Today's popular content
- Wisconsin’s System Increasingly Rigged Against the Unemployed (53)
- The Health Care Industry vs. Health Reform (27)
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food" (21)
- About ALEC Exposed (19)
- More Corporations Drop Off ALEC's Conference Brochure (18)
- Harold Camping's Global Apocalypse PR Campaign (14)
- PBS Killed Wisconsin Uprising Documentary "Citizen Koch" To Appease Koch Brothers (13)
- Resources for Investigating ALEC/NRA Gun Bills (12)
- Why Do We Need Health Care Reform? Don't Ask George Will (11)
- Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama Raises Funds Off Colorado Tragedy, Fleeces Contributors (10)
Readers' Comments
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: pbarnrob
-
Submitted by: EarlBowden
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: Anonymous
-
Submitted by: AndrewG
Elliott: It is surprising to see the House Parliamentarian described as "[s]tressing that the manual itself has no constitutional authority."
First, the final standing rule of the House (rule XXVIII) provides (in part) that "the rules of parliamentary practice comprised by Jefferson’s Manual shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House."
Second, the standing rules of the House are explicitly enabled by the Constitution.
Although I would be pleased to review any source material, I can't believe any exists to validate the "stressing" comment.
Thanks for your consideration.
The New York Times (sub req'd) reports on December 14, 2006 that [[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/nyregion/14coli.html lettuce]] is now the prime suspect for the E.coli outbreak. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have based the assessment on statistical reviews of illness patterns and ingredients rather than actual testing.
I am afraid that the recent prozac paxil suicides that have just been highlighted in the national news are not going to be the last of them:
When I first heard about this phenomena ten or so years ago --- about "the brotherhood of anti-depressant drugs" as it was called --- it was clearly pointed out that the most dangerous times with these drugs were when one was getting either on or off them.
When people hear about the dangers of these drugs, if they are taking them, they might be tempted to think it wise to stop them suddenly. The way I heard it, that is where the worst of the murder-suicide problems lie --- in getting on or off the drugs. (If you can call it murder or suicide, when the person is literally out of their mind and they are both awake and yet in a subconscious state of dreaming when they are committing these acts --- like that Hartman guy's wife, or whatever his name was, the guy who was on the Saturday Night Live show. His wife killed him, then called a friend to say she didn't know what had happened but that she thought she'd just killed him. Then shortly thereafter she killed herself (while on the drugs). Apparently sometimes these acts are premeditated too though. But I am no expert on this subject and have no first hand knowledge of anti-depressent drugs. But there is a book called "Prozac --- Panacea or Pandora" (or something like that) that is supposed to explain it better --- certainly much better than I can, anyway.
But maybe the people addressing Congress who were giving the drugs raving reviews know what they are talking about --- unless they are like "singing for their supper" as so many of the p.r. agents do.
Anyway apparently this has all been covered up because the victims have been getting paid and settling for undisclosed verdicts in court, under the condition that they will go away and shut up about the whole phenomena. That's what I heard, anyway. This is just what I have heard and what I remember having heard about ten or twelve or so years ago.
Okay I am sorry I do not even have time to re-read the above to make sure it comes off like I mean it. I have got to go tend to life responsibilities and right now, as in schnell!
At no stage in the article do I say that Paul Moran was employed by the Rendon Group at the time of the Haideri interview, merely that he was granted the exclusive televised interview. His employers (ie the people who paid him) are clearly identified as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
If you subscribe to the Center for Media and Democracy's "Spin of the Week," you will note that we have changed the link on this story from the New York Daily News to CMD Board Member Anna Lappé's article on Alternet. You can still read the Daily News, piece, which claimed that New York City was first city in the nation to ban trans fats, by clicking [[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/477574p-401812c.html here]].
It is true that the incoming leaders of the DEM party say that justice "will be tabled" concerning the Bush (Administration), however until America returns to justice, the Constitution, and laws of this nation, we are still in danger of whatever is possible under the dictitorial Executive Branch as today established.
Neither the fake Conservative party of the past, nor an apologists DEM leadership soon to take over, without justice gives the American citizen any respite or assurance that the dictitorial and unconstitutional powers of the past administration will not be continued and used in the future.
