Category : TV

“The American people are today the best entertained and the least informed people on the face of the Earth.”

–Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

William Colby
CIA Director, 1973-1976

Ah, the wisdom of Twitter. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but it’s amazing what you can fit in 140 characters… such as a complete evisceration of the mainstream media (MSM) because of their utter, obsequious hypocrisy and the biased, treasonous way they frame and focus on issues. Here it is, from Chuck Olsen:

“If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging the president as… Rev. Wright, it’s likely we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.”

Boom. Pretty much says it all doesn’t it?

Here’s where he originally found that quote.

The corporate media chooses — seemingly as one — what to make a big deal out of. And what to blackout.

The Corporate Media (especially the TV news stations who were caught red-handed) have been feeding us Pentagon-approved talking points through the supposedly-independent retired generals who show up for interviews about the war. Strange that they never invite peaceniks on the air, isn’t it? Well, war is big business. You can’t expect truth and fairness when the bottom line is at stake.

Quite simply, the Media act as a megaphone for the positions they support and a censor for those they do not. Peace, wisdom, tranquility, free thought…. these concepts are all offensive to the corporate media. They would rather focus on strife, stupidity, distraction and obedience.

All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama’s former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings.

We expect to see this sort of race-baiting behavior from Fox News Channel, but CNN and MSNBC have, once again, similarly crossed the tabloid threshold into the very same nefarious Roger Ailes realm by beating this nothing story to death.

They’re all the same. Fox News is simply the worst offender. But instead of being an embarrassment to decent journalists everywhere Fox News is seen a pioneer, a bold leader in the (fascist) future of news. Thus, the other news channels simply follow Fox’s lead.

Face it folks: Our mainstream media is controlled. Totally controlled. By just five mega-corporations, all of whom have interests vastly different from the average American.

Is it too hard to imagine that these corporations embrace war, hypocrisy and distraction? Five corporations means five CEOs. These reptilian CEOs have a different agenda than the common man. They’re often Republican, always rich, usually ruthless and seldom charitable. These five scumfucks control 90% of what we see, hear or read in the press and they’ve all profited from the war. The only thing that gives us a chance at regaining our freedom is the internet and I assure you this blog and others like it don’t have ratings anywhere near that of Fox or CNN.

So when you see the Media trumpeting something, be it Paris Hilton, Rev. Wright or American Idol, just remember that they’re showing you what they want you to know and they’re hiding the rest. For everything they tell you they’re obscuring another ten useful facts with their incessant bullshit.

The media doesn’t investigate, they serve the rich; they afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable. They are traitors, liars, demons and filth. I consider Big Media’s tacit embrace of the Iraq War before and after the fact to be nothing less than treason.

One former participant, NBC military analyst Kenneth Allard, has called the effort “psyops on steroids.” As Barstow reports, “Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as ‘message force multipliers’ or ‘surrogates’ who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages’ to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.’ … Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war.”

If there’s any justice in this world they will all burn in the hell they’ve created. I say we give them all a one-way ticket to Baghdad. Sleep in the bed you’ve made, Fuckers!

I didn’t even watch the damn debate and I could still smell its rancid stink by checking the livebloggers. God, what a wretched display of divisive, gotcha politics.

Here’s my open letter to ABC News and the neocon whores who run it:

Dear treasonous media jackals:

ABC News’ “debate” was a travesty and embarrassment to decent journalists everywhere. The gotcha debate style is more suitable to a professional wrestling match than an interview for the most important job in the world. Clearly, ABC News wants voters to be angry, uninformed and divided. YOU hate America, not people who don’t wear flag pins. Burn in hell, you traitorous corporate whores.

A hint for next time: If you don’t want to talk about important issues, don’t hold a debate. If you want to ask about stupid, pointless shit, why not get Jerry Springer to hold the debate? I’m sure he’d do a better job than the two ass-clowns you had run it.

…. You may think I’m being impolite. Wrong. You should’ve seen what I wanted to write.

Sincerely,
an American voter

Click here for a more reasoned and restrained open letter (not that you deserve it, ABC).

Well, they finally decided to pipe up, and it was on this dude’s TV set during American Idol (go figure).

But before I could turn off the sound, the ad was interrupted by the image of a sixty-something businessmen sitting behind a giant desk in a plush corporate office.

