I understand why you say that, but I don't agree. There are specific
criteria for doing good journalism. Back when I attended high school, and my
high school was considered to be one of the worst in New York City, even
that high school had a course in Journalism. Given your age, you probably
haven't encountered serious, objective journalism, and the few fine
journalists who exist, have been muzzled. Some of them are in their
eighties. Some are dead. The young ones are not on TV, nor in what used to
be, trustworthy newspapers. And not all of the people who do good reporting
are left of center politically. One has to read a lot of stuff and listen to
a lot of people in order to get a sense of what the truth is. But it is
there and there are people who do a good job of reporting it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:51 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: John Dean?
"Investigative journalism", are you serious? No matter which direction it is
coming from it is still corporate, commercial poop designed to move wealth
in someone else's direction. The way the American consumer (you and me)
evaluate it is based upon our own biases. If we agree it is investigative
journalism. If we disagree it is propaganda.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] John Dean?
Since when did John Dean become a respected political consultant whose books
are worthy of promotion by Democracy Now? Does anyone remember who he is and
what his role was in the Nixon administration? His inclusion in this
morning's program is just another indication of how much Democracy Now has
departed from what it once was. Yesterday, I listened to the second part of
a discussion on Moderate Rebels. Among other things, there was discussion of
the actual credentials of some of the so called experts on foreign policy
who have appeared on Democracy Now over the past few years. So many of them
represent the Neo Cons or our national security state so that the
information that they provide is not factual information acquired through
investigative journalism, but propaganda which has been scattered through
various sources and then reported by the media as news acquired from a
number of sources. Democracy Now lives on while the Grayzone Project is
attacked by everyone because the news it reports is different from what the
mainstream media report.
Miriam