Must the Bush (Administration) be charged with acts that by our Constitution call for beginning impeachment investigation for possible implimentation. Does a bank robber need stand trial on charges of bank robbery, need a murderer need stand trial on charges of murder. What kind of a fool would suggest not?
Would impeachment proceedings against the Bush (Administration) destroy America, I strongly believe 'unless' impeachment begins as immediately as possible, we will all rue the day we followed advice of negative advising fools.
Attacking Lebanon whether requested by the US or on there own, may well have been the biggest or worst mistake they could ever have done. America at this time is becoming a nation that Israel will not be able to rely upon much longer, and despite all the weapons they now have on hand, these guarantee only war if used.
This past year and more I have been doing research regarding conditions in Israel todate. This nation is in straights very similar to America, like much of the world for that matter. What Israel has counted on most from America, that appears to be the fundamental within the evangelical Christian church, I believe is soon to lose much of the power previously had.
I am a Christian myself, finding that the forementioned church-leadership within America have led their followers far afield of Bible teaching. Not only do they totally ignore prophetic allotment of the Promised Land, they also totally ignore OT scripture that clearly tells that the scattered tribes will (first) be taken out of the nations (into the desert of the nation), where the rebel against God will be purged from the their midst, (after) which the elect or remnant will then be gathered into Israel. Meaning that the gathering into Israel today is by the will of MAN, fulfilling prophecy of impending desolation.
I believe the remnant of Israel are the orthodox in Israel and the world today, I pray for the secular majority within Israel whom I see badly used.
After a decade of rebuilding in Lebanon, this budding young Democracy was on its way to becoming a true haven of peace and commerce.
Israel, in its' misguided clumsy efforts to destroy Hezbollah, managed to miss most of them and instead destroyed all of Lebanons commercial sectors from tip to tip, not to mention the horrendous environmental disaster in the Mediterranean.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/284404_focussecond10.html
For Israel to now try to offer itself as some sort of an alternative 'new recreation area' is so cold blooded and horrendous a thought, a shiver ran down my spine.
God help the sheep when the wolf is judge.
To help ensure H.R. 5388 passed, the Utah state legislature developed, passed, and adopted a 4-seat congressional redistricting map on December 4. DC Vote (www.dcvote.org) who has been pushing this issue since the late 1990's took this opportunity to organize a Congress Day in Washington, DC on December 5th to encourage Elected Officials to pass the DC Voting Rights act this week. At least 100 DC residents and students attended Congress Day. Even with the backing of Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA), Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), and the Utah delegation, Congress decided not to vote on this bill this week during the lame duck session.
This bill is vote-neutral and nonpartisan. The DC VRA balances the first-ever seat for Washington, DC with an additional seat for Utah. This past May, with a vote of 29-4, H.R. 5388 moved out of the HOuse Committee on Government Reform, receiving overwhelming bipartisan support.
Hopefully early next year Congress will realize what an important issue this is and that America can no longer deny equal voting rights(an American birthrite) to the residents of DC.
Please go to www.dcvote.org for more information of DC voting rights.
Everyone has an agenda. That any of those associations really care
about public health is as big a myth as one can't be fat and healthy! (Or everyone is fat because of overeating). On the other hand, there is usually something in it for "preachers" of all kind, whether they be Rev Jerry F. or Marion Nestle/Michael Jacobson. Informing is one thing, nagging, moralizing and sermonizing indicate a need for control! I don't listen to ANY of them, whether they preach for profit or power!!!
"Weight obsession is a social disease. If we cared more about CO2 than BMI there would still be time."
YouTube ? To me this tube looks like an MRI scanner...
Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning with Polonium 210 led to new series of articles on the presence of this radioactive component in cigarettes, including this interesting "Puffing on Polonium" by Professor Robert N. Proctor in The New York Times on December the 1st, 2006 (also in the International Herald Tribune*).
As early as in 1968, the American Tobacco Company "found that smokers inhale an average of about 0.04 picocuries of polonium 210 per cigarette".... which may now sound very spicy (even if Curie is involved), but means "Pack-and-a-half smokers are dosed to the tune of about 300 chest X-rays". So after all, YouTube's videos didn't kill the radio stars.
Talking about this spy's death, I think it could mean the invention of the "dirty murder" by Putin. Just like "dirty bombs" leave nasty traces compared to your usual no nonsensical "clean bomb", this Death of a former KGB Salesman represents a major disruption just a few weeks after the classic in your face shooting of journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
From Magnum .57 to Polonium 210...
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
* on IHT : http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/01/opinion/edproctor.php
Now I understand why Gunshine State's rulers were so eager to use their brand new black boxes... Amortization, amortization...
Thanks to Jeb and Katherine they definitely have strange ways of casting a ballot or a bullet* in Florida, and I hope Christine Jennings can fix it.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT ______________________________________________________________________________________
* remember shootfirstlaw ? (http://e-blogules.blogspot.com/2005/10/red-blogule-to-gunshine-state.html)
When I first heard Bush (and Australian PM, John Howard) dismiss the report out of hand as "not credible", simply on the grounds that it couldn't be true, surely, (because it didn't feel right?), I remembered the textbook on how to discredit a report and it was in the BBC-TV comedy, Yes Minister's "The Greasy Pole" episode.
The strategy to suppress a document was explained by Sir Humphrey:
It's not only that it couldn't be true "surely", but that it mustn't be true because what Prime Minister or President could live with themselves if it were proved they were responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civilians. The "unavoidable" casualties must be moderate for the action to be defensible as "collateral" and the numbers in the Lancet report were very immoderate indeed.
I refer to casualty numbers from time to time and even I understate the probable numbers because, frankly, I fear that readers will discount everything else I say because they think I am an exaggerator.
So I think Sheldon is right. There ought to be another survey done as soon as possible.
CMD Editors (if there are any)
Paul Moran was not employed by the Rendon Group at the time of the Haideri interview, nor was the Rendon Group involved with the Iraqi National Congress at any time after 1995.
At the time of the interview, the INC Information Collection Program was funded by the US Dept. of State, as has been investigated and reported on by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
I should know; I ran the program.
Francis Brooke
The correct link is http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061117/LOCAL/211170344/1078/news
dick m
Hi Sheldon,
Thanks for your response on main street bias. I'll deal with your points in reverse order...
Firstly, I agree we need more research into conflict mortality - including multidisciplinary studies reviewing application of epidemiological methods to conflict mortality (since this application is not well-validated). The work on main street bias is one such study, and its authors call for more studies.
The ILCS study is probably the closest to the Lancet study in terms of methodology (cluster sampling, etc), and its sample of the Iraqi population was far greater than the Lancet's. So if we're interested in different studies on Iraqi mortality, we should be looking at ILCS. As you mention, ILCS's Jon Pedersen states that the focus on mortality (in the Lancet) compared to the more general focus of ILCS is a difference - although Pedersen doesn't accept this explains the large discrepancy in mortality estimate between Lancet and ILCS for the overlapping period.
My point about the similarity (in methodology) between ILCS and Lancet is that if one's support of the Lancet figure rests to a large extent on the "established", "standard" nature of the cluster sampling methodology used, then one can't ignore or dismiss the ILCS study without applying double standards. If you discount the ILCS findings because of the focus of its interview questions (etc), then you should equally be able to discount the Lancet estimate on similar bases (ie subjective, unquantifiable bases). Clearly supporters of the Lancet study should not accept this, if they wish to remain consistent.
So, the ILCS should be discounted no more lightly than the Lancet study. And yet the ILCS does seem to be ignored or discounted (or at least it's not discussed in many articles on Iraq mortality - including your own lengthy piece).
Now, onto main street bias. You say that "even if there was a 2:1 sampling bias, you'd still be left with an estimate of 300,000+ Iraqi deaths."
In that event, I assume you'd be in favour of people being informed that the corrected estimate is 300,000? Sampling bias does matter (even if it affects the estimate by less than your above example). It's also important to remember that small biases introduced in the sampling procedure can lead to very different estimations.
