The Guardian in UK
Last week, we did a story from the The Guardian in UK: "America's healthcare industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms promised by Barack Obama...Principally insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms and hospitals ‑ (have) worked to stop far-reaching changes threatening their profits."
-->At the end of the story, we criticized the NY Times for not cover ing this huge lobbying effort. Last Sunday's NY Times (Oct. 11) attempts to set the record straight. A headline story blames "lobbyists" for the failure to save on healthcare costs in proposed legislation. Lobbyists for whom? Why union lobbyists fighting a tax on existing healthcare benefits, of course, and physicians fighting against further cuts in Medicare benefits. What other lobbyists are there? Not covered, of course, are the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms that have spent $380M in recent months to defeat universal healthcare. The NY Times has a long history of protecting corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/health/policy/11cost.html?_r=1&hp
-------------------
BBC News
"What happened to global warming? This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
-->The real question is what on earth is going on with the reporting about global warming? The BBC trusts their "Climate correspondent," Paul Hudson, to do an accurate job in evaluating whether global warming exists. Of course, he is really just their weatherman with no more than a bachelor's degree in science. Why pick someone so unqualified? Z Magazine (Sept. 09) describes it best:
"A 2004 study published in Science magazine showed that "of 928 articles
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, none were in doubt as to the existence or cause of global warming. During the same period, of 636 articles in the four most popular US daily newspapers (the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall St. Journal), 53 percent expressed doubt as to the existence and/or primary cause of global warming."
-------------------
WAMC/NPR
In referring to the Goldstone Report on the invasion of Gaza, WAMC/NPR always describes it as being "critical of both sides" for committing war crimes. This week, in reporting Israel's objected to the Goldstone Report, this was stated again.
-->Only the US media would characterize the Goldstone Report as being equally critical of both sides. In fact, The Goldstone Report is much more critical of Israel's mass killing of Palestinian civilians, intentional destruction of civilian infrastructure, and longstanding economic blockade of Gaza. Israeli media, although Israel refused any cooperation with the Goldstone investigation, states the report to be much more critical of Israeli crimes against humanity. NPR more censured than the Israeli media when it comes to reporting on the Gaza invasion? Of course it is. American media in general, starting with the NY Times, is often thinly veiled Zionist propaganda. Goldstone's conclusions are reserved for an op-ed piece. Reading Israeli media, especially Haaretz, is a lesson in freedom of the press.
