Relative media coverage

One of the problems we are having with breaking the lynching story is that the U.$. papers are based in big cities selling to Democrats. These papers are presumed to know me better and have the inside poop.

Yet, anyone studying the media can see that there is only one so far that even attempted on an Aesopian basis to show what the question is, and that is the British “Guardian.” This is all the funnier, because even the “Guardian” knows me on a persynal basis, in that over 50 columns there came from Mark Weisbrot, who made a point of stopping by to say he was going to treat me as “dangerous” from there on for “recruiting all the best people.” Weisbrot was/is with the Gus Hall “Communist Party” that never saw through phony Soviet communism.

In other words, we have only varying degrees of lynching in the media. Not one paper has attempted openly to work the angle of how building scandals works, and instead all have produced gossip along the lines of my lyncher’s wishes. I have considerable doubt whether most papers even understand the mechanisms involved, not just from my case, but previous ones.

That’s to leave out that none show any understanding of how to produce comparative social history. The reason for that is the dominance of the lynching paradigm in the Pornograhic Spectacle Machine. It’s almost as if the PSM has to ASSUME I am a high-ranking government official to even know what to do.

My point is that by now, this issue has gone on long enough that we can presume whatever initial advantages various papers might have had in covering me, things have moved along since. For example, I have seen material in “Newsweek” not referenced elsewhere yet, this despite the fact that MSNBC is contractually involved with one of my professional detractors.


%d bloggers like this: