Here’s one perspective. It’s an excerpt from an article from The Economist, entitled: “Who Killed the Newspaper?”: Having ignored reality for years, newspapers are at last doing something. In order to cut costs, they are already spending less on journalism. Many are also trying to attract younger readers by shifting…
The following remarks were delivered by Bernie Sanders to the National Conference for Media Reform. Sanders is the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He is an independent, but caucuses with the Democrats. Amy Goodman describes Sanders’ speech as an “alternative State of the Union.”
The full text to Sanders’ speech can be found here. Video of his presentation can be found here. Here are excerpts of Sanders’ speech to the NCMR in Memphis:
…[W]e will not succeed unless you are there, unless there is a strong grassroots media, which demands fundamental changes in media today and the end of corporate control over our media. We’ve got to work together on that.
Now, you are going to hear from a lot of folks who know more about the details of the media than I do, but what I do know a lot about is how media impacts the political process, what media means for those of us who day after day struggle with the major issues facing our country and a goal of trying to improve the quality of life for all of our people.
And I want to spend just a minute in telling you what I suspect most of you already know. If you are concerned, as been said, about healthcare, if you are concerned about foreign policy and Iraq, if you are concerned about the economy, if you are concerned about global warming, you are kidding yourselves if you are not concerned about corporate control over the
I have a PayPal account, so when I received the following email yesterday, it concerned me enough that I decided to log on to PayPal to find out more about this unauthorized change to my account: You've added an additional email address to your PayPal account. If you don.t agree…
In my opinion, two issues which overshadow all other issues: media reform and public financing of political campaigns. Why? Without these two reforms, public information will continue to be dishonest information. The media and those running for national public office will continue to present a picture warped by corporate (purely…
Here’s a site for scientists looking for help in presenting the need to vigorously teach evolution, when confronted by anti-science types.
I keep falling into the trap that this should be easy to convince people to study evolution in light of the abundant evidence in support and the elegance of natural selection. On the issue of whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, how about this: If you believe in God, the universe would (it seems to me) to be God’s elaborate “clock.” Dozens of physical and biological mechanisms are commensurate in suggesting that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. Why deny these numerous testable clock mechanisms in order to pursue a narrow inquiry-ending view (one of many) of an ancient book of aprochraphal (un-testable) origins?
But, alas, presenting well-established scientific facts don’t convince Creationists. In fact, no evidence convinces them that the version of the Bible that they bought at Wal-Mart is the one true inerrant version, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. To me, it is a red flag when non-experts reject the experts when virtually all of the experts (those trained and practicing in a field) speak in unison.
Certainly, then, announcing broad-minded scientific principles is not enough to pry open most of those closed minds. In fact, the terms “science,” “academic” and “intellectual” make many creationists bristle and turn away. Turn on any 24-hour Christian AM radio show for confirmation.
This new site is sponsored by the Federation of …