You state: "The details of the Lancet results suggest that most people have been killed away from home anyway". To my knowledge, the Lancet study didn't record details of where people were killed. So this is at most an indirect inference. Furthermore, there is no distinction in the Lancet study between civilians and combatants - the ratio between male and female violent deaths may reflect this (ie predominantly male combatants). Either way, no inference from these ratios (including that females are more likely to stay at home) removes the possibility of bias from sampling close to busy streets. Gilbert Burnham in fact accepts that efforts should be made to avoid such a bias.
I'm puzzled by the claim that main street bias is refuted by the fact that a start house could be anywhere on a cross street (and that the next 39 houses would take the interviews around the block to a few other streets). Main street bias (as I understand it) is about network distance (not physical distance per se) from main streets. Cross roads are one link away from a main street, the side streets connected to the cross streets are two links, back alleys connected to these are three links etc. Given the methodology (as published) whole sections of neighbourhoods would be excluded in the sampling process. For example, see:
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/schem4.jpg
On the other hand, Gilbert Burnham has elsewhere stated that:
"As far as selection of the start houses, in areas where there were
residential streets that did not cross the main avenues in the area
selected, these were included in the random street selection process, in
an effort to reduce the selection bias that more busy streets would have." (My bold)
http://tinyurl.com/yltzr8
This is a departure from the published methodology. The question remains: how often did they depart from the methodology, and exactly how did they depart from it? If one is interested in accuracy, surely these questions deserve to be answered.
Finally, you ask me for "something better" than the "randomly selected main street" technique. How about a completely random selection process such as that conducted by Jon Pedersen in the ILCS survey of Iraq?
The public remains unaware, that the very subject of the "news" report they see or hear actually paid to have that report scripted, produced and promoted to newsrooms.
I didn't go into more detail on the topic of "main street bias" because my article is already quite long. However, "main street bias" is unlikely to have significantly skewed the Lancet results for the following reasons:
As for Jon Pedersen, his methodology was not similar to the Lancet study, as he himself notes in the URL you provided. For starters, his survey asked about a wide range of health and living conditions, whereas the Lancet study focused exclusively on mortality. That difference alone is in my opinion more likely to produce a discrepancy in outcomes between the two studies than any skewing due to "main street bias."
The bottom line in all of this, though, is that we should be having more research like the Lancet study, from other research teams in addition to the Johns Hopkins group. If you question the methodology of the Lancet study, fine; then let's have additional studies that address your methodological concerns. In science, no single study should be presumed definitive, and the question of how many people are dying in Iraq (and what they're dying from) is important enough to deserve multiple studies.
Hi Sheldon,
I wondered if you could comment on a response to your article (by myself) at Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44459/
Gilbert Burnham (Lancet study co-author) has stated that:
"As far as selection of the start houses, in areas where there were residential streets that did not cross the main avenues in the area selected, these were included in the random street selection process, in an effort to reduce the selection bias that more busy streets would have." (My bold)
http://tinyurl.com/yltzr8
In other words, Burnham seems to be acknowledging that there is a bias from sampling close to (or on) main streets. (Apparently contrary to what Les Roberts and yourself imply: that there is no evidence for such a bias).
Burnham's statement also contradicts the description of the methodology published in the Lancet:
"The third stage consisted of random selection of a main street within the administrative unit from a list of all main streets. A residential street was then randomly selected from a list of residential streets crossing the main street." (My bold)
The latter (from the published methodology) is precisely what the main street bias criticism addresses. (It holds that the study is unrepresentative of the population of Iraq since it surveys only houses that are "located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself" [my bold]) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00436.htm
Given your intention to clarify criticisms of the Lancet study, do your comments on main street bias (in light of the above) not strike you as unsatisfactory (if not misleading)? I'd be grateful if you could investigate further and perhaps supply an update on main street bias.
