>>John;
>>
>>Seems like there are in fact few realities we are aware of. When it comes to the media they are very selective in what they tell us. About five years ago I did a search on how many countries in the world were at war (civil or otherwise). I came up with 58 and the media had three. It is interesting that the media will report a problem which may be newsworthy for weeks and do no follow-up at some future date. Does that mean the problem went away or was no longer newsworthy? Every few years the media in the San Francisco Bay Area will do a special on Patty Hurst and the SLA. What a waste of time!
>>
>>Tom
>
>
>Agreed. The media seems to have a vested interest in feeding the masses what they want them to believe. Tell me why the Serbian war was so important that the US had to get involved, yet the wars in Africa have not been. The media has hardly said a thing about them.

The media suits are looking at what the current administration did with MS. We can't forget the 1 Million Murdock advanced Gingrinch for a book he was writing. We can't forget that Time Warner (parent of CNN) wan'ts to merge AOL.Which canidate will nuture the bandwidth petri dish is probably more important to the media than presenting an unfiltered set of facts. Maybe Nader was right.