their constant attack on responsibility (as a means to boost bottom line), has dealt a death blow to the borderline patient. It is over. We all get that.

So what do you advocate as an alternative? I personally do not buy into your pessimism that the online world can not replace print and concurrently provide a much richer and more democratic experience. Those efforts to fill the void are now underway with some success. Given direction, those success stories could multiply exponentially.

Whereas there is a great deal of empirical evidence to expose the real identity behind the "John Doe" on newsprint's toe tag, I don't find any evidence that online reporting, opinion, editorial and response can't fulfill the role that has been vacant for some while. In fact, I believe that in the respect of encouraging "participatory democracy", online has more potential and has exhibited greater results than print ever has, or possibly ever could, due to the constraints of print media. Although not the only available statistic with some validity, study recent voter registration as irrefutable evidence.

Although I would agree that online has not entirely matured, I also assume that you don't believe that "all is lost". How about taking us to the next level with an ongoing discussion based upon possibilities? With the new toolset available to all of us, one mostly only has to make a coherent suggestion to see vision materialized... and almost immediately.

It does no good to constantly mourn the demise of newsprint. He was a good ol' dog, but he couldn't learn new tricks... and with his teeth pulled, he wasn't much of a watchdog. I am happy to report that he is out of his misery and the only ones who will seriously suffer are the corporations who believed they could stifle us.

Those employees with any real talent will learn to adapt to new media.

There is actually a lot of good TV news, but it is not on TV. Feature length programs from foreign channels are posted at http://liberationvideo.blogspot.com

The fact that House C. Res. 362, effectively authorizing a naval blockade of Iran, was not reported by any news outlet when it was introduced on May 22, and was nearly a month old and had over 100 Congressional cosponsors before DailyKos reported on it on June 19, followed soon by the other alternative media, strongly supports Hedges' claim that the alternative Internet media are acting as parasites. Where was our Izzy Stone in Washington, poking around all day looking for a story? How did we miss *this* one?

The investor attack on the Yahoo Board - and suggestions that its news division could be spun off to Murdoch's News Corporation - is another reason for concern. Of the bakers' dozen of major stories I've tracked over the last three months that were given the silent treatment by the major media, a majority were carried by Yahoo, often the only major news outlet with a national audience to carry them, and many of the alternative media reports on these stories carried a Yahoo byline.

Rather than just lament and moan about this sorry state of affairs, however, we need to be asking how we can support a staff of real reporters, doing real journalism. The reporters are out there, looking for a job. But we're talking serious money now, professional salaries and overhead, paid reliably month after month, plus travel expenses, maybe translators, offices, communication links, computers, etc. Clearly this needs to be done, but how do we pay for it?

Perhaps we could develop an independent wire service? If every alternative media subscribed and held an extra annual fundraiser for it, how much could be raised? How much does a CD fundraiser bring in, and what would it take to ramp that up? What about political movements? Could we make this effort broad enough to include Libertarians and other conservative opponents of the Empire in our base? What about enrolling political parties and movements - the Green Party, perhaps the Libertarian Party, perhaps the Progressive Democrats - in the funding effort? What about Netroots Nation?

Let's get some serious ideas flowing here folks! We can't build an effective movement in the dark!

Missing from this and other accounts of the current state of the media is the bewildering suicide the media brought on by itself. Beginning in the early 1970s, the media became obsessed with mathematics and natural science SAT scores, paying little or no attention to verbal scores, and no attention to social science scores. Verbal ability being essential to the print media, and social science essential to both print and electronic news, lack of concern is baffling. Subsequently math and natural science scores continually increased until flattening in the immediately preceding three years, while verbal scores continually declined until flattening or slightly increasing in the immediately preceding three years. This decline in verbal ability is constant, even controlling for those for whom English is a second language. It is this decline in verbal ability which most composes "the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world." How the media could and continue to foster it to their own detriment, is incomprehensible.

As usual, CH nails it. But, also as usual, he offers nothing in the way of actionable solutions. Is that his way of silently saying there's nothing to be done to reverse the decline of Rome-erica?

Hedges always hits the mark.

"A democracy survives when its citizens have access to trustworthy and impartial sources of information, when it can discern lies from truth."

This exists even now; however, as Scott Ritter has so often pointed out, citizens no longer act as citizens, only as consumers. And the current hottest selling consumer product in the United States is malicious lying, brought to you by the government and their retainers in the MSM (some late and totally unlamented). This product is ubiquitous and being given away free from now until the first Tuesday in November. Of course, the "bright" ideas peddled by Obama and McCain are all rather like the beer bottle label that turns blue when the bottle gets cold, or the wide vented mouth on the can of another brand of beer that lets in more air "for a smooth, refreshing pour". Have fun consuming it all, America.

Hedges is correct in that the impending death of newspaper based media is caused in large part by Corporations that have an eye on profit rather than disseminating news. Its time to go back to the original purpose and intent of paper based media. The San Francisco Bay Guardian ( http://www.sfbg.com ) is the perfect example of independent paper based media that refuses to buckle to corporate ownership like all the other weeklies in other major cities. The same could work for dailies as well. We need to take it back ...

"Those who rely on the internet gravitate to sites that reinforce their beliefs"

Yes, true. I do that. The past 7 or 8 years I've been feeling despondent and despairing about the state of affairs and sites like CD is very theraupeutic for me. When I'm feeling like "am I the only person who can see through this BS when I listen to the MSM?" I come to CD and find that I am not alone. Also, it's a good place to vent anger and frustration because of the feeling of helplessness when one can see that democracy is declining and millions of innocents are slaughtered by a rogue administration.

"our post-literate world"

A perfect summation of the new American century. A president so monumentally ignorant and illiterate that he literally cannot put an intelligent sentence together (despite the MBA his daddy bought for him), and a population of mouth-breathing, TV-watching imbeciles who eagerly repeat whatever shameless lies that corporate cheerleaders like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Charlie Gibson, and Brian Williams tell them to.

A population that overwhelmingly believed in 2003 that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9.11 and had WMD's, despite the fact that no reliable news source ever corroborated either lie. A population that in 2008 is furious for being lied to by a retarded man-child, yet will no doubt eagerly believe whatever corporate-driven, "national security threat" appears on the horizon next that will have everything to do with big business greed, and nothing to do with any actual threats to the United States.

From the article:

"A democracy survives when its citizens have access to trustworthy and impartial sources of information, when it can discern lies from truth. Take this away and a democracy dies."

Trite, but true, and about quarter century too late to make any difference. As flawed as US representative democracy was, it did persist until some time in the latter half of the 20th Century. For a number of years we have had a fairly superficial and cheap imitation.

you know, i like Chris and his writings but this article is a canard

IF the papers actually started to write the truth about life in america they would become relevant i think very quickly

maybe they should write more about the death of democracy - maybe they should write about the fed, maybe they should write about the imperial project, maybe they should write about lobbyists, maybe they should write about how foundations have ruined america, maybe they should write about the real situation in iraq

if it is just meaningless, toe-the-line drivel that concerns them then they will succumb to fox news and facebook - they provide meaningless drivel in a more amusing fashion

you can't have it both ways - they offer bullshit - they get bullshit. sounds about right to me

and Chris - the internet is just fine as a place to get the news as any - that statement was one bridge too far

cheers

Brilliant Chris!

Yes, it's true. It's why Common Dreams is so valuable to me and others in these trying times, and it's why journalists like you, Chris, are so important to so many of us in these trying times.