clore333

The mainstream mass media (or MSM) offer news and opinion from viewpoints ranging from far-right ("conservative") to center-right ("liberal"). Other viewpoints -- anarchist, libertarian, progressive, socialist, green, classical liberal, or whatever -- are almost entirely excluded, and many important and interesting news stories go underreported or unreported.

What are your favorite news sites?

I have a Nolan Chart column, "A Guide to Alternative News and Commentary" here:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5077.html

What do readers consider the best and most useful news sources?

(I myself run a mailing-list carrying news & views for anarchists and activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/ )

The Iraq Freedom Congress (http://tinyurl.com/26yzpd ) is a libertarian, secularist, non-violent, democratic, and progressive group that opposes Ba'athism, Islamism, and nationalism -- as well as the US invasion/occupation.

The Iraq Freedom Congress has organized a self-defense Safety Force that patrols neighborhoods in Iraq (population: 5,000) and has reduced sectarian violence there to zero. However, far from supporting their efforts, US forces have repeatedly raided the IFC's headquarters and have assassinated the head of the Safety Forces (http://tinyurl.com/25yknr ).

Mainstream media have entirely failed to cover the IFC, and only a few alternative outlets have carried stories. The existence of the IFC, and the US military's repression against them, has been among the most underreported major news stories of the last few years. See a collection of items here: http://tinyurl.com/4hgn9r

Regressive-rightists (NeoCons, Republicans) long ago falsely proclaimed that liberal/progressive talk radio Air America (http://www.airamerica.com/ ) had died. They've now been claiming this for years. And yet, Air America remains on the air, broadcast by over sixty stations, and is the top-rated programming in a number of markets. Meanwhile, conservative talk radio has been dropping in ratings while Air America has continued to rise, and FOX News relies on subsidies from raunchy cartoons to keep going.

So, the question is, why have the regressive-rightists made this false claim? Possibilities might include: (1) blindly believing the lies of Rush Limbaugh and the like; (2) wishful thinking; and (3) outright dishonesty, perhaps motivated by the hope that those interested in Air America will not seek out its programming. Some combination of these and other factors is also a possibility.

Classic collection by the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker, now available in full on-line here:

http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-b...

Covers arguments against statism and in favor of anarchism, the difference between state socialism and anarchism (also why anarchism, including individualist anarchism, is a form of socialism), the nature of capitalism and why anarchists oppose it, individualist arguments against anarchist communism, methods of bringing about an anarchist society, and so on. Must reading for all anti-authoritarians and libertarians.

Mass media typically refer to those accused of crimes, who have not been proven guilty in a court of law, as "alleged" criminals -- meaning that the crime has been claimed, but not proven -- or as "suspects" or "suspected" criminals -- meaning that someone suspects that they have committed the "alleged" crime.

However, as those familiar with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will be painfully aware, it frequently turns out that the "suspected" criminal is not really suspected of anything. The individuals in these cases are really only *alleged suspects* -- the allegation that they are suspects being false.

So, should reporting instead use terms like "alleged suspect", combining the two, instead of either alone?

For example: "Abdul Alhazred, allegedly a suspected terrorist--"

The Bush administration, while disclaiming the word "torture", openly admits committing torture on detainees captured in the so-called "war on terror", naming specific forms of torture that include waterboarding, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, sensory overload with painfully load music, noise, and painfully bright light, sexual humiliation, painful extremes of heat and cold, and on and on and on. In addition, photographs of such torture at Abu Ghraib have been widely reproduced in mainstream media.

And yet, a poll (http://tinyurl.com/2hr4yu )shows that when asked if "the U.S. torture[s] prisoners captured in the War on Terror", only 42% of Americans answer yes, while 30% answer no.

How can people reach this conclusion, despite the well-known facts in the case and the open acknowledgment of torture by the Bush administration? What accounts for this behavior?

Republicans like to claim that the USA owns Iraq on the principle that "you break it, you own it". Do they also believe that al-Qaida owns the USA because of 9/11?

For examples of Republicans making the claim:

http://tinyurl.com/2d2muc

Self-explanatory question. Please name specific ways to help them, and provide URLs if possible.

For background information, see:

http://antiwar.com/

(Go to "regional news" on the left.)

On September 15, up to 100,000 people protested the Iraq War. Iraq Veterans Agains the War took the lead in organizing the protest; also attending were members of Veterans for Peace and Appear for Redress (active-duty military against the war). Less than 1,000 counterprotestors also demonstrated.

Given that hundreds of members of IVAW took part, as well as other veterans and active-duty soldiers, anti-war veterans surely outnumbered the entirety of the counterprotest.

Counterdemonstraters claim that they are not necessarily pro-war, but that they are just pro-troops. However, as troops passed them, they held signs and shouted at them, calling them "traitors, "commies", "moonbats", and the like.

Given their attacks on actual troops, including many who have served in Iraq, should we instead consider the counterprotestors just plain pro-war, and perhaps even outright anti-troop?

Many Republicans keep repeating that the US owns Iraq because "you break it, you've bought it". Do they also believe that Osama bin Laden owns the United States because of 9/11?

(Properly applied, of course, the saying "you break it, you buy it" would mean that the US must pay reparations to Iraqis.)

The Iraq Freedom Congress (http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm ) is a libertarian, secularist, nonviolent, democratic, progressive group opposed to Baathism, Islamism, & nationalism -- as well as the US invasion/occupation. Their Safety Forces have saved hundreds from Islamist terrorist attacks. US forces have attacked them several times.

However, they have been almost entirely ignored in the media. Mass media have completely ignored them. That is understandable, but independent media have largely ignored them as well. Few alternative news outlets have run stories on them -- e.g., http://www.ww4report.com/ http://opednews.com/ .

Other outlets, which one would expect keen to report on them (e.g., http://antiwar.com/ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ http://www.rationalreview.com/news http://www.juancole.com/ ) have not done so, even when I have given them pointers. Don't get me wrong, I consider these essential sources; but I wonder why they ignore this important group

Simple question for anarchists and libertarians: of the many possible kinds of activism (protesting, union organizing, etc., -- there are countless possibilities) do you think will do the most good?

The Iraq Freedom Congress (http://www.ifcongress.com/English/index.htm ) is a democratic, non-violent, secular, libertarian, progressive, anti-Ba'athist, anti-Islamist, anti-nationalist group. They have engaged in activities such as forming self-defense security forces that have stopped and prevented terrorist attacks.

While one might expect such a group to arouse some interest in the West, the mass media have maintained a total blackout on them, with only a few independent outlets reporting on them. The mass media has maintained this blackout even when US troops have attacked their offices (they oppose the US invasion/occupation; see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/message/8381 & http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/message/9327 ).

Why has the mass media failed to report on this apparently interesting group?