Truth in Media

Changing the media

to change the world

Freedom of the Press is limited to those who own one.

- H.L. Mencken

Setting Media on the Right Track

Journalism must look back to its roots and move forward to the Internet

at the same time to overcome its current shortcomings

By Catherine J. Rourke

As a member of a new growing breed of cyber journalists, I’ll be the first to admit: I love old newsprint. In fact, I collect old newspapers and have some dating back to the early 1800s. They grace the wall above my desk as an inspiration for my work on The Sedona Observer.

I love the crammed columns that run for inches and inches sans any paragraph breaks, all full of muckraking indignation and public outrage about the political mayhem of their time. Best of all, I love the purity and simplicity of the pages with their blatant lack of advertising. Journalism the way it used to be – and should be.

Why can’t today’s media emulate the altruism of that bygone era of glorious, passionate journalism? – with more frequent paragraph breaks, of course, for our attention-deficit modern era and its short, sound-bite attention span.

I say: Let’s bring back the Ida Tarbells and John Swintons because America needs it now more than ever. These muckraking journalists, who wrote on behalf of the public interest like tigers and pirates, called a spade a spade and gave huge corporations the public spanking they so desperately needed.

What needs a closer look?

Can you, right now, think of some institutions in sore need of this journalistic exposure? How about oil companies and Wall Street financial corporations? Perhaps the American Medical Association or the Food and Drug Administration? How about some drug lords and their pharmaceutical firms? What about health insurance companies and our political representatives who accept their hefty lobbying payouts?

What aspects of our culture remain in neglect of the ethical journalistic magnifying glass? My list runs for miles, much like an 18th century news column, topped by an anti-worker and anti-family administration that has left every shred of integrity in America in tatters. Then there’s the military and the war and the IRS and…

What about Sedona and the Verde Valley and their local monopolies – in media, medicine and merchandising? How is Wal-Mart destroying our local businesses and economy? How is the new American slavery – the undocumented immigrant cheap labor force – creating an imbalanced community instead of a sustainable one?

The Sedona Observer currently has numerous local issues like these under its magnifying glass – from allegations about corrupt health-care facilities to salivating developers eager to construct multiple-story parking garages in Oak Creek Canyon. These are just a few of the stories that remain in severe investigative-reporting neglect in northern Arizona.

Online media: the anti-virus software for corrupt journalism

While online journalism represents the wave of the future, according to countless industry sources, I believe we can shape its course in an entirely new direction with quality, ethics and integrity. That’s what this newspaper is all about. Think of it like some new anti-virus software that can clean up a badly corroded hard drive and restore corrupted files.

Just as I was completing the laborious solo task of editing and designing this issue, I wondered if I wasn’t insane. Had I created an 18-hour-a-day monster – which didn’t earn me a cent and devoured all my energy and meager financial resources – that people weren’t reading anyway?

Is anyone reading it?

Why was I knocking myself out to restore truth to journalism if no one was interested? Why bother if I couldn’t earn a living because I shunned advertising and paid subscriptions as a not-for-profit free press? How long would my contributors continue working on their stories before they ran out of steam – for lack of funding?

Did anyone really care about the truth behind the facade of today’s issues in a culture of fear and denial that has folks overwhelmed and no longer reading? Alarming studies report that Americans remain more focused on Superbowl, superstars and shopping for bargains at Wal-Mart. So why bother writing exposes of the big box giant’s workplace atrocities?

Then, in my darkest hour of doubt, along comes a press association publication to alleviate my apprehensions and confirm that The Sedona Observer stands not only at the very forefront of a growing trend in community journalism, but also represents the very future of the nation's journalism itself. That was almost as good as receiving a big fat donation to pay our writers and artists.

Nonprofit newshounds: rescuing journalism

In the latest issue of Quill, the magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists, there appears a cover story that grabbed my eye:


“That’s us!” I thought, with renewed optimism; “I’m not nuts after all!”

In this article, Suzanne Perry writes about the new movement to “rescue journalism” via nonprofit online news sites whose missions echo the Observer’s. Funded by grants and philanthropists disturbed by the current state of media, they focus on “serving the public good” instead of “profits.”

If you click on our original mission statement, which appears in every issue on the WHY page, you’ll find it reflects the above purpose in the exact same words. How encouraging to know we have others like us joining the momentum.