A message ran across the bottom of the screen. It said: “A Message from the American Corporate Plutocracy.”

Go read the whole thing.

Commercial for the Mainstream Media (MSM)

If somebody was selling this, would you buy it?

Protests for impeachment or ending the war or whatever are pretty crazy, fun things. I quite enjoy them, as one might enjoy going to the fair, but many people resent the weird characters and huge floats depicting Rumsfeld feeling up Lady Liberty or whatever. I think they use the carnival atmosphere to break through peoples’ consciousness. Nothing even gets through to people unless it’s bright and colorful and flashing and preferrably on TV.

But maybe the old circus tricks aren’t working anymore and we need new ideas. I like the idea of a “formal tone” concept, to take the opposite approach, but we could still have fun with it. We should all get dressed up in our finest suits and go around with big signs saying:

“We respectfully disagree with the conduct and character of the Iraq War and wish to discuss remedies for said tragic happenstance!”

“I wish to express that President Bush’s position on the War in Iraq is incongruent with my own!”

“Please bring the Iraq War to and end as quickly and deliberately as possible within the framework mutually decided upon by Congress and the President.”

“We respectfully demand a full scientific appraisal of the Earth’s climate and any changes we must make as a society to combat any unwanted developments as the result of global climate change!”

“As a citizen of the United States of America I hearby express my utmost concern for the constitutional well-being of this country, which I believe can only be remanded to the people after holding the present office-holder of the presidency to account (through the process of impeachment) for serious charges concerning his willful disregard of his oath of office.”

“His Honor the Vice President has given ample evidence of fealty to a dark lord known as Baal the Destroyer. His sworn oath to the constitution of these states lays utterly despoiled by malice and deception and so he must be impeached forthwith!”

We’ve gotta find some bigger signs…

There’s a great article in the NY Times about those Americans who did not support the American Revolution in 1776. The author’s guess is that around 20% of the population did not support the revolution. It should not be surprising; people are rarely in harmonious, unanimous agreement about… anything. But it’s worth bearing in mind.

During three days in November 1776, this petition sat in Scott’s Tavern, on Wall Street, to be signed by anyone who wished. A frank declaration of dependence, it completely lacks the revolutionary genius and rhetorical grace of our hallowed July 4 document. Yet in all, more than 700 people put their names to the parchment — 12 times the number who signed the Declaration of Independence. Among the signatories were pillars of New York society: wealthy merchants like Hugh Wallace, who commanded vast tracts of land and capital; members of some of New York’s most prominent families, the DeLanceys, the Livingstons and the Philipses; and the clergymen Charles Inglis and Samuel Seabury, who published articulate rebuttals to rebel pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.”

I’m probably the only person on the planet who thinks the American Revolution was ultimately a failure…. because we were reconquered by the British a hundred years ago. Notice that the petition was situated on Wall Street. Well, some things haven’t changed. Wall Street was then and is now, home to the “Royalists”, if you will. The “moneyed interests” were defeated in 1776, but the wealth and power Britain wielded was immense. In time, Britain was able to get a toehold in her former colony using that most diabolic of weapons: Money. As a young nation we were starved for it and didn’t really care where it came from.

A certain class formed, primarily on the east coast, right around New York (the “Empire State”), whose allegiance was to power; not America. I suppose it wasn’t the British reconquering us so much as the old guard reasserting its power against a young upstart.

Still, the British connection is worth looking into. Why do we care about the Queen or Princess Diana? Wall Street is associated with the CIA, and the CIA is closely tied with MI6. Our intelligence apparatus is intrinsically bound with that of Britain and her other wayward colony, Australia. The UK/USA axis is currently the strongest in the world. It does seem a bit odd that our closest ally (in Iraq and other places) is our old colonial master, doesn’t it? I suppose after WWII some old wounds were forgotten (or forgiven, anyway). But it is curious that we have such enmity in this country for France, the nation that gave us the Statue of Liberty and helped us fight against the British.

Here we are, in a nation that is clearly ruled for the rich, by the rich. Are we independent from the British? Perhaps, but what does it matter if we’re not independent of tyranny? A new tyranny rules these lands, and it’s called crypto-fascism. We wouldn’t be much better off under the thumb of the British police state. Freedom seems to slip away over time, as cowards have their say and convenience trumps idealism time and time again. It’s true what Jefferson said:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

But the hard part, as always, is figuring out who’s a patriot and who’s a tyrant. I can give you a few hints, though: In a hierarchical society whose class system is based on accumulated wealth the poor folks certainly do not have a chance to be tyrants, whereas those sitting at the top of the pyramid might behave like aristocrats without even realizing it.

Let’s hope Thomas Jefferson doesn’t rise from the dead anytime soon. We’ll feel like the Native American tribes who sold vast tracts of land for nothing more than beads, trinkets and gunpowder. I doubt Jefferson will be nearly as impressed with our high-definition TVs as we might be.

“You exchanged your God-given Freedom for WHAT?!!” he’ll say.

“Hey, c’mon — these beads are really shiny!”

Taking part in a televised debate can be a make-it-or-break-it moment for any presidential candidate. But what if you’re not allowed to debate at all?

A diabolical Catch-22
As many of you are aware, not all candidates are allowed to debate in a given broadcast debate. This has been a problem for years. During the last presidential election both the Libertarian and Green party candidates were actually arrested trying to get into a debate they had been explicitly banned from!

Most candidates are excluded from the debate simply because the Media (big M) deems them minor/unknown/unpopular candidates. Well, of course they’re unknown; they’re not allowed to debate on national TV!! Bit of a Catch-22, wouldn’t you say?

A most insidious and foul Catch-22, I would say. Here’s why: We supposedly live in a democracy. It’s not really a democracy, it’s a republic (that’s a story for another day), but we like to pretend that the people really have a say. The hidden reality is that the bosses of the major television stations are making decisions that define the course of our nation, and they’re doing it from private boardrooms sequestered on the 100th floor of a skyscraper, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it because they aren’t elected or accountable to anybody but the company’s shareholders — ya know… other rich people.

Why should the CEO of CNN have such power? Why should he (and it’s almost certainly a he) determine who will and won’t be the next president of the United States before the people ever get a chance to vote in a primary?

Isn’t that censorship? Isn’t that more like an oligarchy than a democracy? Why do we let them get away with it?

Well, until recently most people didn’t even know about the problem. And we didn’t have the power to make a difference anyway. But things are changing.

Social Media saves the day
Social Media has finally offered regular people like you and me a voice. Sites like Digg, while not perfect, have enabled users to vote (you know, like a democracy) on what stories they think are worthy.

Two candidates, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, owe most of their young supporters to the users of two social media sites: Digg and Reddit. Without those two sites neither candidate had a hope in hell of cracking the oligarchy and getting significant, objective coverage by the mainstream media (MSM).

Why does the media censor and ostracize certain candidates?
The candidates that find themselves locked out of televised debates tend to have a few things in common: They tend to be unpopular or unknown (but that is not always the case). Their campaigns are usually poorly funded (maybe because it’s hard to raise funds if you get no coverage) and sometimes they have views that are contrary to the political mainstream.

But sometimes the political mainstream is very much at odds with the desires of the voting public. A perfect example is the continued prohibition of cannabis (you know: “marijuana”), an issue on which the politicians are most definitely out of step with most of America, which favors medicinal pot by an astonishing 78% margin. Net candidate Mike Gravel recently came out in support of legalizing cannabis, which he says should be for sale in liquor stores. For a mainstream, “media-approved” candidate, such a position would be political suicide. Why?

Perhaps the media has been shaping our political landscape for such a long time nobody can even remember a time when they weren’t. Perhaps there are certain forces at work behind the scenes that determine what is considered politically acceptable and what is considered “extremist.”

It’s hard not to see the media as a controlling, suppressing force when they blatantly censor certain candidates. Ron Paul’s performance in the recent Republican debate at the Reagan Library was hailed by many observers, but when it came time to review the field and do some analysis ABC News made a curious omission: Ron Paul.

He wasn’t even available as an option for viewers to vote for. He wasn’t mentioned anywhere in David Chalain’s analysis. If not for a web uprising (involving Digg and Reddit) Ron Paul would probably still be excluded. When ABC finally backed down (after deleting a storm of comments asking, “Where’s Ron?”) Ron Paul ran away with a landslide victory in the online poll. The numbers are incredible (and no doubt skewed by a reaction to the censorship). Paul clearly has a massive groundswell of public support…. but in the corporate realm he has apparently earned only hand-waving dismissal and contempt.

