Something fascinating to me, having grown up on Swedish media, is how similar in craziness the right wing US media is to Swedish mainstream media -- but opposite.
If you follow Swedish media you miss lots of information on Israel/Palestine -- Pallywood has never been mentioned, torture between different Palestinian fractions are similarly censored. Etc, etc.
I was never so stupid that I believed media about big advertisers, but the general level of spin was a shock to me when I found out.
(I'm not a pro/anti hater re the Mid East, so no flame wars please. It is a good check on my local media, since it is well covered in international press. The reason seems to be that Swedish journalism was actively infiltrated by left wing extremists after 1968.)
Anyway, my point is that this article looks more like extremist Swedish media than mainstream media... I can't really know enough to argue about many internal US conditions, but some of the points look a bit fishy.
Number 3, Somali pirates -- not news to me. A fast Google shows this have been discussed in at least NY Times.
Number 4 cites Counterpunch... not exactly Washington Post.
Number 5, lead in lipstick -- I frankly don't believe that levels entering humans in USA are close to high enough to have biological effect. That must be a conspiracy theory (comments on the article noted that, too).
Number 9, white phosphor in Gaza is afaik not shown to be planned to reach the ground (air explosions for smoke effect are probably legal)?
Etc.
Is this article really HN-quality?
The US media needs criticism, like all media, and some advertisers are certain to have a large enough budget to avoid too much of analysis. But there must be better media criticism around, which doesn't smell so bad from idealist agendas?
If you follow Swedish media you miss lots of information on Israel/Palestine -- Pallywood has never been mentioned, torture between different Palestinian fractions are similarly censored. Etc, etc.
I was never so stupid that I believed media about big advertisers, but the general level of spin was a shock to me when I found out.
(I'm not a pro/anti hater re the Mid East, so no flame wars please. It is a good check on my local media, since it is well covered in international press. The reason seems to be that Swedish journalism was actively infiltrated by left wing extremists after 1968.)
Anyway, my point is that this article looks more like extremist Swedish media than mainstream media... I can't really know enough to argue about many internal US conditions, but some of the points look a bit fishy.
Number 3, Somali pirates -- not news to me. A fast Google shows this have been discussed in at least NY Times.
Number 4 cites Counterpunch... not exactly Washington Post.
Number 5, lead in lipstick -- I frankly don't believe that levels entering humans in USA are close to high enough to have biological effect. That must be a conspiracy theory (comments on the article noted that, too).
Number 9, white phosphor in Gaza is afaik not shown to be planned to reach the ground (air explosions for smoke effect are probably legal)?
Etc.
Is this article really HN-quality?
The US media needs criticism, like all media, and some advertisers are certain to have a large enough budget to avoid too much of analysis. But there must be better media criticism around, which doesn't smell so bad from idealist agendas?