Media shortfalls

The SPJ article states “a growing concern that the news-media landscape is changing in ways that imperil the ability of citizens to get the information they need to run a democracy.” Furthermore, it points to “saturation coverage of celebrities and entertainment at the expense of serious news” and “a failure to cover critical stories well.”

The article emphasizes the following points also outlined in the Observer’s mission:

  • “a deep concern about the state of the nation’s newspapers”
  • “newspapers that fail to serve their readers or communities”
  • “a lack of in-depth investigative reporting”
  • the vital role of “Internet technology to make it possible, with both blogs and original reporting from a liberal point of view while adhering to strong journalistic standards”

The story also quotes Rebecca Remel, president of the Pew Charitable Trusts, in a sentence that could have been taken right out of our mission: “Everybody from the Founding Fathers on have said we need a free, robust press, and a market failure in journalism is a deep public-policy concern.”

Amen, Rebecca. [For more information on our view of the situation, see “Let the Media Revolution Begin!” on our last issue’s OP-ED page].

Resurrecting media responsibility

SPJ’s article cites many professional journalists who, like myself, have become disenchanted and downright exasperated with the current unethical state of media (much in the same way the doctors who sent us their testimonials are fed up with the lack of ethics in today’s medicine – see the DIAGNOSIS: DISASTROUS page for their stories). Like the Observer, these reporters have initiated online news sites to imbue our profession with a “sense of social mission.” Hooray! We're not alone!

Take journalist David Bennahum, for example, who launched MinnPost.com, or Joel Kramer, who created VoiceofSanDiego.com, both highlighted in Perry’s story. Citing concern about “gaps in news-media coverage” and “the failure of many journalists to challenge the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq,” Bennahum states that “we need more diverse sources of news.”

The journalists and visual artists at The Sedona Observer couldn’t agree more – especially right here in Sedona, where the in-depth perspectives about immigration, health care,  politics, affordable housing, economy, development and the environment remain either sorely neglected or totally ignored.

Making media work

Together, with Bennahum and Kramer, we have all had to quit our mainstream news jobs in order to uphold the founding principles of the Fourth Estate. And, as the SPJ article demonstrates, it’s no easy task – especially when it comes to funding.

If the new media shuns advertising, subscription fees and the former revenue streams of the old guard, how does it pay its contributors and fund its online sites? Good question.

Online news sites rely on donors, sponsors, grants and philanthropists who have the vision to support a revolutionary change in today’s media. But it’s really nothing new, in my humble opinion. It’s just about resurrecting journalism’s original purpose by employing new technology. Still, it all costs money, even if it is cheaper to produce and distribute than print media.

Pro bono – and pro passion

While Kramer and Bennahum started with millions, The Sedona Observer launched its first issue with $350, donated by an 87-year-old woman who’s battling cancer and “a corrupt medical system” because she believes in what we’re trying to accomplish. The rest of us donated our unpaid time and talent while I purchased the software out of pocket.

Although we’ve had one very generous donor step up anonymously to fund our new promotional campaign in the Sedona and Flagstaff Harkins Theatres (watch for us on the big screen starting Feb. 15!), we still operate without any funding, either for myself as managing editor or for our contributors.

Not only do we work pro bono because we believe this change in media needs to happen, but none of us are idle rich, comfortably retired, trust fund babies or awaiting huge pensions and inheritances. We have no 401K's tucked away or IRA's we can tap. In fact, most of us don’t even have health insurance. Instead, we're fueled with an unbridled passion for public service via community journalism.

Long hours, no pay

This lack of funding means that we toil enormous hours in our “spare” time to bring you this newspaper – our “gift of a free press.” Working odd jobs to pay the rent and struggling to find freelance work means that most of us live pretty close to the financial edge each and every day.

Our efforts here begin when our day jobs end and usually last into the wee hours. As the paper’s editor, I perform the Herculean task of production on a solo basis, executing all of the editing, design and layout, along with some of the writing, including headlines, editorials, intros, articles and subheads.

But we’re doing something we believe in and creating journalism we feel passionately about. Indeed, my days as a former editor-in-chief were far more prosperous but oh so empty and unfulfilling. While I can desperately use a salary and some help, I wouldn’t trade places for anything. The public needs to know what’s going on, and it has the right to know. That, pure and simple, is what drives me to do this work.

