quarta-feira, março 09, 2005
Mais um exemplo (a somar a outros) de como na home of the brave, land of the free, na terra do capitalismo, casa dos meios de comunicação privados e alegadamente independentes a influência da administração política se faz notar.

The Washington Monthly | BushAdministration Lies:

But if you're George Bush, the president who supposedly means what he says and says what he means, you lie. You pretend that the scientific evidence is the opposite of what it really is.

Whasington Post | Editorial (inscrição necessária):

The administration claims that the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchange is shaky. An official who requested anonymity directed us to a number of researchers who have allegedly cast doubt on the pro-exchange consensus.

One of them is Steffanie A. Strathdee of the University of California at San Diego; when we contacted her, she responded that her research "supports the expansion of needle exchange programs, not the opposite."

Another researcher cited by the administration is Martin T. Schechter of the University of British Columbia; he wrote us that "Our research here in Vancouver has been repeatedly used to cast doubt on needle exchange programs. I believe this is a clear misinterpretation of the facts."

Yet a third researcher cited by the administration is Julie Bruneau at the University of Montreal; she told us that "in the vast majority of cases needle exchange programs drive HIV incidence lower." We asked Dr. Bruneau whether she favored needle exchanges in countries such as Russia or Thailand. "Yes, sure," she responded.
There are two lessons here. First, the Post should feel no obligation to keep this person's name anonymous. He lied to them. Second, even in a blatant case like this the Post was still unwilling to flatly call these statements lies. What does it take, guys?

Outros exemplos

Aqui quem fala sou eu | Privatização das televisões e dos serviços secretos:

Os defensores da privatização das televisões têm como argumento central essa dependência implícita do governo. No entanto, é conhecido que as corporações privadas de comunicação nos Estados Unidos tendem a ser mais influenciáveis pelos governos [independentemente do partido] que as televisões estatais europeias.

Aqui quem fala sou eu | Serviços secretos, governo e meios de comunicação:

The New York Times > Opinion > A Pause for Hindsight: "we were wrong about the weapons. And we should have been more aggressive in helping our readers understand that there was always a possibility that no large stockpiles existed."

TomPaine.com - THE DREYFUSS REPORT Archives: Memo to NYT: While You're Apologizing...: "Like nearly the entire world of elite journalism, they missed the question of why. Why did the Bush administration want war with Iraq?"

Etiquetas: ,