The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives

AlterNet by Mark Ames | Nov. 24, 2009 (News Analysis)

Reading through these credible accounts now, you can see how everyone from the PR flaks in the military to the rightwing machine would want somehow distract people from all the accounts of their pigheaded refusal to exempt or discharge Maj. Hasan, and you can then start to imagine how a lot of editors and viewers wouldn't put up much of a fuss if the story changed to something more palatable to the American public. So with no one interested in protecting ... Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S., Sci/Tech, Media, Health
Topics: Racism, U.S. Military, Psychology, Ethics in Journalism
Stats Help
# Tweets: 3 (as of 2009-11-24)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Nov 24, 2009 - 2:03 AM PST
Reviewed by: Dwight Rousu (review), Tanya J. Maurer (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Feb 18, 2010 - 3:06 PM PST

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
4.6
 by Dwight Rousu - Nov. 24, 2009

If you can tolerate a little venting in an important news analysis, Ames finds big corporate media revising stories to suit the racist islamophobic right wing. Links to old stories are destroyed. New unattributed sources are quoted to do the revisions. Important questions of journalistic ethics are presented.

Revising stories in a controlled media, in the old soviet style, is clearly suggested here. The quote from Orwell comes to mind: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Here the right wing press seems to control the present.

Dwight posted this story.
See Full Review » (13 answers)
Tanya J. Maurer
4.1
 by Tanya J. Maurer - Nov. 24, 2009
See Full Review » (10 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.3

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (21% confidence)
Quality
4.4
Facts
4.5
Fairness
4.0
Sourcing
4.5
Style
4.0
Context
4.5
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
5.0
Relevance
4.5
Popularity
4.1
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!