The real thing

While we believe in blogs and celebrate citizen journalism, we want to emphasize that this newspaper does not represent either one. The Sedona Observer is produced by veteran, award-winning media professionals (see the WHO page for our masthead and bios). It is written in compliance with media law and publishing industry standards; copy-edited in Associated Press format; and features the same components you’ll find in most traditional newspapers.

What sets us apart is our immersion style of literary, narrative journalism. What you won't find in our pages: police blotters, school lunch menus, sports scores, press releases and canned wire service copy. Instead we offer original journalism on stunningly beautiful pages free from the visual pollution of banner ads.

Currently, The Sedona Observer is conducting a journalistic investigation regarding allegations about some area health-care providers. We do not want to create sensational headlines; that’s why we left body-bag journalism behind. Our intention is to protect and serve the public…to save lives and wallets from unnecessary loss. We simply call it “doing our job as journalists” and, like the Hippocratic Oath itself, we will “do no harm.”

We certainly have enough material to publish weekly, and we have the talent to do it. All we need is the funding so we can write full-time instead of stocking retail shelves, teaching or editing marketing materials to pay the rent. We want to focus 100 percent of our daytime efforts on bringing you this paper instead of jumping into it late at night as we are currently doing.

It takes us a painfully long time to produce each issue, but we believe it’s better than nothing. And we also like to think it’s worth the wait (see LETTER FROM THE EDITOR for more details on our production).

An act of faith

None of us want to return to the mainstream press and write about tomorrow’s death count in Iraq just for the sake of a paycheck and some lousy medical insurance. We would rather report why and how we think those deaths could be prevented and what we can do to resolve the war.

We don’t want to copy edit the latest hospital press release and put a glowing headline on it; we would rather interview the nurses and doctors who are reporting serious charges of patient neglect and rip-off. And we would also rather work on finding solutions to our health care woes on the local level instead of just reporting the same abysmal statistics.

Because we believe what Ann Curry of NBC News says:


Journalists have a chance now to fulfill our responsibility

of giving the American people what they need to know

to face down the challenges of our troubled world.”


Restoring the sacred trust

You rely on us to report the facts, ask tough questions, speak truth to power and serve as public sentinels. We are your vehicle of expression for your First Amendment freedoms. We count on you to read us, interact with us and support us as your media.

This represents a very sacred trust that has been broken by media monopolies in their quest for wealth and power.

The Sedona Observer strives to restore America’s sacred trust in its media. And we believe that restoration starts right here in Sedona with community journalism.

What can you do?

Send us your letters and editorials instead of just flooding your friends’ e-mails with your rants. Offer some possible solutions instead of just angry emotions. Let go of the fear pervading our culture and go on the record with your comments. While we'll consider publishing your testimonials anonymously as your freedom of speech, anonymous sources don’t lend us much credibility as journalists. So step forward courageously and speak out, just as we are doing here on these pages.

We’re also open to your donations along with your suggestions. If everyone gave just $1, we could hire a professional staff and get them off Wal-Mart’s pitiful payroll. (Yes, we do have unemployed professional journalists in this community working at big box stores, thanks to the demise of print media and ensuing layoffs.) That way we could publish more often, delivering the information that is essential to you, to our community and to democracy.

In the meantime, our heartfelt thanks go to all of you for your contributions and support. I might just get a full night’s sleep one of these days after all.



Make a tax-deductible donation to our 501c3 nonprofit newspaper.

Read our proposal for media reform in “Let the Media Revolution Begin!

See our media vision, which appears in every issue on the WHY page

View our masthead and bios on the WHO page

Review our Journalism Code of Ethics in every issue on the WHAT page.


Cheney Impeachment Bill


Proof Major Media Heads Remain Stuck in the Sand


By Carl Weis


Last November, one courageous congressman named Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) forced an actual vote on the floor of the House of Representatives for an historic action: the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.  A recent American Research Institute poll that remains widely unreported shows that 54 percent of the public want Cheney impeached.  Almost as many 43 percent want the same for Bush.