What are we supposed to think of this? When there are 10 candidates at a debate and viewers are only allowed to vote for 9 of them is that not censorship? Is that not electioneering by a major corporation?

And when they back down and include the suppressed candidate and he wins the poll, how do they respond? They write an article in which they find people to scratch their heads and say, “who knows how this Ron Paul got popular. Must be sumthin’ to do with them internets.” Then they conclude he has no chance of winning and that this is just an exercise in teenage rebellion (or something) and wave their hands, content that they will never have to talk about him again.

Democratic candidate Mike Gravel has experienced the exact same treatment, but on the other side of the aisle. Gravel and Paul are both painted as “extremists” within their respective parties, so we’d can conclude that Paul is a right-wing extremist and Gravel is a left-wing extremist, right?

Not quite. Both candidates are populists, espousing “common sense” positions that many average Americans hold, but which are not endorsed by many mainstream politicians. Both are opposed to the Iraq War (and always were), both question Prohibition, both are wary of a pre-emptive strike against Iran and both are suspicious of the corporate media that excludes them from debates. In short, they have a lot in common with the public they are trying to represent.

Meanwhile, the Media’s favorite Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, goes around saying fascist shit like this:

We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

Is that what most Americans believe? Wasn’t America founded by overthrowing the “lawful authority” of the British? And this “Freedom is about authority” stuff sounds like a parody of George Orwell’s 1984… but Rudy was being serious! “You have free speech so I can be heard”?!! Saturday Night Live couldn’t parody Rudy any better than he does himself.

Which candidate is really an “extremist”? Which candidate is fundamentally out-of-line with the thinking of mainstream America? Well, maybe America really does want fascism instead of freedom, but the noise on the internet would seem to indicate otherwise.

Media Control and Manipulation
It seems like ancient history now, but it was actually the recent past when the mainstream media controlled every avenue of information and expression in this country. Nowadays we can talk about these things and send our message out to a wide audience, but as recently as 12 years ago it simply was not possible for a middle class person to route around the MSM. Suddenly most people can afford machines that are more powerful than a printing press, and allow common people to talk to each other without the Media’s filter. That’s why the Media is so upset about blogging and social media — they’re so used to having an absolute stranglehold over the conversation in this country.

The Media is used to controlling:

  • what information citizens receive
  • what information citizens are allowed to share with one another on the national stage
  • discussion and framing of issues in mainstream press
  • which issues receive national coverage (and which are ignored)
  • who gets to talk about the issues in the press (and who doesn’t)
  • how political actors are portrayed (villain or hero or neutral)

Social Media smashes that control grid and puts power in the hands of the many, rather than the few. This is a recent development so the full ramifications are not yet clear, but one thing we are finding out is that the Media has been using their incredible power to highlight certain candidates and suppress others.

The media has a paternalist streak that is really out of place in this day and age. The Washington Post thinks they know best and they aren’t afraid to tell you that they already know Gravel & Paul are not going to be elected, so why don’t we just eject them from the debates already?

The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren’t helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he’s a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he’s a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans.

Thank goodness for our dear corporate masters. If they didn’t come in any set things straight we’d have to learn somebody’s name and what they stand for. MY GOD! The very idea exhausts me.

Sarcasm aside, this sort of thing has been going on for generations. That’s why an editorial like the one above doesn’t seem odd to them; this is standard operating procedure! The Media has identified the candidates they don’t like (the ones that aren’t easily bought/co-opted) and now they’ve decided to tell you, Dear Voter, than you needn’t concern yourself with these troublesome miscreants. Big Media will make things simple for you by excluding them.

…But wait a minute. Isn’t this a democracy? Don’t the voters decide who is voted off the proverbial island?

Well, now you know better. That is not the way America works. America is run by a ruling class of oligarchs no different than the ones who control Russia. The difference is the American media freely admits that oligarchs run Russia, but they would sooner give their mansions to the poor than admit America is the same. The exact reverse scenario plays out in Russia where the Russian (government/oligarch-controlled) media is free to disparage America and mock its corrupt institutions, while speaking ill of Russia is a good way to get your broadcasting license revoked.

The awful truth is that America has long been controlled by the rich, just like most nations throughout history. They have remade American society and government to suit themselves and they have grown very comfortable on their throne.

What is an Oligarchy?
Stephen Fleischman, himself a former mainstream media man, tackles the reality of the Oligarchy in an article for Counterpunch:

My dictionary says an oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of the society. As Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, puts it, “Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed.” Does that sound like the administration of George W. Bush?

Why, yes it does! That must be a weird coincidence. … right?

I wish I could tell you more about the Oligarchy, but it operates in secret and prefers that most citizens do not even know it exists. In fact, by using the mainstream media the Oligarchy is able to program us so that even if we are provided with irrefutable evidence of the existence of said Oligarchy, many will still deny it and disbelieve it.

You’re probably wondering “How?!”

Have you ever been called a “conspiracy theorist?” Well, it tends to end any meaningful discussion of the facts and immediately puts the onus on the accused to defend himself from the charge leveled at him. The Media has a few “magic words” like this at their disposal. It’s amazing how effective they can be. Nobody wants to be called a conspiracy theorist… but isn’t that just an ad hominem attack? It’s no different than calling someone a poopy-head.

I suspect there may be more to it than that. In a future post I’ll look into how the Oligarchy exploits its control of the media for fun and profit.

What should we do about it?
At a certain point we in the ‘net community need to stand up and say, “To hell with you guys. We’re hosting our own debate and we’ll invite everybody!” We ju
st need to set up a website with a group of people dedicated to hosting the cyber-debate; we’ll get some buzz going and then what candidate will say “no” to a chance to get his/her message out to such an elusive audience?

The media can’t be trusted to define, design and delineate the ground rules for our national debate. Candidates are having trouble getting their message across because of the media’s filter. It’s time to cut out the middle man.

This is an Electric Monkey Pants Intergalactic News Network special report!

Porn-star Ron Jeremy has confessed to masterminding the attacks of September 11, 2001 along with his long-lost brother Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. “We did it,” Ron Jeremy wrote in his confession, calling the mysterious collapse of the towers “the money shot.”

Also confessing was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (or “KSM” as he is known to lazy Americans). KSM had long eluded capture by the Americans by disguising himself as a grizzly bear. Later it was revealed that it wasn’t a disguise; he is just really, really hairy. He twice escaped captivity by pretending to be a dog with rabies, but was recaptured while picking nits and lice out of his fur.

Calling themselves the Hairy Brothers of Destruction, Mr. Jeremy and KSM confessed to a long list of crimes against humanity.

Authorities also seized a hard drive containing details of several assassination plots (including attempts to kill the Pope, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s gardener), and hundreds of gigs of midget porn, bestiality porn, and pictures of Ron Jeremy rubbing KSM with sandpaper in what appears to be an attempt at hair removal.

The deranged duo admitted to being tortured by federal agents, and hinted at Abu Ghraib-style torture involving being stacked in a pile of naked men and being led around on a leash. They also indicated that they kind of liked it.

While enjoying a breakfast of bacon and eggs the confessed masterminds of 9/11 assured their interrogators that they were devout Muslims and that their confession was not coerced: “Karl Rove didn’t call me and ask for a confession in exchange for 30 Brazilian hookers. Nothing like that happened, at all” Mr. Jeremy assured his captors, who then fed the revelations to several unquestioning, servile reporters, including this one.

KSM supplied a type-written note that listed all of the crimes the duo is responsible for masterminding. The list includes:

  • the bombing of U.S. Cole
  • the decapitation of Daniel Pearl
  • the planting of explosives that brought down WTC 7
  • farting in the interrogation room — twice
  • the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia
  • jump-starting Paris Hilton’s career
  • the Democrats’ strong showing in the November elections
  • happy-slapping
  • Abu-Ghraib (specifically: getting the Americans caught)
  • Hurricane Katrina
  • eye-boogers
  • killing Anna Nicole Smith
  • causing President Bush to appear stupid and clueless on TV
  • the Hindenburg disaster
  • pimples
  • the estate tax
  • the illusion of global warming (to scare hippies)
  • the Oklahoma City bombing
  • Watergate
  • killing Jesus Christ (and Old Yeller)

Ron Jeremy supplied an identical list, but he crossed out “Paris Hilton” and wrote “virneeral dizees”, then crossed that out and wrote “VD.”