I notice also that you imply scientific approval of the Lancet study has been unanimous ("The scientists, however, gave it high marks"). However, Debarati Guha-Sapir (director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels) says that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. And Jon Pedersen, director of the ILCS study (which you omit to mention in your article, even though it uses a methodology similar to the Lancet study's) says the Lancet figure is "high, and probably way too high". http://tinyurl.com/yygn5z
VNRs are one of the most deceptive and widely-used PR tactics. Concerns have repeatedly been raised about the undisclosed use of VNRs, by the U.S. Congress and the Government Accountability Office, in the case of government-funded VNRs; and by the Federal Communications Commission, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and tens of thousands of concerned citizens, with regard to all VNRs. Yet, there was very little publicly-available information about VNR usage by television stations. The Center for Media and Democracy has endeavored, with its two reports, to inform the ongoing VNR debate.
When television stations are granted free use of the public airwaves, they promise to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as mandated by the Communications Act of 1934. They also promise to obey FCC regulations, which include sponsorship identification requirements. However, the status quo appears to be no disclosure, as the New York Times reported in March 2005, with regard to government-funded VNRs; and as CMD's two reports attest, with privately-funded VNRs.
As television remains the number one news source in the U.S., we think undisclosed VNRs are an important issue. Not only that, but we've repeatedly documented wrong, misleading, and highly biased PR being falsely presented as news, because of VNRs. In the case of prescription drugs, VNRs have resulted in "news" segments that are less balanced than ads put out to promote the same products could be, under FDA rules.
I assume you are referring to WDTN-2's [http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/11/16/ddn111706nathan.html apparent firing] of Howard Nathan, who presented [http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/vnr52 a VNR] tracked in our new report. Based on the information that has been made public, I would say that his firing was an extreme and unfortunate reaction on the part of the station. But CMD is not responsible for that reaction.
I cannot understand this quest to "expose" users of the VNR. What you are actually doing is causing fine journalists to be FIRED for an innocent mistake. Many of those targeted by your "report" did nothing more than pick something interesting off a feed and revoice it. How can this be helping news consumers? Do you people stop to think about the impact of your ridiculous inquisitions? How can you justify this? Don't we have bigger problems in this world than a 20-year-old producer trying to fill his show? I hope you can sleep at night knowing the pain you've caused to innocent people who are just trying to do a good job. Please turn your talents to something important, and please think about the impact of these nasty, smarmy "reports". Shame on you. You are creeps.
The method used is good for other questions, but in this case, it led to a very low count. There were cases where entire families were killed and no one left to report their deaths.
Thomas Love
>From: Tom Zimmerman
>To: Ed Cohen
>Subject: Re: Heads up
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:42:12 -0800 (PST)
>
>Ed, thanks for the alert. I'll be sure that everyone that needs to be is aware of this. Your diligence is very helpful.
> Tom
>
>Ed Cohen wrote:
> I met a plump woman in South Portland High School who drives a station wagon
>full of Vote No on 1 propaganda. She is middle age, I guess, and owns a
>501.c.3 provider contracting business. I do not remember her name, but she
>lives in Westbrook.
>
>In conversation, she told me that she is the producer of THE REAL STORY
>BEHIND TABOR, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ( I have since noticed
>on Waterville School website that there is more than one DVD in circulation,
>but this is the one that I have, and I assumed it is the one to which she
>referred).
>
>It occurs to me that Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a virtual
>address, and that this is actually as the Westbrook lady claims. The reason I
>bring it up is that in No on 1 presentations, the producer is said to be an
>independent think tank, to wit, CBPP. Personally, I believe her, and there
>is no doubt that the money to contract the video maker was ample.
>
>I don't think this is a minor issue, and I am sorry that I do not remember
>the name. It is late, and you have your work, but it would be useful to
>expose the lie for the VNR that it is.
I have been googling much too long and researching the making of "The Real Story Behind TABOR."
www.i2i.org has a detailed rebuttal, but it does not identify the source of production.
In reviewing the 13:33 DVD, there is no apparent credits to production from beginning to end.
The last frames give contact info for www.cbpp.org which has more pages than Carter has pills.
Nevertheless, I offer the following not entirely conclusive observations:
1. CBPP mission is nebulous at best. The phrase or notion that seems to pop up everywhere is "helping the least fortunate" or other such catch phrase.