The next day, I checked to see how The New York Times covered this unprecedented action.  That vaunted “newspaper of record” that boasts “all the news that’s fit to print” as its motto had NOT one WORD on the H.R. 333 Cheney bill in the entire paper. 

I was flabbergasted and also not surprised. There is a very odd blackout in the mainstream media on certain topics. And that extends to television, even with the so-called “24-hour news cycle.”

I don’t have a TV in my house (went cold turkey after moving here six years ago), but I got the first half of what turned into an hour-and-a-half drama  of the Kucinich H.R. 333 bill by telephone from a friend who was watching the coverage live on C-Span. 

As one who supports impeachment avidly, the night before I had predicted the Kucinich bill would go down to ignominious defeat by 25 to 399.  The notoriously spineless Democratic “impeachment-is-off-the-table” leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer offered an immediate motion to table the bill, which has three articles – each one a very serious charge – defining some of the high crimes of the one Bush appropriately calls “Vice.”

An unexpected reversal  

My friend gave me the running tally as the numbers mounted.  We were both astounded when it reached something like 75 favoring debate and 165 moving to table it, with 100 for debate representing a “moral victory” given the timidity of the present Democrat Congress. 

Well, somewhere past that 100 benchmark, when the counters had about 250 tallies, the votes started to change!  It seems the Republican leadership had decided to back immediate debate, thinking the bill’s three articles too extreme to get traction.


The buzz on the floor was extraordinary and, when the seesaw actually tipped in favor of debate, I went to the nearby home of relatives to watch the live proceedings – something I hadn’t done since the 9/11 Commission held open sessions with Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice. 

The final tally was 268 for debate and approximately 150 to table it.  The din on the House floor approached a roar, and more than an hour passed when the vote should have been completed in 15 minutes. 

Another motion brought by the Majority Leader Hoyer that was designed to kill the bill another way, placed matters into the hands of the Committee on the Judiciary – where  Chairman John Conyers had agreed when he took the post not to pursue impeachment, despite having authored a pro-impeachment book a year prior.

Conflicting agendas

The gap in coverage exhibited by The New York Times, pretending nothing had happened, speaks volumes about how the press has an agenda that differs from what the American people want. 

A Zogby poll, which was commissioned some months ago by an organization I am a member of, 911 Truth, showed that 51 percent of the American public favors investigating Bush and Cheney for their actions on 9/11.

Not one paper, nor any mainstream TV station, carried these results when released just days before the sixth anniversary of the event that “changed everything.”  If that doesn’t scream bias – or deliberate suppression – I don’t know what could qualify. 

Here is another example.  A reporter for one of the nation’s leading newspapers, with its headquarters also based in New York City, pursued a successful lawsuit to release the 503 oral histories taken of FDNY first responders in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. The city administration (under Mayor Bloomberg) had clamped such a tight lid on these that most people were not even aware such documents existed.

Suppressing the truth?

Imagine you are the editor of The New York Times and 12,000 pages of first-responder testimony are made available to the world by a court order BY YOUR OWN PAPER’S successful lawsuit.  These, when you read them, are literally explosive, similar to the Pentagon Papers of 9/11. You will now publish them, right?

Wrong.  One very tepid article appeared in the paper, period.  Oh, the Times had an on-line archive where dedicated researchers could go to read the extraordinary accounts of those who answered the call -- not by the 343 who perished in the event, but the riveting words of  503 survivors, all of them heroes. 

When I first learned about these firsthand narratives, I went into that archive. I wanted to see if firemen and medics had anything to say suggesting the use of explosive devices in the three World Trade Center buildings, each of which collapsed at virtual free-fall speed into its own footprint, including WTC 7 – a 47-story steel frame building – that was never even struck by an airplane.

I was astounded by what I found. 

When I started my research, I figured if 1-in-10 mentioned they heard explosions in the buildings, I would catalogue that.  What I found was that two in any random dozen DIDN’T give evidence for explosives!  Of those two who were mute, one had not arrived at the scene until the first two towers had collapsed and the other showed signs of post-traumatic stress. 

Could this have been why the power behind the Times was so fearful of publishing these eyewitness accounts?  According to the official account, the twin towers fell as the sole result of an aircraft collision and subsequent fire – at free-fall speed.  WTC 7 suddenly fell at 5:20 p.m. from fires. 

