Re: [ba-unrev-talk] First S.F. Chronicle article on trans fats

[Gary Richmond <garyrichmond@rcn.com>]

Hi Eric,

Yes, there are a few "fairly independent operations" out there,  but I don't
think they are having much impact,  preaching as they do to the converted.

No doubt you're right about the Chronicle. But most of the "major" "influential"
papers in the country--at least the ones I know of (and even the vast majority
of the big city papers which simply influence millions of locals, like the
Cleveland Plain Dealer or the St. Louis Post Dispatch), lean heavily to the
right.

Even  the work of independent journalists that I've sometimes posted to unrev
from the Times are more "the exception that proves the rule." The Times is
hardly a liberal paper, though to even attempt some occasional balanced coverage
gets it labeled that--as the press is generally--by the right. 

Still, I agree with you that a free press are our best hope of yet retaining
anything of what might be left of democracy in this country.

a Gary





Eric Armstrong wrote:
> 3D8FA87B.90CC5A20@sun.com">
> Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> > But it seems to me that the press is pretty much in the pockets--I mean,
> > downright owned--by the capitalist foxes.
> > It seems to me that a lot of Americans are fairly brainwashed by a very
> > conservative press. The foxes own the chicken coop!
> >     
>
> Hey, Gary.
>
> I need a photo to keep straight who's who.
>
> In general, I agree. I think it's true for the major papers, owned by
> the mega corps. The S.F. Chronicle would appear to be a fairly
> independent operation, though, as witnessed by their series of articles,
> beginning with the one below.
>
> > > Just came across this article the S.F. Chronicle
> > > ran on trans fats.
> > >
> > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/30/FD40307.DTL&type=food
> > >
> > >         
> >         
>
>
>