The above information was provided to reporters on the condition that we not mention Alberto Gonzales, the word “impeachment” or the many inconsistencies in the official 9/11 story for 3 weeks. Naturally, we agreed because we just repeat whatever they say anyway.

[ed.: wait... were we supposed to repeat that last part?... i'd better call karl. hold till then]

This has been an Electric Monkey Pants Intergalactic News Network (EMPINN) special report!

I noticed this little tidbit on Slashdot, which is explained in more detail at the San Fran Chronicle:

Analog TVs will no longer receive a signal come Feb. 19, 2009, unless users update their hardware to receive a digital signal.

Federal officials announced details Monday about how that transition will work, saying the government will help consumers buy the necessary equipment to upgrade to digital — a converter box that attaches to the TV set.

The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said it is setting aside $990 million to pay for the boxes. Each home can request up to two $40 coupons for a digital-to-analog converter box, which consumer electronics makers such as RCA and LG plan to produce. Prices for the box have not been determined, but industry and consumer groups have estimated they will run $50 to $75 each. [emphasis added]

Yes, that’s right. The government is going to pay you to keep watching that boobtube. The government is subsidizing mind control devices in order to ensure the passivity of the populace.

As a person who hates TV and doesn’t own one, it really pisses me off that my tax dollars are being spent on this boondoggle. I’ve long had a nagging suspicion that TVs have always been subsidized to some extent because the powers that be wanted a window into the lives of their subjects. It’s worth noting that in 1984 the TV’s watch you.

TV is bad for you. It’s bad for your mind, your body and your soul. Why is the government subsidizing something that, by almost all accounts, is detrimental to our health? Children spend 44.5 hours per week in front of screens — as much time as I spend at my job — and the government is not only unconcerned they’re funding this? Don’t you see something wrong here?

The Romans had their bread & circuses and Americans have their TV. This is about pacifying the population. If we didn’t have TV to numb our brains people might start to wake up to all the nefarious shit going on around us. Ideally, TV would be an excellent medium to tackle these social ills, but the mega-media-corps rarely seem to do so, especially when their own bottom line is at risk.

Instead, we will all continue working all day, going home to veg for a few hours and then waking up and doing it again… and with our softened brains we’ll never have time to ponder why a highly-advanced country like ours works so much, yet has so little to show for it (besides bigscreen TVs). With American Idol on we’ll never deduce that the rich are stealing from us through inflation, real-estate boom & busts, taxes and other financial trickery that make it possible for the middle classes’ earning power to actually decline over the last 30 years despite the rich getting fantastically richer.

We are being FUCKED. But most people are too hypnotized to notice.

The BBC has been in the middle of a blogger firestorm the last couple days after clear and incontrovertible evidence appeared, showing that the Beeb had reported the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building — better known as World Trade Center 7before it actually collapsed! Check out the screen grab below (I’ve circled WTC7):

The BBC engaged in some quick (and pathetic) damage control but failed to calm the boiling outrage erupting around the world. In so doing they revealed that they’ve lost all of their tapes from 9/11 and doefully ask somebody to send them a copy, plz. (I’m not fucking kidding. Check the link):

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it.

I don’t even know where to begin.

Okay, Beeb… so you’re telling me that nobody fucking bothered to save or secure any of the tapes from an entire day of broadcasting — a day that, even for the Brits, would have to rank as one of the most important in a generation at least, and then you meekly ask for a copy as if it’s our job?! What the hell?! Then you claim incompetence (just like the Bush regime)?! Well, your excuse is so fucking pathetic I’m inclined to agree that you are a bunch of morons.

Do you believe them? I don’t. This is bullshit. I’m starting to think that the BBC, and all the other major news organs, are in fact part of the conspiracy — after the fact.

So how did the Beeb get the news that the WTC7 building was about to collapse? Well, that certainly could be fairly innocent on their part. If a “trusted source” informed them of the collapse, they would be inclined to report it, and not bothering to check and see that the building is still standing does reek of incompetence. However, they seem quite competent at getting videos removed from YouTube and GoogleVideo. Strange for a news organization that was supposedly trying to get their tapes back.