More media shortcoming

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson voiced a lament late last year that none of the three Democratic frontrunners at the time had a position on the war in Iraq reflecting the popular view of their constituents that it should be terminated soon. 

Well, I am sorry, Mr. Robinson, but I consider it your duty as a journalist to at least MENTION who among the candidates does share the anti-war view predominant among Democrats.  Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich’s names were absent from the piece.  I wrote to Robinson to protest and, of course, never heard a peep.  These guys are too arrogant to ever address their critics.

In December the Arizona Republic had an op-ed piece by Froma Harrop  of the Providence Journal headlined: “Note to lazy journalists: It’s a three-person race.” The editorial lamented how even John Edwards was squeezed out of most coverage, as if the whole Democratic race centered between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 

I am sick and tired of the media trying to decide the races on both sides before any voters have spoken.  All declared candidates in each of the dominant parties should always be given equal coverage by the press.  How else can the public make a fair and honest choice? 

I met a woman earlier in the race who, upon seeing my Kucinich button, said “Who’s he?” Then, a week later, my doctor asked the same question.  Perhaps some readers never saw any story on Kucinich.  Even Ron Paul got a slot on “Meet the Press.”

The Fourth Estate continues to increasingly fail us as ownership of the media has been quietly consolidated into the hands of about six corporations.  And they are not dedicated to the free flow of information.  It is, in a word, frightening.

Back to Cheney

On the morning of 9/11, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was called to the White House after the second plane hit the second tower, when everybody knew “America is under attack.”  He testified under oath to the 9/11 Commission that he arrived in the sub-basement command bunker at “about 9:20 a.m.” and sat opposite the vice president. 

“Five or six minutes” after getting there, “during the time the plane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out;’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’  And when it got down to ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president: ‘Do the orders still stand?’ and the vice president turned and he whipped his neck around and said ‘Of course the orders still stand.  Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”

This, by itself, is scarier than Halloween.  But then, when one reads the commission’s final Report (and, of course, very few DO), it says on page 40 that the vice president “arrived in the [bunker] shortly before 10:00, perhaps 9:58.”

As the commission met with Cheney and Bush, together, in the White House, “unsworn” but both still under their respective oaths of office, Cheney had to have lied about his actions and whereabouts on the morning in question.  There is not even a footnote, or a sentence or a paragraph in the entire Report, to suggest a high official gave any account differing with this false narrative.

The three articles of the Kucinich resolution to impeach Cheney each represent very strong indictments – one about lies told about WMD in Iraq that misled the congress and the nation into war – and another about connections between Iraq and al Qaeda and the third about threats to launch war against Iran.

Patriotic action you can take now

A fourth article must be added.  The Mineta testimony lays the basis, together with the false statement in the Commission Report.  The charges include treason and obstruction of justice as well as lying to federal officials. 

Pelosi said very publicly when she first took the oath of office as Speaker of the House that the Constitutional provision for impeachment of high officials for treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors would be “off the table.”  This is a bit like the hundreds of “signing statements” that President Bush has made as he signed laws saying, “This I will not honor, not enforce.”  Both are unacceptable in the form of government we were led to believe we have in this country.

Anyone whose vision for America is offended by Pelosi ‘s disregard for her own oath of office is welcome to write a letter to her San Francisco office: Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, 450 Golden Gate Ave., 14th floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Don’t write to Washington, because there is a two-week delay because the anthrax attack six years ago forced new “security measures” that bottles up congressional mail. 

Demand a fourth article that the 9/11 crimes of Cheney be added to H.R. 333/799.  Thousands of letters will be funneling in together with yours.  Let her office look like the Ninth Ward of New Orleans after Katrina!  

Send a copy also to House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Hon. John Conyers, Jr., 669 Federal Building, 231 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226. 

Their respective e-mail addresses are: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov  and John.Conyers@mail.house.gov. A toll-free number at the Capitol in Washington is 1-800-828-0498.

Thank you for your patriotism. Paul Revere rides again beside us.  But it won’t be reported in The New York Times.

Carl Weis is an artist, poet and former associate professor of creative arts (Siena College, Loudonville, New York) who now resides in the Village of Oak Creek. He is also a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (www.stj911.org) and a grassroots organizer at 911 Truth (www.911truth.org). E-mail cweis@SedonaObserver.com.










