<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - All Rated Stories</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:30:36 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://www.newstrust.net/sources/pr_watch/all_rated_stories</link>
    <description>NewsTrust helps people find good journalism online. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. Our social news network features top-rated stories from hundreds of mainstream and independent sources. Find out more at http://www.newstrust.net/</description>
    <item>
      <title>Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law</title>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/20076/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/20076/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/pr_watch?ref=rss&quot;&gt;PR Watch&lt;/a&gt; - By Diane Farsetta, Sheldon Rampton - May. 11 (News Analysis) - The Pentagon military analyst program unveiled in last week's expose' by David Barstow in the New York Times was not just unethical but illegal. It violates, for starters, specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, &quot;No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/20076?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/20076?ref=rss&quot;&gt;8&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/20076/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Bush Administration</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Fighting  Junk Mail via 'Do Not Mail' Lists: Devilish Details  and Front Groups</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/19902/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/19902/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/pr_watch?ref=rss&quot;&gt;PR Watch&lt;/a&gt; - By Ann Landman - May. 08 (Special Report) - &quot;For beleaguered consumers, a &quot;Do Not Mail&quot; list certainly sounds attractive: just sign up and junk mail would magically stop.....&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/19902?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/19902?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/19902/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Law</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Jousting with the Lancet: More Data, More Debate over Iraqi Deaths</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16789/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16789/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/pr_watch?ref=rss&quot;&gt;PR Watch&lt;/a&gt; - By Diane Farsetta - Feb. 27 (News Analysis) - Theoretically, the public health surveys and polls that have been conducted in Iraq -- at great risk to the people involved -- should help inform and further the debate. But the data is complicated by different research approaches and their attendant caveats. The matter has been further confused by anemic reporting, with news articles usually framed as a &quot;he said / she said&quot; story, instead of an exploration and interpretation of research findings.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16789?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16789?ref=rss&quot;&gt;6&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16789/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Iraq</category>
      <category>War in Iraq</category>
      <category>Media and Politics</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>This Week in Congress (Feb. 9 - 15, 2008)</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16167/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16167/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/pr_watch?ref=rss&quot;&gt;PR Watch&lt;/a&gt; - By Conor Kenny - Feb. 12 (News Analysis) - (Congresspedia Preview) With the Senate approving an economic package last week, it looks like Congress can now return to some issues that were put on hold while the stimulus plan was crafted...the farm bill...FISA...[and]  the president's proposed FY 2009 federal budget..., which expanded military spending at the expense of domestic programs. ...the administration has a likely ally in House ...John Murtha (D-Pa.)...[who] will probably champion defense spending above and beyond that proposed by the administration. Specifically, Murtha will call for the construction of more cargo planes and Navy ships. Here are the committee hearings scheduled for this week in Congress...:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16167?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16167?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/16167/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Domestic Spying</category>
      <category>U.S. Budget</category>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
      <category>Farming</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Has the Internet Changed the Propaganda Model?</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 13:25:27 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8051/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8051/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/pr_watch?ref=rss&quot;&gt;PR Watch&lt;/a&gt; - By Sheldon Rampton - May. 22 (Opinion) - In their groundbreaking 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent,
professors Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky not only explained, but documented with extensive case studies, how mass media and public opinion are shaped in a democracy. Twenty years later, can their &quot;propaganda model&quot; still be used to explain modern media distortions? That was one of the main questions discussed last week at a conference in Windsor, Ontario titled &quot;20 Years of Propaganda?&quot; Organized by Dr. Paul Boin, the conference drew hundreds of scholars and activists including myself, and more than 1,000 people attended a closing speech by Chomsky on May 17.
The &quot;propaganda model&quot; that Herman and Chomsky put forward in Manufacturing Consent has made the book notable (some would say notorious) as the most influential book by serious academics to challenge the common dogma of media objectivity in the United States. When it first appeared, it was almost unheard-of to suggest that U.S. media such as the New York Times, Time and Newsweek magazines and CBS News were propaganda vehicles.
Today things are somewhat different. Across the political spectrum, there is a widespread belief that disinformation, deception and propaganda pervade the media. On the internet, the initials MSM have become a standard term of disparagement for untrustworthy &quot;mainstream media.&quot; The right has in fact far surpassed the left at denouncing the myth of media objectivity and has developed an entire industry of think tanks, media watchdogs and pundits such as Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter who devote themselves to discovering and denouncing purported instances of media bias -- while enjoying privileged media access themselves.
Based on my own experiences -- as a Central American solidarity and antiwar activist during the 1980s, as the co-author of two books about Iraq titled Weapons of Mass Deception and The Best War Ever, and as someone who studies the public relations industry and propaganda in general at the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) -- I see no shortage of evidence showing that propaganda is very much alive and well as a force shaping public opinion and public policy.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8051?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8051?ref=rss&quot;&gt;8&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8051/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Media and Politics</category>
      <category>Internet</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