I managed to find a clip on YouTube that hasn’t been taken down yet. It’s got a full 25 minutes of the BBC’s feed from 9/11, so you’ll have to fast forward ahead to the 15 minute mark to see the footage in question.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0]

What are we to make of all this? Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. The corporate-controlled media is lying to us. Every day, with every breath, and every death in Iraq or from the growing numbers of dead or dying first respondersthey’re lying to us. They know which way the evidence points, and they’re doing everything they can to cover it up. After the BBC’s litany of pathetic excuses they had the gall to mock those of us who question the official story:

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

So they’re not only mocking those of us genuinely concerned about the events of 9/11 (if we don’t learn what really happened, how can we prevent another one?), they’ve sunken so low they’re using a Bush regime apologist’s anonymous comments on YouTube to make their case. FUCKING PATHETIC.

What’s even more intriguing is how the BBC flak, Richard Porter, seems more interested in carrying water for the Bush regime than he does in showing his news organization as a competent and trustworthy news source. In fact, he goes out of his way to make the BBC appear utterly incompetent — no doubt because it helps the Bush regime with their own claims of incompetence rather than malfeasance. Instead of acknowledging legitimate questions about that fateful day he does all he can to back up the official story (which, by the way, is a conspiracy theory no matter how you slice it). I say again: FUCKING PATHETIC.

That’s it. You’re done, Beeb. I had you in my bookmarks, but you’re gone now. You’re fucking gone. You are nothing more than an agent of evil to me now. I will give you the same amount of trust I give the Bush regime — less than zero.

I’m calling for a BOYCOTT, folks. We can’t let our media LIE to us and get away with it. Going back to them and reading their deception-stained news would be like an abused wife going back to her drunked and violent husband. Enough!

What’s the number one thing a news organization is supposed to do? Tell the truth, right? When a news outlet refuses to do that, what good are they? They’re about as useful as a knife in the eye. They’re about as helpful as gonorrhea.

I’m calling for a boycott until such time as the BBC fires that arrogant, pandering fuckhead, Richard Porter, head editor of world news… AND launches a full and impartial investigation into the tragic events of 9/11 — giving all theories equal credence until the evidence makes clear which is most likely. And not a trashy hit-piece like that Conspiracy Files piece of shit (which was debunked about 5 minutes after it aired).

It really pains me to do this. The BBC has a lot of quality programming and some of their shows have really hit hard and exposed lies and crimes in government. However, they are tainted meat to me now. I can’t eat the rest of it just because it looks okay — how do I really know? Trust is such a fragile thing, and getting it back after losing it is not easy. Good luck, BBC. I hope you do the right thing.

“I installed it, I started it, and in 5 seconds I was watching television.”

That’s a good start. TV might never be the same.

2007 is shaping up to be the year of TV on the internet (TVoIP?) with the closed-beta unveiling of Joost, the new application from the creators of Skype and KaZaA. Until yesterday it was referred to by its codename “The Venice Project.” Well, now it’s Joost for better or for worse, and it looks like we may have a world-changing app on the order or Napster (or Skype) on our hands. Read on for a full review.

But Joost isn’t the only game in town. I haven’t gotten my hands on Joost yet, but I’ve already been playing around with SopCast on my old PC. SopCast merges Windows Streaming Server, WM Encoder and the BitTorrent protocol to provide an open format for home TV watching, and TV streaming. Basically, anybody with a TV capture card and some decent bandwidth can start their own stream of their favorite TV show or the big football game on sunday. As viewers join in they simultaneously become broadcasters, similar to the way BitTorrent downloaders automatically become uploaders.

TVUplayer is another TV over IP client/server setup, but I haven’t tried it yet. Please leave some comments if you’ve installed it.

I’ve watched a few games on SopCast and although the quality is pretty poor, the concept works. The main thing holding TVoIP back is the stingy upload caps most ISPs put on their customers’ lines. 384 kbps is simply not going to cut it. We need at least a megabit, preferably more. If TV on the internet is going to become a reality the ISPs need to loosen the choke chain on our bandwidth.