Bush, Lies and Videotape


"935 Lies"

Don’t blame Bush; blame a lame media

In its report titled “False Pretenses: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War, the Center for Public Integrity claims President Bush and top administration officials made “at least 935 false statements in the two years following Sept. 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.”

According to CPI, the statements by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials "were part of a well-orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

CPI founder Charles Lewis, who also serves as president of The Fund for Independence in Journalism, observes how the administration uses the media to distribute its pro-war agenda and therefore manipulate the American public.

To read the full, definitive report, visit http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/.

The question remains: Is the media failing to ask tough questions and accepting information provided by government sources as the gospel truth? Are copy editors and reporters conducting any proper fact-checking? And how much investigation are wire services pursuing?

This leads to even deeper questions. Are newsroom editorial staffers, like most American workers, so overwhelmed from multitasking, such as handling multiple stories at once, that they can only manage to produce surface news reports?

Is it possible that Jakob Nielsen was right in his prophetic 1998 article, “The End of Legacy Media,” in which he said the presses are “no longer willing to wait for weeks’ worth of research for the reflective story?”

While he predicted “the death of legacy media formats,"  he also accurately forecast the onset of Internet media:

“Around 2008, computer users will prefer using the Web over reading printed pages…if it provides services that take advantage of the interaction and integration offered by the new media,” he wrote.

Still, with all of the interaction and integration evident in new media, how do we allow 935 lies slip through our investigative cracks?

Before media starts digging for the truth in government, we ought to start by investigating our own industry practices to find out where the true lies remain buried.

Catherine J. Rourke


Activists for media reform



The Internet's democratization of all forms of communication includes our ability to publish a free press for you. While this represents good news for us, it poses a threat to those who seek to dismantle our First Amendment rights. They simply don't like the kind of wake-up material we produce.

It's no secret that those in power are disturbed by the emergence of many new liberal media reform sites such as freepress.net. This national, non- partisan media reform group coordinates a media reform movement called SavetheInternet.com Coalition, that works to generate policies to produce a public interest-oriented media system.

Free Press strives to open up the media for greater diversity of opinion since it "considers information to be among the most important resources to any society."

Did you know that the government would like to transform the Web into a giant revenue-producing postal system, charging us for every incoming and outgoing e-mail just like the cell phone giants? Above all, they'd love to make you pay for the privilege of logging on to sites such as ours and other free presses educating people about what they need to know to preserve their First Amendment rights.

Our hats go off to Free Press, and we support the work that they do; so should you. Log on to their site and join the fight against against big media and government attempts to regulate the Internet.


Pentagon: "Deal with the Internet as an enemy weapons system"

Read this frightening report from Global Research that reveals the Pentagon's campaign to "fight the Net."

It says: "The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap is blunt about the fact that an Internet, with the potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals." The campaign advises dealing with the Internet "as if it were an enemy weapons system."

Visit: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle .php?articleId=7980 for the entire story.


According to a recent report by freepress.net, the Federal Communications Commission approved new rules in December that “will unleash a flood of media consolidation across America.”

The new rules will further monopolize local media markets, threatening to remove “independent voices in cities already woefully short on local news and investigative journalism.”


For details of the report, go to: http://stopbigmedia.com.

The Internet's Broader Role

in Campaign 2008

Media and Internet junkies will appreciate this fascinating new report compiled by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Internet & American Life Project on the Internet media’s role in the 2008 elections.

According to the study, “online video is exploding” and taking over television and print media as the American vehicle of choice for political education, election info and campaign details.

The report also found that Americans rely on three major media outlets for their political and election news: MSNBC.com, CNN.com and Yahoo.com. Other widely used Web sites include Google News, Fox News, AOL News and The New York Times Web site.  

The disturbing aspect is that these news sources represent the very media monopolies that have failed to question Bush administration war reports and policies. By controlling the dissemination of the majority of Americans’ news and information, they hold the power to mold public opinion to suit their private agendas.

Read the full report at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=384


in our next issue:

That Sinkhole We Call "the News"

by James Kirwan


The Sedona Observer

Click here to learn more about:

WHO we are

WHAT our ethics are

WHEN we got started

WHERE - Sedona to the world

WHY we do this without pay

HOW to donate to support us