Dr. Mertens, Vows To Fight Media Bias Toward Independents

I wanted to share a story about this: the two media outlets that deliberately and premeditatedly excluded any mention of Tom Marsh’s participation in the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities debate on October 6 in their coverage were the Hartford Courant and Channel 8, the ABC affiliate.

Here’s the print story that ran in the Courant on Oct 7:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ccm-gov-candidates-1007-20101006,0,195356.story

Channel 8 set up cameras at the debate so that they could carefully shoot it without ever having Tom in any shot, and during their TV coverage, they never mentioned that Tom participated (despite the fact that I’ve heard from attendees that Tom won the debate).

These facts have made me more angry at the media than any of the rest of their actions this year. So, here’s my story: I was at an event on Saturday that included a presentation by the news director of Channel 8. It was a one hour interactive presentation and discussion of news and media coverage. Half way through he started talking about the importance of trust in media. I interrupted, and told the story of what Channel 8 did. This resulted in a passionate discussion for the remaining 30 minutes about ethics in journalism. The news director defended Channel 8 strongly at first, but the crowd beat him down. At the end of the session, the news director told me that he would investigate, and “if we blew it, I’ll be as upset as you are.” We’ll see about that.

I’ve been talking about this at every campaign event since: the fact that Tom Marsh has essentially been invited to every debate EXCEPT the televised debates, and that many of the major media outlets have made a point of not mentioning his participation in those he’s been invited to, has caused audible gasps in the audiences. We need to hammer this beyond the election. I’m planning op-ed pieces to all CT newspapers (they won’t print op-eds from candidates, so I have to wait until after Nov. 2), detailing what has happened, and I encourage others to do the same. Mike Telesca and I have discussed the possibility of a lawsuit as well, to raise awareness. This is our biggest problem; the media is complicit in the degradation of our democracy, and we need to fight to repair it, beyond November!

Best,

Dr. John Mertens
Professor of Engineering, Trinity College

America's Antiwar Reporters Dismissed and Deceased

Recently I have been learning that America's top antiwar reporters have been under fire for criticizing the pro-war policies of the Bush administration. There are four reporters that I have questions about and each will be explained below.

The first target of the corporate controlled media empire is Dan Rather. Dan Rather is a veteran reporter who has been on the television since I was a young Kid. His voice and opinion has been heard around the world, and Dan has made himself a household name with many baby boomers who have come to know him.Sadly Dan Rather was dismissed from CBS when he discovered the Bush administration forged documents in the Kilian story. The issue would not go away, but Dan Rather was eventually dismissed and the Killian case is now the subject of a 70 Million Dollar Lawsuit between CBS and Dan Rather. Dan still does do reporting but he has been moved into virtual obscurity and away from the main stream media.

The next media giant now silenced and gagged is Phil Donahue. Phil had his very popular television show on MSNBC that was cancelled. According to wikipedia "MSNBC cancelled the show, citing low viewership. Despite the reasons given by MSNBC, AllYourTV.com reported it had received a copy of an internal NBC memo that mentioned that Donahue had to be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war"

The third media giant to be eviscerated from the airways is Peter Jennings. According to Wikipedia, "his coverage was not without controversy though. After conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted Jennings for supposedly denigrating President George W. Bush on-air during September 11." Rush later apologized and retracted his remarks, but the fact remains that Peter Jennings died at the age of 67 from lung cancer. Many of his closest supporters believe that his death was suspicious in lieu of his anti Bush comments. However, no connection or proof has ever been presented that any foul play occurred.

One last person to add to this list is Gulf war 1 correspondent Peter Arnett who was also fired in lieu of his war stance and allegations of using untrue anti-war reporting information that did not jive with the "climate of fear" that many reporters at big news agencies feared. According to wikipedia "when Arnett's remarks sparked a "firestorm of protest", NBC initially defended him, saying he had given the interview as a professional courtesy and that his remarks were "analytical in nature". A day later, though, NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic all severed their relationships with Arnett."

This post today is intended to get your attention as to a possible pattern, and I respectfully ask all of the readers of this post to empower yourself and embed these reporters faces and stories into your lives regardless of opinion. Should there ever be any question of free speech in America these brave reporters are the front line casualties of the "information war."

Rupert Murdoch's Myspace Agenda

Today's article will explain why I made the decision to remove my link to Myspace. The decision to keep it off may be temporary or permanent depending on our final staff discussions. Currently we are discussing strategy on how to maintain our presence on their network, without compromising our message to you.

