Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1859)	2/11/2004 10:31:55 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

>>> He sees that manipulating the news is one of his most important jobs. He has plenty of surrogates and accomplices within the media to help with this. After all, the CIA may have admitted to having planted 400 "journalists" in the U.S. media industry in the 1970s, but the CIA has never said that they've removed a single one.<<< Anyone else notice how all of those new faces appeared on the networks and cable news shows during the war buildup? Why there were almost as many new news faces as there were military generals who showed up on tv.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1859)	2/11/2004 10:33:54 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Please Ray, re: <<The difference is that Jackson's boob has had a profound effect on the ability of censors to control the content coming through the 100 Million TV screens in America. That is a profoundly different thing from simple distraction.>> I wrote in my first post tonight, how Powell might use this incident as a censoring mechanism.. But I still think it is was random by your thoughts... MTV and Hollywood have not been a friend of the Bushes.. IMO, the reason it happened or was planned was to promote a sagging (no offense Janet, <g>) career of Janet Jackson and the Jacksons in general.. c