Michael Pugliese, 2X:
> Leigh, Chossudovsky is crap,
> http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0005/1021.html
>
>
> --
> Michael Pugliese
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> Leigh, you believe this too,
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
> Santa Cruz and Vancouver Indymedia are full of this nonsense on
> HAARP and Chemtrails.
I know the HAARP/Chemtrail guy in SC, I rag him all the time.
No... IndyMedia doesn't qualify... The editorial policy can pretty slack at the local level, oftentimes it's no more than a PR wire. I'm not intending to denigrate that function, but I'm talking about "balanced" journalistic reporting.
Lenard J. Cohen is a Phd'd Balkans Specialist and it would be unfair to expect a journalist to trust his info without alot of checking... My definition of Phd includes the fact that the person has worked on a very specific topic from a very specific perspective and may have a very one sided view.
Why should State University students have to "balance out" his writings. The same may be true of Chossudovsky... But he was in charge of the program. Is someone jealous? Hard to say.
Why don't we start by comparing the reporting capabilities and editorial ethics of the projectcensored people to a "newspaper of record"... The Washington Times. =8>
Prof. Cohen mentions exclusions and inclusions but never claims fabrication.
<...> The most amazing thing here however is Chossudovsky sources. The point here is not whether Michel Chossudovsky's claim that UCK already on an early was backed up by the CIA is correct or not. Giving his use of sources, it is tempting to suggest that the truth or not of his claim is also entirely of secondary importance for him. Chossudovsky writes: <..>
And then our phd offers info, but no proof of any sort that Chossudovsky was promulgating false information.
This tactic is typical of someone who used the same data but came to different conclusions cf Churchill/Brown(or is he just a poseur?) and honestly, I'm just glad ANY information is out there.
I think we're looking at a disagreement about editorial policy, not the facts as stated. I'm OK with that, and I suspect that anyone who's truly interested and sentient can filter the information down to to a "steady hum", so to speak.
I forget the root mean square formula, but I believe it is also applicable to the analysis of news, get rid of the peaks and dips...
*My* bottom line to it all would be... Is this statement a total fabrication, or just a slight twisting of the truth to support a story.
<...> The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the National Liberation Army (NLA) were trained in Macedonia by British Special Forces and equipped by the CIA. British military sources confirm that Gezim Ostremi, NLA Commander, was sponsored by the UN and trained by British Special Forces to head the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC). When Ostremi left his job as a United Nations Officer to join the NLA, the commander remained on the UN payroll. Attacks within Macedonia by the NLA/KLA last year, coincided chronologically with the process of EU enlargement and the signing of the historic Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) between the EU and Macedonia. These attacks paved the way for further US military and political presence in the region. <...>
If it's just an editorial twist... That would be *truly unique* in the annals of the journalistic profession. [;>
Leigh