To explain how we arrived at this point it is important to know that our idea of using Myspace was due in part to Myspace advertising itself as a social networking site. When we decided to embark on this journey my partner was rather sceptical of this idea, as she saw an enormous amount of negative publicity surrounding Myspace. This was due to the media barrage that pedophiles were using Myspace to lure young children into relationships.

It was my opinion that Myspace responded to the negative publicity by implementing new safeguards to protect young children, and to give parents some security that their kids identity online could be protected. One thing that is important to know is that Myspace is still in its experimental or as we tech guys call it in its "Beta" stage. Parents still need to take notice and be aware of what their kids are doing on Myspace, especially the nature of their conversations with strangers.

To get into my situation, this is how we got suspended. We set up an account, and added our music, movies photos and information just like anyone else. We then did a search for Milford, CT and began networking by sending people a message and an invitation to join us as a friend. Soon after building up about 60 friends our account was suspended. At first we thought that we were somehow overzealous in our efforts to reach people and perhaps we were reported as spammers.

We then sent an e-mail to Myspace complaining about this suspension scenario. The Myspace team then replied back a day later with what looked like a non-human responce. They said we were imposters, or we were suspended due to the fact that we were impersonating someone else. This made absolutely no sense, so we believed that rather than fight this out we would just chalk it off. We even thought that maybe one of my opponents supporters reported us to bag our efforts at of which included disagreeing with him.

We started over and began again, this time with more caution and instead of the hundreds of friend invites, we kept it down to 50 or less pending invites. We built up to 30 friends and again we were suspended without explanation.

This prompted me to Google this problem and up came 663,000 hits on the error message stating: Invalid friend ID This user has either cancelled their membership, or their account has been deleted. I did more research and landed a few criticisms of the site. The one that was most astounding was Rupert Murdoch was behind this site of which already made me uneasy since he is a known minion and supporter of media censorship.

To make things more interesting, the Connecticut Post confirmed in today's paper that the United States has now fallen to 48Th in Freedom of the Press out of 169. This now puts Slovakia ahead of the U.S. in free speech, and as Michael Moore states health care too.

So why the censorship? While I am no advocate of conspiracy theories, I will say that the vast number of complaints against Myspace is alarming, and Alex Jones whose article I will not rewrite in its entirety will be included as a link below. My personal belief is that Myspace is being used to heavily promote Hillary Clinton whose face is plastered in every ad, and people with objecting points of view appear to be under fire as the number of complaints I have currently read, and am still reading appear to be politically motivated giving Alex Jones much credibility in his assertions.

This video is one of thousands. It is a posting from a person who claims all grass roots efforts to promote Ron Paul are deliberately being deleted and censored by the Myspace Minions.



Read Alex Jones article at:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/myspace_trojan_horse_of_internet_censorship.htm

Myleftnutmeg.com Censors Opinions

MyLeftnutmeg.com has been engaged in routinely censoring objectionable ideas from bloggers. I have personally witnessed diaries and comments dissappearing on a regular basis. I believe that their deleberate censorship is the result of everybody and everything that is not in line with their "Progressive" agenda, an agenda decided upon by the "Progressives" in charge.

A myleftnutmeg.com censorship case in point is the article below, featuring a Mexican shop owner breaking our Flag laws. The shop owner displayed their countries flag above the U.S. flag in a display of supreme nationalism.

Without a doubt censoring this article is within their Right to do, as it is mine to take my issues elsewhere. I believe that the suppression of ideas and blogs on a Blog board that calls itself "Progressive" is infact deceptive advertising. Their blogging policy is simply marked with a distasteful expletive "Don't be an A** H***." This cleverly masked deception trivializes the intent and purpose of their blog board and misleads posters and bloggers into thinking that their thoughts are welcome.

From My personal experience such censorships of dissenting views and practices only serve to blindfold the general public, a tactic that is about as progressive as Adolph Hitler's newspaper censorship during Nazi Germany. The censorship only sought to spread the "Progressive" agenda of the Nazi party. This practice has been repeated throughout history with Communist Russia, and yes folks Saddam Hussein Did it as well.

This note is to serve as an informative bit of commentary to any would be visitors of MyLeftNutmeg.com that if your opinions are not "Progressive" by authoity and opinion of the "Left Thinking" persons controlling that site your posts and blogs will be immediatetly deleted.

I would recommend viewing my own blog to express your opinions at www.rfrank118.com, the Ctpost.com board, or topix.com. There are numerous sites that do not censor, these are just my personal favorites.

Rocco J. Frank Jr.