2. CBPP has many hired guns with professional head-shots and curricula vitae in assorted 501.c.3 and government bureaus. They are listed by departments that can be lumped into client services or operations.
3. I cannot find any department specifically that produces video product, although they do seem to have ample staff who formulate mathematical projections based on any criteria to suit the client. Their charts, for the most part, seem to be formulated in house, although one cannot rule out the eventuality of shared and plagiarized data. In any event, these charts and graphs all appear to have one thing in common: They transform conjecture into play dough.
4. Another area of client service would appear to be cook-books for lobbying bills for 501.c.3 and government organizations that are mostly lower than state level. On cursory inspection, one easily recognizes government and contractor programs already in place, with details of how other organizations conducted drives to enact bills.
5. I need more time to determine the sources of funding. I presume that clients pay with fiscal revenues that are earmarked for "research" and "development", but I glanced a hyperlink for "donations". One could easily extrapolate from client services that lobbyist referral may be a nice piece of change whether for CBPP of affiliates thereof. I believe the French word for that is "a shmear."
6. I did not review the board or founding members, honorary members, emeritus members, etc. In such organizations, many such muck mucks are not terribly relevant and often underwrite programs for "vanity membership". The players may or may not be identified in the website, but they can be sleuthed with a little perseverance which requires time that we do not have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed's reasonable but not necessarily reliable conclusion:
"The Real Story Behind TABOR" could have been a CBPP client, but I do not believe CBPP is the producer, or even executive producer. Somebody correct my assumptions or amplify them if correct.
Kristi Hargrove, too old to be soccer mom, seems to dominate the audio portions of the play in head shots and narrative. I would look to Kristi as the keystone to the editor, who could lead to the producer, but not if employed by subcontractor.
I have searched for the Westbrook lady and only come up with
River Of Life
11 Bridge St
Westbrook, ME, 04092-2201
(207) 856-7729
I have enlisted the aid of "Center for Media and Democracy" to pin her down, and will spill the beans as soon as I know.
e
Thank you for a wonderful article! The media has done an excelent job in distorting this issue and spreading unecessary mass-confusion. While requiring a relatively thorough and careful analysis, Mr. Rampton shows that understanding of statistical estimation is not beyond the reach of a lay reader.
The convolution of "counts" vs. "estimates" has been beyond negligent. IBC makes no secret of the fact that their count is likely a vast undercount on their website, due to the under-reporting of casualties. The fact that the mainstream media neglected to add this qualification is bad enough, however, I see no excuse for the omission of what it is that is actually being counted! "Civilian casualties" vs. "excess deaths" alone should be expected to result in a much larger number, let alone the HUGE difference between a "count" and an "estimate". Also, given the mainstream media's LOVE of "experts", I found it interesting that most sources did not seek out expert opinions, perhaps due to the near unanimous support the study enjoyed.
The dismissal of this excelent John Hopkins study, not exactly a Micky Mouse institution, was infuriating to me. I subjected almost everyone I encountered in the following days to a lesson in elementary statistics, venting this frustration! Should the issue come up in the future, I definitely will point them to this article. Thanks again!
ON HEADLINE NEWS
A HEADLINE NEWS SPECIAL | CNN Programs ======= » Glenn Beck »
ABOUT THE SHOW
In a one-hour special, Glenn Beck will show you the shocking images that help fuel rage against Israel and the West.
• Watch Glenn tell you why as many Americans as possible should watch his special tonight
RELATEDS
• UK Spy chief: Extremists motivated by ‘sense of grievance’
• Al Qaeda: Jihad is not over
• Middle East Media Research Institute
Glenn Beck has no production facilities. This is clearly a VNR with interludes featuring Glenn Beck and decorative framing. All authors interviews are either vanity rag published or not published at all. There is not a single signature to any reference. This may be the mother of all VNR's.
Glenn says from the start and several times therein that he is not a journalist but just a regular guy. Duh! He further states that the show is opinionated, conservative by design and generally reflects only his POV and bias. It is neither fair nor balanced, but needs to be watched in order to understand balance. It is simply a journey from congecture to pablem.
A must see for FCC.